Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Sharnadd (talk | contribs)
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
<!-- Adds protection template automatically if page is semi-protected, inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. --><noinclude>{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}</noinclude>__NEWSECTIONLINK__
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 800K
|maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 919
|counter = 1173
|algo = old(72h)
|algo = old(72h)
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|headerlevel=2
}}
}}
{{stack end}}
<!--
<!--
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
|archiveprefix=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive
|format=%%i
|age=72
|index=no
|numberstart=826
|archivenow={{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
|minarchthreads= 1
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 7
|key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505c0c
}} --><!--
-----------------------------------------------------------
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
----------------------------------------------------------
As this page concerns INCIDENTS:
Place the PAGENAME of the incident in the header.
Otherwise, if the notice is about the actions of an individual across several pages, then place the USERNAME of the individual in the header.
----------------------------------------------------------
Do not place links in the section headers.
(Immediately UNDER the header is preferred).
----------------------------------------------------------
Entries may be refactored based on the above.
------------------------------------------------------------>


== Personal attacks on article talk pages (Crimea annexation, Aleksandr Dugin) ==


== [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]]'s disruptive behaviour at the recent [[Talk:Australia]] RfC ==
In a current discussion with myself and others at [[Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation]], [[User:Iryna Harpy]] made a post {{Diff|Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation|711323672|711314413}} which said very little about specific content questions, but instead accused several other WP users — [[User:Tobby72]], [[User:Haberstr]], and [[User:Moscow Connection]] — of ''' "POV pushing" ''', ''' "disruptive editing" ''', and presenting arguments with ''' "no good faith" '''.


[[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] is a generally constructive editor with a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and code of conduct, but they show a lack of restraint when it comes to (perceived or actual) ideological differences and are prone to lashing out against other editors. Brusquedandelion has previously been brought to AN/I for [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149#Talk:Alexei_Navalny|exactly that reason]] and continued to do so briefly on their talk page after the AN/I notice. They have recently engaged in similar conduct at the recent [[Talk:Australia#RFC:_Should_the_article_state_that_Indigenous_Australians_were_victims_of_genocide?|Talk:Australia RfC]], and that behaviour is my reason for creating this.
I contacted Iryna about this on her user page, sending copies to each of the users she had named {{Diff|User Talk:Iryna Harpy|711528437|711460716}}. Iryna's response was that she found my message "bizarre", she said I was using her user talk page to bully her, and she asked me not to message her user talk page again, except to notify her of a formal complaint. She did however clarify that she does not think Moscow Connection had engaged in disruptive editing or had lacked good faith, though she does think Moscow Connection had pushed POV. She regards her comments about the other two WP users, Tobby72 and Haberstr, as "legitimate criticism". {{Diff|User Talk:Iryna Harpy|711612915|711528437}}


The RfC was started by [[User:OntologicalTree|OntologicalTree]], a confirmed sockpuppet of [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KlayCax|KlayCax]]. OT was blocked one week ago from today, so the RfC was able to run its course. Brusquedandelion was quite disruptive and less than civil throughout the RfC, [[WP:BLUD|bludgeoning]] the process and throwing [[WP:personal attacks|personal attacks]] at every reply to the RfC that supported or discussed anything directly contrary to OT's proposed option (myself included).
I noticed a more extreme though less recent personal attack by Iryna Harpy on [[Talk:Aleksandr_Dugin]] (a somewhat related topic). There she accused another WP user of putting ''' "pineapples up his arse, leafy side up, just to get his juices flowing" '''. {{Diff|Talk:Aleksandr Dugin|647509276|647178622}} Iryna made that comment about 12 months ago, and it is still on that talk page right now (22:21, 22 March 2016) {{Diff|Talk:Aleksandr Dugin|711440398}}, it hasn't been removed or archived, although it is at present in a collapsable/expandable box.


Talk:Australia diffs:<br>
Iryna is an experienced WP editor, who should know better than to misuse article talk pages in this way. Her actions suggest to me that she has a strong sense of [[WP:OWNERSHIP]] in relation to these pages, and wants to push away users who have different views regarding their content. Whatever her motive, the personal attacks she makes are not appropriate for article talk pages, because they don't contribute to civil content discussion. [Highlighting added March 25]. [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 02:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=prev&oldid=1256440449 "Please tell us what your ''actual'' objection is rather than using word count as a shield."]<br>
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=prev&oldid=1256441451 "It would be more honest if you just tell us what your actual objection is... It helps no one to hide your actual beliefs like this."]<br>
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=prev&oldid=1256444387 "The best possible faith interpretation of multiple people not even bothering to mention the g-word in their votes is that they are simply unable to grasp basic reading comprehension."]<br>
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=prev&oldid=1255487670 "Your claim that {{tq|this in an encyclopaedic article, not a political tract}} reveals your true intentions, for your edit is entirely political in nature; you just believe your own politics are neutral, much as fish doubt the existence of water."]<br>
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=prev&oldid=1256502479 "Fortunately, not one of the proposed options states that {{tq|colonialism constituted terrorism, ethnocide, and genocide}}. Please remember that on Wikipedia, WP:COMPETENCY IN reading comprehension is strictly required."]<br>
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=prev&oldid=1256507015 "If you haven't actually done the survey you suggest others do, why do you feel so confident voting on a matter you are have professes your own ignorance own? Remember, WP:COMPETENCE IS REQUIRED."]<br>
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=prev&oldid=1256503763 "And may I remind you, one of the handwringers have straight up admitted to having a conflict of interest on this subject, due to nationalist sentiments and grievance politics. Odd that it is me you are dressing down, and not them, when their comments are against the spirit of letter of at least half a dozen Wikipedia policies."]<br>
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=prev&oldid=1256451290 "I have generally not reiterated my own viewpoints in different places, only made different viewpoints in multiple places. The fact that multiple people tried to bludgeon this discourse by handwringing about word count rather than getting to the crux of the issue merits being pointed out."]


This report is already getting quite long, so I'll leave it at this for now. [[User:Sirocco745|Sirocco745]] ([[User talk:Sirocco745|talk]]) 01:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:Those aren't "personal attacks", those are fairly accurate descriptions of these editors' editing practices. Tobby72 in particular has been driving people crazy with his slow motion edit war and attempts to insert text into these articles against consensus which has been going on for something like a year now.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 02:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
:I agree that @[[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] has engaged in [[WP:battleground|battleground]] behavior and engaged in [[WP:PA|personal attacks]]. Because they are otherwise a constructive editor, I propose a three-month [[WP:TBAN|topic ban]] from all edits related to colonialism and genocide, broadly construed. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 02:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*This section is a nonsense, and should be closed. Iryna is one of the few good faith editors capable of dealing with these articles. She might get frustrated sometimes, but that's a common feature to us all. Furthermore, if one is confronted by the type of disruption that is evident in this very AN/I thread, which is rooted in canvassing, one will inevitably let one's lips slip from time to time. Please shut this thread. [[User:RGloucester|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:12pt;color:#000000">RGloucester </span>]] — [[User talk:RGloucester|☎]] 02:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
::I support this proposal. While Brusquedandelion is a capable, competent, and generally constructive editor, they have demonstrated their inability to remain civil while discussing topics of colonialism and genocide, and I believe their efforts would be best focused outside of these topics for a while. Having strong feelings on a topic is not necessarily bad in of itself, but it's how those feelings manifest themselves through the person's actions that can cause problems. [[User:Sirocco745|Sirocco745]] ([[User talk:Sirocco745|talk]]) 02:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::In the thread, you stated that you are {{tq|sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity.}} It's pretty clear from this comment that you are unable to maintain a position of objectivity on topics relating to "colonialism and genocide." Or perhaps only ones relating to Australia, I don't know. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 09:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::If a comment like {{tq|Option 1 has a clear agenda to push, and I am sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity}} is not indicative of a battleground mentality by someone who is quite possibly [[WP:NOTHERE]], what is? This comment was made by @[[User:Sirocco745|Sirocco745]] who filed this report. They are clearly motivated by some sort of grievance politics (of a racial nature) by their own admission. They followed this up by admitting that I could, if I wanted, {{tq|call me out on a WP:COI if you really wanted to, and you may be justified in doing so.}} Their words!
::You might feel my response was heavy-handed. Ok. But note that per the usual rules and conventions of an ANI post, a reporter's own conduct is also subject to scrutiny. Did you not read the thread, or did you not think this was worthy of taking into account? [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 09:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:It looks to me that all of their edits happening on [[Talk:Australia]] by Brusquedandelion occurred on Nov. 9th and haven't continued since. Have there been any personal attacks since that date or that have spilled over to other articles or talk pages? Of course, personal attacks are not acceptable but before imposing a wide-ranging topic ban, I'd like to see if this is an isolated incident on this one day in this one discussion on this one talk page or are occurring more broadly. I also would like to hear from Brusquedandelion on this matter for their point of view. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::No, nothing since then. They made four more replies on the RfC after being politely but firmly asked to reign it in by @[[User:Moxy|Moxy]] and @[[User:Aemilius Adolphin|Aemilius Adolphin]] at this reply [[Talk:Australia#c-Moxy-20241110000800-Aemilius_Adolphin-20241108100100|here]]. The discourse hasn't bled out of the RfC/talk page, and they've been relatively quiet for the past two weeks. <br>
::Only thing I can think of that could count would be Brusque replying to my original attempt at settling this without needing to bring it to a noticeboard. They previously said I sounded like I was [[Talk:Australia#c-Brusquedandelion-20241109235300-Sirocco745-20241108073000|"channeling the spirit of Cecil Rhodes"]] on the RfC, and when I mentioned this in my original notification, their only response was to link Cecil Rhodes's article. Reply found [[User_talk:Brusquedandelion#c-Brusquedandelion-20241125084200-Sirocco745-20241110032300|here]]. Passive-aggressive? Maybe. Worth counting as further discourse outside of the RfC? Not really. [[User:Sirocco745|Sirocco745]] ([[User talk:Sirocco745|talk]]) 03:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Thinking a stern warning and explanation of the community norms..... unless there's some sort of pattern of behavior here? It's a contentious topic.... that many people feel has a tone of racism involved. Just need to explain they need to tone it down. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 03:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::I would also like to raise an issue of possible canvassing. I was going to leave a message on @[[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]]'s talk page about their behaviour when the ruckus started when I found this odd message. It looks like someone was alerting them to the discussion on the Australia talk page and feeding them with talking points.https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brusquedandelion&diff=prev&oldid=1255261107 [[User:Aemilius Adolphin|Aemilius Adolphin]] ([[User talk:Aemilius Adolphin|talk]]) 04:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::That was also KlayCax. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 05:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::It looks like the sockpuppet [[User:DerApfelZeit]] went around to a lot of articles in contentious areas and then to user talk pages, trying to stir things up. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::To be clear, I did not asked to be canvassed. I don't know this person, and given they're banned already I am unsure what the relevance is here. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 09:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::The relevance, Brusquedandelion, was the consideration that maybe their comments provoked your response on the article talk page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::This is correct, for better or for worse. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 05:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


:OP has posted a bunch of comments above, but the actual reason they are reporting me is because of my comment comparing their views to those of Cecil Rhodes. They didn't feel the need to file this report until they posted on my page, including a comment about how they don't know who Rhodes was. I replied only with a link to his Wikipedia page. In a sense, this is probably their strongest case against me, so I am not sure why they didn't mention it in the original post. Perhaps it has to do with the ''reason'' I invoked this comparison: OP made a vile series of remarks about aboriginal Australians in which they referred to them and their culture as uncivilized, that one can't trust a treaty signed with non-English speaking indigenous peoples, and that hunter gatherer peoples are not worthy of political or moral consideration. These are all sentiments Cecil Rhodes would have affirmed. Perhaps this qualifies as a personal attack by the letter of the law here at Wikipedia, but talking about Aboriginal Australians this way is against upwards of half a dozen Wikipedia policies. OP will claim, as they did at my page, that I am casting aspersions, but they have actually explicitly admitted they are motivated by racial grievance politics; more on this point later. First, OP's comment that resulted in the comparison, for the record:
::RGloucester, you say Iryna is ''' "one of the few good faith editors capable of dealing with these articles" '''. What does your comment say about the others who have tried to deal with the articles, either by making edits or by commenting on the talk pages? Is Wikipedia still "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"? Or is it now "the encyclopedia which only a few good faith editors are capable of dealing with"? [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 20:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
:{{quote|the problem is that prior to settlement, the Indigenous peoples of Australia had zero form of officially Th government or judicial system amongst themselves because of the nomadic and kinship-centric nature of their tribes. Additionally, the Indigenous peoples didn't speak English and operated on a significantly different culture to the rest of the civilised world at the time. No centralized governing body means the British had no legal entity to formalize an agreement with, and the cultural differences and physical distance between the various groups and territories of Indigenous peoples meant that even if the British were to create a blanket legal structure for them, they had no guarantee that the terms of such would be satisfactory or even followed by the various groups.}}
:Anyone familiar with the official justifications for colonial policies, past and present, will hear their echo here. The fairly explicit claim that the aboriginals are uncivilized is the most egregious remark here, but the entire comment is rooted in a view of indigenous peoples that belongs to 19th century British imperialists, not on Wikipedia. These ideas about native peoples (in Australia and elsewhere) have been summarily refuted in the scholarly literature on this subject, but regrettably despite their repugnance they persist in popular culture in many nations. If any admin feels I need to back up this claim with sources, I will oblige, as fundamentally grim as it is that such views even need to be debunked.
:Some further comments from OP:
:{{quote|The entire paragraph is thick with the negative connotations so common in degradation of foreign colonization and this era of historical hindsight apologetics. Easily fails [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:WEIGHT]].}}
:Apparently, it is NPOV to take a dim view of colonization. Does OP have a favorable view of colonialism, in particular in the Australian context? A question left for the reader.
:Finally, OP is manifestly, by their own admission in the thread, motivated by a politics of racial grievance. First, they tell us that {{tq|As a fourth generation Australian, I am personally sick of the rhetoric that OntologicalTree is trying to have accepted.}} Make no mistake, this issue is personal, and OP has found their [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. Then they inform us:
:{{quote|Option 1 has a clear agenda to push, and I am sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity. Yeah, you could call me out on a [[WP:COI]] if you really wanted to, and you may be justified in doing so.}}
:These comments speak for themselves, since OP is themself admitting their prejudices. Even if OP were right ("Australian whites and their colonization of the country have been unjustly vilified" etc. etc.), this just isn't the website for it; see ''inter alia'' [[WP:RGW]] and [[WP:NOTAFORUM]].
:Returning to what OP has quoted above, the vast majority of my alleged bludgeoning consists of reminding people what the ''substantive'' issue at stake is: whether to classify these events as genocide. The RFC was somewhat poorly worded, unfortunately, but there's not much to do about that now. The effect was that a number of replies did not explicitly admit a stance on the core issue, but nevertheless voted against the use of the "genocide" label.
:I would prefer a straightforward discussion of the merits, or lack thereof, of the use of this word. It would have made the RFC much more productive. A number of people essentially dodged the core issue on their vote altogether, and I thought this merited being pointed out. I admit I was strident, but I don't think any of my comments about this issue were especially uncivil. I also removed myself from the discussion as soon as people said I was commenting too much. I didn't feel need the need to continue this on anyone's talk page nor over here at ANI.
:OP did, however, likely expecting an apology when they posted to my talk page, and reporting me when none was forthcoming. So:
:I apologize for my stridency to the community at large. I will make an effort to regulate my tone in future discussions. I do not feel this thread is representative of my general conduct here, and I will certainly make an effort to not let it be the standard I set for my comments in future discussions. I was frustrated by an apparent refusal by certain folks to actually discuss the core issue, but there are more skillful ways I could have gone about this. And I was especially frustrated by certain comments, in particular those of OP, that affirm colonial stereotypes and ideologies.
:I do not feel an apology is owed to OP until such time as they own up to the racism of their remarks. With regards to possible sanctions, I don't see how you can argue my criticizing OP's racism, even if I had been ten thousand times ruder about it, would be less civil or worse for Wikipedia's project as a whole than OP's remarks about aboriginal Australians, motivated as they are by racial grievance politics, per their own confession. Said confession also seems like a much stronger argument for a topic ban in particular, compared to anything I have said, since they have admitted an inability to retain neutrality in such discussions, as well as a particularly noxious reason for that inability—though I am only bringing this up since OP themself has asked for this sanction against me. Personally I only hope that OP realizes why such comments are unacceptable, that no one is witch-hunting him or his people, and that such ideologies have no place here anyways. It seems they are otherwise a constructive editor, and if they are able to make a good faith acknowledgement of this lapse, I wouldn't see any need for sanctions against them personally. Of course, all of this is up to the admins. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 10:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::{{replyto|Brusquedandelion}} you've accused someone of racism. Please provide diffs or quickly withdraw your claim, or expect to be blocked for a serious personal attack. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 15:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Did you not read my comment? It has verbatim quotes that can be found in the linked discussion ([[Talk:Australia]]); as far as I can tell, nothing has been edited or archived. Are you an admin and if so is this a formal request for a diff specifically? Because if not please do not go around threatening people with blocks for not providing information they already provided. I am really quite busy today, but if an administrator is formally making this request, I will oblige. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 15:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::You always need to provide diffs when you make such allegations, whether asked to or not. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 16:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::This is why diffs are important, as they provide context. The first two quotes come from [[Special:Diff/1256110239|Diff 1]], and the last quote comes from [[Special:Diff/1256447331|Diff 2]]. I'm no expert, but statements like {{tq|q=y|I certainly don't approve of what happened back then, and I will openly admit that I am not proud of the racism that Australia was built on. I agree that they committed a large number of atrocities and that there is much work to be done to repair the damage done.}} (Diff 2) do not sound to me like racism. In context, I get the impression of trying to preserve historical context, not proving the {{tq|q=y|OP's racism}} alleged by BD above.
:::::Diff 1 provides an explaination for why the British did not negotiate with the natives and, even there, their words very much acknowledged that the actions were unjust. (See {{tq|q=y|The British did falsely claim ''terra nullius''...}} in Diff 1). I also was unable to find any mention of the statement BD put in quotes as "Australian whites and their colonization of the country have been unjustly vilified" on the talk page; I presume these were scare quotes.
:::::If there is missing context or background, BD would be well-advised to provide it. Most of us are laypersons and will likely miss more subtle types of racism, if that is what is alleged. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 17:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{quote|This is why diffs are important, as they provide context.}}
::::::The discussion as it stands provides all the context the diffs do, as nothing has been deleted.
::::::{{quote|(Diff 2) do not sound to me like racism.}}
::::::Providing an example of a not-racist comment is not a refutation of any racist comments that were also made. Given you were just enjoining us to value the context of the interaction: it is a common strategy for people to preemptively hedge before making an unsavory statement, but the very fact of this statement ''in the context of'' the subsequent unsavory statement only reinforces, and does not mitigate, the nature of the statement that follows, since it implies at least some awareness that the commenter understood their subsequent comments could be seen in a certain light and thus felt the need to clarify. "I'm not racist but..." has never been followed by a not-racist statement in the history of the English language.
::::::That said their hedge is not exactly the same as "I'm not racist but...". In principle it could have been followed by a relevant, reasoned, evidence-based, and non-prejudicial explanation for why the proposed RFC should resolve one way or another. Instead the commenter chose to grandstand about perceived slights against white Australians and uncritically regurgitate certain views and dogmas of the British Empire.
::::::{{quote|Diff 1 provides an explaination for why the British did not negotiate with the natives and, even there, their words very much acknowledged that the actions were unjust. (See The British did falsely claim terra nullius... in Diff 1).}}
::::::The portion of the "explanation" that comes after {{tq|The British did falsely claim ''terra nullius''...}} is an uncritical parroting of the British imperial view of native Australians. The very fact that they ''do'' reject the ''terra nullius'' argument, but not the subsequent ones, indicates these are views they actually hold or at least held in that particular moment in the context of an RFC that they felt challenged their national pride. I understand such feelings may be fluid and encourage Sirocco to reflect on them.
::::::{{quote|I presume these were scare quotes}}
::::::It is a brief summary of their multiple comments that make that point in more words, which I already quoted and did not want to copy again, for reasons of length and redudancy. Given the context of the RFC, do you feel this is an ''inaccurate'' summary of those comments, copied again below for your convenience?
::::::{{quote|The entire paragraph is thick with the negative connotations so common in degradation of foreign colonization and this era of historical hindsight apologetics. Easily fails WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.}}
::::::{{quote|Option 1 has a clear agenda to push, and I am sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity. Yeah, you could call me out on a WP:COI if you really wanted to, and you may be justified in doing so.}} [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 05:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I have already admitted that I conducted myself poorly in the RfC and that my comments/suggestions were driven by my own feelings on the topic in combination with what I already knew about the topic (or at least, what I thought to be true).
:::::::<br>
:::::::{{tq|Instead the commenter chose to grandstand about perceived slights against white Australians and uncritically regurgitate certain views and dogmas of the British Empire.}} First off, when writing or talking in a conversational tone, I generally don't criticize or exalt the subject until after I have explained what I know. I later stated my opinion on the subject in the RfC, being that the British's acts against the Indigenous Australians were undeniably racist and wrong in every definition of the word. I do not feel the need to apologize for the acts perpetrated by those settlers; I am not descended from them, only tangentially associated by merit of nationality. I am more annoyed that our government focuses on saying sorry all the time instead of proving sorry by taking actual action to support Indigenous families and communities, and it is this political apologetic rhetoric that I am tired of seeing and hearing on a weekly basis.
:::::::<br>
:::::::The "white" part of "perceived slights against white Australians" definitely isn't correct either. Australia is a country where you could walk past the entire skin colour spectrum on your way to work every day and not think twice about it, and this peaceful co-existence of cultures is something I am very grateful for here. The "perceived slights" part though? Personally, being told on a weekly basis by the government that "the land you live, work and study on doesn't belong to you and it's our fault as a nation that it doesn't belong to the Aboriginal people anymore" doesn't make me feel very welcome in the country I was born and live in.
:::::::<br>
:::::::Regardless, let's get back to the subject at hand, that being <b>your</b> behaviour. You can create a separate AN/I thread if you wish to discuss my personal conduct, but I started this one because, as shown in the diffs of my original post here, you were consistently not assuming good faith and bludgeoning the RfC by replying to almost every comment left by other users that didn't align with what you deemed to be the correct manner, not to mention the personal attacks. The point of an RfC is to draw the attention of uninvolved editors to a discussion with the hope that they will contribute constructively by providing new voices and second opinions to the conversation. Whether you see it this way or not, the general consensus of this thread so far is that you disrupted the RfC and have demonstrated a pattern of using personal attacks when disagreeing with other editors. Please try to stick to the topic of this thread, which is your behaviour. [[User:Sirocco745|Sirocco745]] ([[User talk:Sirocco745|talk]]) 04:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You seem to be fixated on an uncharitable interpretation of Sirocco's comments. You've pointed out that one not-racist comment doesn't mean the person isn't racist, but in my view, you've failed to demonstrate racism in the first place. I do not believe your scare-quoted passage is an accurate summary, no. Similarly, I do not feel that, just because colonizers used something as an excuse, means it is inherently racist or untrue. I can see where you're coming from that it could be, but I also don't believe it's the only interpretation, and we're supposed to [[WP:AGF]]. Since this is a matter of judgement, I hope other editors will chime in to give a broader representation of the community either way, not just me saying, "Meh, I don't see it". [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 14:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::I may have come off as confrontational with my comments in the RfC, and I apologize for that. I have always accepted that Wikipedia is not the place to air personal or political grievances and have done my best to keep to that policy, but I slipped when replying to the RfC. My motto is "don't let your motive be your message", but I forgot to keep my personal feelings out of the discussion this time.
::<br>
::First up though, the reason why some of my comments were {{tq| rooted in a view of indigenous peoples that belongs to 19th century British imperialists}} is because I was '''presenting''' the views of 19th century British imperialists. These views are horribly outdated and illogical based in emotional fallacy, but because I was (probably over)explaining the racist reasonings the British justified their actions with, many of my comments in the RfC could be used to support BD's claim of racism when taken out of context.
::<br>
::In hindsight, {{tq|"The entire paragraph is thick with the negative connotations so common in degradation of foreign colonization and this era of historical hindsight apologetics. Easily fails [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:WEIGHT]]"}} wasn't the best way to word my disproval of Option 1. In relation to the RfC, Option 1's rhetoric is that the wounds are still fresh. The problem is that while the damage is still felt, the wounds themselves aren't really fresh at all; Option 1 covers almost 200 years worth of events in a single paragraph and insinuates that they all happened at/around the same time. This is why I pushed against Option 1 and explained British actions and motives.
::<br>
::@[[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]], I would also like to deny your claim that I started this AN/I thread because of your actions against me specifically. I assume that you've read the opening sentences of [[WP:ASPERSIONS]], since I included it in my initial attempt at reaching out.
::{{tq|"On Wikipedia, casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe. Because a persistent pattern of false or unsupported allegations can be highly damaging to a collaborative editing environment, such accusations will be collectively considered a personal attack."}}
::The large number of diffs that show you being uncivil towards multiple editors in the RfC were always going to be the reason this came to AN/I, not your comments against me. [[User:Sirocco745|Sirocco745]] ([[User talk:Sirocco745|talk]]) 23:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I will respond to this in the next few days, not later than Tuesday 00:00 UTC; it is a holiday weekend here in my country and my time is very limited. '''If at all possible I ask the administrators not to resolve this thread until that time''' (''unless'' this is going to be a nothingburger of zero sanctions all round, in which case, please resolve posthaste''').
:::One preliminary comment about the most relevant portion of your comment: if you were simply explaining what the views of the British were, and not agreeing with them, you would have told us so, as you did ''literally in the prior sentence'': {{tq|The British did falsely claim ''terra nullius'' by legally declaring the Indigenous peoples as "fauna" so they could invalidate Britain's first requirement for occupation, which was that if there was an existing population, Indigenous or otherwise, land should only be obtained through negotiation.}} No such claims are made in any of your other comments. In fact, those comments are themselves placed after a {{tq|However}} separating that last sentence from the rest of the claims you assert in authorial voice, implying the ''function'' of the subsequent comments is to provide objective, evidence-based, non-prejudicial reasons why negotiation would have been impossible anyways, so the whole ''terra nullius'' dogma was merely the British doing their best under unfortunate circumstances. Indeed this is exactly what the concluding remark of the paragraph all but states, to leave no room for confusion as to OP's point: {{tq|No centralized governing body means the British had no legal entity to formalize an agreement with, and the cultural differences and physical distance between the various groups and territories of Indigenous peoples meant that even if the British were to create a blanket legal structure for them, they had no guarantee that the terms of such would be satisfactory or even followed by the various groups.}} In summary, treaties would have been impossible, so why bother?
:::Importantly, the stated justifications are not objective, evidence-based, or non-prejudicial: e.g. the first comment {{tq|However, the problem is that prior to settlement, the Indigenous peoples of Australia had zero form of officially recognized government or judicial system amongst themselves}} has been debunked in the anthropological, sociological, and historical literature extensively. As far as we can tell, ''all'' human societies (that existed for any real amount of time) have had, minimally, some form of customary law. They have norms governing what is and isn't ethical or acceptable, means for restitution or punishment in the event of the transgression of these norms, and, most importantly for this discussion, a general understanding of informal and formal agreement between two or more parties that granted each a set of obligations and/or privileges. These are, as far back as we can reasonably verify, human universals. Believing they didn't, which, regrettably, literally millions of non-indegenous Australians, Americans, Canadians etc. still do about their respective Indigenous peoples, is a legacy of colonial thinking, and in effect places these people outside the category "human"—turns them into fauna—by denying them what we know to be a fundamental feature of our social life as a species. In this sense, (not so) ironically, OP's comments reproduce the specific British imperial dogma they rejected in the prior sentence. (Mind you, this is not even the most egregious remark here. ''Again in authorial voice'', a little later on, Sirocco informs us the aboriginals are not to be considered civilized.)
:::Finally, '''I propose a litmus test''': would such comments, if copy-pasted into a Wikipedia article, be considered [[WP:WIKIVOICE]], or attributed text, per the relevant policies? If so, then they are also in authorial voice when written by a single editor outside a mainspace. To me, it is obvious how this litmus test resolves here, but I'll leave it to administrators to confirm this. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 00:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Oh for goodness's sake, I do not believe that Aboriginal Australians are sub-human! I have admitted so many times that I didn't conduct myself properly in the RfC and that the wording of many of my comments could easily be interpreted as racist because I talked <b>about</b> racist acts and the reasonings behind them without condemning them immediately after. What more do I need to say, how much more do I need to apologize, and what will it take to prove myself non-racist to you? This is definitely [[WP:Wikilawyering|Wikilawyering]], but now it's starting to feel like borderline harassment. [[User:Sirocco745|Sirocco745]] ([[User talk:Sirocco745|talk]]) 04:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:Theres a lot of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground]] behaviour here, which compounded with the personal attacks made in this thread (that they apparantly stand by) leads me to support the proposal above by [[User:Voorts|Voorts]]. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 09:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::If you're against battleground behavior, do you not see the comments I copied above from Sirocco as examples of it? If you think my assessment of their comments is a "personal attack" are you stating, for the record, that you think there is nothing racist about those comments? [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 05:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Please be succinct and direct: please link (give where they can be found in context with the submission(s) of the author; a diff) and quote the statements you believe to be racist. You have made what appears to be about a dozen quotes, none of which I see to be clearly racist. If the community judges them to be so, then they will be dealt with appropriately. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 06:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
If any neutral editors have the time, could you please take a look at this thread and give your input? I understand that Wikipedia has no deadlines and that no one is obliged to interact with the various discussions, disputes, etc. that occur daily, but there hasn't really been any significant development since I started this AN/I thread eight days ago. I guess I'm just nervous. [[User:Sirocco745|Sirocco745]] ([[User talk:Sirocco745|talk]]) 02:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)


:I'll give my 2 cents: there's a battleground here. Both of y'all need to tone it down. I don't see the discussion at Australia as inappropriate. People have voiced their opinions and someone can close it when it gets to the end. When trying to summarize so much, such assessments are going to be necessarily long; just be patient. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 06:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::According to Wikipedia's [[WP:TPG|Talk Page Guidelnes]]: "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." If Iryna had valid criticisms of the way Tobby72 and others have been editting, she should have put her criticisms on their ''user'' talk pages, where they would immediately see what was said, and not on the ''article'' talk page. [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 03:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
::Yeah, sorry about that. As stated earlier, I understand that ANI is not the place to settle content disputes and I started this thread with the intent of focusing on @[[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]]'s behaviour. It kinda got a bit out of hand though.. [[User:Sirocco745|Sirocco745]] ([[User talk:Sirocco745|talk]]) 08:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::How do you not see a problem with calling other users racists and defenders of genocide? Sirocco is not the person who needs to tone it down. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 14:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I asked for clarification above. Without evidence, it is indeed inappropriate, but I'm also trying to keep an open mind about the possibility that the accusation is accurate. Sirocco can help matters by backing down a little and not offering long responses in the future (don't fan the flames). [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 17:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::There are eight diffs in the opening post including a variety of accusations and incivility. Keeping an open mind that they might all be accurate seems excessively hopeful. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)


== Alejandroinmensidad engaged in [[WP:BLP|BLP]] and [[WP:3RR|3RR]] violations as a [[WP:SPA|SPA]] (possible [[WP:SOCK|SOCK]] as well) ==
:::Stop it with the [[WP:WIKILAWYER]]. These users, whom you've been encouraging [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haberstr&diff=prev&oldid=711126456], were disrupting THESE articles hence it made perfect sense for Iryna to comment on THESE articles' talk pages.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 03:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = Indefinitely blocked by [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] as [[WP:NOTHERE]]. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 09:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


{{user|Alejandroinmensidad}} is a [[WP:SPA|single-purpose account]] engaged in a disruptive behaviour involving [[Pedro Sánchez]]-related edits (with them adding contentious material to a number of articles, namely Pedro Sánchez, [[Álvaro García Ortiz]] and [[Begoña Gómez]]) in a heavily POV-ish way, in breach of [[WP:BLP]]). The last straw has been their breaking of [[WP:3RR]] at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=%C3%81lvaro_Garc%C3%ADa_Ortiz&diff=1260837926&oldid=1260538921 Álvaro García Ortiz] after reverting {{u|TheRichic}} for attempting to reword some of the text to comply with BLP. I had previously attempted to warn them in [[User talk:Alejandroinmensidad|their talk page]], but they responded with indiscriminate accusations of [[WP:VANDAL|vandalism]] (which by themselves constitute a [[WP:PA|personal attack]] and a violation of [[WP:AVOIDVANDAL]]). They were also noted by another user about [[WP:AC/CT]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlejandroinmensidad&diff=1260209510&oldid=1260193483 diff]), but the user keeps on with their behaviour. Further, I have also detected evidence pointing to likely [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppetry]], which I denounced through [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Napoleonbuenoenparte|this SPI]] (where the situation is more throughly explained). [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 22:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} As predicted on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iryna_Harpy#Personal_attacks_on_Crimea_talk_page my talk page], the user fully intended to canvass in order to embark on a [[WP:HUNT]], posting on [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moscow_Connection&diff=711528942&oldid=710231447 Moscow Connection]'s talk page, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tobby72&diff=711528558&oldid=698367278 Tobby72]'s talk page, and on [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haberstr&diff=711528708&oldid=711126456 Haberstr]'s talk page. The most telling of these have been his/her communications with Haberstr on 21 March where s/he [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haberstr&diff=711126456&oldid=705946569 commended the editor] stating {{tq|"Lack of neutrality re Ukraine conflict: I agree with you that WP's coverage of the Ukraine conflict has a neutrality problem, and I respect your efforts to address this problem."}} in a bid to align himself/herself with other users who support his/her POV. Haberstr's response to the "cc" (or, let's start this hunt because [[WP:CRUSH]] doesn't seem to be working) makes for [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haberstr&diff=711647710&oldid=711528708 interesting reading in itself].


:[[WP:BLPN]] might be a better forum for discussing these edits. It does seem like a lot of edit-warring going on on [[Pedro Sánchez]]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 00:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::All of this ducking and diving in and out of ARBEE sanctioned articles, and [[WP:BAIT]]ing editors who are constantly working on them is going to elicit a [[WP:SPADE]] response eventually. Mind you, I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=next&oldid=711401960 publicly apologised] to Moscow Connection for tying him in with the other two. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 03:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
::This was already brought there a few days ago at [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez]], but the disruption has continued as the issue has been left unaddressed (and anyway, the BLPN thread does not address neither the behavioural issues nor the sock suspicions, which have evolved ever since). It's now basically impossible to do anything sort of keeping reverting this user if no admin steps in. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 07:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::Also, I already pointed it out at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Napoleonbuenoenparte|the SPI case]] (see Update 1), but ever since the SPI was opened the user has been conducting a number of random edits through several articles in addition to their focus in the usual ones (while avoiding engaging in any discussion related to the ongoing issues), probably to attempt avoiding being singled out as a SPA. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 07:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::One problem I see, [[User:Impru20|Impru20]], is that it looks like this has been a solo effort by you to get attention on this editor's contributions, in the SPI, on BLPN, on the editor's user talk page and now here in ANI without receiving much response from other editors. If there is contentious material being posted on this BLP (which gets over 1,000 views/day), we should get more eyes on this article and others where there might be questionable edits. Is there anyone here who is comfortable assessing Spanish language sources that could provide a second (or third) opinion? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=1260192326&oldid=1260187967 this] a solo effort by me, {{u|Liz}}? And [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=%C3%81lvaro_Garc%C3%ADa_Ortiz&diff=1260259519&oldid=1260254403 this]? Maybe [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=%C3%81lvaro_Garc%C3%ADa_Ortiz&diff=1260538921&oldid=1260461911 this]? I am getting attention on this editor's contributions because they are being disruptive; they are reverting anyone who dares to restore a less POVish (and more BLP-compliant) version of the articles, and when they are confronted about that it's just personal attacks from them. The only solutions left are to: 1) keep reverting them (surely not what we are expected to do as per [[WP:EW]]); 2) discuss with them (this was done, and failed), and 3) bring the issue to venues where it can be properly addressed if points 1 and 2 are not possible (which was done: firstly to BLPN, then as SPI when I noticed they could be a sock, then here when that was left without solution yet the user kept engaging in disruptive behaviour). There are personal attacks, there is a 3RR violation, there is even behavioural evidence of sockpuppetry (with two users, one logged in editor and one IP, being ''confirmed'' socks). What else is required for ''any'' action to even be considered? Seriously, I ask you with all honestly, because it's fairly frustrating that they are basically left to do what they please without anyone actually caring. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 20:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Impru20}}, with regards to [[Álvaro García Ortiz]], it looks to me like {{u|Alejandroinmensidad}}'s edits are more accurate <s>than yours</s>, if Google Translate is accurate in translating the cited source. So, <s>why are you trying to keep less accurate content</s>, and why have you not discussed this at [[Talk: Álvaro García Ortiz]]? [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 21:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have not edited [[Álvaro García Ortiz]], {{u|Cullen328}}, so it's difficult any edit there could be more accurate than ''mine''. Now maybe you could focus on Alejandro's 3RR violation there, any of the behavioural issues that have been denounced... I don't know, something that has actually ''happened''. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 22:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Impru20}}, I apologize for mixing you up with {{u|TheRichic}}. However, Alejandroinmensidad reverted false content three times over several days. That is not a violation of [[WP:3RR]]. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 22:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Excuse me, {{u|Cullen328}}, but:
:::::::#How is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=%C3%81lvaro_Garc%C3%ADa_Ortiz&diff=1260538921&oldid=1260461911 this content] false? You may agree or disagree with the wording, but it is not false. One of {{u|TheRichic}}'s denounces against {{u|Alejandroinmensidad}} (which I share) is that they [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=1260192326&oldid=1260187967 treat (unproven) statements of certain people as absolute truths], typically resorting to the sources that fit their view the most (often without any [[WP:BALANCE]] or sense of impartiality). Again, I ask you: how is that content "false"? Specially considering your response here is limiting yourself to ''decry'' TheRichic's behaviour.
:::::::#As per [[WP:3RR]], reverts conducted just outside the 24-hour period {{tq|will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior}}.
:::::::#You could maybe skip point 2... if it wasn't because '''all''' reverts done by Alejandroinmensidad at [[Álvaro García Ortiz]] came ''after'' being explicitly warned in their talk page about [[WP:AC/CT]] on articles about living people ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlejandroinmensidad&diff=1260209510&oldid=1260193483 diff]).
:::::::#ANI is about behavioural problems (which have been denounced and evidence provided); the explicit BLP issue was addressed (or attempted to) elsewhere: here it is being brought because of it showing a behavioural pattern and a SPA-theme focus on Pedro Sánchez-related edits (which I said). Aside of 3RR, there have been explicit personal attacks (repeated accusations of vandalism without any evidence nor justification), edit warring and behavioural evidence of SOCK which is not even being addressed. So, what are people intended to do against it? To keep edit warring Alejandroinmensidad to death? [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 22:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Hello [[User:Cullen328|'''Cullen328''']] and [[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]], this user [[User:Impru20|'''Impru20''']] has been continuously deleting text and references from many users in everything related to the government of Spain for many years ago: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Third_government_of_Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=1260962125&oldid=1259122383%20this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2023_Spanish_general_election&diff=1260419245&oldid=1260348468this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=November_2019_Spanish_general_election&action=history], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=November_2019_Spanish_general_election&action=history], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2016_PSOE_crisis&diff=1252297834&oldid=842893751], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mariano_Rajoy&diff=1260432482&oldid=1260164945this]. He has deleted on multiple occasions, without any explanation, my contributions, which I consider to be treated from a neutral point of view. That is why I have reverted its vandalism, I have not deleted the text of any user. [[User:Alejandroinmensidad|Alejandroinmensidad]] ([[User talk:Alejandroinmensidad|talk]]) 22:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Impru20}}, the ''[[El Mundo (Spain)|El Mundo]]'' headline translates as {{tpq|The Supreme Court indicts Attorney General García Ortiz for the leak of confidential data from Ayuso's boyfriend: The Second Chamber unanimously opens a case against Álvaro García Ortiz for the crime of revealing secrets}}. TheRichic's preferred wording was "García Ortiz has been investigated" and Alejandroinmensidad's preferred wording was "García Ortiz was charged by the Supreme Court". Everyone can see that Alejandroinmensidad's summary of the source was accurate and that TheRichic's summary was incorrect. You simply do not understand [[WP:3RR]], which requires ''more than three'' reversions in a 24 hour period. Alejandroinmensidad reverted only three times, and they were at 19:14, November 29, 2024, and then roughly 27 hours later at 22:10, November 30, 2024, and then roughly 48 hours later at at 22:04, December 2, 2024. Three reverts in three days is not more than three reverts in 24 hours. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 22:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{u|Cullen328}}, Alejandroinmensidad has literally breached [[WP:AVOIDVANDAL]] in front of your face in this very same discussion and you still have nothing to say about their behaviour? Also, they are linking literally random, occasional and entirely unrelated edits to the discussion to blame me of "vandalism"... and you still have ''nothing'' to say to it? On another note: {{u|Alejandroinmensidad}}, [[WP:NOTVAND|bold edits are '''not''' vandalism]], the edits of mine you link have nothing wrong in them. Heck, half of the edits you link are not even mine (one is '''yours'''), for God's sake! [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 23:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Also, {{u|Cullen328}}, I am not understanding what your reasoning is here. You have now edited part of your previous comment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=1261049901&oldid=1261049679]), when all of it is essentially off-topic. This is not an issue of edits at [[Álvaro García Ortiz]] (an article which I have not even edited), but an issue of general behavioural concerns, which Alejandroinmensidad is exhibiting with impunity in this very same thread. I have provided detailed diffs, links and evidence yet still none of it is being addressed and I am now being singled out {{underline|for edits I did not even made}}. I understand that every editor who opens a thread here is equally subject to BOOMERANG, but it's the first time I see it being applied to someone for edits done by other people, including the denounced editor's! [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 23:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::You have hundreds of text changes from other users in articles related to the government of Spain for years, just looking at your history to realize that most of the edits are vandalism. [[User:Alejandroinmensidad|Alejandroinmensidad]] ([[User talk:Alejandroinmensidad|talk]]) 00:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I want to clarify a couple of things:
:::::::::1. A headline by itself is not information, it can be biased and you have to read the rest of the article.
:::::::::2. If we read the El Mundo's article, at no point does it say that the attorney general has committed any crime, but rather that a criminal procedure has been opened and he and his surroundings are being investigated for an ALLEGED crime.
:::::::::3. In Spain, the term "imputar", translated in the article as "charge", is synonymous with "investigar" (to investigate). In fact, the term was modified a decade ago because it led to the erroneous conclusion that the person who was "imputado" was being accused. The accusation phase comes later, when the judge issues the "auto de acusación" (indictment), and then the person is "accused of" or "charged with" a crime. At this point, it can be said that the person is accused.
:::::::::4. "[...] García Ortiz was charged by the Supreme Court for having revealed the emails of the boyfriend of the president of the Community of Madrid" (what the article says) is just saying that he did it when we do not know what happened and a court of justice is investigating if anything happened.
:::::::::Having said all this, yes, I rewrote the article because the person is not accused of anything (yet), has not committed any crime (yet), and we cannot interpret the information in the article as it suits us. Greetings. [[User:TheRichic|TheRichic]] [[File:Escudo de España (mazonado).svg|12px]] ''<small>([[User talk:TheRichic|Messages here]])</small>'' 06:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::In Spanish and English, the terms charge (imputar) and investigate (investigar) are not synonymous. In the article in "Mundo" it is clearly explained that Álvaro García Ortiz is charged of leaking the emails. [[User:Alejandroinmensidad|Alejandroinmensidad]] ([[User talk:Alejandroinmensidad|talk]]) 08:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::To "charge" someone means that person gets investigated by the judicial authorities. It is the same. The issue is that you want to use "charge" as a synonymous to "accuse" (this has not happened, at least not yet). However, I am not going to discuss semantics with an editor who clearly doesn't understand what "vandalism" is. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 18:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::It is false. To charge is not to investigate, it is to file criminal charges, which is what the Supreme Court has done with Álvaro García Ortiz. [[User:Alejandroinmensidad|Alejandroinmensidad]] ([[User talk:Alejandroinmensidad|talk]]) 20:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::To charge is to investigate. That's why in Spanish the legal term was literally changed from ''imputación'' to ''investigación''. See [https://www.newtral.es/que-significa-estar-imputado/20240529/ here]: {{tq|Being charged means that the investigating judge has determined that, either through a complaint or a lawsuit, there are indications that the person under investigation could have committed a crime." (...) "Then, the judge agrees to carry out the investigative procedures that he deems appropriate to clarify it." (...) investigated "means that the judge has admitted the complaint for processing, has initiated preliminary proceedings and has been classified as such."}} There are indications of crimes such that requires the judge to investigate them, but that condition does not assume the veracity of the accusations nor of the crime (a lot of people who are charged end up with their charges lifted without a trial) nor is the person yet accused, which comes at a later stage of the legal process. You are really manipulating what being charged means. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 22:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::No matter how much you repeat a lie, it does not become the truth. To charge is not to investigate, neither in Spanish, nor in English, nor in law.
::::::::::::::I have not said that the Prosecutor is guilty, but the Court sees indications of a crime, that is why he is charged. [[User:Alejandroinmensidad|Alejandroinmensidad]] ([[User talk:Alejandroinmensidad|talk]]) 08:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I provided you evidence and sources and you still treat it as a "lie", despite you yourself now just casting aspersions and personal opinions here. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 10:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}{{u|Impru20}}, I made an error in confusing you with TheRichic. I immediately apologized and then struck out the portions of my original comment that were inaccurate. That is what editors are supposed to do when they make a mistake. ''You'' are the editor who accused Alejandroinmensidad of BLP violations at [[Álvaro García Ortiz]] and you also accused that editor of violating 3RR. I decided to investigate one of the three articles you listed in your original post, and picked the middle of the three. I learned that there was no BLP violation, that Alejandroinmensidad's edits were more accurate than TheRichic's, and that the editor did not violate 3RR, at least in recent months. That is the full story. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 00:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*I closed [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Napoleonbuenoenparte]] with no action and an explanation.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 00:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Alejandroinmensidad}}, please be aware that {{u|Impru20}} has made nearly 200,000 edits to the English Wikipedia and has never been blocked for vandalism. The term "vandalism" has a very specific meaning and can only be applied to editing with the ''deliberate'' intention of damaging the encyclopedia. Impru20 is ''not a vandal'' and false accusations of vandalism are disruptive. So, please stop. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 00:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::Cullen328, I am not referring to him, I am referring to his editions. It removes content from many users without giving any motivation. In addition, he always does it in articles referring to the government of Spain. In any case, I will not answer his provocations again. [[User:Alejandroinmensidad|Alejandroinmensidad]] ([[User talk:Alejandroinmensidad|talk]]) 00:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Calling a user's edits vandalism is the same as calling the user a vandal. Just don't do it.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 01:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Alejandroinmensidad is obsessed with calling another editor a vandal ''even in an ANI thread'' and against repeated warnings, but somehow they are still assumed to be able to work collaboratively? You cannot discuss anything with this guy (and this is not an assumption, this was tried and failed). At the very least, there is an obvious [[WP:CIR]] issue here, and they will only keep edit warring everyone as they see any edits undoing their own (or those contents they prefer) as "vandalism". [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 06:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It is exactly what TheRichic has stated above. Further, it's telling that, so far, the BLP violations at [[Pedro Sánchez]] (which are what started the whole ordeal) have not even been addressed; Alejandroinmensidad added false statements, and others they added were done without BALANCE (as I pointed it out to them several times: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=1260179863&oldid=1260170850 diff] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=1260184320&oldid=1260183449 diff]); these were reverted by Alejandro exhibiting the exact same behaviour as here (i.e. falsely accusing others of vandalism). They also accused me of "removing links" when they removed references themselves under accusations of "vandalism" just to attempt to re-assert a version of the articles that depicted Sánchez and his government in the worst way possible of the several available ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=1260187634&oldid=1260186187 diff]). You cannot [[WP:CHERRYPICK|cherrypick]] sources and information to present a biased view of the person without contradictory information (which exists in this case) being presented as well. There is a BLPN case opened on [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez]] yet, somehow, almost everything is being ignored to attempt to present Alejandroinmensidad's behaviour as legit, when it is one of the most egregious SPAs I have seen as of lately, being here only for the purpose of these Pedro Sánchez-related edits (also, as commented on the SPI case, they only resorted to making random edits to other articles when the SPI case was opened and they were noticed about it, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FNapoleonbuenoenparte&diff=1260825850&oldid=1260823273 diff]). [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 07:32, 4 December 20Im24 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Impru20}}, if your concern is about [[Pedro Sánchez]], then why the heck did you make false claims of BLP problems and false claims of 3RR violations at [[Álvaro García Ortiz]]? Administrator time is limited. Throwing false claims in with possibly legitimate claims is a waste of time that makes administrators reluctant to look further. I would rather get some sleep. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 08:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Cullen328}}, I ''explicitly'' mentioned and linked [[Pedro Sánchez]] in my first post and [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez]] in subsequent ones; spoke about Pedro Sánchez-related edits; linked to other venues where the situation was also thoroughly explained; and only mentioned [[Álvaro García Ortiz]] as part of the articles in which Alejandroinmensidad had a focus on. {{u|Liz}} understood it perfectly in their first reply. It is ''you'' who then became focused with Álvaro García Ortiz for no reason even when I told you that it was not the main cause of concern (only as part of the larger SPA effort). With all due respect (and maybe I cannot stress the issue of respect enough, but I have to say this), but you cannot just say what you said here when you already had an error (rather major, as it redirected the focus of the discussion into me having to refute a false claim) by confusing edits of other users with my own edits and now accuse me of doing what I did not do. The presented evidence was there for reading. The 3RR claim was not false: reverting just outside the 24-hour window is explictly acknowledged as EW; [[WP:GAME]] exists; and the reverts were conducted right after a warning about living people's biographies being contentious topics was added to the user's talk page. Administrator time may be limited, but so is that of other editors (such as mine), and frankly: it's frustrating that I have had to provide a detailed (while summarized, because too lengthy ANI cases are typically accused of [[WP:TLDR]]) description of the situation so for it to be also systematically ignored. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 08:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Impru20}}, you are still incorrect about 3RR. A violation requires a minimum of '''four''' reverts within '''24 hours''' though some administrators might act at 25 hours. In this case, there were three reverts (not four) to ''clearly more accurate content'' over a three day period of about 75 hours. There is no possible interpretation of the policy that allows that to be called a 3RR violation. The notion that I looked into Álvaro García Ortiz "for no reason" is ludicrous. I looked into that article for a very real reason, namely that ''you'' mentioned that article in the first sentence of your report. If you did not want an administrator to look into that article, then why on earth did you mention it? [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 17:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::And then in your second sentence, you wrote {{tpq|The last straw has been their breaking of [[WP:3RR]] at Álvaro García Ortiz}}. So, I look into your "last straw" and you get angry with me. It makes no sense. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 17:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{u|Cullen328}}, 3RR clearly states that {{tq|The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times}}. They made three consecutive reverts to the same content without any justification and just after receiving a warning on contentious topics because of their edits and reverts in BLP-related articles, and they just got away with it. I also mentioned other articles and you did not look at them. On Álvaro García Ortiz, I said it was the "last straw" (this is, cumulatively after a lot of other issues), yet ''you'' interpreted it as the main focus of the issue. I can understand that you analyze that article (that's why I mention it), not that you focus ''solely'' on it. I don't get angry with you, I just don't understand why you have taken it with that article and ''insist in ignoring everything else'', In the course of all of it, you have casted two wrong facts about me (one about my (non)edits in that article, another one on what I said in this ANI thread). You have forced me to defend myself on issues that were not related to what I did or said while a disruptor is getting away with their disruption. This is my issue with you. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 18:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
{{u|Impru20}}, you say that their edits were {{tpq|without any justification}} and yet the ''El Mundo'' reference that follows the content shows quite clearly that the edits were fully justified and accurate and that the other editor was adding inaccurate content. I do not know how else to explain it but those three specific edits over three days plus were ''not'' edit warring and in particular, ''nowhere near'' a 3RR violation. No admistrator is obligated to investigate every single aspect of a lengthy ANI post that mentions three articles. I chose to look into the one that you called the "last straw" and learned that what you have been saying about the edits in question is wrong. I apologized to you when I made a mistake. Perhaps you should consider apologizing as well. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 20:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Cullen328}}, the user is misrepresenting what "being charged" means ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=1261219959&oldid=1261205981 this is what it means]). The other editor did not add any innacurate content, and I dare you to explicitly state what of TheRichic's edit was innacurate, because that was legally and factually correct. You have been accusing them of adding "innacurate" or outrightly "false" (sic) content for a while '''even when they explicitly explained themselves here''' ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=1261097295&oldid=1261096498]), just because you took a single source (the one provided by Alejandroinmensidad) without [[WP:BALANCE|balancing]] it with other sources first, precisely when a lack of BALANCE was one of the (multiple) issues denounced here. Heck, both TheRichic and myself have gone through many more explanations here than Alejandroinmensidad, who just kept themselves calling everyone else as "vandals" '''even in this ANI thread''' (there was a time in which that alone would have merited a block) and manipulating and misinterpreting sources (as they keep doing at [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez]]).
:Again with all due respect, but I say this in light of this latest reply of yours: your intervention here is becoming absurd. Yes, you chose to investigate one article, just as you chose to omit everything else. I repeat myself: It's not my fault that you did not care to take into account the "lengthy post" (which I already attempted to summarize, but what should I do if the issue affects more than one article and involves a general behaviour?) in which the evidence was presented. If you did not feel yourself like doing the review of this case, it would have been better to pass it to another colleague who could have had the time to do it. But yes, surprisingly (or not so): incomplete reviews may lead to incomplete judgements.
:And yes: "No admistrator is obligated to investigate every single aspect of a lengthy ANI post that mentions three articles", but now you have basically chosen to cast aspersions (?) on a fellow editor over and over and over again, without even caring to consider their explanations, just because you have been unable to accept that your way of handling this (focusing on one aspect and omitting everything else) has been wrong from the beginning. If someone is deserving an apology here that's not you (nor me, either). Cheers. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 23:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::As an update: is nothing going to be said about [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=1261300648&oldid=1261300041 this blind revert] in [[Pedro Sánchez]] by Alejandroinmensidad to a ''third'' editor who, with good reason, stated that {{tq|the subject of this article is Pedro Sánchez, not his family, especially when there appears to be no suggestion of any direct involvement of Pedro Sánchez himself}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=1261294363&oldid=1260847925 diff]), a claim that Alejandroinmensidad has not even cared to respond to? Is nothing going to be said about how Alejandroinmensidad is being presented evidence at [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez]] and he just outrightly defends having wrong and/or misrepresentative material at the [[Pedro Sánchez]] article? Including an explicit situation of [[WP:THREATEN]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=1261292998&oldid=1261291650 diff])? Maybe we can just exit from this [[Álvaro García Ortiz]] article-loop and deal at once with a [[WP:SPA|single-purpose account]] with a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] behaviour on using Wikipedia as a way to do politics. Good faith goes as far as it goes; this is just sheer, explicit and deliberate manipulation at this point. Cheers. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 11:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I have already answered in BLP: Pedro Sánchez; "In the sub-article "Third term in office" the events of Pedro Sánchez's government are commented on. The corruption scandals of Pedro Sánchez's family are key to that government."
:::I am tired of this user's harassment and insults. Moderators must take action. [[User:Alejandroinmensidad|Alejandroinmensidad]] ([[User talk:Alejandroinmensidad|talk]]) 11:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Alejandroinmensidad}} edits like [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=prev&oldid=1261310098 this], presenting the opinion of one newspaper as fact, are not acceptable per [[WP:WIKIVOICE]]. We certainly can include criticism of him, but that should be done in a neutral and balanced way. Similarly, since the article is about the subject himself, I struggle to see the relevance of any accusations against his brother (which you added [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=prev&oldid=1261300648 here]) in which Pedro S himself is not involved. The article is [[Pedro Sánchez]], not [[Pedro Sánchez' family]].


::::I've opened a section on the article talk page [[Talk:Pedro_Sánchez#Recent_edits_/_balance_/_scandals|here]] to which you should contribute and discuss the changes you want rather than edit warring, which would probably result in sanctions against your account. Additionally, all users involved should stop the accusations and counter-accusations, which will not produce anything positive. Since this is, at heart, a content dispute, this ANI thread should be closed for now, with the caveat that [[WP:3RR]] and sanctions do exist. [[User:Valenciano|Valenciano]] ([[User talk:Valenciano|talk]]) 13:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Oh, and as an aside, while this ANI is being used to tie up editor and admin time, Haberstr is using his valuable time to keep edit warring [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=prev&oldid=711655858 the article's content]. That's NPOV? ''Really''? --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 03:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::I have already explained the reasons for including the scandal of Pedro Sánchez's brother: The scandal of Sánchez's brother is related to Pedro Sánchez because the judge accuses him of influence peddling, of having obtained his job thanks to the influence of Pedro Sánchez. A job in which he would receive a salary without doing any work. It is a similar case to that of Alfonso Guerra and his brother Juan Guerra.
:::::The references I have given are not newspaper opinions, they are information that contrasts the different versions that Sánchez has given regarding Delcy Rodríguez's trip. [[User:Alejandroinmensidad|Alejandroinmensidad]] ([[User talk:Alejandroinmensidad|talk]]) 14:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Valenciano}}, {{u|Cullen328}}, speaking of [[WP:3RR]], do these four reverts of two editors' edits within a 4-hour timespan count as such? See [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=1261300648&oldid=1261300041 diff 1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=1261306391&oldid=1261306154 diff 2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=1261307316&oldid=1261307124 diff 3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=1261325290&oldid=1261319270 diff 4].
::::::Because it would be extremely hilarious that a 3RR breach happened '''even after''' 1) the discussion about it in this ANI thread, 2) Valenciano's [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=1261316193&oldid=1261311382 warning] just above, 3) the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlejandroinmensidad&diff=1260209510&oldid=1260193483 warning] on [[WP:AC/CT|contentious topics]] on Alejandroinmensidad's talk page by a third, uninvolved party and 4) a new, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlejandroinmensidad&diff=1261309935&oldid=1261031323 specific warning] on [[WP:3RR]] made in that user talk page by another third, uninvolved party. Where are we going to set our level of tolerance to disruption, exactly? [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 14:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


::{{ec}} Another update: Alejandroinmensidad has just edited the [[Pedro Sánchez]] article to insert an editorial opinion and present it as a fact ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=1261306391&oldid=1261306154]). This is prohibited under [[WP:RSOPINION]] and [[WP:RSEDITORIAL]]. They were told both through an edit summary ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=1261304605&oldid=1261304315]) and at the BLPN discussion ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=1261305740&oldid=1261305010]) how this was wrong, yet they still re-added it anyway ''without caring to give an explanation''. Is seriously nothing going to be done here? [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 11:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yes it is NPOV in my opinion. But you disagree, which I respect. Your comment simply illustrates that you don't respect others having a good faith disagreement with you, and you express that disrespect by getting angry and accusatory on talk pages and here. And that is exactly the problematic behavior that fellow editor Kalidasa has asked administrators to do something about. I think I can summarize your response to Kalidasa so far as "I don't understand what Kalidasa is getting at, and here, let me angrily express more assumption of bad faith to make sure everyone knows I don't get it."[[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr|talk]]) 23:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
:::I have blocked Alejandroinmensidad for one week for edit warring and violations of the [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:BLP]] policies. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 17:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Haberstr, you exhausted good faith on the part of other editors participating in these articles years ago. [[User:RGloucester|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:12pt;color:#000000">RGloucester </span>]] — [[User talk:RGloucester|☎]] 23:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Judging by [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlejandroinmensidad&diff=1261366177&oldid=1261353703 this response], I do not think the editor [[WP:RGW|is going to care about our rules]]. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 18:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Is it possible to stay on the Iryna Harpy behavior topic, and to stop the ad homimen attacks on me? If you have evidence put it on my user talk page.[[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr|talk]]) 00:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::Aaand they pinged me to their talk page to claim that comment was "ironic." Definitely NOTHERE. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 19:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Where no one will see it? Nah, I think this is the appropriate place for it, which is why I did provide the evidence below.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 04:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::Yeah {{u|HandThatFeeds}}, it isn't that it wasn't obvious from a long shot by the time I brought this case to ANI, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlejandroinmensidad&diff=1261479969&oldid=1261462239 but Good Lord]. It just took a one-week block for them to openly acknowledge that their edits are motivated by some sort of crusade against "communism". I was benevolent citing [[WP:CIR]] a couple days ago: it's definitely a [[WP:RGW]] and [[WP:NOTHERE]] case. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 09:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Then you will agree that it is appropriate also to remind editors that volunteer Marek, was banned for his pov-editing on Russia-related topics and is one its the most notorious POV-pushing disruptive editors on Wikipedia. [[User:Tiptoethrutheminefield|Tiptoethrutheminefield]] ([[User talk:Tiptoethrutheminefield|talk]]) 19:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::After [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlejandroinmensidad&diff=1261666642&oldid=1261662711 this], I have extended the block to indefinite as they currently do not exhibit any evidence of being here to collaborate. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 09:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:What Iryna Harpy said in that post ({{Diff|Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation|711323672|711314413}}) is reprehensible but utterly routine in my experience with her. In response to Harpy’s allegations: I engage in good faith NPOV editing. My aim is to create Wikipedia Ukraine/Russia NPOV entries, i.e., entries that respect the distinction between fact and allegation and are at least inclusive of the two main ‘Cold War II’ perspectives. I hate disruptive editing and resist it as best I can.[[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr|talk]]) 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
:Here are other examples of Harpy’s bullying and threatening language, from the last 12 months of the Crimea Annexation talk page (other examples are at other Ukraine-related pages). All of these were in response to what I think outside editors would regard as polite-or-neutral-in-tone arguments by other editors for RS-based edits that they believed were NPOV: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation] “For the last couple of years, Tobby72 has been POV pushing the same content over and over and over and over and over against consensus. Personally, '''I've had all I can take of his disruptive editing and intentional gaming'''.” 05:05, 15 March 2016; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation/Archive_7] “Haberstr, you're at it again. Drop it …” 22:05, 26 January 2016; [21:44, 2 February 2016] “Wow, I'm sincerely impressed by '''your continuing POV pushing''' about how terrific the RF really is, and how much every citizen loves 'em. '''Drop the propaganda, pleaaassseee'''.”; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation/Archive_6] “'''Stop wasting our time'''. How many times are you intending to '''incriminate yourself by gaming'''?” 05:09, 1 April 2015, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation/Archive_5] “Any further envelope-pushing will be understood as WP:POINTy. Please familiarise yourself with this guideline, Tosha, as it is '''just a hair's breadth from tendentious editing''' behaviour.” 04:26, 21 March 2015; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation/Archive_5] “…'''both you and Mobolo and disruptive, tendentious editors'''. … How can it be an ad hominem attack when the nature of '''your continuous POV pushing for unencyclopaedic information''' - which contradicts RS and is '''designed to promote spurious content''' - is antithetical to what the project stands for? As editors, '''you are not even vaguely neutral''', and neither of you can be extricated from the biased, unbalanced content you push. … it's about time you realised that '''your continuous and blatant lack of civility can't be disguised by a dusting of civil POV pushing'''. In fact, we have huge tracts here … demonstrating '''your relentless bad faith disruption'''.” (Highlighting added 25 March) 05:09, 25 March 2015 [[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr|talk]]) 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

*Looking over some of the edits, this is prime territory for [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. None of Iryna's comments go beyond identification of non-neutral edits. Meanwhile, repeated non-neutral edits in an area subject to discretionary sanctions and an attempt to force out dissenting editors through coordinated action (i.e. canvassing for an ANI) are serious issues. ~ <b>[[User:BU Rob13|Rob]]</b><sup>[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 05:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
::Not sure if this statement is about User:Haberstr or User:Kalidasa 777. Yes, Kalidasa has definitely engaged in disruptive canvassing in this instance. In the case of Haberstr, the problem is compound because:
::1. The user has already been warned previously about disruptive canvassing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haberstr#September_2014_2 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haberstr#Canvassing here]
::2. Previously warned about making controversial, POV, moves and the purposefully salt-ing the redirects so that the moves could not be undone without admin intervention [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haberstr#What.3F here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haberstr#September_2014 here]
::3. Has been previously warned multiple times about starting edit wars and edit warring against multiple editors [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haberstr#September_2013 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haberstr#September_2014 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haberstr#3RR_report here]. This includes <u>purposefully</u> starting edit wars in the hope of getting an article protected to "their" version [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haberstr#3RR_report] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation/Archive_5#.22This_article_is_currently_protected_from_editing.22_tag_is_a_reasonable_replacement_for_the_POV_tag.]
::4. Has been previously warned about making personal attacks and using partisan language [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haberstr#3RR_report here]
::5. Haberstr was the subject of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive156#Haberstr this] WP:AE report which was closed with no action only because it went stale, although three of the commenting admins recommended some form of topic ban (presumably from Russia and Ukraine related topics).
::[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 06:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
:::I don't assume you are attempting to change the focus of discussion away from an incident report regarding Iryna Harpy's alleged personal attacks, but that is in fact what your comment does. Please stay on topic, which is not my past. Nonetheless, since you have made allegations and claims against me, I will briefly respond: In sum, we have '''"closed with no action ..."''' and your recitation of a small group of 'pro-Ukraine' editors' massive number of 'warnings' against me, based '''completely''' on assuming bad faith.

:::We all really need to stop assuming other editors are editing in bad faith or assuming other editors are being "disruptive," and then attacking them on the Talk Page, as Iryna has been doing repeatedly for years. Such accusations make Talk Pages toxic and off-putting places, not just for the person over and over again so accused, but also for all newbies and potential newbies who might've wanted to participate in a welcoming editing environment. Regarding Ukraine-related articles specifically, I think it is obvious there is honest disagreement on the meaning of NPOV and POV from the perspectives of the two sides of the (unintentional but inevitable) edit wars regarding Ukraine-related Wikipedia entries. There also seems to be good faith disagreement regarding the meaning of consensus, which is also the basis of many angry/rude/dismissive attacks, nearly always by the 'pro-Ukraine' side (including Marek and Iryna) against the other side of the debate. Based on a close reading and good faith understanding of WP:CONS, and on the long-standing and failed efforts to find consensus, I don't believe there is consensus on the array of Ukraine-related Wikipedia entries where edit wars unfortunately occur. It is a difficult situation but we nonetheless should be civil and assume good faith.[[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr|talk]]) 08:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
::::''"We all really need to stop assuming other editors are editing in bad faith or assuming other editors are being "disruptive,""'' - you mean like when you went around accusing everyone who disagreed with you (even Russian editors) of "hating Russia"? And the reason edit wars constantly flare up on these articles is because you and some of your buddies just can't stop beating [[WP:DEADHORSE]] and your way of engagement is [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]. You're complaints boil down to "why won't they let me push my pov in peace! That's so unjust!" which is why this keeps coming up again and again.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 20:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::Marek's charges are all false, and he notably has provided no evidence for them. Will he ever actually be on topic. His comments so far have all been off topic. If he feels that Iryna has not been assuming bad faith, why not simply say that, and provide evidence and support for that opinion? I think my first comment on Iryna above, where I've quoted repeated instances where she seemed to me to be assuming bad faith, can serve as a rough model for him.[[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr|talk]]) 23:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::''"Marek's charges are all false, and he notably has provided no evidence for them."'' - ahem: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive156#Haberstr]. Who do you think the closing comment - "participants are reminded that Wikipedia is not a battleground and your fellow Wikipedians are most likely not intelligence operatives" - was directed at? Jimbo Wales? I don't think so.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 00:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::You are accusing me of the following:'''you went around accusing everyone who disagreed with you (even Russian editors) of "hating Russia"''' and you have provided no evidence. Please retract the false accusation and apologize. The closing comment was directed at all participants, which included you and Iryna. Please comply with that request. [[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr|talk]]) 01:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
'''Reply to the counter-charge of "canvassing".''' I find it difficult to take this seriously, but it has been raised by a number of wikipedia users (Iryna, RGloucester, and Marek), and [[User:BU Rob13|Rob]] has indicated that he takes it seriously, so I'll briefly reply. Yes, I put a message on the user talk page of [[User:Haberstr]], expressing approval of some of his work. And, as I've already mentioned, I alerted [[User:Haberstr]], [[User:Tobby72]], and [[User:Moscow Connection]] to the fact that their editing had been attacked on an article talk page. I also informed them (and Iryna) about this AN/I... Aren't these the sort of matters which user talk pages are for?? Am I missing something here? [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 07:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

'''Do Iryna's comments go beyond identification of non-neutral edits?''' @ [[User:BU Rob13|Rob]] Please take another look at the diffs I've already presented. The first, on the Crimea article talk page is a generalised attack on 3 WP users. It states that they've been engaged in dispute about the article for a long period, during which '''"no good faith argument"''' was ever presented by them...{{Diff|Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation|711323672|711314413}} Iryna has already admitted that her comments in relation to at least one of these users, [[User:Moscow Connection]] , was unwarranted. The other is her statement on the Aleksandr Dugin article talk page about the user who she says has ''' "pineapples up his arse" '''.{{Diff|Talk:Aleksandr Dugin|647509276|647178622}} A civil comment?? [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 08:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
:{{ping|Kalidasa 777}} Let's take a look at how honest you're being about the comment on the Dugan talk page, shall we? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aleksandr_Dugin#Labeling_someone_as_simply_FASCIST.21.21.21_.3F This] is the actual context in which I expressed myself in December of 2014 when the bio was inundated by 'interested' [[WP:SOCKS]], [[WP:SPA]]'s, [[WP:POV]]ers from both the pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian sides, as well as multiple IP's crippling the article and [[WP:SHOUT]]ing on the talk page. Yes, the section got heated with regular users starting to loose their cool... which is why I suggested collapsing it (and did so). Such is the way with high traffic articles when the annexation of Crimea was still fresh, and the war in Donbass very, very fresh in an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and certainly does... relentlessly and abusively... across a multitude of related articles. Now, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/No_Source_-_No_Valid_Source this is the editor] who started the thread. So is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Koldewe this], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Major_Torp this]. Are you getting the picture? - Have disposable accounts, will act as ''agent provocateur''. Please desist from [[WP:CHERRYPICK]]ing through my editing history. As I already explained to you on my talk page, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iryna_Harpy#Personal_attacks_on_Crimea_talk_page understood your intention] in posting that 'warning', and you've gone out of your way to make it come true. The fact that you are holding a personal [[WP:GRUDGE]] against me for disagreeing with you on both the [[:Talk:Aleksandr Dugin|Dugin]] article and the [[:Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation|RF annexation of Crimea]] articles does not speak well to your editing priorities. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 09:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

::The user you're talking about has acknowledged use of multiple accounts, and has given an explanation at [[User_talk:Major_Torp]]. If you thought they were using the accounts improperly, WP has processes for dealing with that. See [[WP:SPI]]. I do not see how that could justify what you said about the pineapple in the rectum {{Diff|Talk:Aleksandr Dugin|647509276|647178622}}, nor what you've just said about ''' "agent provocateur" '''. [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 10:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
:::No, you haven't followed the contributions. It was not the user who was self-identifying, it was another editor who was trailing this user's SOCKs (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Major_Torp&diff=prev&oldid=638466364 this]). The notifications on the user page were all placed there by the editor tracking this SPA [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Major_Torp&diff=prev&oldid=638465589 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Major_Torp&diff=next&oldid=638465589 here] + [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:No_Source_-_No_Valid_Source&diff=638466104&oldid=638407840 here] + [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Koldewe&diff=638466118&oldid=596400150 here]. This is ''not'' a valid use of alternative accounts, and the user was [[WP:NOTHERE]] but, rather, was only interested in [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]], pushing their own POV, and harassing editors ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Volunteer_Marek&diff=prev&oldid=638974076 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toddy1&diff=prev&oldid=639038304 here])... and not to forget all the fun of conducting 'discussions' with himself/herself (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pyotr_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky&diff=prev&oldid=596247399 this]). Quixotic tirades on article talk pages ≠ the user really is a nice person who feels deeply outraged by the injustices of the world. In this case, the user's intent was to be as disruptive as possible in order to soapbox and get their own way which ''does'' equal agent provocateur. Who wastes the time of those who work on SPIs when the user is opening new accounts using their existing accounts? Also, please drop the pineapples: you've really done them to death. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 21:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
:::''"The user you're talking about has acknowledged use of multiple accounts"'' - maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that Iryna's characterization of that account by the phrase "Have disposable accounts, will act as ''agent provocateur''" is exactly spot on. This in fact has been a recurring problem on this topic - throw away accounts that show up, start a lot of trouble, start edit wars, start drama board discussions demanding that they be allowed to push their POV and that anyone who disagrees with them be banned... oh wait... [[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 00:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
*I do not see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=711323672&oldid=711314413 the comment by Iryna] as especially problematic. She tells about "dropping the stick". Yes, guys, pleased drop the stick. As about her claims of POV-pushing by other contributors, such claims are very common in this subject area and ''are usually true''. Starting an ANI thread every time when someone claims "POV-pushing" is extremely disruptive. She mentioned three contributors, but only one of them (Haberstr) felt offended by her comment. Others said nothing here. Actually, I must agree with her that Haberstr does POV-pushing. Why exactly user Kalidasa777 started this battleground request on behalf of Haberstr is not entirely clear. Perhaps there is a reason, but I am not sure. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 21:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

::Re: the statement "Others said nothing here". No longer true. See Tobby72's post below. [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 23:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

:: Perhaps there is a reason, yes. I started this ANI (not "on behalf of Haberstr" or anyone else) because Iryna's recent post doesn't just allege "POV pushing". Iryna wrote: "There has been '''no good faith''' argument brought to the table, and this is really starting to get way beyond another irritating bit of POV pushing." (emphasis added) {{Diff|Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation|711323672|711314413}} It was especially this denial of GF which I objected to, even though I wasn't one of the 3 WP users she named. That is why I took the step of complaining directly to Iryna on her user talk page. And her negative response left me no other option but to begin this ANI.

:: As Haberstr has mentioned, in an earlier posting to the Crimea article talk page, Iryna used the expression ''' "relentless bad faith disruption" '''. {{Diff|Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation|653417675}} You really see nothing problematic in that sort of language, My very best? As for the expression "dropping the stick", I quite like it. Perhaps it's time for Iryna to do a little stick-dropping herself, by withdrawing her claims of bad faith? [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 23:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
:::So, she responded you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIryna_Harpy&type=revision&diff=711612915&oldid=711528437 this] on her talk page, which left you "no other option but to begin this ANI". OK, but prior to staring this ANI thread you suppose to ask her some details (or investigate yourself) if she was right or wrong about this, meaning you must be sure these two users were not in fact [[WP:DE|disruptive]]. Did you check what these users did on various pages? Why are you sure they were not in fact disruptive, exactly as she said? [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 00:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
::::No, I didn't need to establish whether she what she said on the article talk page is right or wrong. Because even if she had a valid complaint about behaviour of other editors, an article talk page is not the right place to put her complaint. See [[WP:TPG]]. [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 00:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
::::*The right place to complain about bad behavior of these editor would be [[WP:AE]]. However, instead of complaining about them on WP:AE, she simply said them: "hey people, please drop the stick and follow WP:Consensus", except that she said this using a slightly rougher language. That was <u>commendable</u> as something to actually minimize the conflicts and disruption. But instead of following her advice, you guys brought this to WP:ANI, which you know is not the place for resolving these disputes (the place is WP:AE). ''That'' is WP:Battle by ''you''. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 03:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

::::::Not "you guys", My very. This ANI was started solely at my own initiative. The policy page [[WP:CIVIL]] says that serious incivility can be reported to ANI if the matter can't be resolved via the user talk page. Since this ANI discussion started, you're the first to suggest that it should go to AE instead. Maybe you're right though. [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 05:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::No, I did not suggest to submit your request to WP:AE because your request is without merit: you suggest to punish a good contributor and protect more biased and disruptive contributors. I do agree, however, that people should not discuss each other on article talk pages, even when discussion is heated. They must definitely realize that. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 14:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

:::Really, Kalidasa 777? Hmm, have you taken a look at the article's [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&action=history&year=2016&month=3&tagfilter= edit history right now]? Please elaborate on how this demonstrates any form of good faith editing on behalf on Haberstr. He is edit warring against multiple other editors, including editors who have not spoken up here or on the talk page (but who are aware of what the consensus is, and that this is pure edit warring behaviour on his behalf). Stop defending the indefensible and casting [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] as to my editing practices. You're persisting with this hunt despite having had it being demonstrated that you are way off base. I'm getting really tired of having to defend myself against someone who has made it clear that this is personal, and that they have an [[WP:AXE|axe to grind]]. This has gotten to the point where even I'm going to say that you truly deserve a [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 00:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
::::There is no consensus, as is obvious from the edit history and the talk page history. I am not edit warring but simply inserting what I consider an NPOV and RS edit. As we all know, there are multiple long-standing and unresolved content disputes on various Ukraine-related pages. For years I and many others have attempted to discuss these civilly on the articles' talk pages, and have also made good faith edits based on our understanding of NPOV. Both sides in the current content dispute noted by Iryna '''I assume are making edits in good faith'''. Unfortunately Iryna does not, and this makes all of the Ukraine-related talk pages extremely toxic and extremely anti-Wikipedian experiences.[[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr|talk]]) 01:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
::::In the case of Tobby72, "relentless bad faith disruption" is exactly what has happened. From the start of this article, he has kept inserting PoV content into the article hidden behind benign edit summaries. When he is reverted, he stops editting for a few days and comes back, inserting the same material. If a talk page discussion occurs, he ignores it, and keeps reinserting the material. He has been doing this for years. Just going back to 17 October 2015, as that is as far as I care to go right now, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=686165797&oldid=686152733 we see Tobby inserting a GfK poll], along with tons of pictures. The pictures, which are irrelevant to the article, are meant to hide the insertion of the GfK poll, the inclusion of which had been previously discussed and determined to be [[WP:UNDUE]]. When the content is removed again, per that previous discussion, Tobby [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=687266550&oldid=687206012 comes back on 24 October] to reinsert it with "relevant, cited" as the edit summary, which is totally nonsense. He is reverted again, of course. That's not enough for Tobby72, however. He comes back on [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=701241907&oldid=701241321 23 January 2016] to reinsert the content again, calling the removal "politically motivated", and claiming in his ES that he is restoring a "stable version", a clearly false statement on any basis. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=708115413&oldid=707907516 He comes back again] on 3 March 2016 to do the same thing, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=710107334&oldid=708929256 then again on 14 March]. This is just slow motion edit-warring, nothing more than disruption. [[User:RGloucester|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:12pt;color:#000000">RGloucester </span>]] — [[User talk:RGloucester|☎]] 00:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::THIS ^^^^^^^. Tobby72's behavior on this set of articles has been nothing short of ridiculous. The fact that someone can carry on a slow motion edit war against multiple editors for more than a year and who insists so blatantly on playing [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]], and who uses misleading edit summaries to mask the fact that they're just trying to restore the same POV text over and over again (for over a year!) and THEN turns around and accuses others of "being disruptive" just takes the cake. It's an insult to the reader's intelligence it's so transparently dishonest.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 00:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::The good faith interpretation of Tobby72's behavior: 1) He/she does not believe there is a consensus. 2) He/she adds an RS source that he/she believes is NPOV in order to solve what he/she believes is the POV bias in a section of text. 3) He/she is frustrated by the very-long-term and repetitious attacks on his/her character and good faith and on what he/she believes are his/her efforts to improve various Wikipedia entries. This phenomenon has happened to several other good faith editors who have tried to edit the Ukraine-related articles in a way they believed was NPOV, but whose conception of NPOV conflicted with the beliefs of Iryna/Marek/Gloucester/Wishes, the first three of whom then attacked their character and good faith. I get where Tobby72 is coming from.[[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr|talk]]) 01:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

::::::::::*User:RGloucester (btw, this user has been repeatedly blocked for disruptive behavior - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RGloucester/Archive_10]) : "''... and claiming in his ES that he is restoring a "stable version", a clearly false statement on any basis.''" — Actually, it was stable version, inserted on [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=678886843&oldid=678495346 1 September 2015], removed on [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=701057749&oldid=701023275 22 January 2016]. "''.. the insertion of the GfK poll, the inclusion of which had been previously discussed and determined to be WP:UNDUE''" — No consensus has been reached on this, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=710118428&oldid=710113466 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=678886843&oldid=678495346 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Crimea&diff=660597830&oldid=660597420 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=652922670&oldid=652906281 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Crimea&diff=687880053&oldid=687776243 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=652976614&oldid=652969050 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=651023674&oldid=650997795 diff].

::::::::::*User:Volunteer Marek : ''... and who uses misleading edit summaries"'' — Evidently, the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" means nothing to you - [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Donetsk_People%27s_Republic&diff=636274563&oldid=636241089 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine&diff=649100661&oldid=649096284 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=701284107&oldid=701278543 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=655881844&oldid=655881597 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Donetsk_People%27s_Republic&diff=676411293&oldid=676411166 diff]. -- [[User:Tobby72|Tobby72]] ([[User talk:Tobby72|talk]]) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

::I'd agree that edit warring, fast or slow, is not the best way to resolve content issues. The best way is by means of civil discussion on the talk page. Personal attacks on article talk pages are a bad idea, because they make it impossible to have that civil discussion about content. [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 01:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Certain users are constantly involved in edit warring over it, see — '''Iryna Harpy''': [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=697658155&oldid=697631191 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=710140113&oldid=710118599 diff]. '''Volunteer Marek''': [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=652977407&oldid=652976614 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Crimea&diff=660601426&oldid=660597830 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=701057749&oldid=701023275 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=651490616&oldid=651488043 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=650983250&oldid=650974643 diff]. '''My very best wishes''': [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=655076151&oldid=655069609 diff]. '''RGloucester''': [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=660682671&oldid=660678093 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=652934201&oldid=652922670 diff]. Numerous discussions have taken place, all resulting in no consensus, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation/Archive_5#POV_blanking POV blanking], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation/Archive_6#Crimean_opinion_poll Crimean opinion poll], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation/Archive_7#Bobrov_vs_GfK_public_opinion_research Bobrov vs GfK public opinion research].

::::Vague accusations like [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]], [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]], [[WP:CRUSH]], "disruptive and bad faithed" [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_in_Donbass&diff=687665872&oldid=687127737], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghouta_chemical_attack&diff=693750106&oldid=693749510], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=661442046&oldid=661434673] are leveled at other editors in an obvious attempt to silence them. I would also note that my experience has shown that [[User:Volunteer Marek]] is constantly rude and offensive towards other editors — [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_in_Donbass&diff=678681425&oldid=678681211] “Because youtube is not being used as a source. A video on youtube is being used as a source. This has already been explained to both you and Tobby72 so '''how about the two of you quit playing dumb.'''” 23:40, 30 August 2015; [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya&diff=680892973&oldid=680890853] “'''exactly how many fucking times have you been warned''' about making personal attacks and accusing others of being "anti-Russian"? It's not only insulting but moronic. ... '''Please stop being a ridiculous thoughtless jerk'''.” 21:39, 13 September 2015; [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Ukrainian_revolution&diff=646282237&oldid=646277083] “'''Will you please stop posting idiotic nonsense to Wikipedia talk pages?''' RT comments section is somewhere.” 2:40, 9 February 2015; [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_in_Donbass&diff=660724688&oldid=660618919] “Yes it was discussed there and ... THE FREAKIN' CONSENSUS WAS AGAINST YOU!!!! Stop playing disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.” 17:39, 3 May 2015.

::::[[User:My very best wishes]] has been repeatedly retiring and unretiring, often several times a week, since 2013, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:My_very_best_wishes&diff=prev&oldid=711825706], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:My_very_best_wishes&diff=prev&oldid=711883356], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:My_very_best_wishes&diff=prev&oldid=711890443]. Is this behavior appropriate? - -- [[User:Tobby72|Tobby72]] ([[User talk:Tobby72|talk]]) 15:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::What it is, is none of your business.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::And Tobby72, you do realize what your diffs '''actually show''', right? They show that you've been involved in a freakin' '''year long edit war''' against '''multiple editors''' and that your level of disruption has reached truly '''ridiculous''' proportions. Here's what you've been doing: consensus was against you. But instead of moving on and dropping the stick '''you've been coming back to the same articles and trying to make the same edits about once every two weeks driving other editors crazy in the process'''.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 23:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::There's no consensus: consensus means everyone is on the same page. The fact of the matter is you having unjustifiably and consistently removed well-documented and sourced information from reliable sources. ... Volunteer Marek's year long edit war against multiple editors: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=650983250&oldid=650974643 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=652977407&oldid=652976614 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Crimea&diff=660601426&oldid=660597830 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=710113466&oldid=710107334 diff]. -- [[User:Tobby72|Tobby72]] ([[User talk:Tobby72|talk]]) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::I agree with Marek that if an editor wants to take a wikibreak, that's their own business. It's certainly preferable to insulting people. I agree with Tobby72 about the rude and offensive language Marek has repeatedly used on WP talk pages. Examples like "ridiculous thoughtless jerk" and "not only insulting but moronic" help me to understand why Marek sees nothing wrong with Iryna's rather similar behaviour. [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 23:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Gimme a break. The "not only insulting but moronic" was a comment directed at a user who was falsely accusing me of bigotry. And not only were they falsely accusing me of it, they were also implying that a prominent Russian journalist was "anti-Russian". And guess, what? It was THAT user that got ban-hammered. Deservedly so.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Please have a look at the policy page [[WP:CIVIL]], Volunteer Marek. "If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind." [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 00:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::I did engage in civil discussion on the talk page, as tobby72 has, and as you have. There is no responsive discussion, and no consensus.[[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr|talk]]) 01:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
::::You've only started "being civil" (while still POV pushing like crazy, per [[WP:CRUSH]]) after you came within a hair's breadth of getting indef banned because you were running around accusing anyone who disagreed with you of "hating Russians" and of being CIA operatives and the like.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::No matter why Haberstr started being civil, the fact remains that he did start. The diffs presented here, and your response to them, show that Marek and Iryna Harpy have ''not yet started'' being consistently civil to people who disagree with them.[[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 01:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Yes, of course everyone assumes good faith on your behalf, Haberstr. Let's see: ah, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive156#Haberstr here's an example of that assumption]. I'm not even going to mention prior AE encounters as to your good faith, nor how many times EdJohnston has been called in to examine both your good faith and Tobby72's good faith. Donning all of the trappings of being civil is not civility, it's [[WP:CPUSH]]. Again, my calling [[WP:SPADE]] is a matter of having had enough of the GAMING. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 03:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::Iryna, good to have you back. Once again, though, you assume bad faith on my part. I am not sure why you do that. I assume you are in good faith editting the Ukraine-related articles in an NPOV manner, and I don't know why you don't assume I am doing the same. The problem here is entirely about you assuming bad faith, and expressing that assumption, on the part of all editors who just happen to disagree with your perspective -- and there have been many over the years, most of whom have abandoned editing the pages in the face of withering attacks on their good character. All Kalidasa and I are trying to do is to get you to stop attacking people's motives. Attacking substance is fine, but attacking motives based on 'reading minds' is not.[[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr|talk]]) 05:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

'''Update — New claims of "bad faith" on Crimea talk page''' Since this ANI began, there have been two further postings on the Crimea annexation article talk page which contain the words ''' "bad faith" '''. One by Volunteer Marek {{Diff|Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation|711675425|711664801}}, the other by Iryna Harpy. {{Diff|Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation|711677950|711675425}} [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 00:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
:'''Can you stop bolding your comments for no reason, as if they were way more important than they really are''' ? 04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Volunteer Marek|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
::I've bolded key words to prevent them being lost among walls of text. Unlike some people, I've also signed each of my comments. [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 05:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Come on, I don't want to see emboldened phrases present 332 times somewhere on every line. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|QEDK]] <small>([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:green">T</span>]] &#128214; [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:red">C</span>]])</small></span> 05:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Hello QEDK. I'd love to read your comment on the substance (rather than the style) of my incident report. [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 06:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless we want to consider a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] against User:Kalidasa 777 for disruptive canvassing or against Tobby72 for his year long edit warring and misleading use of edit summaries to mask it, I'm pretty sure this conversation is going nowhere.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 00:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

::I think that there are more users disagreeing with Volunteer's POV, than those who support it, but Volunteer Marek, Iryna Harpy, My very best wishes and RGloucester are more determined to keep things as they are.

