Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Globallycz

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

---

This user has been on disruptive edits and bad faith reviews. I as an bystander can't help with these edits as this user used only mobile phone edits to edit he please and his edit summaries was rather harsh and accusing editors of bad faith. He only joined Wikipedia for three months, and this is rather concerning for the accord. Please investigate. 122.11.212.156 (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Have you looked at majority of my edits? Or are you basing your views here of me based on narrow baised view. I offered mg reason for reverting your edits which removed the age content without explanation. You failed to respond adequately and now instead of addressinfmg my feedback on good faith, you dropped a baseless accusation without any proper qualification. Stop nitpciking editors jus because we are a few months. That is irrelevant. And dont abuse the words "good faith". Cite specific examples where there is a basis. Otherwise, i am sorry. It will be disregarded. Globallycz (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It is your majority of edits, and two, Your talk page also shows it and so was edit summaries, and you felt like you want to confront readers. 122.11.212.156 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The talk page represented a small percentage of all my edits. Have you considered whether these few editors were reasonable or unreasonable when they brought issues to talk page. Sadly, most were behaving unreasonably or without basis. Some are somewhat like your case; no explanation was given to remove content. I suggest you put away personal feelings. I offered my reason(s) for reverting your edits which primarily removed the age content without any explanation. Again please do not nitpick editors just because they are a few months. That is irrelevant. Quality of edit matters more. Again, i will not defend myself further. I just hope Adnin will be fair and look at the issue broadly and openly. Admin: If this particularly editor using the IP address as his user id continue to edits or remove content without adequate reasons or source, i will try to put them right again. Globallycz (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

IP, as the notice at the top of the page says, "please provide links and diffs here to involved pages". Globallycz has made more than 1500 edits in the last few months and we're not going to shift through them all trying to guess which edits you might think are a problem. Give us some examples. See H:DIFF if you don't know how to make a diff. Meters (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, here it is one of them, and even accused that one of irrational behavior. I am not. here 122.11.212.156 (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That's the best you can come up with? Globallycz's edit summary is uncivil, as is your retaliatory edit summary where you used the same term in reference to Globallycz. You might want to read WP:POTKETTLE. The disputed content is simply a matter of a difference of wording, which neither of you has attempted to discuss on the talk page. In general I prefer your wording, but it has some minor grammar and punctuation errors that need correcting, and you introduce the error "0Viet" as part of a reference elsewhere. The more important thing is that both of you are edit warring over this material. You have both broken WP:3RR. Meters (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I just like to highlight that the disputed content was not just a matter of wording. Please review carefully. I dont think i was being rude nor uncivil. The person accusing me of this and that has used strong words like asking me to get a life and daring me this and tbat. On my part, i only insisted that all WP edits should be properly justified. Suggest you reviewed the edits again.

i dont wish to add to your burden unless necessary. The irony is that he had earlier removed the space between a full stop and two references along with other age content on the WP describibg serious crimes in Singapore between 2020 and 2024. When i did the same thing to remove the space between full stop and reference, he undid it. That is not rational. Being civil means respecting others by following basic rules like justifying each edit reasonably. I dont see him doing that. You wont hear from me anymore. Globallycz (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the related edits in the 122.11.212 range are yours too. Meters (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• You have both broken WP:3RR - Indeed they have, and thus they've both been blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Frankly if you admin people are more informed or less lazy, you will check the edits by IP user 122.11.212.156 and notice most of his edit were reverted by others due to vandalism or unsubstantiated edits. This is partly why I.dont have any kind of respect to the check and balance system in WP. Globallycz (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing "most" of the IP's edits being reverted as vandalism. In fact, you're the only person I'm seeing reverting them. Also, lashing out at the admins as lazy is not a good look. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that is not honest. If you are unhappy with being labelled as lazy and deny several reverting of past edits of IP user 122.11.212.156 by other editors, that is not being objective. I cant do anything if you deny them. I only reverted 2 of this edits which involved removals of content without reasons. Your response is the reason I dont have respect for the work Adminstrator do. Globallycz (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Globallycz, nobody said you're obligated to "respect the work admins do", however you do have to abide by WP:CIV and WP:NPA, which are policies (in fact, one of the five pillars), and not some optional motto or decorative set of words. Calling people "irrational" or "lazy" is uncivil, and as an uninvolved observer I would suggest you stop. NewBorders (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  It is called criticism and not an attack. WP Administrator needs to do a better job when carrying out arbitration of complaints or disputes. I am fine with being blocked one day for breaking the 3RR rule but Admin should look deeper into the IP user 122.11.212.156's track record. He got off too lightly.

  Sorry, i disagree that using the words lazy and irrational is deemed uncivil. It is not personal. It is my general observation from this episode. If Admin does a bad job, are we suppose to pretentiously thank or praise them? I can easily cite examples to support my claim about IP user 122.11.212.156 unconstructive edits. I just couldnt understand why Admin let the user off so easily.

  Of course, I am not obligated to respect the work Admin does. Nobody needs to tell me that. Globallycz (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Just giving you advice here, in line with what multiple different people have already told you.

  Though if you choose not to hear it and dig your hole deeper instead, that's of course your prerogative. I will now disengage, good luck. NewBorders (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Globallycz, it's interesting that you think the IP "got off too lightly"" seeing as how you were both given identical blocks for edit warring with each other. If that's the case then it appears that you also got off too lightly.

  Stating that you prefer a block to discussing the contested edits, and doubling down on your incivility/personal attacks does not bode well for you. WP:DROPTHESTICK before EducatedRedneck's following call for an indef is accepted. Meters (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have repeatedly highlighted to look into the track record of IP user 122.11.212.156. But it seems none of you wish to do so and cant bother to look deeper and beyond just the single snap shot on his edit warring with me over WP on serious crimes in Singapore 2020 onwards. Please do not misinterpret what I said. I am fine with the 24 hours block over the edit warribg incident but 122.11.212.156 has a history of unconstructive edits that were reverted by others. 122.11.212.156 knowingly edited the disputed WP without citing any reasons and still has the audacity to complain about me. His or her action are done to disrupt others. Just check his contributions in the past and you will notice many others were reverted either manually or using undone function. On that basis, he got off too lightly. Well, if Admin refused to check the IP user track record, I cant do anything but label it as lazy. My comments are nothing personal but directed at the actions. Even my comment that 122.11.212.156 is irrational was directed at his or her actions. I dont even know any of you. Why would I be personal? I am just voicing my unhappiness with the way dispute are decided here by Admin which I feel are sometimes too superficially done and decided. I would sign off here on this topic too. Globallycz (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  I looked at the contributions of 122.11.212.156 and I don't see anything like the record you are describing. That IP has made a total of 14 edits in the past year, all in the last 2 months, of which only six have been to article space. Five of those edits to article space have been reverted, and all of those reversions were done by you; no reversions have been done by any other editor. It's not very meaningful to look at edits further back than a year since it's likely the IP address was reassigned so the old edits may not have done by the same editor. But even looking back at the older edits, there were a total of 15 edits from this IP before 2024, of which 5 were reverted. This all hardly shows a pattern of widespread disruptive edits or "many" reversions.

  I also looked at the edits to List of major crimes in Singapore (2020–present) that Globallycz is so worked up about and is calling disruption. They are very minor, basically the argument is just about whether to include the ages of some people involved in a crime. Ironically, 122.11.212.156's last edit was to restore Globallycz's preferred version, yet Globallycz still can't let this drop and continues to call for sanctions. Given their uncollaborative and uncivil comments here and elsewhere, I would support an indef, or at least fairly lengthy block, especially since they have repeatedly indicated that they are ready to accept a 24 hour block as a price they're willing to pay in order to get their way. CodeTalker (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  You are not being reasonable and fair

  (1) when you discount the explanation I gave to revert the two edit(s) by 122.11.212.156 pertaining to removal of age content . I had repeatedly asked 122.11.212.156 to explain the age content removal but it was never given. I justified the reversion of his edit by explaining that the sources listed the age of the suspect and victim along with their names.

  (2) when you did not considered that the multiple reversions in 2024 were pertaining to the same WP and same disputed content while those earlier were of different WPs and content. I quote 3 WPs below which had edit by 122.11.212.156 reverted by other editors. Reason given by those who reverted the edits are quoted below too.

  1. WP Osmanthus fragrans:

  Date: Jul 2022

  Undid revision 1100529442 by 122.11.212.156 (talk)-repeated disruptive edits

  2. WP Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)

  Date: 1 Nov 2021

  Undid revision 1053014105 by 122.11.212.156 (talk) unexplained removal of material and change of references

  3. WP Wunmi Mosaku

  Date: 17 Sep 2021

  Reverting edit(s) by 122.11.212.156 (talk) to rev. 1045008960 by 42.188.141.191: unsourced BLP birth date 

  In your eagerness to see that I am banned indefinitely, you have conveniently claimed it is not meaningful to look at edits beyond one year since IP may be reassigned and past edits may be done by a different person. This is so convenient since there is no need to provide proof.

  I can also conveniently claim that there are different people manning the IP address and their common objective is to disrupt WP edits. Likewise, I dont have to prove what i say too and there is no way for you to disprove this possibility too.

  He decided to undo the reversion after knowing he has beem exposed for irrational behavior. I have explained why he was irrational. And I dont wish to repeat here again. If none of you wish to take that into account, I cant do anything. Please be objective. Globallycz (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  By the way, I have just looked at the edit by IP user 122.11.212.156 in Oct 2024 pertaining to WP Jurong Group Representative Constituency. The content introduced by IP user 122.11.212.156 was illogical and unsupported by any source. As such I have reverted them. Globallycz (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  Just to add, if we just look at 2024 contributions of IP user 122.11.212.233 involving 7 edits of mainly same content on just 2 WPs (Major Crimes in Singapore 2020 - Present and Jurong GRC), it is hardly representative of the disruptive behavior. A telltale sign that he is possibly from the same person was the evidence that in Nov 2021, he edited WP page related to Singapore MRT and in 2024, his edits were also pertaining to Singapore related WPs on major crimes in Singapore and Jurong GRC. Globallycz (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think Globallycz has gotten the message. Their denial that calling editors (admins or otherwise) "lazy" is a WP:PA seems to suggest an incompatibility with a collaborative project. On their talk page, they state: Frankly, i rather get blocked for 24 hours rather than go through dispute resolution. They double down: For me, it is fine to be blocked. I rather take that route. Finally, they seem to admit to using personal attacks to prove a WP:POINT in this edit, where after being told to not attack editors, they state: I am highlighting a problem here If they won't even pay lip service to following community guidelines, I think an indef is appropriate. If they change their approach and convince an admin, they can be welcomed back. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Chronic semi-automated editing trouble

Unfortunately, though the lion's share of the work he does is very much appreciated by me, I don't feel my attempts to be patient and communicative with Srich32977 (talk · contribs) have been consistently reciprocated. I don't want to pillory him, but for context he was previously blocked for violating MOS:PAGERANGE in many of his copyediting sweeps—after I attempted to clarify the guideline, he promised that he would comply but then continued as before due to his interpreting the MOS's "should" as somehow meaning "optional".

Now, he has ignored my posts on his talk page regarding how his AutoEd configuration replaces fullwidth characters where they are correct, e.g. in running fullwidth text.[1] For a few months I've just been reverting when his path crosses into Chinese-language articles and trying to get his attention without being a nuisance, and now I feel this is the only avenue left. I would just like him to respond to concerns as he has shown able to do with some consistency. Remsense ‥ 论 05:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Please note the long history of problems with this person's semi-automated editing and failure to respond to requests to follow MOS. This user talk archive search for "ranges" is just one example (repeatedly changing MOS-valid page range formats to invalid formats). As Remsense says above, a lot of the work is good and valid, but there are many invalid changes, and feedback is met with a combination of ignoring us, saying they will comply and then not doing it, or complying for a while and then resuming the invalid edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Srich32977 is taking a wiki-break. My attempt to AGF is near its limit vs thinking ANI flu, as they have a history of ignoring community concerns or waiting until a moment blows over before resuming problematic behavior. DMacks (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC) They have un-breaked. DMacks (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

They seem to have adjusted their behavior. While I hate to persist, they still haven't said a thing to me about it, though. I recognize the issues I sometimes have here, but it's not unreasonable for me to get a simple acknowledgement when the issue's been this entrenched. Right? Remsense ‥ 论 06:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Obvious sock threatening to take legal action

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

---

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

---

This IP range has been socking to edit a wide range of caste articles, especially those related to Jats . This range belongs to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthfindervert and has been socking using proxies and VPNs too. Many of which have been blocked[2]. Now they are threatening to take legal action against me "but how far we will remain silence their various optimistic reason which divert my mind to take an legal action against this two User" [3]. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Just as ignorant as he is known longtime abnormal activation and especially on those of Jat article see his latest revision on Dudi you will get to urge why he have atrocity to disaggregating Jat articles but pm serious node i dont mention him not a once but ypu can also consolidate this User:TheSlumPanda who dont know him either please have a eyes on him for a while 2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0 (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

But wait a second as per WP:NOPA i dont take his name either not even so dont even try to show your true culler midway cracker and admin can you please not i am currently ranged blocked as my network is Jio telecom which was largely user by various comers2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0 (talk)

Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention WP:No personal attacks and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —C.Fred (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's both. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, we linguists don't like anecdotal evidence, but I'll provide some: I (non-native speaker of English, with a linguistics PhD) had to look up all the potential candidates for a slur in that post, and when I did find one it's not one I'd ever heard. However, "crackers" is an insult in Hindi, so I'd say it is most likely a PA, just not the one an American English speaker might understand it as. --bonadea contributions talk 13:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

At least in the South, an American would recognize Cracker as a pejorative. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but the IP user who used the word said they are in India, and their post contains various typical non-native speaker errors. ("culler" instead of "colour", for instance) --bonadea contributions talk 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Funny thing is you go far enough south it wraps back around again: Florida cracker - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Observation: the IP just tried to place a contentions topics notice on the talk page of the Dudi article. It's peripheral, and the IP is pretty clearly involved. Is this a bad-faith edit by the IP, or should we just take their suggestion and extended-confirmed protect the page?... —C.Fred (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a Dudi caste? Though I will note there is a lot of overlap between the "Indian Subcontinent" and "South Asian social strata" topic areas. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

• Noting that this person (Truthfindervert?) has taken to using VPNs. I’ve blocked a couple today. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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 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 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It's a conduct issue. 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 "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)

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)

‎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)

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)

@AnonMoos: I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times [4] [5]? 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)

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)

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 [6]. This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. [7]). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later [8]. 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)

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)

Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to WP:SECLakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011[9]LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:17, 19 December 2024 (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.

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)

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)

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)

...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)

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)

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)

User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm

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

---

• Vazulvonal of Stockholm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, I recently came across the edits of Vazulvonal of Stockholm, who seems to be very stubborn in his editing. The user doesn't seem to understand the basic rules and policies of Wikipedia (such as the use of reliable sources and no original research), even after being alerted and warned many times. Problems include self-promotion; e.g., at Schüssler, some Swedish IP Addresses and himself, have tried to push the inclusion of 5 non-notable persons, of which I suspect "Lars Laszlo Schüszler" to be related to the user, as Vazulvonal seems to have created the article [10], which was deleted later. Other major issues include the use of very poor quality sources (e.g., Geni), poor grammar and spelling (e.g., [11]), pushing nationalist POV (e.g., [12]). At List of Hungarian Nobel laureates, the user keeps reinstating poor quality text and sources, and even had the nerve to call me anti-semitic and anti-Hungarian. At List of Hungarian Academy Award winners and nominees, some Swedish IP Addresses (which are very likely related to the user), have created this very odd section of very poor quality and original research. Per WP:COMPETENCE, I'm not sure this site is the right place for someone who doesn't take advice, warnings and policies very seriously... Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: The user keeps ignoring all manuals and rules of Wikipedia, and keeps adhering to his own rules, despite being reverted and/or warned almost every time (diff diff). I don't know if it is a case of serious incompetence or just trolling. I would appreciate it if someone would take a look, because it does not seem that he is stopping with these shenanigans. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have also had problems with this editor, on a specific BLP (Tünde Fülöp), to which they insist on adding unsourced details (for instance on December 14 diff) after a 3rd-level BLP warning on November 27 diff). They also appear to be somewhat indiscriminate about putting ethnically-Hungarian people of other nationalities into Hungarian-nationality categories (such as in this case, where we have sourcing for Fülöp identifying as Hungarian but being born in Romania and emigrating to Sweden). I would be unsurprised to find that these issues are more widespread than this one article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The excessive additions to List of Nobel laureates by country and List of Hungarian Nobel laureates, based on original research and overbroad definitions of what it means to be from one country (Hungary) have continued unabated despite this thread. I see no sign that VoS has ever replied to anything on their user talk. They have made a lot of contributions on Talk:List of Hungarian Nobel laureates but it is of a piece with their article-space edits, broad original-research-based categorization of people as Hungarian and not much listening to other editors.

Is it perhaps time for a block to try to prod them into participating here and not continuing down the same path? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

They may not be aware of their own talkpage. I have blocked them indefinitely for persistent addition of unsourced or badly sourced content despite warnings, and for non-responsiveness on their page, adding a note in the log linking to their talkpage and encouraging them to communicate there. Bishonen | tålk 18:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC).

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

User Pyramoe - Mass Reversions, WP:Not Here

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

---

Pretty open and shut case regarding user Pyramoe (talk · contribs)

New user who made multiple mass reversions to pages related to a single niche Trotskyist party/international to restore content removed for breaching a number of policies, predominantly WP:SELFPUB violations.[13][14]

User was warned about why this was inappropriate on their talk page, which they then blanked demonstrating they saw it.[15]

User has now repeated the mass reversion, stating that the reversion is fine simply because they "don't find it appropriate to basically delete a whole article... just because the majority of the information is self-sourced".[16]

User is evidently WP:NOTHERE, and only seems to want to promote their political organisation.

Ban requested. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

They did that revert (their third) 6 days ago. Have you tried doing as they suggested towards the end of the edit summary you quoted?

[...] would love to have a discussion with you on this so that we could sort it out

In fact, I'd suggest welcoming them AND discussing with them. – 2804:F1...3A:A931 (::/32) (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it was six days ago to be honest. The fact is they appeared out of nowhere and made extensive mass reverts to the page of a minor political group, were told not to repeat this unless they can demonstrate sound reasons according to policy why they should, and then repeated it while actively just stating that they don't care about the policy.

There's not really grounds for a useful discussion where one side's position is effectively "I want this article, don't care about policy". Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, the point is, you removed a bunch of content, they reverted you without providing a reason as their first 2 edits which you reverted them again and warned them for while asking them to provide a reason - weeks later (6 days ago) they reverted one of the articles again with a reason, doesn't matter that the reason is not within policy, assume that they don't know policy that they saw someone remove entire articles and tried to protect it.

That doesn't read to me as the behaviour of someone NOTHERE, it reads as someone who doesn't know how Wikipedia works. – 2804:F1...3A:A931 (::/32) (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If this had been a new account that made a couple of minor reversions that were inappropriate that'd be one thing. Here however this new account was created to restore large amounts of inappropriate material that had been removed months prior on a topic (Trotskyist Internationals) that has been inundated with similar "new accounts" that only engage in restoring material de facto promoting the groups in question. This is also an account that was given a reasonable warning template that linked to our policies and instead of engaging with it, they just blanked the page, and while claiming to "want to have a discussion" instead of doing that they just repeated the inappropriate mass restoring of content.

Quite frankly in this context it's hard to see it as an ill-informed individual making understandable errors and instead seems to be another SPA NOTHERE situation where someone who is a supporter of the group in question just wants it mentioned on Wikipedia. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to add, this is an account that managed to get into a redirect page and manually restore it, which requires some knowledge of how Wikipedia works to accomplish from my experience. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe. The account is a bit older than the EnWiki one, but has no editing history pretty much, it was created by a different user with the reason "Wikidata IOLab", which I am not completely sure what it is, but I think is a brazillian student thing. Their account is listed here at least, they didn't seem to make any edits though.

(edit: seems to have been a Wikidata event related to the IOL2024, which happened in Brazil - it's been over for ages though, so this is definitely editing of their own choice)

I'm noting this because I didn't expect that - I'll let other people comment on this report, maybe I'm wrong :s. – 2804:F1...3A:A931 (::/32) (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC) *edited 18:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to clarify a few points. I have made a couple of edits to differet types of articles before making a wikipedia account. My previous edits have been listed under my IP as I did not understand the neccessity of having an account. I was a participant at the IOL 2024 and we had a workshop there called Wikidata IOLab, that is where my account was created, I then forgut about it. Now at some point recently I realised I could log in with my wikipedia account and so I did so. I admit I don't have full understanding of wikipedia policy, I did go in and read the wikipedia pages that Rambling Rambler cited as reasons for the edits they have done, and through my limited understanding, I made the judgement that the pages don't completely violate policy, maybe in some ways, but not in a way that, in my opinion, justifies removing everything. I genuinely would love to have a discussion about this. I'm not doing this in support of said organization as I am not affiliated with any political groups, but have a general interest in marxist political parties, especially in the Nordic region. I wanted to check the Socialist Alternative(Sweden) page as I had done before and noticed it didn't exist anymore and did some digging and found out it was removed. I see it as a great loss for the page to be deleted in the domain of information about minor Swedish left-wing parties, as I did with the rest of the ISA sections that got deleted, but I'm generally as I said more interested in the Nordics. As I have stated before, I genuinely want to have a discussion about this. I think the page and other pages can be "cleaned up" of the parts that obviously violate policy, but I don't think just deleting them outright is the way forward. Pyramoe (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I did go in and read the wikipedia pages that Rambling Rambler cited as reasons for the edits they have done, and through my limited understanding, I made the judgement that the pages don't completely violate policy, maybe in some ways, but not in a way that, in my opinion, justifies removing everything.

It is a black and white issue, as per criteria in WP:SELFPUB/WP:ABOUTSELF which specifies amongst several criteria that articles must not be based primarily on self-published sources which the content you restored demonstrably violated. You are now admitting you have read those policies but have chosen to then continue acting in contravention of them for non-policy reasons simply because of your personal view that to lose said pages are a "great loss".

I think your reply simply reinforces my reason for posting here, that your reasons for being here aren't to improve this site according to our policies but to insert inappropriate material for groups you have an admitted interest in. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to add that as I was doing some research, I found a couple of sources documenting the party in Sweden in addition to documenting other minor left-wing parties in Sweden, sources that are non-affiliated with these parties. The biggest one being a document called Hotet från vänster, published by the Swedish Ministry of Justice and the Swedish Security Service in 2002, a source that includes almost all of the information that was self-sourced that was already in the article and more. I was intending to add these sources to the article so that it doesn't violate policy in any way anymore. However, I haven't gotten around to it yet as I was still figuring out how to do it in the best way, and discussions with other more-experienced editors like you would definitely help. Instead of discussing it as I offered in my latest edit, you went directly and requested my ban. As obvious, I am inexperienced in editing on Wikipedia, but I am trying to learn. And I want to clarify that my interest in such groups does not mean I support/endorse them, it is purely out of curiousity. Pyramoe (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Pyramoe! I'm sorry but I don't think those sources are very useful for this content. We're looking for reliable, independent, secondary sources, like from reputable newspapers, books, journals, etc. That document you linked to has been self-published by the Ministry of Justice, which we can't use for claims about third parties (that is, any person or group other than the Ministry of Justice itself).

It's really best if you find those reliable, independent, secondary sources first and then try to summarize them. Since you've been reverted already, I strongly recommend bringing the source(s) to the article's Talk page to do that summarizing collaboratively. I think that demonstrates good faith from everyone involved. Woodroar (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

A singular source that contains a handful of pages documenting its history in no way deals with the fundamental problem that the group lacks notability and is fundamentally reliant on reporting from its own website. And quite honestly the fact you were capable of manually reverting my edits across multiple articles and then repeated the reversions despite being informed not to do it makes the claim you "hadn't gotten around to" sourcing this singular paper into it sound incredulous at best.

Instead of discussing it as I offered in my latest edit, you went directly and requested my ban.

You had the option and capability to discuss if with me at any point in the last month. Instead you blanked my message informing you of our policies and then a few weeks later just repeated your actions with an edit summary dismissing policy as something you simply don't agree with. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The only open and shut case here is that Rambling Rambler needs to do less WP:BITEing/running to ANI to demand a ban and more talking. Weird how "the option and capability to discuss" only applies to the editor with less than ten edits and not the editor with almost four thousand. Certainly a {{trout}} needed, maybe even a {{whale}}. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I quite literally opened their talk page using an appropriate template regarding their actions, which pointed them to our policies, that they then deliberately blanked 20 minutes later. Three weeks after that, during which time they never once attempted to have this discussion with myself that they reportedly were so interested in, they repeated the edit with an edit summary that acknowledged our policy on self-published material but stated their edit was fine because they didn't agree with the policy.

It's a bit hard to take seriously the idea they wanted a genuine discussion after that. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You "pointed them to our policies?" That's one way of saying "dropped a boilerplate warning template with a link to Wikipedia:List of policies and expected them to find their way to the one I meant."

Then they didn't edit Wikipedia for three weeks...and your interpretation is they never once attempted to have this discussion with myself that they reportedly were so interested in? How about "an editor with three edits forgets about editing Wikipedia for three weeks"? No?