::— User:Alex Bakharev — [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=710118428&oldid=710113466 diff], User:Dstary — [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=678886843&oldid=678495346 diff], User:Anonimski — [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Crimea&diff=660597830&oldid=660597420 diff], User:MyMoloboaccount — [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=652922670&oldid=652906281 diff], User:Seryo93 — [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=651023674&oldid=650997795 diff], User:LeoKiev01 — [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Crimea&diff=687880053&oldid=687776243 diff], User:Kudzu1 — [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=653499891&oldid=653464811 diff], User:Buzz105 — [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=653012179&oldid=653005501 diff], User:Tobby72 — [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=651469635&oldid=651469525 diff], User:Haberstr — [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=652976614&oldid=652969050 diff]. As far as ''[[Bloomberg News]]'' goes, I think it's a reliable source. -- [[User:Tobby72|Tobby72]] ([[User talk:Tobby72|talk]]) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

:Iryna is hypocritical, having accused me of bias just because I removed a section full of POV content that happened not to match with this person who may be called "frantically pro-American" by some of my acquaintances [[Special:Contributions/116.31.83.159|116.31.83.159]] ([[User talk:116.31.83.159|talk]]) 03:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
::Hmmm, there's no such removal in your edit history which means that you're referring to something you must've done with some other account. So... yet another throw away account trying to create controversy, abusing multiple accounts, etc. etc. etc. same ol' story which is so old by now it's not even annoying anymore, just stupid.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 06:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::I think the IP user is referring to an edit to the article [[Human rights in Russia]]. Yes, it is there in the user's edit history, and yes, it was reversed by Iryna... It's perhaps only marginally relevant to the question of personal attacks on the Crimea and Dugin article talk pages. But there's no need to [[WP:bite|bite the newbies]], Marek. [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 09:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
::::{{re|Kalidasa 777}} The IP was actually referring to two articles they'd made POV removals of content from, one of them being the removal of important content from an infobox. Despite my being 99.999% certain that the IP is someone I can identify for [[WP:BLOCK EVASION]], I responded to their 'query' (although I use that term as being extremely loosely construed) on my talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iryna_Harpy#No-neutral here]. The removal of information in the second article is particularly ludicrous given that their fighting the Nazis was attested to at the Nuremberg trials. Nonetheless, I have treated the IP as a fallible human being who may likely be uninformed, and making errors in judgement based on a lack of knowledge of the subject matter. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 22:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::{{re|Iryna Harpy}}You've claimed to be 99.999% certain that the IP user is violating [[WP:BLOCK EVASION]], but you've offered zero proof. When will you stop making unsubstantiated attacks on WP users? [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 05:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|Kalidasa 777}} Because I know where the IP is operating from, just for starters. In my response the the IP, however, I treated any suspicions as being absolutely irrelevant as I did not revert them because they are probably the user I have in mind: I reverted them for removing valid content without so much as an edit summary, only to have them leave a response on my page telling me that I'm not a neutral editor, and that they think that their removals were based on somehow being just instead of just being uninformed [[WP:PPOV]]. So, when are ''you'' going to stop scraping the bottom of the barrel in your campaign to discredit me because you're floundering to save face over having started a badly investigated, badly thought out ANI out of some sort of sense of superiority and self-righteous witch hunt? Now that you have the ball rolling, it's rolling right over you and, rather than back down and preserve a little dignity, you feel compelled to have the [[WP:LASTWORD]] and [[WP:WIN]] the day. You've elicited input from uninvolved editors and admins, yet none have rallied around you in support as you had hoped would happen. Initially, I actually felt a little sorry for you, having given you credit for being inadvertently caught up in a highly complex and long running [[WP:GAME]]ing campaign by Habserstr and Tobby because you're not an experienced editor. Your ongoing admonishments bogged down in any petty incident you can scratch up has, sadly, left me in no doubt that this is not the result of jumping into the editing deep-end by throwing yourself into the most controversial areas of Wikipedia without having any idea of the history of these articles... so, with this last 'reprimand', you've truly and finally lost any of my sympathy or support toward you. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 05:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::{{re|Iryna Harpy}} You say your have suspicions about IP 116.31.83.159. What is your suspicions happen to be wrong? What is this person is a genuine newby, and is watching this page to see how you and others respond to his/her comment here? Do you think the flame you've just written is a good introduction to Wikipedia? [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 19:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy also routinely engages in accusations of bad faith in her Edit Summaries:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=711492303&oldid=711483362] ”'''Do not edit war, or engage in disruptive editing'''.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=704009056&oldid=704008769] “'''Stop your WP:POV pushing'''. Take your issues to the talk page instead of '''edit warring'''.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=701724607&oldid=701650184] ” Don't just modify or remove content '''because you JUSTDONTLIKEIT.'''” [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&offset=&limit=500&action=history] ” If you want to refactor the lead to reflect the RF narrative '''per WP:POV pushing''', take it to the talk page instead of '''sneaking in changes''' under misleading WP:ES.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=686732307&oldid=686731894] ” Rv WP:UNDUE + '''WP:POV pushing''' for lead.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=686123120&oldid=686025217] ” you are using '''misleading WP:ES to POV push'''.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=651610561&oldid=651604501] "'''blatant POV refactoring'''.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=640886385&oldid=640864028] ”no discussion over '''WP:POV use of 'incorporation''''[[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr|talk]]) 05:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:Because you are acting in bad faith.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 06:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:More precisely, looking through these diffs, it seems pretty much '''every single description is accurate'''. So all you're proving here is that you have been in fact editing disruptively and in bad faith, and just got called out on it. Remind me why you shouldn't be topic banned (and a hefty block as a warning to stop this kind of [[WP:GAME]]ing behavior is warranted too)? [[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 06:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
::Again, there is zero evidence for your contention that I, tobby, or kalidasa are editing in bad faith. I'm not sure what you consider evidence. Is it possible that you think that editos who have a perspective different from yours on NPOV are always POV-pushing and therefore acting in bad faith? Assumption of bad faith on that basis creates an exceptionally abusive editing environment, as we readily see from your and Iryna's comments.[[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr|talk]]) 13:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::No, you actually managed to provide the evidence yourself. Every single one of those diffs shows that you were doing exactly of what Iryna said you were doing. What's worse, saying that a user "is acting in bad faith", as Iryna did, or actually acting in bad faith, as you and your buddies are doing? [[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 18:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC).
::::Now Marek is also accusing me and others of bad faith editing. Again I ask you and Iryna to stop doing that, since there is no evidence and it is very unpleasant being constantly accused of bad character and bad motives. That I insert edits you don't like, because you and I have a different point of view on NPOV, is not evidence of bad faith. Please stop making the current discussion toxic, and please stop making the annexation talk page discussion toxic. And that goes back, always, to you (and Iryna) learning what 'bad faith' and 'evidence of bad faith' mean.[[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr|talk]]) 13:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
''' Summary of the problem '''
:1. A few days ago, Iryna Harpy used the Crimea annexation article talk page to accuse 3 other editors (Tobby72, Haberstr, and Moscow Connection) of faults including "no good faith". Regarding one of these editors (Moscow Connection), she afterwards withdrew her accusation. Regarding the other two, she did not withdraw. She has since again used the same article talk page to accuse people of "bad faith". Another editor, Volunteer Marek has followed her example by also making accusations of "bad faith" on the article talk page.
:2. Accusing someone of "bad faith" (in other words, bad ''motive'') is more personal and serious than criticising something they did. It is like accusing someone of vandalism — deliberately harmful editing. Besides, article talk pages are supposed to be there for discussing content, not for criticising other editors.
:3. This is not a case of previously civil editors who suddenly snapped. Haberstr, Tobby72 and I have presented diffs above which show that both Iryna and Marek have a long history of making personal attacks against multiple people on article talk pages, including extreme expressions like "pineapples up his arse" (quote from Iryna) and "ridiculous thoughtless jerk" (quote from Marek). Iryna and Marek haven't denied these incivilities, instead they have talked about faults of the people they attacked, apparently wanting to show that their flagrant incivility was well deserved.
:4. Iryna and Marek have complained about edit warring. However, edit wars are frequent in WP, generally have two sides, and are symptoms of a dispute about content. A content dispute is best addressed by civil discussion. Surely not by misusing an article talk page to attack the ''motives'' of others.
:5. Iryna and Marek have complained here about "canvassing" by me in relation to this ANI. In fact I did one thing Iryna herself should have done but did not do — I contacted each of the persons she recently attacked by name on the Crimea article talk page, and let them know what she had said about them. I also notified each of them, and Iryna, about this ANI. That was canvassing? [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 08:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Latest insulting prose by Iryna at the Annexation page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation#PEW_Poll_of_Crimeans_on_annexation_referendum_must_be_in_annexation_referendum_subsection]: ''Talk about wrapping a paradigm into an enigma, then stuffing it in a won-ton wrapper and asking someone their opinion on whether the weather is 'good', 'bad' or 'indifferent' compared to nothing other than what kind of weather they like.'' 02:27, 26 March 201. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Haberstr|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
::Thanks to {{u|Drmies}} for discovering that... I got lost. But it would be interesting to know ''why'' {{u|Kalidasa 777}} felt the need to try and hide another editor's post; particularly giving the somewhat lame reason that it had been left unsigned. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 21:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Hi Fortuna. I didn't know how it got there. Because it was unsigned and undated, I was concerned that it might be misunderstood as my own postscript to my signed dated posting immediately above it. [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 21:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::It should be noted that Haberstr isn't the first to make the mistake of leaving a posting undersigned. Marek did the same in his post at 04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC). I wish everyone would be more careful... [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 21:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
::::It should ''also'' be noted that refactoring other editors' comments without good reason is looked upon far more dimmly by the community than the not signing of posts :) whatever. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 21:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::You're right, Fortuna. I slipped up. My apologies to Haberstr and to the community for interfering with his GF post.[[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 22:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to you, Kalidasa, and to everyone for forgetting to sign the above, and thereby confusing folks.[[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr|talk]]) 13:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

*This is a farce, as I predicted it would be. I don't know why Kalidasa 777 has come out of the woodwork to gang up on Iryna and Marek, but I can tell that the reason is far from rooted in good faith. [[User:RGloucester|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:12pt;color:#000000">RGloucester </span>]] — [[User talk:RGloucester|☎]] 16:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
::You seem to be saying that you're not sure of my motive, but you know it isn't a good one. Is that what your saying. {{u|RGloucester}}? -- [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 18:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:*I agree: Harbestr does not conduct these discussions in good faith. How do I know it? Because he started a discussion that materials about PEW center survey were not included [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=711650239&oldid=711616637], while being perfectly aware that they [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&oldid=711492303#Crimean_public_opinion are already included]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 04:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Haberstr's proposal was the Pew poll finding re Crimeans' confidence in the referendum result should be mentioned in a different section — the section specifically about the referendum and what various people thought of it. ''That'' is your proof that Haberstr lacks good faith? [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 04:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Now you're getting the point, {{u|Kalidasa 777}}: Haberstr's 'proposal' is to stick it into the section describing/outlining the circumstances of the referendum [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation#Crimean_status_referendum here] where it is immaterial other than an attempt at [[WP:GEVAL]]. The section is dedicated to discussing the context, circumstances, and exclusion of international groups who would be in a position to observe and monitor the legitimacy of how the referendum was held, and where the content explicitly deals with RS describing the international community's disdain for the preclusion of genuinely neutral observers (selecting, instead, a handful of representatives affiliated with groups that he and his administration hoped would be more receptive to saying that it was all fair and above-board). Bottom line: wanting to stick it in there per the rationale offered by Haberstr [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=711650239&oldid=711616637 here] is a POV-push to demonstrate that 'this was the popular choice by the people of Crimea' as it has no bearing on the content being examined in the relevant section. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 06:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::Regarding this particular content question, I happen to agree with Haberstr. Does that mean that I also lack good faith? [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 07:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::*Hmm... Staring a discussion with demands to include info that has been already included. Doing this in a 101th time (same question just was debated in a previous section of the same page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation#Opinion_study] and many times before). Reporting users who are frustrated by this WP:DE drama to ANI. This is all certainly in a good faith. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 12:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::"This is all certainly in a good faith". Are you being sarcastic, {{u|My very best wishes}}? -- [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 17:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::The subsection on the referendum, in which the conduct and fairness of the referendum is attacked, should also have the poll where the Crimean people, through an RS poll reported by an RS source, state their opinion on those matters. There is a full and civil discussion of this matter at the talk page, where I have not been accused of bad faith. '''Can we get back on topic now'''? I think that topic is Iryna Harpy's repeated assumptions of bad faith against other editors, where her essential evidence seems to be "I disagree with your edit."[[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr|talk]]) 13:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::The way ANIs work, the discussion doesn't have to be only about the person mentioned at the start... Others can be criticised here, including the person who brought the ANI. What seems to be emerging, is that (1) RGloucester and Wishes not only defend Iryna's right (?) to make accusations of lack of good faith on an article talk page, they are also adding their own voices to Iryna's (though here rather than on the article talk page itself) (2) Now, not only you (Haberstr) and Tobby72 are being accused of having bad motives, I (Kalidasa) am being accused as well... [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 19:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::{{re|Kalidasa 777}} Why are you so surprised at the BOOMERANG principle? Yes, the ANI is used by editors to report warring, disruptive behaviour, and other problems on articles where they are ''uninvolved''. You opened this ANI because you were (and still are) involved, therefore your motivates for bringing this to the very public attention of admins and members of the editing community and are, rightly, subject to scrutiny. As soon as negative responses to your submission started coming in from other editors, you widened your net to drag in more and more editors and accused them of collusion, all the while claiming that you, Haberstr, and Tobby72 are somehow innocent bystanders who have been caught up in a cabal of evildoers. At the end of the day, the behaviour you are displaying is what I would qualify as being bad faith. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 21:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::"Cabal of evildoers" is Iryna's choice of words, not mine.[[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 21:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::No, Iryna, I'm not surprised at the [[WP:BOOMERANG]] principle. I knew when I started this thread that my own behaviour could be critically examined. I'm confident that the administrators will look at complaints made about each of us in an impartial spirit, to see which (if any) complaints are substantiated and actionable. [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 22:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

'''Summary of the REAL problem'''

A couple users with a history of disruptive editing - Haberst, Tobby72, and Kalidasa 777 - are upset that they're not allowed to push their POV in peace. So Kalidasa 777 starts an ANI threat making nonsense accusations against a well respected and long standing contributor, Iryna, and engages in bad faith'ed canvassing to make sure his buddies show up. They do. And they join in the screaming and crying and hysterics. Haberst, who almost got indefinitely banned for going around accusing other editors of bigotry, and who as a result lay low for awhile, but now decided to come back and restart edit wars from long time ago. And Tobby72 who has been trying to stuff the same text over and over and over and over and over again against consensus for more than a year now and who uses purposefully misleading edit summary to try and mask what he's doing. That's about it.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 18:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::*{{u|Volunteer Marek}}, you've accused me, by name, of "a history of disruptive editing". You have diffs to demonstrate where and how I went wrong? Please present them here, with comments, so I can learn from my mistakes. [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 17:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

:We want to include the [[GfK]] poll results, as reported in reliable sources. That's all. I don't think there's a consensus to exclude the GfK survey, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=710118428&oldid=710113466 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=678886843&oldid=678495346 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Crimea&diff=660597830&oldid=660597420 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=652922670&oldid=652906281 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=710176899&oldid=710140905 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=702146717&oldid=702145700 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=652976614&oldid=652969050 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=651023674&oldid=650997795 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=653499891&oldid=653464811 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=652870448&oldid=652834463 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=710736004&oldid=710235049 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=653012179&oldid=653005501 diff]. Also please refrain from personal attacks. You have been asked to do so numerous times already. -- [[User:Tobby72|Tobby72]] ([[User talk:Tobby72|talk]]) 10:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

:Marek, do you believe that me, Kalidasa, tobby, and in the past molobaccount and others in the long-standing content disputes on the Annexation of Crimea page are all engaging in disruptive editing? I've heard your assertion many times, but what is your reasoning? Diffs are not reasoning. I look at the same diffs and, assuming good faith, what I see are content disputes over non-consensus, non-stable sections and subsections.[[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr|talk]]) 12:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Conducting a year long slow motion edit war, as evidenced by the diffs above, against multiple editors, is most certainly disruptive. That's Tobby. As for your case, I'll let the diffs speak for themselves.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 21:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::I can't answer for Marek, but you guys are bringing either very old diffs that are now completely irrelevant (this info ''was'' included) or a more recent change that has been reverted, discussed on article talk page and did not cause any further objections from the person who try to include this duplicate info. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 13:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:::The GfK survey was removed — [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=710140113&oldid=710118599 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=701057749&oldid=701023275 diff]. -- [[User:Tobby72|Tobby72]] ([[User talk:Tobby72|talk]]) 14:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
::::{{u|My very best wishes}}, you keep repeating "this info was included". Are you saying that once a piece of information is included in an article, there can then be no further good faith discussion about ''how'' the information is presented, e.g. about which part of the article it appears in, how much prominence it is given? [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 18:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::Yes, that was always included. I also rearranged these materials per your suggestions [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&type=revision&diff=712441587&oldid=712393937], but this edit was reverted by RGloucester. You should probably talk with him. I agree with you or rather do not care. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 05:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Wishes, I appreciate that you've taken some of my ideas on board and looked for areas of agreement. That RGloucester strongly disagrees, is part of the normal life of Wikipedia — ''of course'' people have different views about what to include and where to put it. That's why we need to have civil discussions on the talk pages, without personal attacks. As you wrote earlier in this thread: "people should not discuss each other on article talk pages, even when discussion is heated. They must definitely realize that." [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 11:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Why is this being used as a surrogate for the article's talk page? --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 09:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

* Quite a lot has been said here, but by a limited number of people. Almost all of them directly involved with the Crimea Annexation page. Input from ''uninvolved'' Wikipedians might help to resolve this rather complex and conflicted situation. [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 06:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
::Which particular issue is it that you're asking other editors and admins to 'resolve'? --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 09:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::I think the basic issue here is whether ''all'' Wikipedia users have the right to be treated civilly, especially on article talk pages? Or whether (as some seem to think) that right disappears if they've been involved in a content dispute with Iryna Harpy, Volunteer Marek, and RGloucester? [[User:Kalidasa 777|Kalidasa 777]] ([[User talk:Kalidasa 777|talk]]) 21:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::That's a really ... inaccurate way of portraying the issue, especially given the well documented disruptive editing by Tobby72 and other users above. However, seeing as how nobody uninvolved has bothered to get in on this, it's probably a good idea for you to drop this, rather than keep on beating this dead horse.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 21:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Or maybe someone possesses an everlasting "get out of jail free" card and is understandably just taking advantage of it. This has been going on for years, and will continue for years more. [[User:Tiptoethrutheminefield|Tiptoethrutheminefield]] ([[User talk:Tiptoethrutheminefield|talk]]) 20:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

== Springee campaigning ==

User reported: {{userlinks|Springee}}

Diff: {{diff2|711821491|21:57, 24 March 2016}}

Inappropriate notification. Non-neutral wording of notice. Campaigning; attempt to sway the person reading the notice.

Previous reports of {{u|Springee}} for canvassing
# 2 December 2015: [[WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive907#User_Springee_Canvassing]] by {{u|Scoobydunk}}
# 11 March 2016: [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#March 2016 User:Springee canvassing]]

Respectfully request:
# administrator removal of inappropriate non-neutral personal comment portion of RfC notice at [[WT:WikiProject Automobiles#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction]]; and
# warning to Springee reminding of our project's behavioral guideline [[WP:CANVASS]], in particular our community norm regarding the need for neutrality in notifications.

Thank you. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 16:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

::The above statement are likely from a banned editor who has attempted to harass both {{U|Ricky81682}} and myself over the past six months or so. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 20:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

*Allow me to be the first one to say that this is going too far. You obviously have a problem with {{u|Springee}} that you are unwilling to address. Besides seeing a failure to discuss the wording with Springee, I personally do not see any violation of [[WP:CANVASS]]. The only way that the wording is not neutral is if you look for a personal attack in the first sentence, which is absurd. While the wording could have been "An editor has raised question to...." The comment as it stands ({{tq|I'm not sure why the editor responsible for the below RfC failed to notify this board.}}), is by no way something deserving of ANI. <span style="text-shadow:7px 5px 7px maroon">-- [[User:The Voidwalker|<span style="color:#123524">The Voidwalker</span>]] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">[[User talk:The Voidwalker|<span style="color:#353839">'''Discuss'''</span>]]</span></sup></span> 17:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
::I am requesting that someone other than myself, if they agree, please remove that first sentence from the notice, and remind an editor of our norm of neutral notice wording. Thank you. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 17:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
* I don't see any canvassing either. The wording was simply "I don't know why the editor didn't notice the wikiproject". It wasn't any accusation at all. Frankly, there's no ''requirement'' that someone notify a project about an RFC occurring at a page within it especially since it does show up at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles#Article_alerts]]. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 18:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
::Thank you for your comment. Yes, the RfC was already on the project page, which explains why talk was not notified. Yes, no one is required to notify. May I respectfully request that you take another quick look at the notice with an eye toward specifically campaigning, using non-neutral wording of a notice to sway respondents, by slyly attempting to make an issue of motives? Again, I seek only a little clean-up and a warning from a third party, perhaps a reminder of the availability of [[Template:Please see]]? Thank you again. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 19:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

===Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD===
I propose a 1 year two-way interaction ban between {{U|HughD}} and {{U|Springee}}.

Reasoning: I recalled seeing an ANI post like this just days ago (found [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#March_2016_User:Springee_canvassing|here]]) and upon searching "springee hugh" in the noticeboards, I was appalled by how much I found and how recently it all was. Even today an AN3 case was closed ([[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:HughD_reported_by_User:CZmarlin_.28Result:_Warned.29|1]]). These two report each other to various noticeboards far too frequently ([[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive292#User:HughD_reported_by_User:Springee_.28Result:_declined.29|2]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#RfC_spamming.2C_canvasing.2C_cross_posting.__User:_HughD|3]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive303#User:HughD_reported_by_User:Springee_.28Result:_Stale.29|4]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive298#User:HughD_reported_by_User:Springee_.28Result:_Protected.29|5]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#March_2016_User:Springee_canvassing|6]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive309#User:HughD_reported_by_User:Springee_.28Result:_Protected.29|7]] ) or end up proposing sanctions for each other ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#one_year_site_ban_for_Springee], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure/Archive_18#Talk:Americans_for_Prosperity.23Request_for_comment|8]]). Even {{U|Ricky81682}} proposed such an interaction ban back on 25 September 2015 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#one_year_site_ban_for_Springee]). Both editors have most recently been on [[Ford Pinto]] and [[Chrysler]] and [[Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.]] and associated talk pages all month, raking up dozens of edits. They appear to have followed each other to these pages, as well as other pages back in January (Interaction timelines: [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?page=Ford_Pinto&users=Springee&users=HughD Ford Pinto interactions], [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?page=Talk%3AFord_Pinto&users=Springee&users=HughD Talk:Ford Pinto interactions], [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?page=Chrysler&users=Springee&users=HughD Chrysler interactions], [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?page=Talk%3AChrysler&users=Springee&users=HughD Talk:Chrysler interactions], [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?page=Grimshaw_v._Ford_Motor_Co.&users=Springee&users=HughD Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. interactions], [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?page=Talk%3AGrimshaw_v._Ford_Motor_Co.&users=Springee&users=HughD Talk:Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. interactions], [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?page=ExxonMobil&users=Springee&users=HughD ExxonMobil interactions], [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?page=Talk%3AExxonMobil&users=Springee&users=HughD Talk:ExxonMobil interactions], [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?page=ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy&users=Springee&users=HughD ExxonMobil climate change controversy ineteractions], [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?page=Talk%3ADonors_Trust&users=Springee&users=HughD Talk:ExxonMobil climate change controversy interactions]). In sum, these two appear to follow each other, report each other, and cannot edit constructive together. They cause disruption together and need to be separated. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please &#123;&#123;[[Template:re|re]]&#125;&#125;</small> 20:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Something needs doing, and this is probably the only thing that will do it. <span style="text-shadow:7px 5px 7px maroon">-- [[User:The Voidwalker|<span style="color:#123524">The Voidwalker</span>]] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">[[User talk:The Voidwalker|<span style="color:#353839">'''Discuss'''</span>]]</span></sup></span> 20:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Traveling''': I've been traveling for the past few days and have had limited internet access. I would ask for an opportunity to reply before any sanctions or blocks are applied to my account. Thank you. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 22:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
::While we're waiting, can someone please pitch in with a little clean-up of the totally unnecessary, non-neutral, personal comment prefacing the RfC notice at [[WT:WikiProject Automobiles#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction]]? After all, an RfC is one of our important mechanisms for de-escalating content disputes, please can it get off the ground free of a cloud of early non-neutral notification. Thanks. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 23:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Thank you, {{u|EvergreenFir}} for suggesting this - I've been watching Springee and HughD carry on for months now, the bad blood between them has been seriously disruptive across multiple articles. ''Both'' users have indeed followed the other to unrelated articles they'd never edited before, and engaged in some seriously disruptive behavior in a bid to win whatever argument they're currently having. It's been clear to me for some time that both of them are basically trying to goad the other one into further bad behavior in the hopes that they'll be blocked - despite repeated pleas from admins and other users (including myself) to just move on and leave each other alone. Their conflict has resulted in edit wars and train-wreck talk page disputes across too many articles. It's way past time admins put a stop to this. [[User:Fyddlestix|Fyddlestix]] ([[User talk:Fyddlestix|talk]]) 03:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I would like to avoid having editing restrictions placed on my account. I asked several editors for help related to this issue (Fyddlestix [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fyddlestix#Would_you_mind_offering_a_suggestion], Callanecc [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Callanecc#Could_you_offer_a_suggestion], EdJohnson [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Is_there_a_reasonable_number_of_edits_per_day.3F] and Ricky81682 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ricky81682#Sigh..._asking_for_help_again.]) specifically because I didn’t want this to turn into an edit war. I’ve been involved in automotive and closely related topics since establishing my account and certainly didn't follow HughD to these topics. Previously I have said that I do not wish to engage HughD in new topics and I have stuck to that. Please note that I have been involved with the Pinto topic since last year (3 edits not realizing I was logged out at the time, the Grimshaw article is about a Ford Pinto fire) and the Chrysler topic since last December. I think it is unfortunate that HughD would choose to edit those topics given my obvious involvement and his statements regarding our previous disagreements[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HughD#sorry_for_what.27s_been_happening_to_you]. That said, before any restrictions are applied to my account related to these edits I would ask that other editors on those two topics be given a voice here ({{U|NickCT}} and {{U|Greglocock}} on the Pinto talk page, {{U|CZmarlin}} and {{U|Historianbuff}} on the Chrysler page). I would also ask that editors consider this recent topic on the Pinto Talk page regarding HughD’s edits. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ford_Pinto#Pursue_Topic_Ban_for_HughD.3F] I will happily, voluntarily and '''if need be unilaterally''' agree to a 3 month interaction ban with HughD and that during that time we avoid any topic which we were not editing prior to March 1 of this year. I do not feel that it is fair or just to sanction my account for these editing issues given the stark difference in article page feedback between HughD and myself. Please note I am still traveling and will have limited internet access over the next day or two. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 20:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' at least so far as as pages which Springee has long edited. Regarding seeking out interaction, i dunno one way or the other, but it's a frequent temptation to any good editor to seek out and repair damage to other articles. That can often be found simply by tracking a particular editor's ...I dunno. "Contributions" looks like a euphemism, in some cases. [[User:Anmccaff|Anmccaff]] ([[User talk:Anmccaff|talk]]) 21:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I think topic bans would be an easier way to get at this. HughD needs to be topic banned from [[Ford Pinto]] where he is editing disruptively. Start with that page, then look at others both editors are on. Whoever was there second should be banned from the page. [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 21:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
* Pinging {{u|Callanecc}}, who on {{diff2|686290411|18 October 2015}} asked {{u|Springee}}:<blockquote>There's no ban violation there. You need to avoid this in the future, I can't see how you would have found this unless you were monitoring Hugh's edits. Therefore stop doing that and avoid commenting on Hugh's edits.<blockquote>
:: Though an administrator, Callanecc was but an arbitration ''clerk'' at the time, and the opportunity for a voluntary interaction ban was unfortunately ignored. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 23:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
* Pinging {{u|Scoobydunk}}, who on 14 September 2015 reported {{u|Springee}} here at ANI at [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing|for Hounding and Tendentious editing]] of me and others. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 23:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - {{u|EvergreenFir}}, thank you for your proposal. I believe your proposal will greatly improve my enjoyment of contributing to our project. I am, I think rightly, proud of my good articles, and my article space percentage (70%), but both have suffered mightily since Springee made me his project at the [[Americans for Prosperity]] good article effort in Spring 2015. May I please point out, I am ''not'' socking as the IP you link to as suggesting a sanction for Springee, and though not the main issue here, to be fair, there is hardly any sort of equivalency between my reports of Springee and Springee's prodigious noticeboard volume. May I respectfully ask that my colleagues decline consideration of voluntary alternatives, and decline attempts by some to use this noticeboard filing, originally over one incident of non-neutral notice, to fashion some kind of interaction ban hybrid with a topic ban, via drawing a complex armistice line through Wikipedia subjects. As far as waiting for holiday travel, if my colleagues here want to hold off until they see yet another wall of text arguing why Hugh should be banned, fine, but I'd just as soon get on with getting on with what best I can tell is a simple reasonable measured proposal. Thank you again. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 00:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
::Thank you again to EvergreenFir for your simple reasonable proportional proposal. Thank you to my colleagues for your support of the proposal. I have read and understand interactions bans and support the proposal.
::EvergreenFir wrote: "These two report each other to various noticeboards far too frequently or end up proposing sanctions for each other." May I clarify and quantify.
::'''Springee has reported HughD 7 times''':
::# AE [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187#HughD|27 December 2015]]
::# ANI [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#RfC spamming, canvasing, cross posting. User: HughD|31 July 2015]], proposed '''topic ban'''
::# ANI [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#Disruptive Behavior and Editing, HughD|6 August 2015]], proposed '''topic ban'''
::# 3RN [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive292#User:HughD reported by User:Springee (Result: declined)|22 August 2015]]
::# 3RN [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive298#User:HughD reported by User:Springee (Result: Protected)|26 October 2015]]
::# 3RN [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive309#User:HughD reported by User:Springee (Result: Protected)|7 March 2016]]
::# 3RN [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive310#User:HughD reported by User:Springee (Result: Protected)|12 March 2016]], proposed '''topic ban'''
::Springee has previously proposed topic bans for me three times, twice an at ANI and once at 3RN; four times including this current ANI report. I have reported Springee twice, at ANI, 11 March 2016 and the current report, and the harshest sanction I have proposed for Springee is above in this report: a warning reminding of the importance of neutrality in notifying and a reminder of the availability of the "please see" template. Springee's project for going on a year now has been getting HughD banned. Thank you again. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 05:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::{{U|HughD}}, you should also mention that in the last year you have been '''blocked five times, been topic blocked and had that blocked expanded.''' Perhaps the number of reports is just reflective of your editing behaviors. '''If you think I'm so mean why did you follow me to the Pinto and Chrysler topics?''' [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 11:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

*Comment. I don't think an IBAN would work. Although I honestly don't see a problem with the content of {{u|Springee}}'s edits, and I do see a serious problem with many of {{u|HughD}}'s edits, I think the only solution which would reduce disruption is to ban one or both of the editors from Wikipedia, or just ban ''both'' editors from any article and talk page where they have caused disruption, either being able to immediately appeal in the unlikely event that one is not at fault. Springee seems unable to avoid taunting Hugh, and Hugh seems unable to avoid making absurd statements about sources and policy.
*:As for me, I have actively avoided editing in topics where Hugh is likely to be found. ''My'' enjoyment of Wikipedia, and I believe Wikipedia's accuracy, would be greatly improved if Hugh were banned. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 01:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
::* Seconded re HD. I oppose any action on S but would ask him to back off a little [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 07:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

*'''Comment:''' I'm not sure if an IBAN would address the underlying issues. HughD and Springee are by far the two most active editors on the articles they are currently sparring at, [[Ford Pinto]] and [[Chrysler]]. If they can't interact on the talk pages of these articles, I'm afraid they'll just edit war in article space instead. However, it's not like their interactions on the talk page have ever yielded anything constructive. It seems quite clear that HughD followed Springee to automotive articles. Springee first edited Ford Pinto on January 11, 2016, while HughD made his first edit on March 2, 2016 (for Chrysler, Springee's first edit was in July 2015 and Hugh's in March 2016). HughD seems to be on a sort of revenge campaign after being [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HughD#Expansion_of_topic_ban topic banned] from U.S. political articles. His newfound interest in automobiles, which is an area Springee edited in prior to HughD's involvement, seems unlikely to be a coincidence. It looks more like calculated aggravation. I would know something about Hugh's penchant for appropriating his least favorite editors' interests, as several months ago he [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User%3AHughD&type=revision&diff=696363231&oldid=694990567 bizarrely plagiarized] my statement of editorial interests from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Safehaven86 my user page]. I don't think Hugh is interested in ''US Weekly'' or cars. I think he's interested in trying to make the editing lives of his perceived foes less pleasant. So yes, I'd support an IBAN as a first step, I suppose, but I think Hugh's continued involvement on automotive pages is highly likely to render him topic banned from that area as well. [[User:Safehaven86|Safehaven86]] ([[User talk:Safehaven86|talk]]) 15:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:: The "calculated aggravation" works both ways here - while it is less recent, Springee has done just as much (and as blatant) following of HughD - I detailed some of that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=677528429 at 3RR] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=697093331 at AE] months ago. Check the diffs, some of the harassment was pretty severe/blatant. More recently, Springee has posted eight times to HughD's talk page since HughD [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&diff=696365413&oldid=696311628 specifically asked him not to post there] (ie "banned" him from his talk page) in December, and devoted considerable effort and time into trying to get HughD sanctioned (multiple reports, contacting individual admins directly, etc). Both of these editors have been bearing a grudge against the other one for a ''long'' time now. [[User:Fyddlestix|Fyddlestix]] ([[User talk:Fyddlestix|talk]]) 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:::'''Springee persistent violations of''' [[WP:NOBAN]] despite repeated reminders:
::::*{{diff2|686505405|19 October 2015}} '''First notice''' HughD [[WP:NOBAN]] request to Springee "Do not post on my talk page" at [[User talk:Springee]]
::::*{{diff2|686574920|19 October 2015}}, {{diff2|686664566|20 October 2015}}, {{diff2|686759950|20 October 2015}}, {{diff2|686823419|21 October 2015}}, {{diff2|686825372|21 October 2015}}, {{diff2|687023423|22 October 2015}}, {{diff2|687513801|25 October 2015}}, {{diff2|687615854|26 October 2015}} Springee posts to [[User talk:HughD]]
::::*{{diff2|687617787|26 October 2015}} '''Second notice''' Springee reminded of [[WP:NOBAN]] request at [[User talk:HughD]]
::::*{{diff2|696299324|22 December 2015}} Springee posts to [[User talk:HughD]]
::::*{{diff2|696365413|22 December 2015}} '''Third notice''' Springee reminded of [[WP:NOBAN]] request at [[User talk:HughD]]
::::*{{diff2|696478487|23 December 2015}}, {{diff2|696934493|26 December 2015}}, {{diff2|696934693|26 December 2015}}, {{diff2|702032165|27 January 2016}}, {{diff2|707976359|2 March 2016}} Springee posts to [[User talk:HughD]]
::::*{{diff2|707977169|2 March 2016}} '''Fourth notice''' Springee reminded of [[WP:NOBAN]] request at [[User talk:HughD]]
::::*{{diff2|708819397|7 March 2016}} Springee posts to [[User talk:HughD]]
::::*{{diff2|708819722|7 March 2016}} '''Fifth notice''' Springee reminded of [[WP:NOBAN]] request at [[User talk:HughD]]
::::*{{diff2|709577957|11 March 2016}}, {{diff2|710705093|18 March 2016}} Springee posts to [[User talk:HughD]]
::::*{{diff2|710705789|18 March 2016}} '''Sixth notice''' Springee reminded of [[WP:NOBAN]] request at [[User talk:HughD]]
:::Thank you for your attention to this harassing editor behavior. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

*'''Comments''': I would like to address some of the comments here. I appreciate {{U|Safehaven86}}’s comments about HughD’s editing behaviors and following me to the Pinto and Chrysler topics. Like Safehaven86, HughD added an interest area of mine to his home page after the fact[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:HughD&diff=709550365&oldid=706183221]. HughD’s first Chrysler edit was reverting me (removal[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chrysler&diff=prev&oldid=709970100], added back[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chrysler&diff=710702773&oldid=710302288]).
:{{U|Fyddlestix}} has my respect and I contacted him for help[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fyddlestix#Would_you_mind_offering_a_suggestion] related to these issues. I do not agree with him in this case. Fyddlestix mentioned his comments in a previous AE [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=697093331]. My reply is here[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=697106160]. The wikihounding accusations last fall, though they didn't stick, made me wary of ANY actions may be seen as following HughD to new topics. HughD clearly followed me to the automotive topics. Regarding posts to HughD's talk page, consider what they were. Notifications of admin discussions are a requirement. I asked him to please watch the 3RR/warring hoping to avoid bigger issues. One post because it was clear he followed me to the Pinto article[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&diff=707976359&oldid=706513179] and one in frustration (but not attack)[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&diff=710705093&oldid=709578123]. These are not attempts to provoke.

:HughD’s Pinto edits have clearly upset other editors as well as myself. 250 edits at a rate of ~50 per day when many editors were asking him to slow down is disruptive [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ford_Pinto#Pursue_Topic_Ban_for_HughD.3F]. Chrysler page editors are also concerned about HughD’s edits as well[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&diff=710836106&oldid=710776426] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&diff=710773017&oldid=710763733]. My efforts were appriciated[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=711586018&oldid=710709753].

:I think Fyddlestix’s POV is based on the past, not the recent issues. I want to assure him this is not a case of me trying to provoke HughD but the other way around and rather blatant at that. Like {{U|Arthur Rubin}} I had grown tired of dealing with HughD and wanted to move back into primarily automotive topics. I was unhappy to find that HughD followed me to those topics. I do not believe it would be just to sanction my account because HughD decided to follow me. That said, I am more than willing to voluntarily and if need be unilaterally agree to an interaction ban. I would suggest that HughD respond in kind with a voluntary interaction ban and also agree to leave the Pinto and Chrysler related topics. If HughD feels I violate that voluntary ban then he has ample ammo for an ANI. Given his actions on the Pinto and Chrysler pages I would support topic blocks but I think a voluntary agreement to abandon the topics (hence my future work in the area would not be seen as an interaction) should be acceptable to us both. I’ve shown that I can stick to my word and will do so again. Again, I do not wish to be sanctioned because HughD followed me here. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 03:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
::'''Springee claims to have forsworn following''' after his previous report to [[WP:ANI]]:<blockquote>I’ve been involved in automotive and closely related topics since establishing my account and certainly didn't follow HughD to these topics. Previously I have said that I do not wish to engage HughD in new topics and I have stuck to that. </blockquote>and<blockquote>The wikihounding accusations last fall, though they didn't stick, made me wary of ANY actions may be seen as following HughD to new topics...I think Fyddlestix’s POV is based on the past, not the recent issues. I want to assure him this is not a case of me trying to provoke HughD...I’ve shown that I can stick to my word and will do so again.<blockquote>
::Unfortunately, this is not the case.
::'''Recent incidents of Springee following HughD''', with diffs (the following list is focused for brevity to incidents of Springee following HughD, when Springee's first edit to the article was to revert or undo HughD in article space, and does not include following to talk or noticeboards or following when Springee's first edit to the article was tagging):
::*[[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing|14 September 2015]] Springee reported at [[WP:ANI]] for [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing|for Hounding and Tendentious editing]], report opening with 8 articles to which Springee followed HughD
::*{{diff2|685795270|15 October 2015}} Springee's 1st edit at [[American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity]] was to '''revert''' HughD after 4 hours (HughD 1st edit was 18 August 2015)
::*{{diff2|685795061|15 October 2015}} Springee's 1st edit at [[Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow]] was to '''revert''' HughD after 4 hours (HughD 1st edit was 7 March 2015)
::*{{diff2|685794189|15 October 2015}} Springee's 1st edit at [[Beacon Center of Tennessee]] was to '''undo''' HughD after 4 hours (HughD 1st edit was 30 September 2015)
::*{{diff2|686290411|18 October 2015}} Admin asked Springee to stop following HughD and to stop commenting on HughD's edits
::*{{diff2|690245735|12 November 2015}} Springee's 1st edit at [[American Petroleum Institute]] was to '''revert''' HughD after 13 hours (HughD 1st edit was 18 August 2015)
::*{{diff2|696113469|21 December 2015}} Springee's 1st edit at [[ExxonMobil]] was to '''revert''' HughD after 5 hours (HughD 1st edit was 18 August 2015)
::*{{diff2|701141590|22 January 2016}} Springee's 1st edit at [[ExxonMobil climate change controversy]] was an '''undo''' of HughD after 3 minutes (HughD 1st edit was 22 January 2016)
::*{{diff2|708165089|4 March 2016}} Springee's 1st edit at [[Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.]] was to '''revert''' HughD after 3 hours (HughD 1st edit was 2 March 2016)
::Respectfully suggest to my colleagues that voluntary concessions are unlikely to be effective in curbing this disruptive following behavior. Thank you. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 16:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Noted. However, because of Hugh's frequent violations of content policies, Springee should be allowed to comment on such violations, even if he/she is not allowed to revert them. So this would be a somewhat modified IBAN. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 18:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Why would a voluntary, two way IBAN not work HughD? Are you afraid you won't hold to it? What evidence to you have that I can't be trusted? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 04:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::Above, Springee misrepresented his following behavior, claiming he stopped in the Fall of 2015. Below, Springee {{diff2|712441742|wrote on 28 March 2016}}: "I would like to start by pointing out that HughD's current topic block was the result of dishonestly presenting his own actions..." Do we have a policy or guideline or community norm regarding honesty in statements in support of a proposed sanction in behavioral noticeboard filings? Thank you. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 16:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::: {{u|HughD}}, {{u|Springee}}'s interpretation is the same as mine. As I was still assuming good faith on your part, I would have said that his block was the result of making an unbelievable assertion in regard his own actions, without saying it was dishonest. With your followups, it was either dishonest or indication of such inability to understand facts as to constitute a [[WP:CIR]] violation. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 14:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
::'''Springee followed HughD to a GA review'''. The above list highlights article space following behavior ''after'' Springee's claimed conversion. Other colleagues, including {{u|Scoobydunk}} at [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing]] and {{u|Fyddlestix}} at [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187#HughD]], have compiled comprehensive lists if the extensive following behavior prior to the claimed conversion, thank you very much to them for their support in addressing this long-overdue behavioral issue.
::But one earlier episode of Springee following me is particularly telling of Springee's priorities: 11 August 2015 Springee followed me to the [[Talk:Bernard Stone/GA2|Good Article Review]] of [[Bernard Stone]], a recently passed Chicago alderman, ''olav ha-sholom'', of which article I was the principle author and GA nominator, during collaboration to address issues from the GA review, to argue against GA. Thank you to all for your careful consideration of addressing this disruptive behavior. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 15:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::'''Additional evidence of Springee following HughD''' In support of the proposed interaction ban, may I respectfully submit for consideration additional evidence (again, in the interest of brevity, the following list is limited to article space, and to where Springee's first edit was a revert or undo of HughD):
::*{{diff2|676739269|18 August 2015}} Springee's 1st edit to [[Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change]] was to '''revert''' HughD after 2 hours
::*{{diff2|676768473|19 August 2015}} Springee's 1st edit to [[Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley]] was to '''undo''' HughD after 1 day
::*{{diff2|676836136|19 August 2015}} Springee's 1st edit to [[The Heartland Institute]] was to '''revert''' HughD after 1 day
::*{{diff2|677951935|26 August 2015}} Springee's 1st edit to [[FreedomWorks]] was to '''revert''' HughD after 3 days
::*{{diff2|678206286|27 August 2015}} Springee's 1st edit to [[Chicago-style politics]] was to '''revert''' HughD after 20 hours
::The record is clear that following and harassing HughD is a significant distinguishing characteristic of Springee's editorial behavior of the past year. Thank you to the community for your thoughtful consideration of the proposed interaction ban. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 16:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

*'''Comment to HughD's accusations''':HughD's accusations beg a question. If I have been so mean to him, '''why follow me here?''' It's not like automotive articles have been a topic space of HughD's. If he just wanted to be left alone doesn't following me to a space I've been in for a long time and he's never been in seem like he was looking to start a fight, a fight I didn't engage in per the views of the Pinto and Chrysler editors. I’m sorry but HughD’s claims above are very misleading if not outright dishonest. I would like to start by pointing out that HughD's current topic block was the result of dishonestly presenting his own actions in a previous ANI [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HughD#One-year_broad_topic_ban_imposition_related_to_the_Tea_Party_movement] as part of an AE request against another editor. Please keep that in mind when reading his accounting of events. To avoid a wall of text I have used the collapse feature. He is taking a laughable accusation of canvasing (later changed to campaigning) and trying to turn it into a dumping ground of old accusations. Why mention these issues months after the fact? Sadly I believe this is a plan on HughD's part. If he gets an IBAN then I believe he assumes that will result in an effective Pinto and Chrysler topic block for me. ''Regardless of outcome I would ask admins to consider the fact that the editors replying from the recent topics have been supportive of my participation on the topics in question.'' No editors have been supportive of HughD's involvement with the articles in question. While I believe a voluntary IBAN would solve the issue (not sure why HughD is against such a thing other than malice) it would be unjust to block me from automotive topics because HughD chose to follow me to those areas with the intent to be disruptive.
{{collapse top|General replies to HughD's accusations}}
HughD mentioned the [[Americans for Prosperity]] page. I replied to an RfC that HughD had at the page. I had no idea who HughD was prior to that article. A large number of editors were involved. Like the outside editors responding to the Chrysler and Pinto pages I was badgered by HughD because I didn't agree with his POV. A review of the editorial history of the page, an article which HughD was topic banned from, doesn't show any misbehavior on my part. I'm not sure why HughD would even claim it other than it was the first time we interacted as editors.

HughD states I followed him to several articles months after his first edit. That is a half truth. '''The topic of editorial disagreement was the use of a Mother Jones article citing the “dirty dozen of climate change”. This was a questionable article that HughD added to about a dozen articles.''' It was the subject of NPOV[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_55#The_Dirty_Dozen_of_Climate_Change_Denial] and RSN[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_197#The_Dirty_Dozen_of_Climate_Change_Denial] discussions and a number of editors including Arthur Rubin were involved. A range of related articles were noted in the NPOVN and RSN discussions. HguhD's additions began around August 18th. Because other editors, Arthur Rubin, {{U|Capitalismojo}} among others were involved in these edits I didn’t initially act on every page where HughD tried to insert this questionable reference. Thus while HughD wants to claim these as unique interactions, they are in fact all related to one issue, the insertion of a questionable source into many articles. In cases where HughD said I joined the article months later it was simply a case of others had previously reverted HughD’s edit. Rather than accepting the previous group consensus, he returned a month or so later and undid what the others had done. These aren’t examples of me following HughD to many new topics but rather restoring previous consensus related to a single citation used in a number of articles on a topic I was alread involved with. Articles include ones HughD mentioned, Coalition for Clean Coal, Constructive Tomorrow, Beacon Center, ExxonMobil and API articles. Basically that whole list of “he followed me” is actually related to a single topic.

'''HughD's claim related to the [[ExxonMobil climate change controversy]] article is again a half truth.''' The climate change article was spun off from [[ExxonMobil]] in January. I was one of the editors involved in that spin off and using HughD's reasoning '''I could claim he followed me to the article''' because my first talk page edit was January 15th [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy&diff=699985056&oldid=699982370]. Hugh’s first edit to the article was Jan 22nd[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy&diff=701125479&oldid=700031713] and he first joined the talk page 2 days later. However, I am honest enough to see the EM climate change article as just an extension of the parent article. It would be dishonest if I claimed HughD followed me to EM-climate change article, as is claiming I followed him. We were both involved in the parent article's climate change section when it was spun off.

[[Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.]] is the most significant lawsuit associated with the [[Ford Pinto]] case and is a closely related article as the one is pivotal in the telling of the other. Both {{U|Greglocock}} and I turned to the Grimshaw talk page before HughD[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grimshaw_v._Ford_Motor_Co.&action=history] to try to engage HughD before we mane any edits to the article. In this case I made almost NO changes to HughD's edits rather I added additional material and restored that material when HughD moved/removed it. I guess using the ExxonMobil reasoning HughD followed me to the Grimshaw talk page.
Hugh has attempted to make a big deal of the posts to his talk page. Please consider the nature of the posts. Some were required notifications (notice he doesn't mention that). Some were simply requesting that he please engage in talk page discussions. These were attempts to try to get HughD to the table, not attempts to antagonize. Quite unlike HughD falsely quoting me on his home page and then refusing to remove the content[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&diff=687023423&oldid=686825372#Request].
{{collapse bottom}}
:Regardless of HughD's misleading accusations of past wrong, if I am as mean to him as he claims and hurt his editing enjoyment that much, why follow me to the automotive article space at all? I don't think a single editor has accused me of taking a bad step when editing the Pinto or Chrysler related articles (other than Hugh himself). It would again seem very unfair to sanction me for the disruptions Hugh has caused on these articles. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 03:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

'''Respectfully request the community please proceed with a close with the imposition of the above proposed two-way interaction ban''', as the expressed consensus of uninvolved colleagues. Two-way interaction bans are simple to monitor and effective in preventing disruption. Enough is enough. It is long overdue. Thank you. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 21:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully request imposition of the two-way interaction ban proposed above by uninvolved colleagues. Thank you. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 14:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

=== Topic ban user [[User:HughD]] from [[Ford Pinto]] ===
<small>{{moved from|another ANI thread.}} --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|QEDK]] <small>([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:green">T</span>]] &#128214; [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:red">C</span>]])</small></span></small>
[[User:HughD]] has been disruptively editing our [[Ford Pinto]] article. Could an admin review [[Talk:Ford_Pinto#Pursue_Topic_Ban_for_HughD.3F|this discussion]] and see whether a topic ban would be appropriate? [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 21:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The still-active discussion above (titled "Springee Campaigning") also concerns HughD and the pinto dispute. Just sayin' [[User:Fyddlestix|Fyddlestix]] ([[User talk:Fyddlestix|talk]]) 22:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Fyddlestix}} - Thanks. Yeah. I noticed. I think that discussion is discussing an interaction ban, right? I just think HughD should get topic banned from [[Ford Pinto]]. I and others think that HughD has to get topic banned from Ford Pinto. That justifies a second discussion, no? [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 22:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
'''Support banning [[User:HughD]]:''' It's not worth trying to edit the Ford Pinto article with HughD participating. He's basically destroyed any pretense of unbiased editing, and he continues to seriously distort the article.[[User:842U|842U]] ([[User talk:842U|talk]]) 17:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

'''Oppose''' a Tban, as the problem extends far beyond just one article or one topic. Conflict between HughD and Springee has made a mess on a much broader range of articles and talk pages, ranging from [[Americans for Prosperity]] to [[Chicago-style politics]] to [[Ford Pinto]]. Topic banning one or both editors from a single article is going to do nothing to fix the larger issue here. [[User:Fyddlestix|Fyddlestix]] ([[User talk:Fyddlestix|talk]]) 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Fyddlestix}} - re "''Topic banning one or both editors from a single article is going to do nothing to fix the larger issue here.''" - Maybe not. But it would be a start.... [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 07:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
'''Support with condition''' As noted above I don't agree with Fyddlestix in this case. HughD's 50 edits per day before the article was locked, refusal to accept opinions from 3rd party editors and the clear consensus among the other editors that HughD is a problem mean that at least this part of the discussion is not about me. That said, I proposed a two way voluntary interaction ban between HughD and myself that would also include voluntarily leaving the automotive pages in question. Thus it would result in HughD leaving the page but no sanctions would be levied against his account. ''Please note, tomorrow is a travel day for me and I will have limited web access'' [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 03:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

'''Oppose''' The appropriate venue for the resolution of a content dispute is article talk, not a noticeboard. A civil disagreement regarding content, supported by noteworthy reliable sources, policy, and guideline, is not disruptive. Involved editors are respectfully requested to bring their article content proposals and best noteworthy reliable sources to [[Talk:Ford Pinto]]. Thank you. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 14:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
:{{reply to|HughD}} - This purpose of this conversation is not to discuss content. [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 14:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' per Fyddlestix's reasoning. Neither article nor the topic are the cause of the disruption. Removing an editor from it will not mitigate that disruption and only serve as a punitive measure. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please &#123;&#123;[[Template:re|re]]&#125;&#125;</small> 16:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
:{{reply to|EvergreenFir}} - Not sure how removing a disruptive editor from a particular article would not mitigate the disruption that editor was creating on that article. Seems like it would mitigate it quite effectively! [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 17:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

::Like I said, I don't think the article is the issue. If HughD is being disruptive on Ford Pinto specifically and only on that article, I'd agree. But they're are other articles that be being simultaneously disrupted. A tban from one of those articles only makes no sense. From my reading of the edit histories the interaction of the two editors is the main problem, so I'd rather try an iban first and see if the disruption stops. It almost certainly won't stop just from a tban from Ford Pinto. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please &#123;&#123;[[Template:re|re]]&#125;&#125;</small> 17:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|EvergreenFir}} - I agree it isn't the '''main''' issue, but it's certainly '''part''' of the issue. Tackling it would be tackling part of the issue.... What if we don't get an interaction ban? Is [[Ford Pinto]] still to suffer? [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 18:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::I think the legitimate fear is that HughD or I would follow one another to yet another article and the cycle would repeat. An IBAN (voluntary or not) addresses part of the issue in that neither editor would engage in an edit war if they aren't allowed to interact. A standard IBAN would block Hugh and I from editing any article where we had previously interacted. That would stop HughD from editing the Pinto article. That he seems happy about such an outcome supports the view of several editors that he was only there to wikihound me. This is why I've proposed a modified IBAN with a March 1 interaction date. It would in effect rewind the clock while still protecting the current and future articles. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 19:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::Please see our project's policy [[WP:IBAN]]. You wrote: "A standard IBAN would block Hugh and I from editing any article where we had previously interacted." You need not fear being unable to contribute to your articles. You are being asked by your colleagues to avoid interacting with HughD; the proposed interaction ban does not ask you to avoid any articles; our project's interaction ban policy involves no concept of "who was there first." Our project's interaction ban policy states that "A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption." Please help prevent further distress and wider disruption. Please join uninvolved editors in support of the proposed interaction ban. It's for the best for you, for me, and for our project. Don't be afraid; if it doesn't work, I think you know how to use ANI. Thank you. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 15:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' HughD's bad behavior might have been due to my presence at the [[Ford Pinto]] and [[Chrysler]] articles. That doesn't excuse his behavior at those articles. When the editors unanomously (minus HughD) request the blocking of an editor that has to mean something. Does anyone believe his talk page interactions don't violate [[WP:TEND]]? Regardless of why he chose to edit war and be disruptive the fact is he was. Conversely the editors involved with those articles have not accused me of any editorial violations and have supported me here.
:''I find it disappointing that HughD seems intent on blood rather than an amicable agreement.'' Unless he thinks he is unable to adhere to a voluntary IBAN why request an official one? I would like to point out that ''if HughD’s involvement was calculated aggression as Safehaven86 suggests'' (and I agree) then his desire for an interaction ban would make sense. His participation on those pages, disruptive though it may be, would effectively block my participation on articles that I’ve been involved with for some time. I suspect this is why he seems to be campaigning for mutual sanctions.
:Regarding HughD's editing on the pages in question, HughD added 250 edits to the Pinto article alone in the ~10 days it was open. Several editors asked him to slow down and discuss changes and expressed concern in a 3RR complaint [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=709609497&oldid=709608869]. HughD’s behavior at Ford Pinto and Chrysler had many marks of [[WP:TEND]] editing.
{{collapse top|List of TEND examples}}
*HughD’s editing pace was of concern to the group. Nearly 50 edits per day made tracking changes and discussing controversial changes very difficult. Additionally, these are specific WP:TEND issues with HughD's edits to the Pinto and Chrysler pages:
*'''One who wrongly accuses others of vandalism''': While it is clear the group consensus is against HughD’s edits he accused others of edit warring. When group consensus did not support his addition to the Chrysler article he placed a POV hat on the topic. I was accused of warring when removing the hat[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chrysler&diff=711292330&oldid=711291130] after seeking and getting group consensus [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chrysler#Propose_removing_NPOV_tag_from_article]. This is one of the edits for which {{U|Historianbuff}} thanked me.
*'''Doesn’t give others the benefit of doubt''': This largely applies to his actions towards me but others as well when he dismisses their concerns. For example HughD proposed changes which had already been rejected. {{U|CZmarlin}} replied to the discussion. Rather than address CZmarlin’s concerns, HughD talked around them. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chrysler#Discussion] CZmarlin cited several policies to support his POV and gave numbers. HughD simply insisted that the information was WP:DUE even when other editors disagreed. Note that just today a 3rd party editor, Damotclese, supported the view that the material was not due [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chrysler#Discussion_2]. Per his pattern HughD badgered rather than accepted the 3rd party POV.
*'''violating the 3RR rule''' I filed two 3RR filings against HughD related to the Pinto article. Both were found to have enough merit to result in article locks (no negative comments against me). Another editor filed a 3RR related to the Chrysler article. Yes, my actions could be seen as someone out to get HughD but was {{U|CZmarlin}} just out to get HughD[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive311#User:HughD_reported_by_User:CZmarlin_.28Result:_Warned.29], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&diff=711814931&oldid=711786655]? When EdJohnston warned HughD about edit warring was that just “out to get him”? Editor, {{U|Kevjgav}} has avoided involvement in the article edits but specifically asked HughD to stop edit warring on both the Chrysler and Pinto pages [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chrysler&diff=710833773&oldid=710792437] (posted to Hugh’s talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&diff=710836106&oldid=710776426]).
*'''Accuses others of malice''': ''"Colleagues indulging in persistent pointed section blanking are kindly requested to propose alternative summarizations of noteworthy reliable sources."'' HughD failed to understand that the material he was attempting to add was removed based on consensus yet he accuses of malice [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chrysler&diff=next&oldid=711034517].
*'''Disputes the reliability of apparently good sources''': HughD specifically and repeatedly attacked the Lee and Ermann scholarly source. He also attacked the Schwartz scholarly source. Together these two sources, Schwartz in particular, are the most cited sources on the topic. ("three sources with a shared, revisionist, ''apologist'' point of view."[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Pinto&diff=709374641&oldid=709373524], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Pinto&diff=709583984&oldid=709583852]). HughD never justified his claims of "revisionist, apologist" when asked by two editors [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Pinto&diff=709909555&oldid=709874659],[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Pinto&diff=709375654&oldid=709374863]. Hugh also tried to downplay author Lee as a "grad student" and thus not of merit [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ford_Pinto&diff=709554189&oldid=709550754].
*'''One to whom others don't give the benefit of doubt''': Certainly stating that I “explicitly state my confusion on the fundamental principle that Wikipedia…” is less than giving me the benefit of the doubt[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Pinto&diff=prev&oldid=710211693].
*'''One who repeats the same argument without convincing people''': After failing to gain traction for his ideas in general discussions HughD posted a series of edit proposals (the article was locked at this time) HughD launches ''five'' edit proposals with no support other than his own. The last three each contained the same proposal to move material to a later section of the artile which was a point of contention each time the proposals were made. Why make a new proposal that doesn't fix what was wrong with the last. 1.[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ford_Pinto#Proposed_edit:_move_point-of-view.2C_fix_original_research], 2.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ford_Pinto#Proposed_edit:_fatality_numbers_and_subsequent_commentary_on_public_impact], 3.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ford_Pinto#Proposed_edit:_add_30_December_1976_Jack_Anderson_Washington_Post_column]. Each tries to downplay Mother Jones's role in the controversy despite significant support for the current article test in RSs.
*'''One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors''': One of HughD's proposed edits was the removal of an article that was of lesser (but still sufficient) quality.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ford_Pinto#Proposed_edit:_remove_citation_to_online_course_hand-out] I asked a specific question [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Pinto&diff=710092061&oldid=710041179]. Other editors noted it was not answered [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Pinto&diff=next&oldid=710209711],[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Pinto&diff=next&oldid=710211693].
*'''One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject''': This has proven to be absolutely true with regards to the Chrysler article. HughD has been pushing for inclusion of some recall material that the group feels is of low importance simply because he feels the article is imbalanced due to a lack of negative comments about Chrysler. EdJohnston mention this issue to HughD when closing CZmarlin’s 3RR complaint with a warning noting that HughD should try the RfC process rather than edit warring when people don’t agree with him [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chrysler&diff=710833773&oldid=710792437] , [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&diff=710836106&oldid=710776426]. Even a third party editor agreed that the material HughD was trying to add was UNDUE [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chrysler&diff=712352245&oldid=711945118].
*'''One who never accepts independent input''' Anyone who has been involved with a RfC or 3rd editor discussion with HughD has seen this. When the 3rd party opinion doesn’t go HughD’s way he constantly badgers the editor in an effort to get them to change their mind. In cases of the Pinto and Chrysler no 3rd party opinions supported his actions. HughD requested a third opinion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ford_Pinto#Third_Opinion] yet immediately argued with the editor when the recommendation didn’t go his way. This repeated with {{U|EllenCT}}’s reply to HughD’s RfC [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Pinto&diff=next&oldid=709861324], HughD badgers EllenCT [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Pinto&diff=next&oldid=710092548], and again when EllenCT appears to have tired of HughD’s games[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Pinto&diff=prev&oldid=710444782]. Finally EllenCT has had enough[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Pinto&diff=next&oldid=710621357]. In a similar RfC at the Chrysler article HughD rejected arguments by uninvolved editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chrysler&diff=prev&oldid=712370336]. Just today on the Chrysler talk page an editor rejected HughD’s proposed edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chrysler&diff=712352245&oldid=711945118]. HughD quickly replied back, restating the same arguments that were rejected by CZmarlin and myself.
{{collapse bottom}}
:I think it is very clear that HughD has been detrimental to both articles. That he feels I might have been unfair to him in the past is no excuse for disruptive editing in (to him) new articles. I would prefer an automotive topic block but at least a block related to the Pinto and Chrysler topics. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 03:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::To the best of my knowledge, you have ''never'' commented in concurrence of an edit of mine; your wall of text above documents your obsession.
::You revert, without discussion, myself and others, claiming no consensus, even when the consensus against is as small as yourself:
::*{{diff2|678241881|28 August 2015}} Springee undo of HughD at [[Chicago-style politics]] after 16 minutes with edit summary "...not developed with consensus. Please get consensus for this change"
::*{{diff2|680082353|8 September 2015}} Springee revert of HughD at [[Halftime in America]] after 2 minutes with edit summary "Undue tag was removed without discussion or consent."
::Numerous additional diffs of this behavior available upon request. Please see [[WP:TEND]]: "One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others." Our colleague {{u|Scoobydunk}} brought this behavior of yours to your attention and to the attention of our community on 14 September 2015 here at ANI in his report [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing|Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing]]. Your least favorite essay is [[WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"]].
::''Then'', when I propose specific neutral, relevant contributions at article talk, laid out supported by multiple noteworthy reliable sources with excerpts, you report ''that'' at ANI as tendentious! Your project is to ban HughD [[WP:NOTHERE]].
::Adding pertinent, well-referenced content is not tendentious. Proposing well-referenced neutral relevant content at article talk is not tendentious. Disagreeing with you is not tendentious.
::Please support our colleagues in the interaction ban. It's what's best. You will be happier. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 16:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::'''No evidence of disruptive editing.''' Civil disagreement regarding article content, supported with citation to policy, guidelines, and multiple noteworthy reliable sources, is not disruptive. Thank you. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 16:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

==== Springee's project ====
Oh, look. Yet another noticeboard wall of text on why HughD should be banned. I hope no one feels had for waiting for "traveling."

Springee's project is HughD. [[User:Springee]] is little more than a single purpose account, with just enough automotive and [[Southern Strategy]] for cover. Springee's article space percentage is 18%; this one essay is a larger contribution to Wikipedia than all his recent article space contributions combined. Springee followed me, to [[ExxonMobil]], then to the POV split [[ExxonMobil climate change controversy]], until [[ExxonMobil climate change controversy]] became his [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Springee&project=en.wikipedia.org '''top edited article'''], and [[Chicago-style politics]] his ''fifth'' top edited article! Regulars to these noticeboards recognize Springee as a noticeboard wall-of-text specialist who perceives prestige in successful proposed sanctions.

Springee claims to be a humble automotive writer:

<blockquote>I had grown tired of dealing with HughD and wanted to move back into primarily automotive topics.</blockquote>

I respectfully ask my colleagues to support our colleague Springee in their self-actualization effort. Please take the HughD project away from them. '''Please support an interaction ban.''' We may enable a great flowering of high quality neutral automotive coverage in our project. Thank you. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 14:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

*'''Question for HughD''', if you think I've been so mean to you why did you follow me to the Pinto and Chrysler articles? ''I'm happy to agree to an interaction ban, we avoid mutual topics from prior to March 1 and agree to not interact with one another on future topics. Seems like an easy solution and we don't even need an admin to force it if we simply, mutually agree to it here and now.'' '''Are we in agreement?''' [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 14:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::If you had "voluntarily" stopped following me, [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing|14 September 2015 when you were reported to ANI for following]], or {{diff2|686290411|18 October 2015 when Callanecc asked you to}}, we would not be here.
::The reporting editor, the reported editor, the proposer, and uninvolved commenters are in consensus here on the close: '''please put the interaction ban on the books''' for future reference. Thank you for your support. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 14:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

:::Please answer the question Hugh, '''why would you follow me to the Chrysler and Pinto articles if you wanted to be left alone?''' [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 16:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::: Look, if you're both ok with a voluntary IBAN, great - let's do it. If both parties agree to that then there's not much more to be said. But the long walls of text and bold text arguing isn't doing either of you any favors here. You're just demonstrating that you can't work together without turning every conversation into a mutual vendetta. I understand that you both think the other isn't fit to edit Wikipedia and are fishing for stronger sanctions, or are at least trying to get recognition that you were "in the right," but that's very unlikely to happen here (assuming the following and goading stops now). Just take the Iban and ''let it go,'' before you exhaust the community's patience. [[User:Fyddlestix|Fyddlestix]] ([[User talk:Fyddlestix|talk]]) 16:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::Respectfully request close, with community-initiated '''1-year, two-way [[WP:IBAN|interaction ban]]''', as proposed; under standard, simple well-understood, well-documented, easy to enforce terms as per widely accepted project policy [[WP:Interaction ban]]. Thank you to all for your time and attention and patience. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 16:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Fyddlestix}}, thank you again for your prodigious patience in attempting to moderating this closure discussion with a gentle hand so we can all move on to improving the encyclopedia. You wrote: "you both think the other isn't fit to edit Wikipedia and are fishing for stronger sanctions"; may I clarify, I am not now nor have I ever sought to ban Springee from anything; I came here in good faith seeking nothing more than a warning regarding notification neutrality. Thank you again. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 21:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::: I'm totally OK with a voluntary 2-way IBAN through April 1, 2017 applied to all article pages where we have interacted and with a March 1st exclusion deadline for future interactions. This will allow me to continue the work I was doing in automotive articles (Pinto, Chrysler) but forbid edits to articles where Hugh and I previously interacted (exp ExxonMobil) and forbids future edits (exp if HughD edits a future Coke family site I can not). I agree to the above. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 17:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Springee}}, please support the proposed 2-way interaction ban, without conditions, as requested above by our uninvolved colleagues. It is a reasonable, measured proposal. It is the simplest thing that might work. It is clearly what's best for you, for me, and for our project. It is a established remedy with a record of effectiveness in curbing disruption. You are in little position to dictate sidecar terms given your well-documented year-long history of following and harassment. We know you feel you deserve a topic ban on HughD after your efforts on your above walls of text, and we know you feel anyone about whom such walls of text can be written ''must'' be deserving of a topic ban. However, your recalcitrance on this proposal and your insistence on a topic ban are only serving to further demonstrate to our community your ownership issues and your obsession with your project of banning HughD. No one is trying to prevent you from contributing constructively to any articles. On behalf of our community, may I respectfully ask that you please accept the proposed 2-way interaction ban; you will be happier. Thank you. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 14:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::I think only a modified IBAN would make sense. Modifications:
::::::#Each is banned from articles where the other is a major contributor. If both are major contributors, they are both banned, but A may appeal if A claims that B is only a major contributor in distorting or deleting A's contributions.
::::::#Each is permitted to make a '''brief''' statement about violations of the other one in appropriate forums. (This may have no effect, as i haven't seen a brief statement by either.) He may not make a followup statement unless asked. (Advice to all; don't ask.)
:::::: — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 15:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

:[[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]: I think that's an excellent recommendation. + 1 on that. [[User:Safehaven86|Safehaven86]] ([[User talk:Safehaven86|talk]]) 19:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
::I'll support with the addition of my previous mentioned March 1 cut off. The cut of means if only one editor was involved with the article prior to March 1 they are allowed to remain involved. I'm 100% OK with HughD and I both agreeing to step away from previous mutual topics. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 19:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Two-way interaction bans, as proposed above by uninvolved colleagues, are simple and well-understood by our community and have an established history of curbing the disruptive following and harassment behavior you have demonstrated over the last year. Your attempt to negotiate terms in contrast is a bizarre custom page ban with an unprecedented boundary definition which in effect codifies your problematic article ownership issues in the form of a community sanction, and is nothing more than an attempt to distract our community from your edit history. "I was there first" does not matter on Wikipedia and our community is not going to start with you. Our community has substantial experience in sorting out interaction ban violation incidents and has absolutely no desire to get involved in helping you enforce your baroque conditions. Please see the above diffs: you have earned an interaction ban many times over, accept it with grace. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 20:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

::::I will remind HughD that he has also "earned an interaction ban many times over." You both have. So stop. Just stop. The ever expanding wall of text here when the community long ago reached consensus on an IBAN only serves to further prove why an IBAN was needed. Wait for this discussion to be closed by an admin, then go your merry ways with your IBAN, and let the rest of us live in peace without having to read paragraphs upon paragraphs of the same thing over and over again. [[User:Safehaven86|Safehaven86]] ([[User talk:Safehaven86|talk]]) 21:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

===Close requested===
Been 4 days since last comment. Getting quite stale. Since there was !voting and I proposed an iban, I cannot close or archive this myself. Requesting an uninvolved admin look this over and close it. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please &#123;&#123;[[Template:re|re]]&#125;&#125;</small> 19:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:For transparency, {{U|HughD}} challenged the closure by {{U|Atsme}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=714117626&oldid=714117209 here]. {{U|Anmccaff}} reverted that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=714118058&oldid=714117626 here], which I then reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=714118606&oldid=714118316 here] as I don't see anything wrong with HughD's challenge to the closure by a non-admin. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please &#123;&#123;[[Template:re|re]]&#125;&#125;</small> 19:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::I see a problem with simply hiding the request. It should be either noted, as you have done, or struck through, or replied to. [[User:Anmccaff|Anmccaff]] ([[User talk:Anmccaff|talk]]) 19:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
{{od|::}}When admins repeatedly give advice but don't take action in these lengthy debates (more time was even allowed in hopes the involved parties could work it out among themselves) and there's still no resolution, the discussion tends to lay idle which is why closing it seemed the best course of action. If the involved parties are still not satisfied, they can always take it to ArbCom but chances are, neither will like the outcome. Perhaps now an admin will do what needs to be done to put this puppy to bed. <sup><font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</font>[[User talk:Atsme |📞]][[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]]</sup> 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:Discussion of the non-admin closure with the closer may be found at [[User talk:Atsme#Non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Springee campaigning]]. Thank you. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 14:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::I think this should be closed as no proposed solution likely to be accepted by the community or by the parties. Hugh has stated he would not accept Springee's reasonable modification of the standard IBAN, and Springee would not accept the standard IBAN due to (Springee's perception) of the fact that Hugh edits articles edited by Springee in order to discredit Springee's edits, but not in the same section Springee is editing. There seems to be no traction in the general community for any <u>specific</u> IBAN, although there seems to be general agreement that an IBAN ''might'' be helpful.
::I suspect the non-admin closure was not a good idea, but nothing is going to happen here. I'm clearly involved, so I cannot close this, even if there were consensus for some action. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 18:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

== Source misrepresentation and disruptive editing by nationalist editor ==

{{user|Ferakp}} is making source misrepresentations and deleting sourced information:

*He writes about an Amnesty International report: "However, Amnesty International has published only one report about the Syrian Kurdish forces and it is related to destroying villages and homes, '''not ethnic cleansing at all'''." [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kurdification&diff=700935176&oldid=700554813]
**However in reality, the report concludes that "The Amnesty International report concluded that '''there are documented cases of forced displacement that constitute war crimes.'''"[https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde24/2503/2015/en/]

*Here he '''changes the direct quote from a book''' ("Iraq's Dysfunctional Democracy") to something else: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kurdification&diff=705762695&oldid=705762201]
**He changes: "The goal of these tactics is to push [[Shabak people|Shabak]] and [[Yazidis|Yazidi]] communities to identify as [[Ethnic group|ethnic]] [[Kurds]]. The Kurdish authorities are working hard to impose Kurdish identity on two of the most vulnerable minorities in Iraq, the Yazidis and the Shabaks".
***to: "One of the goal of these tactics is to make [[Shabak people|Shabak]] and [[Yazidis|Yazidi]] communities to identify as [[Ethnic group|ethnic]] [[Kurds]]. Some Kurdish nationalist have previously tried to impose Kurdish identity on two of the most vulnerable minorities in Iraq, the Yazidis and the Shabaks"."

*Here he '''deletes statistics of [[Female Genital Mutilation]] which are well sourced''' from the referenced PDF document (p. 31). [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Female_genital_mutilation&diff=prev&oldid=711829113]

*He '''changes all occurences to the practice of [[Female Genital Mutilation]] to the past''', '''but in reality it is still widely practiced in Northern Iraq''': [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_women&diff=708931822&oldid=708930314] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_women&diff=708933297&oldid=708931822] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_women&diff=712067503&oldid=712067168]
**He also '''deletes that Female Genital Mutilation is practiced''' from the intro, even though it is well documented in the article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_women&diff=712067168&oldid=711902189]

*He changes 60 percent to "some of them" and deletes cited information: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_women&diff=708934006&oldid=708933297] After a source was added that a honour killing victim was Kurdish, he still removes all mention that she was also Kurdish. He claims that he is confused because one of the sources calls her Turkish, but all Turkish Kurds are also Turkish! [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing_of_Hatun_S%C3%BCr%C3%BCc%C3%BC&diff=711555653&oldid=711546097]

*He was warned many times on his talkpage but always swiftly removes all warnings from his talkpage.--[[Special:Contributions/92.106.49.6|92.106.49.6]] ([[User talk:92.106.49.6|talk]]) 23:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

:: {{reply to | 92.106.49.6}} Amnesty International report is not related to ethnic cleansing at all, it is related to forced displacement and home demolitions. Here is the original report of Amnesty International, you can download it here.<ref>https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde24/2503/2015/en/</ref> Remember that sources you added were "clearly" lying about the report since the report itself never even mention words "ethnic cleansing". So simply the source which says that Amnesty International is accusing them of ethnic cleansing is 100% wrong and biased. About Female Genital Mutilation, two sources were used in one citation and I noticed it after admin marked them. In my second edit, I added a lot of details but he wanted to keep it simple and statements clear so I let it be. Sources you use in Kurdish woman rights are 2-3 years old and it is illegal at this moment. You have been detected at least two times from blackwashing the article. Also, your another friend was caught from blackwashing: Replacing my details with old sources' details even though I had newer sources there. I added sources that the practice is declined and it is now illegal. Also, some of mentioned areas in those reports are now almost clear from FGM as one of my sources says so. That's why I changed them to the past. About Hatun Surucu, she is Turkish, this is because all sources say so. Only your source call she is Kurdish. Here are sources: <ref>http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/hatun-sueruecue-zwei-brueder-in-tuerkei-angeklagt-a-1045405.html</ref><ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4345459.stm</ref><ref>http://www.dw.com/en/german-honor-killing-on-trial-in-turkey/a-19004299</ref><--- This source is new from January 2016. One more source, <ref>https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/05/germ-m17.html</ref>. All sources say that she is Turkish. You have one source but I have 9 source, including BBC and Spiegel! I have warned by 4 guys and 2 of them were banned or blocked. I remove everything from my talk page, whether it is positive or negative except that sweet Kitty which I got from admin. Also, I am 100% behind my Kurdification changes, I simply neutralized statements. You are absolutely trying to blackwash Kurdish articles. [[User:Ferakp|Ferakp]] ([[User talk:Ferakp|talk]]) 23:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
{{reflist}}

:::Reply: [[Ethnic cleansing]] '''is''' forced displacement.
:::Yes, Female Genital Mutilation was made illegal, but the law is not being enforced, a fact which you '''also deleted''' from the article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_women&diff=prev&oldid=712069359] By the way, which source says that it really declined? It is still widely practiced in Iraqi Kurdistan, so it is wrong to claim that it was only practiced in the past. Your deletions in the featured articled on FGM were also reverted.
:::Regarding Hatun (the honor killing victim), you already know that on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Honor_killing_of_Hatun_S%C3%BCr%C3%BCc%C3%BC talkpage] there are many sources that show that she is from a Kurdish family, so your reply is disingenuous.--[[Special:Contributions/92.106.49.6|92.106.49.6]] ([[User talk:92.106.49.6|talk]]) 00:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC) {{ping|Spacecowboy420}} {{ping|EkoGraf}} {{ping|Patetez}} {{ping|Denizyildirim}} {{ping|Opdire657}} {{ping|Gala19000}}--[[Special:Contributions/92.106.49.6|92.106.49.6]] ([[User talk:92.106.49.6|talk]]) 21:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

:::: {{ Reply to | 92.106.49.6 }} Law is accepted, can you read at all? Your source says that it is not enforced and it is from 2012. My source is from 2015 and it clearly says that it is now law and accepted. Read it, here is my source <ref>https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/08/29/iraqi-kurdistan-law-banning-fgm-not-being-enforced</ref>. Here is your source, <ref>https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/08/29/iraqi-kurdistan-law-banning-fgm-not-being-enforced</ref>. Here is my source about declining: <ref>http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/04/iraq-kurdistan-draft-amendment-violence-women-law.html#</ref>. It is from 2015 and it says: ''In the case of FGM, the Iraqi-German nongovernmental organization WADI estimates that around 72% of adult women in Iraqi Kurdistan have undergone the operation. But among girls aged 6 to 10, the rate has dropped to close to zero in some parts of Kurdistan, such as Halabja and Garmiyan, and decreased by half in other places such as Raniya. The usual age for the practice is between ages 4 and 8, according to WADI. Researchers and activists such as Taha are quick to point out that the existing anti-domestic violence law in Kurdistan, passed in 2011, is likely to be the first of its kind in Asia to address FGM. The draft allows girls subjected to FGM to file lawsuits against the perpetrator and those who forced them to undergo the operation. If the girl is a minor, she can file a lawsuit through a trustee.'' Another source <ref>http://www.stopfgmkurdistan.org/html/english/fgm_e.htm#mape</ref> and source even says directly that it is declined ''"In the study, there is evidence for a trend of general decline of FGM. It seems that nowadays less than 50% of the young girls are being mutilated."''. About that honor killing woman, I showed BBC, Spiegel and other top newspapers sources, that's what they say. About your talk page sources. The first one belongs to Welt, it's very weird that one of source is also from Welt and it says she is Turkish not Kurdish. Your second source is from Speigel and it doesn't mention her ethnicity, it says about documentary, but my Spiegel source says she is Turkish. Also, my BBC source says she is Turkish. One of users changed it to Turkish-Kurdish and I didn't touch it anymore. Wikipedia rules says more reliable sources win. About ethinic cleansing changes: Ethnic cleansing and forced displacements are totally different things. Amnesty doesn't call it as ethnic cleasing. I showed you the original Amnesty report and it does not blame them from ethnic cleansing. If you don't believe me, read the original source and you can also call them and ask them yourself, do you accuse the YPG of ethnic cleansing or not. Amnesty International knows better than you and me when to call events as ethnic cleansing or not. [[User:Ferakp|Ferakp]] ([[User talk:Ferakp|talk]]) 02:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

*I can confirm that there's a problem with Ferakp's editing on Kurdish matters. He arrived at [[Female genital mutilation]] to remove or alter the context of material about FGM in Iraqi Kurdistan. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Female_genital_mutilation&type=revision&diff=711829113&oldid=711485714][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Female_genital_mutilation&type=revision&diff=711830210&oldid=711829540][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Female_genital_mutilation&type=revision&diff=711834090&oldid=711830572] He removed similar material from [[Iraqi Kurdistan]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Iraqi_Kurdistan&type=revision&diff=700931457&oldid=700494348] and [[Kurdish women]]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_women&type=revision&diff=709007260&oldid=706367606][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_women&type=revision&diff=712072232&oldid=711902189] [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 00:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

:: I have done thousands of edits and improvements and sometimes some users are not happy but I have never vandalized or caused any problems. I explained my [[Female genital mutilation]] edits above. About Iraqi Kurdistan changes, the source doesn't say anything like that. The statement in the article said that "Human Rights Watch reported that [[female genital cutting]] is practiced mainly by Kurds in Kurdistan; reportedly 60% percent of Kurdish women population have undergone this procedure, although the KRG claimed that the figures are exaggerated." <---- This is absolutely falsified statement. Source talk about Iraqi Kurdistan not about Kurdistan. They are totally different things. Also, I couldn't find that "60%" from the source. This source was used --> <ref>http://www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2010/abusing-patients</ref>. About change of this link, https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_women&type=revision&diff=709007260&oldid=706367606. The first one says that ''...also continue to face numerous problems, including violent victimization through [[female genital mutilation]], [[honor killings]], forced marriage, child marriage, rape, domestic violence, female infanticide and acid throwing.'' This is absolutely not true, we are talking about all Kurdish women. There is one reported acid throwing and it's very old, so how could it be continuous? I deleted them from lead but left them in the article. I didn't remove them, they are all still in the article and people can read it. FGM is only in Iran. In Turkey, Syria and Iraqi, it's illegal. Honor killings are problems and it already tells that it's continuing. Domestic violence is also mentioned in its section and also others. I added much more details to lead section. Before my edits it was totally blackwashed. Du'a Khalil Aswad is Yazidi and Yazidis are not the Kurds. They are Yazidis. Also, the articles with its sources says that she is Iraqi Yazidi.
::I added this ''Honor killings was serious problem among Muslim communities until Iraq illegalized it.''. It's true, it was legal but now illegal. It was serious problem among Muslim communities. Also, source says so.
Changed media to Turkish media because source says so. Other changes are adding more details. I just added more details and neutralized statements. The report from Iraqi Kurdistan is not related to the all Kurds. That's why many were changed to some when all Kurds were mentioned. Also, ''In Iraq, non-Kurdish women and society are more liberal. Especially under Saddam Hussein, women had many rights and liberties, including strong economic rights. <ref>Kriesberg. Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution. 1998 http://che.tribe.net/thread/0ae203bb-6aae-4297-a993-83993cf48c7d</ref>'' was removed. The source doesn't mention where that information was gathered and it is based to what study. Because the source is blog (thread) and only some of statements are cited, I see it as a unreliable source. In the source, "In Iraq, non-Kurdish women and society are more liberal" statement was not mentioned but another statement was mentioned. However, because it is blog/thread, I see it as unreliable source. As far as I know, blogs and thread in forums are not allowed as sources. I might be wrong.
The only mistake I did was removing this statement -- >''The Free Women's Organization of Kurdistan (FWOK) released a statement on International Women's Day 2015 noting that “6,082 women were killed or forced to commit suicide during the past year in Iraqi Kurdistan, which is almost equal to the number of the Peshmerga martyred fighting Islamic State (IS),” and that a large number of women were victims of honor killings or enforced suicide – mostly self-immolation or hanging.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://basnews.com/en/news/2015/03/05/over-6000-women-killed-during-the-last-year-in-kurdistan/ |publisher=BasNews |title=Kurdistan: Over 6,000 Women Killed in 2014}}</ref>'' However, the source didn't work and I tried very hard to find it but I didn't. The link is still not working. Also, I tried to find the report from the organization's website but I didn't find it. [[User:Ferakp|Ferakp]] ([[User talk:Ferakp|talk]]) 02:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:Could an admin review and see whether a topic ban would be appropriate?--[[Special:Contributions/92.106.49.6|92.106.49.6]] ([[User talk:92.106.49.6|talk]]) 01:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

: My message to reviewer. I have done nothing wrong except in FGM article, I didn't notice the source. I explained all my changes and this is the first time someone reports me. I have edited and improved tons of times and for me it's normal that there is sometimes users who are against my changes, but I have always solved disputes. If you are going to give me a ban, please give me a permanent ban, not topic ban. I am so tired of users like 92.106.49.6 and similar users which have nothing to do than blackwash articles related to the Kurds. Thank you [[User:Ferakp|Ferakp]] ([[User talk:Ferakp|talk]]) 03:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
{{reflist talk}}

::Ferkp, when a government bans FGM, that doesn't stop it from happening to girls. Enforcement of anti-FGM legislation is poor all over the world, with the exception of France. And laws don't change the fact that women who had already undergone FGM before the change in the law continue to live with its health consequences. There was a high prevalence of FGM among adult women in Iraqi Kurdistan in 2011, according to UNICEF. You removed the information. When you were reverted, you tried to change the context in which it was presented, and also tried to present it as Iraq, not as Iraqi Kurdistan. That kind of editing is a problem. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 03:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

::: Did I say somewhere that it stops it? I said that it is illegal now. The user who reported me still claim that it is not enforced but I showed source that it is accepted and it is official law. Iraqi Kurdistan is Iraq. There no such country Iraqi Kurdistan. The source mentions Kirkuk and Kirkuk is not the Iraqi Kurdistan, it's officially Iraq. It is illegal now in Iraqi Kurdistan and that has killed the practice in many regions as my newest sources say. I didn't change the context, I added details but you removed them without any reason, explaining by something very weird reason. There ''was'' high prevalence and that information was still there after my edits. My edits didn't remove any details, it still kept details. One edit I made by mistake and it was related to statistics. In another edit, I was thinking to add much more details to ethnicity section but you didn't even leave me to edit it. As I said, I made mistake and I accept it. I have edited and improved thousands of times and sometimes you make mistakes. If I get ban then at least I know I am in the wrong place doing the wrong thing. [[User:Ferakp|Ferakp]] ([[User talk:Ferakp|talk]]) 05:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Blackwashing is not best handled by whitewashing, but by changing the article to be neutral. [[WP:NPOV]] --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 05:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
::::: That's has been my main objective in previous 300 edits. You can see from my contributions that my edits have related mainly to neutrality. [[User:Ferakp|Ferakp]] ([[User talk:Ferakp|talk]]) 15:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::"Neutrality" by hiding everything related to FGM and honour killings, or claiming that it was the Turkish families, not Turkish-Kurdish ones (as it was). Everything that doesn't hide the facts about Female Genital Mutilation, honour killings or forced displacement of minorities is "blackwashing", even UNICEF and Amnesty International [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Rojava&diff=prev&oldid=712214121]. But you have now qualms in "blackwashing" the whole time Turks[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&diff=prev&oldid=700890222], Arabs[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&diff=prev&oldid=700891286], Iranians, and others. Ferakp also just removed the entire human right section from the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rojava&diff=712214154&oldid=712093803], because the content is already in the Human rights article. But at least a summary of the human rights should be left. --[[Special:Contributions/92.106.49.6|92.106.49.6]] ([[User talk:92.106.49.6|talk]]) 22:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC) {{ping|GGT}} {{ping|Ottomanor}}{{ping|Chickchick77}}
::::::: Looks like you have nothing to do than following my changes from my contr+ page and pasting them here. Why don't you also tell us how I stopped one "Turkish" user who vandalized more than 13 Kurdish articles? About this the edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Rojava&diff=prev&oldid=712214121], Rojava has its own article for Human right in Rojava, it is called [[Human Rights in Rojava]]. I transferred those statements and sources from [[Rojava]] article to [[Human rights in Rojava]].
::::::: Can you tell what is wrong with this edit?-->[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&diff=prev&oldid=700890222]. Kurds are mentioned with "Kurdish" and I also mentioned Turkish guy with "Turkish" name because he was a Turk according to all sources. Ordinary Turkish mentality, try to always blame the Kurds.
::::::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&diff=prev&oldid=700891286] : What makes this edit blackwashing if source says so directly? Source says (page 7): ''The available source material suggests that honour killings primarily occur among tribal peoples such as Kurdish, Lori, Arab, Baluchi and Turkish-speaking tribes. These groups are considered to be more socially conservative than the Persians, and discrimination against women in attitude and in practice is seen as being deeply rooted in tribal culture.'' The page was blackwashed to show only the Kurds but I neutralized and mentioned all who practice it in Iran. [[User:Ferakp|Ferakp]] ([[User talk:Ferakp|talk]]) 16:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
:Regarding the original points I made above, Ferakp has:
:*On the first point about the Amnesty International report, he still fails to see that forced displacement is a form of [[ethnic cleansing]]. (source misrepresentation)
:*He hasn't said anything about changing a direct quote from a book (source misrepresentation)
:*He admitted a mistake in deleting FGM statistics from UNICEF
:*He still fails to see why he shouldn't change all occurences to the practice of Female Genital Mutilation to the past (and delete FGM from the lead, and delete that it is practiced in "Iraqi Kurdistan"), while in reality it is still widely practiced in Iraqi Kurdistan (source misrepresentation) Yes, Female Genital Mutilation was made illegal, but the law is not being enforced, a fact which he also deleted from the article: [228]
:*He disingenuously still claims that Hatun (the honour killing victim) is not Kurdish, even though he knows on the talkpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Honor_killing_of_Hatun_S%C3%BCr%C3%BCc%C3%BC] there are plenty of sources saying she is Turkish-Kurdish [http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/ehrenmorde-tatmotiv-kultur-1213953.html] (and in the German wikipedia page). In another case, he even specifies that a man from Turkey is a "Turkish" man from Turkey [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&diff=prev&oldid=700890222]. He also makes false claims in articles as here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&diff=prev&oldid=700891970].
:*Going through his edits, there are plenty of cases of Ferakp misrepresenting sources, deleting incovenient facts, adding false claims, ... --[[Special:Contributions/92.106.49.6|92.106.49.6]] ([[User talk:92.106.49.6|talk]]) 22:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

:: Try to understand me a little bit. You can't call the event as ethnic cleansing because your "logic" see connection between their acts and ethnic cleansing acts. There is standards and requirements for calling something as ethnic cleansing. Amnesty International uses that word carefully because you have to come with tons of evidences. You can't call that event as ethnic cleansing if only ~180 houses are destroyed in 19 different locations. Look, for example Amnesty International use in another their report words"ethnic cleansing" because they classify it as a ethnic cleansing. <ref>http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news-item/gruesome-evidence-of-ethnic-cleansing-in-northern-iraq-as-islamic-state-moves-to-wipe-out-minorities</ref> The reason why they didn't call it ethnic cleansing in the YPG/PYD related article is because it's a far away from to be classified as a ethnic cleansing. You are just trying to blackwash Kurdish articles. Admit it. This is 7th time you are clearly trying to blackwash Kurdish articles.
:: Which book?
:: They are past events, because it is law now and it is illegal. Your sources were from 2011 and 2012. Law was accepted in 2015 and as my source says it has almost killed the practice in many regions.
:: There is tons of sources which say that she is Turkish and you show me a few sources which say she is Kurdish. Also, my newest source is from this year. However, I let one user to keep it Turkish-Kurdish because that was our optimal solution.
:: What is the problem with this edit, <ref> https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&diff=prev&oldid=700891970</ref>? Can you tell me? I added small survey to the front of survey because it was small survey. Look what the source says: ''The survey group was small but the results are a reminder..''. My 8th evidence that you are trying to blackwash Kurdis articles.
:: Excuse me can you show my your claims about ''"Going through his edits, there are plenty of cases of Ferakp misrepresenting sources, deleting incovenient facts, adding false claims"''? It's clear that you are blackwashing Kurdish articles. I have 8 clear evidences that you are trying to blackwash Kurdish articles, I would have reported you and requested ban but you are one of those who change their IPs every time so I won't waste admin's time for such thing.[[User:Ferakp|Ferakp]] ([[User talk:Ferakp|talk]]) 16:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

*There's a 2014 survey on FGM in Iraqi Kurdistan [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290109165_Female_Genital_Mutilation_in_the_Kurdistan_Region_of_Iraq_-_A_survey_on_Knowledge_Attitudes_and_Practices_KAP_among_households_in_the_Kurdistan_Region_of_Iraq here]; UNICEF summary [http://www.unicef.org/mena/MENA-KAP_Survey_Key_Findings_HCWA_UNICEF_Final.pdf here]. It could be used to update [[Kurdish women]] or [[Iraqi Kurdistan]], or to create [[Female genital mutilation in Iraqi Kurdistan]]. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 22:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
: {{reply to | SlimVirgin}} Thanks for the source SarahV, I will use it to update articles.[[User:Ferakp|Ferakp]] ([[User talk:Ferakp|talk]]) 04:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
You have been caught at least 9 times from blackwashing Kurdish articles, calling me nationalist editor, trying to show my edits which are related to neutralization as blackwashings and following me. You are clearly blackwashing Kurdish articles, as I proved above, if someone has to get warning or ban, it should be you.[[User:Ferakp|Ferakp]] ([[User talk:Ferakp|talk]]) 16:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

* Ferakp's confrontational tone and disruptive style can be seen from the discussion above, with his clear ad hominem arguments to justify his actions and allusion to criminal proceedings ("caught"). I have also suffered from his lack of collaboration personally; as soon as we had an editing issue on [[Yaşar Kemal]], he posted [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GGT#Disruptive_editing this] to my talk page claiming that I was editing from a Turkish POV and using Wikipedia as the Turkish government's encyclopedia. Ferakp not only misrepresents sources as evidenced above, but also editoralises to imply a particular position. This can be seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Rojava&diff=prev&oldid=712214121 here] in his unsourced addition, which implies that Amnesty was cornered by YPG's claims, and more blatantly [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=March_2016_Ankara_bombing&type=revision&diff=712363643&oldid=712363112 here], where he adds a statement that is undoubtedly correct (perhaps as there were no military casualties) but is not part of the literature concerning the event and about which he could not even find a source to support, in order to push TAK's viewpoint that the Turkish government hides military casualties in this attack ostensibly targeted to the military. Also see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Turkey&diff=prev&oldid=712245903 this]. He has also repeatedly removed reliably sourced material, seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rojava&diff=prev&oldid=712211848 here] about statements regarding the persecutions of Assyrians and human rights in an attempt to whitewash. Despite the fact that the [[Yezidis]] are described as Kurdish in the relevant article (I am no expert on the issue and any disputes on ethnic identity belong there), Ferakp has repeatedly [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_women&type=revision&diff=712071724&oldid=712071562 removed] negative incidents involving Yazidi women from the article on [[Kurdish women]] without specifying the "sources" against Daily Mail as in here for example. In the same article, he has removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_women&diff=712068566&oldid=712068096 more] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_women&diff=712069359&oldid=712068566 more] reliably sourced details about violence against Kurdish women from the article (e.g. Human Rights Watch, a Kurdish newspaper) claiming that these were "blackwashing". When it came to ascribing positive topics Kurdishness, however, he manipulates sources as amply evidenced above: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ya%C5%9Far_Kemal&diff=697572169&oldid=696434556 here], for example, when his sources do not define him as Kurdish but use the term "of Kurdish origin", which is how it currently is in the article (one of his sources actually defines Kemal as Turkish, obviously alluding to nationality, as opposed to ethnicity). Source manipulation can also be seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Aziz_Sancar&diff=696747237&oldid=696382443 here], when he himself admits that two languages were spoken in the family but writes otherwise.
* Now, it is Ferakp's turn to come and claim that I am an anti-Kurdish Turkish nationalist and write lengthy refutations, which is getting really tiresome by now. I hope, however, that the evidence above will help establish the destructive and disruptive pattern that characterises this user's editing. --[[User:GGT|GGT]] ([[User talk:GGT|talk]]) 12:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:: I am 100% behind my messages and edits which you mentioned. About Yasar Kemal, I told you so many times that the person was Kurdish, not a Turk. I added sources and you deleted my sources. I told you to at least keep sources and use talk page until we solve it. Try to understand it, also tell it to your friends who 24/7 try to change Hamdi Ulukaya article to show him as a Turk even though I have tons of articles even his own video about himself. <br/> I am totally supporting the edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Turkey&diff=prev&oldid=712245903]: About the lack of interest, it is Turkish claim. If you read news like this <ref>http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/turkey-kurds-education-in-mother-tongue-schools.html#</ref> you will realize that Turkish press is closed like in North Korea (Press freedom Index) and nothing unbiased comes from them when it comes to Kurdish related news. So, if the Kurds say that they are not allowed to open schools, they are continuously closed and international newspapers confirm them, is it not a fair to keep one biased Turkish source which claims that they weren't interested.. That's why I showed it as a claim but kept it despite the source was unreliable.<br/> About Yazidi woman, I am going to repeat again, Dailymail is not reliable source and she is Yazidi not a Kurd. Just read her article and sources related to her. Tons of articles says she is Yazidis and Iraq. Yazidis are not Kurds, they are recognized as different ethnic group by the UN. <br/> About the edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_women&diff=712069359&oldid=712068566 more]: How many times, I have to explain this edit. Let me explain again even though it is already explained. About the first edit, the source says: ''The rate of FGM was discovered to be 21 percent in West Azerbaijan, 18 percent in Kermanshah, and 16 percent in Kurdistan, according to field interviews and research conducted by Ahmady and his team.'' The article said that ''A 2015 study by Kurdish social anthropologist Kameel Ahmady found and assessed a 16% rate of female genital mutilation in Western Iran, where it is mostly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect.'' Here comes the problem. The source didn't say that it is 16% in Western Iran, it said 16% in Kurdistan. What does source means with "Kurdistan" is still unclear. Did he mean all Kurdistan, including Iraq, Turkey and Syria or does it means only Iranin Kurdistan? If source meant Iranian Kurdistan, then it is not Western Iran, it is officially North Western Iran. However, I assumed that the source really meant 16% in Western Iran so I tried to find the claim that it is mostly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect. However, the source doesn't say anything like that, not even close. The source says that ''Among the Kurds in Iran, FGM is mainly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect, but not among Sunni Shafie Kurds who speak the Kermanji dialect'', let me repeat, '''among the Kurds in Iran''', not in Western Iran as the Wikipedia article claimed. So I simply deleted because it was clearly falsified. Statement related to statistics said "is" but it's not true because the source I added clearly said that it is dropped everywhere to under 50% and in some regions, it is almost 0%. If I would have deleted "statistics", I would have deleted that 72% also. I didn't and I leave it because that is true, unlike other statistics about regions which weren't true anymore because I had source for them. I already explained 3 times that the law about FGM is allowed so that statement which says that it is not enforced is not true anymore, that's why I removed it. There is my source above. If you think that edit is wrong, then you simply protect blackwashing Kurdish pages. Keeping falsified statement about FGM, FGM statistics which is not valid anymore and statement about FGM law which also not valid anymore is nothing else than blackwashing. I would have understood if you would have for example presented statistics in table and mentioned that they are from 2011 or 2012 or have said that law wasn't accepted until 2015 but keeping those despite new sources is clearly blackwashing. [[User:Ferakp|Ferakp]] ([[User talk:Ferakp|talk]]) 21:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

Removing information negative information can be whitewashing. I don't agree with Ferakp's view that his edits are only aimed at restoring neutrality. Many of them are removing reliably sourced negative information. This conflict looks to me as a typical example of two editors with opposite biases trying to make the article what *they* think is neutral, and then assuming bad faith on the case of the other editor. The only solution is probably to get more editors involved, especially uninvolved neutral editors. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 14:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

: You better tell this to the user who reported me.This is because the user is continuously blackwashing Kurdish articles with another Turkish troll group. The same user who reported me is cooperating with Shadow4dark user, you usually find them and some other users always in same pages blackwashing Kurdish articles and whitewashing Turkish-PKK related pages. For example, Shadow4dark has added Kurdish terrorism category to every Kurdish article he has visited and the user who reported me has cooperated with Shadow4dark, he just deleted speed deletion tag which another user added to the [[:Category:Kurdish terrorism]]. The user deleted it and didn't explain or use talk page to tell why he/she thinks that it is not meeting speedy deletion requirements. The same user also tried remove my all details which neutralized the Kurdish articles. As I mentioned above, there is clear evidence that this user with other users are doing nothing else than blackwashing Kurdish articles and whitewashing articles related to them. I proved 9 times that this users is deleting newest sources and replacing with oldest ones. Also, this user has showed many my edits as whitewashing even though I proved that they are clearly related to neutralization, just read my messages above.

::I'm telling it to you, FerakP. Although obviously, it goes for all of you. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 20:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

:::{{u|OpenFuture}}, this is not simply a POV conflict. Of course everyone will have their perceptions of neutrality and of course some inherent bias may be present on my part. That goes without saying. However, having been involved in numerous debates about this volatile and politically sensitive region (and never raised one issue here at ANI about any user), it is very clear to me that this is not about a POV conflict (which would look like [[Talk:Turkish settlers in Northern Cyprus|this]]) and that there is an important behavioural problem about this user that is certainly not the case with other users I have disputed with. Consistently adding unsourced, editorialised content based on one's perception of events, manipulating the content of sources (just as he did in his recent text about Yaşar Kemal) whilst consistently removing reliably sourced content on trivial pretexts, whilst continuously accusing others at every dispute of "blackwashing", "disruptive editing", "collaborating" is not a POV problem. It is a behavioural problem and is [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|tendentious and disruptive editing]]. My having different perceptions of neutrality whilst pointing out a destructive editing pattern that continues despite warnings does not invalidate concerns raised about his editing pattern and does not reduce this to an "it goes for all of you" dispute. The editing patterns of other users here, I believe, are incomparable to that of Ferakp, who has not expanded a single article without adding positive material about Kurdish people or negative material about other ethnic groups. For all his activity on content issues, this user has only created [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Ferakp&namespace=0&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&year=2016&month=-1 one] original article and the subject matter of that article speaks for itself. For all his stance about Kurds, which in other circumstances would be perfectly fine, he has not even expanded one Kurdish-related (or otherwise) article when ethnic issues or negative material about Kurds were not at stake. --[[User:GGT|GGT]] ([[User talk:GGT|talk]]) 12:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:::: {{u|GGT}} Check my edits again, think twice, read your answer again and think again, is it really true what you just wrote here. About Yasar Kemal, I added sources and told you that sources say so. You can't force anyone to be "Turkish" if he is not. You removed details about him and my sources. You had a chance to use talk page but you just reversed my changes. I had to myself start a new section in the talk page.[[User:Ferakp|Ferakp]] ([[User talk:Ferakp|talk]]) 20:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Well, if it wasn't a behavioral problem, the POV conflict would be soon resolved as the involved editors would rationally discuss the issue and come to a NPOV compromise. ;-) But anyway, my point was that this is not ONE editor who is to blame here. But both sides are behaving wrongly. It may very well be that Ferakp is a worse offender, I'm not going to spend time making a statistical analysis of it. No matter who starts the fight, breaking Wikipedia policy is the incorrect response. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 12:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

::::: I am not sure what could make me a worse offender, is it that I proved that all accusations are not true and I am absolutely right, or that I neutralized articles using reliable and newest sources. You should tell those editors that they should focus on their own articles instead of blackwashing Kurdish related articles 24/7. I am tired to clean Kurdish articles from their fictitious references (I showed 4 of them) and claims. [[User:Ferakp|Ferakp]] ([[User talk:Ferakp|talk]]) 04:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::"focus on their own articles instead of blackwashing Kurdish related articles" - could not have a statement that shows the [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] mentality. What would be "my articles" now, Ferakp? --[[User:GGT|GGT]] ([[User talk:GGT|talk]]) 16:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::: You understood it well, I said instead of blackwashing Kurdish articles, focus on what you know. Blackwashing Kurdish articles is not funny.[[User:Ferakp|Ferakp]] ([[User talk:Ferakp|talk]]) 10:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Neither is whitewashing, and this problem isn't going to go away unless we agree to keep to [[WP:NPOV]] and discuss the disagreements rationally and calmly. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 09:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

===Section break for convenience and an appeal before this gets to a topic ban===

Having read the above and looked at the above, I'm inclined to agree there are issues with regard to Ferakp with regard to how to interpret sourcing in a non-biased manner, tendentiousness and lack of acceptance of consensus, and a general battleground mentality. Ferakp, you need to understand that on this project we overwhelmingly rely on [[WP:Secondary sources]] in most circumstances; you don't get to just delete or alter content supported by those sources because they "got it wrong" just because the facts and positions in those sources does not jive with your preferred interpretation of reality and/or primary sources. More important than that, even if you're policy interpretations were correct, you still wouldn't be getting anywhere without adjusting your attitude towards the consensus-based model of this project or the principle of showing special care in editorial areas where you may not have a neutral point of view. To be clear, there are places where I feel your edits show potential to add beneficial nuance to these issues, but there are also others where it is clear you operating under the bias of wanting to see (and to present) an interpretation of facts in a light which is most beneficial to the Kurdish people.