Then they came back not with "an edit summary that acknowledged our policy on self-published material but stated their edit was fine because they didn't agree with the policy" (no wonder, considering you hadn't provided any helpful way of reading the policy) but an edit summary that was a direct response to your edit summary.

A little less WP:BITE and a lot more WP:AGF would go a long way for you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You "pointed them to our policies?" That's one way of saying "dropped a boilerplate warning template with a link to Wikipedia:List of policies and expected them to find their way to the one I meant."

You mean that "boilerplate" that also includes useful information on where to take a discussion (again, the discussion they are apparently really wanting to have) and rather than engage and have a discussion they just blanked the page?

Now while you paint this as me "biting" my actual actions in relation to this follow best practice listed at WP:BITE. I had done the best I could in that circumstance to fix rather than remove (though in the end removal was most appropriate here), used a plain English edit summary to explain why I removed their changes, and left an appropriate warning template on their talk page as recommended at step 6. I followed our policy on newcomers in good faith as much as I reasonably could up to that point and they had made no effort to engage back.

At this point, even if you want to assume they forgot all about Wikipedia for the following three weeks, they still then came back went into the article's edit history to restore it again and while they may have left an edit summary saying they wanted to discuss it they made no attempt over the next six days to contact me and have said discussion even when there's a button that says "talk" next to every one of our edit summaries.

Following this I simply followed our policy (WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE). I had initially tried to engage with them on their talk page using an appropriate template and was rebuffed immediately. They then made the same mass revert while having not shown any actual interest in having a discussion. Resultingly I followed the next step which is to take it to ANI, and set out when questioned why I had reached the limit of what I consider to be assuming good faith in this instance (namely someone saying they want to discuss edits but actively making no effort to have said discussion). I will also highlight it's only being brought to ANI and its potential ramifications that has seen them finally actually engage with the issue of their edits where the previous attempt resulted in no meaningful engagement on their part, so I personally regard it as having had a useful outcome. Rambling Rambler (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Look man, I have made a couple of mistakes, I admit. When I blanked my talk page, my intention was to just clean it up because I thought it would make my fairly new account look bad. Bad idea, I know. I didn't know that the notice you put on my talk page was something I could reply to, I just thought it was some automated thing. When I made my third edit 2 weeks after, my intention was really to have a discussion with you. If you would have written on my talk page then to start a discussion, I would have glady partaken in it. I didn't know that I was the one expected to start the discussion on your talk page, as in my mind, I already started the discussion with my edit summary and was waiting for your reply. I barely know how all these things works, I was expecting you to reply to my edit summary on my talk page and start discussing this as I intended, but instead I saw you request my ban on ANI and then went on to make baseless claims of me supporting said organization(even though the article contained nothing positive about the party, I would even dare to say it is quite negative due to most of it talking about their entryism), and claiming I meant that I don't care about policy, which is a complete misunderstanding of what I meant in the edit summary. What I meant is that I thought the article shouldn't have been removed completely, but that I think it would be better to just remove the content that violated policy, which was the point of the discussion I wanted with you. I also didn't revert the International Socialist Alternative article again because I understood that it was not the right thing to do, the article existed, which is what I cared about, and I understood then that the reason for my revert there not having been a good thing is due to the information that has been removed being self-sourced. To be honest, the reason I did the reverts from the first place was because I thought you were being disruptive by removing a lot of information. I stand corrected, I just didn't understand policy, but my intention was not at all disruptive. Pyramoe (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. I don't think it'd be useful at all to block a user 6 days after the distruption has already stopped. What's the point? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 02:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I took the position that their act may have been six days prior but it was only now it had been noticed and was a repetition. At that point they only had four edits and they comprised of three mass reverts of content with no useful edit summaries and an immediate blanking of an attempt to engage with them/warn them of their disruptive edits.

So I took the view that it was likely to repeat again and therefore a ban would be preventative as a result. Rambling Rambler (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's look at what Wikipedia:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE says:

Blocks should be used to:

1. prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia;
2. deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and
3. encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.

Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved.

Yes, the user has caused disruption and has disrupted again when warned, but that clearly isn't happening anymore. Six days, and it's clear they're not repeating the damage. This disruption is not imminent. Blocks are not warrented. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192

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)

@Moroike: It looks like you both are edit warring on Kichik Bazar Mosque.^{[17][18][19][20]} 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. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (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. Nate • (chatter) 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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, is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." Sxbbetyy (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Come on, how many people need to tell you you're wrong? Sergecross73 msg me 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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What? I never started an RfC. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... Sergecross73 msg me 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. 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. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Cunningham's Law, is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. MrOllie (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for closure

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 perfect 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)

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)

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)

(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)

IP 208.95.233.155

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

Personal attacks made on my talk page (Special:Diff/1263841196) and WP:POV-pushing (Special:Diff/1263840628, completely ignores recent reporting on Chinese funding; repeated reverts.) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 23:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 2 weeks for the personal attack. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect 208.95.233.155 is a sock of indef blocked editor User:Shulinjiang (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shulinjiang/Archive). Generally unpleasant interactions and the inability to accurately replicate my username (in my talk page post, and in the edit comment here) are the sort of thing I've come to expect from too much past experience. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 00:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

User talk:FIROZBABUFIROSBABUP violating WP:SOAP

This user was blocked indefinitely in November 2023 for spam/promotion which included adding their original work onto their and other user's talk pages. Despite this they continue to edit their talk page to add this type of content, violating WP:SOAP. Requesting talk-page access to be revoked for this user. jolielover♥talk 12:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean, on one hand, their comments on their user talk page barely rise above the level of pure nonsense and don't contribute anything of value to Wikipedia. On the other hand writing nonsense on their user talk page is not overly disruptive. They can be safely ignored. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Alba Party, discussion, personal attack on user by AntiDionysius on contributor, statements that were clearly exaggerations, apology requirted

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

---

I asked for a apology, and I was then told I had made comparisions to David Icke multiple times, which was surely not a fair remark, as all I had said was you should always substantiate sources, as for example you would never just source David Icke, with no attempt to substantiate his claims, for some reason, I think unfairly the editor claimed I was comparing editors to David Icke, which was not at all the case. I stated this was not what I was doing, and made sure that was known, then was told I had made multiple comparaisons to David Icke, which was not true at all, I had just explained the example, and even took it back. I am making a complaint as of the insinuation, unfairly that I was making multiple comparisons to David Icke, which sounds to me like a aggressive attempt to dismiss my remarks, and surely the statement multiple in itself was a exaggeration which kind of shows up that this was a personal attack on me. Making it sound like I was constantly comparing people to David Icke, when all I had done was said you should source material, and then took back the David Icke example, and then was told I was making Multiple comparsions to him, which I was not. This is clearly either a deliberate or accident misconstruing of what I said. And I see it as a personal attack, and attempt to dismiss me, deserving of banning this editor, from being a editor, as it was a offensive dismissive remark, that was clearly not in keeping with the situiation. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC) Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:Alba Party (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved

AntiDionysius (talk · contribs) Dispute overview

I was disagreeing with some interpretation's on the Alba Party, I was saying how there has been a lack substantiation of sources. I then made a example where I said for example you would never just pick sources from the internet from say random people, without substantiating them. I gave a example of Dabid Icke, as a random example, that if you see a quote rom David Icke, you look at it, and substantiate it, and in most cases realise it is not a thing you can substantiate, and that it is good practice to substantiate sources for everybody as of this. To this I was told I was comparing Whiipedia editors to Holocaust deniers, To this I insisted I was not comparing any wikipedia editors to Holocaust deniers, and asked for a apology. I did not even mention if David Icke was a Holocaust denier, I did not sat any wikipedia editors were like David Icke OR hOLOCAUST DENIERS. tO THIS i WAS TOLD i HAD REFERENCED dAVID iCKE MULIPLE TIMES BY COMPARISION in the article, which is not true, I referenced him once then took it back, realsing I could make the example without mentioning Dvaid Icke. . I see this as a insult, as I never directly compared anybody to David Icke, certanly not any wikipedia editors, and I certaoinly did not compare him multiple times to anybody, I just explained why I said it, and then took the comparison back. I certainly had not compared any wikipedia editor to Dabid Icke, and certainly had not even mentioned Holocaust denial, and had not made the comparsion multiple times.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I have asked for apology and now my comments are being deleted and blocked and there is a general attitude of trying to delete what I have said.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Tell AntiDionysius, that this is aggressive behaviour, and to stop such aggressive activity. That sources do need to be substantiated and it is not fair to look for reasons to claim you have been a victim of a personal attack, and to claim someone is calling them a holocaust denier when they have never done such a thing.

I see this as a personal attack, in a attempt to dismiss me, for stating that the sources being claimed for the article, were not substantiated well enough, and to my remark, I was told I was comparing wikipedia editors to David Icke, which I clearly was not, and made sure they knew I was not, and was then told I had made multiple comparisons to David Icke, which I had not, I had been explaining it and took it back, I see this as a attempt to aggressively put me in my place by exaggeration, and think the said editor should be banned from Wikipedia, for this arrogant abusive behaviour. Especially the lack a attempt to be understanding, So I am asking AntiDionysius be barred as a wikipedia editor please, or at least reprimanded, or investigated to see if there is a pattern of this behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment IP copied and pasted this text from the DRN thread they opened which is closed as a conduct dispute. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there any chance of a apology by AntiDionysius, for saying I had made multiple claims, when I had not. Apology will be accepted heartily, and I apologise I i have caused any offence as I was not comparing any Wikipedia editor to David Icke, and would never, and certainly not multiple times. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is what the IP actually said when criticizing the editors who added sources being used to call this small political party "socially conservative" - Anybody who just parrots random sources without substantiating them, is of no standing, and should be ashamed, this is like something from a sketch from a comedy show, where somebody reads a David Icke book, or a twitter post and does not have any critical thinking over the matter. The IP made an inflammatory and highly offensive comparison, and now wants a forced apology when other editors reacted negatively to that comment. Astounding. My suggestion is that the IP go do something useful and moderate their tone. This complaint is without merit. Cullen328 (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

IP editor, you ignored the requirement at the top of the editing windows that says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. I have notified AntiDionysius for you. Cullen328 (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

But surely it is absolutely the case that when you get sources, you must substantiate them, it is not professional, to just accept a source without looking at it. I was being told, The source says this, so thats that, surely any university degree, or school qualification would say you must do more than just parrot a source, surely any journalistic integrity would agree that you must see that a source does not have bias, or is reputable. All the sources claiming Alba as socially conservative were rival politicians, and a offhand diary entry from a non Scottish newspaper, that mentioned the Alba Party in a story that was barely a paragraph and listed 10 or so other stories in that newsletter, it was not a source that could be regarded as a expert interested source. Surely anybody writing a wikipedia article should be acquiring sources that are unbaised, or sources that are from experts, not just flippant offhand afterthought entries which see the Alba Party as a after thought. No source of any repute was given, that could regard Alba as socially conservative, all the sources were political columnist rival politicians, and a offhand article in a non Scottish newspaper, which surely is not that interested in the affairs of a minor political part of little note in Scotland. When all the Alba Party's policies indicate it is a socially liberal party, when I said that, I was told these weak sources say they are, and then I suggested that anybody editing the page should take a course understanding bias, that a source is not always saying what you should just parrot. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Just so you know IP, the longer you make a post, the less likely people are to read it (WP:WALLOFTEXT). Please be as concise as possible. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That is not something you should be proud about, if that is so, it proves my point about what I was saying, Doing the research is important. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

So do you believe that Wikipedia editors should do more than just say, well the source says that, and not substantiate the source, surely it would be good practice to substantiate sources as surely that is what good journalistic practices do, and the people I have most respect for do. If you are asking me to do something useful I think requesting that wikipedia editors learn to substantiate sources and have critical thinking about them, then that is good, if they already do, so be it, but I was being told for the alba article that simply the sources said it was so, so it must be so, and no attempt was given to substantiate the claims. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Tarlby is right, please reformat it so we have an idea of the problem/those involved. E_F⁵ 17:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You are proving my point, people should be capable of understanding the sources, people should have better critical thinking, 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and attacks by IP 174.202.100.165

174.202.100.165 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Making multiple unsourced edits that get reverted [21] [22] [23] [24], and accusing others of spreading misinformation [25] and bullying [26]. Has used other IPs in the past for similar behaviour:

68.38.52.16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

2600:1015:B1E4:F59E:0:0:0:0/64 (talk • contribs • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google) TheNerdzilla (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow! It is bullying when you’re being biased editing and making false accusations. You’re accusing me of using multiple IP addresses to make disruptive edits (which is untrue) when my phone changes its IP address on its own. How’s that my fault? If you are going to ignore someone telling you the truth than yeah they are going to feel bullied because you’re making false claims about someone. 174.202.100.165 (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, if anyone looks at DJ Play a Christmas Song it says right in the page that duet with Giovanni Zarrella was released to Italian radio, making it a single and that’s sourced in the article itself, yet another false claim about me posting unsourced information. 174.202.100.165 (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This user is not showing any good faith nor is looking at any of the pages and realizing something like with DJ Play a Christmas Song and realizing “Oh, the page does say and is sourced that a different version of the song was released to radio stations in Italy, so it’s understandable that someone would consider that as being released as a single when it’s sourced in the page.” But am I being given the benefit of the doubt? Nope. Or looking at the fact that they can’t even do a simple Google search and see that the information I was trying to change on Unchained Melody: The Early Years shows the album showing up as a compilation album and not a reissue. I am sorry people can’t look things up for themselves and see that a user is just trying to post correct information that they are finding online. Of course anyone is going to feel bullied when you have numerous people coming at you for posting information based on what they are finding online. It’s not disruptive editing, what these users are doing is showing bad faith and of course to anyone that is going to come across as bullying. 174.202.100.165 (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

And here’s another thing about DJ Play a Christmas Song, no one is explaining why it matters if a different version of a song was released to radio how that doesn’t make it a single or why it shouldn’t be included in the chronology of releases. They just keep saying “it’s a different version, not a different song”. There’s no proper communication here where no one is properly explaining what difference it makes as to whether a different version of the song was released to radio or not means it can’t be included in the infobox as a single release for the chronology. It’s very confusing. Also, I should add, I’m Autistic here and I am very detailed and no one is talking to me or properly explaining anything to me, instead they are just assuming that I am trying to do bad things when I am trying to make sure that information is correct based on my own research and what is already sourced in the article. 174.202.100.165 (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I’d also like to point out that this user is showing that his is doing this not in good faith cause if you look at his talk page history I have been trying to communicate with him and he just reverts my post and removes them and doesn’t reply. Now this to me shows that this user is intentionally showing WP:Bad faith and is not giving me the benefit of the doubt at all. Now if someone was doing that and refusing to talk properly and is instead posting warnings right off the bat on your talk page, and not just one but multiple people are doing it, wouldn’t you feel bullied? I mean why do multiple people feel the need to gang up on someone? That’s very overwhelming and you all seem to forget that there are people on the other end of the screen that that can leave a very bad impression on. If they aren’t going to step back and look things up for themselves and expect someone else to do the work for them instead of doing a simple Google search or actually looking at the article for themselves and maybe seeing, well you don’t need to double source something that’s already sourced in an article.” doesn’t that show that the user is showing bad faith in a lot of their accusations here? 174.202.100.165 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, I am allowed to vocalize how all this makes me feel and these users are making sure I cannot do that. Of course I feel misinformation is being posted because the information doesn’t match up with something that anyone on here can look up for themselves. It also doesn’t help when users don’t go and look at the pages themselves to go and see if information is already sourced in the page. It also doesn’t help falsely accusing someone of intentionally using multiple IP addresses to cause disruptive editing when the actual people being disruptive are the editors on here and not the IP addresses. I don’t use a VPN, most are blocked by Wikipedia anyway, my phone just changes its IP address on its own and I have no control over that or when it does it or how often it does it, one day it’s one IP address the next day it can be something different, that’s beyond my control and it is not intentional and I have a right to say that a false accusation is being made to the accuser without others trying to silence me, which is also happening. Anyone else seeing that with any sense of morality would see that as bullying cause why are you trying to silence someone who is pointing out what you’re doing wrong because you can’t look up something for yourself or actually look at a page or you’re just making assumptions and false accusations? Like how I got falsely accused here of posting unsourced information when if you look at the page itself you can see it’s already sourced. 174.202.100.165 (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If you have a dispute over an article content, take it to the article talk page not an editor's talk page. Talk:DJ Play a Christmas Song is empty, and Talk:Unchained Melody: The Early Years has nothing but bot edits from 16 years ago. So as far as anyone's concerned you haven't been discussing anything. And it's your responsibility to provide reliable sources, regardless of whether they may exist somewhere. A Google search is not a reliable source. Also the fact that a duet was released in 2024 doesn't prove it's the artist's next single. It's easily possible there are other singles which aren't mentioned because they're unrelated. You'd need a source to establish this chronology. Also if a single was only release on radio or is a different version of an earlier single, there might be dispute over whether this belongs. All this needs to be discussed when there is dispute. If you cannot come to agreement, you will need to use some form of WP:Dispute resolution to try and resolve the dispute. Ultimately you may also just have to accept WP:Consensus is against you. If consensus is against you, accusing others of spreading misinformation just because they have disagreements over definitions etc is definitely not okay. And again whether you find sources or whatever, please take it to the relevant article talk pages rather than anywhere else or edit warring. Also you have no rights here on Wikipedia, none of us do. The purpose of discussion should always primarily be about how to make Wikipedia better. While it's sometimes okay to discuss problems with an editor's actions, ultimately your feelings over something, even something that happened on Wikipedia, are stuff you need to address elsewhere and not on Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

BTW, at least on this page, no one has accused your of intentionally misusing multiple IP addresses. They've just pointed out you've used multiple IP addresses which seems to be true. If you chose to edit from an IP and your IP changes, you're going to have to accept that editors point it out since it's relevant to how we handle blocking etc, and also means scrutinising your edit history is more difficult. While you might not be able to affect how your IP changes, it's your choice to edit without an account and so you need to accept the problems that results from that. Nil Einne (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Simply making edits that are reverted aren't necessarily problematic as long as they aren't disruptive or devolve into edit-warring. This seems like a content dispute that should be addressed on article talk pages or WP:DRN, not ANI. Are there any behavioral problems that need discussion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I will say that I don't like seeing personal attacks, casting aspersions or speculations about editor's motivations. That has no place in editing this project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly what is going on here. The user keeps making accusations against others of spreading misinformation, bullying, and vandalising, refusing to seek consensus. This appears to be an ongoing issue with this user; IP range 2600:1015:B1E4:F59E:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) was blocked for two weeks for "Edit warring: also harassing other users, battleground mentality, using multiple IPs" on 6 September 2024, then 68.38.52.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked for one week for Making legal threats: False accusations of vandalism on 2 December 2024. Similar behaviour to what's being displayed here, and stemming from the same group of articles. TheNerdzilla (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe this at least would constitute a personal attack. I've tried to have civil discussions with this user in the past but none have been effective. Breaktheicees (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This is interesting, given the IP range as mentioend by @TheNerdzilla: above. Another change and then pretending to be a different user addressing the original one? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't notice that; thanks for pointing that out. At this point, I'm starting to suspect this could become a new LTA case, given the extensive history of this behaviour, unless this has already been documented in the past. TheNerdzilla (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

After doing some research, I do believe this may be block evasion from User:Dolirama, based on similar page editing patterns ([27]) and a very similar writing style ([28]). Breaktheicees (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That was back in November of 2023... okay, once this wraps up, I will definitely bring this up on the talk page for LTA, because this has been going on for quite a while it seems. TheNerdzilla (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

107.129.97.80: continued disruptive editing pattern after 3-month block

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

---

107.129.97.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)Was blocked in June this year for three months by PhilKnight, and went right back to the same sort of intermittent disruptive editing pattern again, such as this edit and this one; they've received three warnings since their block. They came to my attention with malformatted talk page posts like this one at Talk:Mahalia Jackson (despite having previously formatted talk page posts correctly) and I was going to message them about that before deciding it wasn't worth it after discovering their previous block. Also see this ANI about them. I was brought here from WP:AIV. Graham87 (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I made the first ANI report in June 2024 archived here. There were six warnings before I took that step. The administrator who administered the first block was User:PhilKnight. I support a full WP:SBAN against this user. A quick glance at any of their edits will demonstrate they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Kire1975 (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

We can't do that for IP's, unfortunately. We can only do escalating blocks. Graham87 (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for six months. Bishonen | tålk 15:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC).

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

Hide this racist edit summary.

Hiding this ban-evading LTA disruption. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. It says stop stealing Gypsies. https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 This edit summary says stinky Gypsies. https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzalutno:Contribuții/80.177.126.214 37.21.144.243 (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC) This noticeboard is for the English Wikipedia, unfortunately. We can't help with other language wikis. Remsense ‥ 论 07:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC) Ach. In something that does seem for admins here, not 100% sure what's up here (though maybe 90% sure) Remsense ‥ 论 07:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC) This post represents ban evasion. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Demographics vandal. Binksternet (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user Stan1900 and the films of Shannon Alexander

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

---

I'm posting here in an attempt to get admin oversight on a situation playing itself out over threads at COIN, NPOVN and the relevant article talk pages.

user:Stan1900 is a WP:SPA dedicated to producing articles on the films of Shannon Alexander, an individual who they admit to having had dealings with [29]. The user previously made a small group of edits back in 2017/18 on the same subject, but the account was then dormant for 6 years until recent activity commenced. Recent activity seems to coincide with the US release of one of the films.

Concerns were first raised when the user opened multiple threads trying to hurry the articles through AfC [30] [31] [32] and talking about when the articles would appear on Google searches [33] (raising concerns about a possible SEO motivation).

The articles created have been consistently identified as being of a promotional nature, primarily due to being composed primarily of quotes from positive reviews. See for example [34], [35] and [36].

COI templates were added to the articles, which the user has created multiple threads in an attempt to remove, clearly forum shopping looking for a different answer. [37] [38] [39] [40]

The lengthy (and promotional) Reception sections were removed following talkpage discussion [41] sufficient to indicate that there was no consensus for inclusion. However, it is clearly inappropriate for an article to be composed primarily of reviews (good or bad) so removal was noncontroversial in any case. Nonetheless the user has argued at great length for reinclusion in various locations.

The user is now proceeding in a highly confrontational and argumentative fashion in multiple different threads (diffs for which above) and does not seem capable of accepting that wherever they take their concerns they routinely receive the same response. Users including Cullen328 [42] [43] and myself have raised concerns that the user is a promo only account dedicated to the promotion of the films of Shannon Alexander.

I’d be grateful if an admin would take some action here. Axad12 (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan1900 has also initiated two lengthy and similar threads at the Help desk, one of which has been archived. WP:Help desk#Dispute over Paid Editing Tag on "It's Coming" and Review of "The Misguided" Draft is the other and taken together, these multiple discussions show bludgeoning in defense of a highly focused promotional editing campaign. I have interacted heavily with this editor in recent days, and so I prefer that another uninvolved adminstrator read these conversations and take appropriate action. I want to admit that I made an error in evaluating the copyright status of three movie posters, and I apologize for that. Cullen328 (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Some further background here…

The user has claimed that My account was created to edit Katherine Langford's article, completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander. However, all of the 2017/18 edits were actually directly related to Shannon Alexander, e.g. here [44]. Note also that the 2017/18 activity coincided with the release of the Shannon Alexander film mentioned in those edits.

The user has also claimed: I have a history of editing articles related to notable figures from Perth, Western Australia on Wikipedia [45].

However, at that time (and now) the user had only made a small number of edits (all related to Shannon Alexander), so if true this would have required the use of an alternative account. Similarly, as pointed out by Cullen328 (here [46]), the user claims to have been an active editor for 8 years, with contributions spanning a variety of topics, but their edit history indicates 6 dormant years since 2018.

The user states here [47] that they have only contacted Shannon Alexander for fact verification, although what purpose that was intended to serve is unclear given the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS. However the degree of association between the two individuals would clearly appear to be greater than that given the persistency of the activity and the apparent interest in, for example, urgency of publication and search engine optimisation around the time of a film release, as per WP:DUCK.

The user has also used a great deal of very obviously AI generated posts (as pointed out in various of the threads that the user has started). The user consistently denies AI use, despite the fact that one subset of their posts consistently scores "100% likelihood AI generated" on GPTzero while the rest of their posts show up as "entirely human generated", clearly indicating two different origins. The user claims they have a very formal style of writing that GPTzero mistakes for AI, but if that were true GPTzero would consistently produce results suggesting "part AI/ part human". They then claim that GPTzero is not 100% reliable, which is correct, but that does not invalidate the very clear cut evidence above.

So, it does seem to me that there is a consistent pattern above of statements which seem inclined to mislead. Axad12 (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Responding to these allegations which contain several misrepresentations:

1. Regarding contact with Shannon Alexander: As previously stated, my only contact has been for fact verification - a standard practice explicitly allowed by Wikipedia policies. The obsessive focus on the filmmaker rather than the articles' content is concerning. These are independent films that received critical coverage from reliable sources - their inclusion on Wikipedia should be evaluated on those merits.

2. The claims about 'promotional' content are misleading. The removed content consisted of properly sourced reviews from reliable publications, following standard film article format. No specific policy-based issues with the content have been identified.