I have sympathy for how the historical context here affects views, and indeed I appreciate the hardships various Kurdish populations have endured themselves, but you have to understand that you are not going to accomplish anything on this project by working against the [[WP:WEIGHT]] of sourcing, except to waste a good deal of your own energy, and that of other editors; indeed, you risk pushing the perspectives of the articles in question in the opposite direction you intend as other editors strive to counterblance you, some of whom could possibly become more entrenched in their views as a product of dealing with your own intransigence. Further, at this point, you are running the risk of being seen as so problematic in this topic area that you must be removed from it, after which your influence on these topics will be reduced to just that resistance to your views that you engendered in other contributors. Please consider taking a break from the articles in question for a little while, then going back with an effort to see if you can hammer out reasonable compromise wording with regard to some of the points you object to. [[User:Snow Rise|'''''<font color="#19a0fd">S</font><font color="#66c0fd">n</font><font color="#99d5fe">o</font><font color="#b2dffe">w</font>''''']] [[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><font color="#d4143a">'''''let's rap'''''</font></sup>]] 22:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:Out of curiosity I've been looking at some of the supposedly offending diffs provided against Ferakp, in particular those provided by GGT. Based on them alone, I find little to fault with Ferakp. The edits have mostly actually improved the articles. The material deleted has often been cherrypicked from sources for effect, or had been expressed as if there was absolutely no doubt as to accuracy (where in reality the unbiased nature of many of the sources could be questioned). Other deleted material was definitely off-topic. I don't know if Ferakp has been using talk pages to explain these edits - if not, they might on the surface appear to be brisk and be engaged in whitewashing, but actually they are not. And I come from this from the standpoint of thinking that there is far too much pro-Kurdish propaganda and whitewashing in Kurd/Kurdistan related articles and they have often been let off the hook regarding accuracy because of a general desire to be "nice" to Kurds. [[User:Tiptoethrutheminefield|Tiptoethrutheminefield]] ([[User talk:Tiptoethrutheminefield|talk]]) 20:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::For example GGT cited this [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Aziz_Sancar&diff=696747237&oldid=696382443] - but the edit is correct, if you are "born into" it refers to the language your parents spoke at the time you were born, not what you and your peers currently speak in everyday life. I feel this is also correct [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_women&diff=712068566&oldid=712068096] - the deleted claim was quite extraordinary in the figure given, the cited source is of unknown quality and the page cited seems to not exist. Extraordinary claims will require something better than this. The only issue is with the swiftness of the deletion - perhaps it should have been tagged first. CTC claims this content addition is unsourced [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Rojava&diff=prev&oldid=712214121], but it is sourced! And the content addition is completely justified - if an organization is criticized it is appropriate for a response by that organization to the criticism to be presented alongside the original accusation. This [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Turkey&diff=prev&oldid=712245903] which GGT also objected to, I see as a correct but badly executed attempt to counter editorializing and source distortion. The source does not mention "Kurdish-language schools", it mentions private schools that ran classes that taught the Kurdish language. There are no "Kurdish-language schools" in Turkey, they are illegal - as the source says, classes (except classes that are teaching Kurdish) have to be taught in Turkish. This [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_women&diff=712069359&oldid=712068566] is also correct. The deleted "where it is mostly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect" is simply cherrypicked from the source for effect: its wording and context suggests that most of the FGM in Iran is done by Kurds. However, the source says nothing like that, and also says "The prevalence of FGM in Kurdistan is patchy and varies sharply from one region to another". The deletion of the "A 2011 Kurdish law criminalized..." content is hard to explain and accept though. [[User:Tiptoethrutheminefield|Tiptoethrutheminefield]] ([[User talk:Tiptoethrutheminefield|talk]]) 20:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:::BTW, two of the articles being mentioned here I see as possible pov forks: [[Kurdification]] and [[Human rights in Rojava]]. There seems not enough material to justify Human rights in Rojava, and it seems to exist only to host negative criticism, excluding the ample amount of sources that say the rights and liberties of the populations in Rojava are far greater than in neighbouring areas and have been highly praised. Created by Ferakp, I can see why it could give the impression, as has been suggested, that it exists only to remove this negative criticism from another article? The term "Kurdification" is questionable since it originated in Turkish post-Iraq-invasion propaganda as a response to the far more historically well founded and factual term "Turkification", which Turkey had (and still is) been accused of inflicting on Kurds in Turkey. I do not see much legitimate academic use of the phrase Kurdification and all the sources cited in the article need checking to see if they do use that phrase. [[User:Tiptoethrutheminefield|Tiptoethrutheminefield]] ([[User talk:Tiptoethrutheminefield|talk]]) 21:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
{{Reflist talk}}

== John Carter continuing to post on my talk page despite repeated warnings not to (Needs Admin Review) ==
{{User|John Carter}} recently logged out and posted on my talk page, even though he knows I am uncomfortable with him posting there unless he is specifically required to do so. Almost a year ago, I told him [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hijiri88&diff=658456980&oldid=658452953 several] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hijiri88&diff=658761597&oldid=658604120 times] to stay off the page, and he by-and-large obliged, but then in the past 24 hours he attempted to get around this by [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hijiri88&diff=712350036&oldid=711870547 posting on my talk page while logged out] (the IP is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08_and_Hijiri88/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=690504245 definitely him]). His other recent (logged-in) edits indicate that he is following me.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible&diff=prev&oldid=712365625][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible&diff=prev&oldid=712376668][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible&diff=707886351&oldid=702683635][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible&diff=712117735&oldid=711549716] Can I get an interaction ban? Or at least a warning to John Carter that following my edits and posting on my talk page while logged out is inappropriate? [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 03:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

'''Addendum''': Just thought I'd tag this on, as recent data seems not to have been fully convincing for some users. I noticed a while ago that John Carter almost never edits in the mainspace unless the article's title is "Bibliography of encyclopedias". In the last year he has made 23 edits to articles ''other'' than that, and of these 23, five of them were direct reverts of me, on an article he had never shown any interest in before. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 00:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

:I just read those diffs and I don't see anything abusive or harassing. Can you point out to me where John has done anything inappropriate towards you? [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b>]] 03:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::John Carter engaged in a pretty aggressive harassment campaign against me and [[User:Sturmgewehr88]] between April and November 2015, but I don't want to discuss it. I am under [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Catflap08 and Hijiri88 interaction ban|an IBAN]] with another user involved in the case, and the whole story was pretty unpleasant to begin with. But its zenith was probably [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive883#Ongoing gross incivility of Hijiri88|these]] [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive883#Copyright concerns at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa|two]] concurrent and baseless ANI threads he started against us.
::Anyway, I thought it was my prerogative to unilaterally ban John Carter from posting on my talk page if I am uncomfortable interacting with him -- isn't it? He has done the same to me. In this case he didn't just "forget", because he logged out to do so. Further, he followed me to WT:BIBLE, and while nothing in his comments either there or on my talk page was itself harassment, he knows I don't want him stalking my edits or my talk page and has continued to do so.
::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 04:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::IP editor does appear to be John Carter. John Carter hadn't edited on the WikiProject:Bible since October 2015, whereas Hijiri88 has been rather active this past month. John then comments on the RfC one day after Hijiri ([https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?users=John+Carter&users=Hijiri88&page=Wikipedia+talk%3AWikiProject_Bible]). Indeed John Carter hadn't edited since January 14, 2016 until this RfC edit. My understanding is that if a user "bans" you from their talk page, editing on it outside of required notifications is considered HARASSMENT. That and the following to the RfC seems like HOUNDing to me. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please &#123;&#123;[[Template:re|re]]&#125;&#125;</small> 04:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::No comment on the ban, but the time frame you sort of hint at seems to be a key point here. Considering John Carter indeed hasn't edited since January until recently and the edits happened after the edits to the talk page, saying they " "logged out and posted on my talk page" and "logged out to do so" is unproven. It's just as likely they hadn't been logged in for a while. Particularly since it would be fairly dumb to use an IP who's last edit was to a case page involving and naming Hijiri88. Since Hijiri88 had asked them to stay away (regardless of what that should mean) and I guess there must have been historic disagreements to result in this, it's unfortunate John Carter didn't either log in or declare who they were. However in absence of better evidence there was any intentional attempt at hiding who they were, I don't think not being logged in is particularly relevant other than a firm reminder to John Carter that they should either login or make it clear who they are in the edit if they are going to get re-involved in previous disputes. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 05:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Nil Einne}} The question of whether JC consciously logged out with the intention of avoiding detection is peripheral; I only mentioned it because otherwise someone would have asked me how I know the IP is him. I told JC to stay off my talk page and he came back, several times. His logged-in edits are almost as bad: he posted twice on a page he hadn't edited since June 2014 (subpages do not count), once in a thread I started, and once a thread someone else started about my proposal. I don't want this user posting on my talk page or following my edits, and I want an formal, mutual IBAN; John Carter said several times (admittedly last year) that he would be comfortable with such an IBAN; if a two-way IBAN is mutually acceptable, isn't this an open-shut case? Bringing up peripheral concerns about sockpuppetry is as far as I can tell pointless. (I did allude to my suspicions of deliberate sockpuppetry both on my talk page and in my notifications to JC, but I consciously avoided it in my OP comment here, because I knew it would turn into a red herring.) [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 05:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Hijiri88}} If it's peripheral you should have chosen your words more careful. In your original comments here, you implied that JC had done it intentionally. As I said above you said "logged out and posted on my talk page" and "logged out to do so" which implies there was a delibrate obfuscation on the part of JC. Open and shut case doesn't excuse you making accusations with insufficient evidence and it was fair of me to point out you had done so. A simple example which doesn't make such accusations would be
:::::::"recently posted on my talk page, even though he knows I am uncomfortable with him posting there unless he is specifically required to do so. Almost a year ago, I told him [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hijiri88&diff=658456980&oldid=658452953 several] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hijiri88&diff=658761597&oldid=658604120 times] to stay off the page, and he by-and-large obliged, but then in the past 24 hours he did so [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hijiri88&diff=712350036&oldid=711870547 while logged out] (the IP is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08_and_Hijiri88/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=690504245 definitely him]). His other recent (logged-in) edits indicate that he is following me.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible&diff=prev&oldid=712365625][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible&diff=prev&oldid=712376668][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible&diff=707886351&oldid=702683635][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible&diff=712117735&oldid=711549716] Can I get an interaction ban? Or at least a warning to John Carter that following my edits and posting on my talk page is inappropriate?"
::::::You can easily come up with many different examples of wording which conveys the point. In other words I agree it's a red herring, as there's no reason why you can't mention the evidence, without accusing JC of intentionally logging out to post out your talk page when you have sufficient evidence to make such an accusations and where what evidence that does exist suggests it probably wasn't a delibrate action. But it's a red herring which you caused by your actions here at ANI.
::::::[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 05:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Nil Einne}} I know it was a poor choice of words, and I apologize. My only defense is that it was less a deliberate attempt to lead the reader than a Freudian slip ー I legitimately believed that evading detection was John Carter's intention, as indicated by my comments on my own talk page. I initially drafted the above OP comment with a lengthy discussion of why I think this, but then realized my case was still fairly weak, and would be pretty pointless to boot (an OB like John Carter isn't going to be blocked for one small instance of sockpuppetry). When I removed this discussion I guess I wasn't as thorough as I should have been. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 06:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

*'''Oppose IBAN''' I am not seeing anything mean spirited here. The links you give show John either talking about articles or explaining how Wikipedia works. You "banning him" from your talk page seems to be in response to reasonable comments. If we are to CBAN based on two people being in the same places then we need a lot more evidence than has been presented. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b>]] 15:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
*[[WP:KEEPOFF]] is relevant here (though sadly underdeveloped even as far as essays go). Telling someone to keep off your user talk page is rarely helpful, and when done unreasonably, can lead to non-enforcement of that "ban". —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 15:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:*Indeed. If you don't have a good reason to tell someone to go away then it is hardly harassment if they say something to you later. Harassment involves being harassing, not just failing to obey some made up restraining order. In both of those links where you tell John to go away the comments being made are measured and reasonable. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b>]] 15:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|HighInBC}} He showed up at an ANI thread I started about his friend and deliberately misrepresented the dispute by pretending it was already under discussion on DRN. He engaged in off-wiki contact with ... someone who apparently really doesn't like me and then when I asked if it was the same site-banned user who had been posting my personal information all over the internet (and was at that time still actively engaged in emailing anyone who got in a dispute with me on Wikipedia, from a sock account -- email me if you want the details) he repeatedly misrepresented what I was saying as "of course someone without a publicly disclosed email must be engaged in sockpuppetry" (???) even though I explained my concern to him over and over again. He suddenly showed up on an article I was in the middle of rewriting and started trolling the hell out of me over one word in the lead, despite multiple users telling him to cut it out, and then when he didn't get his way on the talk page he opened an ANI thread (again: you say he was discussing article content, but ANI is not the place for that). Half the time I cannot make head or tail about what his beef is with me, and the only reason I can think of is that he is deliberately being antagonistic. When I told him to stay off my talk page he didn't until told more firmly to stay off, and then he came back again later, while logged out, and posted an inane non-sequitur apparently just to get another rise out of me (seriously -- look at what [[User:Curly Turkey]] and I were discussing, and then try to figure out what JC's contribution to the discussion was; if you can, then you understand the content of my talk page better than I do). And he has been stalking my edits to boot! What more evidence do you need? [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 23:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
* I wasn't convinced when Hijiri first started telling me that JC was hounding him, but after a couple of months of seeing him showing up everywhere—and often making bizarre comments like the one pointed out here—I'm convinced. I have no idea what a solution is, but I'm positive that he didn't show up at Hijiri's talk page to honestly be helpful—he obviously dislikes Hijirii too much. [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly&nbsp;Turkey]]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;[[User talk:Curly Turkey|''¡gobble!'']] 11:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
*<s>Oppose. More dispute resolution could be a good idea, perhaps with a mediator or request for comment format. Also, essentially agree with analysis by {{u|HighInBC}}, at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=712513905&oldid=712513748 DIFF], above. Cheers, &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 15:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)</s>
:{{ping|Cirt}} Dispute resolution about '''what'''? John Carter and I do not edit in the same areas, and even in those topics areas where there is a very slight overlap (I edit articles on biblical, Jewish and Christian topics, and JC very occasionally posts on these talk pages) the problem is not that we have a disagreement on content. John Carter followed me around for most of 2015 and reverted a bunch of my edits and caused massive ruckuses on talk pages and here on ANI, and I asked that he stay off of my talk page. He has refused to do so, while hypocritically imposing such a "stay away" restriction on me.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Carter&diff=654365880&oldid=654355059][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Carter&diff=654654252&oldid=654653641][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Carter&diff=657349651&oldid=657312585][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Carter&diff=657400166&oldid=657399957][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Carter&diff=683630797&oldid=683608730] How on earth would "dispute resolution" solve an issue where there is no dispute other than a non-productive editor hounding a productive one? Further, if both John Carter and I want an IBAN (I think JC's last comment on the issue was [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=659302076 ''I might also request an i-ban of him with me''], but he might have said the same thing more recently), why should one not be put in place? [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 02:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
::I was thinking perhaps informally seeking out someone from the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee]], but hopefully the comment from {{u|Drmies}}, below, will help clear things up and prevent problems in the future. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 05:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

*'''Proposal''': Semi-protect Hijiri's TP longterm, officially warn John Carter that if he posts on Hijiri's TP again he will be blocked. Any discussion worth having can occur on article talk pages or other Wikipedia space. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 02:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
*{{User|John Carter}}, if that's you posting on Hijiri's talk page, please stop. You were asked not to and you have no choice but to obey. If you persist, you will be blocked--it counts as harassment. Thanks, [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 03:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:::"You have no choice but to obey"? Such an authoritarian command has to be based on the editor being ordered to obey Wikipedia policy or standards, not on what an individual says, even if the individual is an administrator. Please cite the Wikipedia policy that backs up your command to obey. In absence of policy, or an interaction ban, or some other preexisting sanction, I do not think an administrator can make a "do this because I say so, or else" threat. While it might have been socially impolite for John Carter to have made the user page post (if he did it), the post itself had a legitimate purpose and was not offensive or harassing under the Wikipedia definitions of offense or harassment. I accept Hijiri 88 feels the post to be harassing (which should be reason enough for John Carter not to repeat it), but I think harassment as a sanctionable offense should not be based on an individual editor's standard of offense or hurt feelings, but on accepted group standards expressed through Wikipedia policy. Without some sort of harassment within the post's content, or an intent to harass through the act of posting, policy does not exist that allows an editor ignoring a request not to post on a user page to be blocked for not following that request not to post. Or as HighinBC put it "Harassment involves being harassing, not just failing to obey some made up restraining order". [[User:Tiptoethrutheminefield|Tiptoethrutheminefield]] ([[User talk:Tiptoethrutheminefield|talk]]) 00:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::Agree with {{u|Softlavender}} and {{u|Drmies}}. People need to ''stay off'' other user's talk pages when requested to do so. I'm hoping {{u|HighInBC}} and {{u|MSGJ}} are taking note of this. - ''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]'' 19:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:::If you have something to say to me you are welcome to do so at my talk page. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b>]] 21:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
::::OK, will do. - ''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]'' 16:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::Saying "People need to stay off other user's talk pages when requested to do so" (a statement which I agree with) is very different from saying "People must stay off other user's talk pages when requested to do so". The latter is what Softlavender and Drmies appear to be saying, and I think it is not a position supported by Wikipedia policies. [[User:Tiptoethrutheminefield|Tiptoethrutheminefield]] ([[User talk:Tiptoethrutheminefield|talk]]) 00:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''<s>Oppose I-Ban</s>, however...''' <s>An I Ban seems like unnecessary overkill,</s>. That said a request by an editor not to post on their talk page has always been treated as something close to posting a "No Trespassing" sign with your name on it. In all but the rarest of circumstances such a request should be scrupulously respected. Failing to do so absent a very compelling reason has generally been treated as a form of [[WP:HARASSMENT]]. It may not be their private property but the community has long recognized the right of editors to some degree of control over their own user and talk pages. If John has been posting on the OP's talk page after being asked not to, he needs to stop. Period. An apology, on this page, not the talk page, would not be out of order. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 00:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::I am striking my opposition to an I Ban. Based on more recent comments from both parties I now believe it appropriate. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 14:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::I should specify that the reason John Carter is not supposed to post on my talk page is that he and two or three other users put me through ''a lot'' of crap last year, to the point where I started to hate logging in and seeing that I had new messages, because I was worried about what new trickery they were up to. I'm largely over that "complex" by now, but it was still very disturbing to log on one morning last week and find that not only was John Carter back editing (and therefore potentially back to inflict more nonsense on me) but had posted on my talk page while logged out. John Carter knows the crap he put me through, and knows I don't like interacting with him, and he has been harassing me at this point for over a year. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 01:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::None of this is relevant. The only issue here is that it is alleged that he has posted on your talk page after you asked him not to. That's it. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 13:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' This seems to me an attempt at continuing the irrational and frankly paranoid behavior that caused Hijiri to be sanctioned in the first place. I would also point out that there was no visible attempt on his part to notify me of this discussion on my user talk page, which is, actually, ''required'', even though I have had to twice request him before to stay off my user talk page, and he seems to continue to ignore those requests. (Note: Actually, that is wrong. He did give such a notice, but started the post with a gratuitous and unnecessary request, which I believe could it itself not unreasonably be seen as being a continuation of his apparent ''absolute refusal to abide by my already repeated request to stay off my user talk page.'' Also, I suppose, maybe that requirement does not apply to people as exalted as Hijiri. I believe the issue here is the ongoing pattern of what I consider frankly insane conduct on the part of Hijiri, and I believe that it might not be unreasonable to request some sort of sanctions against him for this conduct on his part. I commented on two discussions at the talk page of the Bible project, because I watch that page and the [[WP:X]] noticeboard, where I saw the discussion listed. Of late, I have been spending most of my time gathering material for pages for [[:Category:WikiProject prospectuses]] and [[:Category:WikiProject libraries]], and it is easier to do that without distractions. But I have reason to believe that the ongoing irrational behavior of the original poster here could be seen as being very reasonably grounds for further administrative action against him, particularly considering his refusal to adhere to my repeated request to stay off my own user talk page and the grossly inflammatory and unnecessary nature of the comment he added to the ANI notice despite having been told twice already to stay off my user talk page. Also, if anyone is interested, I would be willing to forward to them an e-mail I received from Hijiri, after my repeated requests to him to stay off my userpage, whose sole purpose seems to have been to tell me he wouldn't be stupid enough to do something. Evidently, sending such an e-mail to get around my request to no longer receive comments from him is something he doesn't consider so stupid. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 14:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::There's a lot of self-contradiction, baseless insults, and questionable "facts" in the above long comment (which I finally mustered the courage to read from start to finish), but I'm going to limit myself to replying to the last part. I didn't email John Carter "to get around [his] request to no longer receive comments from [me]", as I had, frankly, forgotten about that request (I have, nonetheless, not posted anything on his talk page except what was ''required'' in some six months). This will be backed up by the content of the email (I specifically said I didn't want my dispute with him to clutter up any more of an ANI thread about Curly Turkey and CurtisNaito; I wanted to avoid posting ''here'', not on John Carter's talk page).o there is no misunderstanding, I will publish the content of the email below. There is nothing in it embarrassing to me, but publishing it here will clearly prove John Carter's above claim wrong. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 05:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=E-mail from Hijiri88 to John Carter, 2015/10/22, Thu 11:05; the edits to which I refer are [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20151022170001&limit=10&contribs=user&target=John+Carter&namespace=4&tagfilter= here]}}
''John Carter, I'm emailing you because I don't want this discussion to clutter up the Wikipedia namespace or anywhere else more than it has to. I don't expect you to respond to this email, nor do I particular desire such.

Your repeatedly asserting that I was the collapser at ANI is disruptive. The collapser was very clearly NOT me, but Curly Turkey, who has nothing whatsoever to do with ArbCom and (unlike CurtisNaito) doesn't even want to be involved. For one thing, the collapse title referred to my initial response which barely mentioned ArbCom as "acrimonious bickering" over and unrelated ArbCom case -- something that clearly I would never use to describe my own post.

You accusing me of "assuming bad faith" by merely stating the facts, while at the same time actively assumed bad faith even though you must have known better (you claimed you had reverted the collapsing several times, so you must have known who you were reverting) is deeply hypocritical and very disruptive.

I'm going to forward this email to CurtisNaito and Yunshui (who I know is on a wikibreak but he's an Arbitrator with whom I have had prior dealings, both positive and negative, and believe to be a fair neutral observer).

Cheers!

Hijiri88''
{{collapse bottom}}
::At the risk of hurting my own mental health (again), I'm not going to respond to or even read most of what I guess is another string of lies and deception in the above long comment, but in [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=713518041&oldid=713517338 his edit summary] he insinuated that I didn't notify him of this discussion, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Carter&diff=712444544&oldid=712250858 an obvious lie]. I'm done putting up with your bullshit, John Carter. Stay the hell off my talk page, stop following my edits, and stop talking shit about me all over the project (and via email). Just '''stop'''. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 14:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Hijiri, to my eyes, the single source of bullshit here is you. First, despite your evincing what some might see as your opinions to the contrary, you are not in divine, absolute control of everything. You cannot demand that everyone do exactly what you say, while at the same time acting in the irrational and counterproductive way you so regularly do, which can also be seen by your similar refusal to address the concerns of myself and another in the ArbCom case which led to your current sanctions. Refusing to deal with reality does not make it go away. I am more than willing to see the end of your own paranoic ranting myself, and have been since the first time I told you to stay off my user talk page. Under the circumstances, I think the most reasonable thing to be done here would be for you to display the capacity to engage in reasonable conduct yourself, something which I think has been rather visibly lacking from you for some time. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 15:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Here you go folks, two characteristic examples of the language of [[User:John Carter|John Carter]]. Notice first that he [[WP:IDHT|missed]] the notification of this discussion on his talk page and decries Hijiri for it. He also [[WP:NPA|bashes]] Hijiri's characher numerous times (irrational, paranoid, insane, etc) and flat-out lies about Hijiri's past editing and sanctions to make him out to be a villain (can he not tell the difference between Chinese and Japanese after being so deeply involved in [[Kenji Miyazawa|that dispute]]?). He acts like this is all about him being a victim, never recognizing that this is about him posting on Hijiri's talk page. He demands numerous times that Hijiri ''must'' stay off of his talk page, but [[Hipocrisy|later accuses]] Hijiri of thinking he is God for demanding the same! And of course he finishes with a holier-than-thou sermon on [[Irony|conduct]]. I just wonder if anyone else took the time to [[WP:TLDR|read]] all of his posts and notice the same things that show up in pretty much all of his posts. '''[[User:Sturmgewehr88|<span style="background:black"><span style="color:red">ミーラー強斗武</span></span>]]''' ([[User_talk:Sturmgewehr88|StG88ぬ会話]]) 16:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::Of course, it surprises nobody that
::::::@John Carter: I recognize the tone of the above six words as being yours. Could you please finish, sign, or remove it? [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 00:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support I Ban for both parties and propose 30 day block for {{U|Hijiri88}}''' for grossly uncivil commentary on this forum and using it as platform for attacking another editor in a manner that is completely out of bounds. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 14:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::{{ping|Ad Orientem}} Yes, I said "bullshit". This may have been a bad call. I apologize for any offense my use of foul language caused. This was not my intention. John Carter just has a habit of bringing out the worst in me (indeed, he seems to enjoy doing so on a semi-regular basis), which is why I told you of all the nonsense he put me through last year. I should have said "obvious and demonstrable lies". But John Carter said the same about what I said, including the word "bullshit" (immediately above). The question is whose accusations are demonstrable. I have provided evidence that John Carter has made up stuff about me (I'll search for the diff where I specifically pointed out to him ''before'' he posted below that he and I interacted on the [[Historicity of Jesus]] talk page back in 2014, if you need it). [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 15:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''weak support''' I-ban and sanctions as per the above, although I have questions about how it might deal with questions of effectively banning individuals from discussions. Specifically, Hijiri has only since his topic ban from Chinese topics shown any substantive interest in Christianity, and honestly I can't rule out the possibility that his more or less newfound interest in that topic might not be a form of "reprisal" on his part. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 15:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::How am I supposed to be civil when John Carter keeps ''lying'' about me like this? I have been editing Christian topics for [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Hijiri88&offset=20140914002736&limit=20&target=Hijiri88 ''years''] and I have never been topic-banned from Chinese topics! The above looks like a not-so-subtle way to try to get me sanctioned for violating a topic ban to which I was never subject, as I ''have'' started editing much more in a certain topic (Chinese culture) since my recent topic ban. John Carter has been making my Wikipedia life miserable for a year, and now I am being threatened with a block simply for reporting on it and responding in a (pretty reasonable, given the circumstances) fashion to his continued harassment. If someone can demonstrate that John Carter has ''not'' been lying about me and harassing me for the last year, including in this very thread, please do so. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 15:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::[[WP:CIVIL|Civility]] is not optional. If you are unable or unwilling to conduct yourself with a minimal level of decorum then you might want to consider finding another project to work on. Because the kind of invective you have been throwing around here is not acceptable and if you persist in this behavior it is not going to end well. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 15:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::I said "bullshit". John Carter also said "bullshit". John Carter told a long string of lies about me, with the intention of bringing sanctions down on me. He has not provided any evidence of his accusations, and I cannot be expected to let them stand. I have already apologized for my use of foul language. But the harassment and pathological lying also need to be dealt with. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 15:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::It is becoming increasingly clear that you just don't get it, and I am starting to doubt if that is correctable. Civility is not limited to the use of gutter language. I stand by my recommendations above and am going to move on unless something actually new comes up on this thread. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 15:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Is it to do with me accusing John Carter of lying? I provided evidence. Is it to do with my "thanking" you for an edit that appeared to be dismissive of me? I didn't take it that way -- you made a reasonable point, and I didn't see the point of continuing discussion further beyond indicating that I appreciated what you said. Is it to do with my going on and on about the mental trauma John Carter put me through? You are [[WP:AGF|supposed to assume]] I am telling the truth, and if you want more evidence, I can provide it to you (preferably by email, for the reasons outlined below). Is it because of something else I said? If so I will try to work on it, but simply saying I am uncivil and linking to a policy page I have probably read a dozen times over over the years is not helpful. I know I have had a lapse in civility. It is because John Carter has put me through a tremendous amount of ... painful experiences, just remembering it makes me very upset, and has already caused me to lose several hours of sleep over the past week (fortunately I'm a school teacher in Japan and am on holiday at the moment). [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 16:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::(e-c) And the record of the Arbitration case from last year at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88]] and related pages rather clearly demonstrates that throwing invective, possibly virtually any time anyone questions him, seems to be perhaps one of Hijiri's more persistent habits. And the primary b.s I see being thrown is still from Hijiri, and his as yet completely unsupported accusations about me. I am more than willing to forward the e-mail to anyone who requests it, other than Hijiri of course, for verification. Also, as per the evidence page I linked to above, Hijiri himself has a rather well documented history of making life miserable for others, including accusations of sock-puppetry from the beginning of editing, as per TH1980's evidence on that page. I believe that much of this is due to his repeated insistence that someone who has contacted me regarding his conduct is a sockpuppet of someone he had previous trouble with. For what it is worth, I myself went through every step I could to determine independently the identity of that person, and find that the likelihood of his being the same person as Hijiri's earlier stalker is pretty much nonexistent. I also have some reason to believe that the ArbCom itself was aware of the identity of the person I had been in e-mail contact with at the time of the arbitration, and there is nothing in the results of the arbitration to indicate that they considered Hijiri's allegations of sockpuppetry by his former stalker worthy of direct consideration. And, if someone wants to talk about unsubstantiated allegations, the worst ones in this matter are Hijiri's repeated insistence that, apparently, only that former stalker could ever disagree with him. A position which, I believe, is ridiculous on the face of it. Regarding use of "gutter language," I think even a former arb somewhere has said on a userspace page that in at least some rather extreme cases it is appropriate to call something "bullshit," or "ridiculous," or similar, and I personally believe that discussion of Hijiri's conduct and apparent deeply-held beliefs may well be one of them. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 15:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::{{re|Ad Orientem}} Yes, civility is more than just the use of "gutter language"; does calling someone "insane" breech civility? Or any of the [[WP:NPA|character-bashing]] John Carter has continuously done since his first post? Or that inflammatory lie that Hijiri never editied Christian articles before and got TBANned from Chinese topics? That last one especially, considering the deep involvement he had with Hijiri, calls either his [[WP:CIR|competency]] or integrity into question. He should share any sanction placed on Hijiri. '''[[User:Sturmgewehr88|<span style="background:black"><span style="color:red">ミーラー強斗武</span></span>]]''' ([[User_talk:Sturmgewehr88|StG88ぬ会話]]) 16:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Honestly, I would think that in this particular case, when I personally very, very much believe the individual in question is paranoic, which generally qualifies as insanE, i personally would not think so. In this case, it is the most accurate, if blunt, description of the individual in discussion possible. And it will be noted in the numerous previous discussions regarding Hijiri that roughly synonymous words have rather often been used to describe Hijiri. I guess it should also be noticed that Sturmgewehr88, whom others have in the past accused of engaging in almost knee-jerk defense of Hijiri on a regular basis in the past, keeps up one of his habits, of himself making accusations without any evidence whatsoever. Also, I think it would be interesting to anyone involved to see him comment, I forget where, in the ArbCom case to the effect that he couldn't find anything which indicates people are responsible for their own actions here. Such a comment might be very interesting to note in this instance. Also noting the obvious and rather transparent inflammatory lie made by SG above, in which he grossly misrepresents my statement to indicate that I said Hijiri has never edited in the field before. I challenge him to, before engaging in further hysterical accusations, to perhaps read the comments of others and not misrepresent them. I said he has shown litle interest in the field, not that he never edited it before. In my history with you, SG, I have to say that I have yet to see you demonstrate much if any capacity for engaging in useful discussion youself, and that you have, as per an e-mail you sent me which I forwarded to ArbCom in the case mentioned above, had to seek help from Hijiri before starting an ANI in his defense. I also note that SG has had to be told to stay off my user talk page twice as well, apparently, like Hijiri, not being perhaps bright enough to understand it the first time, which might be yet another common characteristic beyond the 88 that they share. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 16:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::::''making accusations without any evidence whatsoever'' John Carter, just drop it already. Ample evidence has been provided that I edited Christianity- and Bible-related topics long before my recent topic ban, and even interacted with you on such pages, and that my recent topic ban is on ''Japanese'', not Chinese topics. [[WP:AGF|Maybe]] you just forgot about all of this, but your continuing to claim that you were not forgetful but in fact ''correct'' in your accusations indicates that you are acting in bad faith. Why did you choose to randomly replace "Japanese" with "Chinese"? Why specifically "Chinese"? Unlike Christianity/Bible articles, I actually ''hadn't'' been editing China-related articles with any frequency before December. Were you following my recent edits and planning to get me blocked for violating an imaginary topic ban on Chinese topics? Did you really think the blocking admin wouldn't review what my topic ban actually says before blocking me? And did you really think you could get away with this blatant lying?
::::::::And could someone please explain to me why I am the one being threatened with a CIVIL block when John Carter says things like ''I personally very, very much believe the individual in question is paranoic, which generally qualifies as insanE'' and insulting the intelligence of other users (''not being perhaps bright enough to understand it the first time, which might be yet another common characteristic beyond the 88 that they share'')
::::::::Also, I'm not going to read much into it, but John Carter is aware that false accusations of neo-Nazism have been made against myself and Sturmgewehr88 because of our username. John Carter is perhaps not aware that [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive839#Til Eulenspiegel is comparing me to a Nazi|other users]] have been blocked for two months for calling me a Nazi. I was logged out at the time, though -- I was not editing logged in because of a chilling email I received from another user who has also since been indefinitely blocked by Drmies. I don't see what benefit JC sees in bringing up our usernames yet again. (Also, I wanted to point out yet another incidence of me editing Bible-related articles in May 2014. Thing is, I think John Carter and I actually agree on most articles related to Christianity, so I really don't understand why he refuses to cooperate with me, and instead insists on denying that I ever edited articles related to Christianity, when he knows that's an argument he can't possibly win. Also, note that in the thread linked, I indicate that I am intimately aware with the contents of Christine Hayes' 20-hour lecture series on the Old Testament. I sure went to a lot of effort to cover up the fact that I'm not really interested in Christianity/Judaism/Bible-related topics, what with watching an re-watching YaleCourses video series over a year before my conflict with John Carter even started. Apparently I have magical foresight and am so obsessed with wikistalking John Carter that I sunk hundreds of hours into intense research of the topics John Carter is interested in and I am only pretending to be interested in.)
::::::::Also, can I add that calling WikiProject Bible -- and particular discussion of the Hebrew Bible -- a "Christian" topic is Christocentric and offensive to Jews? I know a lot of Christians (and non-Christians who live in Christian countries) tend to forget that that the Hebrew Bible, including the Book of Psalms, is a Jewish and not a Christian text, so this is probably a good faith mistake, but I would ask John Carter to kindly stop using this language.
::::::::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 16:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::This appears to be becoming yet another attempt by Hijiri88 to post incredibly long wall-of-words comments without directly addressing the concerns or statements of others, something that has been repeatedly noted as being almost standard operating procedure from him. I do not remember having ever said you never edited articles relating to Christianity, although that now seems to be two people who are making that accusation. I remember having said you didn't edit them, and, honestly, your record of editing history seems to indicate you don't edit them frequently, perhaps less frequently than some other topics. Granted, it is always hard to respond to someone who states in their own responses that they haven't actually necessarily bothered to read the comments to which they are responding and/or will not address the matters those comments raise. And, for what it is worth, personally, at least in the context of this site, I don't particularly give a damn about my own opinions regarding Christianity, although I find it interesting that you appear to be indicating that such is my motivating purpose in editing the topic. My interest is in getting the material as encyclopedic as possible, although I do note the rather apparent attempt to impugn my motivations in your statement. Regarding the completely irrelevant and off-topic comment about indicating that I consider the Bible "Christocentric", well, I noticed that discussion because it was and I think still is listed at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard]], which I think I mentioned. Jumping to such unfounded allegations as that one is indicative to me of perhaps some people attempting to raise completely irrelevant and unfounded aspersions and insinuations for no readily identifiable purpose. I find it remarkable that once again Hijiri is jumping to conclusions about the motivations of others, a rather repeated habit of his. And, regarding my obvious and apparent mistake in the Japanese/Chinese statement above, I made a mistake there, based on bad memory. Despite Hijiri88's apparent belief to the contrary, other people do at times make mistakes, and cross-examination of others or seeking to find "hidden motives" to determine some conjectural "deeper motivation" where there isn't necessarily any such motivation is a rather frequently noted characteristic of the paranoid. However, my apologies in making an honest mistake. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 17:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
{{outdent}}''This appears to be becoming yet another attempt by Hijiri88 to post incredibly long wall-of-words comments without directly addressing the concerns or statements of others'' Can you give a specific example? Anyway, you said Sturmgewehr88 made accusations without evidence, and I provided evidence backing up everything Sturmgewehr88 said. The only way you could not have noticed this is if you didn't read Sturmgewehr88's remark before [[WP:KETTLE|accusing him of "making accusations without any evidence whatsoever"]]. Please actually provide some evidence of the endless string of accusations you are making against me. I have gone above and beyond what should be expected of me, given the restrictions that are already placed on me giving detailed descriptions of our prior interactions. Your first comment in this (former) sub-section consisted of a single massive lie, and both Sturmgewehr88 and I called you out on it. You have been dodging the question by claiming it was a "mistake" to confuse "Japan" for "China", but you still have not addressed the elephant in the room -- that you accused me of "following you" to "Christianity articles", even though I have been more active than you in contributing to those articles for '''years'''. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 17:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:Of course you provided evidence. As I think can be seen from the e-mail received by me which he forwarded to me, which I myself forwarded to ArbCom, just like in that exchange, you provided the evidence for him to post. This seems to me to very, very seriously raise questions whether he acts on his own particularly often, or whether he simply plays the role of a sort of meatpuppet for you. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 22:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:For the record, [[User:John Carter|John Carter]], I was well aware of this discussion well before you were, and had you not posted in the manner that you did, I may well have not posted here at all. I already know that no matter what anyone says or does, you'll continue to character-bash Hijiri and I (and anyone else you don't like for that matter), you'll continue to be a blatant hypocrite (complaining about [[WP:TLDR]] in a TLDR post, seriously?), and you'll continue to, in the popular term of the day, spout bullshit. As in 99% of the ANI threads involving John Carter, this one will become a monstrous wall of text that leads to nowhere but the archives. '''[[User:Sturmgewehr88|<span style="background:black"><span style="color:red">ミーラー強斗武</span></span>]]''' ([[User_talk:Sturmgewehr88|StG88ぬ会話]]) 21:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::Yes, the evidence is I think rather clear that dedfending Hijiri88 is one of your primary purposes in Wikipedia. I am frankly amazed by your comment above that you seem to think it surprising that someone respond to an ANI thread against them. I once again note, although a bit more explicitly this time, that, at least so far as I can see, you have rarely if ever demonstrated any particular grasp of policies and guidelines, no more than Hijiri88 anyway, and that your comment above about how I am engaging in character-bashing in your eyes, which I personally think as the person making the comments in question are more evaluation of the conduct of that editor and the dubious rationality of many of his actions, that your own comment above is to my eyes a much clearer attempt at character-bashing. And, once again, I note how both you and he had to be told to stay off my own user talk page twice by me, which can be seen by the archives of my talk page and your own, and that this could raise some questions regarding basic competency on the part of both of you. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 22:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I would be tempted to believe that {{u|Hijiri88}} would accept an IBAN, if it wasn't for the fact that he appears to have difficulty ''keeping'' to them ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AHijiri88 three breaches of previous Iban)]]. [[My two cents|My two-penn'orth]]. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 15:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::@[[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi]]: I emailed you, as I am not at liberty to respond to the above on-wiki, but I will say that one needs to examine the context -- at least one of those violations was because of frustration that the other party had violated the IBAN by reverting my edits, and I was not able to get any traction by reporting on ANI ''because John Carter showed up and derailed the discussion multiple times''. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 15:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately am unable to access emails atm. It seems rather bollocks not to be able to use an ANI as neutral ground- in this case, to be able to respond to my comment! Which may, or may not, be unfounded. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 15:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::This is a discussion of a potential IBAN between me and John Carter. You referred to one or two prior IBANs, one of which is still in effect. I ''can'' tell you that (despite what John Carter said in 2015) Tristan noir was the only one who violated my IBAN with him back in 2013, and Drmies apologized fairly quickly for falling for Tristan noir's fabricated "incident" in which I supposedly violated it. I emailed you the details of some of my later blocks related to the other (still in effect) IBAN, at least one of which was fairly similar. I am not allowed discuss the other party or their actions on-wiki, and therefore am not able to give you the details. Suffice to say the other party reverted my edits, I reported on AN, John Carter derailed the discussion, and (much later, after the same thing happened) I reverted back in frustration. There was a lot more to it, though. Please read my email if you get a chance. If we were discussing the IBAN in question, I could go into detail (but I don't want to -- again, just remembering all the stuff John Carter and his amazing friends put me through causes me to lose sleep). [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 16:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Support IBAN''' as John Carter clearly has no intention of stopping following Hijiri around. '''Oppose block''' for being utterly petty and serving no conceivable purpose—shame on the proposer for proposing something so pointlessly disruptive. [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly&nbsp;Turkey]]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;[[User talk:Curly Turkey|''¡gobble!'']] 22:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
**I find the above comment more than a little ridiculous myself, as it seems to be implying that taking part in an RfC on the talk page of a WikiProject I regularly consult and taking part in an ANI discussion about me is in some way following Hijiri88 around. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 23:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
***"Regularly consult" meaning that the last time you posted there was '''two years ago'''? Seriously? Further, how do your explain your continued activity on my talk page, and you do you explain your mysterious Freudian slip? In the half-dozen ANI threads you started on me requesting that I be TBANned from "Japanese culture", and in the ArbCom case where you appear to have requested the same (most of what you wrote was apparently in the form of emails to the committee, so I can't be sure), you don't seem to have ever even once accidentally written it as "Chinese culture", but now a few days after my writing an article on a Chinese topic and my commenting on WikiProject China about a month ago, you suddenly make this "mistake"? You were ''clearly'' following my edits. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 00:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
*** ''it seems to be implying that taking part in an RfC''—it implies no such thing—I don't even know what RfC you're talking about. I'm talking about you following Hijiri around and making a nuisance of yourself. [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly&nbsp;Turkey]]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;[[User talk:Curly Turkey|''¡gobble!'']] 06:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Support IBAN''' and '''Oppose block''', both apply to both editors, two-way IBAN. It is most unfortunate, to be sure, but {{user|John Carter}} himself [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=713523547&oldid=713523274 commented in support of the IBAN], and after my prior initial comment, unfortunately, the tone of the rhetoric appears to only have significantly degraded, on both sides of the aisle. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 22:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:*Regarding the nature of comments, I once again urge all involved to see the history of comments by Hijiri as presented in the Arb case, which indicates to me that degraded discussion is the norm in any discussion in which Hijiri88 feels challenged. My one reservation about an i-ban is that there does seem to be some reason to think Hijiri88 might be capable of making some useful contributions in the topic of Christianity and the Bible, particularly of the early Christian era and what is sometimes called the intertestamental period. He is currently banned from his most favored topic area, as per the ArbCom ruling. Honestly, if he could get around the paranoic ideation he rather regularly seems to indulge in, he could I think be a reasonable contributor in the Biblical/Christian/Jewish field, and I wouldn't want to see that ended. At the same time, however, the fairly long history of paranoic ideation on his part does raise concerns in my eyes that there may be no reason to think that such thinking will change, and, possibly by extension, that his own habit of stalking others, including me and the currently inactive Catflap08, as can be found supported in the ArbCom case, raises questions about whether that stalking behavior on his part will continue, along with his fairly regularly demonstrated extremely emotional responses. There is still a huge amount of missing and underdeveloped material in that field, and I would welcome seeing it developed, but I have very serious questions whether the problematic conduct he has rather regularly displayed in regards to many people will be a driving force in his own contributions in that area. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 23:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::In this case, we actually have a very handy control. Before [[WP:ABF|taking John Carter's word for it]] (that my rhetoric is always degraded because I had a few slips during a very heated ArbCom case '''initiated by John Carter'''), please examine my repeated engagement in [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=713608115#Legal_threat these] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=713608115#Multiple_problems_with_editor_Cedric_tsan_cantonais three] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=713608115#Dicklyon_and_his_treatment_on_commas_before_Jr.2FSr other] currently-open ANI threads, as well as my engagement in this thread [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=713517338#John_Carter_continuing_to_post_on_my_talk_page_despite_repeated_warnings_not_to before] John Carter showed up and started attacking me, and the other detachable comments I have made in several more ANI threads. In none of them, even in this thread before last night, did anyone call me out on my "degraded discussion"; in fact I received several "thank"s for my comments ([[User:HighInBC]], despite being very skeptical of me earlier on in ''this'' thread, just last night thanked me for [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=713461778&oldid=713461771 this general commentary] on the nature of AGF and NLT). John Carter brings out the worst in me, because [[WP:HARASS|that is what John Carter is trying to do]]. If I am able to comport myself in a polite, civil, respectable manner in every situation where John Carter ''isn't'' trying to bait me, then how could blocking me and not John Carter possibly be a solution? John Carter was the one who degraded the rhetoric in this discussion, not me. This is just one more reason why an IBAN is needed, by the way. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 01:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support i-ban''', no comment on block. Since it seems both editors agree to the iban and the back and forth between them in this pages suggests it's needed, I think it's a slam dunk. I don't think the ability of editors to follow the iban should concern us too much. The only general alternative is some sort of ban. I don't think a topic ban would help between the editors so the other option is a community ban. But I think it's better to give any editors rope, as annoying as it may be to have to deal with iban violation discussions at ANI i.e. hope the iban works and if it doesn't block them as needed. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 06:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
'''Comment''' Could a non-ninvolved Admim review and close this thread? I think very little of substance is being added at this point, and what we have is a long shouting match between two editors who appear to be in agreement on only one thing. They need to be separated by an I Ban. Thanks. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 01:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
*I second this. '''[[User:Sturmgewehr88|<span style="background:black"><span style="color:red">ミーラー強斗武</span></span>]]''' ([[User_talk:Sturmgewehr88|StG88ぬ会話]]) 03:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

*Hijiri, when you make a claim on ANI and request an IBan or other sanction, you need in your OP to make your evidence, claim, and diffs of '''longterm''' abuse airtight so that the case is open-and-shut. You really failed to do that, and consequently your case is very weak and led only to massive he-said-she-said squabbling on this thread between you, John Carter, and fellow supporters of either of you. There's no use trying to retroactively make your case three or more days after you filed it -- it's too late then and only adds to the muddle. Now it's just a big mess and no one really has the time or inclination to get to the bottom of it -- at this point people are merely judging who has the worst mouth and who has been most insulting or bad-mannered on this thread. If I were an admin I'd just close this thread as a mistrial, and say please everyone can we please play like adults, and try to avoid people that we are getting overly entangled with. I don't think anybody at all on this thread has made a case for anything, and the fault is mainly because your OP was little more than a barely substantiated whine. Can we please all just drop this and find something on Wikipedia to be improved? [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 07:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::A week ago I would have agreed with your last sentence. I wanted John Carter told off for not respecting my wishes that he stay off my talk page. I didn't provide extensive evidence of long-term harassment was that (apart from my IBAN with another user ''preventing me'' from providing/discussing most of the evidence on ANI!) that I sincerely expected that if I expressed my willingness to submit to the mutual IBAN that John Carter proposed several times, John Carter would show up, apologize for posting on my talk page, agree to a mutual IBAN, and that would be that. I did ''not'' expect him to wait several days before showing up and posting a bunch of very long comments about what a horrible person I am. If you want a complete summary of John Carter's harassment of me over the last year, with diffs, I will try to put one together and email it to you later this week. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 07:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:::That's not how it works, Hijiri. If you don't make your case in your OP, you generally have very little chance of getting what you requested, and an overwhelming chance of the thread turning into a free-for-all, as this has. Time to call it a day. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 09:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Look, this thread is supposed to be wrapping up, so I don't want to star a fight, but twhen you say "that's not how it works", it seems to be based more on your personal opinion than on any PAG. Uncontroversial requests, such as a mutual IBAN that has already been agreed to by both parties, generally do not require a tremendous amount of evidence up front. Everyone here except you, including both John Carter and myself, seems to support the IBAN, so can't we just give it a rest and, as you say, find something on Wikipedia to be improved? [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 09:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Agree''' with Ad Orientem and Sturmgewehr88. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 09:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
*I once again notice what I believe is the oft-repeated and I believe very possibly ''pathological'' behavior of Hijiri88 in trying to divert attention from possible errors on his own part and blaming others for them. This seems in a pattern with his previous behavior, in which he seemed to blame virtually every disagreement he had with anyone on the intervention of his stalker of years ago. He seems to have developed a tendency to I believe demonstrably erroneously believe because, in his eyes, that stalking individual is violating policies and guidelines, and is according to his thinking the sole motivating factor in virtually any disagreement he has here, he is free to violate those policies and guidelines as well. That is not and never has been acceptable here. Continuing in similar behavior, even if the original reason is unfounded, isn't either. I would also, frankly, include in a possible I-ban here me, Hijiri88 and Sturmgewehr88 and possibly others, because I believe that there is an easily demonstrated history of possible collusion on the part of those last two editors in particular, and possibly others, perhaps similar to that in the [[WP:EEML]]. Lastly, I find it laughable that someone who sent me an e-mail saying he had to contact me somehow, despite having been twice told in no uncertain terms to stay of my user talk page, to indicate he wasn't as stupid as he thought I indicated in a comment, not realizing such behavior is no better than violating the request to stay off the user talk page, and, frankly, far from indicating that person isn't stupid. I believe such behavior, and that very very weak grasp of policies and guidelines, and/or a possible belief that policies and guidelines are less important than him defending himself at any and all costs, including violations, indicates someone whose grasp of conduct guidelines is at best very weak and very very possible indicative of the possible incompetence of that editor. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 15:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::I'd just like to point out that I didn't mention my dispute with JoshuSasori ("his stalker of years ago") even once in this thread. John Carter seems to want to keep bringing this up in order to portray as a "paranoid psychopath", but I seriously have not engaged in any of the paranoid behaviour he accuses me of having engaged in in this thread. I honestly have no idea what bringing JoshuSasori up will accomplish here. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 03:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::As, per the above, John Carter has renewed his long-time request for an IBAN with me, I would also like to request an IBAN with him. '''[[User:Sturmgewehr88|<span style="background:black"><span style="color:red">ミーラー強斗武</span></span>]]''' ([[User_talk:Sturmgewehr88|StG88ぬ会話]]) 04:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

== Multiple problems with editor Cedric tsan cantonais ==

If you'll look at {{diff|Whitecaps FC 2|712450016|712202123|this edit}} you'll see two of them. The first is his constant attacks on anons. In this case, the anon made a mistake common with association football editors: assuming that being called to play for a national team equates with being considered that nationality. [[:WP:AGF]] speaks directly against this. Checking CTC's edit history, you will see many polemics against anons in this manner or worse. The second is that he insists on using Icelanding and other non-English characters. The comment he wrote was, "Anoðr reason to shut down IP edits! Unleß you fīnd prōf ðat Davies actually playd for Canada at ANY level, just shut down ur computer already." It twice uses the Icelandic Thorn: ð, the Germanic long S:ß, an i and o with a macron, usually used to mark long or heavy syllables in Greco-Roman metrics: ī and ō. This makes it almost impossible for a native English reader to understand. This is just one comment. More can be seen in his edit history. I not sure what he's here to do, but it seems he's [[:WP:NOTHERE]] on some level, definitely treating editing as a battleground, repeated hostile aggressiveness, little or no interest in working collaboratively, at least with anon editors, and major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention, again especially toward anon editors. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 05:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
: I have every reason to believe that Walter Gorlitz is intentionally presenting only half of the story here. If you look through my edit history, you'll see that I only attack vandals, but not others, and I attack vandals because it's the best way of dealing with vandals. Walter Gorlitz went soft on them and nothing happened, but when I stepped in, the vandals stopped, at least for a few days. Editing is a battleground '''if and only if''' the other side is composed of none but vandals. Also, if you look through my edit history, you'll find evidence that I don't just refuse to work collaboratively. It is only vandals and the likes of Walter Gorlitz, a double-standarded anti-diacritic crusader who allows only himself to use diacritics in his name but wants to purge them from all other names, that I am simply unable to work with because of '''irreconcilable differences'''.
: Also, [[WP:AGF]] '''only''' applies to first-time mistakes, but '''not repeated vandalism''' like that in the example that Walter Gorlitz provided. Seriously, if one (especially an admin) can still assume good faith in repeated vandalism, <font color="purple">s/he should re-think whether s/he's leading Wikipedia towards the right direction</font>.
: As for my use of so-called "non-English" alphabets, as accused by this anti-diacritic crusader, we all know that there's a limitation of 500 characters in the edit summary, which could be too short in some cases, but I still need to explain why I'm revoking someone's edit or why I'm making such an edit. What else should I do other than coming up with ways to shorten my spelling? Walter Gorlitz wants us to "assume good faith" even in the most blatant cases of vandalism, but why isn't he assuming good faith when all I did was using combined alphabets and diacritics to shorten my spelling? Also, for those who are able to venture back a thousand years or two, diacritics and so-called "non-standard" alphabets were everywhere in '''English''', from ''[[Beowulf|Beoƿulf]]'' to ''[[Cædmon's Hymn]]''. If Walter Gorlitz's standards were not double standard, I don't know what is. ''[[User:Cedric tsan cantonais|<font color="darkgreen">'''Cédric'''</font>]] <sup>wants to abolish "[[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ice_hockey)#Article_names|Convention №. 2]]" like abolishing [[slavery]].</sup>'' 17:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:: It's clear to see the self-deluded hubris presented by Cedric when you look at his claim that he reverted a repeat vandal. The edit made by the IP he made the personal attack on was the editor's first. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 04:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:::[[WP:SPEAKENGLISH]] refers to ''Modern'' English, not ancient ancestors of the language Anglo-Saxon or Proto-Germanic or Proto-Indo-European. Excessive use of non-standard spellings (which I'm sure are not even historically accurate to Old English usage) in edit summaries is disruptive. I don't like the character-count restrictions in edit summaries, but ''Another reason to shut down IP edits! Unless you fīnd proof that Davies actually played for Canada at ANY level, just shut down your computer already'' would have easily fit. The content of the comment, that IPs should be banned from editing Wikipedia entirely because one IP made a dubious, unsourced edit (to text that was already unsourced to begin with, mind you), is absurd -- almost as absurd, in fact, as calling a user named "Walter Görlitz" an "anti-diacritic crusader". Further, the assertion that WG "wants to purge [diacritics] from all other names" is [[WP:WIAPA|made without evidence]], and wouldn't even apply to [[User:Cedric tsan cantonais]] if it was true, as "Cedric tsan cantonais" doesn't contain any diacritics. I've suffered [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuSasori|more]] from the Wikipedia Diacritic Wars than likely both of you combined (perhaps even more than every other editor on the project), but you don't see me making ridiculous assertions like this. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 06:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:::: {{ping|Hijiri88}} Please feel free to look at how Walter Gorlitz launched his crusade [[Talk:Jovan Blagojevic#Requested move 22 May 2015|here]]. As I recall, Walter Gorlitz himself does not speak [[Serbian language|Serbian]] at all. Yet, he allowed himself to launch an anti-diacritic crusade on a name that he might not even be able to pronounce. Venturing into unfamiliar territories comes with all kinds of uncertainties, especially when we're talking about an '''encyclopaedia'''.
:::: Also, my attitude towards IP edits did not just come out of nowhere after one dubious edit. I've had too many pages that the poured my blood, sweat and tear into vandalised by IPs for no reason at all and I've been targeted by several editors hiding behind their IP addresses simply because of simple disagreements. As we Chinese say, "Three feet of ice can't be formed with one night's cold". And yet, Walter Gorlitz, instead of blocking those IPs for vandalism as he should have, he went after me for being to "impolite" while remaining so soft on those vandals as if he was begging them to stop. How is this doing any good to Wikipedia itself? ''[[User:Cedric tsan cantonais|<font color="darkgreen">'''Cédric'''</font>]] <sup>wants to abolish "[[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ice_hockey)#Article_names|Convention №. 2]]" like abolishing [[slavery]].</sup>'' 15:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::I'm sorry, but what on earth do you mean "crusade"!? You say his "crusade" was "launched" last May, but when I Ctrl+F-ed [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?limit=1500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Walter+G%C3%B6rlitz&namespace=1&tagfilter=&year=2016&month=-1 his contribs to article talk pages] since then for "requested move" and "proposed move", none of the others appeared to have anything to do with diacritics. What's more, when [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner|notorious pro-diacritic partisan and infamous Serbian/Japanese/Vietnamese/wherever ultranationalist]] [[User:In ictu oculi]] takes the same side as someone in an RM, I am ''very skeptical'' about the possibility that such a user might be an an anti-diacritic warrior. While the tongue-in-cheek nature of the preceding sentence might indicate that I do not take this issue seriously, I do; I've taken far too much crap for it over the years not to. It's obvious to me that either you are paranoid beyond reason about "anti-diacritic crusaders" or that you have some other bone to pick with WG. And you still haven't provided any evidence of where he forced you to adopt your current user name to remove the diacritics that ''clearly aren't there''. Making accusations without providing evidence -- or, worse, providing "evidence" that clearly proves the opposite -- is a form of [[WP:WIAPA|personal attack]].
:::::You clearly have a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works: WG does not have the power to block those IPs, as he is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers/sysop&limit=2000 not an admin]; and even if he was, he would not be able to indefinitely block them as a point of policy. If you have a problem with vandalism (legitimate vandalism, as opposed to edits you happen to disagree with) the place to report it is [[WP:AIV|here]]. Only users who know they have a weak argument complain retroactively about "vandalism". If you poured "blood and sweat" into an article, it's the easiest thing in the world to revert legitimate vandalism, and if the vandalism continues you can report it and get the page semi-protected. It's therefore clear that what you are talking about is ''not'' vandalism.
:::::Also, saying that IP editors "hide behind" their IPs is absurd. By choosing to edit under a publicly visible IP, those editors are disclosing more personal information about themselves than you or me of 99% of other Wikipedians with named accounts.
:::::Having been on the project for over three years, you should know all this already!
:::::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 16:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::: {{ping|Hijiri88}} I have every reason to believe that we're still not on the same page. First, I never accused WG of forcing '''me''' to adopt a name without diacritics; Second, all I'm doing is questioning his knowledgeability, which shall be in no way considered a personal attack — In fact, if this counts as personal attacks, I don't know what doesn't. If you wish to question my knowledge in any field, be my guest.
:::::: As for the edit summary you showed, can '''anyone''' not suspect vandalism when anyone, anon or not, removes a huge chunk of '''encyclopaedic content''' without explaining why?
:::::: Also, I do not know the history between you and [[User:In ictu oculi]], but according to your standard, calling him/her a "notorious untranationalist" can also be considered a personal attack.
:::::: As for why «those editors are disclosing more personal information about themselves» is something I simply can't agree with, [[WP:NOTHUMAN]] had made it clear already and I do not plan to re-iterate those points here. I'm not gonna re-iterate anything about presuming good faith, either. But there's one thing that I request you to do: Look deeper into those edit histories. All those IP edits repeated changed the sportive nationality of a player '''without anything that can be considered as reference'''. WG himself reverted those edits multiple times but those IPs were simply too stubborn to reason with. The first among those edits might be in good faith, but repeatedly doing that? Maybe you, sir, can presume good faith from those, but the way I see it, those are either vandalism or unconstructive edits.
:::::: To be honest, I'm not a fan of treating WP as a battle ground, either. But if those vandalism never happened, neither of us would've been here today. Also, you're making a big mistake by motioning to block me instead of those vandals out there. During my times here in Wikipedia, I dare to say that '''none''' of my edits can be considered vandalism. Can you say the same to those vandals out there? I wouldn't think so. Also, why should I be frowned upon just because I demand that all contributors register?
:::::: Finally, I don't spend much time here in English Wikipedia simply because my pro-diacritic stance has attracted too much hostility from other editors. So why should I be frowned upon just because the majority of my edits are not on English Wikipedia? I demand an explanation. ''[[User:Cedric tsan cantonais|<font color="darkgreen">'''Cédric'''</font>]] <sup>wants to abolish "[[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ice_hockey)#Article_names|Convention №. 2]]" like abolishing [[slavery]].</sup>'' 01:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::You said WG "allows only himself to use diacritics in his name but wants to purge them from all other names". This appears to be a reference to his username having an umlaut; however, you did not provide any evidence of him actually trying to remove diacritics from other users' names.
:::::::I don't know how you failed to notice that my referring to IIO as a "notorious ultranationalist" was '''a joke''' when I ''explicitly said'' that I was joking in the following sentence. "ultranationalist" is what LittleBenW, Kauffner and JoshuSasori -- the real anti-diacritic warriors, against whom [[armchair general|you never helped us]], call him. If you legitimately didn't notice that I was joking, you should apologize to me for your mistake, but even still you should ''never'' [[WP:ABF|assume]] that what I said was meant as a personal attack, even if it had looked like one.
:::::::I never said you should be frowned upon just because the majority of your edits are not on English Wikipedia. Please re-read what I wrote.
:::::::And despite your own unending string of mistakes, you persist in [[WP:KETTLE|claiming that the legitimate mistakes of others]] qualify as vandalism.
:::::::If your English level is low enough that you legitimately don't realize that your language is inappropriate and you couldn't understand what I wrote, then we may have a [[WP:CIR]] issue on our hands: I generally support users with all levels of English being allowed to edit, but only if they have the humility to admit that they were wrong; you appear to be defensively striking out against anyone you with whom you fail to communicate.
:::::::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 07:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::: Fair enough. I offer you my apology, sir. Please forgive me for not being able to tell jokes from non-jokes. Honest.
:::::::: In the mean time, I never took on LittleBenW, Kauffner and JoshuSasori because I never knew they existed. ''[[User:Cedric tsan cantonais|<font color="darkgreen">'''Cédric'''</font>]] <sup>wants to abolish [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ice_hockey)#Article_names|Convention №. 2]]" like abolishing [[slavery]].</sup>'' 16:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::I know you never knew they existed. That is why you should not be lecturing me about the importance of the "diacritic wars"; I am a veteran of them, and you only showed up as they were dying down. You made your very first edit to English Wikipedia a month after the first of them was blocked, scarcely two months before the second was blocked, and five months before the last. You don't know anything about the "diacritic wars", despite your [[arrogance|''daring'']] to lecture me on them. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 04:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

{{Ping|Cedric tsan cantonais}} This nonsense has to stop. You are not allowed to insult people, not even anonymous editors, and although I share your love of diacritics you have to stop massacring English like you do. 250 characters is plenty for any edit summary, in fact if you come even near to a 100 you should simply write the explanation on the talk page, and write "See Talk: <heading>" as edit summary. And stop accusing people of bad faith when they ask you to follow Wikipedia's rules. You are just in this discussion and the edits that have been linked here in violation of [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:SPEAKENGLISH]] and [[WP:BATTLE]]. Stop it. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 08:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
: {{Ping|OpenFuture}} Okay, you have a good point, I understand, I will slow down and stop insulting IPs. My two cents... ''[[User:Cedric tsan cantonais|<font color="darkgreen">'''Cédric'''</font>]] <sup>wants to abolish "[[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ice_hockey)#Article_names|Convention №. 2]]" like abolishing [[slavery]].</sup>'' 16:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
::OK, good. Uill ju alßo stop prätending yat ye aenglíesc späłing cånväntiöns ðös nawt ehksizt? --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 16:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
::: {{Ping|OpenFuture}} Þou have just given me every rēson to believe ðat þou þink I'm just anoðer knok-head hwō just adds diacritics for fun, hwich I have no choiç but to take offenç. I do '''not''' just switch up letters or add random diacritics for fun. All my use of diacritics are '''strictly linguistically and etymologically rōted''' while WG has publicly admitted that the umlaut in his name is merely a "rock band umlaut". If þou woud like to talk about using plain spelling more often, we coud talk, but I nēd you to wiðdraw or at least rephrase ðis. ''[[User:Cedric tsan cantonais|<font color="darkgreen">'''Cédric'''</font>]] <sup>wants to abolish "[[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ice_hockey)#Article_names|Convention №. 2]]" like abolishing [[slavery]].</sup>'' 18:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
::::So where mine, and it doesn't change anything I said. I'm not going to withdraw or rephrase it. If you insist on not using English standard spellings and hence make your communication incomprehensible to people that doesn't reach up to our knowledge of these characters, some sort of administrative action will be necessary. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 21:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
::::: Just because you want me to switch back to plain English spelling does not mean you can make poor-faith accusations against me like that. ''[[User:Cedric tsan cantonais|<font color="darkgreen">'''Cédric'''</font>]] <sup>wants to abolish "[[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ice_hockey)#Article_names|Convention №. 2]]" like abolishing [[slavery]].</sup>'' 23:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::Just as a note: I haven't made any accusations I'm a aware of, and definitely not any poor-faith accusations. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 14:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:::: I don't believe I ever made such a statement. The closest I came to discussing the umlaut in my family name with you was when I stated that it's not my legal (''de jure'') name in Canada. That does not mean that it's not my family name. When my father arrived in Canada, having spelled his name with the umlaut until that time, he was informed that there is no such letter in English and his family name legally became Gorlitz. All of his, and also my, legal documents and public records are spelled that way. However, my signature has the umlaut, because historically, that is my name, and I have done so since I was in university. My cheques and several other non-legal documents use the umlaut. It's certainly not because of my association with rock music or metal though. If I were to live in Germany, or any country where the character is recognized, I would use it. The point I was making when I explained that earlier is that diacritics are not acceptable in modern English, although they have started to to creep in, either as loans from where we get our loan words (such as in naive/naïve, cafe/café) or as hypercorrections (such as maté tea). The average English speaker would be able to easily transliterate the vowel with an umlaut, or diacritic in relation to the English alphabet, whereas they would not be able to do that with a thorn or other character not found in the English alphabet or unfamiliar to the English alphabet. So, for the official record, I am not against diacritics. What I am opposed to is using characters that are not a part of the modern English alphabet or cannot be easily understood by a reader of modern English. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 05:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

===Indefinitely block Cedric tsan cantonais===
I'm usually not one for extreme solutions, but someone who has been on the project for over three years should not be demanding that non-admins block IPs, accusing those IPs of "vandalism" for apparently good-faith edits, accusing those non-admins of imaginary "crusades", or demanding that all IPs be banned from editing English Wikipedia, period, because of something that apparently happened on a different language Wikipedia. Looking at CTC's contributions, it's obvious that the "too many pages that the poured my blood, sweat and tear into" were not on English Wikipedia -- this user has made 96 article edits, only four of which were over 1,000 bytes. I don't know what happened to his edits on [[:zh-yue:Special:貢獻/Cedric_tsan_cantonais|Cantonese Wikipedia]], but it surely can't justify the likes of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Simon_Fraser_Clan&diff=prev&oldid=686927510 this edit summary]. While it's possible this user has something to contribute (the [https://zh-yue.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:%E6%97%A5%E8%AA%8C/block&page=User%3ACedric+tsan+cantonais clean block log] on his main project is ... interesting), it's obvious that he is more of a burden on the project than a boon ''for the time being''; indefinite blocks are not permanent blocks.
*'''Support''' as nom. Also pinging [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]], since it would be pretty [[WP:DICK|dickish]] of me to propose a solution, several days late, to a problem he reported without informing him. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 16:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Slow down''' I was pinged but I'm not aware of any of this and I don't immediately see a need to block anyone. I would defer to {{ping|OpenFuture}}'s view of things. {{Ping|Cedric tsan cantonais}} it would be good if you could reply to Open Future, and say "Okay, you have a good point, I understand, I will slow down and stop insulting IPs. My two cents.... [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 11:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
::{{ping|In ictu oculi}} Insulting IP editors is only one of several issues here.
::There's also
::# use of gibberish spellings in edit summaries based on a demonstrably-bogus character-count rationale,
::# accusing other users of NPA violations based on his own misreading of their comments,
::# doubling down and refusing to apologize for (2) when it was pointed out to him,
::# violating AGF by accusing another user of engaging in a "crusade" based on one RM from almost a year ago (by the same logic ''you'' would be engaged in the same "anti-diacritic crusade", an absurdity I was quick to point out),
::# repeatedly calling edits with which he happens to disagree "vandalism" because they happen to have been made by IP editors,
::# requesting that the admin corps on English Wikipedia engage in some kind of massive anon witchhunt based on something that apparently happened on Cantonese or French Wikipedia,
::# repeatedly referring to this incident on Cantonese or French Wikipedia as justification for his actions, apparently without actually explaining what happened (FTR, I find it highly unlikely that Cedric repeatedly suffered his hard work being "ruined" by "vandalism" -- vandalism is super-easy to revert; more likely, an IP editor repeatedly made well-sourced and reasonable edits that Cedric didn't like; this is why I want an explanation if Cedric is going to keep using dubious anecdotes about foreign-language wikis to justify his actions here),
::# requesting that WG block a certain IP editor for making such a "vandalism" edit, despite WG not being an admin,
::# seemingly accusing WG of trying to change other users' names against their wishes,
::# repeated use of overly aggressive edit summaries, with swear-words and exclamation marks galore,
::# defending (10) with "I was reverting obvious vandalism -- how can you not see that!?" -- clearly either [[WP:CIR|unable]] or [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|unwilling]] to get the point,
::# [[WP:FORUMSHOP|something else]] that I technically promised not to bring up here unless he persisted, and he hasn't thusfar, but the night is young,
::# refusing to provide an explanation for any of the above when asked,
::# engaging in historically offensive hyperbole (look at his sig); whether or not you disagree with such-and-such Wikipedia content guideline (Cedric apparently hasn't looked at the content guideline he complains about with every post he signs in a while, as it does not say what he claims it says) it is not as bad as slavery,
::# pedantically nitpicking words like "seemingly" and "apparently" in others' criticisms of him in order to dismiss everything they say, and
::# despite clear reasons being given for criticizing his behaviour ''apart from'' his attitude toward IP editors, insisting that this proposal to block him is based on a desire to "censor" his views on IP editors.
::Most of these look like rookie mistakes, and if a legitimate rookie had made them I would say mentor, not block, but in this case the user has been editing on and off for over three years. Some of them are things that you and I have also committed quite late in our editing careers. But the combination of all of them at this time makes me say a block ('''without prejudice against unblock''', assuming a contrite unblock request, which indicates a full understanding of why the block was made and a sincere desire to do better, is made) is the best option for the community.
::And in case it is not clear, my stance on diacritics has not changed in the past three years. I feel the need to clarify this given that little misunderstanding we had on your talk page a short while back. Apparently something in my tone of voice now convinces people that I have turned coat and joined the "anti-diacritic crusade". The reason for the scare-quotes is that, I'm sorry, I am not seeing it as any kind of grand unified crusade since LittleBenW and Kauffner got themselves blocked back in 2013, and Fyunck(click) turned out not to be a massive hypocrite and actually went with the consistent romanization and reliable sources on the Empress Jingū RM around the same time. To quote [[Austin Powers|Basil Exposition]], "Austin ... we won."
::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 13:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Hijiri88}} Sir, since your accusations full of terms like "seemingly" or "unlikely", I find it nearly impossible to swallow.
::: Also, if you seek to block me largely because of my stance towards IPs, this is called [[censorship]]. ''[[User:Cedric tsan cantonais|<font color="darkgreen">'''Cédric'''</font>]] <sup>wants to abolish "[[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ice_hockey)#Article_names|Convention №. 2]]" like abolishing [[slavery]].</sup>'' 16:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
::::I said "seemingly" in line with AGF. If I proclaimed definitively that you ''did'' refuse to explain yourself when I requested it, when there was still the possibility that you had just misunderstood my request, it would have been in violation. Fortunately for me, your above response indicates that I was 100% correct, and would have been forgiven for leaving out the "seemingly"s. Please, please, ''please'' learn to communicate withnother editors. I said the ''exact opposite'' of "seek to block you largely because of my stance towards IPs" -- I posted a laundry list of twelve other offenses you had committed, largely against me, that, when combined, appear to me to warrant an indefinite block with possibility of immediate appeal.
::::And in my experience, accusing other users of "censorship" has never worked out well for the accuser.
::::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 17:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::Let me be clear: I had never committed any offence against '''you''' and I do not intend to, so unless there're miscommunications between us, please stop adding more accusations to the list. ''[[User:Cedric tsan cantonais|<font color="darkgreen">'''Cédric'''</font>]] <sup>wants to abolish "[[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ice_hockey)#Article_names|Convention №. 2]]" like abolishing [[slavery]].</sup>'' 18:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::The offenses you commit are against Wikipedia. This is not a personal issue. It's not like you can go around and insult one person and expect that everyone else is OK with that, because they aren't the people being insulted. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 21:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Cedric tsan cantonais}} Yes, you did. I posted one neutral comment above and was met with a flurry of attacks. Of the above, 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 were all committed ''against me'' within the last 36 hours as punishment for my crime of analyzing the problem as I see it and commenting accordingly. At this point I have no doubt that if you get blocked you will blame me for it and post on your talk page (or perhaps on Wikipediocracy or some such) about how "Hijiri88 blocked you for your pro-diacritic stance", because you refuse to do the damn research and realize that I have a much longer history than you do of defending diacritics on this site. (Also, like WG, I am not an admin; I have no power to block you, so I would appreciate you not claiming that "blocking you" is what I am doing.) [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 01:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|Hijiri88}} It is becoming clear to me that we have little to no common ground on the definition of "personal attacks". All I did above was to explain my action and to give you contexts and those are in no way personal attacks, especially '''not against you'''. Therefore, I simply can't understand why you're still interpreting them as offences against you personally. Just because I'm the defendant here does not mean you can just keeping adding accusations to the list. ''[[User:Cedric tsan cantonais|<font color="darkgreen">'''Cédric'''</font>]] <sup>wants to abolish "[[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ice_hockey)#Article_names|Convention №. 2]]" like abolishing [[slavery]].</sup>'' 01:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::''It is becoming clear to me that we have little to no common ground on the definition of "personal attacks".'' What on earth are you talking about? Where in my above reply to you (or even in my long reply to In ictu oculi) did I even mention personal attacks? ''All I did above was to explain my action and to give you contexts and those are in no way personal attacks, especially '''not against you'''.'' There was nothing in your above comment that explained anything about your actions, although you did provide a new rationale for blocking you (see 15). In fact, you have been roundly ignoring '''every single thing I say'''. Please address at least one of the 15 points I raised against you in my long comment above. I'll make it easier for you -- I'll put them on different lines to make them more visible for you. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 01:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - The interactions so far gives absolutely no indication that Cedric tsan cantonais understands the problems with his behavior, nor has any intention to stop it. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 21:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - this seems like a drama over next to nothing, not indefinite block material. Cedric tsan cantonais just needs to be told that Wikipedia is a humorless place, so should stop with the funny diacritics, and if you can't fit a decent edit summary into the place provided then use the talk page, and that it is pointless to insult anons since they either exist in that form so that they can't be insulted or engaged with in any meaningful way, or they exist in that form because they are in a country where far worse things that insults could await identifiable editors. [[User:Tiptoethrutheminefield|Tiptoethrutheminefield]] ([[User talk:Tiptoethrutheminefield|talk]]) 20:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*:Oh, he is not joking. Those characters are not "funny". He is dead serious in his invention of a new, consistent (but to normal people incomprehensible) spelling for English. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 07:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

===Voluntary Disappearance===
Seeing that there're too much irreconcilable idealogical difference between mainstream English Wikipedia contributors and I, I hereby declare that I'll disappear from English Wikipedia in the foreseeable future. If you want me to stop insulting others, I can do that. However, I reject [[User:OpenFuture]]'s accusation that my use of diacritics is based on bad faith. I also argue that his refusal to distinguish between linguistically-based use of diacritics and "rock band diacritics" has demonstrated his prejudice against diacritics, which is in contradiction of his claim that he "share[s]" my "love of diacritics". That being said, I also withdraw any and all accusations I've ever made against WG and offer a [[peace treaty|peace treaty with an apology]]. ''[[User:Cedric tsan cantonais|<font color="darkgreen">'''Cédric'''</font>]] <sup>wants to abolish "[[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ice_hockey)#Article_names|Convention №. 2]]" like abolishing [[slavery]].</sup>'' 23:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:They are not ideological differences. You clearly don't understand my ideology, as you have refused to read my comments. You above very clearly indicate that you have not read [[User:OpenFuture]]'s comments with any care whatsoever -- where did he/she imply that your "use of diacritics" was "based on bad faith"? This indicates that you clearly have not gotten it, and you will continue your pattern of disruptive behaviour unless you are blocked. Please note that I am not trying to "condemn" or "kill" you -- I want you to read our concerns about your behaviour, to understand our concerns, to apologize and promise never to repeat this behaviour again, and then you will be unblocked and be allowed return to constructive editing. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 01:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
::It occurs to me that you're not reading my responses, either. I've already stated that I want to treat linguistic use of diacritics and rock band diacritics (which I don't use) as two things and I've already stated that reduction of my diacritic use to open for discussion, but [[User:OpenFuture]] refused to treat them separately. If you look at his message above, the diacritics in his message clearly does not follow any etymological pattern. This implies that he does not understand why and how I use diacritic to abbreviate my edit summaries and that he's treating all use of diacritics indistinguishably.
:: OTOH, I've already promised that I will stop insulting others and yet you pretend you didn't see those word.
:: Also, when you talk about offences against you, the first thing I came up with was personal attack.
:: To respond to some of your accusations:
:: 1. Those are anything but gibberish. Calling them "gibberish" altogether is a give-away that we do not share the same view on diacritics;
:: 4. Yes, that was my fault, and I apologise.
:: 5. Those edits had been previously reverted by other users before I got involved.
:: 7. Just because vandalism is easy to revert does not mean that it doesn't hurt.
:: 9. Again, my fault, and I apologise.
:: 10. Again, my fault, and I apologise.
:: 14. It is disrespecting names that are not of English origins. Therefore, it's bad.
:: 15. You're making the same mistake, good sir.
:: 16. Are you seriously intentionally misinterpreting me or what? When did explicitly say I insisted that this was based on "censorship"? You need to stop making wrongful accusations up.
:: P.S. I now have reason to believe that we're simply speaking two different languages. And you, good sir, are also making accusations against me based on your incorrect interpretation of my intended-to-be-completely-peaceful words. I never intended to attack or offend you and if I did make you feed offended, I apologise. But I don't think this debate can remain healthy without us understanding what each other intend to say first. ''[[User:Cedric tsan cantonais|<font color="darkgreen">'''Cédric'''</font>]] <sup>wants to abolish "[[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ice_hockey)#Article_names|Convention №. 2]]" like abolishing [[slavery]].</sup>'' 03:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:::1. I support use of diacritics when it is accurate and supported by reliable sources. You make up imaginary gibberish spellings of English words, that show your ignorance of many of the points about which you dare to lecture me, such as the correct usage of macrons (they don't turn the letter "o" into /uː/; they almost always mark long vowels, the one exception I can think of being Chinese pinyin, where they indicate a flat tone) and the correct name of the [[eth]] (which you inaccurately called a "[[thorn (letter)|thorn]]"). I don't know why you do this -- you said it was because of character count restrictions, which was a blatant lie; it seems to be an attempt to make disruptive edits in order to make a [[WP:POINT|POINT]].
:::4. I'm glad you apologized. Now please apologize for the rest.
:::5. No, I was referring to the Canadian nationality edit. It was not vandalism, and no one but you called it vandalism. Whether other editors supported your reverting it, or reverted the same themselves, is irrelevant. You clearly have not read and understood what qualifies as [[WP:VANDALISM]].
:::7. So you are still refusing to give diffs, then? Vandalism is easy to revert, and if you are so thin-skinned that you don't like anons being allowed edit "your" articles from time to time, then you should not be working on a collaborative project like Wikipedia.
:::9. Good, but see 4. above. Also, you should apologize to me for earlier claiming that 9. never happened.
:::10. Good, but see 4. above.
:::14. Your signature links to a content guideline that you apparently don't like, and likens it to the North American slave trade. This is ridiculously offensive. However, I apologize for misreading the guideline, which does say that diacritics should be avoided in certain circumstances.
:::15. You ignored every single thing I said in order to nitpick one word that I said in order to be conservative in my criticism of you. Your outrageous behaviour would have easily justified me not using the word "seemingly", as I was 100% on the money with everything I speculated. And, ironically, in your non-response to this problem you are providing further proof that you are intent on [[WP:IDHT|dodging the issue]]. Also, please don't call me "good sir"; it is belittling.
:::16. "Also, if you seek to block me largely because of my stance towards IPs, this is called censorship."[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=713206527] You posted this 11 hours before somehow completely forgetting about it and claiming only a few lines down that it never happened? Did you really think you could get away with this?
:::Again, I must say that I have no problem with users with low levels of English being allowed contribute to the project, but they must be humble and apologetic; they should not be aggressively defending everything they say and striking out at other users for criticizing them over their communication problems. If we are having communication problems, it is most certainly not my fault; the only time I used anything other than direct, straightforward English to express myself was when I jokingly/sarcastically referred to In ictu oculi as an infamous Serbian/Vietnamese/Japanese ultranationalist and didn't explicitly state that I was joking until the following sentence (although the oxymoron of a "Serbian/Vietnamese/Japanese ultranationalist" should have tipped you off even there).
:::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 04:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:All the spellings I used *were* "correct" in the same sense that your are. (I have not, however, bothered to make sure it was consistently applied). The point was to show how incomprehensible it gets to somebody who does not know the alternative etymology and pronunciations of the characters in question, toungue-in-cheek. You calling it "rock band diacritics" shows with ironic clarity that you indeed didn't understand all of it, as you think I just added diacritics willy nilly. I didn't. Now, if YOU didn't get it, how do you expect the average person that knows nothing about these things to understand it? That's the point. You think you are being clever, and you have some sort of agenda, but all you actually do is make it harder to understand what you write. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 04:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:: {{ping|OpenFuture}} I have to personal agenda. And seeing that I had '''mistakenly''' called your use of diacritics "willy nilly", I offer you an olive branch and an apology. I will disappear from English Wikipedia soon after this discussion is closed, but if you wish to kindly let us drink to the love of diacritics, my doors at the Wikimedia Incubator are open to you. ''[[User:Cedric tsan cantonais|<font color="darkgreen">'''Cédric'''</font>]] <sup>wants to abolish "[[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ice_hockey)#Article_names|Convention №. 2]]" like abolishing [[slavery]].</sup>'' 04:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:::It's good that you now understand that you misunderstood my diacritics. I'm saddened to see that you don't realize that others will similarly misunderstand yours. You are of course free to leave, but it's such a silly thing to do. The Wikipedia policies are in place for a reason, you could just follow them instead. But that's your choice, of course. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 05:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

=== A block for bad behaviour and missing the point ===
* '''Support''' Cedric tsan cantonais's edits are usually factual. What I find problematic is his attacks on anons and his use non-English characters. He has agreed to avoid both, but a block, even a short one, would record this decision in the block log. A permanent block or voluntary departure would be a disservice to the community. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 05:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Support 24-hour block''' I would say longer, given the massive IDHT mess throughout the above discussion (how many times do I have to explain things to him...), but he has a clear block log at the moment, so ''technically'' this is a first offense. I would also disagree with WG's rationale that the worst are "his attacks on anons and his use non-English characters"; several named users, including both WG and myself, have probably had it worse than anons at this point. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 02:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Weak support''' - It feel punitive, but the argument that it gets logged is reasonable. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 09:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

== Proposal for interaction ban with [[User:Winkelvi]] ==
User says he would stop [[WP:hound|hounding]] me, then starts that up again. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Winkelvi#Delete_this.] I made it clear I didnt want to be gossiped about, but he did just that at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Calvin999#SSDD]. I would also like to link y'all to this previous discussion (Thank you so much [[User:Calidum|Calidum]] for the link) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive271#Proposed_IBans_between_Chasewc91.2FWinkelvi_and_MaranoFan]. This is pretty much all anybody would need for "evidence". Winkelvi is basically a hateful [[WP:HOUND|hound]], and he will just choose one editor and hound him/her to the level that he/she retires. See [[User:Lips Are Movin]] for a previous such instance. His hounding goes from making [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MaranoFan false] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MaranoFan/Archive sockpuppeting] accusations to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MaranoFan&oldid=696092560 clogging] up my talk page with anything he wishes. By the way, none of those files were deleted. He tries to get allies against me, first it was Chasewc91 and now its Chesnaught555. Notice how he [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:All_I_Ask_(Adele_song)/GA1 took] this GA review just to fail it? He didnt even let it be on hold for 7 days. He also continually makes [[WP:POLEMIC]] writings about me on [[User:Winkelvi|his user page]], and also supporting any/other deletion (or otherwise) discussion against my standing. He gossips about me on other users' talk pages. And makes a poor impression of mine to anyone I try to engage with. I am now asking for administrator intervention. Note that he is also trying to [[WP:DOX]] my country [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MaranoFan#Comments_by_other_users here]. Please tell me he doesnt get to file bogus SPIs against me after this IBAN. Cause' it reflects badly on me (and FAKE if I may add).--[[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]] ([[User talk:MaranoFan|talk]]) 13:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:Respectfully, you'll need to provide more than a bare accusation if you want anything done. Diffs? History? Anything? [[User:Starke Hathaway|-Starke Hathaway]] ([[User talk:Starke Hathaway|talk]]) 13:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::You can have a mutually-enforced interaction ban or a community-enforced one? Which one are you running for? --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|QEDK]] <small>([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:orange">T</span>]] &#9749; [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:green">C</span>]])</small></span> 13:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::A community-enforced one.--[[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]] ([[User talk:MaranoFan|talk]]) 13:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::There was a previous discussion about an interaction ban with a lot of consensus, can someone give a link to that?--[[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]] ([[User talk:MaranoFan|talk]]) 13:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' First of all, I've never said I would stop hounding him or anyone; second, I've never hounded him; third, my comments to {{U|Calvin999}} were in reference to a couple of things: MF canvassing an editor to do a GA review for him and a GA review then starting up just an hour or so after the editor doing the review was canvassed. It seems to be a vio of policy to canvass in such a manner to begin with, since the editor being canvassed is friendly toward MF and there could be favoritism clouding the GA process in this case. Further, the other issue is that there are a lot of GA noms that just sit for a considerable period of time, untouched and unnoticed, because those nominating articles for GA don't ask favors from their Wiki-friends to do a GA review for them. MF has done this before: canvassing editors he is friendly with to perform a GA review for him. This seems to me an egregious abuse of process on the part of anyone, not just MF, and that was what my comment to Calvin was about. And speaking of policy violations on the part of MF, let me include [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GB_fan#Editor_who_said_he_would_maintain_distance.2C_comes_AGAIN.21 this conversation] that not only mentions a policy vio by MF occurring just moments ago, but also shows an interesting attitude from MF toward an admin he didn't think was an admin. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 13:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::Is this a joke? I know nothing about any of the editors I ask to do reviews.--[[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]] ([[User talk:MaranoFan|talk]]) 13:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Calvin accepted stuff like [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calvin999&diff=707414014&oldid=707412493] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calvin999&diff=661674909&oldid=661617969] because he likes those editors, but when I do it it is a problem?--[[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]] ([[User talk:MaranoFan|talk]]) 13:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Canvassing for this AN/I''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calidum&diff=prev&oldid=712503999 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SNUGGUMS&diff=712503545&oldid=712501895 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GB_fan&diff=712503734&oldid=712503591 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoboMeowCat#Discussion_about_User:Winkelvi here]. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 13:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:My TP also, {{U|Winkelvi}}. --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] [[Special:Contributions/Chesnaught555|'''(contribs)''']] 14:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::NONE of these are actually canvassing, I encourage the editors to actually open and view these links, they are being misrepresented.--[[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]] ([[User talk:MaranoFan|talk]]) 14:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
: Go and actually read [[WP:Canvassing]] loll, Calidum is an editor who has dealt with you before. Hence I summon him.--[[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]] ([[User talk:MaranoFan|talk]]) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Another policy vio''' just committed: editing my comments in this ANI [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=712505185 here]. Not a huge deal, but I think it demonstrates where the issues truly lie (or, with whom). -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 14:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