3. The "forum shopping" accusation misrepresents proper use of Wikipedia venues:

- Talk pages for content discussion

- Help desk for process guidance

- NPOV board for neutrality issues

- Each serves a distinct purpose

4. Regarding GPTZero claims: The logic here is flawed. Different types of Wikipedia contributions naturally require different writing styles - technical documentation vs. talk page discussion being obvious examples. Using unreliable tool results to dismiss properly sourced content violates core principles.

5. Note that Cullen328 has admitted to error regarding the improper deletion of properly licensed images, which demonstrates the pattern of hasty actions being taken without proper verification.

The core issue remains: properly sourced, policy-compliant content about notable films is being removed based on unsupported accusations rather than specific policy-based concerns. The apparent determination to suppress well-sourced information about these independent films is puzzling. Wikipedia exists to document notable subjects based on reliable sources - which is exactly what these articles do. I remain committed to improving them more than ever Stan1900 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

At the end of the day this is all very simple...

Other users have interpreted your work as promotional in intent. Therefore COI/PAID tags have been added.

Also, articles on Wikipedia do not consist primarily of quotes from reviews, so that material has been removed (and perceived again to be promotional).

You have attempted, over and over again, in various threads to get the tags removed and the removals overturned - but no one in any of those threads has ever agreed with you.

The appropriate course of action is therefore to accept that you are in a minority and that the changes you wish to make have no community support.

Continuing to argue in multiple different places is not an appropriate response. Axad12 (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Also see WP:BATTLEGROUND and assume in good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Theroadislong (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I was correct about the fact that Stan1900 falsely claimed on Wikimedia Commons that the three movie posters in question are their "own work" and that false claim remains on the Commons file pages for those posters. Cullen328 (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan1900 is currently arguing that the words 'own work' actually refer to their 'work' clicking the upload button. I'm not sure if this is all covering up for what looks more and more like an obvious COI, or a simple inability to admit to making a mistake. I think either is incompatible with the collaborative work needed for this project. I'm also very concerned about obviously dishonest statements such as this one, there they claimed edits were unrelated to Shannon Alexander when they were clearly about a film of Alexander's [48].

I think a topic ban from the subject of Shannon Alexander, broadly construed, would be the best thing here. MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. Cullen328 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Your characterizations here fundamentally misrepresent both the situation and Wikipedia's purpose:

  1. "Articles do not consist primarily of quotes from reviews" - Misrepresents standard film article format. Well-sourced critical reception sections are common in film articles. The removed content followed established patterns for film articles, with proper citations from reliable sources.

  2. "Interpreted as promotional" - No specific policy violations have been identified. Proper sourcing from reliable publications isn't "promotional" simply because the reviews are positive. This seems to reflect a bias against independent films receiving positive coverage.

  3. Regarding the "own work" designation on Commons - As DMacks confirmed, proper licensing documentation was verified through official channels. The template language about authorized uploads is being deliberately misinterpreted to justify improper deletions.

  4. The underlying issue here seems to be a systematic effort to suppress coverage of certain independent films. My interest is in documenting underrepresented works that meet notability guidelines through reliable sources. Many editors focus on their own areas of interest - the hostile reaction to well-sourced content about independent films is very surprising and concerning.

  5. Claims of "forum shopping" misrepresent proper use of established channels for different purposes (talk pages, help desk, NPOV board). Each place serves a distinct purpose in processes.

  The suggestion of a topic ban for contributing properly sourced content about notable subjects is inappropriate. This appears to be an attempt to use process to suppress legitimate content rather than address specific policy-based concerns.

  I remain committed to improving Wikipedia's coverage of notable but underrepresented subjects through proper sourcing and neutral presentation. The aggressive opposition to this goal raises serious questions about systemic bias. Stan1900 (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Support topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. User is clearly WP:NOTHERE and is bludgeoning the same flawed interpretations of policies over and over again. User also refuses to acknowledge that every other user in various threads disagrees with what they are trying to achieve, which is clearly contrary to collaborative work. Alternatively I would support a site block for what is obviously a promo-only account (but given their narrow focus on a single subject a topic ban would effectively be functionally identical to a site block). Axad12 (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Your accusations and push for a ban are baseless personal attacks that ignore policy and precedent:

    The articles were already reviewed and the paid tags were removed. Restoring them without cause is disruptive.

    The image licensing was properly vetted via official channels, as confirmed by a Commons admin. Claiming otherwise is misleading.

    I've consistently engaged on content and policy, while you resort to vague claims of "promotion" without evidence. That's not collaboration.

    Consensus is not "everyone disagreeing" with sourced additions. It's built through policy-based discussion, not mob rule.

    WP:HERE is about constructive editing, not battle lines. My focus on notable films in my area of knowledge is entirely appropriate.

    A topic ban would unjustly exclude neutrally written, reliably sourced content about verifiable subjects. That's a heckler's veto against core policies.

    If you have specific concerns, raise them on article talk pages so they can be addressed. But unsubstantiated aspersions and ban threats are the real problem here.

    Stop edit warring against consensus to remove properly vetted content. If you can't engage productively, step back and let those of us who actually want to improve the encyclopedia get on with it. Stan1900 (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    The user is now claiming [49] over at COIN that Acting as an authorized representative doesn't constitute as COI. I'll leave that comment for others to consider at their leisure. Axad12 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Note here that the user had previous claimed repeatedly that they had only engaged in fact verification with Shannon Alexander while operating in what they described as a journalistic capacity. That is not what any reasonable person would describe as being an authorized representative. Axad12 (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. "As an authorized representative" the conflict of interest is crystal clear, despite the bludgeoning denials. Theroadislong (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  1. Yes, I acted as an authorized representative specifically for verifying poster copyright/licensing. This was a limited, transparent interaction done through proper Wikipedia channels to ensure images were correctly licensed.

  2. However, this narrow administrative role for image licensing does not extend to content creation. My article contributions are based entirely on reliable, independent sources, maintaining neutral POV.

  3. I have been transparent about fact verification contacts (dates, releases, etc.), which were conducted in a manner similar to how any Wikipedia editor might verify facts with a primary source.

  4. The suggestion of a topic ban seems unwarranted given that:

  - All content is properly sourced from independent publications

  - Image licensing was handled through proper channels with full disclosure

  - I've engaged constructively in discussions and made requested changes

  - No promotional content has been demonstrated

  I remain committed to improving Wikipedia's coverage of independent films while following all policies and guidelines. Being authorized to handle image licensing does not prevent me from making properly sourced, neutral contributions to related articles. Stan1900 (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• On December 15, at the Help Desk, I said to Stan1900 You are now behaving effectively like a one person public relations agency for Shannon Alexander on Wikipedia. Stan1900 denied that, criticized me for saying that, and repeatedly denied any conflict of interest. Now that we have learned that Stan1900 is an "authorized representative" of Shannon Alexander, it is clear that my December 15 assessment was correct. This editor has been repeatedly deceptive. Accordingly, I now Support an indefinite sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  I need to address what has become an exhausting cycle of repeated explanations:

  1. For what must be the 50th time: I served as an authorized representative SPECIFICALLY AND SOLELY for image licensing/copyright verification - a standard Wikipedia process that requires verification of rights. This was handled through proper channels and is documented. The images were challenged, reviewed, and officially reinstated.

  2. Every single piece of content I've contributed:

  - Is based on independent, reliable sources

  - Follows NPOV guidelines

  - Has been properly cited

  - Includes balanced coverage

  - Has been verified through proper channels

  3. This constant need to repeat these same points, which are documented across multiple discussion pages, is preventing productive work on Wikipedia. The evidence is clear:

  - Images reinstated through proper process

  - Paid editing tags removed after review

  - Content properly sourced

  - Constructive engagement documented

  The suggestion of an indefinite block for following Wikipedia's proper processes is both disproportionate and concerning. At this point, the repeated disregard for documented evidence and proper procedures seems more disruptive than any of my contributions.

  I suggest we move past this circular discussion and focus on actual content improvements. Stan1900 (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that the specific phrase "authorized agent" in the specific context of file-upload license release does not necessarily mean they are generally an agent (for PR, general employment, or other representation) in the general sense. Here, they might merely have specific authorization or act as a conduit limited to those images. However, they have explicitly stated that they actually are the license holder themselves, which is quite different from acting as the conduit between the license-holder and the Wiki world. And that contradicts all assertions they might make that they have no COI or similar tight relationship with the subject, or are anything more than the conduit. DMacks (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan1900 is the undisputed champion of repeating themselves over and over and OVER again, under the mistaken notion that repetition is persuasion. The three movie poster files on Wikimedia Commons still falsely state that the posters are Stan1900's "own work", denying credit to the designer or designers who actually created the posters. Cullen328 (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

1. DMacks: You've misinterpreted my role. I have consistently stated I am an authorized representative for licensing verification - NOT the license holder. This distinction is important and has been explained repeatedly. In fact, many production entitles who haven't created Wikipedia entries for their work are happy to authorize agents to handle public information and image licensing, as evidenced by this very situation. Film artwork is regularly made available through multiple channels (IMDb, theaters, press kits) - having an authorized representative handle Wikipedia licensing is neither unusual nor suspicious.

2. Cullen328: Your comment about "repeating over and over" is ironic given that you and others continue to repeat the same disproven accusations despite:

- Images being officially verified and reinstated through proper channels

- Confirmation by administrators

- Clear documentation of my limited representative role

- Proper sourcing of all content

The fact that you're still focused on image claims that have already been resolved through official Wikipedia processes suggests you're more interested in casting aspersions than improving content. These posters were challenged, verified, and reinstated - continuing to dispute this is what's actually disruptive to Wikipedia.

I'm happy to update template language to be more precise about representative status, but let's be clear: the licensing has been verified and confirmed. Repeatedly questioning this doesn't change the facts. Stan1900 (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan1900, the file information pages for the three film posters STILL falsely state that they are your "own work". Why is that? Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Your continued fixation on this already-resolved issue is becoming tiresome. Nevertheless, I'll explain one more time:

The "own work" designation indicates upload process handling as an authorized representative - not artistic creation. This has been explained repeatedly, the images have been verified, and administrators have confirmed their reinstatement.

To spell it out yet again:

- Not the creator

- Not the copyright holder

- Authorized for licensing verification only

- Images officially verified

- Reinstatement confirmed

Your insistence on rehashing this same point, despite official resolution through proper channels, suggests you're more interested in finding reasons to object than improving Wikipedia. If template language is truly your deepest concern, I'm happy to update it. Otherwise, if we could focus on actual content improvement rather than this circular discussion about already-verified images would be great! Stan1900 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a thread about content, it is about your conduct. Axad12 (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

My conduct has been straightforward: Basically creating properly sourced articles while following guidelines. The burden of proof lies with those making repetitive and outlandish accusations, yet you've been unable to demonstrate any policy violations. Instead, you're repeatedly removing verified content and making unsupported claims.

The real disruption and misconduct here is the constant interference with legitimate article creation. Stan1900 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan1900, correct that false claim that those posters are your "own work" and give credit to the actual poster designers. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I've updated the file pages to properly reflect copyright attribution and clarify roles. The changes align with the documentation in OTRS ticket #2024113010007335, which covers all three posters. This removes the "own work" designation while accurately reflecting the licensing chain. Stan1900 (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban, on Shannon Alexander, and her films, broadly construed. Stan1900 is clearly here for only promotional activities, and given the change from "only contact has been for fact verification" to "authorized representative but only for this thing," makes me even more skeptical that we're currently getting the whole truth, as opposed to what they were forced to admit when called out on conflicting evidence. The doublespeak about "own work" just confirms to me that this editor would present a great time sink on anyone trying to collaborate with them effectively, which is a bit of a death knell on a collaborative project. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Stan1900. Cullen328 (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan, I appreciate that you're keen on repeating yourself, but getting others to repeat themselves is rather unfair. The reasons that multiple users have considered you to be a promotional only account are given at the top of this thread, but to jog your memory:

Since 2017, your account has been dedicated solely to editing around the films of Shannon Alexander.

You have an obvious conflict of interest because you've admitted to having dealt with Alexander and being their authorized representative.

You've created articles which other users have identified as promotional (mainly due to the articles consisting primarily of quotes taken from positive reviews).

You've set up multiple threads to try to get the articles fast-tracked through AfC, with the stated motivation of getting the articles on to Google searches (presumably it isn't coincidental that this is at the same time that one of the films has its US release).

You've then spent an inordinate amount of time, across multiple threads, unsuccessfully attempting to remove tags and reinstate the elements that others have found to be promotional.

That is all the textbook activity of a promotional account. Indeed, whether this activity is being done directly on behalf of Alexander or simply off your own back, it is still promotional.