*'''Another comment''' and observation: Does MF really want an IBAN? [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&diff=prev&oldid=712508614 This comment on my talk page] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chesnaught555&diff=712509532&oldid=712509426 this comment on Chesnaught555's talk page] doesn't cause me to think so. The continued responses to me in this filing fall into that, as well. Then there's [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=712509907&oldid=712509831 this comment] in the subsection below ({{tq|"No opposition votes yet, yay!"}}). It has since been removed by MF. What I ''am'' seeing (especially with the "Yay!" comment), is a desire to [[WP:WIN]]. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 15:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::Obviously everyone says "yay" when they're on their way of getting freedom from a hound.--[[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]] ([[User talk:MaranoFan|talk]]) 15:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::Clearly you have some concerns about MaranoFan's conduct - and how many edits have you made, just in the last 3 hours, dealing with them? My question is this - why would you want to continue wasting your time with them? They want to disengage - if you agree as well, then why can't we do a voluntary iban here? Ignoring their conduct (which I have not reviewed)... honestly, you do seem to be pretty relentless in pointing out problems with their edits. Why bother? [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 15:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::The issue is not so much a desire for an IBAN (which I don't have), the issue is that MF continually brings this kind of stuff up when it's largely his own doing. His harassment of me at my userspace and filings of bogus reports has been going on for over a year. There have been several discussions regarding his behavior previously. His usual response? When things get too hot for him and it's proven he's the cause of the issues he blames on others, he hightails it for the weeds with a script enforced Wiki-break. Admins have warned and warned him. A few examples of past discussions and enforcements (I encourage you and anyone reading this to look at them): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive878#Proposed_topic_ban_for_MaranoFan], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive878#Continued_ignorance_of_policies.2Fguidelines_by_User:MaranoFan], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive269#User:Winkelvi_reported_by_User:MaranoFan_.28Result:_No_violation.3B_filer_warned.29], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive280#User:Winkelvi_reported_by_User:MaranoFan_.28Result:_no_action.29], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive910#User:MaranoFan_Edit_warring_and_Crystal_balling], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive903#MaranoFan], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive882]. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 15:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::The issue, Winkelvi, is not whether you desire an IBAN, but why you're opposing one. MF has requested such a ban, which would immediately solve all the problems you mention, and yet you oppose it. To my eyes, this suggests that your main objective is simply to deny MF what they have requested, to be at the center of drama for whatever reason, or some combination of both. Agree to a voluntary IBAN and move on. If MF then violates the ban that they requested, you have a legitimate complaint. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 16:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::Regardless of what the issue is (and it's really about MF's behavior and continued attempts to interact with me at another editor's talk page as well as my own since this was filed), I have a right to oppose an IBAN proposal that includes me. That in mind, how can me opposing it ''be'' an issue? Further, this comment from you, {{tq|"to be at the center of drama for whatever reason"}} makes no sense, since this filing not only involves me, but the filer put my name in the topic header. Regardless, the center of "the drama" is the filer, plain and simple, as I have pointed out with the numerous diffs provided. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 16:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::No. That's precisely what this is not about. MaranoFan has indicated that they believe you are hounding them, and that they would like to not interact with you anymore. Your response, here, is that you are not hounding them, and by the way here are multiple diffs across multiple edits showing a variety of ways in which MaranoFan has violated policies. Do you understand that THAT behavior is what is at issue here? You're playing Gotcha with every edit they make, whether it's warranted or not. You've made your point about their behavior - and the fact that it's been posted here means that multiple admins will keep an eye on it. I'm asking that you drop the stick and leave it be. MaranoFan has asked here for an interaction ban with you, and you've done nothing but justify such a ban. So explain to us, please, what benefit to the project would we see from you continuing to interact with an editor who doesn't want to interact with you? [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 17:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::You just told me I should stop giving evidence, then you told me I should drop the stick, and now you're asking me to give you more evidence and not drop the stick? What's more, it's obvious you haven't looked at any of the evidence presented by anyone here, if you had, you would see that I'm not the one who's interacting with this individual. Rather, it's the individual filing the report who's interacting with me. I'm fine with helpful comments from editors, but your comments here are confusing and contradict each other, and seem wholly unhelpful. Further, how helpful is it for you to comment and make demands if you have not truly looked into any of the links provided and given them any reasonable thought? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 18:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::I believe you missed my point. Let's assume that you've proven your point that MaranoFan is being disruptive. I don't concede that, but let's interpret the facts in the manner most favorable to you. So you've made your point - MaranoFan is being disruptive. Fine. Admins are now aware that they are being disruptive. So why would you want to continue interacting with MaranoFan? You want to show that they are violating policy? Mission accomplished. What now? You're posting link after link about MaranoFan, and you've directly responded to their comments here repeatedly, so yes you are continuing to interact. I'm saying that there is no further purpose served by that interaction. So if this person is so disruptive and poisonous, why would you not want them banned from posting to or about you? You would be banned from posting to or about them, of course, but who cares? If you're not interacting with them, as you claim, then what difference would an interaction ban make? "Yes, I agree not to do the thing I'm not doing" is no sanction. Would it make things easier if MaranoFan agreed to the ban first? [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 18:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::What would help is if MF would leave me alone. Stay out of my userspace (which he's been warned about continually for over a year), stop filing ridiculous reports against me (which he's also been warned about continuously for a year). He claims hounding but has no proof of it (because I'm not hounding him). If he wants to be left alone, then he can show good faith and do the same. I will not agree to an interaction ban because I have done nothing that warrants it nor the black mark it brings. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 18:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::In other words, you are indeed requesting an IBAN. You do seem to have a knack for this, as evidenced with my interactions with you. If MF is requesting a IBAN, then I don't get the big deal to agree to it. Your posts above, at least to me, do show a sort of hounding and it would do you well to stay away from MF and let others deal with the edits in question. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup><font color="Green">[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]]</font></sup> 19:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
===Official discussion===
* '''Support''' - I want to finally start doing good work for Wikipedia, uninterrupted.--[[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]] ([[User talk:MaranoFan|talk]]) 13:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Looks to me like MF isn't really after an IBAN after all. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chesnaught555&diff=712509532&oldid=712509426 This] message directed to WV on my talk page is on a par with harassment. If she has an unshakable and obsessive want for an IBAN so much, she should just stay away from him... --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] [[Special:Contributions/Chesnaught555|'''(contribs)''']] 14:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:That comment was directed at Ches, as he archived the above thread which could've taken a negative turn. I still want an IBAN with WV. [[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]] ([[User talk:MaranoFan|talk]]) 14:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::Indeed, {{U|MaranoFan}}. It was not appreciated. --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] [[Special:Contributions/Chesnaught555|'''(contribs)''']] 15:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Okay, but I fail to see how that dif is "harassment" or a rationale against an iban, regardless of who it was made to. I don't follow your argument at all. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 19:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::{{U|Sergecross73}}, my argument is that the two editors in question should not interact further (despite MF's posts on WV's talk page '''after''' the AN/I filing...) without any formal interaction ban placed between them. Neither party needs this "black mark" sanction placed on them. Is it too much to ask? --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] [[Special:Contributions/Chesnaught555|'''(contribs)''']] 19:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::That's fair, I guess I was just thrown off by your "harassment" remark. That seems to be...a bit of a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of the dif. But if you feel that these two are capable of discussion that won't bring continued disruption to the project, so be it, I guess. I just don't share that optimism, considering how long this probablem has been occurring. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 19:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::I had asked MF to stay off my talk page, {{U|Sergecross73|Serge}}, and yet the posts continued. If anything, this IBAN would be pointless on the basis that I ''know'' Winkelvi already has ceased communication with MaranoFan, and yet Marano continues to interact. In addition to this, no administrator could possibly argue that the community is 100% in favour of it. If I were an uninvolved admin, I would close this as no consensus, and I am certain that this will be the outcome. --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] [[Special:Contributions/Chesnaught555|'''(contribs)''']] 16:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Well, its probably good you're in no position to close this discussion then, because you'd be raked over the coals for closing this discussion now as no consensus, considering its only been running about a day, and the last comment was left like 5 minutes ago, so discussion in clearly still active and consensus is still forming. Not to mention it currently leaning towards "support". (But the fact that you don't see that is the very reason why INVOLVED exists, so that's good at least.) [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 17:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::That's ''exactly'' why I am not an admin, {{U|Sergecross73}}! The '''Support''' !votes only slightly outnumber the '''Oppose''' ones, so in all honesty I still do not see a consensus. I can see either that happening, or a landslide '''Support''' majority later... --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] [[Special:Contributions/Chesnaught555|'''(contribs)''']] 17:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Not for nothing, but three admins have commented here (Only, Ultra and Serge) and they've all supported the proposed interaction ban. '''<span style="border: 1px blue solid;background:Cyan">[[User:Calidum|<font color="#4863A0">Calidum</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Calidum|<font color="#A18648">¤</font>]]</span>''' 02:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - If [[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]] wants Winkelvi to back off then he should back off. Also, MF should work harder at avoiding WV whenever possible. WV needs to learn to stop lecturing other editors and focus more on making improvements to Wikipedia. I fully support the IBAN. These comments are based upon interaction with WV. Please note how WV responds to my good faith comments here. It will tell you everything that you need to know about this IBAN request.--[[User:MaverickLittle|ML]] ([[User talk:MaverickLittle|talk]]) 15:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Insufficient evidence presented to merit an IBAN. Insufficient evidence that lesser remedies (e.g., mutual avoidance) have been tried and failed. I believe indef-length IBANs should be avoided unless that element of the IBAN is independently justified, and I'm not seeing any such justification. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 17:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:{{ping|Mendaliv}} Is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive271#Proposed_IBans_between_Chasewc91.2FWinkelvi_and_MaranoFan this] enough for "evidence"? The only reason anyone opposed was because I was on a script-enforced wikibreak.--[[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]] ([[User talk:MaranoFan|talk]]) 18:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::Even assuming I could support an IBAN on the basis of that thread, I will not support one of indef length without further justification. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 20:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. The previous request, which was archived without a proper closure, is viewable [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive271#Proposed_IBans_between_Chasewc91.2FWinkelvi_and_MaranoFan|here]]. As the filer of that request, I think the evidence there was quite compelling. Though I haven't followed the situation of late, I don't think much has changed between MF and WV since then given the tenor of comments such as "same shit, different day" [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACalvin999&type=revision&diff=712491997&oldid=712275724], this diatribe [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calvin999&diff=711447126&oldid=711436822] (the whole thread there is truly illuminating), or this pointy revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians&diff=712492751&oldid=712483104]. '''<span style="border: 1px blue solid;background:Cyan">[[User:Calidum|<font color="#4863A0">Calidum</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Calidum|<font color="#A18648">¤</font>]]</span>''' 17:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I was requested to comment here, which makes sense, as I tried to mediate some disputes between the two of them in the past I believe. Even before that, I saw this pop up on my watchlist was likely going to give my two cents. Anyways, I think an iban would help make both of their efforts more constructive, so they can focus on content and not each other. They're arguments have been going on for a long time, and I think everyone would be better off if they'd just go work on the opposite ends of pop music work on content separately. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 18:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Calling a editor out on their faults and then observing the chastened editor develop ANI-flu is not harassment. I would suggest that if {{U|Winkelvi}} sees faults with {{U|MaranoFan}}'s editing, that they bring it to a neutral admin to help correct the issue. MaranoFan should go back and read [[WP:CANVAS]] and [[WP:ADMINSHOP]] closer as their claims of not canvassing/adminshopping falls flat on it's face. MaranoFan should observe other well established policies (like [[WP:TPO]] which prohibits deleting other users talk page commentary barring extraordinary situations) lest they end up on the wrong side of sanctions. This iBan request reads more like MaranoFan trying to neutralize a significant and '''frequently correct''' critic of their work, which iBans are not to be used for. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 19:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::{{ping|Hasteur}} But it is not Canvassing or adminshopping, these are people who were involved at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive271#Proposed_IBans_between_Chasewc91.2FWinkelvi_and_MaranoFan] which was precisely about the same thing as this, only failed because I was inactive.--[[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]] ([[User talk:MaranoFan|talk]]) 19:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::If you cannot see that the items that WV presented are Canvassing/AdminShopping I call into question your [[WP:CIR|competence]] because the notices are nowhere near neutral in addition to your conduct faults indicates that your privileges need to be restricted, not WV. I again reiterate my advice to both of you. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 00:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose, possible boomerang''' based solely on the diffs provided here. MaranoFan has not demonstrated any hounding, stalking, or other inability to edit constructively with WV. WV, however, has provided a good amount of evidence against MaranoFan showing a history of disruption. Given that WV seems disinclined to agree to an iban, it's up to the filer to demonstrate the need for one. I see no such demonstration. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please &#123;&#123;[[Template:re|re]]&#125;&#125;</small> 19:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::But there can't be a boomerang, as I am asking for a two-sided IBAN. There will either be an IBAN or there won't be one. Please get your facts straight.--[[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]] ([[User talk:MaranoFan|talk]]) 19:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Blocks, tbans, and one-way ibans are always options. Your behavior here and in the diffs is atrocious thus far... [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please &#123;&#123;[[Template:re|re]]&#125;&#125;</small> 19:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::MaranoFan, I've been here for more than 2 years and have participated in plenty of ANI reports since last year. I know well enough that what EvergreenFir is said is correct. Any kind of report will involve scrutiny of editors involved, whether it be the filer or not. [[WP:BOOMERANG]] applies to any kind of situation, regardless it be a preposition or not. I recommend that ''you'' get your facts straight. [[User:Callmemirela|<span style="font-family:Courier New; font-size:14px; color:#a6587b">Callmemirela</span>]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> [[User talk:Callmemirela|<span style="font-family:Georgia; font-size: 12px; color:#8B2252; font-weight:bold;">&#123;Talk&#125;</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Callmemirela|<span style="color:#582335">&#9809;</span>]] 01:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Somewhat based on my own dealings with WV, if MF is requesting an IBAN, then that should be accepted. WV needs to learn how to lay off and know when to call it quits and if staying away from MF will do Wiki good, then it should pass. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup><font color="Green">[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]]</font></sup> 19:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''', per both editors' comments in this thread. MaranoFan asked for the ban but then keeps commenting on Winkelvi, while Winkelvi refuses to stop commenting on MaranoFan. It's obvious that neither one is going to leave the other alone. So let's have an interaction ban, and then some blocks when the ban is violated. Nothing here is going to improve the project one bit - so we need to put a stop to it. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 19:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Any editor should be able to get an IBAN with any other editor if they feel their interactions are not productive. I don't believe that Winkelvi is the only editor in the project who (1) is capable of dealing with whatever problems MaranoFan presents, and (2) would be willing to do so. Therefore there is no need for continued contact between these two parties. It should go without saying that we'll have a problem if MF requests an IBAN with any editor who opposes them; for now, I see this as an avoidable personality conflict. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 19:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::{{re|Mandruss}} Ibans burden both parties though. Do you think there's enough evidence here to support claims that WV is somehow harassing or unable to constructively edit with MF? [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please &#123;&#123;[[Template:re|re]]&#125;&#125;</small> 20:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::I disagree that an IBAN would necessarily burden Winkelvi. If the concept of a "no-fault divorce" doesn't exist here, it should in my view. If it's not necessary to establish fault, the presence or absence of evidence is irrelevant. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 20:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::By the way, I would find it problematic if a Winkelvi->MaranoFan IBAN were established and then {{u|Chesnaught555}} started (continued?) to actively oppose MF. WV and Ches are so closely allied that they are effectively almost one and the same person, and Ches would simply become a proxy for Winkelvi in disputes with MF. I'm not advocating a second IBAN at this point, but I hope Ches would recognize the problem and also avoid MF. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 20:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::{{U|Mandruss}}, of course sir. I asked MF to stay off my talk page and I hope they follow that advice - I also don't wish for any further interaction with them. --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] [[Special:Contributions/Chesnaught555|'''(contribs)''']] 20:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::Excellent, thank you. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 20:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::No problem, {{U|Mandruss}}. I do hope you understand why I am not in favour of any formal sanctions. Simply ''informally'' staying away from MF may be the best way forward, and I do not see any consensus on this !vote. I am certain that Winkelvi will agree on this one considering he is not in favour of the IBAN, either. --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] [[Special:Contributions/Chesnaught555|'''(contribs)''']] 20:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Each of these two editors seem to be bringing out the worst in the other, and apparently this has been going on in some form for at least a year. Ultraexactzz and Mandruss bring a lot of clarity to the situation. We don't need a mountain of evidence, nor do we need to wait for a total blowup before we simply tell these editors to stay away from each other, stop worrying about each others edits, and stop posting innuendo on third party editor's talk pages.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 20:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' if this eliminates the near constant sniping and back and forth bickering between the two users. They cannot keep apart from each other even when they say they want nothing to do with each other. They clearly can't do so the community must force them to avoid each other. [[User:Only|only]] ([[User talk:Only#top|talk]]) 21:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose'''. I don't understand this request, which was brought to my attention on my talk page. Based on the very first post by MF requesting this IBAN, these two editors have not been interacting. WV has mentioned this person to other editors. Simply not a reasonable request. I get mentioned now and then by other editors. That's how the bisquit crumbles. Nor do I understand the harm done. Mind you am not in the WV fan club, and I assume that's why I was approached, but this discussion does not add to the totality of man's knowledge in any way. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 21:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)</s> Changing to '''support''' based on this discussion, which clarified the need for this IBAN. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 14:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::Interesting turn of events. Especially since the original premise for your "Oppose" !vote was "Based on the very first post by MF requesting this IBAN, these two editors have not been interacting." - and that premise/observation remains the same (as far as I'm aware and based on my own continued non-interaction with MF). I think it's not unreasonable to ask you to explain why you have changed this out of the blue, {{U|Coretheapple}}. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 17:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::I can't answer for Core, but personally, its the way you badger and bicker with anyone who disagrees with you in these discussions with these snippy responses, coupled with the fact that these issues with Marano have been spanning months (years?) now. I know you probably feel you're just "defending yourself" or something, but constant aggressive responses doesn't exactly send the "I'm not the type of person to be hounding someone" message you're going for here, nor does it instill confidence about this issue just going away on its own without any action taken. You're not exactly portraying yourself in the best light in these responses (and similar bickering/badgering from Calvin and Ches probably aren't helping either, they just make this all look like an even bigger mess.) [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 18:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Yep, that puts it well. My sentiments entirely. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 00:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Your explanation and Core's agreement with same makes no sense in that (1) It has nothing to do with the IBan proposal; (3) When Core changed her !Vote, I hadn't responded to anyone in this thread for a considerable amount of time; (3) The reasoning you gave seems to be based on a punitive mindset. In other words, "If you respond to comments and defend yourself we will punish you for doing so". None of this has anything to do with interaction between MF and myself (which there hasn't been for a week now), doesn't establish a need for an IBan (no one, including the filer, has been able to provide any evidence to support that need) and certainly doesn't fit the picture of action taken to prevent disruption (prevention, not punishment). -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 17:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::Hmmm, based on your response, you're not following what I'm saying at all. I'm not criticizing the fact that you're responding/defending yourself, its ''the way you're going about doing it''. Think of it this way. Have you ever witnessed this exchange: A person says something with their voice raised. Another person, in response, says "Please don't raise your voice, I don't like it when you're angry." Then, the first person responds by screaming "I'm not angry! You'll know when I'm angry!". Generally, you'll find the second person unconvinced, because, you know, screaming is a common sign of being angry. Bringing this back to you, you're essentially defending the accusation that you're hounding this editor, by going about hounding anyone who disagrees with you. It makes your argument...hard to believe. You've got an explanation for every example people provide you, but the fact that we keep having these discussions, makes your dismissals hard to buy into. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 19:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::I do now see your point, {{U|Sergecross73}}. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 04:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Just by looking at the back and forth between these two in this thread, it seems obvious they can't collaborate constructively together. An interaction ban is needed to separate these two, and it would be a benefit to both editors and the project.--[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 22:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' UltraExactZZ, Mandruss and MrX have analyzed the situation accurately. I am in full agreement with their assessments. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 23:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I ''do'' see a hounding issue that needs to be addressed, as per WV's message on Calvin999's talk page. However, what I do is MaranoFan's mishandling of the issue. Her/his (I don't remember the gender) message on WV's talk page and what seems to be an edit on WV's user page is enough provoke anyone. I don't see how an IBAN would help anyone, since interaction is very small if at all. As much as I don't like WV, I just don't see how the IBAN is any way going to resolve the issue. [[User:Callmemirela|<span style="font-family:Courier New; font-size:14px; color:#a6587b">Callmemirela</span>]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> [[User talk:Callmemirela|<span style="font-family:Georgia; font-size: 12px; color:#8B2252; font-weight:bold;">&#123;Talk&#125;</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Callmemirela|<span style="color:#582335">&#9809;</span>]] 01:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:<small>Please note that this will be my last time posting in this thread</small> {{tq|I don't see how an IBAN would help anyone}} But it will help both parties, solving the issue you describe above. This two-sided iban will also prevent me from editing his userspace. As anyone who will read his posts conclude, "WV is asking for an IBAN without knowing he wants one".--[[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]] ([[User talk:MaranoFan|talk]]) 06:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
::Your edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=712647500&oldid=712647119 as of 09:41, 30 March 2016] proved this to be either a lie or a broken promise and therefore whatever credibility you have left is in the sewer along with other refuse. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 12:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' As others have already pointed out, my actions do not merit an IBan. Whether MF's actions do, I'll leave up to others to decide. I will say this about MF running here for his allegations that I am hounding him: He needs to toughen up and stop coming to administrators and other editors with complaints about those he feels have wronged, bullied, harassed, and hounded him. Along the same lines - as others have also pointed out to him - he needs to get a grip on what hounding truly is and isn't. Sans that understanding, it's no surprise to me that he hasn't been able to provide one shred of evidence that I have been hounding him.

:I completely object to the proposition that I would have to wear an IBan stigma badge when it's unnecessary for me and when I have done nothing that warrants such a stigma and black mark on my editing career in Wikipedia. And, frankly, I have to wonder MF understands what an IBan will really mean for him going forward.

:Something else that needs to be pointed out: one of the big differences between MF and I as far as this report: he has felt the need to go to numerous editors to get support for his IBan "proposal", in fact he has gone to those he perceives to be my Wikipedia enemies and/or detractors. If that doesn't tell anyone reading this something important about MFs purpose in this report as well as his attitude toward me, I don't know what will. On the flip side, who have I gone to in order to gain support? No one at all. Why? Because (1) It's against policy (canvassing), and (2) I haven't done anything that warrants an IBan, therefore, I don't feel a need to defend myself or ask others to stand up for me.

:I do need to address those who say that there is continued "sniping" or disruptive/unconstructive behavior between the two of us. Let me point out that a little over a month ago, I tried very, very hard to make a good faith gesture toward MF and offer an olive branch in the way of reviewing an article he nom'd for GA. Everything I did and said from the first review comments to the ultimate fail and final comments (all to be seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:All_I_Ask_(Adele_song)/GA1 here]) were fair and extremely civil toward MF. How did he respond? Continuing to chide and poke and behave rudely toward me (example here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MaranoFan&diff=prev&oldid=706480601]). One thing that whole experience shows: I have no problem with or inability in treating MF with civility and fairness. The only one who does have difficulty in this area is the person who filed the report. And, as another already stated, pointing out MFs bad fruit and policy vios and bad behavior is ''not'' wrong, nor is it the problem here. The person producing bad fruit and committing policy vios and bad behavior who complains about someone pointing out these issues and running to AN/I when it happens, is.

:There's really not much more for me to say, except to address Sir Joseph who tried to put words in my mouth when he said, {{tq|"In other words, you are indeed requesting an IBAN."}} No, I didn't say that at all SJ. How you got that impression is beyond my comprehension. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 01:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

*'''Support''' per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive271#Proposed_IBans_between_Chasewc91.2FWinkelvi_and_MaranoFan the previous proposal] a year ago by {{noping|Calidum}}, which had a supermajority of Support, but was archived without close. If this problem has still persisted one year later, it's time for the IBan to happen. After enaction, the IBan can be re-assessed a year from now and if both parties are agreeable, it can be removed. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 02:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - MaranoFan has been bringing all of this on himself for ''months''. He is rude, non-compliant, not willing to listen, doesn't understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, canvasses for reviews on a weekly basis and has no respect for anyone. He is cold and calculating. MF requesting an IBAN against the very placid, calm and peaceful editor that is Winkelvi is nothing more than a childish, immature and non-starter attempt at trying to garner some attention, which MF thrives on. If anything, MF should be banned from contacting Winkelvi, not the other way around. MF should be blocked from editing from his disgusting and '''highly provocative''' behaviour on WP over the past couple of weeks. I'm more than happy to provide a multitude of diffs is required. &nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Calvin999|<b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>]] 09:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:[[Pot meet kettle]], you are both black.--[[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]] ([[User talk:MaranoFan|talk]]) 09:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:: Racist. &nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Calvin999|<b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>]] 10:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Calvin999 Were you joking? [[WP:KETTLE]]'s existence is ample testimony to this metaphor being widely understood on English Wikipedia, and if you seriously think your being called "black" in this case was about race, then you should be more careful about responding before clicking on the links. In my experiences, calling you a kettle when you call someone else "rude, non-compliant, unwilling to listen and failing to understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia" is a perfectly reasonable argument. (I haven't looked at the rest of the content here, so I'm not sure if you were technically correct; I only posted here because when my browser refreshed after I posted a comment in another thread it jumped around a bit, and my cursor wound up hovering over the word "racist", which peaked my interest.) [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 05:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:Since Calvin999 hasn't provided even a single diff, I feel compelled to state that "{{xt|rude, non-compliant, not willing to listen, doesn't understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, canvasses ... and has no respect for anyone}}" describe Calvin999, as evidenced by the mass of notable [[Adele]] song articles he AfDed after MaranoFan worked on them, and by these recent ANIs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive910#User:MaranoFan_Edit_warring_and_Crystal_balling], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Personal_attack_by_User:Calvin999_on_User:Coolmarc], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#Poor_attitude.2C_lack_of_good_faith_and_ownership_issues_of_User:Cassianto], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive884#Bad_faith_and_incivility_from_User:SimonTrew], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Bad_faith_comments_from_User:Bloom6132]. And calling Winkelvi a "{{xt|very placid, calm and peaceful editor}}" is ludicrous to anyone who has actually interacted with him or looked at his block log or seen his editing style or his bloodhound-like stalking of editors he dislikes or has issues with. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 01:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:: I said I can provide diffs if required. Since you haven't asked me to provide any, that's why none are here. As I said, I am still happy to provide diffs if required. &nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Calvin999|<b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>]] 09:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

::{{tq|"...or seen his editing style or his bloodhound-like stalking of editors he dislikes or has issues with."}}. Diffs are required for such an outrageous claim, and I see no reason why this unprovoked, extreme personal attack from you should go unchallenged, {{U|Softlavender}}. In fact, I'm considering opening a complaint about it. You are welcome to give irrefutable evidence that what you've said is accurate or strike it. Your choice. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 14:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

:::I dunno, several of your comments in this very thread could be used to support the contention that you have pursued Maranofan with "bloodhound-like" focus (though that's a far cry from stalking, as such). The fact that you absolutely refuse to back off and drop the stick would support that statement as well. Softlavender may have been overly harsh in their phrasing, but the sentiment is absolutely on point. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 18:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

::::{{tq|"several of your comments in this very thread could be used to support the contention that you have pursued Maranofan with "bloodhound-like" focus"}} Providing diffs as evidence that this report is not only frivolous but (as another editor noted below) a complete waste of time and to show the filer is walking very close into [[WP:BOOMERANG|boomerang]] territory is not pursuing anyone. It's doing what's required and necessary to defend oneself in this snake-pit called AN/I.
::::{{tq|"you absolutely refuse to back off and drop the stick"}} Really? Please provide diffs from this AN/I that support such an accusation. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 18:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::K. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=712543912 Here's one], in which you refuse to stop interacting with MF despite their request. There are others, of course. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 20:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

::::::Your claim was, {{tq|"you absolutely refuse to back off and drop the stick"}}. I asked you to provide evidence I ever said or did either. You reply with a diff to this comment from me: {{tq|"I will not agree to an interaction ban because I have done nothing that warrants it nor the black mark it brings."}}, and then further claim that I stated I {{tq|"...refuse to stop interacting with MF despite their request"}} Your evidence does not show I refused to back off, nor does it show I am not dropping the stick. My comment obviously is what it appears: I will not agree to a formal interaction ban because I have done nothing wrong and no evidence has been given by MF that an IBan is warranted. This has already been pointed out by others in this thread, as well. This in mind, I do not deserve nor have I created a situation that the stigma or burden of a formal and/or indefinite IBan would bring. Further, I never said I was refusing to stop interacting with MF. Not once. Again, another misrepresentation from you - actually, an out-and-out lie. I don't appreciate you falsely representing what I've said nor do I appreciate being lied to and about. Especially by an administrator. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 20:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::::Your entire participation in this thread is predicated on the fact that MaranoFan asked you to stop interacting with them, and you refused. So they came here asking the community to require you to stop interacting with them (and, as part of that, agreed to stop interacting with you in turn). And you opposed the request, repeatedly and at length. So no, I don't think characterizing your response as refusing to back off is unreasonable. I asked you if you'd agree to a voluntary interaction ban, and you refused. "I will not agree to an interaction ban..." you said, at the diff I linked above. What you seem to not understand is that agreeing voluntarily to not interact with someone doesn't put a black mark on any record. No one is keeping score, here. This isn't fucking Reddit or some such. All that means is that - wait for it - you stop talking to or about that person, and they in turn stop talking to or about you. Period. Full stop. They can't be banned from interacting with you without you being banned from interacting with them - so explain to me, please, why you want to continue interacting with MF? You say that you don't, but yet you oppose a very simple request that would end, for the foreseeable future, any possibility of interaction. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 13:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
{{tq|"No one is keeping score, here"}} Sure. No one is keeping score. That's a laugh. Obviously, you're thinking of what happens at the My Little Pony and Rainbow Unicorn Noticeboard at Cotton Candy-pedia rather than ANI at Wikipedia. And yes, you have mischaracterized what I said. Several times. Which tells me I need to stop saying anything to you because every time I have responded to you in this report, you've turned my actual words and obvious meaning into something else entirely. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 14:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

:Well, from over here in the cheap seats, your statements have been pretty clear. And you've done nothing to clarify them other than tell me that I'm wrong. So, ok. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 15:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

:::::::Let's also avoid accusing editors of lying, shall we? Really and truly, all that does is prove my point - and reflects poorly on one of us. And it's not me. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 13:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

*'''Block''' for {{u|MaranoFan}} whose behaviour even here has been less than collegial at times. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 16:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
::Should we have this as an alternative proposal? I see no consensus for the IBAN, and I do concur with {{U|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|Fortuna}} here... --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] [[Special:Contributions/Chesnaught555|'''(contribs)''']] 16:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:::I am open for that discussion. That comment with its edit summary really showcase how this user reacts and in no way is it acceptable. [[User:Callmemirela|<span style="font-family:Courier New; font-size:14px; color:#a6587b">Callmemirela</span>]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> [[User talk:Callmemirela|<span style="font-family:Georgia; font-size: 12px; color:#8B2252; font-weight:bold;">&#123;Talk&#125;</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Callmemirela|<span style="color:#582335">&#9809;</span>]] 02:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::::I concur, {{U|Callmemirela|Mirela}}. Should we start a new section with this alternative proposal? --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] [[Special:Contributions/Chesnaught555|'''(contribs)''']] 10:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Chesnaught555}} A sub-section, yes. [[User:Callmemirela|<span style="font-family:Courier New; font-size:14px; color:#a6587b">Callmemirela</span>]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> [[User talk:Callmemirela|<span style="font-family:Georgia; font-size: 12px; color:#8B2252; font-weight:bold;">&#123;Talk&#125;</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Callmemirela|<span style="color:#582335">&#9809;</span>]] 23:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::OK, {{U|Callmemirela|Mirela}} and {{U|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|Fortuna}} - filed as subsection below. --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] [[Special:Contributions/Chesnaught555|'''(contribs)''']] 14:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I disagree with the canvassing, but I agree that MaranoFan needs to cool down. Let's see if an IBAN would allow her to focus on content creation and other more useful activities. I am unfamiliar with the history between Winkelvi and MaranoFan, but I recently see quite a bit of edit warring and disputes arising from comparatively minor issues. [[User:SSTflyer|<span style="color:DarkSlateGray">SST</span>]][[User talk:SSTflyer|<span style="color:BlueViolet">flyer</span>]] 16:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
::You don't see any recent edit warring from me, {{U|SSTflyer}}. I'd appreciate it if you would revise your comment and be more concise. If the edit warring is coming from MF, then you need to say that so others will not get the wrong impression. It's not me edit warring, please correct your comment. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 18:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
* <s>'''Support'''. Neither of these editors have clean hands in their interactions with each other, so a two-way IBAN seems to make the most sense. [[User:Starke Hathaway|-Starke Hathaway]] ([[User talk:Starke Hathaway|talk]]) 11:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)</s>
*: Changing to '''strong support''' in light of the fact that Winkelvi has opened two fruitless SPIs against MaranoFan, the second of which was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MaranoFan/Archive#22_March_2016 pretty much completely frivolous]. [[User:Starke Hathaway|-Starke Hathaway]] ([[User talk:Starke Hathaway|talk]]) 16:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::I'd appreciate it if you'd take a moment to understand the history on the first SPI filed a year ago. I had been undergoing an extreme amount of unrelenting tag-team harassment by both parties named in the SPI in my userspace. It seemed to me (and others at the time, including Calidum who emailed me about opening an SPI on MaranoFan but has since turned on me for reasons I am completely unclear about) that they were the same editor, especially considering how it was all occurring. If you'd like diffs, {{U|Starke Hathaway|Starke}}, I can provide them for you). The latest SPI was poor judgement on my part and I shouldn't have done it. I'm not saying this because of your comment or because of this IBan proposal, but because I have had time to think about it and realized that it was not the best thing for me to do. We all learn from our mistakes, and the last SPI was a mistake on my part. The other one, however, was warranted considering what was happening at the time. The harassment was horrible - and was noted as such by more than one administrator and several editors. It ''did'' look like the two were the same person. Link to that SPI [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MaranoFan/Archive#20_January_2015 here]. One more thing: I wasn't the only one who thought MF was socking, Chasewc91 did as well and filed another SPI on MF a few months later [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MaranoFan/Archive#03_May_2015 here]. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 19:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Essentially agree with [[WP:BOOMERANG]] analysis by {{u|EvergreenFir}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=712551221&oldid=712550845 DIFF]), and harassment analysis by {{u|Chesnaught555}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=712511127&oldid=712511088 DIFF]), above. Cheers, &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 14:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:*<s>I don't support an IBAN, but </s>I don't support a "boomerang" for MF either. She was provoked by comments about her and is oversensitive. The diffs cited don't demonstrate harassment; I actually think the one on WV's page was a kind of gesture of appreciation, not sarcastic. Let's just drop this big waste of time. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 17:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (Correcting, now support IBAN.) [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 17:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as the least we can do to give [[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]] a break from the harassment I've been observing for months. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]]'s characterization of WV style is completely accurate. Anything Ches says is quite suspect for as someone else noted Ches & WV are essentially joined at the hip, to the point I wonder if one is not a sock of the other. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 06:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
::Oh, for the love of christ... {{tq|"someone else noted Ches & WV are essentially joined at the hip, to the point I wonder if one is not a sock of the other."}} You'd better have a real good explanation along with some convincing evidence to make an outrageous claim like that. Or are you just trying to poison the well? I've seen some shitty, personal-attacky, non-AGF things said about me in Wikipedia before, but that pretty much takes the cake -- along with someone else saying I'm asking for an IBan, someone else saying I've been edit warring recently, someone else saying I'm stalking MF, and an administrator actually saying above (without proof) that I have refused to stop interacting with MF... enough. What a bunch of bullshit. None of it comes with diffs, none of it comes with evidence -- all of it is smoke and mirrors bullshit. So sick of it. All of it. The lies, the piling on, the ganging up, the vendettas. Encyclopedia? What encyclopedia? All this thread is amounting to now is internet flaming and a free-for-all. For fuck's sake. {{U|Drmies}}, {{U|Bbb23}}, {{U|NeilN}}, {{U|Ritchie333}}: will somebody, anybody with sense please do something about this? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 07:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:::No, I am not a sock of Winkelvi. If you like, I can log out, make an IP edit, and confirm it is me - I live in the UK. Should I do that? Heck, most people know I'm British anyway, just by looking at my written English. I have no issue with doing this. Best, --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] [[Special:Contributions/Chesnaught555|'''(contribs)''']] 09:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Putting aside the "sock" red herring, I agree with Legacypac and with Softlavender's description of WV's editing style. I personally favor closing this without action. However, WV doesn't get any medals for his conduct by any stretch of the imagination. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 13:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|"I agree with Legacypac and with Softlavender's description of WV's editing style."}} Which is another red-herring as it has absolutely nothing to do with what the original "proposal" and what this report is supposed to be about. I'm not a fan of your editing style, either. Who cares? Your editing style is not the issue just as my editing style isn't the issue. I'm now forced to [[WP:POINT|point]] out: what can be the motivation for bringing editing style up in a thread that isn't about editing style? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 14:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::I was bending over backwards by calling it a red herring, and the diffs cited by MF were gratuitous and provocative, and appeared to have the desired effect. Clearly you are impervious to reason over this. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 14:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::WV loves one way interaction bans. How many editors has be banned from his talk page now? [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 17:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' WV is not the problem here. Possible boomerang considering the behavior documented above. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 08:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' These 2 editors, despite the well-established truth that nothing productive comes of their relationship, cannot seem to stay away from each other on their own. It is time for the Wikipedia community to take action and prevent needless bickering. [[User:Display name 99|Display name 99]] ([[User talk:Display name 99|talk]]) 13:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

*'''Support''' I'd also recommend an IBAN between MF and Calvin, even more so than the current proposal. Keeping the three of them separated would be beneficial to all three parties. [[User:Azealia911|'''<font color="red">Azealia</font><font color="orange">911</font>''']] [[User talk:Azealia911|<font color="blue"><sub>talk</sub></font>]] 15:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support.''' Fine with IBAN, and agreed with Azealia911. [[User:CitiesGamer66|KGirlTrucker87]] ([[User talk:CitiesGamer66|talk]]) 16:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - Per all the above.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User:VictoriaGrayson|<b><font color="#0000FF">VictoriaGrayson</font></b>]]<sup>[[User talk:VictoriaGrayson|<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b>]]</sup></span> 06:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - clearly an issue here that would be resolved with an IBAN. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 20:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

::While I am starting to see Sergecross' point re: my responses to comments in this thread, I will not be silent on this !vote. Clearly a retaliatory move based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&oldid=713965628#ANI this exchange] and my comments [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Dicklyon_and_his_disruptive_.22war_on_commas.22 here]. Prior to the AN/I he filed, I had not heard of this user and have never had any interaction with them previously. I realize anyone is allowed to comment at AN/I regardless of previous interaction, however, I think that the diffs I provided here along with [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AThewolfchild&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= this diff] to Wolfchild's block log (numerous blocks specifically for harassing other editors) gives a good picture of what their !vote is really all about. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 20:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Yes, thanks for pointing out that I have an active report on ANI - ''that's why I'm here''. And yes, our recent interactions demonstrated to me your poor attitude towards others and this project in general. Unlike you, I actually took the time to read through the ANI I'm commenting on, and can easily see that an IBAN is the best way to protect the project from any further disruption caused by you two interacting. The fact that sooo many others here agree with this assessment speaks volumes, and you should spend more time considering your actions and attitude, instead of attacking others. ("Block log" indeed... have you ever heard the saying about <span class="plainlinks">"''[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/people_who_live_in_glass_houses_shouldn%27t_throw_stones People in glass houses]''"</span>...?) You should worry about your own, very active, very recent, block log, instead of mine. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 21:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

====Closing this?====
Do any admins feel like reviewing this to determine if an interaction ban should be enacted as requested? I'd rather not see another meaningful discussion be archived prematurely. '''<span style="border: 1px blue solid;background:Cyan">[[User:Calidum|<font color="#4863A0">Calidum</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Calidum|<font color="#A18648">¤</font>]]</span>''' 17:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:Yes, that would be great if someone could help out. Its been going for about a week and a half now, and discussion has slowed down to a crawl. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 15:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

===Alternative proposal: block for MaranoFan===
{{atop|Having taken this into consideration, I have decided that it is in the best interest of MaranoFan and the rest of the community if I withdraw this proposal. There is no way this proposal will succeed, and furthermore, it is only adding to the incessant, exponentially increasing drama. No further !votes will be taken into consideration: the final decision is '''Oppose'''. {{nac}} --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] [[Special:Contributions/Chesnaught555|'''(contribs)''']] 13:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)}}
Suggested by [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi]], who stated that MF's {{tq|"behaviour even here has been less than collegial at times"}}. MaranoFan's canvassing of other editors and lack of evidence supporting a reason for an IBAN between them and Winkelvi calls for [[WP:BOOMERANG]] sanctions - not to mention the uncivil behaviour over on my talk page, which MF has stated was directed at me simply because I wanted to archive an escalating thread: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chesnaught555&diff=712509532&oldid=712509426 Here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=712513637 here]. Posting now to avoid edit conflicting - will edit this post as time goes on. --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] [[Special:Contributions/Chesnaught555|'''(contribs)''']] 14:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

*'''Support''' as co-proposer, if that is a word. --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] [[Special:Contributions/Chesnaught555|'''(contribs)''']] 14:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Marano's actions don't especially seem worse than any of the other 3-4 editors involved in this. Unless we're doling out blocks to everyone involved and meddling in all of this, this is not a good proposal. (An iban solves this issue better.) [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 14:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Sergecross. An interaction ban would solve pretty much everything, I would hope. Of course, if the ban fails to gain consensus and shenanigans continue - yes, blocks (for multiple editors) would likely be in order. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 15:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. MF has done nothing to warrant a block. She was provoked by some comments made about her, but "gossip" does not justify what she is asking. That said, asking for something you're not entitled to doesn't give rise to a block. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 15:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The discussion is about an IBAN for WV and MF. That's it. If anything grows out out of this discussion then an IBAN for WV and MF is what is needed.--[[User:MaverickLittle|ML]] ([[User talk:MaverickLittle|talk]]) 19:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - A block is not justified and would only address (roughly) half of the problem.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 19:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. As MrX notes, this would solve only part of the problem (though I reckon one-fourth, not one-half). '''<span style="border: 1px blue solid;background:Cyan">[[User:Calidum|<font color="#4863A0">Calidum</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Calidum|<font color="#A18648">¤</font>]]</span>''' 21:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Zero justification. MaranoFan is a good-faith editor who has been trying to do their best. This is a partisan proposal. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 01:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as this is just another attempt by WV's meat puppet to attack an editor they disagree with. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 04:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
::I had absolutely nothing to do with this proposal, and Ches is no one's meat-puppet. Please stop with the nasty, hateful personal attacks and unfounded allegations against other editors. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 05:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Seconded. I'm not here to represent anybody else's views. I have my own, and this is ''essentially'' my proposal (two other editors had agreed with it beforehand, neither of whom were Winkelvi). --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] [[Special:Contributions/Chesnaught555|'''(contribs)''']] 09:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I would support based on the the reasons given. There is nothing good-faith about MF, but I will agree that she has been trying her best (at being disruptive, rude and disrespectful). I don't think an IBAN would be sufficient as MF just can't help herself. &nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Calvin999|<b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>]] 09:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - The whole notion of this discussion is laughable. Some admin please speedy archive this. Lolol.--[[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]] ([[User talk:MaranoFan|talk]]) 09:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
** You can't oppose (or support) a block on yourself. It's obvious that you wouldn't agree. You're not even taking this seriously and you are being disrespectful. Also, no admin will help you when you are calling them "some admin". &nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Calvin999|<b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>]] 15:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
***[[WP:PNSD|Yes you can]]. There are no restrictions on who can vote; I done the same thing with myself in the past. <span style='font:bold small-caps 0.94em "Nimbus Mono L";color:#000000'>[[User:Jaguar|<font color="black">'''JAG'''</font>]][[User talk:Jaguar|<font color="black">'''UAR'''</font>]]</span>&nbsp; 16:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
**** Didn't I ask you to never communicate with me again. (Rhetorical; doesn't require an answer). 19:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
*****Thats irrelevant, what you said is objectively wrong, and any number of people would have said the same thing if he hadn't. And even that's ignoring the insane odds against this poorly thought out proposal. You're only reinforcing the idea that you're probably amongst the group of 3-4 editors that can't stop with the petty bickering that inspired a call for an Iban in the first place. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 00:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
******* It is relevant, shows you are an uninvolved editor. MF wants the IBAN too, so. Several editors here have said Oppose but have written that is is still a viable option to block MF. So it is more than 3-4 really. &nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Calvin999|<b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>]] 08:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - There doesn't seem to be a legitimate justification to block [[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]], so long as he agrees to keep his comments civil. Lack of evidence and canvassing, while not encouraged behavior, isn't a "blockable" offense to me - provided that he stops the canvassing when asked. [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 15:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' MF has done nothing to deserve this proposition of a block. Calvin on the other hand, well... <span style='font:bold small-caps 0.94em "Nimbus Mono L";color:#000000'>[[User:Jaguar|<font color="black">'''JAG'''</font>]][[User talk:Jaguar|<font color="black">'''UAR'''</font>]]</span>&nbsp; 15:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
** The feeling is reassuringly mutual, Jaguar. Please grow up and stop harassing me/mentioning me/talking about me. You're coming across like a child. &nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Calvin999|<b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>]] 19:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
***I was just pointing out the fact that anybody can vote in any debate, even if it's a block imposed on the intended user. I don't know how that's considered harassing. Believe me, I would be over the moon if somebody created a sub-thread "Proposed interaction ban between Calvin and Jaguar". <span style='font:bold small-caps 0.94em "Nimbus Mono L";color:#000000'>[[User:Jaguar|<font color="black">'''JAG'''</font>]][[User talk:Jaguar|<font color="black">'''UAR'''</font>]]</span>&nbsp; 21:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
**** You are harassing me by making unnecessary comments. I already asked for an IBAN between us but nothing was done about it. &nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Calvin999|<b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>]] 08:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
*****What, me voting in this discussion is considered harassing? <span style='font:bold small-caps 0.94em "Nimbus Mono L";color:#000000'>[[User:Jaguar|<font color="black">'''JAG'''</font>]][[User talk:Jaguar|<font color="black">'''UAR'''</font>]]</span>&nbsp; 10:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Since MF is a good-faith editor, a block for this user is a little too much. [[User:Sjones23|Lord Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] - [[User:Sjones23/Wikipedia contributions|contributions]]) 18:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''-My vote is probably not needed here, but I'll give it anyway. It is unfair to block only MaranoFan. [[User:Display name 99|Display name 99]] ([[User talk:Display name 99|talk]]) 13:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{abot}}


== Requesting reversal of premature closure of talk page section by TheRazgriz ==
===Arbitrary break===
{{hat|Hatting this before the childish back-and-forth continues. --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] [[Special:Contributions/Chesnaught555|'''(contribs)''']] 19:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)}}
{{U|MaranoFan}}, it would be within your best interest not to badger all the '''Oppose''' !voters. This will not help your case. --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] [[Special:Contributions/Chesnaught555|'''(contribs)''']] 19:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:That is called making your case. In a court, you try to convince jury members who don't support you. Winkelvi is welcome to do so if he wishes.--[[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]] ([[User talk:MaranoFan|talk]]) 19:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::This isn't a court case, {{U|MaranoFan}}. Re-adding subsection as an arbitrary break means something which isn't directly related to the previous discussion. I am not adding another !vote, and therefore it is required. --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] [[Special:Contributions/Chesnaught555|'''(contribs)''']] 19:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::And this is bogging discussion down either further. I recommend deleting this and saving it for Marano's talk page if you truly need to continue. I don't even follow why you're advising Marano when you're actively against Marano's proposal anyways. Regardless, please take this elsewhere, its just taking away from the actual discussion. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 19:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


Good one, {{U|NE Ent}}. Thanks for the initial confusion, the good hearty laugh, commemorating the spirit of the day, and closing this nonsense. Best to you,-- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 23:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
{{hab}}


I have recently engaged in lengthy [[Talk:2024 United States elections|talk page discussions]] with [[User:TheRazgriz|TheRazgriz]] regarding his edits on the [[2024 United States elections]] page. Upon informing him today that I was escalating to the dispute resolution process, TheRazgriz prematurely [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1260830624 closed] a talk page section that dealt with the nature of our disagreement at hand, labeling it as "resolved" when it was not. There was no snowball as claimed in the closure message, and the subject matter that was absorbed into another section in the body was still in dispute. While the issue of the content in the lead was in fact resolved, the greater context of the claims that were made and were discussed in the section were not. The last comments in that section were made only 10 days prior, and the most recent comments involving this dispute were made today. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 02:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
== [[User talk:YuHuw|YuHuw's]]-endless disruptive edit war against the consensus: ==
{{see also|#Harassment getting worse}}
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 20:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1460580861}}<!-- Do not remove this until an admin closes this item -->
It is true for every page he is editing from his last appearance on wikipedia under this name . Below only several examples:
Please pay your special attention on his meaningless revert argumentation.


:{{nacc}} I've undone the closure and fixed the formatting issues that were broken by the user in accident that resulted in broken indentations of the existing discussion. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 02:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
[[Karaites]]
::Thank you for your assistance! [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 02:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Keraites&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=699614815&oldid=699613827 1)]
:For transparency and clarification: The dispute had migrated away from that topic and into a different topic on the page well over a week ago, and as noted by @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] here the resolution finding was accurately portrayed. Disputed content was not removed via closure. As point of that specific topic had been addressed and is no longer an issue, therefore unlikely to require further contribution, I fail to see the point in un-closing it. But it is what it is. Just want it clear this isn't a conspiracy of nefariousness. [[User:TheRazgriz|TheRazgriz]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 02:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Keraites&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=700672825&oldid=700671971 2)]
::Well, here's the point: it's poor practice to close a discussion in which you're heavily involved, certainly so in any issue that lacks a very strong consensus, and doubly so in a [[WP:CT|contentious topic]] such as the 2024 United States elections page. (Heck, I wouldn't dare to close a CT discussion I was involved in even for a [[WP:SNOW|snowball]].) That's the point. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 06:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Keraites&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=700673160&oldid=700672825 3)]
:::I also think you should have more than 224 edits before engaging in closing discussions. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 08:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Keraites&offset=&limit=500&action=history 4)]
::::It's always worth considering if a discussion even needs a close. In this case, it seems unlikely that the resulting close was something which would be useful to link to in the future. If editors have moved on, it also seems unlikely that a close is needed to stop editors adding to a discussion where it's moved past the point of being useful. And in fact, if editors do feel they have something useful to add, I'm not convinced it would definitely be useless. It's possible that the close will stop editors wasting their time reading a discussion where there's no need but IMO in a case like this the benefits of that are definitely outweighed by the disadvantages of making an involved close, and probably outweighed even by just the negatives of closing. As for collapsing, well the page isn't that long. And frankly, it would seem better to just reduce time before automatic archiving rather than collapse that specific discussion. Or even just manually archive some of the older threads. Noting there are bunch of older threads which seem to be way more unlikely to be revived or that anyone needs to see. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 11:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Keraites&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=705559461&oldid=705506474 5)]
:::::@[[User:Ravenswing|Ravenswing]] & @[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]], I agree with both of your valid points, and they will be considered in the future. No arguement from me against either of those good points.
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Keraites&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=705591723&oldid=705573583 6)]
:::::@[[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]], I expect you have mistakenly assumed I have only ever edited WP from this (somewhat new-ish) account in making that comment. That is incorrect. I have left uncounted thousands of edits as an IP User since 2007, though I only have begun to edit CTOP and political content since creation of this account.
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Keraites&type=revision&diff=705755716&oldid=705728956 7)]
:::::To all of you, thank you and have a good day. [[User:TheRazgriz|TheRazgriz]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 13:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Keraites&type=revision&diff=706597934&oldid=705778183 8)]
::::::Point taken. But remember a lot of people won't know that. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 13:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Keraites&type=revision&diff=707858287&oldid=707754785 9)]
:::::::And that is a perfectly valid point, which is why I spent so much time tinkering with my userpage to help those who may make that mistake. :) Thank you. [[User:TheRazgriz|TheRazgriz]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 13:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Keraites&type=revision&diff=707881493&oldid=707872609 10)]
*Pinging [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]], who earlier today [[Special:Diff/1260894544|stated on TheRazgriz's talkpage]] that {{tq|"I noticed you do a lot of closing".}} I'd like to know more about that, please, Pbritti, as this ANI thread has so far only been about ''one'' instance of inappropriate closing. Is there a wider problem that we need to address here? [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 13:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC).
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Keraites&type=revision&diff=708194991&oldid=708147903 11)]
*:That line is a surprise to me as well. If memory serves, I believe I have only closed 2 topics in total. I believe maybe 3 or 4 if including manual archiving within that categorization. The topic which @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] brought to attention here is the only one which I can imagine would be contentious in any way. It is certainly the most recent I have performed. [[User:TheRazgriz|TheRazgriz]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 13:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Keraites&type=revision&diff=712834920&oldid=710838918 12)]
*::I stumbled on a closure of [[Talk:Bryson City, North Carolina]], where TheRazgriz [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bryson_City,_North_Carolina&diff=prev&oldid=1259996425 closed] a discussion to {{tq|to conserve space}}. I don't think this is intentionally disruptive behavior (even if it were, it's not exactly amy sort of serious offense). TheRazgriz has evidently been productively engaging on that article since before they registered. I only mentioned it because I figured that TheRazgriz might think such closures are standard. They're not, but they're also not worth starting an ANI over. A good first step to preventing this sort of escalation from repeating is removing the notice at the top of [[User talk:TheRazgriz]], as that might give the impression that they are an editor unwilling to respond directly to constructive criticism. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 15:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Keraites&type=revision&diff=712853675&oldid=712844466 13)]
*:::Just an aside, we can't tie a registered account to an IP editor and I don't think we should make any assumptions here about anyone's previous identities if they edited unregistered. Unless they choose to disclose, exceptions only for trolls and vandals. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::No no, @[[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] is correct, and my userpage makes that public info.
*::::Thank you for that, it would otherwise be a perfectly valid point to make. But in this case, it is both true and public knowledge by me to all of WP.
*::::(Additional edit to clarify, it is public that I edited for years as an IP user, and one of the first contributions on this named account was in reference to one of the IP edits I had made. What is not public is what my current IP is, which changes every so often for security reasons) [[User:TheRazgriz|TheRazgriz]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 20:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::{{re|TheRazgriz}} We're glad you registered, by the way. You've been pushing hard for some useful overhauls on CTs. Glad to see someone make the leap from IP to registered and bring that experience with them. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 20:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Setting aside the potential issues laid out above, I'd add that it's entertaining to see an ''[[Ace Combat 5]]'' reference in 2024. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 07:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::A massively underappreciated title in the series with way more lore building under the surface than was ever reasonable, was very surprised and pleased when AC7 gave folks who never played it back on PS2 to play it in the modern day and get some love. Heartbreak One is core reason why the [[McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II|Phantom II]] is to this day my favorite aircraft. Glad to see a fellow fan! Thank you, and have a good day. [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 14:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)


== [[User:BrandtM113]] [[WP:LAME]] edit war, no attempts at discussion, frequent warnings ==
[[Qaraimits]]
:[[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Qaraimits&type=revision&diff=711054338&oldid=710831309 1)]] exposed sockpuppetry by his anonimous IP. You can see his self exposure [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIan.thomson&type=revision&diff=711235955&oldid=710946211 here]
:[[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Qaraimits&type=revision&diff=711326920&oldid=711088379 2)]]
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Qaraimits&type=revision&diff=712836456&oldid=712455964 3)]]
[[Karaite]]
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Karaite&type=revision&diff=710726156&oldid=710624304 1)] exposed sockpuppetry as above under the same IP
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Karaite&type=revision&diff=711105351&oldid=710880603 2)]
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Karaite&type=revision&diff=712141448&oldid=711176312 3)]
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Karaite&type=revision&diff=712792629&oldid=712458135 4) ]




The user constantly distorts RS he cites or reverts without meaningful argumentation.Please help [[User:Неполканов|Неполканов]] ([[User talk:Неполканов|talk]]) 18:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


On [[David Madden (executive)]], there is a red link for [[Michael Thorn]], a president of Fox, and [[Sarah Barnett]], a president of [[AMC Networks]]. [[User:BrandtM113]] has, five times in the last 3 years, come to the page to remove the red links. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=David_Madden_(executive)&action=history] He has never left an edit summary, so I have no explanation for this unusual fixation.
:: [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kaz/Archive | This page ]] might shed some more light on this issue. It looks to be a long term issue ! [[User:KoshVorlon|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C;text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''Kosh'''<span style="color:#228B22"></span><span style="color:#008000">'''Vorlon'''</span></span>]] 18:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


In March 2022 I sent a message to BrandtM113 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BrandtM113#David_Madden_(executive)] telling him about [[WP:REDLINK]] and how red links are useful in helping editors find gaps in knowledge, and stopping new pages from being orphaned from birth. With the complete lack of edit summaries, I don't know if he thinks Thorn and Barnett should never have a Wikipedia article, which is quite the claim.
:::Yes please look at this edit in particular [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kaz&diff=711983218&oldid=711270894] these meat-puppets gang up on anyone who touch their turf [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Crimean_Karaites&diff=698879278&oldid=697749622]. Also pay very close attention to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Someguy1221&diff=prev&oldid=712090065 evidence where Неполканов exposes himself as a puppet] presented on this page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Qaraimits]. [[The lady doth protest too much, methinks]]. There are also several ANI cases to read through to catch up. Неполканов is an archetypal boy who cries wolf. [[User:YuHuw|YuHuw]] ([[User talk:YuHuw|talk]]) 04:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
::::First [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ian.thomson&diff=prev&oldid=711235955 you] claim that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaite_Judaism&diff=prev&oldid=711066560 some conspiracy of missionaries is active in the articles], now you're claiming that a post where Неполканов lists the members of a consensus is him confessing to meat puppetry? That's just asinine, and yet another instance where you clearly are not assuming good faith. Please, show all the times where I've come to Неполканов's defense before you came in with your disruptive editing. If you can't provide such evidence, [[WP:NPA|then don't make such accusations]]. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:YuHuw has a recurring problem where he ignores any consensus that he doesn't agree with, handles points raised for that consensus by either ignoring it, pretending he has already addressed it, changing the subject, or [[WP:NPA|attributing (if perhaps pseudo-civilly) unevidenced]] bad-faith motives [[WP:AGF|to others]]. This can be readily seen on my talk page and at [[Talk:Karaims]]. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
::Ian, I have apologized for inadvertently upsetting your religious conviction s so many times [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaite&diff=prev&oldid=712166522] I am losing count. It was the week of Purim vacation and I was a little high spirited. I am really embarrassed and sorry about it. Everyone makes mistakes. There is no need to bare a grudge on the matter. You have in all innocence taken the wrong side on this matter. I am indeed the one who encourages [[WP:BRD]] discussion to reach consensus (extensively) just as you recommend, while the meat-puppets who [[WP:CANVASS]] each other blatantly ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kaz&diff=708606565&oldid=707047688 as noticed by another editor here]) -and have sadly duped you- are the ones who don't if you could only get past your anger at my comment on Christian missionary activity then you might be able to see that more clearly. I sincerely wish you all the best Ian. Take care. [[User:YuHuw|YuHuw]] ([[User talk:YuHuw|talk]]) 06:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Ian, you have not read carefully the edit he made which exposes him but if you follow the instructions posted you will discover as clear as day. I will post them again for you here. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Someguy1221&diff=prev&oldid=712090065 Неполканов must be considered to be either a clumsy meat-puppet or a sockpuppet of a clumsy puppet-master, as justified by examining the third occurrence of Неполканов (use the find function) on this page. It all brings into serious and justified question whether there is any sincere motivation behind complaints against me by those three extremely close friends.] Best regards. [[User:YuHuw|YuHuw]] ([[User talk:YuHuw|talk]]) 06:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
P.P.S. concerning [[WP:NPA]] every time one of them calls me Kaz it is a Personal attack for the resons specified in the history of their case against me. You can see the results of that personal attack in the history of my talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YuHuw&oldid=711535183]. Three months of asking them to stop dozens and dozens of times when we all know what that means is why the wavering of [[WP:AGF]] in my attitude is justified. Nevertheless, I am still cordial and welcome input which is content based as long as there are no personal attacks like calling me stupid. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaite&diff=next&oldid=712168584] [[User:YuHuw|YuHuw]] ([[User talk:YuHuw|talk]]) 06:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
::For the hundredth time, my convictions (whatever they are) do not play into this. Whether someone is claiming that Muslims, Masons, or lizard people are taking over, I have a problem with any paranoid rant claiming any sort of editorial conspiracies as you have proclaimed. That you keep insisting otherwise, especially since you have no evidence, is a sign that you are not assuming good faith (and without the assumption of good faith, all pseudo-civility is worthless). Here we go again with you attributing bad-faith motives without evidence.
::You cannot pretend to be engaged in BRD when you are continually reverting to your version and consider any consensus that disagrees with you to be the result of canvassing and meatpuppetry. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 06:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


Repeating the same edit with no summaries, no talk page discussion, is disruption even if it is over several years. I think a [[WP:CIR]] block may be useful. His talk page has more notices than I care to count for removing content without a summary, adding content without a source, repeated disruptive edits (doing the same edit, again) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BrandtM113#Disambiguation_link_notification_for_April_22], outright vandalism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BrandtM113#October_2022]. This user has had more than enough warnings and it's literally like talking to a brick wall with the lack of edit summaries or discussions. [[User:Unknown Temptation|Unknown Temptation]] ([[User talk:Unknown Temptation|talk]]) 17:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
There is no rant, there are only mistakes and apologies. Everyone makes mistakes Ian. Perhaps your conflict of interest in this matter makes your comments unhelpful. The discussion pages are proof of my frequent requests for sources and discussion to reach consensus whenever there has been a revert as per [[WP:BRD]]. I reverted you twice in a row but explained with good faith here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Russian_Karaites&diff=712161861&oldid=712160282] and your current version of that page remains to this day after you ignored the discussions which led to that originally accepted version in the first place [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaims&diff=709981338&oldid=709923687]. Instead of taking us forward, you took it backwards but nevertheless I supported you in good faith. You just have a grudge against me which is very unfortunate. And I even supported you against that IP editor remember as a sign of my good faith towards you. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Karaims&diff=712169528&oldid=712169120] You blocked that editor with no evidence besides two edits on Karaims as a puppet of Kaz remember? [[User:YuHuw|YuHuw]] ([[User talk:YuHuw|talk]]) 06:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
By the way, this IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.205.251.85] was yours too wasn't it Ian? [[User:YuHuw|YuHuw]] ([[User talk:YuHuw|talk]]) 06:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:You call feeding Kaz's accusations of admin abuse support? The IP editor [[WP:DUCK|behaved like Kaz]] and his IP address is located in the same place as other proven Kaz socks. Perhaps your agreement with him is clouding your judgement.
:And what exactly would my conflict of interest be? If you are going to once again suggest religion (which again, would be assuming bad faith), then the only non-hypocritical course of action would leave the articles on Karaites and so forth to atheists and pagans.
:As for the IP, that's obviously Kaz, and for you to say it is mine is a damn lie and a sign that you not assuming good faith. There is no reasonable way you could make such an accusation in good faith. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 07:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


:Blocked for 6 months. Let's see if that is long enough time to get their attention. <b>[[User:Inter|Oz]]</b>\<sup>[[User_talk:Inter|<span style="color:green;">InterAct</span>]]</sup> 19:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::Ian wrote: "You call feeding Kaz's accusations of admin abuse support? " I am sorry I do not understand your meaning in this sentence. [[User:YuHuw|YuHuw]] ([[User talk:YuHuw|talk]]) 07:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC) And how can someone be a duck of an editor which has not been on wikipedia for probably years? Which proven sock of Kaz was not based in Cardiff? I have read through all the case history while I was accused and I do not recall the evidence you are referring to. If you have a fact to state please present it clearly. And I agreed with you not that IP remember that is why I reverted him and restored your version[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Karaims&diff=712169528&oldid=712169120]. Leaving the Karaites articles to atheists and pagans might be a good idea. :)
::But why do you assume the IP I asked whether was you is obviously Kaz? I only asked because it looks like you had similar interests. Why on earth would it be bad faith? I see no similarity between Kaz's edits and that IP's edits. [[User:YuHuw|YuHuw]] ([[User talk:YuHuw|talk]]) 07:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC) I am not calling you any kind of puppet Ian. Everyone edits accidentally when signed out from time to time. It is no crime. But as it offends you so much I take back the question. Jeez [[User:YuHuw|YuHuw]] ([[User talk:YuHuw|talk]]) 07:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
::I am sorry I forgot to respond to your question in your edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=712989993&oldid=712989706]. The thought had not crossed my mind. Meanwhile you on the other hand who decided to get involved after the matter was closed did call me Kaz after I was vindicated remember? I wrote to you about it[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ian.thomson&diff=prev&oldid=711235955] and your disagreement with the admin decision is the source of your conflict of interest in this matter. As an admin yourself you should already be aware that the Kaz puppets are extremely [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&diff=704469503&oldid=704467408 cold]. Best regards. [[User:YuHuw|YuHuw]] ([[User talk:YuHuw|talk]]) 07:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


::Well, 99.7% of this editor's 6,297 edits are to main space, they have made few edits to Talk space and fewer to User talk space. They don't often have an edit summary but they are very active and all of the talk page warnings are more than a year old so perhaps they have taken the advice on board. I was hoping that they would resond here but now they are blocked as I was writing this. I hope they file an unblock request and start communicating. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The IP you mentioned behaves the opposite of me in this matter, and behaves like you and Kaz (and it locates to the sort of ISPs that Kaz has been known to use). You asked a question that insisted that that was my IP address. Doing so by accident would be [[WP:CIR|incredibly stupid]], which is why I cannot imagine that it was an accident. Having calmed myself down, I still cannot see how someone could ask such a question in good faith. [[WP:TEND|Trolling is unacceptable here, even if it's to try and have your way in an article]].
:::Today, the user made the exact same edit that was made in 2021, 2022 and 2023, after having being told in 2022 about the exact Wikipedia policy that made that edit disruptive. I don't call that taking advice on board. If there is some crucial reason to remove those red links on the David Madden page, it should have been said in an edit summary or on the talk page. If a kid on my street played knock-and-run on my door once a year for four years, I'd still consider that as annoying as doing it once a day for four days. [[User:Unknown Temptation|Unknown Temptation]] ([[User talk:Unknown Temptation|talk]]) 19:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I was going to just suggest that maybe you need to be topic-banned. But if you keep trolling, I'm going to push for a block. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 09:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:::The user did not edit between 22 October 2023 and 24 October 2024, after two warnings in September 2023. That's a year of not editing, rather than a year of constructive editing. [[User:Unknown Temptation|Unknown Temptation]] ([[User talk:Unknown Temptation|talk]]) 19:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::You clearly have not calmed down and perhaps you never will with regards to me which is extremely unfortunate. Nevertheless, and in all sincerity, please provide one example of me trolling in this discussion above as you claim and tell me kindly in all good faith please as I have been very cordial with you, what exactly I said why exactly it is trolling and how exactly I should have expressed the concept in a way that you would not have considered trolling. Considering your conflict of interest concerning the matter one would expect there should be a Wiki policy against you being involved with me again. '''If however''', you have nothing constructive to say and will only try to threaten and intimidate me again then I would prefer you simply do not post anything in response to this at all as I will find it yet another example of harassment from you which I have to remind you I have already asked once you to stop. Take it easy. [[User:YuHuw|YuHuw]] ([[User talk:YuHuw|talk]]) 20:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
::::And I don't understand why you let this little error get so under your skin that you brought this to ANI. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::You said that an IP address that clearly behaves more like you or Kaz belonged to me. How is that not trolling? [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 04:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Some people take Wikibreaks. I did myself for six months in 2009. I'm at a loss of what could be construed as sinister about that. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 15:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I did not say that. And sadly no-one involved in this behaves like me. If they did we would all be enjoying pleasant discussions on talk pages sharing knowledge like gentlemen about content and there would be no ANI postings, no insults, no attempts to extract personal information, no canvassing, no-edit-warring by meat-puppetry, no attempts to identify each other, no blocking IPs for 2 reasonable edits, no harassment and definitely no threats of any kind. That is what I imagined could happen when I signed up and that is what I was still hoping for after a month of signing up despite having suffered all of the above which has continued to now nearly 4 months down the line. I am not so snowy white anymore and have become more cynical about wikipedia but have not given up all hope yet. P.S. if you want some examples of trolling take a look at some of these edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.68.139.189] especially [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toddy1&diff=prev&oldid=708237535][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keraites&diff=prev&oldid=708238364][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keraites&diff=prev&oldid=708582997]. You should also know that Kaz is their code-word for calling someone a Pedo. It might be best to stop calling people Kaz and unravel yourself from their dupe until you have become familiar with their whole game first. If I knew 4 moths ago what I know now, I would never have signed up to defend [[User:Wbm1058]] in the first place [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wbm1058&diff=prev&oldid=698895290]. Take care. [[User:YuHuw|YuHuw]] ([[User talk:YuHuw|talk]]) 19:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Please can you stop these unsubstantiated allegations that other editors have accused you of sexual offences. This kind of trolling by YuHuw is a breach of of the [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] policy.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 20:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::YuHuw, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=712988926 here] you said "By the way, this IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.205.251.85] was yours too wasn't it Ian?" That IP address is one that obviously behaves like either you or Kaz. Now you are straight up lying when the evidence is on the very page, in this very conversation. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 00:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::::The IP has no behavior comparable to me. Your spin-doctoring, harassing, personal attacks, breach of assuming good faith, trolling, etc. are all too much. I have tried to be cordial but this conversation is going no-where. You should simply be saying sorry for calling me a "Kaz" and we will leave it at that. But you won't so I am taking a break. I am not going to respond here again unless someone neutral with some knowledge of the history {{ping|Someguy1221}} {{ping|Liz}} {{ping|Zzuuzz}}steps in to try and mediate between us. Take care. [[User:YuHuw|YuHuw]] ([[User talk:YuHuw|talk]]) 04:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Of the two of us, who has been reverting Toddy1 on topics relating to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Karaite_Judaism&diff=prev&oldid=708928827 Karaites], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Qaraylar&diff=prev&oldid=708928924 Keraites], and so forth? The IP is closer to you than me, and denying that would just be further trolling. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 10:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


::Adding some formatting to an infobox that the relevant wikiproject dislikes is not "outright vandalism". [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 22:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I looked at {{U|YuHuw}} edit history, and I see a lot of reverts with no explanation, claiming that people are lying or sockpuppets, etc. In the discussion above he flatly refuses to accept that he did anything wrong, and the accuses somebody (unclear who) of harassment with no evidence. This has to stop. If YuHuw does not stop accusing people of bad faith and reverting without explanation admin action is necessary IMO. YuHuw should focus the energy in a more constructive way. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 12:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::This still seems like an excessive sanction for removing a few redlinks and not using talk pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:Looking at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Keraites&action=history edit history] of [[Keraites]], I am really turned off by the edit summaries: "lying in edit summary to pretend he is removing something", "This is the 4th or 5th revert of this issue by this user since he has re-signed to WP with a new ID", "undo restoration of User:Ancietsteppe's POV by Meatpuppet", "incessant edit summary insults is very disparaging and harassing", "revert edits by "YuHuw". If you read the new source he added, it does not support the statement he cited it for. Typical of Kaz", and on and on. But I can't see how we can single anyone out for sanctions without sanctioning the whole lot of you. So the seemingly endless drama-board threads related to this have gone on for too long. The above is for me, too mind-numbing and [[TL;DR]] for me to slog through it all. I'm going to try to take this to [[Talk:Keraites]] and attempt to sort out the most recent two-edit revert war on that page. Y'all should focus more on content and stop disparaging each other. [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 17:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::I agree. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 16:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Inter|Oz]], given this editor's neglect of talk page edits, it is unlikely that they will even know they can file an unblock request. They did post a meager response on their user talk page. Any chance this 6 month block could be reduced? Just thought I'd put in a pitch for mercy for what was really a minor edit infraction. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 01:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


== Cycling through IPs ==
::YuHuw [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKeraites&type=revision&diff=714197969&oldid=714127412 is editing as an IP editor again]. He is "answering" a question raised at [[Talk:Keraites#"Molokan" heresy]]. His "answer" consisted of rehashing the statement in the article and then changing the subject.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 07:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


== More WP:BATTLEGROUND from Jytdog at [[Berylliosis]] ==


A month ago I was blissfully unaware of {{u|Jytdog}}. Then he caused a car crash at the [[RepRap project]] article, which gave rise to two deeply unfavourable media reports on Wikipedia's practices [http://3dprint.com/124759/reprap-projects-wikipedia-page/][https://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-brutal-edit-war-over-a-3d-printers-wikipedia-page-reprap] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#Rude vulgarian editor|this ANI thread]]. Today he's suggesting I need to get a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Berylliosis&diff=prev&oldid=712892011 "Moron Diploma"].


I have a question about vandalism accounts. I help edit a series of reality TV articles and, from what I can tell, there appears to be a single user who will edit with either rumored spoilers for upcoming episodes or flat-out fake information. They don't use an account and the IP used will eventually be warned/blocked but then they will just pop up sometime later using a similar but different IP. Is there any potential resolution for this that isn't an endless game of whack-a-mole? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Noahp2|Noahp2]] ([[User talk:Noahp2#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Noahp2|contribs]]) 07:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
Both of these show just the same [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] mentality, with editors and their work dismissed as [[Talk:Berylliosis#Garbage content based on garbage sources|"Garbage content based on garbage sources"]].


:[[WP:RANGE]]? [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 08:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I noticed this today at [[User talk:Wtshymanski#Edit war warning]]. As those with long memories will know, there is little love lost between {{u|Wtshymanski}} and myself, but I've always recognised that he knew his subject - a courtesy clearly not being extended by Jytdog here.
::We'll need some IP accounts first to see if a range block is appropriate. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 09:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Sure, here are seven I suspect are the same user. All do the same type of unannotated edits on similar pages. 222.153.65.98, 222.154.16.98, 222.153.14.129, 222.153.114.170, 222.153.13.121, 222.153.68.214, 222.153.50.12. [[User:Noahp2|Noahp2]] ([[User talk:Noahp2|talk]]) 15:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The IPs are assigned to a telecom company, so there could be [[WP:COLLATERAL|collateral damage]]. This range - [[Special:Contributions/222.153.0.0/16]] - seems the most used (222.154.x.x being an outlier). [[User:FifthFive|FifthFive]] ([[User talk:FifthFive|talk]]) 20:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Is there anything I need to do/request? Looks like two of these IPs have been active in the last few days [[User:Noahp2|Noahp2]] ([[User talk:Noahp2|talk]]) 15:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


== Undisclosed paid editing ==
As is typical (and to some degree commendable) this began by Jytdog removing sources that he took issue with for being unreliable. The trouble is that he removed a whole section to do so, on the far-from-controversial claim that there are toxicity hazards to working with [[beryllium]]. He proceeded to 4RR edit war [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Berylliosis&diff=712506790&oldid=712506120][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Berylliosis&diff=712562412&oldid=712560694][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Berylliosis&diff=712765327&oldid=712764100][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Berylliosis&diff=712844522&oldid=712834159] to remove this. Much better editing would have been (if he dislikes these sources so much) to have found some other sources, from the ''vast'' numbers that are out there on this uncontroversial and widely described topic.


* {{User|RayanTarraf}}
The main problem though is less ''what'' he did and more ''how'' he goes about it. Just take a look at the [[Talk:Berylliosis#Garbage content based on garbage sources|talk page comments]], [[User talk:Wtshymanski#Edit war warning|accusing Wtshymanski of edit-warring]] and [[User talk:Andy Dingley#Article talk pages, WP:NPA|my talk page]] (14 posts tonight!). See also [[WP:RSN#Documents uploaded to ScribD]]. This battlegrounding is just not acceptable here - other editors, even myself, just do not deserve this bile from Jytdog. This is far from a new problem either, ANIs ''passim''. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 21:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


Never disclosed their paid editing.
:Andy is angry at me and I hear that but he is so angry he is not thinking straight.


According to [[User:DubaiScripter]]: {{tq|Glimpse Digital Agency is a Marketing, Digital Marketing and design production studio set up in Dubai in 2017 by Lebanese '''Rayan Tarraf.'''}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:DubaiScripter&oldid=806819780][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:DubaiScripter&diff=prev&oldid=808988550] [[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] ([[User talk:Hypnôs|talk]]) 10:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:I removed '''one sentence''' (not a "whole section) from the lead that became a subject of dispute - [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Berylliosis&type=revision&diff=712764100&oldid=712562412 here] is the relevant diff where it is being restored by Wtshymansk. I know I am too harsh sometimes. What is completely unacceptable is Andy's behavior here. His comments [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABerylliosis&type=revision&diff=712866210&oldid=712844409 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABerylliosis&type=revision&diff=712877512&oldid=712869740 here] are inappropriate for an article Talk page. He is clearly more focused on me than on the actual sources and contents there, not dealing at all with the actual problems I raised on the Talk page.
:I note that this user has not edited since March this year, and has only made three edits, none to mainspace, since 2017. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 10:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::So? [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 11:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::So, as originally worded as a complaint against {{User|RayanTarraf}}, this report cannot be said to be of an urgent incident or a chronic, intractable behavioural problem, as required for this noticeboard. It has, however, broadened its scope since then. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 16:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::And what do you mean paid editing? Who paid who? [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 11:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You disclosed in 2017 that you were paid to edit.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:DubaiScripter&oldid=806819780]
:::If you are unaware of this, are there other people that have had access to your account? [[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] ([[User talk:Hypnôs|talk]]) 11:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:Who is getting paid for editing? Rayan Taraff or Dubai Scripter? Do you have any diffs of problematic content that they have added to articles?[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 11:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you @[[User:Isaidnoway|Isaidnoway]] I just noticed a big discussion on social channels going around the article of Baalbek in Lebanon. Apparently, Some editors are using Wikipedia for political benefits in order to push war agenda. Which is terrible of course. I went straight to the article in order to see what is happening and found that many referenced articles have actually no backing or reliable sources. Two minutes after requesting access to edit, I received the notification of Hypnos questioning my integrity which makes me think that what is being said online is actually true. [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 11:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::incase you want to see what I'm talking about https://www.instagram.com/khalilshreateh/reel/DB1rDyqNjCc/ [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 11:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::DubaiScripter disclosed that they were paid by RayanTarraf's company to edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:DubaiScripter&oldid=806819780], and have created the page [[Rayan Tarraf]] three times. But since they seem to be unaware of this, the account is possibly used by someone else now.
::Regarding Rayan Taraff, I can't go into details due to [[WP:OUTING]], but the pages they created are either related to them or have a promotional tone.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RayanTarraf/sandbox]
::{{tq|Since joining the Mohammad & Obaid AlMulla Group in 2017, Beshara has played a key role in its growth and success.}}
::{{tq|American Hospital Dubai, under Beshara's guidance, has achieved significant healthcare innovations, particularly in the field of robotics and artificial intelligence.}} [[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] ([[User talk:Hypnôs|talk]]) 11:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry but you are assuming too much. Not related, Nor paid. These pages were my attempts at learning on how to create new articles for known companies and figures that are not already on Wikipedia which I obviously failed to do but that certainly doesn't mean I'm paid and the section you quoted about American Hospital CEO is depicted directly from their articles which you can find online. And if you are talking about the option where you choose if you were paid or not for an article that was also a failed try when i was trying to find my way around understanding how this works. So again, no I never got paid nor do I know these people in person.
:::Now the real question is... Why is @[[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] very insistent on diverting from the original issue which is using Wikipedia for Political gain? [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 13:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::DubaiScripter, ''you'' have stated that you are indeed a paid editor, paid by Glimpse Digital Agency. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 13:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yes, as I have mentioned in my previous reply. I had chosen that option in one of my attempts to understand why the article is being rejected but I can confirm that was by mistake. not really paid by anyone. [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 13:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::DubaiScripter, please be exactly specific. What ''exactly'' is your relationship to Rayan Tarraf and to Glimpse Digital Agency? --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 13:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No relationship. This guy made a lecture once were I worked and he inspired me to dig in Wikipedia and see how it works. So I kept trying to write an article about him or his company in order to learn. More like a test subject.
:::::::Even though there was enough articles to support the guy i never managed to get it published. I even tried choosing the option were it says I was paid or even try to create a link to the person or his company but also didn't work.
:::::::anyways I gave up on my Wikipedia skills. Anything else you would like to know? because the focus here should be the Political involvement of some admins.
:::::::Thanks [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 12:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Your first time creating an article on him was before 19 February 2017.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DubaiScripter&oldid=766297345]
::::::::On 6 November 2017 he made an edit to your user page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:DubaiScripter&diff=prev&oldid=808988550]
::::::::If the only relation to him was this one time lecture that inspired to to make an article about him, how did he know your user name and why did he make an edit to your user page months later? [[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] ([[User talk:Hypnôs|talk]]) 18:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Also, please watch this video https://www.instagram.com/khalilshreateh/reel/DB1rDyqNjCc/ which explains exactly why @[[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] is doing this. He is plainly mentioned in there. [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 13:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::You need to stop this - I suggest you read the contentious topic notification on your talk page. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::My last message: Whoever is reading from the esteemed and amazing non-biased Admins... That are obviously more experienced and much better than me. Please check the this issue and don't let misinformation run loose on Wikipedia. https://www.tiktok.com/@zeez870/video/7435060973855116562?q=baalbek%20wikipedia&t=1733319093938 [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 13:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, @[[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] I've noticed that in the talk page your name is mentioned 27 times and that in trying to block the removal of exactly what I came to check. All, I can say is that this issue is blowing up on social channels and it's only reflecting badly on Wikipedia Admins and Wikipedia as a reliable source. I also, noticed that you are only interested in historical pages that are related to the Jewish community which makes me believe that you are biased but again it that's my assumption. I could be wrong [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 13:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::... "this issue is blowing up on social channels"? Really? How about providing us some links to those? You wouldn't happen to be involved in ''pushing'' that, would you? [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 15:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Not pushing anything... I saw this video yesterday broadcasted on TV https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSjvepY85/ and it seems that there was a discussion panel at the university where I teach talking about how Wikipedia is being used for political reasons and everyone was talking about this guy @[[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] on how he is purposely adding fake details to the Baalbek article.
:::::Then I noticed that so many people are reposting the video or duetting it on both TikTok and Instagram. This original link alone has 81K views.
:::::Came in to check it out and unfortunately it was true a fake narrative is being added on to that article. Everyone can see it. And now I even have doubts based on your tone @[[User:Ravenswing|Ravenswing]] that you are either the same person or work together.
:::::I don't want to get involved in all this political nonsense but all I can say is that whoever you guys work for... I don't really care but you are only giving Wikipedia a bad name. People will lose trust in this platform and because of what you are doing, you will end up destroying a very unique heritage sight that has nothing to do with your wars.
:::::No need to answer. I'm out. [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 12:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::OK I think you really need to understand that if you don't cease making personal attacks against Wikipedia editors you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your comportment, so far, indicates you are [[WP:NOTHERE|not interested in collaboratively building an encyclopedia]] as you seem to have joined to act upon a specific grievance against a specific editor. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Sounds like a prime example of [[WP:RWL|Ravenswing's Third Law]] cropping up here: "The vehemence (and repetitiveness) with which an editor states that those who oppose his actions/edits/POV can only have sinister motives for doing so is in inverse proportion to the editor's conformity to (a) relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines; and/or (b) his articlespace edit count." If you really do believe that any editor who fails to agree with you is part of some conspiracy against you, then I agree with Simonm223; you are not fit to edit Wikipedia. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 16:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, this user is clearly [[WP:NOTHERE]]. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 19:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


== Nazmul995, See also sections, and promotion ==
:As he acknowledges he was attracted to the article via the Talk page of Wtshymansk where I had left an [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWtshymanski&type=revision&diff=712765467&oldid=692306759 left]] a 3RR notice, which appears to be on his watchlist as he has [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Andy+Dingley&page=User_talk%3AWtshymanski&server=enwiki&max= commented there many times]; as shortly after I left that comment he came to the article, which '''[https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Andy+Dingley&page=Berylliosis&server=enwiki&max= he had never edited before]''', and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Berylliosis&diff=prev&oldid=712834159 reverted me] and then shortly after that responded to me at W's Talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wtshymanski&diff=next&oldid=712765467 here]. That is blatant HOUNDING and edit warring too, as there was already a section open at the Talk page for discussion.


*{{userlinks|Nazmul995}}
:As I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wtshymanski&diff=next&oldid=712834335 did] at W's talk page, I warned him again on his talk page not to turn Wikipedia into a [[WP:BATTLEFIELD]] and not [[WP:HOUND|follow me around picking fights]]. It is good that he opened this ANI instead of continuing to do so.


Nazmul created their account on November 22 and has racked up 525 edits, of which 16 are deleted - they've created drafts that have been deleted per [[WP:G11]], including a self-promoting userpage. Mostly what they've been doing is adding massive See also sections to Bangladeshi places. Often, the See also section is larger than the article. Yesterday, {{U|Worldbruce}} left a message on their Talk page about the problem. The user not only didn't respond but continued to add See also sections. This morning, I added "Why are you adding massive See also sections to articles? It's disruptive." after Worldbruce's post. The user hasn't responded but instead persists in their agenda. I thought about a short-term block to get their attention, but decided to come here instead to get more input because it's an unusual problem.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 16:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:About the "moron diploma" thing, as I noted on his talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndy_Dingley&type=revision&diff=712918280&oldid=712912048 here] his HOUNDING is frustrating me, and yes I let myself write something snarky. What I ''had'' written was if he accepts the one source from ScribD he should accept the other, but then I removed that (I disowned it - because it is clearly inflammatory and there is no point in going there) and my final comment was [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABerylliosis&type=revision&diff=712896203&oldid=712877512 here]. I removed it <u>before he even reacted to it (I am guessing before he saw it)</u>. His inappropriate comments still stand.
:Nazmul995's most recent edits are adding 10+ "See also" links to every one-sentence "X is a village in Bangladesh" article, like [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bacha_Shah_Nagar&diff=prev&oldid=1261153425 this]. Doing so is unhelpful and against the spirit of [[MOS:LINK]]. I'm guessing from a photo they uploaded, [[:File:Tanvir Mehedi.jpg]], that they may be more accustomed to a hierarchical work environment than a collaborative one. It would be good to have at least one more voice reach out to them and try to persuade them to redirect their energies into something constructive. Many ways to help are linked at [[Wikipedia:Community portal]]. If that doesn't work, it might get their attention and make them consider their edits more carefully if someone in authority blocked them briefly, and mass reverted their "See also" edits. --[[User:Worldbruce|Worldbruce]] ([[User talk:Worldbruce|talk]]) 18:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:At the time of this writing, their last 80 edits (all today) have been to add the same boilerplate list of links to the "See also" section in 80 different village stubs. Their edits have all been to articles beginning with the letter "A" and have been done in alphabetical order of the article names. They seem to be going through an alphabetically sorted list of villages and making the same edit to all of them. I strongly agree that this is not helpful and should be stopped. [[User:CodeTalker|CodeTalker]] ([[User talk:CodeTalker|talk]]) 21:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*They've not only been doing this, they've never edited a talk or user-talk page - and they're making the exact same edit to each page, in alphabetical order, at rapid speed, which is [[WP:MEATBOT|indistinguishable from a bot]]. I've blocked them for 24 hours in hopes that when they next log on they'll be motivated to discuss and have things explained to them. I'll leave it to someone with better tools and more time to revert the mass additions. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I've done a mass rollback of their last 500 edits, which is almost all of their edits. The ones before that were a bit different, or at least different enough that I didn't feel comfortable reverting them.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 23:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Just revoke EC on Namzul if they return. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 04:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*::[[special:diff/1261291500|''Hello.'']] [[User:El_C|El_C]] 09:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Namzul, please refrain from abusing your talk page. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 10:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{re|Ahri Boy}} I don't understand what revoking extended-confirmed will achieve given the nature of the problem, and I don't call what the user posted to their Talk page "abuse".--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 14:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::The Talk page comment strikes me as either someone who does not understand how to communicate in English, or someone who is giving us the verbal equivalent of a hand-waving "I see you, now leave me alone." Neither of which seems productive. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 19:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::Given subsequent messages on [[User talk:Nazmul995]], I think this editor was well-intentioned but they definitely overdid the article additions. Apparently, they are now aware of talk pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)


== Disruption at [[Storrs, Connecticut]] by Jonathanhusky ==
:And about the "two deeply unfavourable media reports" - you can read those yourselves. It is Andy's take that they are "deeply unfavourable". I think I represented WP pretty well in the 2nd one where i had a chance to speak.


For several months several editors have been claiming Storrs, Connecticut should be Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut. It was at ANI several months ago - see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1167#Storrs-Mansfield], which led to the creation of an RfC.
:Going forward I hope to have as little interaction with Andy Dingley as possible: I don't much like the way he evaluates sources nor the way he operates, screwing up articles pursuing me and distorting things in this ANI filing (bringing sources to RSN is "battleground" behavior? no way. It ''is'' true that his position is getting little support there - that happens sometimes). In any case I will expect the same from him, however this ANI comes out. I very much hope that his pursuit of me does not become a recurrent issue. I will not, and have not, pursued him.


The RfC is clearly heading for an oppose, but it has been heavily bludgeoned by {{u|Jonathanhusky}}. For some reason, a merge discussion was initiated part of the way through the RfC - the whole thing is a bit of a mess.
: I am not going to post further here and will accept whatever the community says. Again, I acknowledge I can be harsh but for Andy to follow me to an article and blindly revert, adding back crappy, OFFTOPIC content harms the encyclopedia and he should get dinged for that. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (clarifying redaction made [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC))
:: Does [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Berylliosis&type=revision&diff=712877354&oldid=712844522 this] look like "crappy, OFFTOPIC content" to anyone else? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 22:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:::That is '''not''' the dif under dispute. Again you misrepresent things. Bah. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Berylliosis&diff=prev&oldid=712834159 here] is where you added back in the crappy, OFFTOPIC content. and i should add crappy-because-badly sourced, and crappy-because-carrying-out-an-OFFTOPIC-dispute-''in-the-citations'' content. Even so, in the dif you bring, you show that you added better sources (keeping the crappy ones, ack) but you drill yet deeper into the question being fought out in the citations of the original crappy content. This article is about a disease, and whether or not Beryllium was used in lighting fixtures has nothing ''at all'' to do with the topic. It is not clear to me that you are even aware what the topic is, so focused on your anger at me, are you. said yoda. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


I'm coming here now since today I noticed Jonathanhusky had updated the article in a way that was clearly unsupported by the RfC and marked it as minor: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Storrs%2C_Connecticut&diff=1261269443&oldid=1261268963] After I reverted - and I admit I did revert a bit too much because there were a series of edits, so I just picked the last table version - Jonathanhusky accused me of misusing the tools: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Storrs,_Connecticut&diff=next&oldid=1261269689] Finally, the edit that got me here, which is something I've never seen before - Jonathanhusky marked several strong opposers, including {{noping|Mathglot}}, {{noping|JamesMLane}}, and {{noping|R0paire-wiki}} as "actually supports" in the RfC, while marking the edit as minor, and without signing the comments: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AStorrs%2C_Connecticut&diff=1261271430&oldid=1261082461]
*'''Comment''' Possible [[WP:TROUT|trout]] in response to {{U|Jytdog}}'s initial action(s), boomerang for the filer of this report as frivolous and [[WP:POINT|pointy]] as well as his own [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|obvious battleground behavior]] that escalated things needlessly. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 22:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:: Well [[:Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heidi Cruz MontTXFundraiser Feb 27 2016--two3.jpg|hello]] [[:Commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Civility_and_tone|again]] Wikelvi, fancy meeting you here! [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 22:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


This behaviour, especially the bludgeoning and that last edit, is clearly disruptive/[[WP:OWN]]ership behaviour and there needs to be at the very least a topic ban if not an outright block. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 05:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:Erm ... the RepRap article has had some very obvious problems, and Jytdog pointed them out. Whether you think the Motherboard piece was a good thing or a bad thing very much depends on your approach to content quality. I thought Jytdog did a very good job describing the problems Wikipedia articles like that often suffer from. (See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-23/In_the_media]].) [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 04:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:: He can describe the problems without blanking 80% of an article. It's not ''what'' he does that's the problem it's ''how'' he does it. Other editors shouldn't have to put up with the constant abuse that is Jytdog's seemingly only way of communicating with other people. He is ''not'' the sole custodian of sacred knowledge, but that's how he seems to operate. Blanking the work of others because it's "Garbage content based on garbage sources" is both inaccurate and wholly disrespectful. Other editors do have something to contribute here, not just him.
:: Nor is the result of this a positive improvement in content. What's the point in stripping references that don't meet some arbitrary rule if the content is then simply ''wrong''? The RepRap article said afterwards "the company behind RepRap folded a year ago", which was wrong on both counts and defamatory to the subject. The article on [[acute beryllium poisoning]] is badly confused over the two exposure routes for beryllium and why those two different compounds give rise to two clinically very different conditions. Jytdog is so busy steam-rollering his view of which sources must be deleted that he takes no time to actually understand the topic, and he drives away anyone else who does. This is ''not'' a positive outcome to the project. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 11:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


:I don't have an opinion on the merits of this filing, but it should be noted that Jonathan also [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=1261058526 filed for a third opinion] regarding this article. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Storrs,_Connecticut&diff=prev&oldid=1261082461 procedurally declined] that filing since there were clearly more than two editors involved in the matter already. I don't even know that this is particularly relevant to this ANI filing, but since it crossed my watchlist and since Jonathan is being accused of trying to bludgeon the matter, I figured I should at least note it. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 05:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*For a complaint about [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] behaviour, this filing does seem rather ... [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]-y. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 08:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:That last pretty much counts as "editing another editor's comments" doesn't it? - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
* FFS. Guys, the content looks perfectly acceptable but it does not seem to me to belong in the lede, as it's distinctly niche. Please read [[WP:LAME]], bury the hatchet and move on. We have enough trouble fighting off the nutters without taking lumps out of each other over things where reasonable people might differ. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 11:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
::I reverted their edit where they "interpreted" other editors' "votes" as the opposite of what they said. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:: There is "differ" and there is "delete the lot, edit-war to keep doing it and abuse other editors in the process". Just look at his outright harassment of {{u|CaptainYuge}} over the RepRap page. Look at the shit list of editors he posted to that talk: page of editors that ''he'' had decided were unfit to edit there. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 11:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
{{talk quote block|...have been claiming...}}
It is important to note that this statement is false - the official name of the community is "Storrs-Mansfield" and "Storrs" is only an informal, unofficial version. This has been verified and cited in the talk page discussion - the RFC is and was always started to determine the best way to respect the inclusion of the "common name" ''alongside the official one foremostly.'' Although a page name change (or "page move") was a prior topic, the RFC nor the actual discussion was at any point regarding that.


{{talk quote block|The RfC is clearly heading for an oppose, but it has been heavily bludgeoned by Jonathanhusky.}}
*'''Uninvolved non-admin comment'''
{{talk quote block|...I noticed Jonathanhusky had updated the article in a way that was clearly unsupported by the RfC...}}
** Best case scenario: both users end this discussion and move on to more important things, and the discussion is closed with no further action.
{{talk quote block|Jonathanhusky marked several strong opposers...as "actually supports" in the RfC...}}
** Alternative scenario: one of the two users insist on [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] behaviour by continuing this discussion, in which case I move that user be given a (short) block.
It is not "bludgeoning" to reply to one's comment nor is it disruptive to respond to individual points.
** Worst case scenario: both users continue this pointless back-and-forth, in which case I suggest both be given a (short) block. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 11:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


As can be seen by reading the actual editors' comments referenced, and then furtherly explained in [[Special:GoToComment/c-Jonathanhusky-20241130201500-Trainsandotherthings-20241130144500|a discussion comment]], they actually ''did'' support the proposed edits. The suggested text follows the established and accepted Wikipedia style.
* just fyi, the focus on whether Be was used in lamps and when, has been pursued yet further at the article about this medical condition. The article was very bad ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Berylliosis&oldid=712224459 version] before my edits) and I dramatically improved it, bring it in line with MEDMOS and MEDRS ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Berylliosis&oldid=712506790 version] when i was done). This focus on a TRIVIAL and OFFTOPIC point of content seems to be driven by my participation at the article, so i have unwatched the article. That aspect of this is just a waste of everyone's time and doesn't improve the encyclopedia or the community; quite the opposite; I will leave it to others to maintain the article. That is just about the actual point of content in the article. I understand that Andy is upset with my behavior and of course that can continue to be discussed here. I just want the article content not to get warped as Andy pursues me. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:: You say [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABerylliosis&type=revision&diff=713064255&oldid=713058089 ''" I have no desire to be in this discussion. "''] at Talk: as if that's a ''good'' thing. You're great at [[seagull management]], but you ''refuse'' to work with other editors. This is Wikipedia, not Jytdogpedia, you have to learn to work with other editors.
:: As to the issue of Be in fluorescent tubes, this is significant in the history of berylliosis firstly because it demonstrates the typical risk of berylliosis: this is an ''occupational'' condition, it's not naturally occurring. Secondly this is the exposure context where the hazard was first recognised, and hygiene measures taken to avoid its risk in the future. It belongs here, in any comprehensive or historical coverage of the condition.
:: This issue, and its discussion, is off-topic for an ANI thread but if you insist on treating it as an attack on other editors then it's going to get a response here. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 19:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' Agree with the comment by {{u|Alexbrn}} who aptly stated regarding [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] problems with the filer of this report: ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=712996207 "For a complaint about BATTLEGROUND behaviour, this filing does seem rather ... BATTLEGROUND-y."]'' In addition, {{u|Winkelvi}} is correct by [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=712930181 pointing out] that [[WP:BOOMERANG]] could be applicable here regarding the filer for [[WP:POINT]] disruption. I've looked over the relevant article history and evidence presented above and agree with {{u|Jytdog}} that these comments [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABerylliosis&type=revision&diff=712866210&oldid=712844409 DIFF 1] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABerylliosis&type=revision&diff=712877512&oldid=712869740 DIFF 2] on the talk page are disruptive and harm the community's ability to improve the article. {{u|Jytdog}} should be commended for efforts to improve the site with regards to application of [[WP:MEDMOS]] and [[WP:MEDRS]]. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 22:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:: Cirt, are you ''trying'' to redefine [[WP:INVOLVED]] here? You and Winkelvi are behind the most fatuous and obviously biased deletion I've seen at Commons in years: [[:Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heidi Cruz_MontTXFundraiser Feb 27 2016--two3.jpg]] [[:Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Civility and tone]]. There's a [[:Commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Paulwest_and_Victoria_uploads|thoroughly trivial deletion request at Commons]] that you started, I commented upon, and '''''now''''' you show up here just to cause trouble. Coincidence? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 23:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:::The [[WP:AGF|assumptions of bad faith]] by the filer are remarkable evidence of further [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] behavior, or at the very least, failure to recognize I've already commented in multiple threads on this ANI page in the past 24 hours about many different topics. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 01:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:::: So tell us Cirt, just what ''did'' bring you to an article on this obscure medical condition? You're fooling no-one. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 09:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
===Edit warring and disruption by Andy Dingley===
*'''Update:''' It looks like {{u|Jytdog}} has chosen to disengage himself from the article [[Berylliosis]]. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Berylliosis&diff=713064255&oldid=713058089 ''"unwatching"''])


{{talk quote block|This behaviour, especially the bludgeoning and that last edit, is clearly disruptive/WP:OWNership behaviour...}}
Despite this, unfortunately it appears the filer of this ANI thread has continued the edit-warring, disruption, and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] behavior. When {{u|Jytdog}} left, the filer picked right up edit-warring ''against a different editor''. Some examples of recent disruption:
Incorrect. When users publish multifaceted comments it is not inappropriate to respond to those facets with individual respect toward their points. As a furtherer of the discussion, I am allowed to respond to new evidence, theories and ideas, and able to (as any other user) explain ''why'' I do or don't agree with a comment or the reasoning presented, or asked clarifying questions. In fact, I have tried referencing verified reliable sources and relevant Wikipedia policies to figure out what applies and what doesn't. Not all participants did, and as well, others either repeated storied or irrelevant explanations (perhaps they did not know better) or refused to consider the valid points presented in a reply.


I understand that you have initiated this process, but, this has to be looked at from the perspective of the unanswered questions regarding how to properly and respectfully write about this community (and others like it) on Wikipedia. [[User:Jonathanhusky|Jonathanhusky]] ([[User talk:Jonathanhusky|talk]]) 06:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*10:49, 31 March 2016‎ -- ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Berylliosis&diff=712834159&oldid=712780266 "restore section - there is no contradiction between these two"]''
::It doesn't matter if you interpret their comments/explanations as "they actually ''did'' support". Editing other editors' comments in a discussion, ''especially'' changing their explict, bolded !votes, is a bright line. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 07:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No portion of the editors' original comments were actually removed. This fact needs to be respected.


:::What I did was, solely, ensure that readers knew the honest view of the editors' responses. You say that these were so-called "votes" - in a discussion which is exclusively a discussion, not a call for "votes" - which say "opposed" but their explanations say they don't really oppose the point.
*15:07, 31 March 2016‎ -- ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Berylliosis&diff=712865559&oldid=712844522 "Restore with another ref"]''


:::Then other editors see just the "opposed" but don't actually read or understand the comment, drawing a false conclusion. It is unfair to penalize me for adding clarifying labels. [[User:Jonathanhusky|Jonathanhusky]] ([[User talk:Jonathanhusky|talk]]) 08:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*23:52, 1 April 2016‎ -- ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Berylliosis&diff=713105236&oldid=713104471 "You've been told once already. Undid revision 713104471 by QuackGuru"]''
::::[[User:Jonathanhusky|Jonathanhusky]], it is up to the uninvolved closer to review all of the comments and weigh the arguments when they assess the discussion. You are an involved participant and as Bushranger states, no editor edits other people's comments or "interprets them" by editing them in any way unless they need to hat disruptive content which is not the case here. Just know that if you try this again, you will be facing a block. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::It's not an interpretation when the original editors said it themselves. And, please, stop saying that I've edited anyone else's comment. I didn't, haven't, and don't plan to - What I did was akin to a sticky note on the cover page. It's actually disruptive to say one thing when you mean something else. What I did is not and was not disruptive. [[User:Jonathanhusky|Jonathanhusky]] ([[User talk:Jonathanhusky|talk]]) 08:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::However you choose to interpret what you did (realizing that experienced editors disagree with you), consider yourself warned not to do it again. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{talk quote block|...realizing that experienced editors disagree with you...}}
:::::::Then go to the discussion and see for yourself - for goodness' sake, half of the responses labeled "opposed" aren't about the RFC, they're about a page name change (or "page move"). And you're saying that those ''prima facie'' irrelevant responses aren't invalid?
:::::::You mentioned an {{talk quote inline|uninvolved closer}}. If everyone feels so strongly about the so-called "conclusion" of the discussion, then please start the process to render a decision. Obviously, the editors who have an opinion on the subject have commented and if they actually read and understood the evidence, and participated fairly, you can clearly see that they support the lead paragraph and other changes as suggested. [[User:Jonathanhusky|Jonathanhusky]] ([[User talk:Jonathanhusky|talk]]) 09:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::There's no ''then'' — this is not a negotiation. What you did was sanctionable misconduct, so you can't do that again, full stop. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 09:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::So any comment labeled "opposed" will stand no matter what the editor says, in that very same or other comments in the discussion? Even if they really didn't disagree, or the comment had nothing to do with the topic? [[User:Jonathanhusky|Jonathanhusky]] ([[User talk:Jonathanhusky|talk]]) 09:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes. A closer might deem an argument as weak enough so as to give it little to no weight, but you can't take another's agency away by editing their comment. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 09:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Once again, I did not edit anyone else's comment. The text, data, and material of every other editor's comments and edits were not changed, deleted, or altered.
:::::::::::Stop insinuating and accusing me of something I did not do. Doesn't Wikipedia have policies against [[WP:NOPA|personal attacks]]? [[User:Jonathanhusky|Jonathanhusky]] ([[User talk:Jonathanhusky|talk]]) 09:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I can see the diffs just fine. You do not have the authority to edit inside their comment field. You are not being personally or otherwise attacked, but you do need to step away from this at this point, because it's increasingly coming across as [[WP:BLUDGEON]] and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] conduct, which are in themselves sanctionable. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 09:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{replyto|Jonathanhusky}} I'll put it a different way. Do you think it was in any way acceptable if I had let this edit stand [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1261296706]? Perhaps the formatting is a little different but that's basically what you did. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 09:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]], it appears you did not actually understand the substance of this issue.
:::::::::::::Firstly, since you were logged in and you are not me, it is obvious that such an edit in your example would have been thrown out immediately, automatically considered a target onto the other user, and perhaps result in you getting the first-person wish you typed on your own keyboard. Furthermore, you added something which wasn't suggested or supported in that or any of my other comments.
:::::::::::::If we take a look at the real case here, we have editors who wrote "opposed" even though they didn't mean to. I did not remove any of their original "opposed" labels, nor any of their content. ''This fact needs to be respected''. I placed before them, in a colored superscript italic indicating that it was an added emphasis not a part of their original comment "actually support".
:::::::::::::I then linked to the reply that backs up that claim with "see their comment". It is obvious to any reader that the "sticky note" was and would have been separate from the editor's original comment, but clear (in the link and in the actual text) that the "opposed" would no longer be appropriate.
:::::::::::::Had I removed any portion of their comment, or even not supported the change with linked evidence I could potentially understand the ''concern'', albeit a form of crying wolf. Practically speaking, these were clarifying edits.
:::::::::::::To accuse me of malfeasance and disruption is and was inappropriate and incorrect. [[User:Jonathanhusky|Jonathanhusky]] ([[User talk:Jonathanhusky|talk]]) 09:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}{{u|Jonathanhusky}} is clearly in an "I am not going to listen to anyone else because I am right" mode. Accordingly, I have blocked Jonathanhusky for one month from editing [[Storrs, Connecticut]] and [[Talk: Storrs, Connecticut]]. They can spend that month contributing productively elsewhere and pondering the fact that this is a collaborative project where decisions are made by genuine consensus instead of misrepresentations and pushiness. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 09:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


:If you actually read the discussion, you'll note that I'm actually one of the most willing editors on the platform to consider that my suggestion may be in need of improvement or doesn't fit. I was practically the only person to even attempt to seek out the relevant policies, entries in the manual of style, and precedents. And discussed them based on specific points with other editors. I didn't name call and I didn't push an agenda.
Unfortunately, this now appears to be an ongoing pattern of disruption against multiple editors by the ANI filer. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 02:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:Go back and see that other editors started drawing conclusions and accusing me. Since when, in a discussion, am I not allowed to respond to individual points?

:You called my editing disruptive, which is not true and frankly rude. [[User:Jonathanhusky|Jonathanhusky]] ([[User talk:Jonathanhusky|talk]]) 10:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:* [Note: Jytdog has since [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Berylliosis&diff=713124431&oldid=713091099] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Berylliosis&diff=713124465&oldid=713124431] continued to edit this page [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 14:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)]
::Again, you need to step back from this thread, or face additional sanctions. You do not have an inalienable right to {{tq|''to respond to individual points''}} indefinitely. You are free to disagree, but not misuse ([[WP:BLUDGEON]]) this space further. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 10:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Cirt, please do not remove this note for a third time. You are making a now false statement in defence of Jytdog, who has clearly ''not'' behaved as he promised to. To keep reinstating this claim, against an obvious edit history to the contrary, is to whitewash the behaviour of the subject of this ANI post. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 15:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::(after edit conflict) I just actually read the discussion, and there is no way to interpret those comments other than that this village should first be named as Storrs and then Storrs-Mansfield be given as an alternative name, the opposite way round to the RFC. Being polite does not excuse lying. Frankly, you are lucky that you can still edit here. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 10:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you, for not adding this comment in-between my above comment, as you wrongly did previously, twice, at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=713909708 DIFF 1] and again at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=713915703&oldid=713915645 DIFF 2]. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 15:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} On further thought, I've added ANI to the p-block list (now totaling three pages). Hopefully, this will suffice and we can avoid a sitewide block. <u>Added:</u> what Phil Bridger brings up is concerning. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 10:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Yes. If this person still wishes to edit, they should know that they are standing on the edge of a precipice and should take several steps back. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 10:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Classic content dispute'''. Andy, please stop bringing these content disputes, front-loaded in your OPs with trumped-up unrelated drama, to ANI. This is strictly a content dispute, and resolvable on the article's talk page by discussion, consensus, DR, RFC, whatever it takes. I'm inclined to agree with others that a boomerang is possibly in order because it's the second time in a month or so that you've wasted ANI time on this sort of thing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive915#Trolling_again_from_Hengistmate]. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 14:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::I think that merge discussion can be safely closed. It's going nowhere, and is another example of their disruptive behavior at that article.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 13:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
**Agree with {{u|Softlavender}} about [[WP:BOOMERANG]] here, especially after reading the close summary at the prior ANI thread cited by {{u|Softlavender}}, where admin {{u|Spike Wilbury}} closed it as: ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive915#Trolling_again_from_Hengistmate "Content dispute, primarily. ... These ridiculous threads where content disputes are spilling over into AN/I"]''. These frivolous ANI thread filings by the current ANI filer are a waste of the community's patience and disruptive to the project. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 16:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::Does [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Storrs,_Connecticut&diff=prev&oldid=1261293195 this] edit, made after the ANI was opened, also need to be reverted? [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 16:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*** Hengistmate has been deliberately trolling and socking me for years, and has been repeatedly blocked as a result. That is not a "content dispute" and it was thoroughly deserving of ANI. Nor does it have ''any'' relation to Jytdog's behaviour here.
:::::::I closed the thing. There might be an argument made for merging the two articles in question, and a very simple 'sometimes known as ...' line in there, but better for those to be discussed politely in a separate thread. Also note this change was made over on the simple-english wiki without discussion while this was all going on. [https://simple.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Storrs,_Connecticut&oldid=9924962|Storrs, Connecticut - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia] which I have reverted [[User talk:JeffUK|Jeff<span style="border-style:dashed;border-color:blue; border-width:1px">'''UK'''</span>]] 17:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::: If you are complaining of me edit-warring here (despite Jytdog already being at 4RR), then you know where ANEW is.
{{od}} I've modified the block to be site-wide due to continued edit warring, but reduced the length to two weeks. I think a lot of good faith has been extended to Jonathanhusky, but they're not listening to any of the advice or cautions provided.-- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">'''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 22:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::: Cirt, you are ''only'' here because of a bizarre deletion request you and Winkelvi are involved in at Commons and both of you saw this as a good opportunity to troll me here. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 16:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jonathanhusky&diff=prev&oldid=1261405698] Definitely not listening, and IMHO very likely to resume conduct once the block expires, so best to keep an eye on the various articles when that happens. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::Jonathanhusky originally made identical Storrs-related edits from a variety of IP accounts in September 2024. Best to keep an eye out for logged out editing. Of course, at this point, I think this article on this CT town is on more Watchlists than it was 3 months ago when this dispute all first started. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Pure content dispute''', no clear evidence of edit warring submitted by OP (edit: referring to Andy Dingley). In fact, the claim of "4RR" implies that Jytdog violated 3RR on some article. I don't see what article that is. As of the filing of this complaint, on [[Berylliosis]], Jytdog had only performed 3 non-consecutive edits in the previous 24 hours, and one was not a revert as far as I can tell. The claim of edit warring seems spurious as well, or at least unproven. I concur that a boomerang sanction or admonishment should lie, not only for the ([[WP:AGF|I'll assume]] unintentionally) misleading complaint, but also for the combative stream of responses in this thread. This is a massive waste of time. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 17:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jonathanhusky&diff=prev&oldid=1261562047 Doesn't look promising]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Mendaliv}}I thought the term "edit warring" and "disruption" meant any type of edit warring, not only solely 3RR itself. Surely there is ongoing disruption at the article by the original ANI filer. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 17:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
::Oh, sorry, where I said OP I was referring to Andy Dingley's OP in the top section. Perhaps I should have made my comment up there rather than down here. I've added a clarifier. Anyway, I agree that there's actually ongoing disruption at Berylliosis by Andy Dingley, as you've shown above Cirt. I think that taken with Andy's conduct in the original thread here, some sanction is merited. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 17:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:::And now that [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=713214165 Andy has retroactively amended his initial posting] to include diffs of a supposed "4RR edit war", we can see that there's a greater than 24 hour gap in the claimed reverts. While the term "4RR" is meaningless (there is no four revert rule), terms like that are almost exclusively used to refer to a violation of 3RR involving more reverts (actually 4RR shouldn't be used at all since a 3RR violation necessarily involves 4 reverts). Someone making four non-consecutive reverts in a 72 hour period hasn't violated 3RR. If Andy intends to prove that those four reverts add up to an edit war, I think we're going to need more than that. Worst case, Jytdog should be told to be careful not to violate 3RR, and that edit warring can be called in the absence of a 3RR violation. I'm more concerned with Andy Dingley's conduct. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 18:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:::: When you complain over a lack of diffs, don't then call to block someone when they give you those diffs! 3RR/24 is a "bright line" for edit-warring. As any of ANEW will inform you though, this is not the ''only'' indication of edit-warring. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 18:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::Don't say 4RR when you don't intend to mean the person has violated 3RR, then. The second "R" in 3RR means "rule". When you say 4RR you're implying a rule was broken. I don't see it. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 18:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

* Andy Dingley has now followed me to yet another article and his intent to [[WP:HOUND]] is clear - here is where he [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Crowdfunding&curid=48505834&diff=713230988&oldid=713212362 reverted me], and again restoring badly/unsourced sourced content (this time what was sourced, was sourced to Investopedia). '''I am now requesting a 48 hour block to prevent further disruption and a 1-way interaction ban for Andy with regard to me.''' [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 00:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:: "Followed"? To an article I edited months ago? Don't flatter yourself.
:: There is no justification in using a valid complaint against a source to start blanking whole paragraphs as well, when they contain simply sourceable, uncontroversial content for which there are abundant other sources.
:: And what's your excuse for this edit? [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wyeth&diff=prev&oldid=713213896] Sheer carelessness. Which you insisted on doing '''''[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wyeth&diff=713099035&oldid=713057916 twice]''''', even when reverted by another editor. You are too blinkered by your desire to Right Great Wrongs to even pay attention to what you're doing. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 00:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
::::I have apparently become your "great wrong" to right. I believe you will be blocked and will face an i-ban for hounding me, but we will see. You are continually bringing unclean hands with your editing decisions here; your edits are clearly POINTy and about me, and not about high-quality content in WP. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 00:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
::::: You're very good at assigning all sorts of motives to other editors. This was a question about your ''edits'' here. Why was your (seriously wrong) edit so important that you had to do it twice, over another editor? Have you even looked at what you did here? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 00:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

*Angry or not, it is remarkable how often Jytdog is mentioned on this page due to battleground issues. To the point that he even had a ArbCom-case and a indefinite topic ban on his head... <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 00:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
::Just like Andy Dingley has his "fans", I have mine. Yep. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 00:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

*'''Support 1 week or 1 month one-way interaction ban''': Andy needs to be encouraged to work on something else. I think a short-term interaction ban will do that. If he comes off it and goes right back to pestering Jytdog with spurious nonsense like this, we can talk about something longer term. I'm just not a fan of indef editing restrictions out the gate, and would rather not block a long-term editor when there's another way to convey the message to "Do something else". —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 00:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:: A "one way" ban? Why? So that Jytdog can keep awarding me [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Berylliosis&diff=prev&oldid=712892011 "Moron Diplomas"]? So that he can describe adding needed sources as [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Berylliosis&type=revision&diff=712877354&oldid=712844522 "crappy, OFFTOPIC content"]? Or just so that he can keep describing other editors' work as [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Berylliosis&oldid=712896203#Garbage_content_based_on_garbage_sources "Garbage content based on garbage sources"] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Berylliosis&diff=712562412&oldid=712560694 "demeaning to WP"]? And this is all from [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=713267196&oldid=713267011 "Mr Clean Hands"]? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 00:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:::If Jytdog starts poking the beehive once a restriction is in place, then we can talk. If there's support for it instead, though, I could see a temp two-way interaction ban. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 00:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
::::I can live with the try-a-short-term remedy approach. I do not pursue Andy; this has not happened and you will not see it. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 01:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support 1 week or 1 month one-way interaction ban''': Agree with {{u|Mendaliv}}, especially ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=713268166&oldid=713267527 "If he comes off it and goes right back to pestering Jytdog with spurious nonsense like this, we can talk about something longer term."]'' This disturbing behavior pattern, now across multiple articles against {{u|Jytdog}}, has gone on long enough. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 04:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I just reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wyeth&diff=prev&oldid=713213896 this above mentioned edit] by Jytdog. I have not scrutined the history of Jytdog nor read the whole discussion above nor looked at the Beryllium dispute, and I am pretty sure they were in good faith when they made the edit.... but if I should judge their contributions on the basis of this sole edit, I should conclude they are a vandal, or at best that they [[Wikipedia:Competence is required|have not the competence to edit Wikipedia]]. They actually blindly removed TWICE all the categories, the Commons template, the "Pharmaceutical companies of the United States" navigation box (in which the relevant article was actually linked), the portal templates, the official website. They were removed with edit summaries saying they are spam while none of these are spam. The supposed <small>(a couple of them seems ultimately acceptable to me)</small> spammy external links had been already hidden using the <nowiki><!-- --></nowiki> template. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 07:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
::Thanks for that fix. Yes I didn't catch that my removal of the [[WP:ELNO]]-violating external links included the cats and navbox. Thanks for catching that. Another user [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wyeth&diff=next&oldid=713310766 removed those ELs] after you reverted me. Again, my bad on the cat/navbox removals. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 20:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support 1 month one-way interaction ban''' per Medaliv and Cirt. Not much use in making it only 1 week at this point. And keeping open the possibility of revisiting. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:: Why? I haven't insinuated that Jytdog is a moron or garbage, as they have. I'm not the one making 4RR edits, or pushed repeated edits that another uninvolved editor has compared to a vandal or a CIR case.
:: Cirt is the one calling for an interaction ban, and they're (like Winkelvi) only popping up unannounced because I called them both out over [[:Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heidi Cruz MontTXFundraiser Feb 27 2016--two3.jpg|a bogus deletion request at Commons]]. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 23:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} The short answer is because you seem to be refusing to [[WP:STICK|drop the stick]] here. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::: Which stick is that? I've had a stream of abuse from Jytdog and I'm entitled to respond to it. Have I edited the Berylliosis article since? Have you seen my edits since with QuackGuru? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 23:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
*Agree with {{u|Tryptofish}} here, 1 month one-way interaction ban at this point is probably better than one week, could always revisit at a later point in time. Thank you, {{u|Tryptofish}}, much appreciated, &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 23:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:: So what ''does'' bring you here, Cirt, if it's not your push to delete at Commons? I know Winkelvi already happened to be on the carpet at ANI over his behaviour in trying to delete the whole article. You're staying awfully quiet on this. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 23:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Already answered, above. I echo {{u|Tryptofish}} at this point, please [[WP:STICK|drop the stick]] here. Thank you ever so much, &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 23:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::: Quoting scary ALLCAPS is no substitute for answering the question. Go on, why are you and Winkelvi here at all if it's ''not'' just simple retaliation against another editor who challenged your behaviour at Commons. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 23:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::It is retaliation. They were not involved until you disagreed with them concerning the Heidi Cruz picture above. They should just move along and let unbiased editors work out the issues with Jytdog. It is shameful the way that Admin Cirt is retaliating against your on the spot comments at Commons. Cirt is an admin and he should know better.--[[User:MaverickLittle|ML]] ([[User talk:MaverickLittle|talk]]) 23:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::Nope. Wrong. I'd already commented in multiple locations on this ANI page in numerous different threads before this one. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 23:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

* Andy you have stopped pursuing me out there in the 'pedia and I am grateful for that. And I have heard your concern here about my harshness. I have. If you would agree to let this go, this thread can just be closed or allowed to drift into the archive, and that will be that. I hope you will agree. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 05:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
**I must say that it's incredibly surprising how many [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] complaints there are about Jytdog here. Almost every time I check this noticeboard, in fact. — [[User:Omni Flames|<span style="color:blue; font-family:Segoe UI;">Omni Flames</span>]] ([[User_talk:Omni Flames|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Omni Flames|<span style="color:purple">contribs</span>]]) 07:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
***If one develops a bit of a reputation, or if others see a complaint, then it is certainly possible that they can just play "follow the leader." Smoke often ''indicates'' fire, but isn't really ''proof'' of it. Jytdog deals in a number of truly contentious topics, and as a result faces a lot of criticism. It isn't unreasonable to see someone who themselves is a frequent target of others to develop a bit of a battleground view if they see that others are to an extent engaged in battleground behavior toward them. Yeah, I've had some fairly strong disagreements with him myself, whether he remembers them or not, and I can see that maybe he is a bit too "quick on the trigger" once in a while. In at least some of the topics he edits in, several other editors don't get reported here, but taken to AE to be dealt with there, sometimes rather severely. That doesn't seem to be the case here, thankfully. Personally, I don't see a lot to be done here myself, other than maybe application of a [[WP:TROUT]] or smaller fish to one or more individuals, and hope that such a light reprimand might be found acceptable. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 21:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

=== Further harassment by Jytdog using SPI ===
Far from disengaging or ''"this thread can just be closed or allowed to drift into the archive, and that will be that."'', Jytdog has now proceeded to open a deliberately harassing SPI: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley]] on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

This is not a new tactic for Jytdog. He did it to {{u|CaptainYuge}} a few weeks ago. In that case he also refused to accept the decision of the SPI and continued to harrass and insult the presumed innocent Yuge: [[User talk:Jytdog#Final warning for edit warring]] Although in that same thread he says he wouldn't try it on me! Mind you, given his other statements of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABerylliosis&type=revision&diff=713064255&oldid=713058089 ''":I am unwatching this article. I have no desire to be in this discussion."''] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=713270916&oldid=713270108 ''" I do not pursue Andy; this has not happened and you will not see it."''] and their retrospective lack of accuracy, we can't place too much faith in any such statement.

Baseless accusations of socking with no other purpose are considered to be a form of harassment.

Just above, Mendaliv refers to the possibility of, ''"If Jytdog starts poking the beehive"''. I consider this beehive thoroughly poked. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 14:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''NOTE:''' Most certainly NOT "baseless accusations". Valid evidence presented by {{u|Jytdog}} at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley]]. ---> Already led to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AMilligansuncle one block on a sock account] by admin {{user|JzG}}. The evidence presented by Jytdog was compelling enough to lead admin JzG to block and in the block log note: ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AMilligansuncle "A sock of someone, it doesn't matter much who."]''. Therefore, Jytdog was correct to file the sock investigation, as it was borne out by the admin action by JzG. Further investigation is needed. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 14:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
: If Jytdog has suspicions about ''one'' editor, there are acceptable channels to deal with that. These do not involve raising baseless SPIs on ''other'' uninvolved editors, especially not those editors with whom Jytdog is already deeply [[WP:INVOLVED]]. False accusations of socking breach NPA and this is not the first time that Jytdog has used this method. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 14:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::The accusations by Jytdog are valid and led to a block by {{user|JzG}}. Therefore they were not baseless. [[WP:INVOLVED]] links to [[Wikipedia:Administrators]]. Jytdog is not an administrator, last time I checked. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 14:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::: "The block was good because it was a block." [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 14:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Not sure why you are using quotation marks here in a misleading manner. I never said that. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 14:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::::: You said, literally, "Therefore". Implying that their baselessness was refuted because they had already been acted upon. This is an obvious logical fallacy. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 15:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::It is reasonable to say that something which is acted upon is not baseless, unless one wishes to imply that the person acting upon it is acting perhaps irrationally. The question is whether Andy is reasonably the sockpuppet master here. I tend to very much doubt that is the case myself, but there are and/or have been cases of editors who seem to be working together which are all but indistinguishable in some cases from sockpuppets. The only way one can know whether an SPI concern is valid is through filing one, ultimately, and, while it might conceivably if done too frequently be seen as an abuse of that procedure, it is at best a very long stretch in at least my eyes to say that a single instance of filing an SPI which is found to be actionable in some way necessarily qualifies primarily as a personal attack on the person perhaps falsely named as the sockmaster. Jytdog can at times be a bit overenthusiastic in some areas, and it may be that in this case the party named is not the sockpuppeteer. But there are conceivably sockpuppets of meatpuppets, or other forms of off-wiki coordination (none of which I suspect here either). There are also, sometimes, simply, old troublemakers coming back at an unfortunate time. The request seems to have been a reasonable one, even if the individual named probably isn't the real sock master, and I can't criticize anyone for basically finding an obvious sock, even if they get the identity of the sockpuppeteer wrong. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 16:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you, {{user|John Carter}}, I agree that the SPI investigation was warranted, and it is certainly possible the case page name may be changed by the end of it, but there was at least one sock blocked by an admin so far. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 16:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::::{{reply to|Cirt}} There was a sock blocked by an admin based on behavioral evidence. After the fact, technical evidence proved the account were unrelated. That block should've been overturned unless the account could be tied to a different master.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 19:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Read the block log note by {{user|JzG}}. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 19:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::: You mean, ''"Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. A sock of someone, it doesn't matter much who."''
:::::::::: For NOTHERE, that's a hell of a judgement to make for an editor who has made ''one'' article space edit, one to the talk: page and two to a user talk:. We can't get ''real'' vandals blocked in that time, let alone indeffed.
:::::::::: As a sock, then ''"it doesn't matter much who."'' is shorthand for "indef block from an unproven suspicion" (and in this case, a ''disproved'' suspicion). We have, or used to have, some policies that said admins couldn't make arbitrary blocks on their own whim, there had to be some process first. For socking it is SPI. In this case they were blocked ''during'' the SPI (Why? What was the urgency for an editor with only one article edit?) and an SPI that then cleared them of being the claimed sock. Yet you are still defending this indef block. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 19:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
* just a quick note here; i was not happy filing that SPI and I hope it isn't Andy. As I noted in the filing, the behavior of the new account was just too weird. I'll note here is somebody at 62.255.240.157 (a library in the UK) stirring the pot: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Andy_Dingley&diff=prev&oldid=713886221 dif], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Dingley&diff=prev&oldid=713890310 dif], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Conzar&curid=50002698&diff=713890530&oldid=713739411 dif]. The now-blocked Milligansuncle? This is all just weird but I clearly have a new hater. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::SPI was just [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FAndy_Dingley&type=revision&diff=713944038&oldid=713924422 closed]. I have a bad feeling about all this; the person editing from the library obviously understands how to avoid CU etc. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::: The SPI was closed. But half an hour later you're ''still'' insinuating that {{u|62.255.240.157}} is someone's sock (presumably mine!). You also seem to know that it's "a library in the UK", but how you might know such a thing is beyond me.
::: You [[User talk:Jytdog#Final warning for edit warring|did this over CaptainYuge too]]. Opening an SPI is one thing, but to ''continue'' to insinuate that someone is a sock and the SPI was just wrong not to notice this is harassment. It's also a very convenient reversal of your position over the block of {{u|Milligansuncle}}: when your enemies are blocked arbitrarily, that's "proof". When an SPI concludes against socking though, that's because the SPI must have been wrong, compared to your magic library finding powers. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 19:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}
{{od}}
: Having looked through the recent bits on his talk page, the constant [[WP:WIKILAWYERING|wikilawering]], [[WP:IDHT|refusal to listen]], and [[WP:STICK|refusal to accept]] that he could have in ''any'' way be wrong, combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works (with it being implicitly stated that he'll resume the exact same behavior that got him blocked when the block expired) leads me to believe that an indef now would be not uncalled for. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
The block of {{userlinks|Milligansuncle}} was based primarily on [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Conzar&diff=prev&oldid=713600071] taken in the context of the totality of the user's edits. I don't give a damn whose sock it is, it's not a new user and definitely not here to help. That kind of JAQing off we can do without. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:Anyone reading the IP's talk page will read that it is a library. And WHOIS says Reading Borough Council (Library Project). [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 19:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::Agreed 100%. The user's recent lengthy post on his talkpage (in response to your suggestion above) pretty much proves your point. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 05:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:: If the RIPE is correct, then maybe. The talk page comment is 7 years old though. Looking at the route, it looks (IMHO) much more like a general Virgin retail ISP for South Yorkshire. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 20:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
* Jytdog, [[when did you stop beating your wife?]] Your comments [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AConzar&type=revision&diff=713955707&oldid=713955300 here], ''"An SPI itself is just an investigation; a question."'' show that you ''still'', even after this, have no understanding of SPI. As the edit notice on the SPI page itself states, ''"Do not make accusations without providing evidence. Doing so is a personal attack and will likely be summarily removed."'' This is not merely a "question", an SPI is a strong insinuation that someone is guilty of an offence with a summary ban. You do not throw such things around lightly. You certainly do not do them in the middle of an ANI thread where the subject of your accusation has shown evidence of your abusive and harassing behaviour.
: Why, in all this, do you feel the need to apologise to Conzar, but not me? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 19:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::Conzar is new to WP and doesn't understand how things work here, and if you read what i actually wrote to them, you will see that i didn't apologize. I explained. You are more experienced and usually sane; if you look at the evidence I presented at the SPI and especially the way I presented it, you will see how strange the behavior of the account has been, and how it weirdly pointed to you. And you will see neither glee nor anger in my filing, but puzzlement seeking answers. It is SP'''I''' and not SP'''A''' ( as in "accusation"). You call it "fatuous" below and cite the instructions above. You have been around long enough to know that a CU would not have been done at SPI if I hadn't brought enough evidence to justify that; I did and it was. You are so angry that you are warping things left and right, and that isn't helping you convince anyone and you put yourself at risk for community action the more you keep pushing this way. You are on a warpath and you should get off it, Andy. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::I want to add here that when i wrote the SPI I considered writing: "it may be that this is a really sophisticated sock that wanted me to believe it was Andy (the edit at [[Calvert's Engine]] being just a bit too blatantly perfect a "tell") and who ever it is may laugh their asses off after i post this, and will surely laugh harder at how angry it will make Andy, especially if the sockmaster turns out not to be Andy (which would not surprise me)." I didn't write that because it is too conspiratorial sounding and i really wanted the CU done, but it is seeming less unlikely now, especially given the behavior of the 65 IP address subsequent to the SPI filing, which just stirred the pot yet further. anyway, that is the "pot-stirring set-up" theory behind that sock ...[[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::: Jytdog, DO NOT describe other editors - any other editors - as "usually sane", with the obvious implication that they're currently ''in''sane.
::: I put ''myself'' at risk of community action? When did I describe ''you'' as a moron? When did I file an SPI against you? Especially not one so unconvincing that you describe it yourself as "strange" and "weird".
::: Stop these attacks. You have gone on long enough. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 22:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Andy I wish you would calm yourself. I said above that I don't want to interact with you, and I don't. You have asked me direct questions twice now. I answered the first, and I will answer the second, and then no more. The SPI had enough evidence that a CU was performed. I didn't file the SPI gleefully nor angrily. I didn't distort anything. And I didn't actually call you a moron and even after I wrote that you should accept the "moron certificate" (as a valid source) in the same way you accepted the other as a valid source, i ''removed that'' and acknowledged it was inflammatory, and you keep writing as though I am defending it or even left it in place. I'm not.
::::You are not acting rationally here; you are distorting and attacking and attacking - like just in this exchange, describing an SPI that was solid enough to get a CU as "fatuous" or as somehow invalid, and saying that i outright called you a "moron" or "garbage".
::::On top of that, you keep pushing for ... something... and lashing out, but whatever it is that you want is not happening. The only sanctions under discussion have been a one-way iban on you, and ''possibly'' a mutual one. That's it.
::::As I have said before, it doesn't seem that my interacting with you is productive at all - so I will go back to trying to avoid you.
::::I'll end by repeating what I wrote above; the best thing all around would just be to let his go. I do understand your original objection. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 03:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*I've read the SPI, and although it looks like most or all of the combatants are physically separated from one another, it also looks like there are an awful lot of people in diverse places who are looking to hound Jytdog. With respect to the ANI discussion here, it sure looks to me like an interaction ban is overdue. I'm not sure whether it should be one-way, per the subsection above, or two-way. But I think the goal here needs to be to get as much disengagement as we can. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:: There's no need for any sort of ban on him, I just want him to stop filing fatuous SPIs against me. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 20:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


===Current use of Storrs-Mansfield===
* further to the pot-stirring theory, [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jytdog/Archive#06_April_2016|this SPI]] was filed claiming that Cirt and I are one person based on this thread. The filer of that is apparently watching this with some glee. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
{{hat|1=Unnecessary aside hatted for the sake of EEng's stomach - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)<br>My stomach thanks you. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]]}}
**About the filer of that SPI: I looked at the SPI, and there is something that I would like admins to take a second look at there. After the SPI was closed with no action (and, indeed, it is patently ridiculous), but before it was archived, another editor posted a note there, saying that the filer is a sock of another account, that has been indeffed for other instances of socking, but there is no explanation of the connection in this case. (Not related in any way to Andy, please let me make clear.) I don't know what to make of that, but given the clearly disruptive intention of the filing, it seems likely that something is going on there, and it merits a second look. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
As of this moment, there are exactly two uses of Storrs-Mansfield in mainspace, one in [[Storrs, Connecticut]] and one in [[Mansfield, Connecticut]], both the title of the 674 Bus-line used as a reference in regards to public transportation.[[User:Naraht|Naraht]] ([[User talk:Naraht|talk]]) 20:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:(a) How does this bear on this complaint? (b) If I hear the words "Storrs" or "Mansfield" one more time, I'm gonna vomit. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 22:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}


== Disruptive editing from Guillaume de la Mouette ==
== 178.217.194.100's long-term edit warring and continued addition of unsourced statistics ==


Involved: {{userlinks|Guillaume de la Mouette}}
Last year, {{u|Jolly Janner}} and I repeatedly tried to explain to {{IPuser|178.217.194.100}} at [[User talk:178.217.194.100]] the need to source additions of statistics to demography articles. The editor largely ignored our advice, and engaged in edit warring. As well as adding statistics without sources, their additions are often [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_Uganda&diff=prev&oldid=692381956 poorly formatted], they have ignored repeated advice about the correct use of commas for thousand separators and full stops for decimal points, and the edits are likely in violation of [[WP:NOTSTATSBOOK]]. I noticed today that the editor has resumed their behaviour, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_France&diff=prev&oldid=711427730 restoring] unsourced material that was recently [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_France&diff=709698400&oldid=709655022 removed] from the [[Demographics of France]] article and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Demography_of_England&diff=712991421&oldid=705116458 re-adding] statistics about England and Wales to [[Demography of England]] that were previously removed. I think that enough is enough and some action needs to be taken to stop this disruptive behaviour. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 07:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
<br>
:I would like to see a block at this point. I originally had hoped the user had gone quiet, because they had decided to turn away from Wikipedia, but it's clear this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. The scale of the edits is huge (the user also edits under different IPs), which means the work require to revert them is huge. It's a shame, since the user obviously has the potential to make useful edits. In light of their inability to listen, a block is what I see as the only option. I don't ever recall seeing them make an edit that ''wasn't'' reverted? '''<font color="#00824A">[[User:Jolly Janner|Jolly]]</font> <font color="#2A5FFF">[[Special:Contributions/Jolly Janner|Ω]]</font> <font color="#00824A">[[User talk:Jolly Janner|Janner]]</font>''' 07:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
So I was looking through [[Special:NewFiles]] to make sure my tornado images went through, and I came across [[:File:1983 John (Jack) Thornton.jpg]], which is missing all information. Then, I came across [[Thornton's Bookshop]], where the following text was added by the user (feel free to remove it with "copyvio removed" if this is a copyright violation, my Earwig isn't working), which was reverted by me and instantly re-added:
::I can almost forgive the edit warring - the IP editor clearly believes that these highly detailed statistical tables are useful additions - but they stubbornly refuse to listen to [[User_talk:178.217.194.100#Decimal_points|advice about correct formatting]], suggesting that they are not really here to build an encyclopedia but rather to bludgeon away according to their own rules. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 08:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


{{tq|The founders and rules of the British Empire took the fame of Oxford to the far corners of the earth. Many of them were, of course, educated at Oxford; they ate Oxford marmalade for breakfast; in the twilight of Empire a few of them even relaxed in Oxford bags. Yet the name o£ Oxford is known to millions throughout the world not because of trousers, or marmalade, or even scholarship, but because they have received their education from books supplied by Oxford booksellers. Oxford, a city which had a well-established book trade; the makers of medieval books - the scribes, limners, illuminators, and binders - and their sellers clustered around St Mary's and in Catte Street, near the Schools which stood on the site now occupied by the Bodleian. Their customers were the men of the University, but the invention of printing wrought a revolution in the availability of books and in the ability to read them. It was not, however, the printers themselves, but the booksellers, who were the key figures in the dissemination of this vast new literature. The learned booksellers of Oxford were soon adapting themselves to new ways. John Dorne had a shop near St Mary's in the 1520s from which he sold a great variety of books: the old learning was represented by Peter Lombard, and the new by Erasmus; but amongst the learned folios Dorne also stocked school textbooks, ballads, sheet almanacs, and the astrological prognostications which our ancestors loved. Each year he had a stall at St. Frideswide’s Fair and at Austin Fair which provided valuable additional income. Dorne, and, no doubt, his contemporaries about whom little or nothing is known, had begun to bridge the gap between town and gown, supplying the needs and tastes of both. Outside the city there were no printers but there were books and men who sold them. As early as 1604 we know of a stationer in Charlbury. Stationers normally had a few ballads and Bibles on their shelves and from The original site of the bookshop in Magdalen street c. 1860 near the Oxford Memorial and the Randolph hotel them country bookshops developed. By 1800, all the major towns in Oxfordshire had a tradesman who was, at least in name a bookseller. Most of them are shadowy. Only accidental survivals, like the little Holloway cache rescued by Johnson, or the much larger Cheney archives, can add flesh to the bare bones of names and dates. We can, however, argue by analogy with similar survivals elsewhere in England. Such analogies suggest that there were few towns of any size in which there was not a bookshop able to supply the needs of the locality. In Oxfordshire, as elsewhere the book trade was essentially distributive, and the similarity between the trade in Oxfordshire and that elsewhere emphasises the point that Oxford itself is not only not the whole story but is rather a deviation from it. The learned men of Oxford made the city a major centre of learned publishing; but beyond the walls the county pursued a quiet and uneventful existence in which the book trade was one of many which catered to its modest needs.}}
*My recommendation would be a fairly long block '''and''' a six-month topic ban on stats charts. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 09:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
*It would be great to get input and/or action from some administrators on this. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 12:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
*This issue [[User_talk:178.217.194.100#April_2016|appears to still be ongoing]]. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 09:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' Agree with recommendation by {{u|Softlavender}} for a long block and topic ban on the IP user, who unfortunately seems unwilling or willfully ignoring requests to engage in further discussion about the matter. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 00:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


Is this still a problem? I see a comment from the IP editor acknowledging a problem with their editing and recent edits try to provide a source, although the formatting isn't ideal. <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 13:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
This is comlete cruft and promotional, and this user has a clear-cut COI, as seen [[:File:2002 Scharlie Meeuws and John Thaw's chair during the filming of the Remorseful Day.jpg|here]]. I think administrator intervention is needed, as they've been reverting Filedelinkerbot, me, and don't seem to listen to warnings on their talk page. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 16:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*The IP has [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:178.217.194.100&diff=prev&oldid=713070473 commented] that they won't edit UK demography articles any more, but that's not really acknowledging the problem, which concerns their insistence on ignoring [[WP:NOTSTATSBOOK]] at a whole range of articles. Edits such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_Tajikistan&diff=prev&oldid=713880109 this] suggest that they also haven't taken on board messages about the need for proper referencing, as the URL linked to is just a menu page. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 15:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
*More of this [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_Algeria&type=revision&diff=714091123&oldid=714046229 today]. Quite why [[Demographics of Algeria]] needs population pyramids for 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2014 is unclear. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 16:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*The IP has made lots more similar additions tonight, including [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_Algeria&diff=714095158&oldid=714094582 reinstating] that material at [[Demographics of Algeria]] after {{u|Jolly Janner}} reverted the additions I linked to above. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 20:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:*He seems to have acquired a fetish for raw survey data used to calculate population pyramids. I suggest all of them be removed. Only the population pyramid itself would be useful in an encyclopedia. I've suggested a possible workaround to it on his talk page. In the meantime, we will have to remove all the survey data from our articles. I would still welcome a block, since we've previously advised workarounds, but the user doesn't listen. I don't hold much hope on this occasion either. '''<font color="#00824A">[[User:Jolly Janner|Jolly]]</font> <font color="#2A5FFF">[[Special:Contributions/Jolly Janner|Ω]]</font> <font color="#00824A">[[User talk:Jolly Janner|Janner]]</font>''' 21:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::Can someone '''please''' block this user soon? Another round of disruptive edits today after ignoring my alternative on their talk page. I've cleaned up some pages, but it takes a long time to revert them all. As they admitted, they are trying to add it to every country. '''<font color="#00824A">[[User:Jolly Janner|Jolly]]</font> <font color="#2A5FFF">[[Special:Contributions/Jolly Janner|Ω]]</font> <font color="#00824A">[[User talk:Jolly Janner|Janner]]</font>''' 19:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


:I wonder if this person knows what this is all about. It's an introduction to the history of the book trade in Oxford [[User:Guillaume de la Mouette|Guillaume de la Mouette]] ([[User talk:Guillaume de la Mouette|talk]]) 16:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
== James J. Lambden is wikistalking me. ==
::An article about a particular bookshop is not the place for an article about the poorly sourced [[Draft:History of the book trade in Oxford]]. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] (solidly non-human), [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq (talk)]], [[Special:Contributions/CambridgeBayWeather|Huliva]] 16:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:Agreed that this situation is problematic. The SPA user's extensive edits to that article are also entirely unsourced. I have reverted the article to the position before they started their spree (which seems to include a large IP edit in 19th Nov). [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 16:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have a very extensive archive of the bookshop, this goes back to about 1840. I am currently writing the history of 5 generations of booksellers in this, Oxford's oldest bookshop. I have just over 280 photographs, documents, letters etc just for the period 1835 - 1983. Of these I choose a few for Wikipedia. It is of course also strange that I keep on having to confirm copyright for photographs we, my wife and I took between 1983 and 2023. I added an introduction to the history of the book trade in Oxford till Thornton's opened in 1835 which you have now deleted and I now find that the site is back to the old one before I worked on this for days on end. It's simplistic. [[User:Guillaume de la Mouette|Guillaume de la Mouette]] ([[User talk:Guillaume de la Mouette|talk]]) 16:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Be that as it may, material added to Wikipedia articles must be properly cited to published sources and must be written in neutral encyclopaedic language. It also must not include large blocks of text taken from other sources. See [[WP:RS]], [[WP:V]], [[WP:NPOV]], and [[WP:COPYVIO]] for further details on the relevant policies. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 16:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I wrote the introduction myself, after all I have been a bookseller for more than 60 years. I let the previous generations speak about the history of the firm. But I realise that you allow AI to review all of this. a pity. [[User:Guillaume de la Mouette|Guillaume de la Mouette]] ([[User talk:Guillaume de la Mouette|talk]]) 16:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I've been tracking and watching storms for about 3 years now. Does that mean that I'm an "expert"? No! Please don't [[WP:BADFAITH|assume bad faith]], as there are some serious NPOV issues here and we aren't "AI generated". [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 16:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm not sure what AI has to do with this. Would you mind expanding?
:::::Please also note that Wikipedia is no place for original research as per [[WP:OR]]. If you have researched the subject, the appropriate place to publish that research is in book form (or similar) not on Wikipedia (which simply reports what other already published sources say). [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 16:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yes, and I was in the legal field for over thirty years before my retirement, and that doesn't mean I get to override Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and the consensus of other editors to jam in whatever meandering prose I want. You would be well advised to pay attention to Axad12's counsel, as well as reviewing the links at [[WP:PILLAR]] before editing further. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 16:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I wrote the introduction myself, after all I have been a bookseller for more than 60 years. I let the previous generations speak about the history of the firm. But I realise that you allow AI to review all of this. a pity. [[User:Guillaume de la Mouette|Guillaume de la Mouette]] ([[User talk:Guillaume de la Mouette|talk]]) 17:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::What is your (mis)understanding of the role of AI here? The reason your work has been reverted has been stated very clearly above. The need to revert you was observed and agreed by human beings alone (all of whom who have seen your work appear to oppose it). [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 17:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Axad12}} They're now trying to re-add the info "secretly" under an IP ([[User:2A02:8012:B5B2:0:421:7B31:2D08:281E|2A02:8012:B5B2:0:421:7B31:2D08:281E]]). I think block is in order? [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 16:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::This situation is rather sad, it would have been a lot more constructive if they had had a look at the policies I had pointed them to rather than starting to edit war while logged out.
::I suppose it's up to them whether they want to be a useful contributor within the bounds of the relevant policies and guidelines, or someone who got blocked for edit warring.
::Guillaume, I would seriously suggest that you opt for the former course. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 17:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::thanks, I'll give up, a pity you are happy with an inferior description which fortunately I have saved and will be part of my Faringdon chronicle volume 5 to be housed in both the Bodleian library and the central Historical archive in Oxford. And by the way, the above I am he not they. :) Yes I still need to correct the introduction. [[User:Guillaume de la Mouette|Guillaume de la Mouette]] ([[User talk:Guillaume de la Mouette|talk]]) 17:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, I was assuming that the book plug was going to happen at some point. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 17:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Guillaume de la Mouette}}, the bottom line is this: If you want to edit Wikipedia, then you must comply with Wikipedia's [[WP:PAG|Policies and guidelines]]. Neither your expertise nor your age give you any exemptions. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 17:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Cullen328}} They continue to blank content, as seen by their recent contributions. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 17:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]], despite my dickishness, let's look at some of Guy's contributions. Today, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Thornton%27s_Bookshop&diff=prev&oldid=1261915197 adding a crap ton of unsourced content] to [[Thornton's Bookshop]], and another edit, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Thornton%27s_Bookshop&diff=prev&oldid=1261915443 deleting some of the unsourced content?] Weird stuff. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">[[User:BarntToust|<span style="color:#7b68ee;">Barnt</span>]][[User talk:BarntToust|<span style="color:#483d8b;">Toust</span>]]</span> 17:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}I have blocked Guillaume de la Mouette for one week for disruptive editing. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 17:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Okay, @[[User:Guillaume de la Mouette|Guillaume de la Mouette]], good luck with seeing if you can sneak your [[Amazon.fr]] print-ordered book into the donation boxes at the local libraries that you haven't yet been kicked out of for similar, prior incidents. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">[[User:BarntToust|<span style="color:#7b68ee;">Barnt</span>]][[User talk:BarntToust|<span style="color:#483d8b;">Toust</span>]]</span> 18:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|BarntToust}}, that remark was completely inappropriate and unnecessary. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 19:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I would agree with the unnecessary part, but.. inappropriate? I would characterise that as "chiding" and "dank" before I'd consider it inappropriate. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">[[User:BarntToust|<span style="color:#7b68ee;">Barnt</span>]][[User talk:BarntToust|<span style="color:#483d8b;">Toust</span>]]</span> 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's not an off-kilter reading of what's probably going on with Guillaume, but still definitely not helpful. I'll see myself out, eh. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">[[User:BarntToust|<span style="color:#7b68ee;">Barnt</span>]][[User talk:BarntToust|<span style="color:#483d8b;">Toust</span>]]</span> 19:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::actually, looks like this is a bookseller? huh. weird. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">[[User:BarntToust|<span style="color:#7b68ee;">Barnt</span>]][[User talk:BarntToust|<span style="color:#483d8b;">Toust</span>]]</span> 19:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}{{u|BarntToust}}, since you failed to take the hint, consider this a formal warning: Never address a another editor in such a mocking fashion again. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 19:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


:alrighty, no mocking. I should instead invite the editor to indeed wait until his works are published by a reliable publishing house, then provide identifying info, such as [[ISBN]] in order for his knowledge to be utilised in the project. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">[[User:BarntToust|<span style="color:#7b68ee;">Barnt</span>]][[User talk:BarntToust|<span style="color:#483d8b;">Toust</span>]]</span> 20:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
{{userlinks|James J. Lambden}} is [[WP:WIKISTALK]]ing me to articles simply to [[WP:WIKIHOUND]] my work. This is because we were in a disagreement over his instance on keeping white supremacist literature as sources for [[white pride]] against [[WP:CON|consensus]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=White_pride&diff=prev&oldid=712391221]. He has never shown any interest in exoplanets or astronomy until this point so it is clear what he is doing by !voting on deletion discussions and no others. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_potentially_habitable_exoplanets&diff=prev&oldid=713288198], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Potentially_Habitable_Exoplanets_Kepler_Candidates_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=713287864]
::I wouldn't doubt actually, misplaced mockery aside, that this information Guillaume has put forth is true. But, as some essay said once, "Wikipedia isn't truth, it's verifiablity". So, let's wait for the book to be published, and judge from there. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">[[User:BarntToust|<span style="color:#7b68ee;">Barnt</span>]][[User talk:BarntToust|<span style="color:#483d8b;">Toust</span>]]</span> 20:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


== Lavipao edit warring + POV pushing ==
[[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|jps]] ([[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|talk]]) 05:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Lavipao}}
This user is deliberately POV pushing on [[Operation Euphrates Shield]] and [[Operation Olive Branch]] articles, comparing these to [[US invasion of Iraq]] and [[Russian invasion of Ukraine]]. While these articles do not even include the word "invasion" as title but "operation". Also in international politics, only handful countries have called this an invasion. Undue weight. I reported this vandalism and asked for page protection but admin called this a content dispute, which is funny because the one editing 6 to 8 years old text is right in this context. Weird! [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 08:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:[[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]], you're a very experienced editor, you know you have to present diffs so that editors can investigate your complaint. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::That's I can do on mobile.
::Operation Olive Branch
::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Operation_Olive_Branch&oldid=1260848177 rev before]
::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Operation_Olive_Branch&oldid=1261383975 rev after]
::Operation Euphrates Shield
::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Operation_Euphrates_Shield&oldid=1261108578 rev before]
::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Operation_Euphrates_Shield&oldid=1261108578 rev after]
:: [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 09:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:I have no opinion on this content dispute, but it undoubtably ''is'' a content dispute. It doesn't matter that at least one editor thinks they are "right in this context" - it is still a content dispute. And an invasion is not necessarily bad. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 09:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::In these both articles operation appears 10x more than invasion. And invasion is subjective. This can not be compared to Iraq or Ukraine invasion. The ratio of local Syrian rebels were 10x more than Turkish troops, yet it's conducted by the Turkish army. It is not even against the Syrian regime but ISIL and YPG. "not necessarily bad"? so let's change everything slightly to not necessarily bad instead of stating factual things. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 09:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::This is not the place to discuss content disputes. And your opening salvo on their talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lavipao&oldid=1261316401] of "Revert your edit or you will be reported. This is the consensus." is not the right way to deal with a content dispute either. They probably shouldn't have reverted their change back in again without discussing it, but honestly, if that's the level of discussion they're introduced to I can see why they didn't think discussing it would be helpful. [[User talk:JeffUK|Jeff<span style="border-style:dashed;border-color:blue; border-width:1px">'''UK'''</span>]] 10:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I am complaining the way administrators treat this as a content dispute. I asked for page protection and intervention against vandalism, but nothing. Administrators doing these do not even check the content. This is a disruptive edit and action should be taken. So he's changing something and I have to convince him. What a joke honestly. This is simply time wasting. Both of his edits are like "is an invasion bla bla" then suddenly 2-3 times the word operation appears in the lead again. Both were not described as a military invasion, but had been described as an invasion by a very fringe minority. If he thinks both were a military invasions, he should ask for title change "2016 invasion of Syria", etc. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 12:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Also leaving this here as an example [[Operation_Olive_Branch#International reactions]] (simple read the countries):
:::::* Cyprus: {{tq|The Republic of Cyprus condemned the Turkish invasion in Afrin}}
:::::* France: {{tq|evolves into an attempted invasion}} (assumption)
:::::* Sweden: {{tq|to protest the Afrin invasion}} (statement of the newspaper, not Swedish government)
:::::* US: {{tq| US State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert called on Turkey not to engage in any invasion of Syria's Afrin}} (doesn't have a source, and US called this an operation, not invasion)
:::::for [[Operation_Euphrates_Shield#International_reactions]]
:::::* Cyprus: {{tq|the unacceptable invasion of Turkey into Syria}}
:::::Now tell me how his edits is appropriate? [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 12:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::How is whether we should describe this as an invasion or an operation {{em|not}} a content dispute? It is certainly not vandalism. The use of that word is a personal attack. And it's perfectly possible for something to be both an invasion {{em|and}} an operation. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 13:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I am not arguing this resulted in a military occupation (see [[Turkish occupation of Northern Syria]]) but military invasion =/= military occupation. Invasion aims to conquer a land, while the Turkish army doesn't control a piece of land there, but uses proxy, which makes this different from US invasion of Iraq or Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is simply wrong, and we should be realistic. I don't care if anyone calls this an invasion or not, I am trying to say a fringe minority calls this an invasion. I don't get how [[Military operation]] suddenly became a taboo word after Russian invasion (yes yes I know the special military operation). [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 13:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::>I don't care if anyone calls this an invasion or not, I am trying to say a fringe minority calls this an invasion.
:::::::Then ''say that a fringe minority call it an invasion!'' something like '[the operation]..characterised by some as an invasion.." would be an excellent compromise and a valuable addition to the article. [[User talk:JeffUK|Jeff<span style="border-style:dashed;border-color:blue; border-width:1px">'''UK'''</span>]] 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::How so exactly? We edit like that. [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 14:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::This is an argument to make on the Talk page. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 18:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, that (the {{em|article}} talk page) is the right place to talk about this content dispute. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:Hello! As others have said this is a content dispute, which should be discussed on the talk page for the specific article. There is no POV or vandalism occurring, I’m just attempting to clean up the article by using correct and accurate language that reflects consistently the language used throughout this website for invasions. As I’ve provided before, there are many examples of pages on invasions throughout Wikipedia, such as the US invasion of Afghanistan or the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
:
:User Beshogur has been continuously reverting away from correct language to use euphemistic, purposefully-confusing terms such as “cross border military operation” which is a term not used in other Wikipedia articles.
:The user seems to have a very strong conviction that only Turkish government phrasing or sources should be used to describe this event, even though around the world this invasion has been widely covered as an invasion. I suspect a strong POV issue with this user [[User:Lavipao|Lavipao]] ([[User talk:Lavipao|talk]]) 02:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:This user is deliberately edit warring and POV pushing. administrators should intervene asap. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 22:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::You are also edit-warring and you've failed to open a talk page discussion despite telling Lavipao too. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 23:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{re|Traumnovelle}} because he's clear POV pushing? We have to revert POV pushing on wikipedia, not trying to convince the POV pusher. I asked several times page protection or intervention for vandalism (yet him having like less than 50 edits). [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 08:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
This user abuses 1RR rule, and edit warring, yet administrators doing nothing. Good. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 21:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)


:What 1RR rule is there on these pages? On the user's talk page you reference an introduction to ARBPIA, what does a Turkish military operation in Syria against Kurdish groups have to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict? [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 00:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc}} It's technically inaccurate to say he is stalking you "to articles", as since March 28 he has only edited two articles, [[Michelle Fields]] and [[Kamen Rider × Super Sentai: Super Hero Taisen]], neither of which were ever edited by you (I was analyzing your claim from the top down, so this was frustrating for me when I looked at JJL's contribs and didn't see it). I think a much stronger argument, given JJL's editing history (he's hardly shown any interest in ''anything'' so far) would be the timing.
::{{talk quote inline|a Turkish military operation in Syria against Kurdish groups}}: Not ARBPIA, but [[WP:ARBKURDS]]. "The topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed...has been designated as a contentious topic" - and thus 1RR applies. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:That said, this is super-dodgy behaviour. JJL is essentially a new user (account created last April, but only started editing a month ago...), so I say '''block for 24 hours, with a warning''' that following users you disagree with is a form of [[WP:HARASSMENT]] and is not tolerated, and if it continues longer blocks will be forthcoming (2nd offense one week, 3rd offense indefinite).
:::Good to know. It might be best to explain to give a proper explanation of it to Lavipao. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 01:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 06:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
::You demand (you use the word "say" rather than "suggest") a block, and as reasoning link to an advice page, a page that actually gives you no support for this demanded block. The act of following users you disagree with is not a form of harassment as defined in the page you linked. "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors ... in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work". In what way is work by jps being confronted or inhibited? In addition, in what way do any edits by James J. Lambden involve "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior"? These things are '''required''' to be present before a block can be imposed. [[User:Tiptoethrutheminefield|Tiptoethrutheminefield]] ([[User talk:Tiptoethrutheminefield|talk]]) 19:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::Sorry about inappropriate use of the lingo. It just feels really yucky when that happens. [[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|jps]] ([[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|talk]]) 06:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lavipao#c-Lavipao-20241208193500-Beshogur-20241208084300| Their responses do not look promising.] Calling another editor a "Classic no-life activist editor" is not good.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AValoem&type=revision&diff=713726388&oldid=713661685 And now this]. [[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|jps]] ([[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|talk]]) 20:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
[[User:Codename AD|<b style="color:#019164;"> ''Codename AD'' </b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Codename AD| <b style="color:#34457a">''talk''</b>]]</sup> 21:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:A classic case of [[WP:THETRUTH]]. I've given them what can be considered a final warning. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== Editor508 + their IP (86.28.195.223) POV pushing ==
== Ad hominem attacks ==
{{atop|1=IP pblocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{user|Editor508}}
*{{IPuser|86.28.195.223}}


The two (the same person actually) are pushing their POV at [[UEFA Euro 2028]], even though it is a long-standing consensus that the countries are always listed alphabetically. Single purpose accounts and IP editing with their pro-Wales edits and complexes against England, those edits are not done in a good faith and needs to be permanently blocked - or semi-protect the page in question for several months.
I'm asking for some help on [[Talk:Spark (horse)]]. While it's clear that {{user|Doug Coldwell}} is making great progress on this article, it appears he's taken [[WP:OWN|ownership]] and any other opinions are met with [[WP:NPA|ad hominem arguments]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spark_(horse)&diff=713196448&oldid=713185098], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spark_(horse)&diff=next&oldid=713196623], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASpark_%28horse%29&type=revision&diff=713092357&oldid=713087767], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Spark_(horse)&diff=next&oldid=713058577] effectively saying he's an elite editor and I'm not qualified to edit the article I created.


Difs Editor508:
DYKs are great but they shouldn't get in the way of cooperation and having quite a few of them isn't an excuse to bully other editors. [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 14:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=UEFA_Euro_2028&diff=prev&oldid=1260236125 Diff 1]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=UEFA_Euro_2028&diff=prev&oldid=1260236207 Diff 2]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=UEFA_Euro_2028&diff=prev&oldid=1260794337 Diff 3]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=UEFA_Euro_2028&diff=prev&oldid=1260955507 Diff 4]


Diffs 86.28.195.223
:I see a fair bit of boasting, and some belittling of your work which is not appropriate. Where has he said you may not edit in an area?
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=UEFA_Euro_2028&diff=prev&oldid=1260239561 Diff 1]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=UEFA_Euro_2028&diff=prev&oldid=1261302157 Diff 2]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=UEFA_Euro_2028&diff=prev&oldid=1259868468 Diff 3]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=UEFA_Euro_2028&diff=prev&oldid=1260003312 Diff 4]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=UEFA_Euro_2028&diff=prev&oldid=1259848940 Diff 5]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=UEFA_Euro_2028&diff=prev&oldid=1259848893 Diff 6]


[[User:Snowflake91|<span style="color:#58D3F7;"><b><i>Snowflake91</i></b></span>]] ([[User talk:Snowflake91|talk]]) 11:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think the best course of action would be to simply remind {{ping|Doug Coldwell}} that we are all volunteers, and even if you have an amazing body of work that it is not appropriate to belittle the work other editors. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b>]] 14:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:::As I said, {{ping|Doug Coldwell}} ''effectively'' said that by his demeaning comments. It's difficult to interpret them differently. [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 21:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
::'''Non-admin, horsey comment'''. Doug Coldwell does seem to be belittling Toddst1 for not having DYKs. DYKs are good but are not the reason for writing articles; sharing knowledge is. [[User:White Arabian Filly|<span style="color:#3BB9FF">White Arabian Filly</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:White Arabian Filly|<span style="color:#039">Neigh</span>]]</sup> 15:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
::Add, the next day: the DYK hook Doug Coldwell is using for the article isn't even accurate. Bull Rock was the first Thoroughbred racehorse in the US, not Spark. [[User:White Arabian Filly|<span style="color:#3BB9FF">White Arabian Filly</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:White Arabian Filly|<span style="color:#039">Neigh</span>]]</sup> 15:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::{{Ping|Toddst1}}Wow that's inappropriate behavior you've cited above, I gotta agree here. I myself have sometimes commented on talk pages noting my successful Quality improvement efforts, but I've strived ''not'' to do so in a demeaning manner and ''never'' in direct comparison to others' quality improvement efforts and certainly not in a comparative denigrating way like that. Wholly inappropriate and not conducive to building an encyclopedia together as a community. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 00:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


* The user was already partial-blocked from the article, I have done the same for the IP. If the IP ''is'' the user evading a block, they'll find they've just extended their block significantly, since I blocked the IP with "block registered users from this IP" enabled. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 12:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
== Disruption? ==
{{abot}}
I would like to know how [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=713380639&oldid=713377066 this] comment is justifiable. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 21:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:No. Not appropriate, but not worth bringing here. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 22:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
::Meh. I think it's rude, but that's all. If there's some underlying pattern of disruption I'm not aware of, that might be something else, but even then something that mild couldn't be the straw that broke the camel's back in my view. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 06:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::It's not the first time he's gotten snippy in the edit summary on this issue, but it seems to be accelerating.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=prev&oldid=706530013][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk&diff=prev&oldid=708258754][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=prev&oldid=708286454] ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 12:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::I'd have to say I agree here with {{u|Baseball Bugs}} this behavior is inappropriate and not conducive to collaborative building of an encyclopedia together. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 00:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::I agree with Baseball Bugs. Although his edits concern site-related stuff (pp template), it still is a form of POV-pushing IMO. [[User:Optakeover|<span style="color:#ffffff; background:#3e007e">Optakeover</span>]]<sup>[[User:Optakeover|(U)]][[User talk:Optakeover|(T)]][[Special:contributions/Optakeover|(C)]]</sup> 19:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


== User:Emiya1980 Repeated Edit Warring ==
== [[Panama Papers]] ==
{{archive top|No action required at this time. Given Emiya1980's history with edit warring, they are strongly advised to follow the [[WP:BRD]] process and avoid edit warring in the future, as sanctions are likely if the behavior continues. --Chris &#124; <small>[[User:Crazycomputers|Crazycomputers]] ([[User talk:Crazycomputers|talk]])</small> 19:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Emiya1980}}
My colleague has been engaged in numerous edit wars, most recently demonstrated here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive489#User:Emiya1980_reported_by_User:LilAhok_(Result:_Page_protected)] for another edit war at [[Hirohito]]. While both parties engaged in an Edit War, and the admin responding chose not to block either editor, Emiya1980's edit warring seems to be a chronic, intractable issue. Emiya1980 has received multiple warnings for Edit Warring, here at ANI, and on his talkpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emiya1980/Archive_1#c-Beyond_My_Ken-2020-08-04T20:45:00.000Z-Heinrich_Himmler][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emiya1980/Archive_3#c-Nemov-20240614185800-Edit_warring_at_Talk:Benito_Mussolin][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1168#c-Nick-D-20240928063400-Cullen328-20240927080100][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emiya1980/Archive_3#June_2024][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emiya1980/Archive_4#Untitled][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emiya1980/Archive_4#November_11] and yet continues to engage in edit warring, even crossing the bright line of the [[WP:3RR]] in the latest edit war.


<del>'''I propose implementation of a [[WP:1RR]] restriction''' on Emiya1980 for at least six months, to prevent further, continued disruptive edit warring.</del> Withdrawn. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 14:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this looks like canvassing, since I left a message a few minutes ago at [[WP:BLP/N]] too. but I'd appreciate additional eyes (preferably eyes familiar with [[WP:BLP]]) at [[Panama Papers]], in particular the list of specific people alleged to be clients. If I'm wrong, feel free to let me know. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:I think it's being handled ok, or if anything too conservatively. E.g. the name getting the most press attention is Vladimir Putin, but he's not even mentioned in the wiki article because his involvement was through an intermediary, and the intermediary isn't mentioned either, maybe because he's not a head of state (he is a cellist closely associated with Putin). [[Special:Contributions/173.228.123.194|173.228.123.194]] ([[User talk:173.228.123.194|talk]]) 04:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Suggestion:''' {{Ping|Floquenbeam}} I don't think it's canvassing, especially if it's a very short brief succinct neutrally worded notice. I'd suggest posting notices to the article talk pages of those subjects related to the issue in the article. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 00:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


:Given how much I’ve collaborated with BRP recently, I am rather taken aback by their decision to have me subject to further sanctions without speaking with me beforehand.
::The alleged Putin connection and the allegations re. his cellist friend, I'll call them the Putin issue if I may, are right now a horrible mess. There are a few editors convinced that it is all a conspiracy and wishing to delete all they can re. the Putin issue, and the result at this moment is that the allegations have disappeared and the reactions to them are still there. ''This is an absurdity'', but it is also a product of the way in which the article is organised, as few can get a proper grasp on it all. [[User:Boscaswell|<span style="color: green">Boscaswell</span>]] [[User talk:Boscaswell|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]] 10:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


:I have made a point of trying to conform to Wikipedia’s expectations since being subjected to sanction in October. The recent edit war over at [[Hirohito]] is the only evidence provided of me being a disruptive presence since then. In the past, I have tried to compromise with LilAhok on that page but he/she has responded more often than not by digging in his/her heels. I am not the first editor whom LilAhok has gotten in a heated dispute with and I doubt I’ll be the last.
'''Can I please''' ask an admin or three to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Panama_Papers#Complete_reorganisation_of_the_article_is_required.2C_and_soon, in which I've set out how I think the article should be reorganised and why it needs urgent action. With page views pushing 400,000 yesterday, it is a biggie. [[User:Boscaswell|<span style="color: green">Boscaswell</span>]] [[User talk:Boscaswell|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]] 10:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
: Same issue on [[Talk:Vladimir Putin#Panama papers]], but it seems to be (very slowly) moving forward there.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 11:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:: We are slowly moving towards large-scale edit warring in [[Vladimir Putin]].--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 13:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


:I ask that all I’ve said be taken into consideration before reaching a decision. [[User:Emiya1980|Emiya1980]] ([[User talk:Emiya1980|talk]]) 14:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
==Accusations of misogyny==
::Shouldn't this go to [[WP:ANEW]], or if it's with a specific problem, [[WP:DRN]]? [[User:The Corvette ZR1|<b style="color:#ff6600;">'''''The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1'''''</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:The Corvette ZR1|<b style="color:#0a0a0a;">''(The Garage)''</b>]]</sup> 15:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
During two separate AfDs, {{user|Nfitz}} has accused editors of supporting an official Wikipedia notabilty guideline ([[WP:NFOOTY]]) of being misogynists.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brogan_Hay&diff=next&oldid=713402965][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jenna_Fife&diff=prev&oldid=713403863] He has been asked to withdraw the personal attack twice,[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FBrogan_Hay&type=revision&diff=713404257&oldid=713403960][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brogan_Hay&diff=next&oldid=713408992] but is trying to claim that it is not one.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jenna_Fife&diff=next&oldid=713404185] and wikilawyering to claim he has not accused any individual editor.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jenna_Fife&diff=next&oldid=713409447]. Could this be dealt with please. Cheers, [[User:Number 57|<font color="orange">Number</font>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<font color="green">5</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<font color="blue">7</font>]] 22:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
::{{tq|Given how much I’ve collaborated with BRP recently, I am rather taken aback by their decision to have me subject to further sanctions without speaking with me beforehand.}}
: This is beyond absurd. I pointed out a policy I believe to be misogynistic - that I too have been supporting in the past. I didn't make any personal attacks - especially as I included myself in the misogynistic practice we need to fix. When [[User:Number 57]] questioned what I'd said, I clearly pointed out to him that I wasn't referring to any individual. It's a shame that some editors are far more interested in choosing to be offended and their constant wiki-lawyering and red-taping rather than improving the project. I'd like [[User:Number 57]] to apologize for his personal attack against me. I'm sorry if [[User:Number 57]] misinterpreted my statement. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] ([[User talk:Nfitz|talk]]) 22:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
::I have spoken to you beforehand. I urged you to be less combative and to [[WP:DISENGAGE]], which is why I found it disappointing to see that you violated [[WP:3RR]] in a conflict on [[Hirohito]] with an editor that I suggested you [[WP:DISENGAGE]] from '''''months ago''''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BrocadeRiverPoems/2024/October#c-BrocadeRiverPoems-20241025224200-Emiya1980-20241025222100]. My proposal for a [[WP:1RR]] is as much for your own good as it is the encyclopedia, because perhaps '''''[[WP:letitgo|you'll just let things go]]''''' and not run the risk of a site block. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 23:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::It was very clear from the original, pointed comments that the attack was aimed at certain editors. If anyone had any illusions as to the meaning, they were followed up with [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FBrogan_Hay&type=revision&diff=713408992&oldid=713404257 "I really hadn't expected anyone to support misogyny in this day and age"]. The attempt at backpeddalling is not going to fool anyone (I hope). As for the request for an apology... [[User:Number 57|<font color="orange">Number</font>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<font color="green">5</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<font color="blue">7</font>]] 22:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:Emiya1980 hasn't edit warred since an admin closed that report at ANEW with two days of full protection. BRP seems to think that admin wasn't aware of previous conflicts and if they had been, they wouldn't have let Emiya1980 off so lightly. I'll ask. {{ping|Crazycomputers}} did you know about the behavior reported here? If not, do you think it's problematic enough that Emiya1980 should now get 1RR restriction, a block, and/or any other sanction? <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">''[[User:City of Silver|<span style="color:#BC49A6">City</span>]][[User talk:City of Silver|<span style="color:Green"> o</span><span style="color:Red">f </span>]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|<span style="color:#708090">Silver</span>]]''</b> 18:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::For reference: {{section link|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive489|User:Emiya1980 reported by User:LilAhok (Result: Page protected)}}
::Typically when investigating ANEW reports, unless there is a specific comment regarding past behavior, I look only at the facts presented at the time. For any participants I conclude are edit warring, I also will take their block log into account. In this case there was no reference to past behavior, so I didn't dig into either participant's history.
::The other party in the edit war was starting to make an attempt to discuss on the article's talk page, and I did not want to stifle that discussion with a 2-party block, so I opted for page protection instead. However, it does not seem that Emiya1980 engaged in discussion on the article's talk page at all, so this approach unfortunately did not have the intended effect.
::Having said all of that, I don't think a block is necessary at this time. Emiya1980 has not really even edited substantially since the ANEW report. I count one single edit in mainspace since then. Blocking now, a full week after the edit war, without a recurrence of the problematic behavior, would be in contravention of [[WP:NOPUNISH]].
::Looking at the links provided by BRP:
::* [[Heinrich Himmler]]: They reverted once and then ceased. For an incident that happened 4 years ago, this is not terribly concerning to me.
::* The edit warring at [[Talk:Benito Mussolini]] ''is'' concerning, especially since it involves removing/striking other people's messages. Emiya1980 should be reminded of [[WP:TPO]], if they were not at the time.
::* Unless I'm missing something, at [[World War II]] related to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1168#c-Nick-D-20240928063400-Cullen328-20240927080100 this discussion], I see one revert.
::* The last is the edit war is the one handled by me at ANEW.
::Out of these four incidents, '''two of them would be within the proposed 1RR sanction.''' Unless more compelling evidence is brought forward demonstrating that this is a chronic and intractable problem, I do not think additional sanctions are warranted. As the situation stands today, I think the standard edit warring policy is sufficient to handle future issues. --Chris &#124; <small>[[User:Crazycomputers|Crazycomputers]] ([[User talk:Crazycomputers|talk]])</small> 19:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Emiya1980 hasn't edit warred since an admin closed that report at ANEW with two days of full protection. BRP seems to think that admin wasn't aware of previous conflicts and if they had been, they wouldn't have let Emiya1980 off so lightly}}
:::My suggestion was borne entirely of the fact that the user has accrued an unusual amount of edit warring notices across the past year, and the idea that a [[WP:1RR]] restriction would prevent further disruption. The links I provided are not the only warnings that Emiya1980 has received. It isn't that I believe the Admin would have reacted differently, it is a matter of feeling like the community should take action to prevent further distrubances.
:::Here is a list of edit warning notices and other evidence demonstrating a timeline of repeated behavior:


:::*'''May 2024'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emiya1980/Archive_3#c-Capitals00-20240513045100-May_2024]
:::I most certainly did not aim the attack at certain editors. I aimed it at the entire project - myself included. To suggest otherwise is a violation of one of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia - and [[User:Number 57]] needs to apologize for violating [[WP:AGF]]. If they were not sure, they could have sought clarification - and I'd already clarified that I had not aimed my comment at any individuals before [[User:Number 57]] came here; by ignoring my clarification that I had not targeted any individuals, has very clearly to violate [[WP:AGF]]. Could this be dealt with please? [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] ([[User talk:Nfitz|talk]]) 22:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
::::{{ec}}You clearly stated in the edits that those who defend the guidelines are misogynists. I understand that in some situations we get a little hot under the collar and sometimes speak/type without thinking things through. But yeah, you did write that. Irrespective of whether or not you actually named anyone you cast a rather unpleasant aspersion on those who disagree with your take on this guideline. At the very least that is a breach of [[WP:AGF]]. I suggest that you strike the comment and make an appropriate expression of regret over the unfortunate choice of words. Let's all try to act like adults and not drag this out unnecessarily or make more of it than is needed. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 22:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::No, I simply meant that anyone who ignores the [[WP:BIAS]] and mysogyny issues would be misogynists. As I'd only just raised them, no one had yet defended the issues I'd raised, there could have been no individual I was referring to. I HAD already clarified that I wasn't targetting an individual with my comments - however [[User:Number 57]] chose to ignore that, and still take offence, where none was meant. Then [[User:Number 57]] chose to violate [[WP:AGF]]. This is a far greater transgression in my mind, and [[User:Number 57]] needs to apologize or face the consequences. This seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] ([[User talk:Nfitz|talk]]) 22:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::It's a personal attack and incivil. Nfitz, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It aggregates information from secondary and primary sources and attempts to give them [[WP:WEIGHT|due weight]]. If those sources are biased, Wikipedia will be as well. Similarly, if a system or institution has systemic bias in its outcomes for something like fame, Wikipedia will reflect that bias as well because notability is based on that systemically biased institution (e.g., Oscars). It's unfortunate, but that's how encyclopedias and tertiary sources like textbooks work. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please &#123;&#123;[[Template:re|re]]&#125;&#125;</small> 22:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::How can it be a personal attack, if I wasn't making a personal attack. Perhaps I worded it badly. I apologize for wording it badly. I find it quite insulting that other people are telling me what I was saying and thinking, when I clarified my comments BEFORE it came to ANI. As for Wikipedia being Tertiary - we are discussing policy here, not content. Our policy to not allow articles about female players unless their league is fully-professional, knowing full well there isn't the money in the sport to have fully-professional leagues WHEN WE DO ALLOW SEMI-PROFESSIONAL male leagues in standards for other male-dominated leagues (basketball, gridiron, ice hockey) is clear [[WP:BIAS]]. If we held the same standards for ANY league of ANY sport, then I'd agree with you. But we don't. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] ([[User talk:Nfitz|talk]]) 22:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I have struck the offending comment, despite making it very clear to [[User:Number 57]] that they weren't aimed at anyone personally. Re-reading them again, it was poorly worded, and I apologize for that. However, as I'd made it very clear that it wasn't personal, before they decided to bring this here, clearly violating [[WP:AGF]] and I await their apology for this. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] ([[User talk:Nfitz|talk]]) 23:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
*This is interesting stuff. Nfitz's apology is very welcome, but their original comments--the content if not the phrasing--is even more welcome. Even The Rambling Man agreed that there was bias in our guidelines. This is an opportunity to do something useful; if any of Nfitz's words crossed the line (and I think it was very mild) I think they speak to the frustration that is frequently felt when an underrepresented group is the subject of discussion.<p>The bottomline is this, and Number 57 may not like it: "the guidelines is the guidelines" is not some sort of secret recipe that somehow eliminates bias. In fact, I am pretty damn sure that the guidelines are based on things that are inherently biased (media coverage, for instance; if I read my local paper and nothing but, cycling wouldn't be a sport and soccer was just for girls), like professional leagues and stuff like that (it's the "professional" part: of ''course'' women are underpaid, and this finds an expression in what's professional and what's not--just ask the US women's soccer team, with three World Cups and four Olympic titles, IIRC). Number 57 and others should seize this opportunity to investigate how our guidelines might be biased, and editors (including me) sometimes cannot see the beam in their own eyes. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 00:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
**{{ping|Drmies}} Football is a spectator sport, and this is what makes the players notable (with the exception of international footballers, all of whom we deem notable regardless of their professional status). A league's professional status is a direct consequence of the interest in that league, and the status of some leagues as semi-professional is a result of a lack of sufficient interest in those leagues, which is an indicator that the players in those leagues are not notable. [[User:Number 57|<font color="orange">Number</font>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<font color="green">5</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<font color="blue">7</font>]] 11:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
***I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's that simple, or that "interest" is so easily defined. I think FOOTY needs tweaking and The Rambling Man [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brogan_Hay&diff=713156982&oldid=713154596 was right]; the highest level in the country should trump the mere "fully professional" requirement. Your response in the Brogan Hay AfD doesn't even regard the GNG which, in my opinion and that of others, is met. (Giant Snowman disagrees, but that's another discussion.) Choosing FOOTY over GNG suggests bias, yes, if FOOTY is biased--which seems to be the opinion of a couple of participants in that AfD. But this is for a different forum than ANI, I realize that. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 15:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
****{{ping|Drmies}} The reason we have avoided going down the top level route for notability is primarily because it would allow articles on thousands of non-notable male players playing in countries where football is not a professional sport (e.g. Ireland and other small countries in Europe). [[User:Number 57|<font color="orange">Number</font>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<font color="green">5</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<font color="blue">7</font>]] 15:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
***** While the manner in which this issue was raised was a little too gung-ho, I think what has been criticised is really worth looking into. The guideline for fully-professional leagues is helpful in most cases – however with gender as a factor it becomes a bit more difficult to apply as a general rule of interest/notability. Assigning the same criteria to both male and female players doesn’t take into account gender discrimination – as [[User:Drmies]] mentioned, women are in many cases are simply paid less; this doesn’t necessarily correlate with less interest for the sport. The pitfalls of amending notability criteria are clear, yet I think there may be ways to side-step potential problems. Perhaps for countries where there is notable football enthusiasm (where the men's league(s) are fully-professional) there could be criteria to allow for the top-tier women's league - This could aid in avoiding the problem [[User:Number 57]] raised regarding non-notable male players. In any case, it would be good to start a constructive debate on this issue and discuss possible amendments. [[User:BoroFan89|BoroFan89]] ([[User talk:BoroFan89|talk]]) 18:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
*******The level of interest in the sport in terms of playing is not relevant; the level of interest in terms of it being a spectator sport (which is what makes players notable) is. What you seem to be suggesting is that Wikipedia adopts some form of positive discrimination. [[User:Number 57|<font color="orange">Number</font>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<font color="green">5</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<font color="blue">7</font>]] 19:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
********I'm a bit confused by what you're saying - I never linked the level of interest with playing? I do believe that semi-pro women's football cannot be compared with semi-pro men's football - due to the reasons given above, and the notability criteria should consider this. [[User:BoroFan89|BoroFan89]] ([[User talk:BoroFan89|talk]]) 19:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
*I agree that this is a good opportunity to fix [[WP:NFOOTY]] to make sure it's written in a way that does not discriminate against women in football. See [[Wikipedia:Writing about women]]:


:::*'''May 2024 Edit War Difs''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Leonid_Brezhnev&oldid=1223591715][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Leonid_Brezhnev&oldid=1223597422]
:<blockquote>Women comprise between 8.5 and 16.1 percent of editors on the English Wikipedia.[1] This means that most articles are written by men, as are most of the content policies, including the notability and referencing policies. Those policies in turn determine which articles about women can be hosted, and frame many of the ways in which they are written.</blockquote>


:::*'''June 2024'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emiya1980/Archive_3#c-Nemov-20240614185800-Edit_warring_at_Talk:Benito_Mussolin][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emiya1980/Archive_3#c-Nemov-20240614185800-Edit_warring_at_Talk:Benito_Mussolin][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emiya1980/Archive_3#c-Generalrelative-20240614190600-June_2024]
:{{u|LauraHale}} has worked hard to promote women in sport. She hasn't edited here since January, but I'm pinging her anyway in case she has thoughts about how to change the guideline. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 00:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


:::*'''September 2024'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emiya1980/Archive_3#c-Nick-D-20240928062800-September_2024]
:*For ice hockey ([[WP:NHOCKEY]]), we allow "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant." That's the situation with [[Brogan Hay]]. As I understand it, she's playing at the highest level at which she can play in Scotland, but there is no professional level for women there. So we ought to add that caveat to [[WP:NFOOTY]]. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 02:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|SlimVirgin}} My question would be how would this be applied across football in general? I presume you are not suggesting creating a bias towards women's articles by imposing a lower level of notability based solely on gender? Are you suggesting that NFOOTY be amended to state that all players in a given country's top league are presumed notable?
:::The problem with that would be the vast number of non-notable male footballers who would suddenly fit this criterion, not to mention non-notable female footballers, all of whom play in very minor leagues which attract very little attention.
:::If the desire is to see more articles on women, then I would suggest editors start on the large number of missing articles for women who have played senior international football, who pass NFOOTY as is but do currently have an article and thereby begin to solve this problem top down not bottom up. And let's not get started on the poor state of articles on women's football clubs, national teams and competitions.
:::If the desire is to see more articles on women in a given league, i.e. Scotland in this instance, surely GNG is the best root to follow. Again this solves the problem from a top down pov by ensuring that articles are created on the most notable female footballers first before there is any need to alter a subject specific guideline.
:::I am more than happy to get in a discussion on how to make football articles more inclusive, but I am adamant that any changes made must be applicable to all footballers, not simply female footballers and that the risk of a flood of hitherto non-notable players of either gender may suddenly appear.
:::However, I would be interested to see, particularly if a wider audience beyond the usual WP:FOOTY editors can be engaged, if a consensus can be reached that players from a country's top division are deemed notable regardless of gender. That somewhat blunt approach seems to me to be the only way to resolve this issue in a way that provides clarity on notability to even the most inexperienced of editors and allows the inclusion of more articles on female footballers without creating a positive bias. [[User:Fenix down|Fenix down]] ([[User talk:Fenix down|talk]]) 07:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


:::*'''October 2024 (The Slow War)''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hirohito&oldid=1252847874][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hirohito&oldid=1253217147] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hirohito&oldid=1253279290][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hirohito&oldid=1253416117][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hirohito&oldid=1253422771][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hirohito&oldid=1253422771][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hirohito&oldid=1253447637]
::::Hi {{u|Fenix down|Fenix}}, I'm not sure what you mean by applying any new suggestion across football in general. My suggestion is that [[WP:NFOOTY]] follow [[WP:NHOCKEY]], and add a clause that says something like:


:::*'''November 2024''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emiya1980/Archive_4#Untitled] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emiya1980/Archive_4#c-Ulises_Laert%C3%ADada-20241129072400-November_11]
:::::"Played one or more games in an amateur league that is the highest level of competition available because of the lack of a professional league."


:::*'''November 2024 Edit War Diffs'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hirohito&diff=prev&oldid=1257718709][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hirohito&diff=next&oldid=1257718709][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hirohito&diff=next&oldid=1257719962][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hirohito&diff=next&oldid=1257818584][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hirohito&diff=next&oldid=1260168656][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hirohito&diff=next&oldid=1260168882][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hirohito&diff=next&oldid=1260169794][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hirohito&diff=next&oldid=1260170887] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive489#User:Emiya1980_reported_by_User:LilAhok_(Result:_Page_protected)]
::::Alternatively, NFOOTY could follow [[WP:NRU]] (for Rugby Union), which cites women, and say something like:


:::Regarding "Missing something at World War II", as explained here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1168#c-WhatamIdoing-20240928215300-Emiya1980-20240928213800] {{tq| Making a change, getting reverted, re-reverting, and being re-reverted again actually can constitute edit warring.}}
:::::"Or has played one or more games at the highest level of competition available in women's football in her country."
:::Supplying any further diffs would be overkill at this point (in fact, it already is overkill). I was succint in the diffs I supplied on the first round for fear of applying too many, but it demonstrates at the very least that Emiya1980 has been engaged in edit warring in September 2024, October 2024, November 2024. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 23:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I would like to point out that (with regards to the links posted for “November 2024”) both warnings against edit-warring on my talk page were posted by LilAhok who was likewise edit-warring on [[Hirohito]]. While the second warning is signed as “Ulises Laertíada”, said post was made by LilAhok not the former.[[User:Emiya1980|Emiya1980]] ([[User talk:Emiya1980|talk]]) 11:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Okay, if they're running around signing notices as someone else, that's a problem. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 12:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I can verify that LilAhok did apparently leave a warning on Emiya1980's page and signed it as @[[User:Ulises Laertíada|Ulises Laertíada]] for some reason [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emiya1980&direction=next&oldid=1259752901] <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 12:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Okay, yeah, pretending to be another editor is not acceptable, and should result in sanctions. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 18:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive489#User:Emiya1980_reported_by_User:LilAhok_(Result:_Page_protected)]
:::::::::In this post, I clearly said I signed it by mistake. In August 2024, another user reminded me to sign my edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilAhok&diff=prev&oldid=1239826268]. I am not used to signing edits since wiki usually does it automatically. Sometimes it doesn't. @[[User:Emiya1980|Emiya1980]] even mentioned it in the post and crossed it out because I admitted to that mistake on the admin board. Why would I pretend to be another editor when all edits are recorded on the history page? [[User:LilAhok|LilAhok]] ([[User talk:LilAhok|talk]]) 19:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I would suggest you look at [[WP:Signature]], then. All you need to sign anything is four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to generate a signature. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 23:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I didn't know that. i'll take a look at [[WP:Signature]]. [[User:LilAhok|LilAhok]] ([[User talk:LilAhok|talk]]) 23:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Contrary to LilAhok's protestations of ignorance, this is not the first time they have been warned about improperly signing comments. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilAhok&diff=prev&oldid=1239826268] [[User:Emiya1980|Emiya1980]] ([[User talk:Emiya1980|talk]]) 23:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::[[Heinrich Himmler]] - Emiya1980's edit warring behavior demonstrated through reverts and partial reverts on 14 September 2024.
::::User's preferred version: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Heinrich_Himmler&diff=prev&oldid=1245746463] - 20:45, 14 September 2024
::::Reverts & partial Reverts on same content:
::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Heinrich_Himmler&diff=prev&oldid=1245731883] - 19:15, 14 September 2024
::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Heinrich_Himmler&diff=prev&oldid=1245747396] - 20:53, 14 September 2024
::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Heinrich_Himmler&diff=prev&oldid=1245749181] - 21:06, 14 September 2024
::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Heinrich_Himmler&diff=prev&oldid=1245758686] - 22:33, 14 September 2024
::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Heinrich_Himmler&diff=prev&oldid=1245761713] - 23:00, 14 September 2024 [[User:LilAhok|LilAhok]] ([[User talk:LilAhok|talk]]) 21:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Seeing how LilAhok has seen fit to support sanctions against me in this thread, I think it's only fair to point out that LilAhok likewise has a history of edit-warring with other contributors besides myself. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilAhok&diff=prev&oldid=1089722205]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilAhok&oldid=1168130416]


:::::He/she also appears to have recurring problems with copyright violations. They have been warned by editors about such conduct on at least three separate occasions. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilAhok&oldid=1088595830], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilAhok&oldid=1186486150], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilAhok&diff=prev&oldid=1257616600]. [[User:Emiya1980|Emiya1980]] ([[User talk:Emiya1980|talk]]) 23:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::[[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 21:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|LilAhok|Emiya1980}} Neither of you is going to get in trouble for previous issues per [[WP:NOPUNISH]], which says {{tq|''"Blocks should not be used...if there is no current conduct issue of concern."''}} If you keep going back and forth dredging up old stuff like this, that probably ''will'' be considered a {{tq|''"current conduct issue of concern''"}} and blocks could come into play. Why not disengage and move on? <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">''[[User:City of Silver|<span style="color:#BC49A6">City</span>]][[User talk:City of Silver|<span style="color:Green"> o</span><span style="color:Red">f </span>]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|<span style="color:#708090">Silver</span>]]''</b> 00:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I have moved on from the situation, but it appears that Emiya1980 has not, as shown by their behavior in this discussion.
:::::::Although Emiya1980 was reported by another user for edit warring, not myself, they have nonetheless mentioned me in this discussion. This was a consecutive edit by the user. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1261519939]
:::::::As I pointed out earlier [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1261743558], I acknowledged my signature mistake in a previous administrative discussion, and Emiya participated in that conversation by asking, "I am curious though. Why did you sign your warning on my page as another editor?" [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1260178620] (This question had already been addressed by me long before the user asked it). [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1260172908] Emiya even went so far as to strike through their own question.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1260178887] Despite this, Emiya knowingly misrepresented my actions by bringing up my earlier mistake in the current discussion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1261685029] Emiya1980's comments were not constructive to the discussion and were malicious in nature, as other users were speculating about whether I was signing my posts under different usernames. Had I not addressed the issue, there was a possibility that I could have been sanctioned or banned.
:::::::[[WP:CIV]] - I have issued multiple reminders and warnings to the user, advising them to refrain from engaging in uncivil behavior towards me.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emiya1980&diff=prev&oldid=1261597930] I posted a final civil warning on their talk page after 3 violations. Prior to that, I made three reminders of the user's uncivil conduct.
:::::::Emiya1980's deliberate misrepresentations of my actions, despite it having already been addressed, constitute a violation of [[WP:CIV]]. Despite multiple reminders and warnings, and considering the seriousness of the most recent violation, should the user's behavior be reported? [[User:LilAhok|LilAhok]] ([[User talk:LilAhok|talk]]) 01:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Maybe I'm misreading, but I believe their intent in bringing up the signature incident in this thread was to make it clear to people reviewing the diffs that both warnings were actually issued by you, not to suggest that you be sanctioned for that accident. --Chris &#124; <small>[[User:Crazycomputers|Crazycomputers]] ([[User talk:Crazycomputers|talk]])</small> 01:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|LilAhok}} After you stated "''I have moved on from the situation,''" you typed out almost 300 words of you rehashing complaints that have already been addressed, proving that you have absolutely not ''"moved on from the situation"'' one bit. I'll say again: {{tq|"'''Neither of you is going to get in trouble for previous issues'''".}} Just now in their message below this one, admin Crazycomputers told you that since there isn't a current problem, {{tq|'''neither of you is going to get in trouble for previous issues'''.}} Since {{tq|'''neither of you is going to get in trouble for previous issues''',}} why keep trying? <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">''[[User:City of Silver|<span style="color:#BC49A6">City</span>]][[User talk:City of Silver|<span style="color:Green"> o</span><span style="color:Red">f </span>]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|<span style="color:#708090">Silver</span>]]''</b> 02:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Indeed. I'm very close to proposing an interaction ban between these two editors. --Chris &#124; <small>[[User:Crazycomputers|Crazycomputers]] ([[User talk:Crazycomputers|talk]])</small> 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::If you do I'll support it. You're actually the reason I'm so frustrated; I was reluctant to lasso you into this because I felt like it could end up being a major waste of your time and a day later, sure enough, it's been little more than a major waste of your time. On the matter at hand, anyone who wants to know why an interaction ban is in order can trudge through this thread and see how much pointless bickering could have been avoided if these two editors were both required to leave each other alone. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">''[[User:City of Silver|<span style="color:#BC49A6">City</span>]][[User talk:City of Silver|<span style="color:Green"> o</span><span style="color:Red">f </span>]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|<span style="color:#708090">Silver</span>]]''</b> 05:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I appreciate your consideration. Ultimately it is what it is, and given that I handled the most recent ANEW report it's probably inevitable that I ended up here one way or another. --Chris &#124; <small>[[User:Crazycomputers|Crazycomputers]] ([[User talk:Crazycomputers|talk]])</small> 06:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Looking through these diffs, I'm not really seeing anything new. I see a lot of warnings to Emiya1980, but warnings are not evidence of anything other than that they're aware of our edit warring policy. In the diffs you provided, many are EW warning notices, others are duplicate links, and still others are links to reverts made by other editors. When you filter all of this out, it's pretty much the same list as you initially posted.
::::I'm not stating categorically that there's no problem with their behavior (there is), or that additional sanctions aren't necessary (they might be). I'm just stating that I don't think their problematic behavior ''yet'' rises to the level where additional sanctions are required -- at least I don't see evidence of that. An admonishment that this behavior is unacceptable and that future incidents will likely result in a block should be sufficient at this time. Of course, this is just my opinion, and any other administrator is welcome to chime in here if they disagree.
::::To be clear, if they want to voluntarily adopt a 1RR restriction as a stricter guardrail to help them avoid extended edit wars in the future, I would have no problem enforcing that. --Chris &#124; <small>[[User:Crazycomputers|Crazycomputers]] ([[User talk:Crazycomputers|talk]])</small> 01:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Cheers, I'm not hard pressed on the issue, so I'm not going to fight you about it or anything. If you feel that there isn't anything more to do, then I'm fine with that. I do want to note that I very specifically ''wasn't'' suggesting that Emiya should be blocked from the site, which was why I was proposed a 1RR restriction instead of suggesting they should be blocked. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 11:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== Persistent NPOV violations on Cavalier Johnson by multiple users involved in Michigan State University's Urban Politics course ==
::::I see other sections on that page cite women; e.g. [[WP:NBASKETBALL]] (though the [[Women's National Basketball Association]] is professional); [[WP:NBOX]] (mentions women and amateur boxers); and [[WP:NCYCLING]]. It should be easy enough to add a sentence to NFOOTY that accommodates what happens in the women's game. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 00:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


:::::{{ping|SlimVirgin}} Firstly, I think it should be pointed out that we do not allow male players articles in cases where the top divisions in their countries are semi-pro or amateur and dozens of articles on such players are deleted every year without any such uproar. Secondly, what needs considering here is what makes footballers notable. Our guidelines give two methods for footballers to gain assumed notability; the first is common to most sports, i.e. representing their country (playing international football). The second is related to football's status as a spectator sport – and this is something that not all sports get, as if there is not much interest in many sport from a spectator point of view, this in turn means the players are not deemed notable. However, obviously not all footballers are notable, as not all footballers play in leagues where there is sufficient spectator interest (I myself have played in a league where we used to get 10-20 people watching our games). So, we have to determine which leagues do make their players notable by virtue of playing in them. The best indicator of whether there is interest in a league in terms of it being a spectator sport is professional status; if a league cannot attract sufficient crowds or sponsorship, then this suggests there is not that much interest in it, and subsequently, that the players are not notable. Being a top division does not automatically make a league's players notable if there is little interest in that league in the country in question, and this rule is applied equally to both men's and women's football. If we had separate rules for men's and women's football, this would effectively be positive discrimination, which I would hope we all agree that this is [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS|not what Wikipedia is for]].
:::::Also, and I'm sure this was not your intention, citing the rugby union example is not really a good idea because I would say it is actually quite biased against women. [[WP:NRU]] allows an article on any male player to play in the world cup, but a female player has to be in a team that reaches the semi finals to qualify. [[User:Number 57|<font color="orange">Number</font>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<font color="green">5</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<font color="blue">7</font>]] 14:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


The article on {{pagelinks|Cavalier Johnson}} has recently been disrupted by multiple editors with edits that violate NPOV. When an NPOV edit from one user gets reverted, the reverted content usually gets readded by another user, sometimes over multiple edits. Could potentially be a case of meatpuppetry, as the editors concerned seem to be involved in [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Michigan_State_University/Urban_Politics_(Fall_2024)]].
I have been involved with Nfitz over AfD discussions on football-related articles, especially on players from Myanmar, and we were frustrated that though we knew that many of these players were playing in their country's top league, due to the lack of reliable sources (owing to simply the lack of documented media coverage of football events in Myanmar. Just google..) we were unable to prove their notability as per NFOOTY, which resulted in the deletion of some of the articles.


Concerned editors are {{userlinks|JuliaG886}}, {{userlinks|MiaReese26}}, and {{userlinks|SarahReckhow}}.
Now, to my point: I think that Nfitz made an error in his original statements, which were the original subject of this discussion; what Nfitz essentially said in his original comments (which were linked by Number 57 and I'm not going to re-quote them) is basically: "If you support the policy, you are a misogynist, if you do not support the policy, you are not a misogynist". This is clearly a [[false dichotomy]] as effectively, it means that if I happen to support the policy, that makes me ''invariably'' a misogynist, and you can only be one or the other. That's not true of course, as just because I support the policy, it doesn't automatically make me a misogynist.


[[User:Devchar|Devchar]] ([[User talk:Devchar|talk]]) 18:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I assume that because of this error, that Nfitz is seen by extension to be calling people misogynists if they happened to support the policy, but here's the thing: he is not calling anyone misogynists ''in particular''; by Nfitz making his statement verbatim, there is an element of ''if'' - "If you support, you will be...; if you do not support, you will be...". On that note, I do not believe that Nfitz has not made any personal attack on any particular individual or groups of individuals. Granted that his comments were insensitive and logically incorrect in the sense that he was trying to make others invariably make one choice over the other (false dichotomy), but other than these, I don't see any other wrong in his comments.


:Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't [[WP:CT/AP|AP2]] lack a distinction between national and subnational politics in the United States? These would fall under that CTOP if true. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 18:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it would help this discussion, but I'll state it anyway as a reminder to all of us, especially since Nfitz rightly said that we should be concerned with improving Wikipedia: [[WP:CENSORED|Wikipedia is not censored]]. Oh and as a side point, I doubt Nfitz violated [[WP:NPOV]], considering he was highlighting a fundamental flaw in policy, one which unfortunately has a gender element to it. Just stating it too, if it pops up in this discussion. [[User:Optakeover|<span style="color:#ffffff; background:#3e007e">Optakeover</span>]]<sup>[[User:Optakeover|(U)]][[User talk:Optakeover|(T)]][[Special:contributions/Optakeover|(C)]]</sup> 18:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
::In theory, that's true. However it is unusual to indefinitely protect articles about local pols under CTOP. Not saying it hasn't been done. But it isn't routine. I think this issue is fixable if we can get the word out to the involved editors so they know to avoid slanted language in articles. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 18:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:Also, as yet another side point, I don't think Number 57 should be required to apologise either; to me this entire discussion has been a whole big misunderstanding of both sides since the beginning. I also want to praise [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] for coming into this discussion with a voice of reason that spanned both sides. [[User:Optakeover|<span style="color:#ffffff; background:#3e007e">Optakeover</span>]]<sup>[[User:Optakeover|(U)]][[User talk:Optakeover|(T)]][[Special:contributions/Optakeover|(C)]]</sup> 19:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::I wasn't implying protection. I was implying more formal CTOP warnings. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 19:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' I wouldn't go so far as to say [[misogyny]]. But there definitely seems to be a [[double standard]] against women going on in this case study, unfortunately. That represents our [[Wikipedia community]] quite poorly to our readers. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 19:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Apologies. I misunderstood your comment. Any editor in good standing is free to drop a CTOP notice on another user's talk page. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 05:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:Yeah, this is clearly problematic. I have EC protected the page for 1 month. I will be happy to lift the protection once everybody concerned understands our guidelines and policies on BLPs. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 18:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::The Michigan State University class in question ended yesterday. If the usual pattern prevails, we will never hear from these student editors again. I wonder what grade will be given to the student who wrote {{tpq|Johnson credits his desire to be mayor as being rooted in his passion for service and serving the city he grew up in}}. When the word "passion" appears in the biography of a living person, it is a violation of NPOV about 99.9% of the time. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 19:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Student editing, while problematic, has the same sort of problem so many new editors have around tone. It's a problem that frequently makes me despair, but I believe there's incremental hope for better. And instructor reverting without explanation is a problem. Squarely our problem, because somehow we failed to convey the seriousness of it.
:::I've asked Helaine to intervene with the instructor. [[User:Ian (Wiki Ed)|Ian (Wiki Ed)]] ([[User talk:Ian (Wiki Ed)|talk]])/[[User:Guettarda]]/ 20:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC) [[User:Ian (Wiki Ed)|Ian (Wiki Ed)]] ([[User talk:Ian (Wiki Ed)|talk]]) 20:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm mildly concerned that the teacher of the course (SarahReckhow) doesn't seem to know what constitutes an NPOV violation (see their reply to me on their talk page). I'm not sure if this an actually valid concern though. [[User:Devchar|Devchar]] ([[User talk:Devchar|talk]]) 19:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)


== User82532 clearly [[WP:NOTHERE|NOTHERE]] ==
== Dicklyon and his treatment on commas before Jr/Sr ==


*{{user|User82532}}
[[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] has removed commas from titles without consensus case-by-case, like [[Andrew L. Lewis, Jr.]] Also, he misinterprets [[WP:JR]] as a no-comma rule for Jr./Sr. I don't think [[WP:3RRN]] would help much. Also, he posted [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGeorge_Ho&type=revision&diff=713454463&oldid=713049765 a message] and accused me of being disruptive. I can't handle his antics anymore. Time for administrative action. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 05:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2024_Romanian_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1261560539 This edit] is quite self-explanatory. I had reported them at [[WP:AIV]] due to a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2024_Romanian_presidential_election&diff=1261559007&oldid=1261558264 previous edit], but looking at these edits, their talk page and their contribution history, this should probably result in an indef rather than a temporal block. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 19:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:Indeed, and [[Special:Diff/1261556194|combined with]], on top of a [[Special:Diff/1221212005|vandalism block]] in April, just indef now. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 19:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2024_Romanian_presidential_election&diff=1261561805&oldid=1261561701 Welp]. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 19:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:Indef'ed. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]]</sup></small> 19:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::Every edit this person made today, including the one on their talk page, ought to get revdelled. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">''[[User:City of Silver|<span style="color:#BC49A6">City</span>]][[User talk:City of Silver|<span style="color:Green"> o</span><span style="color:Red">f </span>]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|<span style="color:#708090">Silver</span>]]''</b> 19:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm actually curious as to how they were not indeffed back in April for those edits that were revdelled. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 19:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)


== User:Vyzlette - Unconstructive editing and editing while logged out ==
:"Antics"? There has been broad support for [[WP:JR]] since the recent RFC. If you believe that [[Andrew L. Lewis, Jr.]] calls for a comma, please just say why. What have I done to stress you out so? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 05:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:: The discussion was about MOS and usage of content in text. It may not have extended to article titles. Also, I did not know about the RfC, and I was not told about it. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 05:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::No problem, George. Now you know. I had some time today, and removed a lot of un-preferred commas. Please do let me know if you see any case where there's a reason to put them back. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 06:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:: Also, look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Dicklyon&namespace=0&tagfilter=&year=2016&month=-1 the edits], especially on [[Cuba Gooding, Jr.]] How is the rule extended to article titles is beyond me. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 05:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::If, as you claim, [[WP:JR]] does not apply to article titles, how do you explain the fact that [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies]] specifically mentions how to handle article titles in four places? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 06:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::: Other parts have to do with how to introduce a person. Also, it's content-based, not title-based. As for commonality, MOS:BIO mentions it briefly without detailing it too much. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 06:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
*George, in reading Dicklyon's linked note to you, I rather think it's you who's been disruptive. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk) </font >]] 05:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:: How so? [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 05:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Shall we start with you taking a clear content dispute to ANI after less than an hour and a half / 3 total comments on the article talk page? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 05:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::It also looks like there's ongoing discussion at [[WT:MOSBIO]] regarding how to implement the "Jr." RfC. I think this discussion might work better in the scope of that one. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 06:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


*@[[User:George Ho|George Ho]]: Will you accept this [[WP:TROUT]] that's on offer and allow this thread to be closed so you can all go back to discussing this content dispute in the appropriate venue? Or does this call for a [[WP:BOOMERANG]]? [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 06:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:: [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri]], due to below comment, I'm afraid closing it would premature at this time. Let's see how it goes... [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 06:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


As a result of abusing multiple accounts for years to make unexplained, unnecessary and mostly incorrect additions (often containing improper grammar) to the plot section of several film articles (with a particular fixation on [[The Other Woman (2014 film)]] and occasional edits to [[The Other Guys]]), {{user|Vyzlette}} recently had two sockpuppets indefinitely blocked (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thisvivian/Archive the SPI report]), while the most recently used account (Vyzlette) was left untouched as the administrator felt this wasn't a case of malicious sockpuppetry. Less than a week later, Vyzlette continued to persistently make unexplained, unconstructive and nonsensical additions to the plot section of [[The Other Woman (2014 film)]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Other_Woman_(2014_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1259781432][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Other_Woman_(2014_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1259792872][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Other_Woman_(2014_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1259969274]). After a couple attempts on my end to communicate with Vyzlette at [[User talk:Vyzlette|their talk page]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vyzlette&diff=prev&oldid=1260521601 to no avail]), the user began making edits to [[The Other Woman (2014 film)]] while logged out as {{user|76.103.44.169}} for a few days before switching back to Vyzlette ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Other_Guys&diff=prev&oldid=1261074658][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Other_Woman_(2014_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1261444931][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Other_Woman_(2014_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1261445401]). <b>[[User:SnapSnap|<span style="color: #B571EF">snap</span><span style="color: #5BAEF7">snap</span>]]</b> <sup>([[User talk:SnapSnap|talk]])</sup> 20:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
[[WP:JR]] prefers but doesn't mandate the removal of commas. Strictly speaking, the page moves are unnecessary. This isyet another instance of wishy-washy language in the MOS causing grief. It should be consistent one way or the other and hopefully the aforementioned discussion on [[WT:MOSBIO]] provides a clear way forward. [[User:Clpo13|clpo13]]<sub>([[User_talk:Clpo13|talk]])</sub> 06:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:I agree with you 100%, but ANI is not the place to discuss that. ANI is where we discuss blocks and bans of disruptive users. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 06:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:: How is Dicklyon not a disruptive type? [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 06:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:: Especially when he removes the comma during the RM? [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 06:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::The only RM I can see is one you opened, to an undetermined future title. If you don't know what the title should be, you can't criticize other users for presenting there proposals and being [[WP:BOLD]]. Also, I had no idea there was an RM open because you never mentioned it. Now do you want that trout or [[WP:BOOMERANG|not]]? I ''strongly'' urge you to accept the former... [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 07:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::: What about [[Talk:Dale_Earnhardt,_Jr.#Requested_move_30_December_2015|this RM]]? And [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=651591314 past requests] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Martin_Luther_King,_Sr.&diff=651741806&oldid=651629452 one of my reverts], whilst RM discussion at [[Talk:Martin Luther King, Sr.]] was ongoing? [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 07:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::: Also, I notice that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Robert_Downey_Jr.&action=history&year=2015&month=12&tagfilter= the comma] was removed from "Robert Downey, Jr." when the RM four years ago said to retain the comma and no further discussions were made in the talk page. [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 07:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::None of those RMs are currently open, and two are over a year old! Are you saying [[User:Philg88]] should be blocked for something he did more than a year ago? You appear to be saying that you want to have a general discussion of our style guidelines on ANI? Or are you blaming Dicklyon for a whole bunch of stuff they had nothing to do with? [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 08:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::: What? No, I'm not pinning on Phil. It's Dicklyon's disregard for case-by-case strategy and generalization on other things. If you think I'm out of control, be my guest. And how dare you propose a block on me after I tried to address a user conduct. Giving me a "boomerang", which I don't know what it means until you try to propose a block on me. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 09:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::: If you want my propose on Dicklyon, maybe an admonishment perhaps? If that's not enough, how about warning? Or encourage Dicklyon to propose instead of boldly moving on all commas? [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 09:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::You've been editing Wikipedia for a decade and you don't know how ANI works? Maybe you shouldn't have come here, then. I offered you the easy way out of being hit with a trout and closing this thread, and you refused. Twice. I explicitly told you you would be hit with a boomerang if you persisted, and I linked to the page for you to read it. The potentially-disruptive unilateral move in the middle of an RM from over a year ago to which you referred above was made by Philg88 and had nothing to do with Dicklyon as far as I can see. I don't think either should face sanctions for what looks like a good faith misunderstanding from over a year ago. You, on the other hand, appear to be deliberately forum-shopping your content dispute to ANI, and trying to antagonize anyone who calls you out on it. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 09:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::: <s>If I'm too late to let you close the thread, that's fine by me. If you want to close it, go ahead. But I'll be back if the [[Empire Strikes Back|empire strikes back]]. I swear to you. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 09:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)</s>
:::::::: <s>Rescinding my latest comment due to unanimous opposition below. If it's not too late, close it if you want. Otherwise, let's hear admins' comments then. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 18:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)</s>
:::::::: You know what? If you believe that this ANI is in bad faith, propose an admonishment or a warning on me if you can. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 20:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Are you ''trying'' to be antagonistic? I withdrew my boomerang proposal ''seven hours'' before you posted the above, and had refrained from further comment in this thread. The "unanimous opposition" was ''entirely'' based on philosophical differences over what constitutes a "preventative" block, and I had better things to do with my time than comb through your edit history to see if you abusing ANI was already a recurring problem. Everyone was and still is in agreement that you are being disruptive and are misusing ANI. The "unanimous opposition" was also unanimous that you should be hit with some sort of boomerang or at least a trout. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 03:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::: If no one is behind me, then... please don't trout me. I don't like being trout-ed. I was trouted once; twice is too much. I don't know if I want to back off or make the thread active. I hate that I'm the enemy here; I don't want to be "antagonistic". If I allow bold removals of commas, then what are we going to do with academics outside Wikipedia who still encourage commas before Sr./Jr.? Also, what about academics encouraging the periods after Jr/Sr? --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 03:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


== Request TPA revocation from Pavanreddy211 ==
* I think <s>a [[WP:BOOMERANG]]</s> <ins>an ANI-misuse admin warning</ins> of some kind (not a block, per below discussion) is in order<s>, perhaps a short-term topic ban</s>. Ho may well have been unaware of the RfC but that doesn't mitigate anything, including his vague aspersion-casting that Lyon is "a disruptive type", etc. It's totally inappropriate to drag someone to [[WP:ANI]] for alleged linguistic battlegrounding (actually, routine cleanup) when one's own intent is in fact to perpetuate linguistic battlegrounding. It's vexatious, litigious, unclean-hands, and a misuse of ANI to try to [[WP:WIN]] a content dispute. Lyon using normal [[WP:RM]] processes – slow or speedy – to comply with guideline wording, in an evidence-backed manner, is not problematic. What is problematic is the never-give-up attitude of a couple of editors who are big fans of this comma despite all evidence that usage has shifted over the last two decades (across all dialects and registers) and who go from RM to RM opposing its removal, recycling, in [[WP:NOTGETTINGIT]] style, the same bogus arguments in every case no matter how many times they are refuted. This is [[WP:TE|tendentious]] activity and needs to stop.<p>George Ho in particular has been remarkably [[WP:DEADHORSE]], at both RM discussions and MoS talk pages, about a number of linguistic matters he simply does not understand and refuses to believe enormous piles of evidence about, like the difference between "as" or "like" when used as a preposition versus as a conjunction. It took me many hours of sourcing to get him to even back slightly away from that carcass (thought fortunately the work can be used to improve some articles on English usage).<br />{{small|1=PS: comments like "WP:JR prefers but doesn't mandate the removal of commas" are meaningless; all of MOS and our naming conventions pages are just guidelines and do not "mandate" anything. We comply with them as guidelines absent a compelling reason not to in a particular case. And, yes, this is not the place to try to make one.}}<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 22:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)</p>
{{atop|1=TPA revoked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)}}
::{{ping|SMcCandlish}} Which is part of the problem. So long as MOS pages remain "just guidelines", we end up with pointless arguments like this. The wording should be stronger. And next time, would you be so kind as to ping me when you talk about me? [[User:Clpo13|clpo13]]<sub>([[User_talk:Clpo13|talk]])</sub> 05:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
TPA needs to be revoked from {{user|Pavanreddy211}}. They may be [[WP:NOTHERE]] again. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 21:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed. George Ho's above ''ex post facto'' comments on my failed boomerang proposal indicate that he just [[WP:IDHT|doesn't get it]] -- he seems to actually think a lot of users came to his defense in the belief that this discussion ''does'' belong on ANI and I was totally wrong on the substance. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 03:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:Done. Thanks for the eyes. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 21:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yeah, the objections were to using a block punitively rather than preventatively, i.e. they were procedural not content- or behavior-related objections. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 11:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:: Bogus? [[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]], my arguments aren't bogus. Give one example that my arguments are bogus. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 03:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::You're just proving Hijiri88's point. This is not the forum for an argument about grammar/style and the bogosity of your beliefs about that topic. And "Give one example that my arguments are bogus" doesn't even parse as a proper sentence, which rather proves the other point. So does the whole square mile of sources I dumped on the ''like''/''as'' matter at [[WT:MOSCAPS]], now in [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_21|Archive 21]], at multiple RMs, and developed in hairy detail at [[User:SMcCandlish/sourcing/Capitalization in English]]. Anyone who cares about the actual content dispute will find everything they could want in there. Be careful what you wish for.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 11:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:I'm rescinding my t-ban suggestion. In re-reviewing Ho's involvement in these topics, while there is a level of tendentiousness, he's actually {{em|usually}} more civil than the "style warriors" we keep having to deal with periodically. This seems to have been a momentary lapse. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 12:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' After reading, above, I have to say I agree with the comment in this sect by {{user|Tony1}}. I'd encourage the filer of this ANI thread to familiarize themselves with RFC reflecting community consensus, existing site policy, and then discuss in a civil manner on relevant article talk pages about the issue, keeping in mind pages already cited to him, above. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 00:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


== Persistent POV edits and probably COI on [[The Gersh Agency]] ==
=== [[WP:BOOMERANG]] for George Ho - block for 24 hours ===
<div style="margin-left:0px"><!-- NOTE: width renders incorrectly if added to main STYLE section-->
{| <!-- Template:Collapse top --> class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="background: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin: 0.2em auto auto; width:100%; clear: both; padding: 1px;"
|-
! style="background: #{{main other|F0F2F5|CFC}}; font-size:87%; padding:0.2em 0.3em; text-align:center; " | <span style="font-size:115%">Withdrawn by requestor</span>


|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background: white;" |
<del>{{user|George Ho}} has been given ample opportunity to withdraw this silly request for sanctions over a content dispute that apparently had only started before he decided to [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|escalate it]] to ANI, and has refused. His most recent comments, immediately above, indicate that he does not have any solid proposal for admin intervention, and just wants to have a general discussion of Wikipedia's style guidelines, which is not what ANI is for. I say issue a short block and tell him that this kind of escalation is disruptive.</del> [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 08:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
*<del>'''Support''' as nom.</del> [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 08:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::'''Withdrawn''' per [[WP:SNOW]]. I guess I was the one hit with a trout in this case.(笑) [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 13:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' Personally I prefer the no-comma style, but regardless of the underlying merits, in the War of the Comma Crazies no less than in the Middle East, it's critical that a balance of power be maintained lest any one party become unfettered to spread perverse punctuation preoccupation to further parts of the Wikiglobe. A block of anyone might upset this delicate balance. '''[[User:EEng#s|<font color="red">E</font>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<font color="blue">Eng</font>]]''' 11:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


[[User:Mischit]] has been making POV/promotional edits to [[The Gersh Agency]] since March. These involve removing sourced negative information [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Gersh_Agency&diff=1217957356&oldid=1214504197 diff for eg], adding promotional tone, etc. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Gersh_Agency&diff=1261588477&oldid=1261580007 Here] is the most recent example from this evening. User has been engaged on talk page (in March, and today) and their user page, but no response in any case. I can't revert their edits again without breaching 3RR. [[User:Jdcooper|Jdcooper]] ([[User talk:Jdcooper|talk]]) 22:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punishing for misusing AN/I. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 11:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::@[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]]: Per SNOW, I'm not going to attempt to defend my proposal and overturn all of the oppose !votes, but if you read the discussion above it's pretty clear that, even after several users telling him, George Ho didn't accept that he was misusing ANI. A short block would tell him definitively that what he did was wrong and discourage repeat offense, something that's highly likely if he doesn't recognize that what he did was not acceptable. I even specifically told GH that what he was doing was disruptive and he should take it back, and he refused to listen -- twice. It would also allow this thread to be closed and for the comma warriors to go back to solving their content dispute (although one of them would have to wait 24 hours). So my rationale was preventative, even if the rest of you don't agree. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 13:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Unless he has a history of misusing AN/I you can't reasonably call it preventative. Sure, he might do it again, but innocent until proven guilty... --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 14:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


== [[User:HumansRightsIsCool]] is [[WP:NOTHERE|NOTHERE]] ==
*'''Oppose vehemently''' What is this block supposed to achieve? Everybody is entitled to his/her opinion, and finding consensus is the way forward. This block would be purely punitive, and would have zilch effect. Either stay away from each other, or hash it out without getting too stubborn. [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] ([[User talk:Lectonar|talk]]) 11:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Their edits (primarily on articles about YouTubers and controversial figures) are not helpful and are frequently reverted; the user then does not listen to corrections and is argumentative. I'm unsure if they are just an overconfident young editor or are here to be intentionally disruptive.
*'''Oppose''' The comma wars are, in my opinion, one of the most lame long term wars at Wikipedia. I suppose it would make too much sense to solve the whole thing like we did ENGVAR - leave it as it was first done and keep it consistent within articles. It is unlikely our readers give even a tiny fraction of a damn about this when they come to look something up. That said George Ho is a prolific and good faith editor and a block is not warranted. Even if an argument could be made this ANI filing is inappropriate <small>(no opinion on that)</small> this call for a BOOMERANG is more so. [[User:Jbhunley|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:14pt;color:#886600">J</span><span style="font-family:Lucida Calligraphy;font-size:10pt;color:#886600">bh</span>]][[User_talk:Jbhunley|<span style="color: #00888F"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 12:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose'''. As OpenFuture has said, blocks are preventative not punitive. This is a punitive measure. On a side note, the comma wars looks to be the next in line after the emdash war, the diacritic war, the engvar war...
::Who posted this? I felt sure that with so many ANI posters opposed to my proposal, at least one must have been make [[WP:DICK|dickish]] ad hominem attacks against the messenger, so even after withdrawing I was reading these !votes. I was happy -- and frankly quite surprised -- to see not a single DICK comment, but reading the above I sensed a kindred spirit in someone who recognizes the diacritic war as something in the past (Ctrl+F this page right now for "diacritic" to see why I was happy with this), and I would like to barnstar, or at least thank, whoever wrote it. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 13:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::I think it was [[User:Blackmane]]...[[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] ([[User talk:Lectonar|talk]]) 14:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::: {{ping|Hijiri88}} Indeed it was. Forgot to sign, thanks {{ping|Lectonar}}. [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 15:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', GeorgeHo is commenting on a possible misuse of removing commas from articles, as the closer of the RFC said that commas on Jr.Sr. could be grandfathered on older and feature articles. A block makes little sense when someone brings up a legitimate issue. [[user:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] 13:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Close''' nothing here [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 18:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
|}</div>


The most recent run-in with this user was on the [[Jaden McNeil]] page, which has had notability issues since it was created. They went unaddressed, so I turned the page to a redirect. On the [[Talk:Jaden McNeil|talk page]], the user has justified reverting the decision by pointing out other unrelated individuals, saying that the subject of the article is "good at exposing" people, and mentioning that I'm Catholic. None of this addressed the issues, and this seems to be a recurring problem with the editor, on top of how few of their edits are constructive and the frequent [[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|edit warring]].
== Editor not playing ball by insisting on controversial renaming without using [[WP:REQMOVE]] ==


Happy holidays, ''[[User:Swinub|<span style="background-color: #000000; color: #FFFFFF">Swinub</span>]]''[[User talk:Swinub|<span style="background-color: #FFFFFF; color: #000000">★</span>]] 23:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
User [[User:Wiki-psyc]] renamed [[personal boundaries]] as [[setting boundaries]] without any discussion and without using [[WP:REQMOVE]]. I reverted it explaining that it was controversial and if [[User:Wiki-psyc]] wanted to pursue it please use [[WP:REQMOVE]]. Now [[User:Wiki-psyc]] has reverted my revert without bothering with [[WP:REQMOVE]] aqain.--[[User:Penbat|Penbat]] ([[User talk:Penbat|talk]]) 15:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


:On Wikipedia, you're supposed to discuss. It's argumentative? That's the point, that's what the talk page is for. I mentioned how you were Catholic and might be a nick Fuentes fan (who identifies as a Catholic nationalist) because you mentioned how I was a Jaden McNeil fan. And I've only got a few warnings for edit warring a while back, but that was a while back and I dont do that anymore. [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 23:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:The first article name change does not appear to be controversial - it occurred '''7 months ago''' and despite being an active article, there is nothing in the edit notes or TALK PAGE to suggest any controversy or disagreement until yesterday. <br/>Penbat suggested a name change '''yesterday''' on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Setting_boundaries#Dubious_about_the_current_state_of_this_article TALK PAGE] and he implemented the change 5 hours after the change was contested and became controversial. I reverted the name change pending consensus. <br/>
::Also the issues with the Jaden McNeil page went "unaddressed" because they're aren't any issues at all. He's got thousands of followers and reliable sources like the ADL cover him. Also just to be clear I'm not a fan of jaden's anti-semitic views but how he exposes his former Neo-Nazi friend Nick Fuentes. Also Im not just advocating to keep the page up just because I like what he does, but because he's definitely notable [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 23:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:[[User:Wiki-psyc|Wiki-psyc]] ([[User talk:Wiki-psyc|talk]]) 17:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:::one last thing before I go. You said my edits frequently get reversed. That doesn't happen a lot. It happens a few times when an editor disagrees but it always gets resolved in the talk page and we come to an agreement. And you said I point out unrelated individuals to argue about the McNeil page staying up. Syrian girl is also associated with Nick Fuentes. She's not a "unrelated individual." And I used her as an example to keep the Jaden McNeil page because she got a Wikipedia article when she had 30,000 subscribers on YouTube and still doesn't even have 100,000.
:::Happy holidays [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 23:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::She is unrelated, and her notability is clearly established. As explained in the original edit summary, Jaden McNeil is known for "being the former Turning Point USA chapter president of Kansas State University," posting an edgy tweet in 2020, and briefly being associated with Nick Fuentes. This does not establish notability. Yes, the ADL mentioned him; they cover everyone in online right-wing politics, most of whom do not and should not have an article on here. ''[[User:Swinub|<span style="background-color: #000000; color: #FFFFFF">Swinub</span>]]''[[User talk:Swinub|<span style="background-color: #FFFFFF; color: #000000">★</span>]] 23:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::She is related because she's associated with Nick, and yes her notability is established now. But when she first got an article she only had 30,000 followers on YouTube and was getting only a couple thousand views a video. If you go to syrian girl's channel, her most recent videos only have 1,000 views. She's notable now because syrian girl's post often go viral and get hundreds of thousands and sometimes hit a million views. But 10 years ago that wasn't the case and she still got a Wikipedia page. If you're saying Jaden McNeil isn't notable because he doesn't have many followers on a YouTube channel he doesn't even post on and has 0 content currently, look at why syrian girl is notable, viral tweets. many times Jaden McNeil's tweets get 100-400k views. One of his recent ones got 4 million views, and if there's reliable sources like the adl mentioning him. He's notable. The ADL doesn't cover every right-wing influencer, even small ones. That's simply impossible. And Jaden isn't only known for making one tweet about George Floyd in 2020. That needs to be updated lol. [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 23:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::[[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]], why do you keep talking about views, followers and tweets? That's not how notability is established on Wikipedia and you've been around long enough to know this is the case. You shouldn't be mentioning biographical information about other editors, that shouldn't come into discussions about notability, focus on content, not contributors and their off-wiki lives.
:::::::[[User:Swinub|Swinub]], I gather you don't get on with HumansRightsIsCool but you need to present diffs/edits to show disruption to support your claims that you think this editor should be blocked. If this discussion devolves into a content discussion about specific articles and notability, I, or another editor, will hat it as content disagreements shouldn't be discussed at ANI. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 00:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Ok first off, you're asking why do I keep talking about views, followers and tweets. Well swinhub started it by saying Jaden is only well known for one tweet about George Floyd 4 years ago in 2020. He's the one who first brought up fame and how famous Jaden is. And I haven't just been talking about views and tweets, I also mention how reliable sources cover Jaden McNeil like the ADL when he claimed it's just local sources. And I mentioned how swinhub was Catholic because Nick Fuentes identifies as a Catholic nationalist, and he's deleting the page about the enemy of Nick Fuentes, Yeah sorry I brought that up didn't know that was inappropriate and I should assume good faith and shouldn't assume personal bias [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 00:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It's about notability, not "fame," something you should be aware of if you are making the sort of edits you make. I did not claim he was ''only'' known for the tweet; I claimed that it is one of three things he is known for, none of which indicate notability. The ADL calling someone anti-semitic also does not indicate notability. ''[[User:Swinub|<span style="background-color: #000000; color: #FFFFFF">Swinub</span>]]''[[User talk:Swinub|<span style="background-color: #FFFFFF; color: #000000">★</span>]] 00:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::It seems like you're talking about fame when you say "notable" though if you keep saying he's only known for 3 things. he has multiple reliable sources covering him, that's Wikipedia's policy on notability. And sorry but now I have to talk about fame again because you said he's only known for 3 things 4 years ago. If you go on his Twitter account his posts get tens of thousands and views, sometimes going up to 400k-1 million views. I saw one of his posts hit 4 million views. He's not notable for for only three things. Also please top deleting the Jaden McNeil page when we're still actively discussing, we haven't reached conscious yet and now you're starting to edit war. [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 00:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::i meant "stop" not "top" [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 01:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::You are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. ''[[User:Swinub|<span style="background-color: #000000; color: #FFFFFF">Swinub</span>]]''[[User talk:Swinub|<span style="background-color: #FFFFFF; color: #000000">★</span>]] 01:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I've been editing this encyclopedia for a while now adding what I thinks best for pages. I'm building. Your the one who's deleting and deleting. Even if there's reliable sources in this article. we haven't come to an agreement and you deleted the page 2 or three times already. And you claim I'm the one starting edit wars lol. I honestly don't know what you're talking about. [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 01:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::My last comment. HumansRightsIsCool, Swinub has not deleted any pages, he's not an administrator. Swinub, I asked you to present diffs of disruption which you haven't done. No action is likely to be taken if you don't provide evidence of the claims you are making. The only thing I see right now is two editors bickering. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Ok he technically didn't delete the page. He just removed everything on the page and made it a redirect [[User:HumansRightsIsCool|HumansRightsIsCool]] ([[User talk:HumansRightsIsCool|talk]]) 02:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}It might be relevant to remind people that [[WP:NOTINHERITED|notability is not inherited]], and that [[WP:BIGNUMBER|millions of views of a post]] does not establish notability. What established notability is what [[WP:RS|reliable secondary sources]] say specifically about the subject themselves. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
* I have AfDd the article - [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaden McNeil]]. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


== New, uncommunicative editor adding European Cultural Centre University & Research Projects Award ==
::[[User:Wiki-psyc]]s point is irrelevant. There was absolutely no discussion before the move on the talk page and no [[WP:REQMOVE]] - https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Setting_boundaries&diff=677100382&oldid=677070465 although he did post this on the talk page 1 hour 21 minutes afterwards - https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Setting_boundaries&diff=677106945&oldid=677100387 --[[User:Penbat|Penbat]] ([[User talk:Penbat|talk]]) 18:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


{{userlinks|Nisa-helena}} is a relatively new editor who has made nearly 180 edits only to add links to and information about the European Cultural Centre University & Research Projects Award to many articles. In many cases, the edits include an [[WP:EL|external link]] which is not something that should be added to the body of an article. In many cases, the additions are also vague and [[WP:DUE|unnecessary]]. I would love to discuss my objections and help this editor but they are not responding to any messages or even using edit summaries. A message from another editor may get their attention but a brief block may be necessary. [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 23:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, I did a major rewrite and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Setting_boundaries#Article_reorganization documented the work]back in 2015 so that other editors could follow. Why are we here? What are you asking for?<br/>
:So is it now perfectly acceptable for an editor to add vague information and external links to articles while refusing to communicate with other editors in any way? [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 15:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::[[User:Wiki-psyc|Wiki-psyc]] ([[User talk:Wiki-psyc|talk]]) 18:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
::If you want somebody to check out the user's behavior, please post some diffs as examples. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 16:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::'''Every single edit they have made''' is to add this information. No communication whatsoever. [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 16:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Small correction: Their initial edits after creating their account in October were not about this award but focused on adding information about books published by the centre. [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 17:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Checked out this user's contribution history and @[[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] is not exaggerating. He doesn't need to post diffs because if you check the contributions, every single one of the diffs follows the pattern he mentioned. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 03:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Crikey, they're even adding spam to articles of people who were "shortlisted" for these nonnotable awards. Editor has had plenty of time to respond to the several warnings. Block. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 08:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I've blocked for a week in hope of their [[WP:COMMUNICATE|communicating]]. If they instead resume on the expiration, it'll be indef time. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== 76.130.142.29 and weird forum-like talk page posts, etc. ==
:::Irrelevant.--[[User:Penbat|Penbat]] ([[User talk:Penbat|talk]]) 19:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I have move protected the article for some time. As the first move was carried out nearly a year ago, and a lot of work has been done of the article content since then, I do not regard this as move warring by Wiki-psyc. However now is the time to stop moving and get consensus on the most appropriate title. I suggest using the [[WP:RM]] process. Regards &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 10:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


[[Special:Contributions/76.130.142.29|76.130.142.29]] has been making odd forum-like talk page posts that are often unconstructive for a while now, such as those listed at [[User talk:76.130.142.29|their talk page]] and more recently [[Special:Diff/1261369749|this one]] at [[Talk:Aileen Wuornos]] and [[Special:Diff/1260417794|this one]] at [[Talk:Ron Lyle]]. Also, their responses on their talk page show quite an attitude problem. If I were still an admin with full blocking powers, I would block them for clearly continuing their editing pattern despite adequate warnings (or *maybe* give them *one* final warning), but I'm not so I've brought this here. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 01:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:[[WP:RM]] is all I want but it seems unreasonable that I have to initiate the [[WP:RM]], not [[User:Wiki-psyc]], and have to make the case to go back to the status quo when there was no discussion or [[WP:RM]] before the first rename on 21 August 2015. I am not sure why time is a factor. Substantive changes were made by [[User:Wiki-psyc]] just before the rename as part of a package, briefly documented after the event here https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Setting_boundaries&diff=677106945&oldid=677100387. I was never happy with the original rename but have only recently taken issue with it as I have just got round to looking into it in depth. Just because I have not intervened earlier did not mean that I approved - it was presented as a fait accompli. Changes in the article since then have not been particularly substantive but anyway I fail to see why it is relevant to the naming of the article. The basic character of the article has not changed significantly since then. No other editor has expressly supported [[User:Wiki-psyc]]'s edits or the rename. Edits by other editors have been relatively minor.--[[User:Penbat|Penbat]] ([[User talk:Penbat|talk]]) 12:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:I posted a warning to not use talk pages as a forum. They posted a couple surly messages in response to previous warnings on their user talk page, let's see if the recent notice has any effect. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::Had you reverted the name change after it was originally moved last year, I am sure Wiki-psyc would have been happy to go through a [[WP:RM]]. However since it has stood with no contest for months, the status quo has changed. It doesnt matter that no one has expressly supported it, no one has opposed it for months. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 13:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::{{replyto|Liz}} Thanks for that. You gave them exactly the same warning level that I did a couple of sections above your post though ... that feels a bit redundant from here, but maybe that's just me. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 03:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' Agree with the move protect admin action by {{user|MSGJ}}. At this point in time, unfortunately with regards to all that has already transpired, it's somewhat irrelevant what happened in the past. Users should discuss and neutrally and in a civil manner make their case on the talk page with the [[WP:REQMOVE]] process, and hope for additional input from previously-uninvolved-participants to arrive at the discussion. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 00:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Different admins have different approaches. I like to hear from an editor at ANI or see how they respond to a warning before taking action unless they are just vandalizing and disrespecting other editors. Especially with some new editors, they sometimes don't realize they have crossed a line until they are given that "Final warning." It's amazing to me but many newer editors just don't take the first warnings very seriously. And, if I can be honest, I think some of our standard warnings are very verbose and use 200 words what could be said in 20. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


== Persistent disruptive and tendentious editing by TheRazgriz on the 2024 United States elections page ==
* '''Request for help establishing neutrality''' Like this ANI, the [[WP:RM]] has become personally disparaging rather than a simple consensus discussion. This is the second time I have been brought before and ANI for unknowingly editing an article that was originated by Penbat. I'm not going to engage the accusations in the WP:RM. I do ask that this matter be reviewed for possible intervention.


[[User:TheRazgriz|TheRazgriz]] has engaged in persistent, [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive]] and [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|tendentious]] editing on the [[2024 United States elections]] page, including making multiple ad hominem attacks against myself, ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1260767811 calling] me an emotional biased editor engaging in borderline vandalism, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1259207741 accusing] me of [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]], and of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261169861 acting] with intentional bad faith) and making several [[WP:UNCIVIL]] comments on the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261199711 pointed] out by other editors. TheRazgriz did [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BootsED&diff=prev&oldid=1260851489 apologize] once on my talk page, but continued to engage in such attacks against myself afterwards. TheRazgriz has been called out by [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1261252635 several] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1261450667 other] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1261252190 editors] on his talk page for uncivil comments on this and other pages, which are promptly removed shortly thereafter. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1259659111 comments] on his talk page, Wikipedia admin [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] has noted Raz's use of "rudeness and sexualized language" (ex: "stroke off your ego", calling people "boy"). Wikipedia admin [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1261117108 noted] that his message in reply to Bishonen "comes across as somewhat arrogant". User [[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] made a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1247372138 warning] against Raz of potential edit warring on the [[Bryson City, North Carolina]] page.
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Setting_boundaries#Requested_move_4_April_2016 Current WP:RM]
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wiki-psyc/Archive Prior ANI] for editing a Penbat originated article titled [[Exaggeration]]<br/>
::[[User:Wiki-psyc|Wiki-psyc]] ([[User talk:Wiki-psyc|talk]]) 16:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


I previously [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting reversal of premature closure of talk page section by TheRazgriz|submitted an AN/I incident]] against TheRazgriz on December 3rd following his premature closure of a talk page section which was upheld. TheRazgriz has since made multiple novel and rejected interpretations of Wikipedia RS and OR policy, all of which have been unanimously rejected by editors both in [[Talk:2024 United States elections#RfC Should Trump's claims of a stolen election, rigged trials, election interference, weaponization of justice and lawfare by the Democratic Party be described as "false" and "without evidence"?|an RfC]] I opened and a [[Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Original research for claim regarding polling for Donald Trump's legal cases on the 2024 United States election page|discussion]] on the Original Research noticeboard. During discussions, TheRazgriz refused to provide any reliable secondary sources for his claims, instead [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261031463 claiming] the ONUS was not on him. TheRazgriz has also been [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261064112 called] out by other editors that his [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261080092 claims] about the content of prior edits was incorrect as shown by edit history.
== User talk page spamming at FLC ==


TheRazgriz has frequently [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1259181801 refused] to engage in meaningful discussion with myself, with his repeated insistence that he is right and I am wrong (one [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1258984465 example]: "I have proven that assertion to be true. Can you disprove that assertion?"), and only relenting once overwhelming and unanimous agreement from other editors that his interpretation of policy is mistaken. Despite his interpretations being unanimously rejected by other editors multiple times, TheRazgriz has continued to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261449134 insist] his edits and interpretations of policy not disputed by at least three editors cannot be removed. TheRazgriz has falsely [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1260767746 claimed] a consensus exists within the "[[Talk:2024 United States elections#Undue weight in "Issues"|Undue weight in lead]]" section of the talk page for his "final" edits to the Economy section, which he has previously used to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1260760693 revert] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1260761977 edits] to the section and as of today claims he will continue to revert using consensus as the reason.


I do believe that TheRazgriz does think his interpretations of policy are correct. However, as a new editor with roughly 250 mainspace edits (Raz [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1261160539 claims] he has over 114,000 edits on other unregistered accounts but that his IP address [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1247372138 changes] frequently), and with his discussions and interpretations of policy being unanimously rejected by multiple editors, I believe that TheRazgriz requires further knowledge of Wikipedia policy in order to become an better editor. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 03:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Inside the Valley}}


:What has troubled me about this editor is that after I've had some conversations with them about policy and questioning claims that they've made on their user page that they seemingly followed me to an RFC on [[Israel]], casting a !vote at [[Special:Diff/1261260050]] that they weren't entitled to make given that they are not [[WP:XC]]. Now the edit can be forgiven for an editor who is new, however what concerned me was that they had never edited in that area before and then ended up doing so after I had made edits in that RFC. When I [[Special:Diff/1261441632|questioned the circumstance in which they made that edit]], they [[WP:ABF]] and [[Special:Diff/1261444788|accused me of disruptive behaviour]]. When I [[Special:Diff/1261445499|suggested they strike their incivil comments before it escalate]], they [[Special:Diff/1261450667|deleted the discussion between us]] and in the edit summary wrote "Removed unproductive comments, potential WP:DE" again [[WP:ABF]] and accusing me of engaging in disruptive behaviour. Given the litany of [[WP:ABF]] and [[WP:UNCIVIL]] directed at other editors at [[Talk:2024 United States elections]] as well as what I have experienced first hand, it is patently clear to me that this editor does not hold the level head needed in order to be participating in the post 1992 American politics CTOP area and should probably be topic banned. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 04:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Key issue here: Violation of [[WP:CANVASSING]] and specifically, [[WP:VOTESTACK]].
::I did not "follow" you. As someone who is new to the named user side of things, I am still exploring the deep dark rabbit holes "behind the curtain" that I had only rarely ever seen glimpses of before as a casual IP editor. With this other user having brought up something to a NB which involved me, it activated my curiosity around NB's and that led me down yet another rabbit hole of exploring which led me to the RfC, from a NB and not from the page itself. As my userbox on my userpage shows, I do indeed have an interest in such subject matter. As also pointed out, all of that subject matter is out of bounds for profiles with less than 500 edits. Even if I wanted to establish a record of interest in the area, how would I possibly have done so? That feels like a very unfair point.
::Never the less, I do have a personal interest in that, but due to my IRL background ''I would caution myself'' from participating much, if at all, in that subject matter. I first recognized my bias after Oct 7, and as such I have made a promise to myself to not seek out any subject matter relating to Israel, Hamas, Palestine, etc for editing, only for reading, as this bias does not come from a place of passion but from a place of personal lived experiences. However that RfC was on if a particular news outlet was RS or not, and I wanted to offer my opinion only after reading the RfC opinions and confirming that others shared my view on that org, and for the same reasons. As was confirmed [[User talk:TheRazgriz#ARBPIA|here]] on my page after they removed the post for the 500 edit issue, there was no other problem with my edit. [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 14:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


:[[User:BootsED]], ultimately, what outcome are you looking for with this second complaint? You clearly spent quite a lot of time putting this all together but it's not clear what result you are seeking through this discussion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm quite concerned about User talk page spamming at FLC for [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mohanlal filmography/archive1]] by FLC nominator {{user|Inside the Valley}}.
::I do not want to presume what action should be necessary for this editor, as I will admit this is only the second time I have engaged in an AN/I discussion and I am unfamiliar with this user's actions compared to other similar incidents and what actions were taken against them in the past. I agree with TarnishedPath that there should at least be a post-1992 American politics topic ban. However, his misunderstanding of basic policy and frequent uncivil behavior makes me question whether or not his disruptive editing will simply continue on other non-American politics articles and if he will show the necessary humility and willingness to learn. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 05:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Their inability or unwillingness to understand core [[WP:PAG]], particularly [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:NOR]], is troubling especially given they claim to have been editing since 2007-08 with 114,000+ edits. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 06:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:Not a good look that [[User:TheRazgriz]] does not understand why pinning demeaning language on the top of {{their|TheRazgriz}} talk page is bad. [[User:Northern Moonlight|<span style="background-color:#f3f3fe;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">Northern Moonlight</span>]] 10:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I have warned TheRazgriz about [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning the process]] at [[Talk:2024 United States elections]]. If nothing changes, I consider page-blocking them. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 15:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC).


:I'd support at least that. I want to know about any possible NOR or RS issues. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 15:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
FLC started at 15:50, 3 March 2016. Immediately after that, {{user|Inside the Valley}} spammed user talk pages of no less than at least eighteen (18) users.
::@[[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]], on the issue of [[WP:RS]] please see [[Special:Diff/1261261442]] where they try and claim a citation from NYT as subpar (Yourish & Smart| at the same time as pushing usage of [[WP:NYPOST]] "to give Republican perspective". When I asked them to clarify in which context NYPOST is reliable, by providing a specific story (see [[Special:Diff/1261274529]] and [[Special:Diff/1261276064]]), they responded at [[Special:Diff/1261281341]] that "I am speaking generally" in regards to NYPOST and that "The NYP is thus depreciated as a source of ''factual'' reporting, but on the matter of ''partisan'' reporting I would assume they would be a RS in reference to reporting aspects from the perspective of the right". During the aforementioned reply they advise that they [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_312#RFC:_New_York_Post_(nypost.com)|read the RFC]] on the reliability of NYPOST to arrive at that conclusion.
::In regards to Original Research, see [[Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Original_research_for_claim_regarding_polling_for_Donald_Trump's_legal_cases_on_the_2024_United_States_election_page|this WP:NOV/N discussion]] where they are told by multiple editors that they a section of text they were promoting was original research. Even after clear consensus on [[WP:NOR/N]] they didn't remove the offending material and it took me removing it at [[Special:Diff/1261297519]] to remove the original research from the article. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 01:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::One of Razgriz's [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261031463 opinions] on RS is that opinion pieces are RS if they are written by an "expert" source and can be used to make claims in the narrative tone. His NOR/N discussion revealed he believes that he can interpret data from primary sources to make synth claims, and his [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1261004926 comments] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1260981452 suggest] he does not understand what a primary versus secondary source is.
::I have also brought up several [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261074450 issues] with NPOV in the Economy section of the page, which Razgriz has [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261081912 dismissed] claiming I am engaging in [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 02:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::"...and can be used to make claims in the narrative tone." That is not true of my position. My position is they can be used ''against'' arguments in the narrative tone. I specifically argued they shoudl ''not'' ever be used as justification for presenting a WikiVoice assertion, more and better RS would be needed for such, but that if something is being asserted in WV, then yes the opinions of subject matter experts can be used to demonstrate a significant counter-point. This is in line with [[WP:NEWSOPED]], "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 14:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::As I have stated before, this falls into [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. You did use the NYP to make a WikiVoice assertion. The NYP [https://nypost.com/2024/08/16/us-news/kamala-harris-admits-food-prices-have-surged-under-biden/ article] you posted was not an op-ed, but a regular article. You did not state that it came from the NYP or an individual writing in the NYP in the body of text either. The sentence immediately prior was: {{tq|After Biden dropped out and endorsed Harris, the Harris campaign made a large shift in Democrat messaging on the economy issue, particularly on the topic of "affordability" where Democrat messaging began to widely accept that basic goods were still too expensive for the average American}}.
::::Other issues I had with squarequotes and NPOV framing was your sentence: {{tq|with President Biden and Rep. Nancy Pelosi often remarking they "inherited" economic problems from Trumps first-term, claiming it was now "strong" under their leadership}}. I also pointed out your repeated use of "[[Democrat Party (epithet)|Democrat]]", where the correct tense should have been "Democratic messaging". [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 21:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::That statement also came with an additional citation beside NYP, and was done prior to me becoming aware of the change in NYP status. That is not a fair point to argue. We all make mistakes and errors. I am only human. I have been on WP for nearly 2 decades now, and until this year I did not edit much in relation to contemporary topics. The last time I had used NYP as a source, it was a valid source per [[WP:RS]]. That has since changed, and I acknowledged that wrong. I dont appreciate that you are also confusing the timeline of events for those trying to piece together this rather lengthy puzzle, on a moot point no less. Let it go. To me this is starting to get to the point of [[WP:DEADHORSE]].
:::::Your second and third points were addressed before you even made this NB, where I admitted you were correct. I even added one of those as a fun factoid on my userpage, to help spread awareness and to have a little fun at my own expense as it obviously highlights to you and anyone else who sees that Talk topic that I made a bit of an arse of myself with that one and hadn't even known it at the time. I'm not sure why you bring this up again here. What is your point in doing so? [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 22:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::No, as shown [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261297965 here], your NYP citation was the only citation used to make that claim. Other editors had to remove NYP from the page after you conceded the point. Other points were only partially addressed by other editors afterwards, but many of the issues I have pointed out still remain on the page. You only admitted I was correct on the NYP point after unanimous consensus by other editors, and still [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261270732 contested] there was any issue with your other edits to the page as I have pointed out repeatedly here. You only conceded where unanimous editor consensus was against you, but as I have stated in my initial post, you still [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261449134 insist] that you will undo any edit of mine not backed up by at least three other editors.
::::::Quote: {{tq|I will have no major opposition if at least 3 editors (yourself and two others) agree to the new changes. ... If you get the simple majority with yourself and at least 2 others at the end of this, you make the change and as I maintained from the outset, I will not undo it. If you (surprisingly) fail, then the changes are not made.}} I was very specific about my issues with your edit, as seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261074450 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=next&oldid=1261140923 here], which you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261270732 claim] I was not. I have not touched the page for days now to avoid an edit war. This is partly why I brought forwards this AN/I issue, as you are using false claims of a consensus and explicitly promising to revert any edits to the page which is very disruptive. I do not need an RfC to make any edit to the page because you disagree with it, and other RfC's and discussions have all unanimously ruled against you for incorrect interpretations of Wikipedia policy. Do I need to make an RfC to debate your every interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Because this is what you are suggesting. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 23:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No, that is not at all what I have suggested, and I believe you understand that already, but I have already addressed all of this in previous comments, despite your persistence in removing context in order to uncharitably misconstrue small portions of edits and comments within a different framing. I will not continue to waste space and the time of admins who will have to go through this mountain of a mess. The only point I will make here is to remind you that even as I write this, you ''still'' do not have any support for your position against the view of [[WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS]] being reached previously, so I would caution against continuing to press on that point to then misconstrue elements of my argument that are obviously based around it.
:::::::Your initial posting here was extensive enough, and my reply against your accusations was exhaustive as well. We should not use this NB to have further back and forth. I ask out of respect for the process that this be our last messages here unless admins request further input, unless you have something further to ''add'' to your initial complaint against me (emphasis to discourage re-hashing points you may already have made here).
:::::::I am sorry we ended up being uncivil to one another, I am sorry that we could not move forward in good faith, I am sorry you wish to only see every statement I make or position I take in the most uncharitable and unflattering light, and I am sorry you feel that good faith opposition to your proposed edit is disruptive. Besides "shut up, say you are wrong, and go away so I can do what I want", I do not know what it is you actually want out of me from any of this. So for now, I will let admins review was has been presented, and let them decide how best to proceed. [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 01:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


I offered a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261449134 good faith compromise] to settle our disagreement via [[Wikipedia:Consensus|WP:CON]], and you have elected to do all of this? To be blunt, this seems like a lot of cherry-picking and mischaracterization of my actions, along with whitewashing and outright ignoring many of your own actions. Allow me to try and correct the record in defense of myself, and hopefully the truth.
The user {{user|Inside the Valley}} response is to deny this is spamming: ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Mohanlal_filmography/archive1&diff=713559675&oldid=713516207 "Spamming is subjective, hence spam messages are different for each user. If my message regarding the FLC was an unwanted subject. Then it is definitely a spam. You can always ignore or delete it and warn me. But I don't think I have "spammed" every user talk pages I messaged."]''


I apologize to the admins ahead of time, I struggle with being concise at the best of times, but I don't know how to condense the following any more than I have here. There is so much to comb through both with what the other user did say and things they left out, things that are mentioned out of hand that dramatically alter the framing and context and even the facts, and I'd like to address all of it. I've shortened parts that to me justified another 2 or 3 paragraphs of focus, and I even deleted 3 entire sections to make this post shorter. I'm not asking for special treatment, but for fair treatment.
Relevant DIFFs, below:


{{Collapse top|Addressing the Assertion of "No Consensus"}}
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skr15081997&diff=prev&oldid=712024993 User talk:Skr15081997]
A formalized RfC is not the only method of consensus building, per [[Wikipedia:Consensus|WP:CON]], specifically [[WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS]], and @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] has made incorrect reference to a topic on this point (their link goes to the correct topic, but its presentation and incorrect title here falsely frame it away from an objective reading). The topic in which consensus was reached was titled ''[[Talk:2024 United States elections#Undue weight in "Issues"|Undue weight in "Issues"]]'', in which another editor explained why they had added the undue tag to the ''Issues'' section. In that topic there were a small number of perceived problems which were worked on to be solved. If you follow that discussion, you will note a number of things:
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&diff=prev&oldid=712025069 User talk:Cirt]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChrisTheDude&diff=prev&oldid=712025170 User talk:ChrisTheDude]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krish!&diff=prev&oldid=712025190 User talk:Krish!]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruby2010&diff=prev&oldid=712025220 User talk:Ruby2010]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krimuk90&diff=prev&oldid=712025329 User talk:Krimuk90]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IndianBio&diff=prev&oldid=712025697 User talk:IndianBio]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SNUGGUMS&diff=prev&oldid=712026576 User talk:SNUGGUMS]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Famous_Hobo&diff=prev&oldid=712026633 User talk:Famous Hobo]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rschen7754&diff=prev&oldid=712026669 User talk:Rschen7754]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MPJ-DK&diff=prev&oldid=712026686 User talk:MPJ-DK]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LavaBaron&diff=prev&oldid=712026715 User talk:LavaBaron]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dough4872&diff=prev&oldid=712026738 User talk:Dough4872]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bharatiya29&diff=prev&oldid=712026814 User talk:Bharatiya29]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yashthepunisher&diff=prev&oldid=712026846 User talk:Yashthepunisher]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jakec&diff=prev&oldid=712026894 User talk:Jakec]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NapHit&diff=prev&oldid=712026926 User talk:NapHit]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vensatry&diff=prev&oldid=712162277 User talk:Vensatry]


1) I did not create that topic noting the issues within the ''issues'' section
Thank you,


2) My participation there shows my immediate and consistent good faith differing to other editors suggestions and recommendations for improving the section
&mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 22:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


3) There is not a single point in the discussion in which I argue any sort of "I'm right, you're wrong" or similar, demonstrating that the exact opposite is my default response to perspectives counter to mine
* Clear canvassing. Who is he kidding? --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|QEDK]] <small>([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:orange">T</span>]] &#9749; [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:green">C</span>]])</small></span> 04:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
: * Not spamming or votestacking, that message was neutrally worded, which is key for something to be called Canvassing. [[User:KoshVorlon|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C;text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''Kosh'''<span style="color:#228B22"></span><span style="color:#008000">'''Vorlon'''</span></span>]] 11:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
::: Not really, sending a message to people who've never had something to do with the topic is essentially spamming (falls within canvassing) which I presume is the problem. Also, Cirt claims votestacking which means informing editors who have a predetermined POV about the topic (which again falls within canvassing). --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|QEDK]] <small>([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:orange">T</span>]] &#9749; [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:green">C</span>]])</small></span> 15:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
::::There are 4 types of inappropriate canvassing:
::::*Stealth - The use of secret canvassing, which is not being done
::::*Spamming - A message sent out to a very large audience individually, which has not been done (I consider 10-15 to be a limited set)
::::*Campaigning - A message that is intended to get the audience to vote a certain way. I believe the message is appropriately nuetral.
::::*Votestacking - Sending a message out to an audience believed to be supportive. This is where a wrong may have occured.
::::The question is where did {{user|Inside the Valley}} get the list that they chose to send their message out to. I checked the WikiProject page Japan, and I don't see all of these members on these. I also checked the contributors to the article and not all of these members are there. So, the answer we need from {{user|Inside the Valley}} is, why did they chose to contact this set of people?--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 02:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::The last kind of canvassing is the type that we at FLC would be concerned about. I must confess that I feel a certain amount of sympathy for anyone who has to make the decision whether to notify other users of an FAC or FLC. Anyone who pays attention to our content processes knows that many reviews are archived because they fail to attract enough attention (we could always use more, BTW), and even many of our finest content producers will notify peer reviewers and trustworthy editors of a new review. The line between drawing the attention of good reviewers and attempting to stack votes is very thin, but I'd say informing 18 different people of a review is way above and beyond what any review needs. As for why they chose these people, I don't know. To single out one editor's view, Vensatry has [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates&diff=697408123&oldid=697216821 criticized] possible canvassing in the past. Maybe they are users who have supported previous FLCs they have started, but you'd have to check his previously promoted FLCs to know for sure. Also, the user identifies as Indian and the list involves an Indian subject, so that WikiProject may be more relevant than the Japanese one. [[User:Giants2008|<font color="blue">Giants2008</font>]] ([[User talk:Giants2008|<font color="darkblue">Talk</font>]]) 02:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::Just to add to TParis's list, "spamming" and "votestacking" don't have to involve a message being sent, but can also, at least in theory, consist of pinging a large number of users or a potentially sympathetic audience of users. (I don't know if pinging users in a non-neutral message would qualify as "campaigning", though.) This didn't happen here, but I'm a bit of a pedant, and felt the need to conclude TParis's point. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 03:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Well, I've seen people accused of canvassing because they pinged like 10 admins in one thread, requesting them to take a look because the thread is stagnant. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|QEDK]] <small>([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:orange">T</span>]] &#9749; [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:green">C</span>]])</small></span> 03:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Well, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Cinteotl/stats&diff=713811868&oldid=713661268 obviously] I don't consider ''all'' pinging to constitute canvassing. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 03:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


4) The absence of any participation by @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] whatsoever, either as the discussion was unfolding or with any attempt to revive the discussion to note their apparent disagreement with the outcome, and;
== Continuous disruptive editing by Shhhhwwww!! even after third block ==


5) The most obvious agreement was that the ''Economy'' section needed to be ''longer/expanded'' as all cited [[WP:RS]] noted its importance as an issue in the election, and its short length did not reflect that fact well.
I'm here to file a case on [[User:Shhhhwwww!!]], this user has make a persistent disruptive editing since his [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AShhhhwwww%21%21 recent release of block in early April]. Since 2013, this user was detected making nonsense contribution like [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_sovereign_states_in_the_2010s&diff=prev&oldid=578833479], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Murad_Ebrahim&diff=651437168&oldid=647016929], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sabah&diff=713380215&oldid=713379817], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Malaysians&diff=651438363&oldid=651288862], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miangas&diff=713380342&oldid=609241032], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jamalul_Kiram_III&diff=713365863&oldid=713365735] and making disruptive page moves without any discussion first which resulted he was blocked for third time (see his block log). The user also makes content removal without starting a discussion first/reaching a consensus like [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jamalul_Kiram_III&diff=707169277&oldid=705540402 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jamalul_Kiram_III&diff=713351613&oldid=710927145 this] and labelling anyone who revert his edits as breaching the [[WP:3RR]] while still not reaching it as can be seen on [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jamalul_Kiram_III&diff=687561208&oldid=687551803 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jamalul_Kiram_III&diff=707343874&oldid=707300134 here]. Recently, when he get his third block was expired, he continue to invade [[Sabah]] article by starting a discussion with a title "Sabah is racist" [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sabah&diff=713379664&oldid=577702333] and adding the article as part of WikiProject Philippines while it is not a Philippine territory [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sabah&diff=713380215&oldid=713379817], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sabah&diff=713635305&oldid=713635206]. The same goes to [[Miangas]] article [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miangas&diff=713380342&oldid=609241032], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miangas&diff=713635361&oldid=713395604] which is an Indonesian territory. The user have been warned for his disruptive editing who frequently makes flooding request for comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shhhhwwww!!&diff=713646967&oldid=713361180] thus controversially removing his comment from the Miangas talkpage which affecting the recent discussion there [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miangas&diff=713647720&oldid=713647491]. The same can be seen on [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ismael_Kiram_II&diff=713351107&oldid=665406924 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muedzul_Lail_Tan_Kiram&diff=713351176&oldid=570084144 here] although the discussion can be discussed [[Talk:Jamalul Kiram III#Request for comment: The infobox is controversial|in one place]] without flooding every related topics. The user tactics also usually will retired when someone launched an investigation into his behaviour such as can be seen on [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shhhhwwww!!&diff=677910375&oldid=676916354 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shhhhwwww!!&diff=687564755&oldid=687562011 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shhhhwwww!!&diff=651798262&oldid=651590202 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shhhhwwww!!&diff=707375284&oldid=707020280 this] and remove it back when the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shhhhwwww!!&diff=713292744&oldid=710940673 investigation is over]. He also restoring other user comment who have rectract his word [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shhhhwwww!!&diff=651588517&oldid=651587958]. As been reported by other users (which can be seen on here ([[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shhhhwwww!!/Archive#14 October 2015]]). When another user [[User:HistoriaFilipinas]] create the [[North Borneo, Philippines]] article, he re-create it by stating an edit summary (to prevent re-creation). This is quite amusing. Someone should take an action to this user which day by day getting worse even after had been blocked and repeatedly warned as seen on his talkpage. I have filed this case on administrator intervention against vandalism and they told me to report it here. Thank you. [[User:Molecule Extraction|Molecule Extraction]] ([[User talk:Molecule Extraction|talk]]) 07:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:{{userlinks|Shhhhwwww!!}} and {{userlinks|Molecule Extraction}} are two POV warriors who fight on various pages, so this is a content dispute between two editors who both are prone to violating policy. I warned them both this morning. I did not warn {{u|Molecule Extraction}} about [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] but please regard this as such a warning. Stop disrupting and start discussing this in a constructive manner. And that goes for both of you. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 07:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
::I'm understand and accept your warning. I'm here to just reporting the behaviour of Shhhhwwww!! since 2013 as had been reported by other previous users (senior) than me so any administrators can take a look on this long-term issues. I'm ready to take up any responsibility and mistake If I had done to this projects especially when I had make a talkpage war or [[WP:Edit war|edit war]] with the user. But the only thing I hope is there should be any final decision on this. [[User:Molecule Extraction|Molecule Extraction]] ([[User talk:Molecule Extraction|talk]]) 07:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Worry about yourself instead of Shhhhwwww!! --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 08:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
::::{{u|Molecule Extraction}}, you also failed to alert {{u|Shhhhwwww!!}} that you have reported him; so he probably does not even know that he is being discussed. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 10:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}} Thanks for putting it. I forgot. [[User:Molecule Extraction|Molecule Extraction]] ([[User talk:Molecule Extraction|talk]]) 11:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
::::{{od}} I've tried to be patient with this user and discuss the issues in a more mature manner but the constant [[WP:Wikihounding|Wikihounding]], [[WP:Harrassment|Harrassment]], and [[WP:Personal attacks|Personal attacks]] just get to the nerves. Sometimes enough is enough. Harkening back to edits made three years ago, threats of blocking, overusing arguments are just [[WP:Bad faith|bad faith]]. I tried to have a [[WP:Truce|truce]] to no avail. I tried responding with one-word responses, the attacks continued. I have already backed away when [[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] told us to stop. This is unfair. I have already been harrassed a day ago with reporting to the [[WP:Vandalism|vandalism]] noticeboard and I was cleared thrice. I am really unhappy right now.[[User:Shhhhwwww!!|Shhhhwwww!!]] ([[User talk:Shhhhwwww!!|talk]]) 13:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::You have indeed tried everything, except following the [[WP:Five pillars]]. You have created a whole host of frivolous RfC's you have even made a completely frivolous arbitration request, you have thrown out endless personal attacks, you have editwarred, etc. Don't try to make yourself out to be a victim. Neither of you are victims, the only victim is Wikipedia. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 19:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:Didn't this user [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AShhhhwwww!!&type=revision&diff=707375284&oldid=707020280 retire] after the last time they were being disruptive? Now looking to escape a long block by going on [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AShhhhwwww!!&type=revision&diff=713703580&oldid=713676786 vacation]. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me 50 times... '''[[User:Lugnuts|<font color="002bb8">Lugnuts</font>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Lugnuts|Dick Laurent is dead]]</sup> 18:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
::Timing is so often the most important element of a holiday {{wink}} [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 19:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
::*I am willing to have a more meanigful discussion with this user and avoid any disruptive editing. I will still be on [[WP:Wikibreak|Wikibreak]] for a while to cool my head and calm my nerves. I am also going to try to avoid these topics in the near future. [[User:Shhhhwwww!!|Shhhhwwww!!]] ([[User talk:Shhhhwwww!!|talk]]) 21:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
::::'I am willing to have a more meaningful discussion with this user and avoid any disruptive editing'. Hah, the tactics always like that by claiming himself as 'innocence' and then "retire" before being blocked. After your recent block, you however continue to remove a template from the [[Jamalul Kiram III]] before starting any discussion and reaching a consensus [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jamalul_Kiram_III&diff=713351613&oldid=710927145]. I have asking him repeatedly to give a [[WP:RS]] from the PH government (be it from [[PDF]] documents or from the government press release agencies [http://www.pna.gov.ph/], [http://news.pia.gov.ph/]) that recognise Kiram III or [[Ismael Kiram II]] and [[Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram]] as the official Sultan for the so-called [[Sultanate of Sulu]] (that been recognise until this day by his country peoples) but instead he gave me a link to [http://m.inquirer.net/globalnation/137214 a newspaper of Philippines Vice-President Jejomar Binay claim to Sabah] as can be seen on our discussion in [[Talk:Jamalul Kiram III#Request for comment: The infobox is controversial|Jamalul Kiram III talkpage]]. Then on the [[Sabah]] article, Shhhhwwww!! keep stressing that WikiProject Philippines must be included [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sabah&diff=713380215&oldid=713379817], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sabah&diff=713635305&oldid=713635206] on the article talkpage although {{U|OpenFuture}} has told to stop and giving a suggestion to maintain a balance views on the article content. Is that you called 'to avoid disruptive editing'?? An experience Filipino editor {{U|RioHondo}} also has said that there is no need for a WikiProject Philippines to be included on a article that even are not under the jurisdiction of the Philippines. The disruption was also seen on a Indonesian island article, the [[Miangas]] talkpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miangas&diff=713380342&oldid=609241032], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miangas&diff=713635361&oldid=713395604]. Clearly that there is some "[[irredentism]]" feeling here. While at the same time, you have controversially removing the question header which have affecting the discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miangas&diff=713647491&oldid=713646187]. Is that are not disruptive? You also said 'I am also going to try to avoid these topics in the near future'. I have [[Talk:Sabah#Section: .22Southern Philippines Moro refugees problems and terrorism threat.22|asking you here if your really want to change your behaviour but instead you leave my question unanswered]]. Is that how we can trust you easily, after repeated warnings and block but still back to old behaviour?? [[User:Molecule Extraction|Molecule Extraction]] ([[User talk:Molecule Extraction|talk]]) 02:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


After reading through that discussion, you can note @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] make his first bold edit to the ''"Economy"'' issue [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1259040638 HERE], not terribly long after the other user [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1258679341 removed] the "undue weight" tag from the section in line with the referenced consensus building topic, and that their bold edit noticeably ''reduced'' the length of the section, obviously opposite the goal of the consensus building discussion.
*'''What a mess''' This thread was opened about twenty hours ago by Molecule Extraction, and has received 12 independent comments including ME's OP comment, but somehow has been edited ''48 times''!? This is some [[Special:Contributions/LittleBenW]] shit, and almost all of it appears to be the fault of the OP. On top of that, he/she seems to be under the impression that Shhhhwwww having a block log means all disruptive editing must be the latter's fault, but all of Shhhhwwww's blocks appear to be about a string of unilateral page moves, and my (admittedly brief) examination of their contribs didn't indicate any continuation of ''this particular activity'' following the most recent block. While I don't doubt that both editors are being disruptive, I don't think Shhhhwwww should be blocked again if Molecule Extraction comes out of this unscathed, as Molecule Extraction appears to me to be engaging in disruption on this very forum. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 04:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
{{Collapse bottom}}
:Just noticed [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AShhhhwwww!!&type=revision&diff=707375284&oldid=707020280 this] (sorry -- wasn't reading very closely). Block Shhhhwwww for three months and see if he comes back and causes still more trouble. Molecule Extraction has a clean block record, so one week should be enough to warn them that this isn't appropriate behaviour. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 04:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::I think a week is a bit on the heavy side for Molecule Extraction. I've been looking at the articles to see who added all the shit I now have to clean away, and it wasn't him. He just escalated the conflict instead of handling it. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 19:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::*[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muffin Wizard]].
::::[[User:Muffin Wizard]] and [[User:Molecule Extraction]] have identical edit patterns. [[User:Shhhhwwww!!|Shhhhwwww!!]] ([[User talk:Shhhhwwww!!|talk]]) 00:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::Oh, and now you are accusing me to be a sockpuppet. What a lame excuse. [[User:Molecule Extraction|Molecule Extraction]] ([[User talk:Molecule Extraction|talk]]) 03:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Creepy [[WP:Canvassing|canvassing]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Molecule_Extraction&diff=next&oldid=714021008 right here]. [[User:Shhhhwwww!!|Shhhhwwww!!]] ([[User talk:Shhhhwwww!!|talk]]) 05:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


{{Collapse top| Addressing assertions of [[WP:OWNERSHIP]] vis a vis "False Consensus", & speculation of [[WP:IDONTLIKE]]}}
== Marcus Toji ==
When I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1259403685 reverted] @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]]'s edit to that section of the article, I stated in the edit notes that this was done to uphold a consensus that had been reached recently per the talk page, and simultaneously requested the user to ''discuss'' before making further bold edits to that section to conform with both [[Wikipedia:Consensus|WP:CON]] & [[WP:CTOP]] by conforming with [[WP:DICC]]. You then see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_elections&diff=next&oldid=1260658546 here] @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] restoring their challenged edit and asserts that I was falsely claiming a consensus.


If you follow the various talk topics, you will note that while @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] does garner support on other points of disagreement (EX: if the term "lawfare" should be used in the lede, or; if there was [[WP:OR]] in an edit concerning polling data), you will note a glaring lack of ''any'' support for this specific point of "No Consensus"/"False Consensus" which he has continued to raise. Despite the noticeable lack of any support for this assertion from other editors, @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] continued to challenge the prior consensus building effort that had been done [[Talk:2024 United States elections#Issues - Economy|HERE]] first by asserting that it had not happened at all by [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&oldid=prev&diff=1260768610 ignoring] my reference to the other, prior topic, then [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&oldid=prev&diff=1260784267 asserting] that the topic had no consensus on the subject, and to this day still continues to insist it is a falsehood I am pushing to "[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2024%20United%20States%20elections&diff=next&oldid=1260658546 prohibit editing]" despite the fact that I have maintained from the first revert diff forward that a bold edit to that section should be ''discussed first'' and that is it. At one point while trying to find another way to explain my points, I used the term [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024%20United%20States%20elections&diff=prev&oldid=1260773203 "final" version] when making reference to the version of the section prior to his bold edits. Ever since, he has continued to try and reframe this usage as though I am engaging in [[WP:OWNERSHIP]] behavior over the section, which he has all but directly accused me of throughout this disagreement over editing this specific section.
After someone put the {{tl|unreliable sources}} template at the top of [[Marcus Toji]], I simply requested that {{tl|bcn}} be placed on the specific sources that are not suitable, as having the general tag at the top of the article does little good. This was responded to with a block warning. Placing this tag on the article for a third time violates [[WP:BRD]], and I do not wish to violate [[WP:3RR]]. What are the next steps? --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 13:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:I have informed the editor that you are discussing him here, as required. In any case, you're both edit-warring over a tag. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 13:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
::As did I around the same time. I signed mine tho! [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!</sup>]] 13:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::[[Great minds think alike]] {{wink}} that was deliberate, so he didn't think it was me reporting him. Thanks though! [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 13:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::*''' Reply '''- I opened this, and forgot to delete it. I have moved the discussion to [[Talk:Marcus Toji]]. --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 16:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
{{unindent}}
*''' Comment '''- Since {{ping|Duffbeerforme}} did not reply to my message at [[Talk:Marcus Toji]], I am moving the discussion back here. If we do not get feedback soon, I am going to remove the {{tl|unreliable sources}} tag from [[Marcus Toji]]. --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 13:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


This is where my consideration of potential [[WP:IDONTLIKE]] comes in, as I could not otherwise explain:
== Template:The Parlotones ==
I keep placing {{tl|outdated}} or {{tl|incomplete}} at [[Template:The Parlotones]], but it keeps getting reverted. Per [[WP:OUTDATED]], "If you do not wish to make the effort to do that yourself but you know it needs to be done, you can also place {{tl|update}} on the top of the page or section". Many sarcastic comments in violation of [[WP:CIVIL]] have been made there as well. --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 17:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
: {{diff2|713735124|This edit summary}} was quite uncivil. {{diff2|712884364|This edit summary}} wasn't very nice, either. {{re|Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars}} you seem exasperated by the edit war, but I would suggest you be more civil in your edit summaries. If there are simply three albums missing from the template, I can add them myself. Will that stop the edit warring? [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 18:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:: I would rather have Jax 0677 learn to be an editor that helps readers rather than placing tags on articles and templates when he knows what needs to be to done to fix them and that will only confuse and exasperate readers. Look at all the steps he is taking rather doing the simplest of things. He admits to being lazy in his defense above, although he does so by referencing an essay regarding arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Could I have done it, too? Sure. But that won't stop a lazy editor from continuing to be lazy. --<font color="blue">Star</font><font color="orange">cheers</font><font color="green">peaks</font><font color="red">news</font><font color="black">lost</font><font color="blue">wars</font><sup>[[User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars|Talk to me]]</sup> 18:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::''' Reply '''- There are even more comments at [[Template talk:The Parlotones]], which along with the page history, may be reviewed for violation of [[WP:IMPERSONATE]]. Despite the fact that I used {{tl|outdated}} or {{tl|incomplete}} for their intended purpose, the edit summaries and comments on the talk page still are in violation of [[WP:CIVIL]]. If an album/song is released after I created the navbox, I am not necessarily responsible for adding those new articles. Additionally, the discography article is still missing from the navbox. --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 19:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::: I guess Jax means {{diff2|713737995|this edit}}. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 20:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


1) The constantly aggressive assertions insisting there had been no prior consensus and accusing me of fabricating a claim of consensus to engage in [[WP:OWNERSHIP]], and;
== Removal of lawsuit controversy, addition of puffery at Marcus & Millichap ==


2) The consistent refusal to attempt to gain a (new) consensus which would easily have solved this perceived issue once and for all.
On [[Marcus & Millichap]], several IP users have been persistently removing a "Lawsuit controversy" section and adding puffery. When removing the Lawsuit controversy section, the edit summary usually claims that it's "out of context". However, to my eyes, the section is pretty well balanced, and even incorporates a quote from the company's response.


As I write this now I still do not understand what could presumably explain the behavior, outside of: not liking that the edit was reverted; not liking the idea that I could have been right on an issue, or; not liking the idea that they could have been wrong on an issue. There was no support for the user's edit, no support for their assertion that there was no consensus, and no attempt to either let it go or seek to problem solve via compromise. On this point, if absolutely nothing else, I am at a complete loss to understand a different, more sensible explanation than those three possibilities.
Of particular note, the IP [[Special:Contributions/107.1.246.134|107.1.246.134]] is the most active one of these editors. It's worth noting that the IP is connected to a Comcast Business account in the same region where Marcus & Millichap is headquartered, and has never made edits to any page but this article. They add lots of puffery and have participated in the repeated removal of the lawsuit section.


{{Collapse bottom}}
I have tried reaching out to these editors on the article's talk page and on their talk pages, but they never respond to me, and just keep making the same changes with the same edit summaries. Thus, I'm bringing this to AN/I. I think 107.1.246.134 should probably be blocked, and the page should probably have pending changes or semi-protection turned on. Cheers, [[User:IagoQnsi|<span style="color:#a00;">Iago</span><span style="color:#f50;">Qnsi</span>]] ([[User talk:IagoQnsi|talk]]) 19:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


{{Collapse top|Refuting false assertion of "I'm always right, you're always wrong" logic}}
* There's a history of problematic editing, both pro and con, from IPs at that article. I have semi'd it for one year. <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 13:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I have already noted elsewhere in this reply examples verifying that this is an absolute fabrication, and indeed that @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] has themselves engaged in this sort of behavior they have accused me of.


The most glaring example which by itself makes one wonder why @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] would continue to push this obvious falsehood: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024%20United%20States%20elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261388418 Here] @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] once again would make this assertion that I was refusing to accept being wrong about anything, that I was insisting I was right about everything and insisting that they were wrong about everything. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024%20United%20States%20elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261270732 Here] is the message by me in which that [[WP:GASLIGHT]] reply was made in response to.
== Charlene McMann ==


I note no less than 3 points in that prior message in which I was acknowledging that they had made a correct point and thus where I had been previously incorrect. No other exchange between myself and @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] is as black and white crystal clear as this on this issue. The fact that they continue to make such statements after this is why I have no qualms about calling it exactly what it is: an outright lie. There is no misunderstanding it after that. I challenge them to directly answer why they made such a slanderous and false assertion directly in response to a message which clearly shows such an assertion to be false?
A person purported to be Ms. McMann left a lengthy message on [[User_talk:Cahk#Charlene_McMann_articles_and_page|my talk page]]. She took issue with a citation I added yesterday, and upon investigating further, I agree with her contention and removed the citation. However, she is also making legal threats against me and Wikipedia. This was the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene McMann (2nd nomination)|same tactic used in March]] in an attempt to remove the article from Wikipedia because she felt the conviction was unfair, despite pleading guilty to it. To the extent that herself and others who have engaged in sock to remove the article, or blanking on the citation, I seek administrator guidance on this matter.--[[User:Cahk|Cahk]] ([[User talk:Cahk|talk]]) 19:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
: In the meanwhile, I blocked the Ip for 1 year for legal threats.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 19:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


Whatever else one may come to conclude about any of this, certainly one would be unreasonable to assert that the evidence would show that I have shown "repeated insistence that he is right and I am wrong", as they claim. Even the example they have provided to try and "prove" that point, doesn't. It shows my belief that I had proven my side of the issue, and asking them if they could disprove from the opposite side of said issue. I did not say "I am right, you are wrong", I said "I'm sure I am right, but can you prove me wrong?" Seems rather unreasonable to misrepresent that in the manner they have done here.
===Proposal for a Ban===
{{Collapse bottom}}
The human behind this IP, who seems to be Charlene McMann, has been causing so much disruption about the article on that person, and is now trying to exercise a chilling effect, that I recommend a '''Site Ban''' on a person who is not a registered user, but is the person behind the IP, so that IP should be indefinitely blocked. (The IP appears to be static over at least six weeks, which is longer than most.) I realize that others will disagree with a formal ban for a person who is editing via IPs, but this is my opinion. I suggest that editors who disagree recommend an indef or a long block, or to disagree. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proposer. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


{{Collapse top|"Despite his interpretations being unanimously rejected...continued to insist his edits and interpretations of policy not disputed by at least..."}}
:* 73.9.140.124 is now blocked with an expiration time of 1 year for making legal threats. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 19:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
A bluntly false framing in which this user decides to try and make it seem as though there is any support for their position or that my position is outright unreasonable, and it just makes it even more confusing. "Despite his interpretations being unanimously rejected by other editors multiple times, TheRazgriz has continued to insist his edits and interpretations of policy not disputed by at least three editors cannot be removed." This really comes across as if their justification for their stance is just whataboutism, specifically "what about that ''other'' time where you were ''wrong''?" Someone can be right about some things and wrong about others. "A broken clock is right twice a day" is a popular phrase for a reason. You cannot just dismiss because "Raz was wrong about other, unrelated things."
::* If the ban gets accepted it would supercede my block and would also apply to other IPs the person can use.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::* Ah. Then '''support''' as being clearly disruptive. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 02:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Evidence suggests they'll just come back with a new IP and do the same again. So only option is to siteban them. [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk]]) 20:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Support''', along with her husband and his sock drawer. I have nominated the article for AfD - though refactoring as an article about the defunct charity she scammed might be better. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - They'd only be back under a new one and then a new one etc etc so ban the lot of 'em, Maybe the article should be kept so we can show the encyclopedia how pathetic and sad some people are. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 22:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Support''', and I think if we end up blocking them past this point to both leave a message to only contact Foundation council and let the Foundation know. Censorious thuggery tends to stand mute in the midst of lawyering up; it's the same [[Fear, uncertainty, and doubt|principle]] patent trolling works on. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<font color="228B22">''Jeremy''</font>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<font color="228B22">v^_^v</font>]] <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 22:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I am okay if the community consensus is to remove the article. However, it is clear either the subject, or someone related to the subject is actively attempting to damage control stemming from the court processes. As noted in the 2nd AfD process and the comments here - it appears someone related to the subject created the article in the first place to promote her work, and now that negative information is out, they want the article taken down. The only (more neutral) solution appears to be a ban.--[[User:Cahk|Cahk]] ([[User talk:Cahk|talk]]) 23:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' Per Joseph2302 [[User:Jdcomix|Jdcomix]] ([[User talk:Jdcomix|talk]]) 02:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' I created the 2nd AFD on the article, namely on the fact that I felt that the subject was not notable enough for inclusion, and agree with Guy that the information on the page could be turned into a page about the charity. The constant legal threats and attempted Wiki-lawyering is enough for me to support a ban on the IP and its socks (including the subject's husband). [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 12:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC) '''Update''' Upon seeing this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Charlene_McMann_(3rd_nomination)], this only furthers my support for a ban. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 12:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' As only indication from this we have is that the person has no interest in anything but threatening the project ''and'' its editors. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 14:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - the IP did not make a legal threat, IPs are just numbers. The person behind the IP made the threat, and that person is ''de facto'' banned anyway. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Ivanvector#top|talk]]) 14:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I don't often vote for such comprehensive bans but this is not your typical case of a wayward editor. McMann contributed to her own biographical article but once documented information about a criminal conviction was included in the article, one that she pleaded guilty to, she wanted the article removed. She even claimed to be a friend of McMann who said the article was causing her friend to become suicidal and initially a lot of editors were extremely sympathetic until they realized it was likely McMann herself who was posting. Now, with the threats, I agree that she should be kept from editing on the project. Whether or not the article is kept or rewritten is another matter but McMann should not be threatening or trying to make editors feel guilt that they are responsible if her health worsens. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 22:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::For those who are not familiar with incidents in March, I'll link [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mariasfixing/Archive]] for further reading. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 22:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for the reasons stated. User seems to be willing to keep coming back until they get what they want, which is disruptive. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 08:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
* ''''Support''' per Liz. This is a SNOW and is just awaiting closing and enactment. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 19:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for all the above reasons. It is most unfortunate that Ms. McMann chose to commit a series felonious actions which have been more than satisfactorily cited in the media IMO. The first AfD way back when ought to have ended it. I would think the subject cannot be less notable since her arrest, conviction and sentencing. Regards, <span style="border:1px solid #FFFFFF">[[User:Aloha27|<font style="color:#2B65EC;background:#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp; Aloha27'''</font>]] [[User talk:Aloha27|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#2B65EC">&nbsp;<small>talk</small>&nbsp;</font>]]</span> 00:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


There is no "unanimous" view on this at the time of this NB being authored, there is as of yet ''not a single editor'' which has voiced a shared view with them on this or attempted to at least counter my view on this. Furthermore, the linked/cited message they refer to shows no such claim to be valid, this idea that my interpretation of policy needs 3 editors to overturn...frankly, that is just nonsense. It isn't a matter of overturning personal opinions on policy, its about abiding by a policy they refuse to recognize, in letter or in spirit, even in the compromised manner in which I have given them to consider. I'm not sure what purpose is better served by refusing a consensus compromise and instead taking this action to escalate to admins.
== Ownership of [[Mann Mayal]] ==


{{Collapse bottom}}
'''Greetings'''<br/>I have a problem regarding {{u|Nauriya|}}. The user doesn't lets me edit the article ''[[Mann Mayal]]'' which he has created. Initially I ignored this but later when I edited the article again he reverted my edits again. I restored my edits and asked him to do a discussion on the talk page and he started a conversation but after putting the message on talk page he reverted my edit again. As I said, I requested the user to stop but he didn't. The user added a genre 'serial drama' to this television article and I can't understand which type of genre is it. I wanted to remove it but the creator {{u|Nauriya}} is against me. My many other edits that were not Vandalism were also removed from the article by the creator of the article. Now this is ownership of article.--<span style="border:2px solid #090E0E;padding:0px;"><font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;">[[User:Musa Raza|Musa]]</font>[[User talk:Musa Raza|<font style="color:#000000;background:#00B6B3;">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</font>]] </span> 17:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:While [[User:Nauriya|Nauriya]] is a major editor of that article, they are not reverting everyone's contributions. I encourage you to participate in the discussion they started at [[Talk:Mann Mayal]]. Discussing a difference of opinion to come to some agreement or understanding is preferable to a block and should happen before a complaint is filed at ANI. You also haven't presented much evidence to support your request. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 21:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:{{ping|Liz}} I'm here because of unacceptable behaviour of the user. Currently there are three genres in [[Mann Mayal]], 'Romance', 'Serial Drama' and 'Family Drama'. Now which kind of genre is 'Serial Drama'? There is no source which says that 'Serial Drama' is genre of this show. I changed it to romance-drama but the user removed it. And the genre 'Family Drama' should be written as 'Family'. But according to the creator Serial Drama, Family Drama and Romance are correct genres. Why DRAMA is written twice? The article contains wrong content which should be removed. I removed it and asked the user to refrain from reverting my edits (See talk pages) and start a discussion. He started a discussion but removed my edits again and said don't revert until issue is resolved which I told him first. Please remove the wrong content from the article. And I also made some changes in the style of [[Mann Mayal]] but that changes were also removed because they were unconstructive. I just changed the style the content was written by the user itself. This is disruptive behaviour.--<span style="border:2px solid #090E0E;padding:0px;"><font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;">[[User:Musa Raza|Musa]]</font>[[User talk:Musa Raza|<font style="color:#000000;background:#00B6B3;">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</font>]] </span> 14:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::[[User:Musa Raza|Musa]], did you read what I wrote? Decisions about the content of articles is not determined at ANI. Unless it turns into edit-warring or considered stalking behavior, reverting another editor's edit is not considered disruptive behavior, it is part of the [[WP:BRD|BRD]] process. You two should discuss your difference of opinion and I advised you to join the discussion at [[Talk:Mann Mayal]]. If you two can not come to an agreement there, the next step is [[WP:DRN|Dispute resolution]]. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 21:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


{{Collapse top|Concerning the closing of a Talk topic}}
== Removal of comments ==
The talk page which I closed was no longer active, and no attempt had been made to revive it, and it seemed to be misunderstood. I closed it with a summary which @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] themselves admitted was accurate as far as its summary relating to the issue with the "''Economy''" section (though disagreeing with a different part of the summary describing other issues as having snowballed, which I in retrospect agreed that was an inaccurate way to describe the other issues, I could have and should have found a more accurate descriptor).


I did not challenge the reversal of the closure whatsoever, nor did I challenge the opposition from my referring to the other matters as snowballed, and agreed with point brought up by @[[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] on my talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User%20talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1260894544 HERE] discouraging closing of topics I myself have been involved in. That is in-line with [[WP:CLOSE]] and good advice anyway, and I have not attempted to close any topics since (and don't plan to again in future).
Hi, I want to remove my comments from the talk pages ( [[History of Islam]], [[History of Iran]], [[Achaemenid empire]], [[Sasanian Empire]], [[Parthian empire]]). Because my English is not very good, and I have made many mistakes in the earlier times. I am going to retire from Wikipedia once and for all. Can you allow me to do this? Please come to my [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arman_ad60 talk page]. [[User:Arman ad60|Arman ad60]] ([[User talk:Arman ad60|talk]]) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


{{Collapse bottom}}
:Seems like you're removing a lot more than just your comments. Generally you aren't allowed to [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Islam&diff=713907312 just delete entire threads] containing other editor's responses. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 17:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::Maybe it would be helpful if someone kindly archived away any of the relevant talk page threads that have not been active for some time. [[User:MPS1992|MPS1992]] ([[User talk:MPS1992|talk]]) 17:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


{{Collapse top|Refuting allusion to events surrounding the Talk closure}}
:::Yeah. It looks like the archival setup is broken on those three talk pages. I fixed [[Talk:History of Islam]]... I think. Someone might want to look at the other ones. It looks like the threads this editor is concerned about should be archived anyway. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 17:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I do absolutely reject the false framing here by trying to assert that in some sort of "response to having my closure un-closed" I ''then'' would start making arguments from my perspective on [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:OR]], and the assertion that they are "unanimously rejected by multiple editors" when other users have given credit to parts of my arguments and interpretations, such as: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&oldid=prev&diff=1261125037 HERE], where a user on the NB still disagreed with my interpretation but gives credit to my line of argument.


I also had been making my arguments relating to such issues well before @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] even created the NB relating to the closure, as seen throughout [[Talk:2024 United States elections#Page lede subject matter|THIS]] topic, so again this framing is false, which appears to try and make it seem as if I perhaps went on some sort of [[WP:DE]] spree, at least that is the takeaway I was left with upon reading just that specific portion of the initial NB topic.
Well I want to remove all my comments from the talk pages. My comments are not very necessary for the articles. My maps are not going to be accepted in the articles. If I remove the comments from the talk pages will it really do any harm to the articles? I am going to retire from Wikipedia. Let me retire with all the comments. Please consider this thing a bit.[[User:Arman ad60|Arman ad60]] ([[User talk:Arman ad60|talk]]) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:If we just removed your comments, then people's responses don't make sense. It would only make sense if you removed everything, which isn't normally allowed. If there were some compelling reason other than your belief they don't add much and desire to quit Wikipedia, then that might be something different. It is considered helpful to keep old discussions, even of ideas that are rejected, so people who come later with the same idea can know it has been proposed before, and the likely arguments they will face. As I said, our usual rule is to keep these old discussions unless there's some particular reason to remove them. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 19:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::It's stil happening. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 21:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Arman ad60}} Please '''stop''' deleting discussions from talk pages. If you continue to refactor or remove other editors' talk page comments you may be blocked from editing. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 06:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


{{Collapse bottom}}
*'''He's doing it again''': See [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASasanian_Empire&type=revision&diff=714057008&oldid=714031764 these edits]. One edit did alter someone else's comment, but that wasn't what bothered me so much. What bugs me is he's changing a lot of the wording of his own comments, which were in perfectly acceptable English to begin with, in ways that I can't be sure it alters the substance of the comment... where other editors have already responded. I reverted the three edits. I'm not sure what's going on here, Arman ad60, but I strongly advise you to stop. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 11:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
**'''Block needed''': [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Achaemenid_Empire&diff=714082633 He just removed more talk page comments], including posts by others, that comprised a portion of a talk page thread. <ins>[//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parthian_Empire&diff=714083216 And here too].</ins> This and the diffs I linked above make <del>twice</del> <ins>three times</ins> since he received a final warning that he's fooled around with talk page comments. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 14:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
***He's [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Achaemenid_Empire&diff=714114374 still making substantive changes to his talk page comments], despite being pointed to [[WP:REDACT]]. Some admin intervention would be helpful here. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 18:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


{{Collapse top|Concering alleged "refusal" to engage}}
No you are not right. I am just trying to improve my English. I have changed just few sentences. And it hasn't changed the meaning of the comments. I have every right to do so. Can't I even correct my English?[[User:Arman ad60|Arman ad60]] ([[User talk:Arman ad60|talk]]) 19:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


Follow the link they provided. Then see just how many back and forths we had each had leading up to that point. Then return that that diff and re-read what I stated there. Regardless of if you agree with the point I made there or not, of if you would take either of our "sides" on that issue, certainly one cannot agree that this is an example of me "refusing to engage". Furthermore, while WP does indeed highly ask for participation in discussions and such, I find no rule, guideline, or even essay which notes that I am required to engage with someone until they don't want to engage with me anymore. I am not their toy or other plaything. I get to decide if I wish to continue to engage or not, and what I wish to engage with or not, and I do not find it reasonable to suggest that I have no free agency in this regard.
== Undisclosed paid editing ==


{{Collapse bottom}}
[[User:Ottaway]] is a clear undisclosed paid editor, who clearly works for Ottaway Digital Communications. The evidence is their username, and they've created 2 articles, both of which link to Otterway Digital Communications:
# [[Stevens Worldwide Van Lines]], [http://stevensworldwide.com/News/Category/Stevens/Stevens-Worldwide-Van-Lines-Launches-New-Regional-Website.aspx] shows that they're a client of Ottaway Digital Communications
# [[Classical Music America]], [http://www.classicalmusicamerica.com/about/] shows it's owned by Bob Otterway, who is President of Ottaway communications per [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/fashion/weddings/nicole-gill-and-robert-ottaway-jr-grandma-knows-best-both-of-them.html?_r=0].


{{Collapse top|Clarifying that my position is that the 2020 conspiracy is long-settled as FALSE, and my edit should not have been misconstrued to claim I believed otherwise}}
This information does not constitute [[WP:OUTING|outing]] as their username makes it blatantly obvious to connect the dots through simple Google searches, and I believe the user should be blocked as [[WP:NOTHERE|not here]] as well as for failing to provide a [[WP:PAID|paid editing disclosure]], as required by Wikimedia Terms of Use. [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk]]) 17:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
This is largely unimportant, but many aspects of this history of back and forths seem to me to be getting confused in relation to these specific points. Ignore if you like, this is mostly me getting this off my chest because I am sick of being repeatedly misrepresented on this point.
:I'd say that their username is a clear disclosure. But besides [[WP:COI]], we can also block based on [[WP:Username policy]].--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 18:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


I was trying to take the meat and potatoes of the edit @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] had done there, and tried to do what I believed to be cleaning it up in a better way. At a passive read, the first thought I had about their edit there was that it came across as "hammering the point". "Gee, I wonder if the reader really gets the point that it was all a big lie? Sure we've led this horse to water, but surely we can dunk their head under for a bit just to make sure, right? Should we hold their hand a little more? Perhaps yet more weighted language will help them really get how false the falsehood falsely is?" And none of that comes from an opposition to calling it a falsehood on-face, only that I wanted to try and tone down what I saw as over-editorializing language to more naturally present the point to the reader.
== Dicklyon and his disruptive "war on commas" ==


What I can only surmise is that the @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] suffered a hiccup in judgement with respect to this particular issue. When all you have is a hammer, every screw looks like a nail. All he saw was "false" go away, and they decided I was challenging the validity of calling it a falsehood at all. In light of the rest of the context as I've laid out for my actions here, I hope whoever does care to read this comes away at least understanding that I was never challenging if it is or isn't false or if it could be referred to as such, only trying to do a good faith edit that ended up being disagreed with. I don't see FALSE as the only acceptable way to talk about a falsehood, much less each and every time it is mentioned. That to me is an [[Einstellung effect]] which I do not suffer from or share. I did not take it kindly that this was misrepresented in the first place, and it frankly pissed me off to have that mischaracterization repeated multiple times over a disagreement over grammatical and sentence structure edit disagreement from the editor I had made the correction to. I do believe my reply of "Your Majesty" then seems to be at least much more understood...though in retrospect, it was unwise.
{{user links|Dicklyon}}<br>
{{Collapse bottom}}
There are way to many diffs to list for this, but any admin or editor can easily look at;
* his recent contribution history, re: moves (speaks for itself),
* the multiple complaints on his talk page about this same issue, ([[User talk:Dicklyon#Comma on Hinton, Alberta railway station|here]], [[User talk:Dicklyon#Harry Daghlian, Jr.|here]] and [[User talk:Dicklyon#March 2016|here]])
* the previous (and recent) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Dicklyon_and_his_treatment_on_commas_before_Jr.2FSr report] posted here at ANI (again same issue),
* his [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies&action=history changes] to [[MOS:BLP]],
* his [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive881#Dicklyon_and_mass_moves previous ban on page moves] (something about a "war on dashes"?) and,
* his more recent [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive277#Standard_offer_unblock_request_from_Dicklyon acceptance of a standard offer at AN].
* There was a debate over this at [[Talk:USS Frank E. Petersen Jr.]], which went no where,
* there was an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Amending_MOS:JR_on_comma_usage RfC] on this at the Village Pump that {{U|Drmies}} closed as "no consensus" and,
* there is another [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Implementing_the_.22Jr..22_RfC RfC], taking place at MOS:BLP with no consensus as of yet, just a lot of arguing.


{{Collapse top|Concerning [[WP:UNCIVIL]] behaviors}}
I'm asking that Dicklyon stop (or be stopped from) moving pages to remove, every, single, comma, he finds until the there is a consensus to support this project wide and changes are made to [[WP:MOS]] (lead) and [[WP:JR]]. Thank you - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 17:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I apologize, but this will have to be the lengthiest as it is the most serious of concerns here, and the specifics require me to overcome the false framing presented by the other User.