However, if we look beyond all that, the continual WP:BLUDGEONING of multiple threads, the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and various deceptions have worn out the patience of those who have interacted with you. Hence we now have 4 users calling for you to be topic banned from the films of Shannon Alexander, broadly construed. Unfortunately that would seem to be the only way to get you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Axad12 (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Who are you to question editors' personal interests or timing of contributions? Many filmmakers haven't created Wikipedia entries for their notable works, and having authorized representatives handle public information and image licensing is completely normal - as evidenced by the very processes Wikipedia has in place for this.

Of course I want these articles to be visible and indexable – the same way you want everyone to see your contributions and the articles you've edited. If visibility was suspicious, why do any of us contribute to Wikipedia? The whole point is to document notable subjects for public access.

Film artwork and information is readily available through multiple public channels (IMDb, theaters, press kits). Creating properly sourced articles about notable films, regardless of timing or subject matter, is exactly what Wikipedia is for.

Your continued attempts to paint standard Wikipedia processes as suspicious suggests you're more interested in finding problems than improving content. Stan1900 (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Your tally of "4 users" consists of the same individuals who have repeatedly removed properly sourced content without policy justification. Tags were removed and images reinstated through proper channels because they met Wikipedia's requirements - that's not coincidence, that's following process.

Your "coincidental timing" argument falls apart considering I'm writing about films from 2018 and 2022 in late 2024. If this was promotional, why wait years?

I'm not getting others to repeat themselves - I'm providing the same answer to the same baseless accusations because you refuse to accept documented evidence. The fact that multiple administrators have verified and reinstated content you've removed suggests you're the one being disruptive, not me. Stan1900 (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually it is now 5 users calling for a topic ban.

I'm not sure when you are referring to admins reinstating material I've removed, but I work pretty much solely on conflict of interest cases and it's fairly normal for material to be removed and reinstated on those sort of cases as discussions develop. I don't take that personally, it's just an occupational hazard that happens to everyone in that field from time to time as articles work towards a stable version. I'm not aware of having been reverted by any admins on the articles under discussion in this thread. In other situations I'd have thought it was a rare event for me to be reverted by an admin although no doubt it has occurred.

My work in the COI area is, I suspect, fairly well known to a good number of readers here. I am a user in good standing who has contributed to the removal of much COI and promotional material from Wikipedia. All of my work on Wikipedia for the last year or so has been done on forums with significant administrator oversight and if my conduct was generally disruptive that would have been pointed out to me by an administrator at some point.

I opened this thread in the clear knowledge that my own conduct might be placed under the spotlight, but instead it is 5 users who are calling for you to be topic blocked.

For you to suggest that I am the problem here only serves to demonstrate your lack of self-awareness. Axad12 (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, re: [I] want everyone to see [my] contributions and the articles [I]'ve edited... No, actually I have no particular feelings on that score - probably because I resolutely avoid editing any article where I might be perceived to have a COI. With the exception of a few very minor edits I've only ever contributed to obscure articles (so hoping that "everyone will see them" would be a vain hope indeed). Axad12 (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Axad12 CoffeeCrumbs

1. The paid editing tags were reviewed successfully. Their reinstatement without new evidence defies this original determination.

2. All images have been properly verified through Wikimedia VRT process and have valid licensing. Their deletion and reinstatement of them shows proper process was followed.

3. I have already addressed all questions about authorized agent status through official Wikipedia channels. This matter is resolved.

4. I have consistently followed every procedure to a T:

- Using talk pages

- Providing reliable sources

- Following dispute resolution

- Getting official review of tags

- Verifying image licensing

- Addressing repetitious concerns transparently

5. The suggestion of a topic ban - what topic exactly? Arts and culture coverage? That would be an unprecedented scope based on properly sourced contributions.

6. Regarding CoffeeCrumbs' claims of 'promotional activities' - I have several drafted articles about artists with similar encyclopedic gaps in coverage that I've had to delay working on due to this ongoing situation. The fact that a few users are trying to discredit me simply because I focused on documenting 3 films that had no Wikipedia presence is, frankly, pathetic.

All of my edits are fully sourced, neutral, and follow policy. Each accusation has been officially reviewed and resolved through proper channels. If there are content concerns, they should be raised with diffs and policy citations, not broad accusations. Stan1900 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLUDGEON. You've said all of that stuff time and time again but other users still fundamentally disagree with you and find your conduct problematic. You just need to drop the stick now. Axad12 (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Citing WP:BLUDGEON is ironic given you repeatedly make the same accusations after they've been officially resolved through proper channels:

1. (Some) paid editing tags - officially reviewed and removed (then slapped back on)

2. Image licensing - verified through VRT

3. Authorized agent status - addressed through proper process

I've responded to concerns as they arise and made improvements based on constructive feedback (see discussion with Gråbergs Gråa Sång). Yet you continue repeating claims without new evidence.

Repeatedly making resolved accusations while telling others to "drop the stick" is bad form. Stan1900 (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, how have the issues in this thread been officially resolved through proper channels? This is an open thread and 5 users have called for a topic ban. The issues have not yet been officially resolved by any definition of the term. Axad12 (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The tags WERE successfully removed through proper review

The images WERE successfully reinstated through VRT verification

The authorized agent status WAS officially resolved

These are documented facts with clear outcomes through proper Wikipedia channels. See:

- VRT verification: commons.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=prev&diff=973304583

- Discussion with @Gråbergs Gråa Sång showing constructive collaboration

Your reference to "5 users" is misleading when multiple official processes have already concluded in favor of the content and proper procedures were followed. A handful of editors repeating already-resolved claims doesn't override completed official processes.

If there are new concerns, they should be raised with policy citations rather than attempting to relitigate resolved issues. Stan1900 (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The thing is that the tags, the images and the authorised status issues aren't the matters under discussion in this thread (and they weren't resolved by "official processes" anyway). This is a thread about conduct, not about content. If you find it misleading that 5 users have called for a topic ban in relation to your conduct then there is no helping you. Axad12 (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Your attempt to separate "conduct" from the actual documented timeline is misleading:

1. These issues ARE relevant because they demonstrate consistent proper conduct

2. You claim these 'weren't resolved by official processes' - this is factually incorrect:

- See VRT verification: commons.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=prev&diff=973304583

- See constructive discussion with @Gråbergs Gråa Sång leading to content improvements

3. My "conduct" has been consistently focused on improving Wikipedia through proper channels while facing repeated unfounded accusations and content removals without policy basis. Your Vague allegations while ignoring documented proper process is itself problematic conduct. Stan1900 (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I read this the other 15 times you said it. Getting you to follow procedure is like pulling teeth. There's no credit in disclosing things on the 10th opportunity after stonewalling the first nine. And it's clear what the topic ban would entail: Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. My only question is if this is enough, but I want to WP:AGF that the conduct won't continue in the event you actually make edits not related to Shannon Alexander somehow. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Your accusations are baseless and contradicted by the record:

I have engaged transparently and promptly through proper channels at every stage:

- Used talk pages consistently

- Responded to concerns promptly

- Had tags officially reviewed and removed

- Had images verified through VRT

- Resolved authorized agent status

- Made improvements based on constructive feedback

2. A topic ban on is a solution in search of a problem. The articles are properly sourced, neutrally written, and part of addressing gaps in coverage. It's absurd to suggest banning someone for documenting notable films following policy.

3. The relentless accusations regarding these 3 simple articles that previously had no coverage must stop. The paid editing and COI tags are demonstrably untrue based on the official resolutions through proper channels.

I will continue to refute these baseless allegations because they are false. Please stop making unfounded accusations and let those of us who want to improve the encyclopedia do so.

The documentation exists. The proper processes were followed. The official resolutions are clear. These constant attempts to relitigate resolved issues are what's actually disruptive to Wikipedia. Stan1900 (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be productive here for an administrator to review the contents of this discussion and take action based on the views expressed by multiple users. Further discussion is not going to advance matters any further (unless other users would like to add their voices to whether or not a topic ban would be appropriate). Axad12 (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

CoffeeCrumbs Your proposed topic ban is arbitrary and unjustified. If you're concerned about my editing conduct, why limit it to Shannon Alexander specifically? Why not ban me from writing about films in general, or movies from the late 2010s?

The fact that you're targeting a single filmmaker whose work I've documented following policies and guidelines exposes the lack of logic behind your argument. It's a transparent attempt to shut down coverage of notable topics simply because you don't like that I'm the one writing about them.

Wikipedia's mission is to encompass all of human knowledge, not to censor editors who are working in good faith to expand that knowledge in accordance with site policies. If there were legitimate issues with my conduct, they would apply across topics, not just to one filmmaker.

The reality is, there is no evidence of policy violations or misconduct on my part. The paid editing and COI tags were reviewed and removed through proper channels. The images were officially verified. My role as an authorized representative was documented and resolved.

Your continued efforts to relitigate these settled issues and impose baseless sanctions are the real disruption here. If you have specific concerns about the content of the articles, raise them on the talk pages with policy-based arguments. But stop trying to game the system to get rid of content and contributors you personally disapprove of.

Wikipedia is not here to indulge personal vendettas. It's here to provide free, reliable information to the world. That's why we're all here and love the platform greatly. Stan1900 (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I proposed it, not CoffeeCrumbs. And I proposed a ban limited to Shannon Alexander because that is the only area you have been disruptive - in fact it is the sole focus of 100% of your activity on Wikipedia. I proposed a limited topic ban in the hope that you could move forward and show us you could work collaboratively elsewhere on some other topic that interests you. But if you think we're better off just banning you from more, or even from everything, that is certainly workable as well. MrOllie (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. Let's be clear - you're escalating from topic ban to broader bans because I defended properly sourced contributions with documented evidence?

Sure, I focused on documenting films that had no Wikipedia coverage - that's called filling a gap in the encyclopedia. I have other articles about artists in development too, but this constant barrage of unfounded accusations is preventing that work.

At this point, an admin needs to review this situation. The escalating threats of bans over properly documented contributions has become farcical. This isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Stan1900 (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

No, that is a Straw man argument. I proposed a topic for the reasons I explained above. Kindly don't put words in my mouth. MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Support T-ban at least the continued WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:BATTLEGROUND MENTALITY per the above bludgeoning by said user. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Your comment perfectly demonstrates the circular logic being employed:

1. I defend against unfounded accusations with documented evidence = "BLUDGEONING"

2. I refute false claims about resolved processes = "BATTLEGROUND"

3. I provide proof of proper conduct = "continued bludgeoning"

Supporting a topic ban while misapplying WP:BLUDGEON to silence defense against false accusations is what actually creates a battleground atmosphere. I will continue to refute untrue claims with evidence because that's not "bludgeoning" - it's maintaining integrity. Stan1900 (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

After that response I strike my support of a t-ban and move to Support an indef it is clear that the behaviour will not change. I have never interacted with you before or even edited in the area and you are immediately attacking me. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

So you've never edited in this area or interacted with me, yet you're calling for a T ban/indefinite ban? Because I defended my contributions with evidence?

I've had images verified through VRT, tags reviewed and removed through proper channels, and consistently improved content through collaboration. Check the documentation if you don't believe me.

Why exactly are you proposing to ban someone you've never interacted with? That seems contrary to collaborative spirit. Stan1900 (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of this board is to get additional input from previously-uninvolved editors. If all you want to do is keep saying the same thing to the same people repeatedly, you'll keep getting their same response no matter where you say it. The fact that the new participants look at what's happening and still don't agree with you should tell you something. The fact that you object to their participation and reject their input because it doesn't say what you want definitely tells us something. DMacks (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of any COI, the inability, or extreme reluctance, of this editor to:

• understand such basic site policies as WP:CONSENSUS;
• admit wrongdoing, or error, or even merely recognize the concerns of other editors as potentially valid in any way;
• take any sort of feedback on board, with Cullen328 only managing to get them to correct necessary attribution only after 4 long, tedious and frustrating exchanges (not even counting Cullen's related replies, or others' similar remarks on it, or even the original complaint raised on other pages);
• avoid hammering their own viewpoint repeatedly in response to every dissenting view;

leads me to, unfortunately, also support an indef ban, at least until the user can show they understand how their behavior has not been collaborative, as well as commit to improving and also properly responding to other editors' concerns, while listening to what they're actually saying.

To be clear, this is only based on the behavior observed here. I am making no comments about the original report. NewBorders (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I must firmly correct several serious mischaracterizations with documented facts:

1. Re: "4 tedious exchanges about attribution"

This completely misrepresents what occurred:

- The extended exchanges were NOT about attribution changes

- They were days of me defending against unfounded COI accusations and false claims about my identity

- When attribution format was finally raised as an actual issue, and I convinced them of my legitimacy, I implemented changes immediately

- The record clearly shows this timeline

2. Re: "inability to take feedback"

The evidence shows consistent implementation of suggested changes:

- Gråbergs Gråa Sång's wiki-voice improvements implemented promptly

- Article refinements based on additional verified sources

- Format changes adopted when specifically requested

- Image licensing properly verified (now restored through VRT after repeated proof requirements)

3. Re: "not understanding WP:CONSENSUS"

- I fully understand and respect consensus processes

- Current disputes involve content removals without proper consensus discussion

- I have actively sought broader community input through appropriate channels

4. Re: "hammering viewpoint"

What's being characterized as "hammering" has actually been:

- Defending against continuous unfounded allegations (false claims about my identity as Shannon Alexander/affiliates, paid editing, COI, AI use etc.)

- Having to repeatedly correct misrepresentations

- Responding to new accusations after previous ones are disproven

- Protecting properly sourced content from removal

- Having to repeatedly prove already-verified image uploads

5. Re: "not being collegial"

The record shows I have maintained professional discourse while:

- Following every proper procedure

- Implementing requested changes when actually specified

- Using appropriate Wikipedia venues

- Facing repeated unfounded allegations

Suggesting an indefinite ban based on my defense against continuous unfounded accusations, while ignoring my documented policy compliance and willingness to implement actual requested changes, is deeply concerning. Stan1900 (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin please implement the obvious consensus before Stan digs himself into an even deeper hole? And, if they are not using an AI chatbot, give them a job impersonating one, because they do a very good impression? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think a chatbot might explain why Stan hasn't answered my question about where he found a 9-year-old definition of COI.[50] Schazjmd (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Phil Bridger Schazjmd Accusing me of being an chatbot for thoroughly defending sourced content is a baseless personal attack. Disagreement is not grounds for abuse.

After countless policy citations and talk page discussion research over these last several days I don't recall where I found that outdated COI definition. I am only human. But it doesn't change my core arguments about content. Even if I were a cyborg (sadly I'm not), compliance is what matters.

The reason I've had to repeatedly defend my work is the endless stream of unfounded allegations I keep facing. If there's an upside, it's that I've gained an even deeper knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines - knowledge I'd prefer to use improving articles, not battling more false claims. Stan1900 (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

IN THE NAME OF JESUS, MARY, JOSEPH, AND ALL THE SAINTS AND APOSTLES, WILL SOMEONE BLOCK THIS PESTILENTIAL TIMEWASTER? EEng 21:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support CBAN of this bludgeoning WP:SPA. They are a clear WP:TIMESINK. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  This thread could be Exhibit A for the recent proposal at VP that LLM-generated posts be banned from talk pages [51]. EEng 22:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  To take an example of Stan1900’s serial misrepresentations…

  Initially PAID tags were added to the articles. Stan objected and another user replaced them with COI tags. Later 2 further users expressed an opinion that PAID would be more appropriate so the tags were switched back to PAID in accordance with the developing consensus. Those PAID tags have remained in place since that time.

  Stan1900 has since claimed on several occasions, above and elsewhere, that the PAID tags were “removed following official review” (or similar words to that effect) and has presented this as a success for his point of view.

  Either the user is exceptionally deluded or is attempting to misrepresent matters to those without the patience to read through all the documentation elsewhere. Further evidence of the user's serial misrepresentation can be located here [52].

  And breaking news.. the article that was still in AfC was recently turned down for reading like an advertisement [53]. Axad12 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Gender-related arbitration issue?

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

---

Masquewand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing "gender" from Sexual orientation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). First 02:48, 20 Dec 24 which I reverted then on 04:12, 20 Dec 24. Masquewand was left a gender-related contentious-topics notice and has been blocked for this issue on 7 Dec 24. The article has a hidden comment that explains the reason "gender" is in place. Adakiko (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This comment makes me think WP:NOTHERE applies. Simonm223 (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The whole of that user talk page is a study in WP:IDHT. Someone for whom the concept of consensus is incomprehensible -- and throw in his charming assertion that a source as much as five years old is invalid -- is not going to be deflected from His! Mission! Ravenswing 12:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Take note of this comment they made. Seems to imply a threat of socking? 2001:EE0:1AC3:C498:84A4:3BCE:C7B7:9F5F (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

User:PhenixRhyder

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

---

Resolved

I gave User:PhenixRhyder a warning for this legal threat, but looking at their other contributions to user pages and talk pages (e.g. this one, I think we are way past the warning stage and a block is warranted. Fram (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Luffaloaf

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

---

Involved: Luffaloaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Past discussions/warnings: Talk:1764 Woldegk tornado#Edits by Luffaloaf, User talk:Luffaloaf#December 2024

While this is currently at the WP:EWN, this is more of a WP:COMP issue than an edit-warring issue. Since early December, Luffaloaf has been persistently adding incorrect information to articles and claiming to be right when challenged. This behavior has earned them an edit warring block, but immediately after it was expired they came back. Statements by them include:

• …I’m a little concerned that you think I need a source to interpret the source you posted here, which lists its primary sources (“a web page”, “witnesses”), none of which have anything to do with wind engineers. I don’t need to provide you a source that wind engineers are involved in official damage surveys. That’s basic information, and if you don’t know that, you shouldn’t be editing any tornado-related Wikipedia page. at Talk:1764 Woldegk tornado
• You added content, including empirical elements, that are not reported by sources whatsoever, including F-scale intensity rating by damage that wasn't remotely echoed in a damage survey of carried about by a structural engineer, original user of the F scale for numerous US tornadoes from the 70s, and developer of the EF scale. Your line of argumentation is utterly absurd. The T6 update was added by an IP, and did not build up consensus to change the article in such a way - which it needed to do, especially as the lion's share of sources contradict this (especially any information on the F or EF rating of the tornado). I will stop as long as a third person reviews my edits and sources and says they aren't adequate. at Talk:1764 Woldegk tornado. I was the third opinion here, and they called me a "retard" off-wiki pertaining to this, which I can privately link if necessary.

This user has 170 edits, majority of which are edit warring. It clearly won't be getting better, so bringing it here. I just woke up, so there's a lot more I haven't gotten to yet, but you can get a general idea of why this is being posted here based on their talk page and everywhere else they've commented/edited. E_F⁵ 13:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• I agree. This is a clear WP:CIR issue. While at the edit warring noticeboard, about 12 hours after being reported after making 7 reverts to a single article within a few hours, Luffaloaf is continuing to edit war, amid this administrator noticeboard discussion. Very clear WP:CIR issue with a clear lack of understanding of Wikipedia’s WP:BRD and WP:3RR policies. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  And now Luffaloaf has accused me of lying. At this point, given the lack of competence and regard for policy, I am going to treat this WP:DENY instance of a troll, who is complaining on and off-Wikipedia (on Reddit) about needing to right Wikipedia’s great wrongs. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Mgtow definition

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

---

There are blatant lies in the wiki definition of "mgtow". The goal is accuracy, not "man bashing". Camarogue100 (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Camarogue100, you should discuss this at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way. This noticeboard is for conduct issues, not content issues. Schazjmd (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the definition of MGTOW. Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight is an internationally accepted and used term used by every airplane and airline in the world. Canterbury Tail talk 16:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The cintent is incorrect. Mvto is NOT "misogynistic". There is no "hate" towards women, only avoidance. Camarogue100 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Camarogue100, you were directed to the talkpage, which includes an FAQ on the term you keep trying to remove, along with extensive discussion. You should start there before just removing sourced content that you don't like. We'll leave aside the absence of required notifications to Black Kite and myself who have warned you for your conduct. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Where do I find the talk page? Camarogue100 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Camarogue100, I linked it for you in my comment above. Schazjmd (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Camarogue100's removal of material unfavorable to the subject with an edit summary of "typo" indicates to me that they are here to play games, not improve the encyclopedia. Any more disruption should result in an immediate block IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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 (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

"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 (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:29, 20 December 2024 (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. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (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". Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (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. Fram (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (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 |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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)? Silverseren^C 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Unsolicited revelations from Policynerd3212

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

---

Policynerd3212 (talk · contribs) came from sewiki to put this PA-laden vandalism on TylerBurden's user page. They shouldn't be here. Remsense ‥ 论 18:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Did they come from sewiki? This doesn't seem to be the first time they have interacted with TylerBurden, in fact, from just text searching their contributions it seems that they have interacted with TylerBurden many times before. That's for sure a personal attack, but I feel like you've summarized (whatever the situation is) incorrectly. – 2804:F1...74:E386 (::/32) (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I interpolated that from nothing, somehow. Thanks for catching. Remsense ‥ 论 18:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

They are essentially a WP:SPA that seems to show up sporadically to edit Sweden, as you can see they are very unhappy with anyone that opposes their changes regardless of policies cited and therefore resort to personal attacks. This time they didn't even try to edit the page, just went straight to "expose" me by sabotaging my user page (which has happened before). They have also been blocked for edit warring and just generally seem incapable of collaborating with others, convinced that anyone who disagrees with them is some evil social justice warrior that somehow has a "monopoly" on pages they wish to edit (in reality, multiple people just disagree with them, because they are not editing within Wikipedia guidelines and policy).

I thought maybe they had finally moved on since it had been longer than usual, but they are clearly not capable of letting go and the purpose now seems to be to attack me specifically. TylerBurden (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I think my false extrapolation was due to their most recent enwiki edit being in January, so my mind immediately tacked on an assumption to avoid finding laches on their part. Remsense ‥ 论 19:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Last year, Tyler told them to stop doing these kind of edits to his user page [54]. Clearly PN has no regard for that. My main question here though, who are they a WP:SPA of? Conyo14 (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Policynerd3212 for two years for personal attacks and harassment. That's an unusually long block, but Policynerd3212 had not edited previously for 11 months, so I think a block of that length is justified in this case. FYI Conyo14, "SPA" means "Single-purpose account" not "Sock puppet account. Cullen328 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Gracias! Conyo14 (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Augmented Seventh

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)

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)

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)

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)

43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 20 December 2024 (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? 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (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. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Editors should not blindly revert. They should be required to understand the guideleines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (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.

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)

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 ‥ 论 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. Remsense ‥ 论 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. 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". 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 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)

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 ‥ 论 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. 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. Conyo14 (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Excessive range block

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

---

Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 has been blocked for 3 years. For anyone unfamiliar please read User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64. You can also click on the contributions to see that this block affects editors literally all over the United States. I am not saying that no disruption ever came out of this range but this range is so massive it blocked countless editors who never did anything wrong trampling on the rights of far too many IP editors. Please unblock and in the future just block the 64. 2600:1012:B1AA:C837:B0E8:BE4F:395:C300 (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

And yet, since May there has only been a single unblock request, one which did not use the template so no one responded, doesn't seem like a lot of collateral. It's an anonymous only block, so accounts (created in other ranges) can be used to edit from that range without issue.

Secondly, this should probably be at WP:AN, or better yet the blocking admin's user talk page, as this is not an incident nor anything requiring urgent admin attention, seen as the block has been like that since May, and blocked for long lengths of time before that as well[55] with no apparent issue. – 2804:F1...74:E386 (::/32) (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Most IP editors don’t know how to submit an unblock request. And a new editor would be unable to create an account thanks to this block. We’ll never know how many would be wikipedians we lost. I don’t know why the fact that this range block is problematic needs to be explained. It affects way more people than the editor(s) they were trying to block. Literally the entire United States can fall on that range. 2600:1012:B1AA:C837:B0E8:BE4F:395:C300 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Most IP editors don’t know how to submit an unblock request. Right, that's factored into the calculation that only one request means there isn't a lot of collateral damage. If every editor that wanted one automatically filed one, a total of one filing wouldn't be small, but minuscule collateral. Remsense ‥ 论 21:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That doesn’t make any sense. If every editor that wanted one automatically filed one, we wouldn’t have a total of one filing. No one even responded to the unblock request, so we likely lost a would be wikipedian. The collateral damage is not small and can be minimized by blocking the 64 instead of a 40 range. There have been far too many editors that didn’t do anything wrong blocked. 174.243.177.85 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

We can't facilitate absolutely every case unfortunately. Every block might lose someone we could've known and loved in a perfect world. With experience, the evidence indicates that the trade-off here has been acceptable to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Remsense ‥ 论 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

No one has any "rights" to edit this website. 331dot (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This is actually a rather complicated subject. Firstly number of addresses ≠ number of affected users. Some very broad ranges are little used, some rather narrow ones are extremely busy. Secondly there's a tricky calculation involved with broad range blocks, but much as we want to limit collateral to as little as necessary, there are some extremely nasty sockmasters who have no qualms about abusing large ranges to their advantage, so that large rang-blocks really are the least bad option. As just one example the entire T-Mobile range has been repeatedly blocked. In fact blocks as wide as /29 are not as unreasonable as you may think.