As admitted by @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]], when I noticed he had taken offense from my statements relating to them having a potential unaddressed bias which could be effecting their editing on this [[WP:CTOP]] subject matter, I apologized (to be clear, I did so ''twice''. Once within one of the many back-and-forth replies immediately after, and a second time where I specifically apologized on his talk page which he makes mention of above, as I wanted to make sure it didn't get lost in the heated discussion). I stated in the message [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User%20talk:BootsED&diff=prev&oldid=1260851489 here] that my intention was not to personally offend, only to call attention to what I perceived as a potential issue. When @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] made it clear that they had taken that statement as a personally offensive statement, I immediately apologized to clear the air and hopefully reinforce that our disagreement should be done as a matter of "professional" disagreement, not personal attacks and uncharitable assumptions. Perhaps they do not accept that apology, but they have admitted above to recognizing it as such. I stand by that apology, I meant that apology, and it is very important to me to apologize the moment I have caused someone an unjustified offense. It is a point of personal responsibility, regardless of if I will or will not be forgiven.
*'''NOTE''' Filer is [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]] via ANI notices at the talk pages of various editors [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hawkeye7&diff=prev&oldid=713942328 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:George_Ho&diff=prev&oldid=713942504 here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calidum&diff=713942413&oldid=713942097 here]. None of the editors he contacted are mentioned in the report above. Looks like a policy-vio to me. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 18:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:*<small>"Note" You obviously didn't read the ANI. Once you realize you're wrong, feel free to strike your accusation. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 19:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
:: There is no need for him to mention me; I previously filed a complaint at [[#Dicklyon and his treatment on commas before Jr/Sr]]. Somehow, a recent RfC discussion is used as justification for omitting commas. [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Precisely why Wolfchild's action is canvassing. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 19:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::::<small>It's not canvassing, so give it a rest already. Feel free to address the actual issue. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 19:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
::I'm not so sure it's canvassing given there's an open thread on the same subject on this same page. If there's a concern, just turn this into a subsection above. I don't think neutral ANI notices are normally considered canvassing, though sending them to a bunch of otherwise unaffected people is unusual to say the least. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 19:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:::<small>No wonder these ANIs turn into such train wrecks. 3 replies and not one addressing the actual issue... - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 19:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC) </small>
::::'''[[WP:JR]].''' There, I addressed the "actual issue". Again. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 21:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Can you add a link? Thanks - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 21:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::Canvassing applies to the act of drawing in ''uninvolved'' editors to a discussion in an inappropriate manner. If you notice, the editors notified were actually ''involved'' in similar disputes with Dicklyon, all of which were linked to above in the ANI heading. As a result of linking to those discussions, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that TheWolfChild felt compelled to notify the editors involved at those links. Tying this to a behavioral guideline violation seems a bit premature. --[[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 21:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


{{Collapse top|First action that Offended me}}
*From an uninvolved editor, [[WP:JR]] seems to indicate that there is consensus for the moves. [[User:Ansh666|ansh]][[User talk:Ansh666|<span style="font-size:80%">''666''</span>]] 22:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Here in the above NB message after acknowledging the apology, they then follow up that admission by whitewashing their own actions afterwards to remove context from later actions I would take. Later on, in the RfC relating to the use of "false" in relation to "lawfare" claims and such, another Users [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024%20United%20States%20elections&diff=prev&oldid=1260995415 comment] about why they voted "SUPPORT" highlighted to me something I had not noticed prior: That the RfC was also over if using "false" in relation to the [[Big lie#Donald Trump's false claims of a stolen election|2020 election fraud conspiracy pushed by Trump]] was valid or not.


This confused me, as there had previously not been any discussion or noted disagreement with such, and this greatly offended me as it appeared to make me or anyone taking any sort of "OPPOSE" stance as also seeming to support the [[WP:FRINGE]] view that defends the conspiracy as being valid...something I have not done, certainly not in the context of ''any'' Wikipedia page. I made it crystal clear this allusion offended me greatly. At no point did @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] offer even a fake apology for the presumed offense given, instead not only defending their view that it belonged as part of the RfC, but also doubling down on the allusion itself by making the false assertion that I was "[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&oldid=prev&diff=1261072020 now agreed]" with referring to that conspiracy as false, this time more directly asserting that I had stood in opposition to that at some prior point in time.
::Per WP:JR;
{{Collapse bottom}}
:*{{tq|Editors may use or omit a comma before Jr. or Sr. (Sammy Davis Jr.; Martin Luther King, Sr.) so long as each article is internally consistent.}} - This is ''before'' Dicklyon and Co. started mucking around with it to taylor it to their personal preferences.
:*Now it reads; {{tq| Omission of the comma before Jr./Jr/Jnr or Sr./Sr/Snr is preferred. The comma can be used where a living subject's own preference or its use in current sources is clear and consistent. Articles should be internally consistent in either use or omission of the commas.}}
:*That's after this [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies&diff=prev&oldid=710296572 edit], with the edit summary "''per RfC closure''". However, the RfC (as noted above) was closed as "no consensus", with Drmies saying "''{{tq|MOS should express a preference toward not using commas. Grandfathering older articles, FAs, etc., is recommended, and one should remember that the MOS is a guideline, not a policy}}''".
:*No where do I see a policy or a widespread consensus that says; "''Go ahead Dicklyon, pretend your the wiki-terminator, a remorseless comma-killing machine from the future, here to edit-war, page-move-war and generally disrupt the project in fulfillment of your mission - to stamp out disease-spreading commas everywhere.''"
:*Again, I'm, asking that the page-moves and mass-removal of commas stops until a clear consensus is achieved and the guidelines are re-written to clearly reflect that consensus. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 00:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


{{Collapse top|Reinforcing the Offense as intentional}}
Unfortunately, the matter has limited to just an issue for [[American English]]. Other regional English varieties have decided to scrap the comma out ''worldwide''. Comma before Jr. or Sr. is now an American matter, not global. Still, we have to resort to recent sources using or omitting a comma. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 00:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)<br>
Despite multiple efforts to clarify my position and request that they retract these inaccurate allusions, @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] outright refused and instead demonstrated what seemed to be passive-aggressive uncivil behavior. His reply [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&oldid=prev&diff=1261072020 here] seemed to me to not be done out of a position of assuming good faith, but instead out of a personally uncharitable assumption that they wished to reinforce at my expense. Arguments do not necessarily always have to be "fair" per se, but they should be done with civility and assuming good faith unless given a clear reason to assume otherwise. I do not see that reply as assuming good faith towards me and my position. It would have been simple to say simply "No offense intended", "I'm sorry you took it that way", etc. Instead, passive aggressive reinforcement of the offense is what was given.
Administrators or editors condone Dicklyon's actions and condemn me apparently. In other words, administrators won't do much about actions of editors who keep removing commas. [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 00:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
{{Collapse bottom}}


And when it is @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] who has caused an offense, they repeatedly refuse to accept that offense was either given or taken, and don't even offer a fake apology to clear the air and proceed in good faith. If I could offer apology, twice, for a single offense out of a desire to want to move forward in good faith with a disagreement, why is @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] unwilling to do a fraction of the same when the shoe is on the other foot and they are the party from which offense has been either given or taken? Why do they instead do nothing less than explicitly reinforce the perceived bad faith? So I called that repeated choice out. And at that time, again, they could then have chosen to recognize the error. Again, they did not apologize or otherwise seek to move towards a fully good faith interaction. Instead, they send [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&oldid=prev&diff=1261220345 this] message, which serves as nothing more than a way to assert that I have done everything wrong and they have done everything right...which they then with zero irony would go on to accuse me of doing later on.
:You can't paint all admins with the same brush, there are a few good ones here that take their responsibilities seriously. With that said, I would still like to see a clear consensus, and clear guideline on this. Until then, neither admins nor editors should be "condoning" Dicklyon's actions, or anyone else's for that matter, that disrupt the project for their own personal preferences. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 01:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


{{Collapse bottom}}
The dispute is not whether the parenthetical comma has been dropped from English. (George Ho is incorrect in saying that we don't use it in other forms of English; we do, even though we do generally omit commas.) It is over whether you can change the MOS and then force all the articles to be changed to conform. This is what caused the push back from the content creators and article maintainers. As Drmies said, the MOS is supposed to be an advisory guideline to ''help'' writing articles, not to make it much harder to do so. Only FAs have a requirement to conform to the MOS, and there is no consensus that even they need to be constantly changed to conform to the latest version of the MOS. Moving the articles creates a great deal of disruption and additional work, as it break links to the reviews and causes trouble for the bots. I feel that if I can write whole articles in American English, then other people can live with the occasional comma or hyphen that offends their sensibilities. [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] ([[User talk:Hawkeye7|talk]]) 01:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*[[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] says it well. Edit warring, large numbers of moves, etc., are easily disruptive, and the MOS should not be used to bludgeon other editors with. I mean, behavior that's disruptive cannot simply be whisked away by saying "it's the MOS". Thank you, [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 00:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' – In relation to article content, I don't believe that changes to the MOS should act as a catalyst for editors to retroactively apply those changes to older articles that predate the change, especially when more than one style is acceptable. At the very least in these situations, the MOS shouldn't be relied upon for the last word when those changes are being contested. Instead, the typical process of establishing consensus through discussion should be followed. Perhaps the inclusion of more explicit text in the MOS' lead would help to clarify this to help avoid future confrontations like this one, but of course, that's a discussion to be had on its talk page – not here. --[[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 10:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


After all of this, I still wanted to work in good faith. I drew a line in the sand with the users outright attempt at [[WP:GASLIGHT]] by asserting I was engaging in an "I'm always right, you're always wrong" capacity DIRECTLY in response to my message acknowledging I was wrong and they were right on no less than 3 different points. That to me was a point of nearly no return...but still I tried. I offered an olive branch. Either take the olive branch and we can move forward in good faith, walk away if we cannot, or engage in bad faith and have it escalated. The user seemed to take the olive branch, but instead of seeking good faith compromise, the user demanded that I promise not to make further edits. When I indicated that "good faith" includes good faith opposition, and offered a possible compromise and ASKED if that is something they could agree to...they authored this NB topic. So here we are.
===Clear violation of unblock conditions===
Dicklyon was unblocked in December under the condition that he avoid making mass page moves (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dicklyon&oldid=697661551]). Over the past several weeks, he has made dozens of page moves without gaining consensus first. The moves are also in clear violation of a [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Amending_MOS:JR_on_comma_usage|recent RFC]] on the matter, which determined that grandfathering in existing titles was preferred (presumably to avoid the same mass moves Dicklyon has carried out). The [[WP:MoS]], which Dicklyon and his followers point to in his defense, explicitly says "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable."


This ends my "testimony", as it were. We are all biased to ourselves, and as I am sure is the case with all disagreements: There is "their side", "my side" and "the truth" is somewhere in the middle. The only real question is a matter of degrees. I have not addressed assertions posited by certain others here, because again I am not good at being concise. Did you really WANT this to be twice the size? I think not. If Admins would like to ask me about those other things, I am more than happy to answer, I am just trying to be considerate of your time and patience.
So, to recap, Dicklyon is running afoul of his unblock condition, the RFC he cites and the MoS. He ought to, at a minimum, be told to stop making such controversial moves. '''<span style="border: 1px blue solid;background:Cyan">[[User:Calidum|<font color="#4863A0">Calidum</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Calidum|<font color="#A18648">¤</font>]]</span>''' 03:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:Interestingly enough, Dicklyon was given a six-month ban from moving pages in April 2015 (see [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive881#Dicklyon_and_mass_moves|here]]). He was blocked indefinitely that same month, and a majority of users who commented on his [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive277#Standard_offer_unblock_request_from_Dicklyon|unblock request in December]] felt that six-month ban should be kept in place. '''<span style="border: 1px blue solid;background:Cyan">[[User:Calidum|<font color="#4863A0">Calidum</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Calidum|<font color="#A18648">¤</font>]]</span>''' 03:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::If the mass moves without consensus don't stop, the next ban should be longer. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk:Jonathunder|talk]]) 15:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


To the admins who read all of this, you have my respect. This is a bit much even for me, but again I didn't know how else to condense it further than this. Perhaps you and others see an obvious way to do that, but it isn't to me. This is something I struggle with IRL, I don't mean to be a burden on your time. I don't care if you agree with me or disagree with me, in whole or in part, or if you feel you want to take some action against me. These are all your choices, not mine. All I want to do now is again thank you for your time, and especially if you read every word, thank you from the bottom of my heart for giving me a real and honest chance to explain myself and my side of the story in my own uncensored words. I promise I really will try to keep it as short as I can if you wish to ask me any questions. Thank you.
*This might be an issue, but might not be. Dicklyon stopped pagemoves around the time the earlier ANI thread started. While he resumed them about 24 hours later (making around 50), it was after the thread had died down. What matters is the "potentially controversial" nature of the pagemoves: In other words, the unblock condition might be violated if the pagemoves weren't really controversial, but had the potential to be controversial. For me it hinges on the individual pagemoves made, at least after the ANI thread started, when Dicklyon was unquestionably on notice that there was a problem. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 16:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
[[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 03:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::I suppose any move is "potentially controversial". Are any actually controversial? Is there any basis at all for Thewolfchild's position that my removal of a comma from ship name that doesn't have one in sources was controversial? I understand that I pissed him off by not following BRD; since [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=USS_Frank_E._Petersen_Jr.&diff=713641230&oldid=713623653 his revert had a counterfactual reason for reverting, in his edit summary], I simply reverted that error; even that should not be seen as controversial; please review my actions there. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 17:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::<small>So you admit to edit-warring, page-move-warring and repeat-moving a page, after it was disputed, violating WP:MOS. Thanks, that makes things easier. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 17:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
:::How about [[Larry Mullen, Jr.]], where you move-warred with an admin over the comma [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Larry_Mullen_Jr.&action=history]? Just because [[WP:MEAT|your comrades in the anti-coma crusade]] showed up to oppose moving it back to the longstanding, stable title doesn't mean the move was uncontroversial. Or how about here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Frank_E._Petersen_Jr.&diff=713718051&oldid=713717344] where you openly admit you edit redirects created by your page moves to make it impossible for non-admins to undo the undiscussed moves? '''<span style="border: 1px blue solid;background:Cyan">[[User:Calidum|<font color="#4863A0">Calidum</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Calidum|<font color="#A18648">¤</font>]]</span>''' 17:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Calidum, per this RM: [[Talk:Larry_Mullen_Jr.#Requested_move_20_March_2016]], it appears that your using the "uncontroversial" process to add a comma against the guidance of the MOS was the more controversial bit. Yes, I reverted the resulting admin move (the same admin who opened the RM discussion in response to your attempt to again insert the comma), because it was incorrect, against a clear broad consensus as expressed at [[WP:JR]]. The RM discussion affirms this. I suggest people review that, too. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 17:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


:{{u|TheRazgriz}}, your apology for taking up our time is appreciated, and I accept that you're not being so verbose on purpose, but it still makes it very, very hard to engage with you. It seems to me that you defend yourself at length against a lot of charges that are a matter of opinion (such as whether your actions show "immediate and consistent good faith", whether your interpretations of policy on article talk have been successfully challenged, etc, etc), while failing to write a single word about the ''important'' sourcing matter described by TarnishedPath + BootsED immediately above your post, including how you reject NYT while pushing usage of [[WP:POST]]. That is egregious, and suggests your grip on the reliability of sources is tenuous (and also [[WP:tendentious|tendentious]]). [[Special:Diff/1261031463|This]], cited by BootsED, is downright wikilawyering. I apologize if you did address this somewhere above and I missed it; I did read the whole, but I admit my eyes were trying to glaze over. The same thing keeps happening, probably not just to me, at article talk. A '''pageblock from [[2024 United States elections]] and its talkpage''' seems an absolute minimum of a sanction here; your editing of the article is tendentious, and, however much you apologize for it, your use of the talkpage in defense of that editing is destructive and ruinous. See also my comments on your own page about [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]] article talk. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 06:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC).
:::::Even if it were right in the end, it's still controversial. Don't play dumb. You're too smart to pretend these moves aren't controversial. '''<span style="border: 1px blue solid;background:Cyan">[[User:Calidum|<font color="#4863A0">Calidum</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Calidum|<font color="#A18648">¤</font>]]</span>''' 17:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::As I addressed [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024%20United%20States%20elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261270732 here], my defense for using NYP was based on my apparent outdated recollection of the WP:RS list/consensus. I had recalled that just a couple of years ago the conensus was "Generally Reliable" on most subjects and that for the issue of politics it was "No consensus" on if it was or was not reliable. This was pointed out by others to be incorrect as that that had changed. I confirmed that to be true, and admitted my fault openly.
:::::There is a "{{tq|clear broad consensus}}" you say? Only 7 editors have participated in that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Implementing_the_.22Jr..22_RfC still-open debate] and there is clearly no consensus there at all. Your comment is, to put it politely, [[bullshit|disingenuous]]. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 22:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::Also, I am not challenging NYT, that is a mischaracterization of my position there. Specifically I was challenging the use of 1 article based on 2 issues: 1) The 2 credited authors are, according to their own biographical information, a Graphics Journalist and a Graphics Editor, and 2) The piece they had authored spoke in very authoritative terms and tone on a scholastic field in which neither author are authorities to speak in such a way. Neither author, as far as any of the research I conducted could find, have any formal or informal education on the subjects of Political Science or Law. Specifically, the issue was that not only were these 2 non-authorities being cited at all, but also being directly quoted at length within the citation, the entirety of which was just their personal opinion presented as authoritative fact.
* {{ping|Mendaliv}} - He knew full well these moves were controversial. His entire "war on commas" is. He was ''just'' brought to ANI for it, (see above) and his talk page is full of complaints about his page-moves and comma removals. Is this what the community had in mind when his indef block was lifted? Meanwhile, the page-moves and comma-removals need to stop for now. There needs to be a clear consensus and equally clear guideline on this before Dicklyon and Co. continue any further. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 17:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::I have taken no issue with any other sourcing, from NYT or otherwise, as I see no issues with how those other pieces are represented, but the way this was being used at no less than 3 different points within the article seemed problematic. [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 13:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*And the moves continue despite this ANI thread. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Robert_N._C._Nix_Sr.&action=history here] for example. '''<span style="border: 1px blue solid;background:Cyan">[[User:Calidum|<font color="#4863A0">Calidum</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Calidum|<font color="#A18648">¤</font>]]</span>''' 18:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Raz, you have stated your opposition to the NYT as a RS as per your [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261011394 comment] here. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 21:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Please stop gaslighting me, and admins at this point, by trying to yet again control and misconstrue the framing of a fact to better suit your opinion.
::::What I did state about NYT itself is a fact widely reported, such as [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/01/new-york-times-axes-editing-jobs-in-favour-of-100-more-reporters here]. I am allowed to have a personal opinion that the ONE and ONLY NYT article I directly challenged is likely a result of that hampered editorial standard having allowed an error. Nowhere do I argue that opinion as a fact or to justify an edit. You and everyone else who reads that clearly knows I am challenging your preferred citation by Yourish & Smart. Yourish & Smart are not NYT, and NYT is not Yourish & Smart. My challenge is against the authors legitimacy so speak on the matter they speak on in authoritative tone, combined with how you would like to use the citation in the article. That is literally it. It isn't deeper than that, so please stop digging.
::::What you do NOT see there is any assertion by me that comes close to me being in "opposition to the NYT as a RS". [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 22:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:"{{tq|I offered a good faith compromise to settle our disagreement via WP:CON, and you have elected to do all of this?}}" @[[User:TheRazgriz|TheRazgriz]], this is a highly unhelpful attitude and yet another misinterpretation of [[WP:PAG]]. [[WP:CON]] doesn't require that other editors compromise with those who are putting forward faulty policy positions. That's not how we do things around here. You need to start listening to other editors when you are wrong. No one is right all of the time. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 10:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::I agree, no one is right all of the time. That is ''my'' point. Allow me to suggest that no is ''wrong'' all the time either.
::So I ask: Can you explain how [[Talk:2024 United States elections#Undue weight in "Issues"|this]] is not an example of [[WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS]], and what [[WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS]] would look like in practice as opposed to this example? I understand all other participants positions on their interpretations of ''other '' policies in other discussions (and their repudiation of mine), but no one (including you) have explained ''what ''or ''how ''I ''must ''be incorrect here on the issue of [[WP:CON]]. It is simply asserted that I ''must ''be wrong, because I have been wrong on ''other ''subjects. That is highly fallacious, and I believe you can understand that. [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 13:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I wrote: {{tq|You need to start listening to other editors <b>when</b> you are wrong}} (emphasis mine) I didn't write that you are wrong on all occasions. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 13:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I appreciate that. With that in mind, and understanding that something needs to be said in order for me to listen to it, could you answer and explain the question I posted previously? Thank you. [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 14:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Given that I didn't participate in that discussion and wasn't involved in or witness any editing that went along with that discussion I don't feel like I can give a good interpretation. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 04:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


==Vandal/troll/sock back again==
:::<small>And [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Robert_N._C._Nix_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=714115758 here] - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 21:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
{{atop|1=Sock-B-Gon applied. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)}}
The fistagon vandal/troll/sock is back again, this time under the name {{userlinks|Bubblegutz 1}}? If someone could please take the appropriate action and do a reveal on the edit summaries, I’d be very grateful. Cheers - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 10:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


:Blocked, working on the revdel. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 10:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::What would be the potential controversy when our MOS and the vast majority of sources are in agreement? I understand that sometimes people who prefer to "follow the sources" find edits toward the preference of our own MOS to be controversial when usage in sources is ambiguous or contrary to our style. That is not the case in any of these that we are discussing, is it? Perhaps these are not at all controversial unless you choose to make them so? And why would you? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 18:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::All gone. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 10:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Brilliant, thanks [[User:Kusma|Kusma]]. Cheers - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 10:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:RocketKnightX Disruptive Editing ==
:::But MOS ''clearly'' isn't in agreement with you here. And beyond that, the fact that the commas are an acceptable version ''and'' the moves are contested, means that the pages stay with their original titles. You know this, yet are deliberately ignoring it. Your continued conduct 'is therefore disruptive and completely flies in the face of your standard offer. The community allowed you back in after your recent indef block on the understanding you wouldn't cause anymore disruption. Just because ''you think'' you're right, doesn't mean that you are. You need to stop all this. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 20:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*It may well be that Dicklyon is pushing the envelope here, and he's made a few more moves recently. What I cannot accurately judge is whether he's doing so disruptively, against consensus, by edit warring, etc. I see a few diffs, above, that allege edit warring--but what I would really like to hear here is what uninvolved editors have to say on the topic. For now, it may simply be that we have two parties fighting over content accusing each other of disruption. Wolfchild, I'm not saying you're wrong in your assessment--I'm just saying that if we were to reblock for violation of unblock conditions, those violations need to be unequivocal, and I don't see that right now. Mind you, I need some coffee. But what I really need is more voices here, and preferably another admin to judge this as well. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 00:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::{{u|Drmies}} At the very least, the page-moves and comma removals should stop until all this gets sorted out. That's what I'm asking for here. Even the guidelines support that (and leaving an errant comma in place will not exactly destroy the project). A block is not what I am primarily seeking here (but if the any admins or the community are considering imposing one, it has my support). Look at the <span class="plainlinks">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies/2015_archive 2015 archive for MOS:BLP]</span>, this has been going on ''for over a year'', with no consensus and no end in sight. It's time to bring this to an end. I just want the disruption, that numerous editors have now complained about, to stop until there is a clear direction to take with all this. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 00:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::Dicklyon was unblocked with the wording "User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here." Almost any MOS-based change is going to be large scale as it is not article specific. Faffing around with comma's is certainly controversial. And as comments at his unblocking were quite clear, editors were not keen on unblocking him with no restrictions. Perhaps Prodego erred in not making it explicit. But 'Dont make large scale changes in contested areas' should be clear enough to anyone. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 08:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


===Statement by the accused===


{{Userlinks|RocketKnightX}}
Sorry, not much internet on my long road trip today; just read this. You'll find my full confession (posted before this complaint was filed, I think) at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Progress_implementing_WP:JR this section]. More context there, and more on request. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 06:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


The user had been involved in an Edit War at [[15.ai]], when I proposed a TBAN for RocketKnightX in response to their persistent disruptive editing of [[15.ai]], I dropped the complaint when they said they would stop [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1258112750]. They were invited to the AfD discussion and then went to [[15.ai]] and deleted the AfD notice [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=15.ai&oldid=1261675587] and declared my policy based removal of [[WP:NOSOCIAL]] and [[WP:YOUTUBE]] external links to be vandalism [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=15.ai&oldid=1261675498]. Their edit summary and some of their activity demonstrates a lack of maturity[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ltbdl&diff=prev&oldid=1248757339]. He was also warned for making personal attacks [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RocketKnightX#c-Liz-20241117041900-Personal_attacks] coupled with their past activity on Wikipedia such as this edit summary[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Stepanakert_Memorial&oldid=prev&diff=1193554236] I think some manner of intervention is warranted at this point. --<b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 10:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
===So much for "consensus"===
:Removing the AfD template is pretty disruptive, as the template has clear in-your-face text that says "do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed". Talking nonsense about vandalism in the edit summary when reverting a well-explained edit [[Special:Diff/1261675498|here]] is not good either. Doing these things after [[Special:Diff/1258112750|promising to stop]] "causing issues" at the article is block-worthy. Blocked 31 hours. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 11:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC).
The RfC you so heavily relied on is now a joke. Only 7 editors participated, few of whom actually agreed with you, and it wasn't even closed. I pinged those 7 editors, (including yourself), ''and them only'', to clarify who supported what. And what do you do? You ping '''14''' other editors (and counting), none of whom participated in that discussion, and are likely cherry-picked 'anti-comma' people. And this is supposed to prove... what? The fact is, ''you lied'', (again) and you were caught in that lie. You didn't have the consensus you claimed you did, and you can ping a hundred more people, nothing will change that fact. (Where that's guy that cries about canvassing when you actually need him anyway?) lolz... Despite whatever happens now, watching you panic and try to spin this is amusing... - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 07:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:Part of me wouldn't be surprised if RocketKnightX is involved in the sock/SPA disruption at the afd, or even a [[User:HackerKnownAs]] sock. WHile it wouldn't surprise me if true I don't suspect enough to take to SPI, afterall the evidence would be behavioural and there are some differences in behaviour. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 12:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:How many times do I need to link it for you? It was recently archived from [[WP:VPP]] and I linked it on your other forum shop at [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Consensus....3F]]. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 16:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::I do not think they're a HKA Sock given the wildly different behaviors, but RK was suspected of being someone else's Sock in an ANI discussion that produced no results [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145#RocketKnightX] <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 13:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


===[[User:Tacotron2]] attempted [[WP:VOTESTACK]]===
== Persistent adding of unsourced puffery on page Frederick Achom ==
{{Userlinks|Tacotron2}}
I am just creating this complaint as a sub-section because it is directly related to RocketKnightX's activity. After having a discussion where they were made aware that {{tq|The person who solicits other people inappropriately may be subject to administrative review if the behavior is severe enough.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rsjaffe#c-Rsjaffe-20241207041900-Tacotron2-20241207040700], my colleague apparently took that as a sign to hit the campaign trail. When I saw they solictied RocketKnightX[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RocketKnightX&diff=prev&oldid=1261655860] and others[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UnstableDiffusion&diff=prev&oldid=1261654895][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DIYeditor&diff=prev&oldid=1261654850] to the AfD I left a warning [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tacotron2&oldid=1261676477] about their canvassing. They proceeded to canvass more anyway [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elmidae&diff=prev&oldid=1261701914][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JeffUK&diff=prev&oldid=1261701963][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FrostyBeep&diff=prev&oldid=1261702004]. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 14:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


:I didn't see your first message. It wasn't done intentionally. [[User:Tacotron2|Tacotron2]] ([[User talk:Tacotron2|talk]]) 17:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
{{userlinks|Aliopuka}}<br>
::You know, I can probably believe that you didn't see my warning. What I do not believe is that you didn't know what you were doing was wrong when an admin already told that people who solicit (i.e the people asking others to the vote) inappropriately may be subject to administrative review. After that message you:
{{pagelinks|Frederick Achom}}<br>
::* Canvassed a known disruptive edit warrior [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RocketKnightX&diff=prev&oldid=1261655860]
[[User:Aliopuka]], has been vandalising the page [[Frederick Achom]]. He/she has made the same edits [[User:Alex1977-1]] was blocked for making. You can check [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Achom&type=revision&diff=713939220&oldid=704121507]. They both seem to be part of a large sockfarm of paid editors.[[User:NihartouJason|NihartouJason]] ([[User talk:NihartouJason|talk]]) 19:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::* Canvassed someone whom you believed would support your outcome because they believed a source was reliable.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UnstableDiffusion&diff=prev&oldid=1261654895]
::* Canvassed someone who said use the source until someone contests [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DIYeditor&diff=prev&oldid=1261654850]
::* Canvassed someone who voted keep the last AfD [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elmidae&diff=prev&oldid=1261701914]
::* Canvassed someone who voted keep the last AfD [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JeffUK&diff=prev&oldid=1261701963]
::* Canassed someone who voted keep the last AfD. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FrostyBeep&diff=prev&oldid=1261702004]
::Notably, you didn't provide a notice to any editor who was involved in editing 15.ai who might reasonably be expected to vote delete, nor did you canvass anyone who voted delete in the last AfD. Why you felt it necessary to specifically invite Elmidae when you pinged them in your response to the AfD I also do not know or understand. Notably, you did not invite the following editors who were active recently at [[15.ai]] Polygnotus, Thought 1915, YesI'mOnFire, Sj, Cooldudeseven7, The Hand That Feeds You, or the editors who voted Delete last time such as LilianaUwU, Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum, and Cinadon36.
::This is pretty clear [[WP:VOTESTACKING]]. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 23:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::Not done intentionally? In the discussion on my talk page ([[User talk:Rsjaffe#AfD Issues]]), you were worried about being labeled as canvassed and I made the distinction that we are generally looking at the canvasser, not the canvassed. This was in a discussion about what sort of behavior merits reporting to ANI. And after all that, you claim ignorance of the issue? —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 01:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'll be honest with you. I had a brain fart. I thought canvassing was coordinating off Wikipedia to stack a vote. I thought that if you did it on a user's Wikipedia talk pages directly, it wasn't canvassing. I don't know why I thought that. I read something similar to that somewhere else on Wikipedia and I must have misinterpreted it, where asking editors to contribute to a discussion was encouraged. I'm sorry about that. [[User:Tacotron2|Tacotron2]] ([[User talk:Tacotron2|talk]]) 21:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::OK, read [[WP:CAN]], and please reply that you understand and will follow the behavioral guideline from now on. Thanks. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 21:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


===A Summary===
:Appears to have been inappropriately waning {{userlinks|NihartouJason}} [[User:Jim1138|Jim1138]] ([[User talk:Jim1138|talk]]) 19:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
This, like many cases here at [[WP:ANI]], is a conduct dispute that began as a content dispute. The content dispute was at [[15.ai]], and was over what the infobox should say was the status of the web site. Some editors said that the web site was under maintenance (and temporarily down for maintenance) and should say that. Other editors said that the web site was abandoned and should say that.
::'''Non-admin comment'''. I am a little concerned when I look at Aliopuka's contribs, because they seem to be getting around awful well for somebody with just 80 edits, slapping speedy deletes and CN and uncat tags on things. However, they may just be a very quick learner and not be a sock at all. We need a checkuser to be sure, and their edits don't look like "vandalism" and "puffery" to me anyway. Also, NihartouJason, it's not right to go around telling people that they can't edit a particular article. See [[WP:BOLD]]. [[User:White Arabian Filly|<span style="color:#3BB9FF">White Arabian Filly</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:White Arabian Filly|<span style="color:#039">Neigh</span>]]</sup> 21:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
*I am very concerned with the content Aliopuka is supporting. Quite a few of the references do not exist or mention the subject at all. (ex [http://cpec.in/] <small><- looks like spam as opposed to reference</small> [https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-55237-511] [https://www.duedil.com/company/03528116/the-pleasure-pages-ltd] [http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/feb/06/features11.g2] [http://investing.einnews.com/article__detail/247381793]). As such, I've removed those warnings as bogus. Also, I might want to point out [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex1977-1/Archive|this]]. <span style="text-shadow:7px 5px 7px maroon">-- [[User:The Voidwalker|<span style="color:#123524">The Voidwalker</span>]] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">[[User talk:The Voidwalker|<span style="color:#353839">'''Discuss'''</span>]]</span></sup></span> 21:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
* This looks more like the PR department of a firm than actual sockpuppets. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' : Actually, [[User:NihartouJason|NihartouJason]] is vandalizing the article without taking part in the talk page discussion despite repeatedly asking and I have opened this discussion[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frederick_Achom&diff=next&oldid=713195941]. He is blatantly removing sourced material including awards and adding defamation content which clearly violates [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:UNDUE]].


A request was made, on 5 October 2024, for moderated discussion at [[WP:DRN|DRN]] by an editor who was then indefinitely blocked for unrelated conduct. However, other editors took part, including [[User:BrocadeRiverPoems]] and [[User:RocketKnightX]]. The DRN is archived at [[Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_250#15.ai]]. I then started an RFC on the status of the web site, at [[Talk:15.ai]]. That was meant to resolve the content dispute.
My first edit to the page was[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Achom&diff=713195789&oldid=704121507] for which I left this talk page message[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frederick_Achom&diff=713195941&oldid=704122030] Later, when I saw removal of sourced content such as awards, career etc. from the page's edit history then I tried to add them back[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Achom&diff=next&oldid=713212690] from a neutral POV with <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> where no sources were provided such as[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Achom&diff=prev&oldid=713196146], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Achom&diff=713948021&oldid=713947405] etc.


[[User:HackerKnownAs]] then filed a complaint at [[WP:ANI]] against [[User:BrocadeRiverPoems]] on 16 November 2024, that is archived at [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#BrocadeRiverPoems_behavioral_issues]]. That complaint and the reply were both [[WP:TLDR|Too Long to Read]]. [[User:HackerKnownAs]] and some other editors were then blocked for sockpuppetry.
But instead of contacting me or leaving any message to any talk page, [[User:NihartouJason|NihartouJason]] reported me here[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=713942053] where I made this comment[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=713944931] as [[User:NihartouJason|NihartouJason]] seems to me a SPA account with a particular interest to insert defamation content only to the article. He has been warned on his talk pages but still he is reporting me instead of addressing the real issue on the talk. [[User:Aliopuka|Aliopuka]] ([[User talk:Aliopuka|talk]]) 02:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


[[User:RocketKnightX]] continued to edit-war, and [[User:BrocadeRiverPoems]] proposed a [[WP:TBAN|topic-ban]] against RocketKnightX from the page [[15.ai]]. RocketKnightX said that they would stop edit-warring. At about this point, that ANI was closed.
{{ping|User:The Voidwalker}}, I am not supporting any sources. I just tried to restore the deleted material removed by the SPA account[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Achom&diff=713938437&oldid=713212690] and repeatedly ask to discuss on the talk page to reach a consensus instead of blatantly removing the sourced materials. If the sources do not cite the claims then anyone can remove from the article with suitable edit summary or talk page message.[[User:Aliopuka|Aliopuka]] ([[User talk:Aliopuka|talk]]) 03:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems]] then nominated the article [[15.ai]] for deletion on 2 December 2024. I have not (as of the time of this post) done a source analysis on the article, and so do not have an opinion on the AFD at this time.
{{ping|User:JzG}}, The SPA a/c [[User:NihartouJason]] seem to me a paid editor who might have any monetary issues with the subject of the page thus trying to add the defamation content to the page. [[User:Aliopuka|Aliopuka]] ([[User talk:Aliopuka|talk]]) 03:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems]] closed the RFC as an involved snow close on 4 December 2024 to omit the status of the web site from the infobox, because there are no [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] stating either that it is under maintenance or that it is abandoned.
*{{ping|User:Aliopuka}} You are accusing me of not explaining myself on the talk page. Please have a look here. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frederick_Achom#Completely_False_Article_Frederick_Achom],[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Frederick_Achom]. My main concern is that if you have good intentions then why are you editing the page as the blocked user [[User:Alex1977-1]] did, you just changes the language structure a bit and restored the previous questionable content[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Achom&type=revision&diff=714009633&oldid=704073728].I reported him and he was blocked and is currently undergoing a sockpuppet investigation. And why do you keep removing the conviction information even when it is properly sourced. [[User:NihartouJason|NihartouJason]] ([[User talk:NihartouJason|talk]]) 04:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Robert McClenon|contribs]]) </small>
:So, finally you posted on the talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frederick_Achom&diff=714019132&oldid=713947016]. Well, let me explain you. I used the revision by User:Addiecolb and not of any other editors. Secondly, you should discuss on the article's talk page and not on your sandbox. I checked your sandbox draft talk page and it is one sided judgement by only you. I do not see any other editors involvement in it. For example, you said the [[Jewish Business News]] source has no author but the news was by their staff reporter so need of a author however, the source does mention "By Jewish Business News" or you said this link[http://content.yudu.com/A1zgh3/PowerList2013/resources/29.htm] doesn't mention "Achom" while the source does mention him so you see, this is not a procedure to reach consensus. Why you removed the awards as well as presented the controversy with undue weight? What is your particular interest with "Frederick Achom"? Please, post your rationale on the article's talk page and [[Wikipedia:Civility|treat appropriately]] with other editors. [[User:Aliopuka|Aliopuka]] ([[User talk:Aliopuka|talk]]) 06:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


===Proposal 1: [[WP:SITEBAN|Site Ban]] for [[User:RocketKnightX]]===
*'''Comment''': The sandbox was created by [[User:Jeff G.]] and he invited anyone to present a more balanced article[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Frederick_Achom]. After completing the draft article, I posted the link on the main article's talk page no one objected it. I messaged a few editors who were active on this article to check my version. They told me if no one else obstructs then they will assume [[Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith]]. The awards you are referring to were not supported by any evidence the ones which were, I bumped them up to the intro section. The controversy is not of undue weight just google "Achom Wine Fraud"[http://www.standard.co.uk/goingout/restaurants/wine-scam-costs-investors-110m-6326500.html
] and you will know about it. Why do you keep removing it even after it is supported by adequate number of references?.[[User:NihartouJason|NihartouJason]] ([[User talk:NihartouJason|talk]]) 07:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
**Yes, I made that sandbox and did not oppose copying it to the main article after Jason was done with it. I am just trying to improve the project here, but I suspect others are POV pushing and not disclosing, which behavior warrants attention above my pay grade. &nbsp; — '''<span style="background:Yellow;font-family:Helvetica Bold;color:Blue;">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G. ツ]] [[User:Jeff G./talk|<small>(talk)</small>]]</span>''' 23:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


I think that the conduct of [[User:RocketKnightX]] is a strong net negative for the community. They agreed to stop edit-warring, possibly only in order to avoid being topic-banned, and have resumed edit-warring. They removed the AFD banner, which is very clearly forbidden, while accusing [[User:BrocadeRiverPoems]] of [[WP:VAND|vandalism]]. I think that RocketKnightX has exhausted the patience of the community and should be [[WP:CBAN|banned by the community]].
*{{ping|User:Aliopuka}} The warnings you are referring to were posted by you yourself on my talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NihartouJason&action=history] and were later removed by [[User:The Voidwalker]]. He/she stated them as "bogus".[[User:NihartouJason|NihartouJason]] ([[User talk:NihartouJason|talk]]) 08:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proposer. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:*I have checked your edits and wine fraud scam edits seem legitimate to me based on the sources you provided. However, I will further check all the references. But still you haven't answered why you removed the other adequately sourced materials? Why you mentioned that this link[http://content.yudu.com/A1zgh3/PowerList2013/resources/29.htm] didn't mention "Achom"? Do you know you can't just ''delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer''? Also, I do not know why [[User:The Voidwalker]] undid my warnings on your talk page and stating those warnings as bogus as they were not! Anyway, I have asked him for his rationale as you have clearly removed sourced material from the article which I have restored and are still there on the page.[[User:Aliopuka|Aliopuka]] ([[User talk:Aliopuka|talk]]) 13:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' When I looked at their history, they have a history of incivility, borderline [[WP:NATIONALIST]] editing[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Stepanakert_Memorial&oldid=prev&diff=1193554236][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Telephone_numbers_in_Armenia&diff=prev&oldid=1252902141],[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=prev&oldid=1193057718] where they continue act disruptively within the [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Armenia-Azerbaijan]] and a number of other problems that indicate [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:CIR]] issues[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=15.ai&diff=prev&oldid=1248766826] including at one point bizarrely restoring a massive plot synopsis that another editor had created [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Mean_One&diff=1164841636&oldid=1158412822] that had been removed by two different editors for being too long [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Mean_One&oldid=1158437370][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Mean_One&oldid=1158404160]. --<b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 23:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::*I removed the warnings because I could see serious referencing issues in the material that was being removed. However, a more thorough review shows that a good bit of the material is quite acceptable. Ordinarily, one should review the material they add/remove to an article.
*'''Oppose.''' I see Robert enumerates exactly the same problems with RocketKnightX's editing as I did [[Special:Diff/1261681069|above]], where I gave them a 31-hour block (currently an active block) for them. The only difference is that Robert assumes bad faith of RocketKnightX's undertaking to stop edit warring ("They agreed to stop edit-warring, possibly only in order to avoid being topic-banned, and have resumed edit-warring"). We're [[WP:AGF|not supposed to do that]], and I'll point out that RKX agreed to stop [[Special:Diff/1258112750|on 18 November]] and only went back to disruptive actions at [[15.ai]] (not actually to edit warring, but to the aforementioned removal of the AfD banner and accusation of vandalism) again on 7 December, three weeks later. The agreement to stop in November doesn't look to me like part of a heinous plan to continue disrupting; it seems at least as likely that they had simply forgotten about it three weeks later. It was [[Special:Diff/1258112750|six words that look angrily dashed-off]]; not some elaborate undertaking. The whole notion that RKX has already "exhausted the patience of the community" seems weirdly excessive. I stand by my 31-hour block as the more appropriate sanction. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 13:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC).
:::I don't really believe that there is much abuse going on here, rather than a failure to understand. More discussion, rather than templating or reporting, likely would have solved the issues here. Time permitting, I plan on going through the article and cleaning up the material. <span style="text-shadow:7px 5px 7px maroon">-- [[User:The Voidwalker|<span style="color:#123524">The Voidwalker</span>]] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">[[User talk:The Voidwalker|<span style="color:#353839">'''Discuss'''</span>]]</span></sup></span> 22:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*:I do feel that [[WP:CIR]] is a very valid, chronic concern with this editor ''regardless'' of edit warring, specifically {{tq|the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus.}} In October they asked me what they should do in cases of disputes. When I told them what they should do, about dispute resolution, etc. they responded {{tq|Too hard. This site is the hardest thing to do.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RocketKnightX#c-RocketKnightX-20241019110400-BrocadeRiverPoems-20241017215000]. Coupled with dropping edit summaries like "I said stop!" and "deal with it" and their [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] attitude on talkpages [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:15.ai&diff=prev&oldid=1249120032] and I'm not really sure what the community is expected to do when the user has self-proclaimed that learning dispute resolution ''is too hard''. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 14:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::*From the very beginning I insisted on discussion but the SPA [[User:NihartouJason]] reported me twice! Any editor can check the page's edit history how sourced material was removed by [[User:NihartouJason]]. I just tried to restore the deleted material and reach consensus for improving the project. If removal of large section with awards/accolades, careers is not against Wikipedia norms then what are? If you see serious referencing issues then you could have discussed on the talk page or with the concerned editor instead of removing the warnings. Please, also note that the SPA [[User:NihartouJason]] was previously warned for removal of sourced content. I have just tried to restore deleted materials first as there were edit wars on that article (check the page history for clear understanding). Clearly, your judgement was wrong! Anyway, I undid your removal of warnings as the warnings were not "bogus" IMO and left a message on that talk page. Feel free to discuss regarding this and honestly, I checked the removed materials by the SPA user and not all the material had ''serious referencing issues'' as you stated. Further the SPA editor reported me instead of discussion or any talk page message as per [[WP:TALK|standard Wikipedia norms]]. Btw, if you see any referencing issue then feel free to discuss on talk page or [[Wikipedia:Bold|edit yourself]] with a edit summary. I will be happy to discuss on any improvements to the article. Regards, [[User:Aliopuka|Aliopuka]] ([[User talk:Aliopuka|talk]]) 05:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::You're bringing up edit summaries from months ago, this article has been the subject of way too many project discussions already and I think that comments made in October have already been dealt with when those discussions were closed. If there have been recent issues, you can share those edits but don't dig up the past. I'm with Bishonen here. Yes, this is not an enormously productive editor but this seems like overkill. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - per Bishonen. The short block is justified. Leaping to an indefinite for the same offence is premature. My patience isn't exhausted (yet). [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 08:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== User:Sibbs11 ==
== Disruptive editing by [[User:Upd Edit]] ==


{{userlinks|Upd Edit}}, who has made edits only on the {{pagelinks|Shahi Jama Masjid}} article, trying to promote a single claim that a hindu temple existed beneath the mosque. Though they cite books as sources, the reliability and verifiability of these sources are questionable. (See [[2024 Sambhal violence]]) Their edits violate [[WP:NPOV]], and [[WP:DUE]],
{{user|Sibbs11}} has repeatedly removed referenced content from the article [[Mahto]], including from various IPs ([[WP:DUCK]]):


*'''Issues:''' <br>1. {{highlight |'''Their contributions are solely focused on the [[Shahi Jama Masjid]] article.'''|lightyellow}} [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Upd_Edit Edit count]<br>2. '''[[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] Violations:''' The user relies on obscure or unverifiable sources to support controversial claims. <br>3. '''[[WP:NPOV]] Violation:''' Edits consistently emphasize the unverified temple claim, creating bias and disregarding alternative historical perspectives. <br>4. '''[[WP:DUE]] Violation:''' Though sourced,Their edits focus too much about the temple claim, even though it's not the most important part of the mosque's story. The mosque itself should be the main focus. <br>5. '''[[WP:EDITWAR]] and Disruptive Behavior:''' The user reverts changes made by other editors. Example: <br>1. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shahi_Jama_Masjid&diff=prev&oldid=1260365884 Moved page to wrong title]<br>2. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shahi_Jama_Masjid&diff=prev&oldid=1260368563 reverted]<br>3. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shahi_Jama_Masjid&diff=prev&oldid=1260413345 reverted]<br>4. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shahi_Jama_Masjid&diff=prev&oldid=1260419863 reverted]<br>5. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shahi_Jama_Masjid&diff=prev&oldid=1260442705 reverted] … <br>
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mahto&diff=prev&oldid=713760194][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mahto&diff=prev&oldid=713949566][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mahto&diff=prev&oldid=705302268][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mahto&diff=prev&oldid=705302268]
*'''Request:''' <br>1. {{highlight|'''Investigate their editing patterns and advanced skills for potential [[WP:SOCK]] violations'''|lightyellow}}. <br>2. Review whether the user’s edits and behavior align with Wikipedia policies on [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], [[WP:NPOV]], and [[WP:DUE]].<br>
* {{user|111.119.234.75}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mahto&diff=705302268&oldid=705155855][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mahto&diff=705472247&oldid=705306259]
Thank you! '''- [[User:Cerium4B|<span style="color:darkgreen;font-family:'Comic Sans MS',cursive;font-size:15px;;">Cerium4B</span>]]&nbsp;&bull;&#32;[[User talk:Cerium4B| <span style="color: red;font-family: 'Comic Sans MS', cursive; font-size:15px;;">Talk?</span> • ]]''' 15:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{user|106.194.44.83}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mahto&diff=705546266&oldid=705511339]
* {{user|111.119.234.69}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mahto&diff=705649998&oldid=705644196]
* {{user|195.59.125.25}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mahto&diff=711521463&oldid=710612647]
* {{user|111.119.234.61}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mahto&diff=713059796&oldid=711533676]
* {{user|111.119.234.43}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mahto&diff=713317539&oldid=713060926]


:A couple of days ago, a fellow editor '''[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1173#User_Conduct|claimed]]''' that I was a sock of {{U|Kautilya3}} and nobody paid any heed.
The article states (with references) that the surname "Mahto" is used by multiple Indian castes. Apparently, Sibbs11 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tbhotch&diff=prev&oldid=701549889 belongs] to the Koeri caste, and insists on removing mention of any other castes from the article.
:Today, Cerium4B—'''who is yet to make a single edit to the article talk-page''' despite my and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shahi_Jama_Masjid&diff=prev&oldid=1260477010 Kautilya3's] consistent demands—has the chutzpah of raising a barely coherent complaint with no substantiation. Notably, my [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive489#User:Cerium4B reported by User:Upd Edit (Result: Issue resolved)|ANEW report against Cerium4B]] was not acted upon because an administrator [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1260691838 thought] Kautilya's reinstatement of my content (and a warning to Cerium4B) to have resolved the issue.
:In not unrelated news, someone else, with similar editorial proclivities, believes me to be [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidWood11|a sock of someone else]]. What next? [[User:Upd Edit|Upd Edit]] ([[User talk:Upd Edit|talk]]) 16:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support page-block''' - Given that this user is simply a single purpose account dedicated to relentless POV pushing and edit warring on this article, a page block (both talkpage/article) seems to be the way here before supporting a broader topic ban on him. [[User:CharlesWain|CharlesWain]] ([[User talk:CharlesWain|talk]]) 19:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:: It would perhaps add more credence to your suggestion if you choose to take part at the t/p discussion, [[User talk:CharlesWain#Carlleyle|as requested]], than hit the revert button and request sanctions. [[User:Upd Edit|Upd Edit]] ([[User talk:Upd Edit|talk]]) 20:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' - When I first came by this article (which is the subject of a current dispute in India), I found an edit war between the filer and [[User:Upd Edit]], with the former repeatedly deleting the well-sourced content added by the latter. There was also an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive489#User:Cerium4B_reported_by_User:Upd_Edit_(Result:_Issue_resolved) AN3 complaint] against the filer, which can be consulted to see that their reverts cited no policy-based reasons whatsoever.
: I gave [[WP:CTOP]] alerts to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cerium4B&diff=prev&oldid=1260477575 both] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Upd_Edit&diff=prev&oldid=1260478316 the ediors] (as well as another editor who was involved at that stage), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shahi_Jama_Masjid&diff=prev&oldid=1260477010 pinged] the filer as well as the other editor from the talk page, inviting them to discuss their objections on the talk page. I have also explained that reverts ''need to be policy-based'', and cannot be instances of [[WP:CENSOR]] or [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]].
: I was surprised to see that the filer has done [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shahi_Jama_Masjid&diff=prev&oldid=1261523627 a yet another revert today] of the same nature, and hasn't written anything on the talk page. This clearly indicates a restart of the edit war, and I believe the filer should be sternly warned, if not sanctioned for thier continued edit warring.
: As for "disruptive editing", I see none from [[User:Upd Edit]], but plenty of it from the filer. This complaint itslef lacks evidence and presents the filer's self-assured judgements about the ''content'', which should have been rightly discussed on the talk page. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 19:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Thanks, Kautilya3. [[User:Upd Edit|Upd Edit]] ([[User talk:Upd Edit|talk]]) 20:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
* This is at least the third time that this editor has been dragged to a noticeboard, and this seems just as baseless as the others. Where are the diffs of misbehaviour? The only diffs that we have been given show that the user has been reverted, and it is just as likely that the reverter was wrong as that they were. Talk about it on the article talk page, as it is a content issue. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Thanks, Phil Bridger. [[User:Upd Edit|Upd Edit]] ([[User talk:Upd Edit|talk]]) 20:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*[[User:Cerium4B]], will you consider participating in article talk page discussions before bringing an editor to ANI or AIV? I see you recommending other editors go to the talk page to discuss disagreements but I don't see you there, too. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 01:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::You also had [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive489#User:Cerium4B_reported_by_User:Upd_Edit_(Result:_Issue_resolved)|this ANEW]] case you didn't respond to, Cerium4B. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you, @[[User:Liz|Liz]]
::I should have participated on talkpage. But, in this case, I couldn’t figure out how to engage with this user. [[user:Upd Edit|Upds]] edits relied on unverified, questionable sources to push a controversial claim, which multiple editors and I felt was irrelevant to the mosque’s main topic. These edits violated [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:DUE]] policies, and I believed they needed administrative attention. Their [[Talk:Shahi Jama Masjid#Upcoming edits]] proposal (focused on hindu things) is also irrelevant to this article, where Kautilya3 is collaborating with Upd.
::On the ANEW report, I didn’t respond because [[user:Upd Edit|Upd]] had already broken the [[WP:RRR]] rule, before I did. I thought admins would review the full situation. If I was found to have violated the rule for abuse, I would have accepted any decision against me.<br>[[user:Upd Edit|Upd]] is a new user but has a high level of skill, which raised concerns about potential [[WP:PROJSOCK]] violations. This is why I believed this matter needed proper investigation.<br>When an experienced editor like [[user:Kautilya3|Kautilya]] supported those biased edits, it added to my concern. Both were ignoring neutrality, I believe. which made me feel admin intervention was necessary.<br>And I am also a new user with about 1700 edits trying to learn the policies. I do not have much experience but was trying my best to address the issue.
::{{highlight|I still strongly believe this case requires a deep investigation by the administrator.|lightyellow}} '''- [[User:Cerium4B|<span style="color:darkgreen;font-family:'Comic Sans MS',cursive;font-size:15px;;">Cerium4B</span>]]&nbsp;&bull;&#32;[[User talk:Cerium4B| <span style="color: red;font-family: 'Comic Sans MS', cursive; font-size:15px;;">Talk?</span> • ]]''' 19:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What is an "unverified, questionable source"? I see no discussion at the talk-page, challenging the reliability of my sources. The very binary Hindu-Muslim way of seeing things is at the crux of the larger political issue but be that may, you are welcome to join talk-page discussions with coherent non-IDHT arguments. [[User:Upd Edit|Upd Edit]] ([[User talk:Upd Edit|talk]]) 19:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::Just discovered that 18 days ago [[User:Upd Edit|Upd Edit]] was brought to the [[wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172%23Upd_Edit_-_project_sock?]] for project sock,
::when they had only 5 edits!
::In a comment, Phil Bridger expressed opposition to the report.
::Many of you couldn't reach a decision on this matter! '''- [[User:Cerium4B|<span style="color:darkgreen;font-family:'Comic Sans MS',cursive;font-size:15px;;">Cerium4B</span>]]&nbsp;&bull;&#32;[[User talk:Cerium4B| <span style="color: red;font-family: 'Comic Sans MS', cursive; font-size:15px;;">Talk?</span> • ]]''' 19:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Despite me asking for a page block above for Upd edit due to persistent edit warring, he still has made the third revert in 24 hours on the article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shahi_Jama_Masjid&diff=prev&oldid=1261756452] This is not a single incident but part of a chain of reverts by this user in this week alone [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shahi_Jama_Masjid&diff=prev&oldid=1260444206][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shahi_Jama_Masjid&diff=prev&oldid=1260442705][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shahi_Jama_Masjid&diff=prev&oldid=1260419863] and similar POV pushing trying to point out a supposedly "Hindu" origin for this mediaeval period Mosque through highlighting of Hindu mythology that has no relevance to it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shahi_Jama_Masjid&diff=prev&oldid=1261675169] A page block is much needed for this user. [[User:CharlesWain|CharlesWain]] ([[User talk:CharlesWain|talk]]) 09:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


:That is a ridiculous suggestion. He is the only contributor that knows anything about the subject! Rest everybody else is just throwing stones. Please get them to discuss the issues on the talk page instead of messing with the mainspace. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 10:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
The user refuses to indulge in any discussion except threats:
:And what is your own role on the page? [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shahi_Jama_Masjid&diff=prev&oldid=1261682712 Here] I see you deleting a block of text and calling it "restoring improvements"! Did you explain your issues on the talk page? -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 11:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::What is actually ridiculous is that you have to support a POV pusher and that too in such a desperate manner. Knowing something about the topic gives him no right to edit war constantly with different editors, and clearly he is trying to push a view here about pre-islamic origin to the mosque by undue emphasis on unrelated hindu mythology about this place in the article that clearly does not belong there. No scholar appears to be making a connection between Kalki and the Mosque and Upd Edit was misrepresenting an academic's quote in order to corroborate such a tenuous connection on the talkpage. In any case, the page has been extended confirmed protected because of his disruption. [[User:CharlesWain|CharlesWain]] ([[User talk:CharlesWain|talk]]) 16:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::He is only trying to defend his own content that has been improperly deleted. Every one of us has a right to do so. Branding it as "edit warring" won't get you anywhere. If he is POV-pushing, you need to demonstrate it on the talk page. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 16:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*This seems like a content dispute which won't get resolved on ANI. Please talk this out on the article talk page with arguments and reliable sources, not just accusations. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== Disruption and personal threat ==
* On talk page of [[User:Tbhotch|Tbhotch]]: "Please delete this content...and Mahto sir name do not belong to all the listed caste except koeri MAHTO. Delete this. Else will put complain against you." [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tbhotch&diff=prev&oldid=701549889]
{{Atop|Blocked, TPA access revoked.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 19:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)}}
* On my talk page: "You have wrong information about mahto sir name. None of the catse belong to mahto sir name. Please delete else will raise a compain against you." [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Utcursch/archive37&diff=prev&oldid=701550301]
* On own talk page after folks on IRC refused to help him: "I did not get any help..They are not taking my request and they deliberately intended to defame this community by not removing castes line." [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sibbs11&diff=prev&oldid=702976593]
* After being given level 4 warning: "I have already discussed several times. Ultimately i have to take this step to remove the irrelevant contents. Please don't come in between and add irrelevant articles under this topic. I will request the wiki management to revoke you from the admin access. As you are not here to listen any ones voice and just to fight with the words with zero knowledge. I warn you if you try to undo the edited contents I will take this matter to the higher authorities."[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sibbs11&diff=prev&oldid=713948578]


[[User:Vartgul|Vartgul]] is going on a rampage and removing well-sourced information from many articles and when their edits are revered they turned to personal threats. See contributions page for disruption. Threat is here[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVartgul&diff=1261718375&oldid=1261717639]. [[User:Semsûrî|Semsûrî]] ([[User talk:Semsûrî|talk]]) 16:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: Contrary to his claims that he has "discussed several times", he has not participated in any discussion except above threats.


:Semsûrî does not create accurate content with sources in any of their edits. All the content they provide spreads views classified by the United Nations as those of a terrorist organization, promoting misinformation that supports terrorism. They edit content in a non-encyclopedic manner, based solely on their own political views. [[User:Vartgul|Vartgul]] ([[User talk:Vartgul|talk]]) 16:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I am tempted to block the user for disurptive editing / [[Wikipedia:INCOMPETENT|incompetence]]. But I would like someone else to take a look at this to avoid [[WP:INVOLVED]], as I've undone the user's edits in the past and protected the page to prevent his/her IPs from editing the page. [[User:Utcursch|utcursch]] &#124; [[User talk:Utcursch|talk]] 21:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
*That is a legal threat, not a "personal threat". Indeffed.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 16:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:Did you file an [[WP:SPI|sockpuppet investigation]] at all? Might consider asking for [[WP:RPP|page protection]] too. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please &#123;&#123;[[Template:re|re]]&#125;&#125;</small> 21:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== Incivility by newbie ==
: I've already protected the page to allow only autoconfirmed users. The IPs are obviously related to the user per [[WP:DUCK]]. I just want another admin to handle this matter because I have been [[WP:INVOLVED|involved]] in editing the article. [[User:Utcursch|utcursch]] &#124; [[User talk:Utcursch|talk]] 22:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


{{userlinks|Bryan7778888}}, who has been reverted and told off by @[[User:AstrooKai|AstrooKai]] and me on account of their edits that reek of [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:V]] violations and [[WP:OR]], has doubled down in [[WP:IDNHT]] and resorted to making [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:ASPERSION]], [[WP:CRYSTAL]] and falsely accusing us of sockpuppetry on the flimsy grounds of happening to be editing some of the same topics (and in total ignorance of our edit histories). While I acknowledge being harsh in some comments in a knee-jerk reaction to such [[WP:CIR]] arguments on the offending editor, I believe that their continued replies mark them further into [[WP:NOTHERE]] and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] territory. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 16:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
== Blatant BLP violation and subsequent protection by involved Admin ==
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-03-17/News_and_notes is the page in question.


:All of this only began when I [[Special:Diff/1261665815|reverted their edit]] on the article [[Stacey (singer)]] and other alike edits on the articles [[Maloi (singer)]] and <bdi>[[Colet (singer)]]</bdi>, where they added about the subject's ancestral descent without citing a source that would verify this. I [[Special:Diff/1261666853|told them]] that needs to be verifiable by citing a source, but [[Special:Diff/1261667296|they said]] that:
I've blanked it during the MFD due to the obvious BLP violation. An Admin has protected the page after voting keep, keeping the BLP violating information still in of course.
:<br/>
:{{tq2|It is in the sources when they stated the places they where born. People in Bohol are Boholanos, People from Nueva Viscaya are ilocanos and people from Batangas are Tagalog. I believe for lack of better word, that it is your ignorance for not understand the sources better thank you.|by=Bryan7778888|ts=08:43, December 7, 2024 (UTC)|oldid=1261667296}}
:<br/>
:They were actually referring to [[demonyms]] which are the terms used to refer to people who were born from a place, but they added it to the articles as the subjects' ancestral descents. [[Special:Diff/1261670115|I explained it to them]] that "demonym" (which is the thing that they're referring to) and "descent" (ancestral or genealogical link) are two distinctive concepts. I told them that even these ''small details'' could be challenged by anyone. That is why it is important to be extremely careful in terms of [[WP:V|verifiability]] when adding content to [[WP:BLP|BLP]] articles. I was simply correcting their mistake and trying to guide them on how to do it right, but they justified their action by saying that:
:<br/>
:{{tq2|Nueva Vizcaya and Nueva Viscaya is the same. Just like Filipinas and Pilipinas is the same. One is Spanish and the other is from a local. And 62.3% of Nueva Viscaya is Ilocano and Stacy speaks Ilocano. So it's very rendundant. You're simplyfighting to win and shame the other. At least be logical and professional.|by=Bryan7778888|ts=14:45, December 7, 2024 (UTC)|oldid=1261703337}}
:<br/>
:Meaning they were basing their assumption of the subjects' ancestral descent solely based on ethnic statistics. [[Special:Diff/1261705820|I told them]] that this was a violation of [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:CRYSTALBALL]], but they [[WP:IDNHT|ignored all of this]] and ''personally'' attacked me and {{u|Borgenland}}, [[Special:Diff/1261702206|calling Borgen a "dictator"]] and [[Special:Diff/1261702499|accusing me of having Borgen as my alternative account]].
:<br/>
:This could have been avoided if they had just acknowledged and accepted their mistake, but they didn't [[WP:LISTEN]] and went ahead with these unacceptable behaviors instead. <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">[[User:AstrooKai|<span style="color:white;">AstrooKai</span>]]</span> ([[User talk:AstrooKai|Talk]]) 17:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::I do wonder how I could have been rapidly editing in Syria [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2024_Syrian_opposition_offensives&diff=prev&oldid=1261706873] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2024_Syrian_opposition_offensives&diff=prev&oldid=1261706718] and Poland [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2024_in_Poland&diff=prev&oldid=1261706469] and commenting on offending user's TP [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bryan7778888&diff=prev&oldid=1261706625] at the exact same time. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 18:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I also wonder on how a person with tens of thousands of edits and is inclined with politics and stuff would create a new account for music-related edits only. I don't think anyone would go through all the hard work to create a new account and establish there a reputation in music-related articles when they could have just done it in their first account in the first place. My user page literally contains every thing there is to know about me here on Wikipedia, and we both have very distinctive interests.
:::Additionally, why would I reply to your comments on talk pages if am "you"? This is hilarious. <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">[[User:AstrooKai|<span style="color:white;">AstrooKai</span>]]</span> ([[User talk:AstrooKai|Talk]]) 18:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:Bryan7778888 has been editing for TWO days. You can assume that they don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines and as an experienced editor, you will need to explain them to them. How about we give them some time and grace to digest all of the information you have posted on their User talk page before coming to ANI?
:This doesn't seem like an "chronic, intractable problem", it's just a new editor learning how things are done here. Assume ignorance, not maliciousness. You shouldn't have the same expectations of them as you would of an editor who has been active for a year. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 20:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::I see that @[[User:AstrooKai|AstrooKai]] has sent them the standard warning templates. In that case I hope I don't have to update it with something that would lead to further sanctions. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 14:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


== BLP vandalism by PyrateDru ==
Further reading here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-03-17/News_and_notes
{{atop|1=[[WP:TOOSOON]] applies to ANIs sometimes too. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)}}
[[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 22:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
[[User:PyrateDru]] has been vandalizing the [[MrBeast]] page to revert all mention of Ava Kris Tyson’s name to her deadname. Requesting indef.


[[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 17:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:Your interpretation that it was a BLP violation was hardly the consensus view at the MFD, so it does not qualify as an "obvious" violation that requires edit warring, or even as a violation at all. It did not require immediate removal, as evidenced by your only removing it ''after'' I said something you didn't like in the MFD discussion, so your actions are quite [[WP:POINT|pointy]]. Article protection is supposed to be used in cases of edit warring to prevent further disruption, so the admin acted per policy. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 22:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


:Assuming good faith and that they are just unaware of Wikipedia norms I've given them a warning for now. Lets hope they get it. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] (solidly non-human), [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq (talk)]], [[Special:Contributions/CambridgeBayWeather|Huliva]] 17:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::Your interpretation of BLP is fucked in general if you think this is ok on an encyclopedia, or in accordance to Wikipolicy. As for the MFD, I am hardly the only one to say it was one, not even counting the original speedy deletion request. Protection of a page with a BLP violation is shameful. Your actions are shameful. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 23:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:::I don't think I had a COI in protecting the page from edit-warring, and I don't interpret BLP like Arkon is. That said, I'm open to the idea that I am mistaken in believing that I did not have a COI, and I invite any admin to modify my action as they see appropriate. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 23:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Not a COI, INVOLVED. You don't interpret making things up about a living person on wikipedia to be a BLP violation. Wonderful trait in an admin. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 23:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::I'm not really concerned with your interpretation, as you've already stated it at least a dozen times. Let the community come and voice their thoughts. I could very well be wrong; I make no claims of perfection. :-) [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 23:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::You don't seem to be concerned with much, which is why we are here. As for it being "my" interpretation, that's obviously incorrect if you actually read the pages you participated on. I am not the only one who has stated the obvious about this page. Still didn't say whether you interpret making things up about a living person as a BLP violation. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 23:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' It's a joke based on body shaming. It has to go. April 1 is over and it's clearly a BLP violation. It's the same kind of joke that generates a juvenile snicker but the snicker doesn't mean it's not a BLP violation. It's right up there with fat jokes about Hillary and "cankles." --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 23:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Respectfully, [[WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE]] is clear; consensus must be obtained before restoration of material. Information should not be restored on the basis that there is "no consensus" for removal; clear consensus for inclusion is required. Respectfully request that {{u|The ed17|Ed}} remove the protection & {{u|Gamaliel}} self-revert the restoration, pending formation of a clear consensus for inclusion. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] <sup>[[User talk:Ryk72|'c.s.n.s.']]</sup> 23:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
**Mmm, fair point. I'll remove the protection now. Thanks for the pointer, {{u|Ryk72}}. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 23:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:*No. Blanking this page would negatively affect the current, live version of the Signpost. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 23:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::*Not blanking this page negatively affects the current living actual human being. No one cares about your mouthpiece. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 23:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:::*Yet again reverting close, with a wonderful new personal attack and BLP violation to boot!!! Yay JZG! [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 00:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::*With respect, if the current version of the Signpost relies on the existence of a page which makes this type of statement about a living person, then the appropriate response is to remediate the current version of the Signpost, not to edit war[[Special:Diff/713979912|1]][[Special:Diff/713978034|2]][[Special:Diff/713976866|3]] to reinsert unsourced information about living persons which had been the subject of clearly identified, good faith, BLP redactions. Regardless of whether the information is found to be a BLP violation, or the "humour" aspects are found to be a sufficient reason for retention (albeit unsupported by policy), the edit warring is a '''clear violation''' of [[WP:BLP]]. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] <sup>[[User talk:Ryk72|'c.s.n.s.']]</sup> 11:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Arkon has reverted the closure of this section four times and has told the closing admin [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arkon&diff=prev&oldid=713990014 "you can fuck right off"]. There are a lot bigger problems here than some dumb joke about Donald Trump. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 00:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:Those are clearly issues, and they should be handled, but the close was genuinely problematic and I considered reverting it myself. The comment by Ryk72 wasn't addressed at all and even prompted the protecting admin to remove protection (thanks for considering opposing views by the way, Ed). Closing it as "you're an idiot that doesn't understand policy" is a bit absurd. ~ <b>[[User:BU Rob13|Rob]]</b><sup>[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 00:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::Sure, it wasn't the best close in the world. But involved parties don't get to override closures like that. If I edit warred to reverse a closure I didn't like, you can bet Arkon would be screaming about my "abuse" at the top of his lungs. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 00:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::I don't doubt that, and Arkon's behavior can be dealt with if editors care to do so. Over the year or so I've been around Wikipedia, I've developed a distaste for injecting myself into debates on behavioral issues - too much drama - so I'll stay out of that bit. I'm just saying that the closure was a bit nuts and I think this ''should'' remain open. ~ <b>[[User:BU Rob13|Rob]]</b><sup>[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 00:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} Yes, I'm considering opposing views, but I'm still finding it awfully hard to see how 'Donald Trump has small hands' is not an obvious (stupid yet amusing) joke. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 00:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{re|The ed17}} Have you seen [http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/10/graydon-carter-donald-trump this]? It's apparently a real thing that pisses Trump off. Not to mention the well-covered threats of litigation that Trump frequently makes, which this is also poking fun at. Honestly, if I saw this thread out of the context of April 1, I would not jump to "it's a joke" immediately. ~ <b>[[User:BU Rob13|Rob]]</b><sup>[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 00:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::Can we actually agree that "IT WAS A PRANK BRO" is no excuse for BLP vios. That'd be nice. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 00:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::::"Arkon's behavior can be dealt with if editors care to do so." If only we had some kind of noticeboard where we could do that.... [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 00:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::I know right! You could always ban me without process through a completely private procedure where I have no right of response, just sayin'. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 00:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:This is a good example of what we have as arbcom members apparently. Someone now defending putting another BLP violation, and a personal attack as close, as being ok it seems, but fuck off is just tooo far. Now that needs the humorous template. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 00:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::The really humorous thing is your deep concern about BLP when it comes to people you don't like: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers&diff=prev&oldid=706841714] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers&diff=prev&oldid=706854740]. Someone who uses talk pages as a forum to <s>libel</s> attack people who aren't rich presidential candidates is the last person who should be lecturing anyone about BLP. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 00:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Oh please, everyone who reads this section, click those diffs. Great demonstration of how far from reality Gamaliel's ideas of what BLP is, actually are. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 00:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::: [[WP:LIBEL]] and [[WP:NLT]] are pretty solid. We usually don't accuse other editors of libel as it can be seen as a legal threat and the correct course is to remove libelous material. "libel" should be used sparingly and only in discussions regarding content, not as way of casting aspersions. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 02:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' if this was about anyone other than Trump it would not be allowed. Regardless of what we may think of Donald Trump, this is not appropriate humor for an encyclopedia. [[User:The Master|The Master]] [[User talk:The Master|---)Vote Saxon(---]] 02:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


:[[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]], it's advised to try talking with an editor before posting a complaint about them to ANI, especially for a new, inexperienced editor. Try informing them before seeking a sanction. ANI is the place to come if other efforts to resolve a situation have failed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
* I am pretty blown away that a user at ANI can edit war over an admin's close ''right here'' and can tell that admin [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arkon&diff=prev&oldid=713990014 they "can fuck right off"] and that user is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AArkon not blocked] (that's a link to a clean block log). Why is this person not blocked? [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 03:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::Yeah that’s fair. [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 20:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Because being an admin does not mean you can close with a BLP violation and a personal attack as the summary? Because using vulgarity seems to be the preferred way of argumentation (NEW AND IMPROVED SANCTIONED BY ARBCOM)and is hardly blockable? Or why are you sniping instead of responding to the actual point? [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 03:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::::You've created an entirely new issue by your behavior and discredited whatever point you were originally making; you seem to be claiming to passionately defend one policy but you have definitely trashed two of them. I am just fascinated with the dynamics here - this is the most disrespectful thing I've seen done to the entire admin corps and the community by someone who is not already indeffed since... it must be procaryotes reverting the close on own his Tban appeal at AN a couple months ago. And the admins are doing nothing. So strange, all around. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 06:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*[[User:Jytdog]] unsure why you are still attacking [[User:Arkon]] as the issue is now very clear, it is a Wikipedia shame for the embarrassing [[wp:involved]] [[wp:administrator]] action after a KEEP vote and additional supporting comments from [[User:The ed17]] and for the [[wp:edit warring]] three reverts [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-03-17/News_and_notes&diff=713976866&oldid=713975931 one] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-03-17/News_and_notes&diff=713978034&oldid=713977272 two] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-03-17/News_and_notes&diff=713979912&oldid=713978266 three] repeatedly replacing [[WP:BLP]] disputed content against [[WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE]] which is [[wp:wikipedia policy]] not a [[wp:essay]].. and accusing users of [[WP:VANDALISM]] as he did it,(Reverted to revision 713976866 by Gamaliel: Please stop vandalizing the current issue of the Signpost) by [[User:Gamaliel]], a [[wp:arbitration committee]] member - [[User:Govindaharihari|Govindaharihari]] ([[User talk:Govindaharihari|talk]]) 06:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::ANI is ''for'' discussing disruption, and it is not uncommon for OPs to have their own behavior boomerang on them, especially when they are this blatant and even doggedly defending their disruption. It shreds whatever notions we have that there are boundaries of acceptable behavior around here (and shreds the basis for Arkon's claim, since policy apparently doesn't ''actually'' matter if it gets in the way of what you want). I would file an EWN notice but ''it happened right here''. Just so interesting and strange, especially the admin inaction aspect. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 06:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::This isn't WP:STANDUPFORTHEESTABLISHMENTNOMATTERWHAT_Noticeboard. If you're trying to prove you're part of the "in crowd" to garner yourself an RfA nom in the future, this isn't the place to do it.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 23:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:* There used to be the Signpost profanity trigger warning when the Signpost editor became upset with profanity. I guess it was removed. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 03:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
* The alleged violation is certainly not blatant, and it is being discussed in an appropriate forum. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 06:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:*Respectfully, the multiple restorations (links above) of material removed on clearly identified, good faith, BLP grounds is a blatant violation. [[WP:BLP]] is clear - consensus must be obtained before restoring redacted material. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] <sup>[[User talk:Ryk72|'c.s.n.s.']]</sup> 11:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::* That sounds correct. I didn't know about "multiple restorations". The MfD can consider alleged BLP violations behind a blanking. Alleged BLP-violating material shouldn't be restored while it is in dispute. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 04:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::*MfD can consider the allegedly infringing BLP content, but ANI is the place to discuss the restoring actions.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 04:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Whatever else has gone wrong here, {{ping|Gamaliel}} you should certainly not have removed the CSD tag from that page[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikipedia_Signpost%2F2010-03-17%2FNews_and_notes&type=revision&diff=713336827&oldid=713304787], as is said in bold in the lead of the policy [[WP:CSD]]: "'''The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag''' from it." [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 12:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*Wow, this is lame. An April Fools' joke that gets the full BLP policy treatment by people on all sides? JzG already pointed to [[WP:NCR]], which is much more relevant to this dispute than [[WP:BLP]]. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 12:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*The Mfd seems strongly in favor for deletion. Seeing that this is a BLP and now that all have had their fun, perhaps a BOLD admin could step in and IAR by closing the Mfd and deleting this stupidity.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 13:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


== Disruptive editing from Delectable1 ==
* {{Comment}} On behalf of the Signpost: this dummy page is no longer needed; we have no objection to its deletion. --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 13:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Sock drawer closed. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)}}
**Thanks, but whether you needed that page or not is not really relevant to decide on its deletion. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Involved: {{userlinks|Delectable1}}
<br>
Here we are at ANI again, for something unrelated. The following timeline speaks for itself:
* July 2024: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delectable1&oldid=1231954993 Received a message] from {{user|Hurricanehink}} for unattributed addition of content.
* July 2024: The same day, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delectable1&oldid=1233601942 Received a final warning] from {{user|Sable232}} as a result of their disruptive addition of redlinks into articles.
* September 2024: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delectable1&oldid=1247873855 3RR violation], no block came along with this.
* December 2024: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delectable1&oldid=1260797550 Warned] for misleading edit summaries, something I've noticed is frequent with them.
* December 2024 (today): Recieved [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delectable1&oldid=1261747561 multiple] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delectable1&oldid=1261747914 messages] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delectable1&oldid=1261753450 because] of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1261746823 edit] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1261748723 warring].
* Messages directed at me, all sent today:
:* {{tq|You two know each other to some extent. For some reason you want this video posted. I have not even begun to protest your actions. You both are unusual and try to throw weight around. That doesn't work here}} at [[Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson]].
:* {{tq|Where to start, you write about tornados. You say that you "have been here since 2024." News item, this is 2024. Why are you doing some of the quirky things you do? Consensus? How many polls have you operated on here?}} at [[User talk:EF5|my talk page]].
I'm inclined to say they are [[WP:NOTHERE|NOTHERE]], and admin intervention is needed. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 21:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


:I'll note that the above warning messages were all removed by the user themselves, implying they had read them, and in today's case they removed talk page messages about edit warring before proceeding to continue said content dispute. [[User:Departure–|Departure–]] ([[User talk:Departure–|talk]]) 21:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
This was closed by JzG as follows:
:Just now: [[Special:Diff/1261761326|(diff) from this user]], a [[WP:NPA|comment on contributors, not content]]. [[User:Departure–|Departure–]] ([[User talk:Departure–|talk]]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
This ''does not require administrator intervention'' - not even the 3RR violation by the OP. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 13:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::[[Special:Diff/1261762136|(Diff)]] I guess they '''really''' feel the need to [[WP:NPA|comment on contributors, not content]], and reinstated that PA. Seems to be [[WP:CIR]] at the very least, and in my eyes, [[WP:NOTHERE]], because [[WP:ROPE|we've given 'em enough rope]]. [[User:Departure–|Departure–]] ([[User talk:Departure–|talk]]) 21:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::Also, [[WP:ICHY]] applies - [[Special:Diff/1261761631|(diff) they removed the ANI notification from their talk page]]. [[User:Departure–|Departure–]] ([[User talk:Departure–|talk]]) 21:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::<small>Just a quick note, that was [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] at least, but not to the level where [[WP:TPO|it was removable]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
:<small>Non-admin comment</small> Blocked as a checkuser sock. [[User:Departure–|Departure–]] ([[User talk:Departure–|talk]]) 21:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Harassment by another user ==
I have reopened this because a) it is debatable whether this required or requires admin intervention or not, considering the BLP nature of things and the back-and-forth (some against policy) by admins / arbcom members already happening there; and b) the OP did not make any 3RR violations, as he made one blanking and two reverts only. Having a section where the OP was basically right (viz the subsequent SNOW deletion) closed with a hatnote that implies that the only problematic edits were some non-existant 3RR violation by the OP (but which ignores the actual problematic edits by others) is not the best way to end this mini-drama. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*Argument that BLP contentious material needs to be preserved because Signpost uses it, is one of the silliest things I have seen here. Also 1st April was a week ago, a bit late for April Fools.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 15:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


[[User:Remsense]] appears to have made it their mission to stalk my contribution page and revert my edits, regardless of the context.
* For the love of God, someone open an Arbcom request. Gameleil needs all of his bits removed.[[Special:Contributions/69.143.137.41|69.143.137.41]] ([[User talk:69.143.137.41|talk]]) 15:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:*Your calls for desysoping would be given more weight if you did not log out to post that. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b>]] 16:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::* #IPLIVESMATTER [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 17:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*I believe [[WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself.]] refers. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 16:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*I don't think this board can resolve this issue. The ''Signpost'' is a news publication, and it is easy to see this as an attempt to censor speech about Donald J. Trump, which we don't want to convey. Mr. Trump is truly one of the finest people to have ever lived, and I am glad to see his ardent supporters acting forcefully to remove any dissenting content about him. Let Gameleil be permabanned outside of public scrutiny, and we certainly will be rewarded by President Trump for our loyalty.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">[[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">[[User talk:Milowent|spoken]]</span></sup></small> 17:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


They just reverted two of my edits, demanding in both cases that I take it to the talk page, in one https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mary_II&oldid=prev&diff=1261805142, I was already trying to bring the issue to the talk page, and the second https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=1261805984&oldid=1261433489&title=German_Empire is just completely stupid as almost every single country page uses the greater coat of arms.
*If this was humor about [[Chelsea Manning]], the proponents of this joke would've had entirely different opinions. We can't pick and chose who the [[WP:BLP]] policy applies to based on our personal politics.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 23:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The first dispute they had absolutely nothing to do with, and the second revert took place a few minutes later.
=== And the hits just keep coming... ===
* New, pointy userspace creation after the MfD didn't go his way. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Gamaliel/Small_hands Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Gamaliel/Small_hands ] --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 18:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::I saw that userbox before the deletion, I am forever scarred from the experience. Luckily Mr. Trump did not see it or we would regret it!--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">[[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">[[User talk:Milowent|spoken]]</span></sup></small> 18:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:I would prefer that editors keep such pointy comments elsewhere. Wikipedia is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_web_hosting_service.2C_social_networking_service.2C_or_memorial_site not] a social network. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 18:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


I don't necessarily want them blocked, but I just want them to leave me alone. I can't have a good faith discussion with somebody like this. [[User:OddHerring|OddHerring]] ([[User talk:OddHerring|talk]]) 01:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
=== Civility of Arkon ===


:Not sure why this person considers me undoing two edits to pages on my watchlist that I disagreed with to be a conduct issue and not content disputes of the most routine kind, or why they think I care who they are beyond the totally unearned hyperaggression they seemingly express in response to the most trivial disagreements. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 02:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Setting aside the issue of the the now deleted article, can we look into the civility of [[User:Arkon|Arkon]]? I'm seeing some incredibly abusive behavior, including cursing at several admins. This is not behavior of someone who wants to collaborate. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 18:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::You have not just reverted me twice:
:You are seeking to sanction him after MfD validated his BLP concerns with a snow close? How about we take a look at those that violated BLP policy and not Editor Profanity Disorder? Note that ArbCom member that violated BLP and reverted to keep BLP violations, then complained about profanity, then accused Arkon of libel, also created and allowed multiple signpost article with profanity using the same offensive terms. His complaints are disingenuous at best and his behavior was the worst. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 18:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::Flags of Austria-Hungary‬ - 1 revert
::Mongol Empire - 3 reverts (and he ganged up on me in the talk page with what I assume to be his friends.)
::[[User:OddHerring|OddHerring]] ([[User talk:OddHerring|talk]]) 02:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Oh, you're right. The added context really does give me pause, actually: the eye-popping rate of 7 reverts in 103 days—all unprovoked and with no reasoning whatsoever—is surely some sort of record for unbridled harassment on here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 02:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:It should be noted that they are STILL reverting my edits after I posted this. [[User:OddHerring|OddHerring]] ([[User talk:OddHerring|talk]]) 02:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::You're not familiar with site norms (e.g. [[WP:ONUS]], [[WP:BRD]]) or do not feel that they apply to you, and are simply not entitled to have your disputed changes published by default pending the expected "D" in BRD. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Remense, to bring this a close, can you give this editor some space so they don't feel hounded? OddHerring, I don't think this needed to be brought to ANI. Know that all editors get reverted at times. You can expect it to happen in the future. If you have questions or they didn't leave an explanatory edit summary, approach the editor on their user talk page for more information. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Do you have any recommendations of means to register disagreements with edits I may have n the future, or is it best in your mind to just assume others will do so in my stead? That's the only thing I worry about: it's not exactly constructive to assume it's impossible for another person to feel harried somehow—to make it clear to third parties, I've interacted with this person twice, previously in August—but depending on the extent of those expectations I'm not sure how their changes wouldn't in effect become beyond reproach. Their demand on my talk page that I must "report them" if I disagree with their edits as opposed to anything like a typical consensus building process is not reasonable. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 03:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Wanting to be left alone to edit in the way you want doesn't seem like something we should be encouraging. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 03:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Sean, there are other editors who can check an edit. You can assume when an editor comes to ANI that other editors will be looking at their contributions. I'm sorry, Remsense, but I don't understand the question you are asking me. I went looking at your User talk page to see what comment you were referencing but I didn't see anything that fit into what you were trying to say. If you want, we can move this to my own user talk page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::You are right of course. I'm really just trying to encourage more of a 'nothing matters', 'meh', 'whatever' response to having one's edits reverted. I find it helps a lot. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 03:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm fine with being reverted and having to defend by changes, but not if it means I have to do all the work and the other guy can just constantly say the same thing over and over again as if it proves anything (i.e. [[Talk:Mongol Empire]]). That's not a discussion, that's just obstruction. [[User:OddHerring|OddHerring]] ([[User talk:OddHerring|talk]]) 03:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Just for the record, calling an editor you are involved in dispute with an idiot and then linking it months later as evidence in an ANI dispute is one of the strangest maneuvers I've seen. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mongol_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1243357135] <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 04:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tqb|[[Special:Diff/1243357135|Ok, either you are an idiot or are arguing in bad faith. I will figure out a way to go around you now.]] —@[[User:OddHerring|OddHerring]]}}
:::::Bruh [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 04:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::And if people chime in to support my positions, that's to be interpreted as my friends ganging up on them. I get I haven't been the most effective or patient communicator here, but I've felt expressly boxed out of any assumption of good faith on my part from the very beginning. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 04:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::This guy thinks he knows more about the Mongol Empire than the actual Mongolians https://mn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Их_Монгол_Улс (seal is displayed prominently, featured article by the way), but whatever, I'm the asshole somehow. [[User:OddHerring|OddHerring]] ([[User talk:OddHerring|talk]]) 04:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::[[WP:BRINE|Yes.]] [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 05:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Does this extend to the other editors who have opposed the addition of the seal as inappropriate?[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMongol_Empire&diff=1243446570&oldid=1243357135] -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 12:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Well yes, {{u|OddHerring}}, for trying to use an argument that falls apart if you think about it for more than two seconds. Are the only knowledgeable people on the Roman Empire from Rome? Are the only knowledgeable people on ancient Babylon the tour guides who live at the modern day ruins?{{pb}}I can only speak for myself—I don't know how well you regard taking [[Genghis Khan]] to featured article status on this English Wikipedia (and with more than eleven citations!!!!)—but I immediately count over a dozen basic errors/omissions on that Mongolian Mongol Empire page, which anyone with the most basic smattering of knowledge of actual scholarship on the Mongols would spot.{{pb}}And for the record, accusations of "ganging up" are not particularly appreciated here, particularly when, again, they fall apart when you think about them for a second. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 23:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You are clearly the one who doesn't know site norms, since you have repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing and edit warring against me. [[User:OddHerring|OddHerring]] ([[User talk:OddHerring|talk]]) 03:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:I attempted to take the German Empire infobox issue to talk, and they have completely ignored it. Seems like they don't have any respect for [[WP:BRD]] either.
:And no, it's not because they're doing something else. They have made three unrelated edits, and three unrelated reverts since this complaint started. [[User:OddHerring|OddHerring]] ([[User talk:OddHerring|talk]]) 03:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::If no one else has a problem with the edits here, then I guess I give up (in their words, {{xt|I win by default}}) and they will be allowed to push their disputed changes, because I've been given zero indication that they have any intention of listening to me. Given [[Special:Permalink/1243579693#Imperial Seal|the previous gem from August]], it is not an unreasonable conclusion: this time around, they've already expressly told me to GFM and that they cannot perceive my actions as being in good faith, so I'm a bit strapped here, no? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 04:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I would be willing to listen to you if you would:
:::1. Lose the snark.
:::2. Hold yourself to the same standard of evidence that you hold me to. [[User:OddHerring|OddHerring]] ([[User talk:OddHerring|talk]]) 04:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::You made bold changes and they were contested. I explicitly asked you to elaborate on "we always use greater seals"—which is a novel observation on your part, with seemingly no basis in actual content guidelines—but you apparently feel it to be self-evident as to be enforceable across all applicable pages. That's something you need to explain, not me. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 04:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::And that is the exact reason why I think you just have it out for me. What is the objection to my changes? Why are you opposed? [[User:OddHerring|OddHerring]] ([[User talk:OddHerring|talk]]) 04:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::So am I just not allowed to edit if somebody reverts me but won't take it to talk? Because that seems to be the rule here. [[User:OddHerring|OddHerring]] ([[User talk:OddHerring|talk]]) 04:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:I ran [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Remsense&users=OddHerring&users=&startdate=20240601&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki an Editor Interaction Analyzer check] to check on this. It doesn't seem to show substantial evidence of hounding. Since June 1st (roughly the time @[[User:OddHerring|OddHerring]] started editing extensively), neither editor consistently starts editing pages before the other. The overlap seems to be explained by a common interest in {{strike|map games}} European history c. 1300-1914 ({{strike|but [[Hearts of Iron IV|maybe also 1936-1945]]}}). [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 04:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::I appreciate the levity, but the insinuation I'm a Paradox gamer is the meanest thing anyone's ever said about me on here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 04:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
: It would be helpful if Remsense explained their objections in detail and didn't just say that the onus was on OddHerring to explain the changes. It would also be helpful if OddHerring didn't use edit summaries like {{tq|Enough with the crappy PNG and her husband's arms after she died. Take it to talk or get blocked.}} ([[Special:Diff/1261801292]]). [[User:Walsh90210|Walsh90210]] ([[User talk:Walsh90210|talk]]) 04:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::I know that's a bit rude, but most of the revert messages I get (in general) are like that and make similar demands. [[User:OddHerring|OddHerring]] ([[User talk:OddHerring|talk]]) 04:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::Really not trying to be coy to prove a point here, but I guess the reason I haven't expressed my core objection of "the greater arms are useless at thumbnail size" is because I get the sense they'll just tell me to fuck off and that my concerns rooted in principles that're actually present in the MOS don't matter. Hopefully that's at least a little reasonable given the precedent discussed above.<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 04:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm not arguing that greater coat of arms in the infobox should be the standard, I'm arguing that it is. And if you say that doesn't matter, you are arguing against consensus as a principle. [[User:OddHerring|OddHerring]] ([[User talk:OddHerring|talk]]) 04:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Walsh90210|Walsh90210]] et al., hopefully the dynamic is a bit more clear now as to why I'm having trouble with the OP's AGF, especially given that I'm tripping over all the rope they've lugged into the discussion with the apparent goal of trying to hang themselves. Unless anyone has other questions or concerns, I'll be tuning out now. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 04:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:So just to be clear, they are now completely unwilling to take any disputes over editing to talk, but will continue to revert. If that isn't edit warring, I don't know what is. [[User:OddHerring|OddHerring]] ([[User talk:OddHerring|talk]]) 05:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::Nevermind. A completely random third person reverted me instead. [[User:OddHerring|OddHerring]] ([[User talk:OddHerring|talk]]) 05:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::(To be clear, OP has already gotten their way on [[German Empire]] as I am too pessimistic in their AGF to try any more than I already have, and their dispute on [[Mary II]] has to be sorted out with another user who I happen to agree with. There isn't anything left to talk about as far as I am aware.) <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 05:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*I see that my attempt to deescalate this complaint was not of much use tonight. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I did appreciate the attempt, but I'm not sure there was much you could've done. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 07:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I think editors get hyper focused on their own disputes and don't realize that every.single.editor on the project has other editors they don't get along with and they coexist with each other by keeping their distance and avoiding provoking each other. Everyone here has disagreements. Those editors who last for decades are those that find a way to negotiate all of this and who focus on the work and not each other. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'm not sure if you're suggesting I've exhibited some shade of that myopia in this case, but I would submit there's a difference between "an editor that doesn't get along with another editor" and "an editor that can't get along with anyone". OP's is a comparatively small sample size, but all points so far speak to the latter characterization, if I'm being honest. They have never been civil to anyone who's challenged them, and I'm not sure I can agree that a permanent state of editing around them is a viable outcome for anyone else who draws their ire. Reading above, it's not only a clash of personalities: they're just blatantly wrong about how consensus works and what our standards are, and they've given us no reason to think they care about rectifying that. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 08:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::[[User:Remsense|Remsense]], my comment was a general observation about how to edit on the project when there are editors you don't get along well with, it was not targeted to this specific dispute. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 23:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


== User LesbianTiamat ==
::Speaking of disingenuous complaints, it's interesting you are so offended by a little swearing in the ''Signpost'' when you use the comments section of those same ''Signpost'' articles to call people Nazis. The fact that the MFD was closed in favor of Arkon's preferred outcome - and the preferred outcome of many other editors - does not give Arkon license to tell an uninvolved admin to "fuck right off". The logical extension of that ridiculous claim is that everyone who is on the right side of a consensus gets to violate whatever policy they want. Nor does your preexisting grudge against me for sanctioning you for your repeated violations in unrelated topic areas have any bearing on the appropriateness of Arkon's conduct. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 18:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
{{archive top|{{user|LesbianTiamat}} agrees to accept the community-imposed one-way [[WP:IBAN]] that prohibits the user from interacting with {{user|Ad Orientem}}. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 18:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)}}
::: I'm not offended, I just don't see the need. I didn't swear at you nor do I condone it, but the essence of Wikipedia is completely captured when the notion that an edit summary of "The close was fucked up" is okay, but "fuck off" is not and "Nuts" is still reserved for the Battle of the Bulge. I'm pretty sure the BLP policy says exactly that BLP Trumps everything (even Small Handed Admins) and there is a BLP exemption for nearly everything. That you continue to pretend your BLP violation was okay even after consensus is problematic as well as your zeal to punish BLP defenders. As for grudge, I have none. You have very selective memory and your "sanction" has never been enforced. I don't even bother appealing it but it was another example of your problematic behavior given the "grudge" you must hold from when your [[Lori Klausutis]] article was deleted for BLP reasons (but you claim you don't remember so you are "uninvolved" in everything even though we have butted heads for 10 years - good luck with that). Your American Politics involvement is so problematic that you should be banned from the topic but again you are "neutral." And no, I never called anyone a Nazi (another sideshow canard to go with the ones I just mentioned). --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 21:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
{{userlinks|LesbianTiamat}}
::::I have no memory of what article you are talking about from ten years ago or whatever imaginary connection you may think we have had, but I do recall you calling me a Nazi a week ago. You have a bizarre habit of pretending we are lifelong buddies when you aren't viciously insulting me. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 22:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::::: I know! It's amazing how quickly everything is forgotten when "involved" would warrant abstention, but your false Nazi aspersion memory just makes stuff up. I never claimed we were buddies. Quite the opposite. That's why all your "uninvolved" BS rings so hollow. And now you have a Nazi grudge. Outstanding. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 00:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::Life is too short to bother remembering everyone you may or may not have had an internet argument with a decade ago. And there aren't enough hours in the day to worry about every person who ever called me a Nazi. There's been a webpage about me (google it!) with a picture of me next to a Nazi flag that's been up for years. You'll have to try harder to merit an actual grudge. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 00:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I don't bother, just every political BLP violation involves you. I just pointed out how far back the problem goes. And by the way, diffs on the "Nazi" thing or STFU. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 01:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Here you go: [[Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-09/Systemic_bias#Kyriarchy.2C_Something_about_Arbcom]]. And if you really believe the preposterous claim that "every political BLP violation involves" me, [[WP:ARCA]] is thataway ----> Bring your diffs. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 16:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::So being right absolves you from any transgressions? I'm not saying that one side in this argument is saintly. I'm saying nearly everyone involved has mud on their hands, and we shouldn't just ignore incivility because someone happened to be right in this instance. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 20:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