Getting back to this specific case, it's a Verizon Business range, and it wouldn't surprise me if individual users floated within a /40 making the block of smaller subnets of less utility. I don't know all the specifics of why Widr blocked that range, but then again you don't either since you didn't ask them first which you really should have done before bringing this here. That range has in fact been repeatedly blocked including for BLP violations and sockpuppetry. Ideal? no. Least bad option? Almost certainly. Those are experienced sysops; I would trust their judgement. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI, OP is a block evader, latest socks here and here. Widr (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Figures, at least they were kind enough to bring their block-evasion to everyone's attention here; to the limited extent I have time available I'll try to keep an eye out. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocking a /64 on this IP range would be pointless. Admins can do blocks like this without disabling account creation, though. Unless there's logged-in disruption, such as the creation of sock puppets, vandals, or trolls, account creation can be left enabled on wide IP ranges like this. Personally, I'm not so sure that Mediawiki should make it so easy to perform range blocks. I think maybe there should be a user right required, like edit filter manager. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• I came across similar thoughts a few days ago. Because of bot reasons, and others, a lot of the times I am in incognito mode - without logged in. I often need to see the source. And all this time (in last 2-3 years), all of the time my IP/range was blocked with ACB. Is it possible to block the IP ranges only from mainspace? or something similar? —usernamekiran (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• This is, I think, a mobile network with dynamically assigned IP addresses. It may be necessary to block a range if there is disruption by people whose IP address change frequently within that range. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  regardless ISP (mobile/DSL/fibre or anything), the default IP system in India is dynamic. Static IPs are provided upon request, which are done only by hosting service providers and similar people. So it is safe to say that 99.9 home users/individual in India have dynamic IP address which change a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 is in the United States, not India. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  I believe Usernamekiran was referring to their own experience mentioned in their first comment rather than this specific case. Regardless, this thread was started in bad-faith by a sockmaster unhappy their favorite range was blocked and should now be closed. If I hadn't already involved myself by weighing in here I would have done so already. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think this is a sockmaster that is just unhappy with Widr in general, seeing the accounts Widr mentioned - may or may not make this report an attempt at harassment.

  Should be closed either way. Also on you closing it, IPs shouldn't really close threads, even when uninvolved - reverting a sock's unresponded post is probably the most an IP might do, closing just shouldn't happen. – 2804:F1...A7:86CC (::/32) (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  There is, or perhaps was the last decade or so has been a bit of a blur, a complex etiquette governing such closes, but if sentiment has turned entirely against them that would be news to me. At one point I might have ventured on essay on that and other many other facets of unregistered etiquette, but now I don't have the time and would probably just wind-up dating myself badly anyway. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j

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

---

The user Rereiw82wi2j was blocked for blanking talk page discussions. They were removing discussions they participated in with an now-vanished account, for the purpose of removing their username from the talk page(which isn't removed via a vanishing). I believe that per WP:VANISH their vanishing needs to be reversed, am I correct? Do they need to be asked to resume using that account?(if they can) 331dot (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems to need reverting because with their previous account, they only edited one article/talk page and when asked what articles they wanted to edit with their new account, they just mention this same article. That violates the entire principle of a clean start account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Could we revoke TPA per this? ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

User has created another account Human82. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Also now blocked. GiantSnowman 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

There's also User:ResearchAbility now. win8x (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by PhilKnight. GiantSnowman 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2

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)

there is wrong information on the article shia in iraq

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

---

in this article the editor saying that the shea in iraq 65% and Sunni in iraq is 25-30% this is totally wrong statement in Iraq we never have census established based on sect all the census was established based on Male and female please see the reference below, please remove this false information and corrected, wekepedia shouldn't publish Article backed by weak source the, the editor used the world factbook that belong to CIA , i cant believe this, how the hell that the CIA conducted a Census overseas and get the number of Sunni and Shia people in Iraq, this is the same fake information that the CIA told the world that Iraq have mass destruction weapon which leaded to occupied Iraq, so please edit and remove these false info . below are links showing Iraq Census database showing all the Census that been conducted since 1950 till 2024, was based on male and female never have Census based on Sect.

https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population/iraq?year=1978 https://www.populationpyramid.net/iraq/1978/ https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/IRQ/iraq/population https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/iraq-population/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iraq-hold-first-nationwide-census-since-1987-2024-11-19/ https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2024-11-25/iraqs-population-reaches-45-4-million-in-first-census-in-over-30-years https://cosit.gov.iq/ar/62arabic-cat/indicators/174-population-2?jsn_setmobile=no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeman7373 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Freeman7373. This noticeboard does not resolve content disputes. Please discuss your concerns at Talk:Shia Islam in Iraq. That being said, estimates of religious affiliation do not require an official census. The CIA World Factbook is considered a reliable source for this type of information, as is the United States Institute of Peace which is also cited. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

how you gave population rate based on sect without Census, what you said doesn't make any sense and showing the ignorance, your CIA is not a reliable source they lied about the mass destruction weapon in IRAQ which leaded to the occupation and many people died from both side , i know people life doesn't mean anything to the evil side, so this is one example of your reliable source. see links below

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/03/the-iraq-invasion-20-years-later-it-was-indeed-a-big-lie-that-launched-the-catastrophic-war/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-fresh-wmd-claims

https://www.quora.com/Was-the-CIA-dumb-to-conclude-that-Iraq-has-WMDs

Shame on your reliable source 2603:8080:2602:2000:34F5:E43C:C23B:E584 (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Quora isn't reliable, and please be civil. E_F⁵ 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent

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

---

MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent (talk · contribs) has been warned by several users about their improper short descriptions but has not changed their behavior.[56][57] It unfortunately appears to be a competence issue. Remsense ‥ 论 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they just committed to stopping. I'd be inclined to take a wait and see approach here. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Remsense ‥ 论 02:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Consistent unsourced changes by IP 2604:2D80:E283:4400:6966:1764:DC7C:6329

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

---

2604:2D80:E283:4400:6966:1764:DC7C:6329 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been changing composer fields across various movie articles with no sources. All of them have been plain wrong. Kline • talk • contribs 01:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: The user has persisted after I issued a level 4 final warning for continued deliberate insertion of incorrect information on the user's talk page Yutah¹²³|UPage|(talk)✶ 02:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be purely an AIV issue - especially since it's an unregistered user. Synorem (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Good timing, I've opened a report on AIV just a few minutes ago Yutah¹²³|UPage|(talk)✶ 02:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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 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)

User:Michael.C.Wright? 173.22.12.194 (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me. I'm sending this to SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

SPI says unrelated, so might just be generic disruption. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 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. Tikitorch2 (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64

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

---

2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued after block expired. /64 has previously been blocked on December 8th for a week due to "Persistent unsourced genre changes", and 2 weeks on September 7th due to addition of unsourced content. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing Movement for Democracy

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

---

User:Hellenic Rebel has been trying for about a month now to put across his own opinion about the party' infobox. An opinion which he cannot back up with any source whatsoever. Although it has been pointed out to him by both the user Rambling Rambler and me, continues the disruptive editing. Ιt is worth noting that although other users made the same "mistake", when the lack of sources to support the addition was pointed out to them, they accepted it and did not continue to try to pass on their own opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Movement_for_Democracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Disruptive_editing....again

diff1 diff2

diff3 130.43.66.82 (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Since discussing the issue on article talk has not worked, please follow dispute resolution processes, such as seeking guidance at WT:GREECE or WT:POLITICS, or going to WP:DRN. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts taking a look because I've been tagged. While there may be content elements to it I think this has gone into a behavioural issue, namely due to it being a user actively edit warring without providing sources but instead endlessly insisting on edits that are entirely WP:OR. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not a problem of content but of behaviour. His claim is original research, is his own conclusion and is not verified by any source. He knows it, has admitted it, and yet he insists on adding it. 130.43.66.82 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

(nac) Movement for Democracy is a moderately stable DAB page, with which I have been involved. I assume this dispute relates to Movement for Democracy (Greece). Narky Blert (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks

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

---

• 166.181.224.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear/Archive

Using the IP range Special:Contributions/166.181.224.0/19, Sugar Bear has returned to Wikipedia to disrupt film and music articles. After I recognized this fact and began reverting him, Sugar Bear began a campaign of personal attacks at my talk page, using the IP Special:Contributions/166.181.250.216. Can we get a rangeblock?

There's a decade-plus history of this vandal attacking me, for instance his creation of the username Banksternet. I can spot his contributions quite easily by now. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

.I've blocked the current IP, I may not have time to properly investigate the range right now. Acroterion (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:

• Special:Contributions/166.182.84.172 was blocked in 2018 and 2019.
• Special:Contributions/166.182.80.0/21 was blocked in 2018 for one month.
• Special:Contributions/166.181.254.122 was blocked in 2020, identifying Sugar Bear.
• Special:Contributions/166.181.253.26 was blocked twice in 2020 for personal attacks.
• Special:Contributions/166.182.0.0/16 was rangeblocked in 2023 for three years. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the current /24 for two weeks, but I see a lot of potential for collateral damage for longer or broader blocks. Acroterion (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments by Locke Cole

Involved: Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) So I honestly think we should both receive a (24 hr) block for our behavior, but bringing it here for that to happen. This started when I posted a list of "keep" votes with no rationale at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 21. Comments made by Locke Cole in response to the list include:

• Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost.

I replied to this with What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF.

• Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot.

And I replied to this one with Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV.

This user has a long history of behavioral blocks, including six civility blocks over a span of nine years. Since this behavior clearly won't be getting better, bringing it here. It's up to y'all to decide if a BOOMERANG should happen, if we should both be blocked, or only one party gets the [block] hammer. :) E_F⁵ 02:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the cited comments are in themselves enough to justify a block. I also note that LC has recently suffered a personal loss. Speaking from experience, I can state that when in deep mourning we are not always at our best. That said, I find LC's block log disturbing.-Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from Cancer of unknown primary origin in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. E_F⁵ 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

bolding policies I've added at the end - I'll just note that every one of the "policies" you linked to (bar WP:ABF, where I'm pretty sure you wanted WP:AGF) goes to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Which is very useful and well-thought-out, and by all means should be used as a tool at AfD, but is not policy. It's an essay on policy. There's a difference. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay then, per that I've removed the list. The comments still stand though. E_F⁵ 03:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• So the OP wants themselves and the other party to receive blocks for incivility? Why don't you just stop being rude to each other? Change your own behavior. Opening this discussion is just drawing attention to a few comments that otherwise would have likely been forgotten. I don't see how this post helps the situation at all. Just do better. And if Locke Cole comes to this discussion, I pray this doesn't devolve into bickering. Let's all just get back to editing productively and not taking shots at each other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t know, maybe I just thought it’d continue and brought it here, likely too early. Is it possible to close this? E_F⁵ 13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

From what I read from the DRV, it definitely seemed like it got heated, but it definitely seemed to cool down. Trouts for sure, but I don't see why blocks are necessary. As for you, given that you're asking to be punished, you seem to recognize what you did wrong, and you pledge to not continue this behavior. Just change your password for a day or a week and change it back later; I don't think admin intervention is necessarily warranted. guninvalid (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. guninvalid (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

User talk:International Space Station0

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)

It's a WP:DUCK, and I just reported to AIV. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

• This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 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? – 2804:F1...A7:86CC (::/32) (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. 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 I'm not going to try!). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

POV IP editor and 2024 Kobani clashes

This this IP address engages in BLP and POV pushing with things like this 1 and this 2, and then edit warring and then makes personal attacks like this 3, in a source documenting casualties for all of December instead of the specific date, and then when he is reverted by another editor respond with this. I believe this person is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and also the 2024 Kobani clashes article should potentially be given semi-protection status as it's part of the Syrian Civil War which has discretionary sanctions. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh also this. Des Vallee (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Promotional content about Elvenking (band)

I noticed a consistent addition of promotional content about an apparently unencyclopedic band, namely Elvenking (band), with articles being also dedicated to each band member (eg. Aydan Baston and Damnagoras) and their unsold discography, which also got a dedicated template ({{Elvenking}}). I also noticed a weird pattern by User:Elvenlegions, which appears to be either a very big fan or in conflict of interests, as well as other accounts apparently created just to support the band (eg. User:Neverbuilt2last). — Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I am indeed a big fan of the band and am trying to update the band's wikipedia information to make it as accurate as possible so people can learn about the band. I hope this helps support the band and also helps wikipedia readers and users who wish to learn more about the band. Elvenlegions (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• If these musicians are not notable, you can always tag the articles CSD A7. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Understood, Elvenlegions, but Wikipedia is not a webhost or a promotional site. If the band, nor its members, nor its discography qualify as notable under the standards we set for musical notability, then the band's fans will have to learn about it elsewhere. Ravenswing 07:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editor on When the Pawn...

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. [58] [59] 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. [60] I do not believe this editor is going to cooperate. [61] Pillowdelight (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Bunch of racist IPs/account

Article: Anti-Turkish sentiment

• GREEKMASTER7281 (talk · contribs)
• 112.202.57.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 186.154.62.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Beshogur (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Named account indeffed, IPs blocked for 72 hours each. GiantSnowman 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)