User LesbianTiamat has asked me to resign as an admin on grounds of [[Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilianaUwU&diff=prev&oldid=1261808708 ] I have declined the request.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilianaUwU&diff=prev&oldid=1261814636 ] Her antagonism towards me appears to have originated with my reverting a number of their edits at [[Jefferson Davis]], which was followed by discussion on the article talk page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jefferson_Davis#Treason ] Their response to that discussion was to edit my user page in a manner that I believe can only be described as malicious.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Ad_Orientem&diff=prev&oldid=1251790082 ] This was quickly reverted and I posted a firmly worded caution on their talk page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LesbianTiamat&diff=prev&oldid=1251790623 ] The discussion which followed was not IMO productive and was characterized by snark and a general reluctance to acknowledge that her conduct had been extremely inappropriate. This despite my requesting an uninvolved admin, {{u|Cullen328}}, to have a word with her given where things stood at the time.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328&diff=prev&oldid=1251806142 ], which he kindly did. I am not going to post links to all the diffs in that discussion, but I would encourage anyone reviewing the matter to look at the editing history for LT's talk page as she heavily edited the conversation, including some of her own comments after I had replied to her. I would also encourage anyone reviewing this matter to take a look at the history of LT's user page from that period. While I found her responses to be troubling, and they did raise doubts in my mind as to her temperament, I had largely forgotten the matter when LT suddenly turned up on a long stale discussion[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilianaUwU#Stop_it ] at [[User talk:LilianaUwU]] with their accusations of misconduct and their request for my resignation.
:Haven't you heard? Cursing is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-09/Systemic_bias bee's knees] [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 18:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:Civility is quite a subjective thing. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed this] op-ed from the Signpost for a different perspective. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 18:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


Both as an admin and editor, I take the community's trust very seriously and do not regard lightly any accusations of misconduct. I respectfully invite the community to review my conduct here and if anyone believes I have fallen short in my behavior, misused the tools, or demonstrated a pattern of POV pushing, as per LT's accusation, I am completely prepared to discuss any concerns. In particular I would note that LT seems to take very strong umbrage with a statement on my user page in which I make clear that owing to my disagreement with parts of [[MOS:GENDERID]], that I generally refrain from editing in subject areas where that is likely to become an issue.
:What's even more abusive is using Wikipedia Signpost (and any other part of Wikipedia) as a means to display one's personal political shitposts under the thinly-veiled explanation that its just an April Fool's gag. And yeah, I just cursed, too. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 18:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*Arkon should not be faulted for his behavior. Frankly, any means necessary is appropriate to defend Mr. Trump from the scurrilous slime which Gamaliel perpetrated upon him. If one million f-bombs are necessary to remove a false old headline about Donald Trump's hand size, so be it. Except if the editors are women.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">[[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">[[User talk:Milowent|spoken]]</span></sup></small> 19:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:: Yes he should, because he revert-warred on this page, but the sanction should not go beyond a little light mockery for initiating one of the most stupid, pointless and pointlessly protracted arguments I can recall here. A joke page was created on the day we create joke pages. It has been deleted. The sky has not fallen. Some people badly need to get a sense of proportion. Perhaps they have really small hands and are terribly sensitive about it. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::*That's another BLP violation right there, friend.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">[[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">[[User talk:Milowent|spoken]]</span></sup></small> 19:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::*Ah, I shall need to remember that "It has been deleted. The sky has not fallen." is a good excuse for terrible behavior. Am I to assume my use of curse words caused said sky to fall? [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 19:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::And being right is somehow an excuse for terrible behavior as well. Stop this nonsense and start being civil. It's not too much to ask. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 20:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::::You'd think it would be a simple request when it's one of our [[WP:5P|five pillars]]. Apparently not. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 20:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::::You think cursing is terrible behavior? That's interesting. Your contribution history is also interesting in regards to this new found civility crusade.
:::::It's more than your cursing and you know it. It's not a crusade to look at the actions of one editor and go "Oh my gosh, what is wrong with this person?", it's common sense. I don't know why you are flailing around with your stick, but you need to drop it and stop now. I do not understand how this behavior is being tolerated. And for the record, I don't have a horse in this race, so please don't lump me into either political camp. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 21:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::You started this section, on me, I have no stick, but I will respond as needed. I also never lumped you into any political whatever, if you believe that's what this is you should just go ahead and withdraw from this discussion. Here, let me give you the "ProWiki" response: Your original "you were right but.." should stop right there, as one of the five pillars (Hi Gamaliel!), is IAR. So whatever your gripe, I did the right thing in that context. Of course, the real response is that it's astonishing that you find bluntness with curse words, to be a problem while nary a comment regarding actual issues. Sounds Meaty even. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 21:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::IAR doesn't excuse you from being a civilized human being. There are a million ways you could have gone about this entire thing. You choose one of the most toxic and dividing. There is being blunt and there is being needlessly aggressive and offensive to multiple people. Multiple people have pointed this out to you. It's one of the 5 pillars for cripes sake. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 21:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Uh, I think you're outnumbered on the whole "multiple people" thing, with people who actually did the bad deeds being in your group. Do you mean we got a 5 pillar battle royale brewing? [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 21:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::::As for dear Ol' Gamaliel, you know what was a simple request? A speedy deletion tag on fabricated text about a living person, which you removed, then argued to actually keep. Trying to use policy as a hammer when you can't even get a grip on the thing isn't very smart, might hit your thumb, your tiny tiny thumb. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 20:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::I love how adults pretend to not understand the difference between profanity and personal attacks. For example, your comment contained no profanity but several personal attacks. Your attacks on Guy contained profanity and personal attacks. Keliana's column linked above contained profanity but no personal attacks. It's not that difficult to grasp, even for those poor souls afflicted with tiny, tiny hands and need special BLP protection from even a mild reference to their affliction.. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 20:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::Ah, a double down on ignorance of the harm that is caused by making shit (OHMYGOD) up about living people. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 20:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Arkon, when you talk about people's small body parts, you need to use the {{t|humor}} template so they know it's not a BLP violation.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 00:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:: ''Consistency is the hobgoblin of small hands;''. But seriously: the community should think about the growing deployment, chiefly by right-wing extremists working to keep Wikipedia in line, of crocodile tears. The pearl clutching over an arbitrator using the F word in a signpost article, or calling a joke "terrible behavior," is highly uncivil and, in fact, quite toxic. (If it's terrible behavior, the cover of a recent New Yorker ought to be sanctioned as well.) Conversely, when Gamergaters use Wikipedia to spread rumors about a software developer’s sexual history, or pore through their undergraduate assignments for evidence that they are soft of pedophiles, well, no problem! Oversight will get around to the matter within a day or two of notification, so no big deal, right? (Both the preceding examples are from the past week, incidentally.) This sort of dishonesty is likely to cause the project a lot of trouble, one of these days. [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein|talk]]) 20:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Yay it's Mark! He's here to tell us how to be civil, listen carefully folks. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 20:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Seriously, that's enough. Can we please act like we're building an encyclopedia? The correct term per [[WP:MEDMOS]] is sausage fingers. [[User:Timothyjosephwood|Timothyjosephwood]] ([[User talk:Timothyjosephwood|talk]]) 20:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


Unfortunately, I have rather serious concerns about LT's own behavior. I believe there is credible evidence of [[WP:HOUNDING]],[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilianaUwU&diff=prev&oldid=1261817112 ] and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] behavior at the least. And this recent development has renewed my concerns as to whether or not she possesses the temperament required to be able to contribute effectively here. Frankly, her hostility towards me seems to have become something of an obsession. If there is a feeling that I'm off base here or over-reacting feel free to let me know. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 04:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
===Misuse of admin tools by Gamaliel===
{{ping|Gamaliel}}, after all the above (including your policy-violating removal of a CSD tag from a page you created and which has since been Snow deleted), did you really think that creating and then ''using protection'' to keep [[User:Gamaliel/Small hands]] from blanking or deletion was a correct use of the admin tools? Yes, we have U1, but that's not meant for admins to protect their own controversial subpages from blanking. [[WP:INVOLVED]] comes clearly into play here. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 20:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


:I was just about to start my own topic against this user following my own experience with them, in which I attempted to confront them about their editing behavior and was [[Special:Diff/1261821614|was immediately dismissed and possibly even threatened]] despite my best efforts to assume good faith in them. Granted, they did respond later on, and I commend them for that, but that does not excuse their behavior. All of my concerns with them can be found in the revision I linked above. They are extremely problematic and needs to be dealt with. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 04:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:I regularly protect subpages in my userspace as I am the frequent target of vandalism. My user page has been protected since ''2005''. Would you like to see the rev deleted edits that I used to get on a daily basis graphically describing imagined sex acts of my own parents? I deleted it the userbox, it's over, [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]]. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 20:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::#Ad Orientem: The old incident is over. We solved it and moved on. I don't get why people keep reigniting it. I had to remove it from my talk page because people kept adding fuel to a fire that should have been extinguished. I agreed to not do it - is that not what you wanted? Is that not the purpose of going to the talk page? It's over.
::#Ad Orientem: I'm not ready to bring up an ANI discussion regarding your adminship. I told you that I would do so when I had gathered the evidence, so that you have a chance to prepare a defense. I am not hounding, only carefully observing and gathering evidence for the proper procedure. I made the request for you to step down because I was on the same page. Timestamps will reveal that the award on LilianUwU's talk page was given before my comment. It was pure chance that I saw you there, Ad Orientem. I have no intention of hounding you. I will follow proper procedure as you said to. There will be no further word from me to you until it is time to post an ANI thread (except for this discussion, obviously).
::#NegativeMP1: I don't understand how you can interpret anything I've ever said in my entire history on Wikipedia as a threat. Please clarify. I wrote a quick comment dismissing you ('''I will cease this behavior''') then addressed each of your points in a second, much longer commment. I dismissed your comment on the presumption that your message was retaliatory in nature due to timing, the "boomerang" that Ad Orientem brought up. I apologize for presuming collusion if it was independent.
::[[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 04:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think people "keep reigniting it" is because it's clear from how you handled that situation on your talk page that you do not understand (or do not want to admit) that your behavior was inappropriate. Your agreement to not repeat the behavior is couched not in an apology for your behavior (or at minimum an acknowledgement that it was inappropriate), but in an overt claim that Ad Orientem would violate [[WP:INVOLVED]] should you repeat the edit, yourself violating [[WP:AGF]].
:::{{tqb|But I recognize that you will abuse your admin powers and ban me if I again shine a light on what you attempt to obfuscate, so I shall refrain from such action.}}
:::This entire incident was instigated by you, and your abject refusal to admit how inappropriate your edit to their userpage was is very concerning. Essentially every comment made by you during that discussion screams [[WP:IDHT|I didn't hear that]]. You kept pointing to how you agreed not to repeat the behavior while ignoring concerns that your explicitly stated motivation for stopping was unsatisfactory.
:::I have no familiarity with Ad Orientem's long term edit history, so I cannot comment on any accusation of civil POV pushing, but in this particular matter I can absolutely say that I found their behavior both appropriate and civil, and yours neither of those things. --Chris &#124; <small>[[User:Crazycomputers|Crazycomputers]] ([[User talk:Crazycomputers|talk]])</small> 05:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I recognized that my behavior was inappropriate for Wikipedia and agreed to stop it. I see no purpose in continuing beyond such agreements.
::::I won't apologize (except to Frost (sorry Frost), who thanked my edit, which I interpreted as being a civil end to our conversation), but I will alter my behavior on Wikipedia to comply with Wikipedia's rules.
::::I hear your every word. I have my disagreements with Wikipedia's policies, but I am an internet veteran and understand that internet communities have rules to follow if one wants to be a member of them.
::::Today, I attempted civility. I will make further efforts to be overly-civil, so as not to undershoot the goal of civility during collaborative disagreements. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 05:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::[[WP:BOOMERANG]] isn't a threat, it's just a reminder to avoid vexatious/frivolous complaints at ANI, because sometimes when investigating we find bad stuff the original reporter did that they get in trouble for. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 05:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::That sounds like a great way to suppress genuine complaints. I'm not saying that that's the intent, but if that's what you do around here, I suggest reconsidering doing that to avoid chilling effects. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 05:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Chilling? Not hounding me? If this isn't hounding, then we need to just remove that from our P&G. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 05:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tqb|Open a discussion I shall, once the evidence is gathered and organized. I fear no boomerang, as I am one of the [[WP:BOLD|WP:BOLDest]] editors on this site. I advise that you watch your actions and check your biases before doing anything, because I am watching you for the purpose of removing you as an administrator. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 02:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)}}
::::::Well, that last sentence crossed the line into hounding. I shouldn't have said that. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 05:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


:I did not heavily edit my comments after a reply. If any such thing occurred, it was due to MediaWiki's known flaws regarding simultaneous edits. That actually happened just now on this page, and I immediately reverted my edit.
(removed trolling by Milowent, please stop these childish posts here) [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 20:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:I asked Cullen328 about the own-comment-editing policy on Cullen328's talk page, and the response was exactly in line with my ''bona fide'' belief as to what I have been doing.
:And I absolutely did not edit another user's comment. (Except for when an edit conflict occurred, which I pointed out.) That is a false accusation, or a horrific mistake on my part for which I deeply apologize. (Note: There has been confusion in the past regarding the word "comment." When I say "comment," I mean what happens when you click reply.) [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 05:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:Additionally, I recognize that another user's page was an inappropriate venue. I should have gone to Ad Orientem's talk page, following appropriate ANI procedure. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 05:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::I had a troubling conversation with {{u|LesbianTiamat}} back in October which can be seen in [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LesbianTiamat&diff=prev&oldid=1251958866 this diff]. The editor edited Ad Orientem 's user page to misrepresent the administrator's own words in an inflammatory fashion. Instead of acknowledging their error and apologizing, LesbianTiamat was combative, argumentative and dismissive. This is clearly an editor who holds grudges and is willing to pursue them over months. As for their contributions to [[Jefferson Davis]] and [[Talk: Jefferson Davis]], those edits showed a similarly combative reluctance to accept Wikipedia's core content policies. If you ask me off-Wikipedia what I think of Jefferson Davis then I will be frank about how much I despise him, but this is an encyclopedia and we simply cannot call someone a traitor unless that person was convicted of treason by a court of law. Otherwise, British editors would be free to call George Washington a traitor to the British crown in Wikipedia's voice. And so on in countless biographies of people who rebelled but were never convicted of treason. As for the editor's comment at [[Talk:The Birth of a Nation]], {{tpq|I changed it to something that doesn't suck the film's dick}}, that type of sexualized comment in a discussion that has nothing to do with sexuality is utterly inappropriate. I see this editor's contributions as deeply problematic and I am struggling to come up with a solution. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 05:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I didn't touch the page on Jefferson Davis after the incident reached my talk page, at least to my memory.
:::I'll avoid vulgarity in future comments. I don't think the sexual nature is relevant because I was using it as an idiomatic set phrase, but I will filter further comments. That thought did not cross my mind; it is everyday language in my dialect, which is not that of Wikipedia as a whole, and thus inappropriate.
:::And yeah, I did that edit to Ad Orientem's userpage. I said I wouldn't do it again, and I haven't. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 05:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|LesbianTiamat}} Have you apologized for it? <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">''[[User:City of Silver|<span style="color:#BC49A6">City</span>]][[User talk:City of Silver|<span style="color:Green"> o</span><span style="color:Red">f </span>]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|<span style="color:#708090">Silver</span>]]''</b> 06:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::About that one specific edit that seriously crossed the line regarding Wikipedia's rules on editing others' user pages? No, I have not. But I have not repeated the behavior, and I have no desire for further interaction. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 06:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|LesbianTiamat}} If, as you say, that message "''seriously crossed the line regarding Wikipedia's rules on editing others' user pages''," either apologize for it or explain why you won't. People notice when you dance around issues rather than face them head-on and that sort of reticence will do you a lot more harm than good in the long run. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">''[[User:City of Silver|<span style="color:#BC49A6">City</span>]][[User talk:City of Silver|<span style="color:Green"> o</span><span style="color:Red">f </span>]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|<span style="color:#708090">Silver</span>]]''</b> 06:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I believe that actions speak louder than words, and have very strict personal rules regarding when I apologize. I'm not betraying that personal policy.
:::::::In the context of Wikipedia, <del>I apologize.</del> [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 06:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Whether or not you intended it, this sounds like a [[WP:Apology#Non-apology|non-apology]], at best. [[User:Aoi|Aoi (青い)]] ([[User talk:Aoi|talk]]) 07:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} I feel that [[WP:BLOCKP]]#3 might offer a simple solution here. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 05:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::What's my sentence? [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 05:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::For my own part, I would be content with an indefinite [[WP:IBAN]]. But I think there are issues here that go beyond her rather obvious hostility to me. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 05:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Well, that seems excessive when I'm actively correcting my behavior. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 06:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Given that you accused me of misconduct and asked me to resign without producing any evidence, and openly threatened to follow me around with the intent of having me desysopped, I would argue than an indefinite IBAN would be pretty much the minimal response. What possible reason would you have for wanting to still be able to interact with me? -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 06:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Well, I haven't collected it all yet! And if collecting evidence is considered hounding, I'm really in a Catch-22 here. I guess I'll completely back off. You're just one admin out of hundreds. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 06:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I'm sorry, you asked him to resign, saying {{tq|[y]ou may not realize it, Ad Orientem, but you appear to have become a [[Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing|civil POV pusher]]}}... before you had even attempted to collect evidence regarding whether or not your assertion was correct? Can you explain how this is not naked [[WP:ASPERSIONS|casting of aspersions]]? — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 06:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Well, I guess it's a big mistake that I didn't put everything in a document before making said request and casting aspersions! It is casting aspersions. I thought I was handling things civilly by making a request, and it turns out I wasn't!
:::::::::The evidence, at this point it's irrelevant; I'm not going to hound Ad Orientem.
:::::::::And to clarify, I do not hold grudges - I stand by principles. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 06:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::FWIW, collecting evidence from past behavior to make a report is not hounding. It is within your rights to do that. It was asserting that you'd follow them around to wait for them to "trip up" in the future that's hounding, and in particular {{tq|for the purpose of removing you as an administrator}} is making it personal. You've already admitted that sentence was inappropriate, so I don't think further discussion is necessary. --Chris &#124; <small>[[User:Crazycomputers|Crazycomputers]] ([[User talk:Crazycomputers|talk]])</small> 06:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes, that crossed the line. I knew in the back of my head that I shouldn't have added that, but was fired up in the moment and felt indignation, and that I had to do something. I will not do that again. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 06:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::And do you have any intent to apologize to Ad Orientem for casting aspersions? — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 06:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::In the context of Wikipedia's rules and the community the two of us share, <del>I apologize</del> for breaking the rules regarding casting aspersions without first gathering evidence into a presentable format. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 06:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Crusading, really. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] ([[User talk:Secretlondon|talk]]) 14:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat]]: An IBAN (interaction ban) is a ban on interacting with another user, so it would be very mild. It's like a restraining order preventing you from talking to @[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] on talk pages or reverting their edits. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 17:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah I made a mistake. [[WP:ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI]] I don't want to interact with Ad Orientem, but I also don't want Ad Orientem interacting with me. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 17:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat]] We can end this right now. All you need to do is agree to the IBAN. I've already stated I have no desire to interact with you and will refrain from doing so unless absolutely necessary. Your acceptance of the IBAN in the section below IMO would be enough to close this discussion and we can both move on. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 17:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I think we're done here if we've both agreed that we don't want to interact with each other? [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 17:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::You need to state your acceptance of the IBAN in the section below. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 18:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


::Umm, you're still discussing actions by others in this whole stupid drama you started, but your actions should be ignored because you want this and because you have, in completely unrelated circumstances, been the victim of sexual harassment? There are unprotected pages in your userspace (I'll not list them per BEANS), but this one suddenly needed immediate and full protection? Right... That you deleted the userbox hours later doesn't simply make the misuse disappear. If you want other people to drop the stick, then start by giving the right example instead of what you have been doing and are still doing here. And in general, even if you wpuld be in the right, "drop the stick" after the first remark about some aspect of your own behaviour, and without anyone uninvolved even chiming in, is a rather pathetic reply. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 20:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


{{od}}The editor claims {{tpq|I'm actively correcting my behavior}} but her recent edits that happened before this ANI discussion began show little evidence of that. The {{tpq|idiomatic set phrase}} defense is . . . unpersuasive. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 06:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Sure, there are some subpages I've neglected to protect. I don't feel like going through three year old to do lists and draft articles to protect everything. I brought up the harassment not as an exemption, but to point out ''why'' I use the protection in a perfectly routine, acceptable manner that you are trying to make drama out of. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 20:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::::No, you are misusing the harassment to justify your protection of your own page to score a [[WP:POINT]] after the Signpost page was deleted. That is not "a perfectly routine, acceptable manner" but behaviour incompatible with being an admin and arbcom member. I hope this is just a temporary lapse and that you will see this for what it is after this has died down a bit. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 20:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


:It appears that your point is that I added sexuality, which was not my intent. If it's unpersuasive, well, I really don't have anything else to say, because everything I said here is the truth. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 06:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
By the way, instead of adding your test page to the Signpost index for 2010, like you did [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Module%3ASignpost%2Findex%2F2010&type=revision&diff=714068331&oldid=713044521 here], you could have deleted the entry you added earlier for the page that started this whole discussion, even though that wasn't a real 2010 page in any case. I have removed both. Are there still more places where you have added the now deleted Signpost page? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 20:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::How on earth can you write {{tpq|something that doesn't suck the film's dick}}, and then argue that adding sexualized commentary {{tpq|was not my intent}}? That literally makes no sense whatsoever. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 06:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It's how I talk. It's how people around me talk. I'm actually really at the same level of incredulity as you because it's something I hear every day. It won't be posted on Wikipedia again. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 06:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Wikipedia is a worldwide collaborative project, and people from a wide variety of countries, social and religious groups, ages and educational levels need to be welcomed here. If you think that the sexualized insults that you claim are common in your social milieu are appropriate for Wikipedia, then perhaps you need to be restricted from editing Wikipedia. You are creating, in effect, a hostile work environment for people with different social norms. When I was a teenager, I had many friends who freely and frequently dropped f-bombs to protest against the prevailing social norms of that era. I don't talk that way on Wikipedia and neither should anyone. We should use standard, businesslike English in our interactions with other editors. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I already said it won't be posted on Wikipedia again. I get it. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 07:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Saying "it" won't be posted again is nowhere near enough. What is needed is a dramatic transformation in your style of interaction with other editors. Drop the combativeness and adopt friendly collaboration. And I do not mean things like the mean-spirited barnstar that you left at [[User talk: LilianaUwU#courage strength and cuteness to you]]. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It appears that we have another misunderstanding here. That barnstar was given out of solidarity. It is specifically for members of my birth-status group, and is a reference to a well-known (within the group) meme.
:::::::One person chastised me for giving the award because that person felt it was not deserved, and you're saying it's mean-spirited. I have now removed the lines that could be considered mean-spirited towards others, keeping it completely positive. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 08:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::There is no misunderstanding. Your intention was clear. I will leave this now for input by other editors. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 08:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::If openly transgender users are going to be criticized and threatened with discipline for sharing goofy inside-jokes with other openly transgender users, then Wikipedia's even more transphobic than I feared. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 08:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Honestly I really don’t think the barnstar bears factoring into anything. As Hydrangeans mentioned, this is a trans editor making a joke with another trans editor. It really doesn’t warrant any level of response [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 08:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ec}} Wow, I did not notice the comments LesbianTiamat left with that barnstar previously (to be 100% clear, the barnstar isn't the problem--it's the comments made toward Ad Orientem that were left with the barnstar, which were [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilianaUwU&diff=prev&oldid=1261848714 removed in this diff]).
:::::::::More importantly, LesbianTiamat's attempt to brush off the comments as a "misunderstanding" (followed by her noting that she removed the lines that "''could'' be considered mean-spirited toward others"...seriously, "''could''"???) shows that she does ''not'' get it, despite her assurance that she is {{tq|actively correcting}} her behavior. I would support an IBAN in this case, and LesbianTiamat would do well to take Cullen328's advice to dramatically transform her style of interaction with other editors, drop the combativeness, and adopt friendly collaboration. [[User:Aoi|Aoi (青い)]] ([[User talk:Aoi|talk]]) 08:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Here is the quote in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilianaUwU&diff=prev&oldid=1261848714 diff]: {{tq|And don't let Ad Orientem or that IP editor get to you. I've had problems with that admin before, and will be voting for his recall. Stand up and fight, just as you've been doing. Call for a different admin if you need Wikipedia's rules enforced.}}{{pb}}To be honest, I'm not seeing the cause for dramatic alarm. The text amounts to trying to reassure another transgender user in the face of perceived transphobia. Openly saying that one "will be voting for his recall" is toasty, yeah, but it's not slurs or insults or personal attacks. I personally have a really high bar for civility, so I do personally think LesbianTiamat was behaving less than ideally, but behaving below an ''ideal'' is pretty different from what she's being accused of (being ''mean'' and ''combative''). [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 08:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I agree with this, the message attached to the barnstar reads as reassurance and certainly to my view does not meet the bar for any level of incivility towards OP. [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 09:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


* First Ad Orientem [[User_talk:LilianaUwU#c-Ad_Orientem-20241208024200-LesbianTiamat-20241208014900|dares LesbianTiamat to open an ANI thread]] about his behavior (disproportionately targeting transgender users for disciplinary action), and within a couple hours Ad Orientem instead is opening a thread to complain about Lesbian Tiamat? It's hard for me to not see this as Ad Orientem trying to 'get ahead' of any thread about himself by once again disproportionately targeting a transgender user for disciplinary action. Ad Orientem [[User:Ad_Orientem#Things_I_(probably)_Won't_Do|already openly disagrees]] with [[MOS:GENDERID]] (a Manual of Style guidance that for the most part is the pretty minimal ''don't misgender or deadname people'') and scorns [[WP:NOQUEERPHOBIA]] as evidence that Wikipedia requires users [[Wikipedia_talk:No_queerphobia#c-Ad_Orientem-20240427234600-Non-Endorsers|to {{tq|subscribe to the current doctrines and orthodoxy of the social political left}}]]. And frankly, Ad Orientem's intervention at Jefferson Davis—{{tq|We cannot state that Davis committed treason in wiki-voice because he was never convicted of the crime}}—really doesn't impress me. Historians of the Civil War have called it treason, and wikilawyering that away smacks of [[WP:NOCONFED|Neo-Confederate apologia]].{{pb}}We don't need Confederate apologetics on Wikipedia. We don't need queerphobes. We don't need admins who disproportionately target transgender users. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 08:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:It's an "effing" APRIL FOOLS joke people. God, will someone just get a grip here? (Whether they have small hands or not?) {{facepalm}} [[User:Montanabw|<font color="blue">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|<font color="orange">(talk)</font>]]</sup> 00:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*:Thank you for your support and words of honesty. I've felt pretty alone here. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 08:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbekpNWbL5k It's just a prank bro!!] [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 01:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::[[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]], you can not make charges like that without providing evidence or you are also casting aspersion. This thread was winding down and you just escalated things. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|Montanabw}} That's cool bro, I'll just let all the right-wing religious nuts we have on Wikipedia know that on April 1st, they can say anything they want about [[Chelsea Manning]] and we won't stop them.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 01:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::So, I can’t speak to the noqueerphobes quote, but the confederate one is from one of the diffs OP posted. I’ll repost it here. [[Talk:Jefferson Davis#Treason]], first post.
::::{{reply to|TParis}} Political satire involves poking fun at the powerful, not bullying people who are not well-positioned to defend themselves. You are making a false analogy here. [[User:Montanabw|<font color="blue">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|<font color="orange">(talk)</font>]]</sup> 06:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::That said Hydrangeans, you should be thorough in your citations, especially for a matter like this. [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 08:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{reply to|Montanabw}} You're quite right. So, the line in [[WP:BLP]] granting an exemption for politicians is...where...exactly? Or, perhaps, [[WP:POLITICALSATIRE]] isn't a red link? No? Yeah, it's easy to exempt yourself when the BLP subject is someone you have complete contempt for; but [[WP:BLP]] doesn't grant you a personal exemption for that either.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 06:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Sorry about forgetting the NOQUEERPHOBES link; I've added a link in my initial comment. As for the statement about Jefferson Davis, I thought that being linked in OP was sufficient, but I'll remember to be thorough in the future.{{pb}}As for escalation, Ad Orientem started the thread, and at ANI OPs [[WP:BOOMERANG|can also be scrutinized]]. If things really have winded down, then I don't think there's much cause for alarm that my one comment would somehow drastically and unjustly change that. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 08:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{ec}} With sincere respect to the authors of the Signpost article and their strong histories of contribution to the encyclopedia, Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT]] a publisher of '''political satire'''. If editors wish to write and have published political satire, they should seek out a publisher of such material; or alternately take advantage of the many opportunities for self-publication that the Internet provides. I encourage all participants in this discussion to please read [[WP:NOT]] and [[WP:BLP]]. I also note that the ANI filing relates not to the appropriateness of the Signpost article, but to breaches of [[WP:BLP]] and misuse of admin tools. <small>NOTE: Clearly the closes are premature.</small> - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] <sup>[[User talk:Ryk72|'c.s.n.s.']]</sup> 06:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::I gave Snokalok a barnstar in appreciation (it's silly, and based on a userbox) and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASnokalok&diff=1261872795&oldid=1261866259 this happened].
This is getting worse and worse the more I look at all that happened here. Did you really edit war to reclose a discussion about yourself here[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=713988049], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=713988308 here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=713988946 here for the thrid time], warning the other editor at that time that he is at 3 reverts, which of course also applies to yourself? Removing CSD tags from a page you created, protecting a page you created as a POINT violation, edit warring to close an ANI discussion about your own actions, adding test pages and hoaxes to Signpost indexes for 2010, ... what's next? The original creation and wanting to keep the page can be seen as a lapse of judgment, but everything you did in the surrounding events is seriously worrying. Please stop and take a serious step back here. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 20:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Rambam 2025|Rambam 2025]] gave the reversion reason {{tq|Rv retract your comments about AO or pay the price!}} (Another user stepped in and reverted the blatant targeted vandalism.)
:::::This looks like hounding to me. And it's part of a pattern I noticed. However, with the casting aspersions thing, my documentation of the prior event with AO cannot be posted without significant work, as I tracked only the usernames of those going through my contributions and reverting my good-faith edits. I also am unsure of the extent of the damage, as I have not completely surveyed it - I have roughly 1500 edits.
:::::An unknown editor may possibly be violating [[WP:CANVAS]] and [[WP:HOUND]] against me. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 13:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Mysteriously, the edit summary is now gone. I was not aware that that was even possible. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 13:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Just passing by, Rambam 2025 was blocked as a sock/vandal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandal/troll/sock_back_yet_again| below.] [[User:Sarsenet|Sarsenet]] ([[User talk:Sarsenet|talk]]) 14:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


*I think a one-way IBAN proposal is still on the table. I'm not convinced that threat of hounding will no longer occur. No one, editor or admin, should edit thinking that another editor is scrutinizing their every edit to capture "evidence". I mean, no one wants to edit like that on the Project, no matter who you are. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 09:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::I believe you'll find that, if you seriously think this is a serious question, there's a serious place called ArbCom to raise it. It’s.....thataway ---> [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein|talk]]) 22:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*[[User:Fram|Fram]], I'm sorry you saw my removed comment[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=714128438&oldid=714128302] as trolling. Really this whole thing is getting out of hand. "SMALLHANDSGHAZI" was my way of communicating that. ''The Signpost'' is an independent newspaper for Wikipedia, not Donald J. Trump's personal mouthpiece, though it might be much more invaluable to mankind if it was. People can have different views about whether Gamaliel's satirical attacks on the world's best person were funny or not, and his subsequent attempts to avoid censorship of his journalistic message. Mr. Trump wants more waterboarding, I suppose that would be a proper punishment for Gamaliel. A small hands user box and small hands headline ... life is too short.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">[[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">[[User talk:Milowent|spoken]]</span></sup></small> 23:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


*I’ve read over OP’s post several times, and I have concerns.
===Continued BLP and POINT violations by Gamaliel===
The opening quote {{tq|User LesbianTiamat has asked me to resign as an admin on grounds of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing.[131] I have declined the request.[132] Her antagonism towards me appears to have originated with}} and the subsequent quotes {{tq|I had largely forgotten the matter when LT suddenly turned up on a long stale discussion[137] at User talk:LilianaUwUwith their accusations of misconduct and their request for my resignation.}} and {{tq|this recent development has renewed my concerns as to whether or not she possesses the temperament required to be able to contribute effectively here}} make this thread read to me as though the central issue here is that LT asked OP to resign as admin. Certainly, the manner in which this request to resign was given was not at all in line with Wikipedia standards of civility, and that is its own issue, but nonetheless, the way this thread is currently written reads as “Could you resign?” “No” being the central issue instead of the incivility, and that concerns me greatly. But perhaps there’s some wiki guideline I’m missing that makes it all make sense. [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 08:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
After the above sections (but before the close of the discussion) first [[User:Jayen466]][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikipedia_Signpost%2F2016-04-01%2FNews_and_notes&type=revision&diff=714155810&oldid=714136900] and then [[User:Gamaliel]][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-04-01/News_and_notes&diff=next&oldid=714158308] thought it a good idea to readd the "small hands" line to the Signpost page, despite the clear concerns many people have about this. Can someone uninvolved ''please'' make it very clear to him that the Signpost is not his private playground, exempt from BLP or separate from Wikipedia? Continuing to insert a BLP violation and lame joke just because you can is really very poor behaviour. Yes, this would be a very lame ArbCom case, but there's no reason that we can't handle this without their aid.


{{collapse top|title=Signature tangent, resolved as no action required. --Chris &#124; <small>[[User:Crazycomputers|Crazycomputers]] ([[User talk:Crazycomputers|talk]])</small> 06:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)}}
This kind of behaviour would not be accepted from regular editors, who would now either be at a final warning or blocked for such continuation of problematic behaviour; accepting this from an admin or Arbcom member gives the strong impression that people with those positions are allowed more disruption than others. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 06:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*This editor's link to their user talk page says "troll/pester"...maybe we should take that as literal. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:It's a Homestuck reference. Trollian and PesterChum are fictional chat programs. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 06:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::<small>To quote [[David Mitchell (comedian)|David Mitchell]], "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h242eDB84zY But is that how it comes across?]" [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 06:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
*:::Well, it's supposed to be a hint that I'm a fan of the webcomic, intended to actually encourage people to talk to me. I figure that outside the scrutiny of ANI, it's seen as a joke. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 06:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:It does indicate that any attempt at [[WP:COMMUNICATE]] will be seen as trolling/pestering. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 06:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I say again, it's a Homestuck reference. I bolded my statement above that I would not dismiss others quickly. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 06:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::FWIW, I found it to be tongue-in-cheek. We ''are'' allowed to have ''some'' fun here. I don't think we need to nitpick her signature. The other issues are more concerning to me, and I am cautiously optimistic given LT's change in tone demonstrated on this thread. --Chris &#124; <small>[[User:Crazycomputers|Crazycomputers]] ([[User talk:Crazycomputers|talk]])</small> 06:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'm inclined to agree. I would not read too much into the "troll/pester" thing. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 06:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Yeah, I'm sorry I brought it up. It just seemed very unusual. Sorry for the unnecessary tangent. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Understandable. On a side note, it's extremely late here and I have to get up in a few hours. I will check back later today. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 06:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
===Requesting One Way IBan for LesbianTiamat===
Based on their history and above discussion, I am satisfied that LesbianTiamat harbors extremely strong personal animosity towards me, likely motivated by ideological prejudice. Despite ample opportunity to produce at least some evidence to back up her aspersions and request for my resignation, she has failed to do so. Nor am I satisfied by her extremely grudging acknowledgments that her actions were wrong. The wording is often carefully couched and leaves me convinced that while she very reluctantly accepts her behavior was contrary to community policies and guidelines, that she believe she occupy the moral high ground. I note that after denying hounding, when I posted their direct quote threatening to to do exactly that with the objective of having me desysopped, her response was "I shouldn't have said that." At this point. I cannot conceive of any constructive reason why she would want to interact with me. And frankly I do not want to spend the rest of my time on the project looking over my shoulder knowing someone with such openly declared hostility is looking for an opportunity to attack me. I respectfully ask the community to impose an indefinite [[WP:IBAN]] on LesbianTiamat. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 17:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


:How about a two-way ban? One-way is absolutely unfair and unjust.
Note that he also felt the need to readd the fake 2010 page to the SIgnpost index for that year[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Module%3ASignpost%2Findex%2F2010&type=revision&diff=714144988&oldid=714130479], and that after another editor removed it, this wsa reverted by [[User:Montanabw]] (who just happens to be a co-author of the Signpost Trump page) with the rather hypocritical summary "please do not edit-war"[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Module:Signpost/index/2010&diff=next&oldid=714145952]. Why a page, created in 2016 and snow deleted a few days later, needs to be added to a Signpost index for 2010 is not clear, unless it is another [[WP:POINT]] violation by Gamaliel and the like. Has anyone kept count of how many very problematic edits Gamaliel has made in this situation so far? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 06:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:{{tq|A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption.}} ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 17:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::For my part, I will be quite happy to avoid any interaction with you that is not necessary in my administrator capacity. And even then, I would probably refer anything not time sensitive to another admin. That said, I have done nothing wrong here. A two way IBAN is not appropriate. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 17:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, I've done nothing wrong outside the context of Wikipedia.[[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 17:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::You are reinforcing my entire point. You still don't believe you have done anything wrong. Honestly, if this were a situation involving two other editors and I were an uninvolved party, looking at this objectively I'd be at least thinking about an indefinite block. Your editing history suggests you see Wikipedia as an ideological battlefield. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 17:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::But we're within Wikipedia here. This is honestly a totally perplexing response to me. It's like if I broke a US law and my defense was "but I didn't break a Canadian law." Yes... and? --Chris &#124; <small>[[User:Crazycomputers|Crazycomputers]] ([[User talk:Crazycomputers|talk]])</small> 18:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Ad Orientem}} Could you please state exactly what "''ideological prejudice''" Tiamat "''likely''" has against you? You didn't explicitly say what belief(s) you have that she might find objectionable and I don't want to guess because if I guess wrong, that's probably me violating AGF. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">''[[User:City of Silver|<span style="color:#BC49A6">City</span>]][[User talk:City of Silver|<span style="color:Green"> o</span><span style="color:Red">f </span>]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|<span style="color:#708090">Silver</span>]]''</b> 17:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::See her edit on my user page. I believe it is self evident. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 17:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' indefinite one way IBan for LesbianTiamat, as the minimum action required here, with a warning that any more disruptive editing may result in further sanctions. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 17:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' indefinite one way interaction ban, per the behaviours exhibited in the thread above (especially, and quite shockingly, including {{tq|"I advise that you watch your actions and check your biases before doing anything, because I am watching you for the purpose of removing you as an administrator"}}) as well as [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Ad_Orientem&diff=prev&oldid=1251790082 vandalism of AO's userpage a couple of months ago]. The fact that this has been going on for seemingly months means the problem clearly isn't going away easily. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 18:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


:'''Accept'''. To paraphrase Che Guevara, you will only be blocking a woman. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat (She/Her)]] ([[User_talk:LesbianTiamat|troll/pester]]) 18:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' block to stop harming the encyclopedia with BLP violating material. There's been consensus MfD and despite all the calls to end this stupid drama and close the ANI, he continues to edit war and find ways ways to reinsert deleted material. His failure to stop and to heed advice means this isn't going to end without a timeout. His battleground behavior is disruptive and his BLP violations inexcusable given all the feedback and the expectations of admins and arbcom members. No one else would have been given this many chances to stop disruptive behavior and far too many editors have to clean up his mess. People want this silly thing to end and a block seems to be the only thing that will end it. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 08:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::Based on LT's acceptance of the proposed IBAN, I am satisfied that no further action is required. As far as I am concerned, the matter is resolved. Unless there is an objection, could an uninvolved admin please log the IBAN, post the appropriate talk page notice and close this discussion? Thanks. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 18:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== User:Weliviewf disruptive editing – review requested ==
* '''Support''' block (absent a sincere ''mea culpa'', and with profound regret) to prevent continued BLP violations; additionally request that a genuinely uninvolved admin examine whether discretionary sanctions under [[WP:ARBAPDS]] should be applied. While the initial ''Signpost'' article may be thought to have been merely an ill-considered violation of [[WP:NOT]], the continued [[WP:BLP]] violations and involved actions are blatant and ongoing. Edit warring to restore material removed under a clearly identified, good faith, BLP redaction and edit warring to restore a poorly thought out close of an ANI discussion of the editor are egregious violations. The editor has shown no understanding, above, that their actions not only violate policy, but are also deeply uncivil and disrespectful of the community - electing instead to engage, above, in ''ad hominem'', ''tu quoque'' and ''red herring'' fallacies. The editor has clearly breached, and clearly intends to continue to breach, policy. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] <sup>[[User talk:Ryk72|'c.s.n.s.']]</sup> 10:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


I left [[User:Weliviewf]] many warnings and requests about editing errors that they were making. The editor removed those warnings from their User talk page, so they can be presumed to have been seen. The editor continues to make the same sorts of disruptive edits. I found a half-dozen significant errors in a dozen recent edits. They are making good edits to prose, but often accompanied by errors like nonexistent templates or categories, removing valid formatting, and making unhelpful changes. See the talk page history for my requests to them.
* {{Comment}} [[User:Fram|Fram]], I didn't "re-add" the "small hands" line, because it was in the article all along. What I did was change it from a redlink to a link to [[April Fools' Day]]. --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
**Ah, I see now what happened and why the others probably were so insistent to keep it in the Module Signpost index. The page, before your edit, got the "Trump" articles from [[Module:Signpost/index/2010]]. At the moment, this doesn't show the disputed line. At the time of your edit to the News and Notes page, it was again for a while there thanks to the reverts by Gamaliel and Montanabw. So your edit didn't add the line, but had as result (though probably not intentionally) that the changes to the Modulo:Signpost page had no effect there, while without your edit the disputed line would have disappeared there. Hence my impression that you added it, while your view was that you changed a redlink to a bluelink (no idea why that was necessary, but it's a different kind of edit of course). Gamaliel, in the next revert there, ''did'' explicitly readd it though. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 11:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
***Yeah, you got it, [[User:Fram|Fram]]. That's exactly what happened. Basically the whole mess started because the "Related articles" box in the Signpost usually gets its content from that Signpost module. The idea was to have such a box in that April Fools piece, and hence the dummy entries in the Signpost index were created. With hindsight, that was a bad way of doing it, because these dummy pages existed in Wikipedia space as standalone pages; anyone happening on them would not have seen what their sole purpose in life was. So I agree with the deletion argument that {{u|JzG}} put forward in the [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-03-17/News_and_notes|MfD]]: "Delete or userfy, this is a joke but it's in a location where readers would not expect one, so needs to go from there. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)". I don't think we would ever do this again, given that we've now figured out how to create a similar-looking "Related articles" sidebar manually.
***Having said all that, I personally don't consider that "small hands" line, now explicitly hyperlinked to [[April Fools' Day]] in the Signpost piece for anyone who clicks on it, and prefaced by a humour template at the top of the piece, problematic on BLP grounds. It is now as clear as we can possibly make it that the piece is humour, and not to be taken seriously. The Signpost can't function as a community newspaper if we can't express opinions; all our recent reporting about the troubles at WMF relied on opinion, and in some cases non-public information, and I think it's generally agreed that it provided a service to the community. So you can't hold the Signpost to the same standards as article space, where every opinion has to be sourced, because by this reasoning, anyone could have deleted many essential Signpost articles of the last three months "on BLP grounds".
***As far as the standalone, dummy page is concerned, the community has spoken, and I agree with that decision: the dummy page should never have been created, and it is gone. We've also deleted the other two, and I see no need to keep them in the index, given that they never existed. But we need a bit of editorial autonomy for the Signpost to function. So if people feel that the "small hands" reference, explicitly linked to [[April Fools' Day]], is a BLP problem, then please start a discussion at [[WP:BLP/N]], because this is a materially different question from the existence of the dummy page that was decided in the MfD; and if consensus at BLP/N is that it is a BLP problem, I'm sure we'll abide by it. Personally, as I say, I disagree with that view, and will argue against it if the matter is raised there. So if anyone has concerns about Signpost content on BLP or other grounds, I would ask them to please use the proper channels rather than going to the Signpost pages and edit-warring retrospective changes into published Signpost articles. Cheers, --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 12:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
***Thanks. To me, at the moment, the "was it a BLP violation or not" angle is not really the essence, the main problem for me is how Gamaliel did everything to keep it alive before and after it was snow deleted, and how at the same time he did everything he could to end discussion of his actions. This is bad in all circumstances, and even more so when a lot of people fel it was about a BLP violation, where we should err on the side of caution. As for the editorial freedom of the Signpost and the comparison to e.g. WMF-related discussion: the Signpost is intended to discuss Wikipedia-related issues, and this includes serious problems within the WMF or where e.g. the donor money comes from or goes to. The page under discussion here had next-to-nothing to do with Wikipedia, it was not a joke at the expense of Wikipedia but one at the expense of Trump. No matter anyone's personal opinions of the man (and many of us will have strong opinions of him one way or the other), the Signpost was not the place to do this on April 1, and even less the place to continue this after April 1 was over. But this is a side discussion to the actions of Gamaliel, so if you want to continue it I suggest either a new subsection or a different location altogether. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 12:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
****Well, Gamaliel is the editor-in-chief of the Signpost, and I don't think it's appropriate for people to edit-war with him in the Signpost on the basis of their personal opinions. If someone feels there is a genuine BLP issue, each Signpost piece has a talk page (the feedback on the April Fools piece was overwhelmingly positive), and there are noticeboards where that sort of concern can be expressed in an orderly fashion. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 13:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*****With respect, please re-read both [[WP:NOT]] and [[WP:BLP]]. As mentioned above, Wikipedia is not a publisher of political satire, and ''The Signpost'' is not exempt from BLP policy. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] <sup>[[User talk:Ryk72|'c.s.n.s.']]</sup> 13:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
******Per [[WP:NOT]], "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." Are we going to delete all article talk pages, village pumps and essays as well? Do you want to have a community newspaper or not ...? [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 13:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*******Nice ''strawman''. The community is, by consensus, supportive of a community newspaper which provides coverage of, and commentary on, the community itself. The community is not, by consensus, supportive of a community newspaper which provides political satire, including disparagement, of living persons. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] <sup>[[User talk:Ryk72|'c.s.n.s.']]</sup> 13:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
********Where exactly has that consensus been established? The community responses on the [[Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-04-01/News_and_notes|talk page of that piece]] indicated that people thought it was ''funny''. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 14:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*********[[WP:BLP]]. {{tq|That these articles seemed amusing to sections of the community is a signifier of our diversity of political opinion; that they seemed appropriate for publication is as strong a signifier of how far we have yet to come.}} - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] <sup>[[User talk:Ryk72|'c.s.n.s.']]</sup> 14:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
***One more thing, about a section you added while I wrote my reply. "[...]I would ask them to please use the proper channels rather than going to the Signpost pages and edit-warring retrospective changes into published Signpost articles." Linking the "small hands" line to April Fool's Day ''is'' a retroactive change, it wasn't the target at the time it was posted (or for a week afterwards). So you didn't follow your own advice here... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 12:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
****Following that change, the article ''looked'' exactly the same as at publication, except that the headlines in the sidebar now linked to [[April Fools' Day]] instead of the dummy pages—and that was a response to their deletion (creating redlinks) and the BLP concerns expressed at the MfD. Along with the addition of the humour template, I still think that's a good solution. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 13:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Support''' block or at the least a topic ban from politics. These politically motivated "jokes" are violations of our core policies, no matter what the date of publishing. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 11:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Support''' as a clear sign that "IT WAS JUST A JOKE" does not and never will excuse fabricating things about a living person on Wikipedia. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 12:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Make Wikipedia Great Again: Do Not Block''': I wanted to comment that this whole tirade against Gamaliel (even if you dislike the joke and want to discuss that with him, which people should if they do) flies in the face of a 15 year tradition of *preserving* such antics. Within 15 days of Wikipedia's founding, a non-mainspace page was created called "Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense", see [[Wikipedia:Silly Things]]. This over the years has housed many many silly BLP violations, easily found via google, still preserved. See, e.g., [[Wikipedia:More_Best_of_BJAODN#The_Early_Life_of_Brian_Nichols]], or [[Wikipedia:More_Best_of_BJAODN#From_George_W._Bush]], [[Wikipedia:Even_more_Best_of_BJAODN#Mark_Ogilvie]], [[Wikipedia:Best_of_BJAODN#Y0-Y0_Ma]], [https://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_jokes_and_other_deleted_nonsense Nostalgia wikipedia (U2 bashing at bottom)]. The "small hands" joke about Trump is so longstanding and pervasive that it is reasonable to see how Gamaliel thought it would be OK, and that preservation of the joke was OK under longstanding consensus. This is not a joke about about calling Barack Obama "the magic negro", Chelsea Manning some homophobic slur, or a mainspace article about George Bush choking on a pretzel (now deleted). Its a petty silly individual comment about Donald Trump, the greatest man ever to live. Perhaps that makes it forbidden. But its going far over the top to pile on asking to block him over this.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">[[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">[[User talk:Milowent|spoken]]</span></sup></small> 12:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
**The section is not about him making that joke, it is about all actions he took to preserve it, and to silence discussion about it (compare e.g. the reaction any regular editor would have received if he had closed an ANI discussion about his actions three times, with the utter lack of reaction from most here). If he hadn't done any of the things he did after the MfD closed (and some before that), we wouldn't be here discussing this any more. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 13:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::It's about ethics in aprils' fools journalism! Seriously though, he was trying to preserve the joke, not seeing it as affront to BLP. I don't see how this goes anywhere constructive.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">[[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">[[User talk:Milowent|spoken]]</span></sup></small> 14:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::::He was trying to preserve the joke even after it had been resoundingly deleted at MFD, ''and'' trying to stop discussion of his actions. Considering his reaction here, he would probably do the same again in the future. The constructive thing would be that someone uninvolved sends him the message that such actions are not acceptable, and that he acknowledges this. The unconstructive thing is letting this just slip by, sending him the message that he can do this whenever he wants, and sending everyone else the message that we have different standards for admins / arbcom members / some editors in the inner circle on one side, and everyone else on the other side. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::A standalone page was resoundingly deleted at MFD. We disagreed with the decision initially, especially since it this whole thing began as a [[WP:POINT|pointy]] attempt to troll us. We see and agree with the wider community's viewpoint in the discussion that the standalone page was a problem, and we agreed with the deletion. The MFD was not a discussion about the content of a different page or a decision to forever ban the words from all Wikipedia pages ever. If you want to do that, BLPN is the appropriate place to start. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 15:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Obviously''' permanent block and salt all user pages and the entire archives of the ''Signpost''. Obviously {{u|Fram}} is quite correct that it is inappropriate to use Wikipedia to make mild humorous topical references. The appropriate use of Wikipedia is to employ your userspace to host [[WP:POLEMIC|polemics]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Fram&diff=636149081&oldid=631877990 attacking living people for being allegedly dishonest]. It's clear my ten-year reign of terror of making humorous topical references needs to stop. I also apologize for kicking DHeyward's dog ten years ago, or whatever I did to piss him off to create a decade-long grudge and prompt him to [[WP:HOUND|follow me around the encyclopedia making disparaging comments about me]], including the obviously not-BLP violating comparison of me to Joseph Goebbels, and to the editors who came here from the offsite canvassing at Gamergate forums for my sins against ethics in gaming journalism. #smallhandsghazi [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 13:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:*Raising the allegation of offsite Gamergate canvassing may well be a sign that you're now part of the problem, Gamaliel. It's a tactic Mark Bernstein has used and we all know he is part of the problem and indeed has done similar things to those of which he accuses others. Perhaps just back down from this, revert your post-MfD edits that some claim are point-y, and everyone let it go. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 13:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


The editor is also newly registered, but their behavior gives every indication that they are an experienced Wikipedian.
::* Speaking of No Personal Attacks, I have indeed, on several occasions, brought attention to offsite Gamergate canvassing. These were not "allegations." Allegations are claims offered without proof, or at least claims that are capable of doubt. No one can doubt Gamergate’s extensive history of offsite coordination of its attacks through social media and through Wikipedia. No one has ever doubted them. They have been extensively reported, and in any case we have all seen them. '''A short block''' for incivility and a lousy sense of humor might give Sitush a chance to spend some more time with his dog, whom Gamaliel evidently kicked along with DHeyward's, while reminding everyone that Wikipedia's pillars are intended to apply to Wikipedians without exception. [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein|talk]]) 15:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


At this point, I feel like another set of eyes is needed to judge the level of disruption and if anything else may be going on here. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 06:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:* I would expect an administrator and member of the Arbitration Committee to respond to good-faith concerns raised by several community members about their behavior with something better than this kind of petulant tu quoque finger-pointing. For crying out loud, Gamaliel, at least try to pretend that you have something other than contempt for site policies and those who are interested in seeing them followed. [[User:Starke Hathaway|-Starke Hathaway]] ([[User talk:Starke Hathaway|talk]]) 14:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::*I take site policies very seriously. I've done years of work enforcing BLP policies in articles, on noticeboards, and through edit history redaction. I take the concerns of serious members of the community who express real concerns in a civil manner quite seriously, such as the concern brought up by JzG quoted by Andreas above. I do not take politically-motivated attempts at hijacking those policies to score points against people who perceive me to be their ideological opponent seriously. I do not take Gamergate editors stirred up by a thread on reddit seriously. I do not take editors who call me a Nazi or who use their userpage to attack living people seriously when they claim to be concerned about BLP. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 15:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


:I also thought of bringing them here due to their many revisions of removing content without explanation or with misleading edit summaries (such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Liaden_universe&diff=prev&oldid=1261827843 this one] claiming minor edits while also removing 72,000 bytes). Not only that, but they also remove the references, external links and categories for no reason. I do agree that some of their edits are genuinely beneficial, however edits like [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=B._S._Yediyurappa&diff=prev&oldid=1261813020 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Canterbury_Rugby_Football_Union&diff=prev&oldid=1261786452 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Island_Def_Jam_Music_Group&diff=prev&oldid=1261784384#2010%E2%80%9311:_Motown_induction_and_GOOD_Music_partnership this] are completely unhelpful, removing entire sections of various articles, breaking tables and templates, and leaving sentences incomplete.
:::* A necessary precondition of a "good-faith concern" is good faith. Is there any hereabouts? I could have sworn I saw it around here somewhere! Maybe it fell between the cushions, or maybe is saw the Gamergate crowd and slipped out, but there is no good faith in evidence here. No sensible observer could think for a moment that this joke was a BLP violation, any more than the New Yorker cover was, or the headlines of newspapers from here to Cairo. There's no ''tu quoque'' anywhere ’round here, either, though ''partem latinitatis aut intelligentiae aerem circum hoc tollebit.'' Anyway, tu quoque finger pointing is too redundant. [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein|talk]]) 15:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:They are completely aware they have a talk page, as they have removed content from it on two occasions, but the fact that they refuse to address concerns brought up on their talk page is concerning (I never left any warnings on their talk page because I thought what was already there was sufficient and didn't want to seem like I was piling on, however they don't seem to acknowledge them at all except for removing those warnings, which they have the right to do of course). [[User:Procyon117|Procyon117]] ([[User talk:Procyon117|talk]]) 06:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Actually, the thread I found on [https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/4dog8t/blp_violating_good_times/ Reddit] was pretty insulting to all sides of this dispute. But I'm sure there are other forums that I didn't look at besides WikiInAction. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 18:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::[[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]], I haven't looked at their edits but it looked like you left 8 messages on their user talk page over 15 minutes! Given their previous behavior, do you think this was an effective way to communicate with them? It's overkill. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I left a message for each different problem that I found, including problems that they had previously been warned about. They made many different kinds of errors and disruptive edits at a high rate of speed. I also reverted some edits and pinged them from edit summaries, hoping that different styles of notification would help. Everything I have read about blocking says that editors need to be given adequate warnings. As for whether it was effective, I don't think the previous warnings were effective, but I know that they are required. If these do not work, I need more help. Hence my request here. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 07:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Weliviewf has returned to editing. I've invited them to participate in this discussion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:I too have cleaned up some of the edits made by Weliviewf, but the task is rather overwhelming and they have created a lot of work for other editors, much of which still remains to be done. I see three basic issues:
:*First, they remove vast portions of an article for no discernible reason ([[Special:Diff/1261827843|1]], [[Special:Diff/1261790934|2]], [[Special:Diff/1261786452|3]], [[Special:Diff/1261777693|4]], etc). At first I thought these were accidental mistakes, but it seems to be such a persistent pattern that I can only assume that it's deliberate. They have also edit warred to restore these mass content removal edits on the same page after they were reverted (eg. [[Special:Diff/1255135241|1a]] and [[Special:Diff/1257703084|1b]] and [[Special:Diff/1261777693|1c]]; [[Special:Diff/1256518256|2a]] and [[Special:Diff/1257846189|2b]] and [[Special:Diff/1261827843|2c]])
:*Second, they repeatedly make changes that violate the MOS. For example, they remove bolding from the article subject in the lead sentence in most of their edits (eg. [[Special:Diff/1261785412|1]], [[Special:Diff/1261784384|2]], [[Special:Diff/1261783333|3]], [[Special:Diff/1261782516|4]], [[Special:Diff/1261781688|5]], [[Special:Diff/1261780616|6]], [[Special:Diff/1261777693|7]], etc) even though they have been informed at least three times that this is contrary to the MOS ([[Special:Diff/1260644137|1]], [[Special:Diff/1261356558|2]], [[Special:Diff/1261840127|3]]).
:*Third and perhaps most importantly, they do not communicate at all. They have selectively removed warnings from their talk page twice ([[Special:Diff/1255466402|1]] and [[Special:Diff/1261404395|2]]), so they are aware that their talk page exists and that other editors have been warning them, but they have neither responded to the messages nor changed the behavior that they were warned about. As far as I can tell, they have never edited a talk page of any kind.
: [[User:CodeTalker|CodeTalker]] ([[User talk:CodeTalker|talk]]) 08:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::I see the problem now. They are making a lot of very BOLD edits. They might need a partial block from Article namespace so they start discussing these major changes they are doing to a variety of articles on the project. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 09:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== Sharnadd and disruptive editing/CIR ==
:* Passive aggressive comments show you still do not understand what you did wrong and therefore you will stop doing it. You are failing to grasp very basic standards of editor behavior. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 14:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''—this is silly and way out of proportion. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk) </font >]] 13:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' block, but '''support''' a warning that continuing to revert editors undoing these BLP violations will result in a block for edit-warring. This is an unnecessary escalation, and administrator action is clearly not needed yet. But it ''is'' problematic that an ArbCom member thinks it's appropriate to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for political satire, and it boggles the mind that he doesn't understand why people are differentiating between harmless jokes and making fun of the physical appearance of a political candidate. The difference should be very clear. We can't prominently feature such satire while remaining neutral. ~ <b>[[User:BU Rob13|Rob]]</b><sup>[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 13:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
**The Signpost is independent of the WMF, and doesn't pretend to speak for Wikipedia. It is community ''journalism''. People publish opinion pieces in it; Fram [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-09/Op-ed|did so some months ago]], as I recall (and a great piece it was). It's not expected to be neutral. --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 13:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
***''The Signpost'' is not independent of the en.Wiki community, its publisher, which has set standards within which ''The Signpost'' must operate - which include [[WP:NOT]] and [[WP:BLP]]. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] <sup>[[User talk:Ryk72|'c.s.n.s.']]</sup> 13:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
****Sure, but it takes a bit more than one person edit-warring to establish that it has fallen foul of those standards. And as I said above, if you want to apply [[WP:NOT]] to every page hosted on Wikipedia.org, you'll have to delete all [[WP:Essay|essays]], the village pump, and all article talk pages as well. For Pete's sake, [[WP:NOT]] specifically says, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Well, the Signpost is a "community newspaper". [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 13:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:****Ah, yes, "one person". You don't seem to have followed very closely at this point. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 14:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*****Please see [[WP:3RRNO]] - Clearly identified, good faith, BLP redactions are not edit warring. Restoration of material so redacted, is, and is also a violation of BLP. W.r.t [[WP:NOT]], please see my previous answer above. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] <sup>[[User talk:Ryk72|'c.s.n.s.']]</sup> 14:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
******{{xt|What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.}} --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 14:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*******Editors are requested to consider alternatives. This does not, however, affect that BLP redactions, where clearly identified, and made in good faith, are not edit warring. <small>NOTE: I think perhaps the other editors here might have indulged our discussion enough; I am happy to call a halt, with an agreement to disagree, perhaps pending a WP:BLPN or MfD filing, or continue on my Talk page.</small> - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] <sup>[[User talk:Ryk72|'c.s.n.s.']]</sup> 14:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
***(ec)Thanks, but my op-ed was clearly about Wikipedia. The deleted page, not so much... I don't mind that the Signpost has an opinion about Wikipedia-related matters, it may present opinions, positions, criticism, ... but that is hardly relevant here. As far as I know, Trump is ''not'' a Wikipedia- or WMF-related subject though. And, of course, the main problem is not that the page was written and published, but how Gamaliel reacted to criticism and deletion of it. Judging from his response above, he still sees nothing wrong with what he did and reacts completely over the top. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 13:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
****The whole premise of the April Fools thing was that Jimmy Wales would be Trump's running mate, based on his involvement in Lessig's presidential campaign a while back, and people riffed on that. (But okay, you say that aspect is not your main concern anyway.) [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 14:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per [[User:Tony1|Tony1]]. --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 13:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' When I closed the above thread I thought the incident was further in the past, I did not realize it has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-04-01/News_and_notes&diff=next&oldid=714158308 so recently repeated]. As such I am reversing my closure. I really did not expect that. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b>]] 14:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': There was no BLP violation. At the most, it was a bad joke. The offending page was deleted, per consensus. The Signpost publishes opinions, of which this was one. If someone didn't find it funny, that's fine - nobody expects everyone to agree with all opinions in the Signpost. As to the admin actions, Gamaliel did not cover himself in glory here, but the misuse of admin tools is not serious enough for any action. I will just comment that Gamaliel is not doing himself any favours by pretending that he did nothing wrong. A bit of self-awareness is in order. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Kingsindian|&#9821;]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|&#9818;]] 14:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*:A "bad joke" that consisted of fabricating things about a living person. Strange how that keeps getting missed by some. The Signpost publishes...things, they still must adhere to BLP policy. If the consensus is that BLP doesn't apply to opinions, oh boy do I have some fun to get in to. Sorry, I know I've made this point to you before, but a blanket "There was no BLP violation" is simply incorrect based on policy. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 14:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::: There is a Signpost article, still up, which states that Trump has selected Jimmy Wales as his running mate. That is "fabricating things about a living person". I assume you will be putting that article up for deletion as well? I also look forward to you trawling through ''The Signpost'' archives to delete all April Fools articles ever written. Do feel free to waste your time if you wish. In the meantime, I will stick to my opinion that it was not a BLP violation. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Kingsindian|&#9821;]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|&#9818;]] 15:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS amiright? Your opinion is yours to keep, even if it's counter to actual policy. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 15:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:: I would point to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-04-01/News_and_notes&diff=next&oldid=714158308], which Gamaliel has repeatedly inserted. I do not believe Trump has ever threatened to sue Wikipedia over an image of his anatomy. To me this is a BLP violation. It doesn't matter if there is a humorous intent. If editors think some BLP violations are funny and thus should not be violations, they should try to amend our policyto allow that. There is also the (minor) misuse of admin tools to keep this version live. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 14:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*{{ec}} '''Support block and desysop''' - okay, it was just a joke, right? We have community processes to deal with such things, like [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:MFD]] and such. The thing is we went through those processes, and the community stated in multiple places that this material was not acceptable, it crossed a line. The thing to do here was to have said "okay, I made an inappropriate joke and you guys called me on it, I won't do it again, let's move on." And then maybe some people have a chuckle about it, but everyone moves on. But that's not what Gamaliel did. Gamaliel edit-warred to restore the material, recreated it in his user space, and most egregiously of all he used admin tools to perform actions that he knew were against consensus and where he was obviously [[WP:INVOLVED]]. And he's continuing to do so at least per HighInBC's comment above, and his "small hands" page is still redlinked from his user page. What differentiates this from [[WP:LEVEL2]]? That it was a joke? I respect Gamaliel, a lot actually, but this is too far. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Ivanvector#top|talk]]) 15:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:*I did not realize that redlink was still there, I have removed it. The only "admin action" I took here was a routine protection of a user subpage which is transcluded to my main userpage, a frequent vandal target. I have also done this with other subpages unrelated to this matter. I did not "recreate" anything in my user space, I made a humorous reference to ''this ANI thread'' and nothing more. It was a joking reference '''to myself''' which said that I had small hands. I deleted it because it was submitted to MFD and I didn't want any more drama. I have every right to use my userspace to make reference to things that happen '''to myself'''. The words "small hands" have not been banned from the entirety of Wikipedia, otherwise using that logic we would never be able to employ the phrases "birth certificate", "October surprise", or "blue dress". [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 15:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:*Actually, what was dealt with in community processes was not the joke ''per se'', but the existence of a related dummy page in Wikipedia space that was not clearly identified as an April Fools' joke. Because ''that'' was a reasonable point, the page was deleted. Nobody restored it, and your assertion that Gamaliel did is untrue. The community has not anywhere expressed a consensus that the joke itself, clearly identified as an April Fools' joke, and riffing on a theme that's been ''widely'' discussed in the mainstream press, is a BLP violation. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 16:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - this is one of those cases where similar behaviour by a non-admin would have received quick no-questions-asked block a while ago. Obviously ANI won't be able to achieve consensus on any sanctions, even though at least some kind of warning/admonishment would be quite appropriate. On a different note, I commend the people who raised this issue, and prevented repeated attempts to shove the whole thing under a blanket with quick closing.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 15:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:*If admins engaged in similar behavior to some of the people demanding my head (once again I bring people's attention to the "fuck right off" comment, the comparison of myself to Goebbles, and the anti-Jimbo userpage polemic) nobody would be attempting to shove their behavior under a blanket and we'd all be outraged about admin abuse. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 15:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::*Actually, I recall quite a few "Fuck right off" comments from admins, shall I try to dig them up? As for the rest of your deflection, DHeyward has asked you to provide diffs or stop casting aspersions. Failure to do so is also something us normal folks would be blocked for. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 16:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::*An admin I thought very highly of was desyopped solely for a similar comment to the one you made. I responded to DHey above now; I initially missed his request in this wall of text. He does like to write about me, you know. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 16:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Are we really going to let one Trump supporter's vendetta be the cause of someone being blocked?[[Special:Contributions/142.105.159.60|142.105.159.60]] ([[User talk:142.105.159.60|talk]]) 16:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', per ''[[Hustler Magazine v. Falwell]]'' unanimous decision protecting [[freedom of the press]], specifically [[parody]] and [[satire]] as forms of [[freedom of speech]] related to [[public figure]]s. ''The Signpost'' is an [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/About|independent publication]] and a member of the press. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 16:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::Respectfully, per earlier comments, ''The Signpost'' may be independent of the WMF, but it {{tq|is not independent of the en.Wiki community, its publisher, which has set standards within which ''The Signpost'' must operate - which include WP:NOT and WP:BLP.}} - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] <sup>[[User talk:Ryk72|'c.s.n.s.']]</sup> 16:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::I would respectively disagree -- in that we ought to value a [[Freedom of the press|free and independent press]] within our context -- that's the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/About|mission]] we give ''The Signpost''. Indeed, from its very first issue ''The Signpost'' made clear: ''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-01-10/From the editor|"Since this is not in the article namespace, guidelines such as "no ownership of articles", and particularly "no original research", will not necessarily apply."]]'' &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 18:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*Really disappointed in Gamaliel...he knows better and his position is such that we expect better.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 17:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose block, support warning''' as per BU Rob13. This blew up to extreme propositions, but I don't want to see this hitting NYT, WSJ, FOX News, etc. I think it's rather unfair to suggest that those concerned are Trump supporters with agendas; try replacing "Trump" with the public figure of your choice. My only "agenda" here is maintaining BLP. It's frankly irrelevant who the subject of this is; Wikipedia is simply the wrong venue for political satire, and there are legitimate concerns here. [[User:GeneralizationsAreBad|GAB]]<sup>[[User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad|Hello!]]</sup> 17:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support block''' and ''consider vote of no confidence in Gamaliel as an arbitrator''', in deference to the large number of editors who don't consider this worthy of a desysop. {{U|Ivanvector}} has it right. This was deplorable. April Fool's is one day; we have had massive discussions in the past about disruptive April Foolery, and in the past the ''Signpost'' created a special one-day edition that was then replaced by a regular edition with errors statement. In this instance, a sitting Arb used his bully pulpit as editor of the ''Signpost'' to subvert our entire purpose, edit warred, abused his admin rights, and insulted and threatened the editor who was brave enough to call out the BLP violation. American politics - or Gamaliel's or anyone else's personal views about potential candidates in US elections - are explicitly not an exception to our policies of neutrality and avoiding insulting living people. The reverse, in fact, by Arbcom fiat. I was desysopped for less. Where is {{U|Bishzilla}}. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 18:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:*'''Threatened'''? Nonsense. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 18:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


=== Whimsical Delight ===


Ok, folks! We've got 12,500 wiki words -- and more every minute! -- about Donald Trump’s small hands and ''The Signpost''. This is wacky. .


Hi, {{Userlinks|Sharnadd}} has been editing disruptively recently and with a past block in June 2024 ([[Special:Diff/oldid/1230926978|block warning on talk page]]), I think more action is required.
It’s also dumb, and it's not contributing to the project. In point of fact, it's providing a lot of comfort to the project’s detractors, who now will always be able to point to this episode as a wonderful example of the foolishness of editing Wikipedia and of the zaniness of the zealots and PR agencies who do. ''It's no good making a noise, gentlemen. The dean ain’t a-coming down tonight.'' (I note in passing that I here managed an unforced assonance on "z", which compels quiet kvelling.)
I don’t think their edits are vandalism and may not warrant a full rollback but I do think they are disruptive and might need a [[WP:CIR]] block. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sharnadd&diff=next&oldid=1261115131] (and many others) [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sharnadd&diff=cur&oldid=1260611157] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sharnadd&diff=cur&oldid=1257311728] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ice_cream&diff=prev&oldid=1261539610] have addressed this in both user and article talk pages, but they do not seem to understand the issues raised. It also appears this editor may not have a good grasp of English due to the misspellings and grammar issues they have introduced.
<br>
-edit warring to readd reverted information: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=oldid&diff=1257298098], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Delicatessen&diff=prev&oldid=1257298697], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Delicatessen&diff=prev&oldid=1257311544], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Delicatessen&diff=prev&oldid=1257939074]


-Partially deleted talk page discussions in a manner that changes what the original post means (instead of fully blanking): [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sharnadd&diff=prev&oldid=1261379924] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sharnadd&diff=prev&oldid=1260736774]
Can we close this before it gets even more out of hand? If people really want to make a federal case of this, ArbCom is thataway ==>. I’m sure that would be lots of fun! Alternatively, if someone has time on their hands, they could take this whole Gamergate mob to AE for wikihounding, canvassing, and a lousy sense of humor and proportion. That’s the great thing about Wikipedia: cop cars can become clown cars in an instant. I have no idea how the constabulary there would sort out the culpable from the pedestrians who had the misfortune to be passing by. [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein|talk]]) 15:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


-Added uncited section in broken English:
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y] --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 16:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Beefsteak&diff=prev&oldid=1259134460]

=== Propose a TBAN of Akron ===

His complaint being vindicated IN NO WAY excuses his vulgar behavior. The fact that he got as pissed off as he did about this whole thing tells me that he's too close to the subject. I propose he be given a topic ban of U.S. politics.[[Special:Contributions/142.105.159.60|142.105.159.60]] ([[User talk:142.105.159.60|talk]]) 16:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' As proposer.[[Special:Contributions/142.105.159.60|142.105.159.60]] ([[User talk:142.105.159.60|talk]]) 16:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*OH NO, You can see me!?! I was told the lifesize cardboard Trump cutout would protect me from prying liberal eyes. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 16:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein|talk]]) 16:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Especially since Arkon himself obviously agrees, judging from his above comment. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 16:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Akron is a classy editor, a very very special editor, the best. His close personal relationship to Trump merely reflects the inevitable pull of America's finest to him. People have told me he will be running this place very very soon.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">[[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">[[User talk:Milowent|spoken]]</span></sup></small> 16:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This is no principle regarding U.S. Politics that he violated here so the proposal is baseless. The proper venue is AE with diffs. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 17:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
* ... This happened on an April Fools' edition of the Signpost. We're not gonna ban him from editing US politics when no evidence has been presented he's been doing damage in that area. Also, my impression is his outburst has more to do with the Signpost and Gamaliel than Trump, small hands or politics. In any case, we don't ban people on a hunch. Because that would be irrational. Wait... Wikipedia... irrational... syllogism! [[Special:Contributions/31.153.35.116|31.153.35.116]] ([[User talk:31.153.35.116|talk]]) 17:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' TBAN for all involved from the topic of small hands, including [[Poland Syndrome]], [[Baby Hands]], [[The Small Hand]], [[Phocomelia]], [[Thumb hypoplasia]], [[Rett syndrome]], and [[Ectrodactyly]]. [[User:Timothyjosephwood|Timothyjosephwood]] ([[User talk:Timothyjosephwood|talk]])
:*Don't forget Doll Hands please! They are just creepy. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 17:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::I guess this would be a topic ban on me as well as I told Gamaliel on his talk page that I, indeed, have small hands. And I don't understand why saying someone had small hands would be offensive. #SmallHandPride <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 18:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Every editor will need to have their hands measured before this discussion gets closed. Because our brains are too small for detection.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">[[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">[[User talk:Milowent|spoken]]</span></sup></small> 18:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The language used by Akron is against [[WP:CIVIL]] and therefore should certainly not be tolerated. However, I have not seen any evidence this was disruptive of the topic area where it is proposed he should be banned from. DHeyward is correct in suggesting it should be raised at AE with diffs, where a short-term block might be considered. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User talk:DrChrissy|(talk)]]</span></sup> 17:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Vulgarity as such is against no rules, as I understand {{U|Keilana}} recently reminded us. Are his edits in the topic area problematic? No diffs have been presented to that effect, and they are required for an allegation about editorial behavior. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 18:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
* I am tired of the hyperbole around this purported BLP violation. It is a joke, and it references a meme that is in wide currency beyond Wikipedia. Trump may be comicaly sensitive about it, but [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-my-hands-are-normal-hands/the genie is out of the bottle] and well past any hope of control. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

===A reminder and a suggestion===

I'd like to remind everyone that the ''Signpost'' is a collaborative effort. The [[Buck_passing|buck stops with me]]. I'm willing to be the target of everyone's ire and suffer the consequences. But the idea that everything written in this article or in the entire ''Signpost'' somehow represents my personal viewpoints or is an attempt to push my ideology is nonsense. It’s insulting to the many other ''Signpost'' editors and contributors (including {{u|Fram}}, one of the loudest voices against me above) to say they do not write from their own minds or have their own viewpoints. The April Fools’ story in the ''Signpost'' was not designed as an ideological attempt to attack a presidential candidate, it was designed to pair Wikipedia’s biggest celebrity with the biggest celebrity in the news right now, at least in America, and be as loud and as over the top as possible. Three authors are listed in this story and as many as twelve people contributed in some form or another. They all have different opinions and political persuasions. This was a group effort, not a secret ideological attack from me, as some would contend, a charge that should not be taken seriously. In fact, it wasn’t even my idea to use Trump in our April Fools’ story in the first place.

It’s becoming a trend for some people who view me as their ideological antagonist to claim that the ''Signpost'' is “my mouthpiece” because I wrote something they didn’t like. It’s the mouthpiece of everyone who contributes to the ''Signpost'' each week, and it’s your mouthpiece too. Those who complain about having certain viewpoints represented either forget or ignore or do not know that their voices are welcome too. If some viewpoint doesn’t appear in the ''Signpost'', it’s not that we’re trying to push a different one, it’s that nobody wrote it yet. You are welcome to do so. Hate April Fools’ Day and think it should be banned from Wikipedia? Do you think there’s too much swearing on Wikipedia? Do you disagree with something someone wrote in the ''Signpost''? Do you want to disagree with a presidential candidate who isn’t Trump and it involves Wikipedia in some way? Write about it and we will publish it once it goes through our regular editorial processes, which are collaborative and involve the participation of numerous editors who are not me. Put your money where your mouth is. Instead of complaining about the alleged “agenda” of the ''Signpost'', come set the “agenda” of the ''Signpost'' yourself. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 19:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

:Why do you say "The April Fools’ story in the ''Signpost'' was not designed as an ideological attempt to attack a presidential candidate, it was designed to pair Wikipedia’s biggest celebrity with the biggest celebrity in the news right now, at least in America, and be as loud and as over the top as possible.", when the actual page in question contained nothing of the sort. In fact, it stated that said person threatened to sue Wikipedia. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 19:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::YEAH! YOU'VE GOT HIM AKRON! HAHA GAMALIEL WE GOT YOU NOW! YOUR SIDE PAGE LINK WAS UNRELATED! COMMENCE WATERBOARDING!--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">[[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">[[User talk:Milowent|spoken]]</span></sup></small> 19:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

::That dummy subpage was created solely to make a ''Signpost'' template work in that April Fools' story. That dummy subpage is now deleted. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 19:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::I'm not talking about the sidepage. I'm talking about the original MFD that was linked in my original post. The one that started all of this. Edit: Sorry got you a Milowent's responses mixed and matched. The page in question had text, that had nothing to do with the actual April fools story (according to you above), but just happened to also say that a living person was threatening the sue Wikipedia. Is that suppose to be somehow better? [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 19:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

:{{tq|Do you want to disagree with a presidential candidate who isn’t Trump and it involves Wikipedia in some way?}} - Have the editors who have raised objections to this year's series of April Fools articles not been sufficiently clear? Wikipedia is not a [[WP:SOAPBOX]]; not even ''The Signpost''. We are not a publisher of political satire. Suggesting that we might apply the blowtorch to another living person, albeit of a different political persuasion, as a way of striking a balance is just incredibly tone deaf. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] <sup>[[User talk:Ryk72|'c.s.n.s.']]</sup> 19:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

:: I worded that very carefully and yet here is the misunderstanding I wished to avoid. Please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] here. I have no intention of publishing non-Wikipedia related jokes or satire when it is not April Fools' Day. (In fact we didn't even approach our April Fools' Day story intending to write political satire - Jimbo was our main target and I think he got the worst there, but nobody is complaining about that.) I wanted to address the contention that the ''Signpost'' was only publishing things from one political viewpoint. Obviously I would not publish political satire aimed at Obama next week to give the other side "equal time", but I do want to show that we are ready to publish viewpoints from that other side if they are about Wikipedia in some way, such as columns against proposed internet legislation by the president. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 19:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::What did the text on the page that was deleted at MFD, that brought us here, say that had to do with Jimmy? [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 19:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::::It said that Wikipedia, run by Jimmy Wales, had defamed our Lordship Donald J. Trump's elegant appendages.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">[[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">[[User talk:Milowent|spoken]]</span></sup></small> 19:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

== Global IP rangeblock ==

I just got caught in a global IP rangeblock made by {{ping|Masti}} over on Meta. The message I got telling me about this (when trying to rollback anti-Semitic vandalism on the RefDesk) and then when I tried to post an unblock request on my talkpage was "Permission error


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
-Nonsense edit summaries: ''Good title of country''
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Deviled_egg&diff=prev&oldid=1258376601] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rest_area&diff=prev&oldid=1258891284] ''Added book shop I go marks and Spencers is a supermarket. There are full service hotels at a service station not motels which generally have the doors outside''


-Removal of info with confusing, misspelled edit summaries:
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Breakfast_sandwich&diff=prev&oldid=1260542528] and
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Breakfast_sandwich&diff=prev&oldid=1261285598]


Please let me know if there’s any mistakes, or additional information needed. Thanks, [[User:Sarsenet|Sarsenet]] ([[User talk:Sarsenet|talk]]) 08:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:<small>There's an evidwnt error in the ES of that "uncited section" diff, "Added types" should be "typos". [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 11:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
:thata not true I haven't been disruptive posting. I had been adding information with citations. I know that you had a problem as I made a spelling mistake on a posting by that's hardly [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 11:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:145 I added additional sources the originator agreed and has removed some of his incorrect information. [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 11:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:146 I apologised to Cassiopeia as when I edited I had accidently removed some information from lower down and she put it back for me [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 11:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::147 I sent belbury the current information that is per the regulations as he had a query on regs after Brexit [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 12:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::148 to 151 it wasn't an editing war. Someone was removing information as I was added several citations as they did not think the citations were good enough but they had not seen guardian citations. Information was left on as citations given [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 12:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::152 and 153 when you mentions the problem with my accidently spelling he word placed as places I would happily have blanked your discussion from my talk page if I knew how to do so it seems I can only edit [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 12:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::156 to 157 what would you prefer the edit summary to say. Would you prefer that they remain blank [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 12:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::157 to 158 it was t confusing at all. The page was listed as breakfast sandwich from United states. Since It discussed the American breakfast sandwich in the overview history and ingredients I removed the reference to other types. Since you stated it was for all types of breakfast sandwich I removed the origin as united states [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 12:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Regarding your edits for [[Breakfast sandwich]] the problem is that your injecting your own understanding, but that is not how Wikipedia works when it comes to adding or removing information -- for example, see [[WP:TRUE]] [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 22:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks that is why I ended up removing the origin as though the breakfast sandwich being discussed was solely about the American type rather than general sandwhichs as it discussed the American sandwhichs in all parts of the article. It really didn't seem to refer to general sandwhichs [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 09:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I would prefer that you use clear, concise edit summaries as when they're present, they're not constructive. [[User:Sarsenet|Sarsenet]] ([[User talk:Sarsenet|talk]]) 08:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I usually use clear concise summaries stating what I have added or why I have changed an article but since you do not like them I wonder if you had an example of what you prefer. Such as if there is a spelling mistake I would say spelling corrected or if I have added to the history I would say further historical information provided [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 09:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Regarding removing other peoples talk messages in part, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sharnadd&diff=prev&oldid=1261379924 this example] -- there is no special "full blanking" tool or feature, but instead the problem is that you partially deleted only some of what the other editor posted on your talk page. That is an inappropriate form of [[WP:REFACTORING]]. You have the ability to "edit" and fully remove the discussion, as the second example regarding ''Pie'' seems to be your intention there. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 22:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes thanks I will just try and blank it or do just a short response next time. [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 07:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::With regards to [[Delicatessen]] those edits broadly fall under [[WP:3R]] which is a form of edit waring, even if unintentional. Your edits were removed more than once, and regardless of your reasoning, you do not simply re-add information that was removed without either (1) fully addressing the initial concert; or (2) bringing the discussion to the talk page to find consensus with other editors. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 22:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::ah thank you. I was still adding citations at the time. The man who changed them thought they weren't a good source so I apologised and put back with the guardian. He apologised that he hadn't seen it. I them added the BBC and guardian. I will just message him with the extra situations next time and explain I am adding more [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 07:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::First a caution about how you're responding to the various links provided, those numbers are dynamic and may change at any point, which will cause confusion. For example, at the time of me writing this reply, 145 is now part of the section above regarding {{tq|User LesbianTiamat}} which I am certain you're not referring to... So please use a different way to explain the various edits. For example, what is currently #157 will change, so perhaps when responding you might say for example: for [[Beefsteak]] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Beefsteak&diff=prev&oldid=1259134460 this diff] my reason is xyz... [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 22:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::thanks I thought they would also lin to the pages she had a problem with. So the one with a incorrectly spelled word will link to something else. Will do thanks again for your help [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 07:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm not 100% sure who you're referring to here, but if it's me, I'm not a "she." Thanks, [[User:Sarsenet|Sarsenet]] ([[User talk:Sarsenet|talk]]) 08:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Sorry,I will refer to you as he if that is correct [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 09:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:The beefsteak page that you had a problem with I ran through several grammar checkers and it is fine
: I will add some citations showing the common ingredients we serve with steak [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 09:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== [[Syrian Air Flight 9218]] ==
Your IP address is in a range which has been blocked on all wikis.


Can someone with more experience look at [[Syrian Air Flight 9218]]. It's been created in response by a theory by some that radar data recorded by this plane shows that it may have crashed, with theories it was carrying the President of Syria. Given how entirely speculative the entire thing is, and the 1RR restrictions, someone more competent than me needs to have their finger on this one. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] ([[User talk:Nfitz|talk]]) 11:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
The block was made by Masti (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is Cross-wiki vandalism: + leaky colo.
Start of block: 19:05, 6 April 2016
Expiration of block: 19:05, 6 October 2016


:[https://x.com/khaledmahmoued1/status/1865601890375065661 Additional info on the theory that is going around social media.] It should be noted that reliable sources have discussed the flight, but have made it clear that details about it are unconfirmed and speculation: [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/12/08/assad-suspected-fleeing-russia-flight-disappears-off-radar/ The Telegraph], [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/syria-rebels-celebrate-captured-homs-set-sights-damascus-2024-12-07/ Reuters]. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 11:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
You can contact Masti to discuss the block. You cannot use the "Email this user" feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is 188.29.164.122, and the blocked range is 188.29.164.0/23. Please include all above details in any queries you make."
::Oh, it's certainly interesting. But entirely speculative. And at this point it happened about 12 to 13 hours ago. The article just shouldn't be here, if there's no actual physical evidence of a crash, or a missing plane. Planes have been vanishing in that area all day on radar; this one just had odd looking data before it vanished. This isn't encyclopaedic. Anyhow, I'm out of here for a few hours. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] ([[User talk:Nfitz|talk]]) 11:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Agreed on most to all points. (Not sure about the "Planes have been vanishing in that area all day on radar" part as this is the first I have heard of that.) --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 11:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::For what it's worth, some reliable sources are quoting Russian government officials saying that [[Bashar al-Assad]] is in Moscow and has been granted asylum there. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 19:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::And there we go. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 20:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It's moot now, but some planes from the Gulf and Iran were vanishing on approach to [[Tartus]], see [https://x.com/thecrumbke/status/1865686602132980027] this. Vanishing around the same point near the "crash site". [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] ([[User talk:Nfitz|talk]]) 23:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*Yet another great argument for Wikipedia not covering breaking news. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 19:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
**I've gone ahead and [[WP:SNOW|snow closed]] the deletion discussion on the article. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


==Vandal/troll/sock back yet again==
Now, firstly it is a bit rich to leave established editors with no way to request an unblock on their home wiki, secondly it is even richer to block established users with no effort to communicate with them directly, and thirdly, the IP range is for mobile services from [[Three UK|3]], one of the major UK mobile providers, so is likely to affect many good-faith users. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 00:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Fista-gone. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*Without commenting on the merits of the block or its validity, a /23 block only covers 512 IP addresses, and is not likely to affect many people. It may be that you just got unlucky with this one. /23 is very targeted, and should not affect most (or even many) of that network's mobile providers. That does not say that the block is justified, or that you don't have a complaint, but rather that the portion of your complaint that it affects an entire ISP, or even that it affects a large number of addresses, isn't true. ---[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 01:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The fistagon vandal/troll/sock is back yet again, this time under the name {{userlinks|Rambam 2025}}. If someone could please take the appropriate action and do a reveal on the edit summaries, I’d be very grateful. Cheers - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 12:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


:{{Done}}. Best, -- [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 13:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::I didn't say it affected an entire ISP, or a large number of addresses (I wouldn't pretend to have the faintest idea how many addresses it did affect). I ''did'' say it's likely to affect a large number of people, as every time someone comes online they are likely to have a different address, and so, over 6 months it is likely to affect many. Even if it could be guaranteed to "only" affect 512 people, to leave them without any on-wiki way of appealing is unacceptable. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 01:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::Many thanks, [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]], that's great. Cheers. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 14:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Dropped a notification on Masti's TP for you. A ping is not considered sufficient notification due to the notorious way pings can fail. [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 03:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::: I change the block to unregistered users only. So You should be able to edit now. Sorry for the problems {{ping|DuncanHill}} [[User:Masti|Masti]] ([[User talk:Masti|talk]]) 09:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

::::Thanks, I am now global IP block exempt too. I had no idea that pings were notoriously unreliable! [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 14:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::<small>However both the big red text at the top of the page and orange box you see when you edit do say "must notify them on their user talk page" so the reasons are largely moot unless it's a discussion over the reasons. Perhaps the point of confusion is the ""discussion about an editor" bit, but that's normally taken to mean if you discussion includes commentary on the editor, they should be notified. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 17:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
::::::<small>And the notices have been there so long that they merge into the background. I also rather think they did not always specify talkpage. Masti was well aware that I was unhappy with the situation as I had emailed him ''via'' Meta, mentioning that this was my home wiki. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 19:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
:::But they have to actually try to edit while using the IP, so in reality it's not particularly likely to affect that many registered editors unless the IP range happens to be used by a some large company (since it's a mobile IP not very likely) or something (I wonder why such a small range was blocked and whether there's something to do with the assignment policy which means people only tend to get a small number in which case it could be certain editors would have gotten it a lot or it's very rare). While there are quite a few anonymous contributions from that range to en.wikipedia, non registered editors always run the risk they will be blocked if others misuse their IPs and a /23 isn't considered sufficiently small that it may be justified if there are problems. I see some mention of leaky colo which I presume means leaky colocation, so the number may be slightly higher but then again perhaps this leak colo falls in to the open proxy arena (like a webhost) so they aren't allow to edit from that anyway. (Blocking a whole countries proxyy tends to be the more controversial thing.) Note that ultimately if you have problems editing from an IP and that IP was blocked for good reason, you should be complaining to your ISP for failing to have decent abuse policies or failing to enforce them as you're I presume paying your ISP for service which they aren't able to provide. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 17:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

::::I was trying to edit '''from an account''', not as an IP. Apparently registered users also always run the risk that they will be blocked for the deeds of others and with no on-wiki appeal. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 19:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*If I might interject, what are we hoping to accomplish here? Masti has converted the global block to anon only in response to DuncanHill's request. DH was granted global IPBE so this won't occur again. Furthermore, I removed the local block in less than 15 minutes from DH's email to me. (~00:29 UTC April 7) It sounds to me that things have been handled correctly and promptly. DH, if you are dissatisfied with Masti's block, that's an issue that you will have to raise on meta. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> [[User:Mike V|<b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b>]] • [[User_talk:Mike V|<b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b>]]</span> 22:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

== Continued disruption from previously banned IP editor "Claudia" ==
*{{userlinks|115.188.178.77}}
IP editor [[115.188.178.77]], who calls herself/himself “Claudia” and loudly expresses regressive and occasionally racist views of Maori culture and New Zealand colonial history, has been blocked at least three times for disruptive editing and obnoxious behaviour, including under the IP address 122.62.226.243.[[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive777#Racially_charged_editing_by_IP_122.62.226.243_at_articles_to_do_with_the_New_Zealand_Wars|in 2012]][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:122.62.226.243&diff=prev&oldid=526473230], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive213#122.62.226.243_reported_by_User:BlackCab_.28Result:_.29|2013]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#Well-meaning_but_clueless_IP_editor|2014]].

She continues to wage a crusade through talk pages against the highly respected New Zealand historian [[James Belich (historian)|James Belich]]. Past tirades are [[Talk:Battle_of_Rangiriri#Belich_on_Rangiriri|here]], [[Talk:First_Taranaki_War#Belich%27s%20%22erroneous%22%20descriptions%20…|here]], [[Talk:New_Zealand_Company#Swamped_by_Black_cabs_recent_edits|here]], an in the four threads archived at the Belich article talk page, [[Talk:James Belich (historian)/Archive 1|here]]. Her renewed attack is at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADuncan_Cameron_%28British_Army_officer%29&type=revision&diff=712826247&oldid=590504094 this talk page]; she (again) cites the authors Pugsley and Richards in her derisive comments, though when challenged recently to produce the actual statements of those authors, she could not.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Taranaki_War&diff=prev&oldid=711111469] I deleted her last Belich comment on the grounds that it was an attack not relevant to the article; she restored it and added a further criticism of Belich: see [[Talk:Duncan Cameron (British Army officer)#No Personal attack on Belich.]]

Out of nowhere she has launched an attack on another respected historian [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AInvasion_of_the_Waikato&type=revision&diff=713272194&oldid=703085223]; she has also made claims about another historian's conclusions [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFirst_Taranaki_War&type=revision&diff=713004406&oldid=712823904] which in that thread I quickly proved to be completely fabricated and wrong. This echoes her past attacks at historian [[Talk:Michael King|Michael King]], prior to her last 12-month block.

Her past behaviour has included faking citations (see [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#Well-meaning_but_clueless_IP_editor|this complaint]]); her recent efforts have included adding a fictionalised “quote” within an article which was nothing more than a stab in the dark of something she had once read (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wairau_Affray&diff=prev&oldid=711604249 this] and [[Talk:Wairau Affray#Fitzroy's own personal account of the aftermath to the massacre is the real thing|this thread.]]) Despite her past blocks her edits tend to be inflammatory and trollish and she has a long history of inserting demonstrably false claims within historical material that reflect her strong anti-Maori outlook. She is highly disruptive, creates loads of work for other editors to clean up behind her. And her trail of long talk page posts are usually unsigned. She has not learned to be collaborative and has not modified her behavior. [[User:BlackCab|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:darkslategray; font-variant:small-caps;">'''BlackCab'''</span>]] ([[User talk:BlackCab|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 01:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

:If I may add to this. I have encountered Claudia on many occasions. She/he is so persistent, unreasonable, and closed to any attempt of a civilised discussion that my policy has become to take a page off my watchlist once Claudia starts to take an interest in it. '''<font color="#000000">[[User:Schwede66|Schwede]]</font><font color="#FF4500">[[User talk:Schwede66|66]]</font>''' 01:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

*Am I right in thinking this is a LTA editor? Do we have a page where all the reports of this editor are logged? The earliest report I can find is [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive777#Racially_charged_editing_by_IP_122.62.226.243_at_articles_to_do_with_the_New_Zealand_War|December 2012]] (edit: mentioned above)--[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 02:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

:*I had the same thoughts. Something pinged in the back of my mind about an editor would slag off a source based on what they read but could never produce evidence of that material merely insisting that they were sure they had read it and others who disputed should just take their word for it. I'm also wondering whether that person was banned. I don't think there was a LTA page for them though. [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 02:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:*For reference, the contributions of this IP {{User3|122.62.226.243}}.
:*Aha found something! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#Well-meaning_but_clueless_IP_editor ANI archived report]. I also found that I participated in the block discussion...how about that?
:*Pinging {{ping|Daveosaurus}}, {{ping|Gadfium}}, {{ping|Stuartyeates}} who have some history with this user. Also pinging {{ping|Carrite}} and {{ping|Softlavender}} who contributed to the discussion and had some dissenting views as well as {{ping|EdJohnston}} who blocked the IP. [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 03:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

:Claudia has been editing since at least [[User talk:125.237.35.252|July 2009]], and the question of how to manage her edits has been discussed sporadically since [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#19th century New Zealand history|September 2010]]. Her edits have not improved since her year-long block in November 2014. I think a ban from articles on New Zealand history, broadly construed, would be appropriate.-<span style="font-family:cursive; color:grey;">[[User talk:gadfium|gadfium]]</span> 03:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

*I've pulled together a table of reports to the administrator noticeboards. Let me know if I've missed anything. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 03:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::I've added a couple of blocks to the table. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 06:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::And added the BLPN report.--[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 06:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Date !! Report !! Note
|-
| 1 September 2010 || [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#19th_century_New_Zealand_history|ANI/19th century New Zealand history]]||
|-
| 5 December 2012 || [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive777#Racially_charged_editing_by_IP_122.62.226.243_at_articles_to_do_with_the_New_Zealand_Wars|ANI/Racially charged editing by IP 122.62.226.243 at articles to do with the New Zealand Wars]] || Blocked 31 hours
|-
| 6 January 2013 || || Blocked for 48 hours
|-
| 14 January 2013 || [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive781#IP_user_flagrantly_ignores_WP:V_and_WP:NPOV|ANI/IP user flagrantly ignores WP:V and WP:NPOV]] ||
|-
| 10 May 2013 || [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive213#122.62.226.243_reported_by_User:BlackCab_.28Result:_.29|3RR/122.62.226.243 reported by User:BlackCab]] || Blocked for two weeks
|-
| 2 July 2013 || || Blocked for one month
|-
| 13 August 2013 || [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive850#User_talk:122.62.226.243_advice_and_guidance_please |ANI/User_talk:122.62.226.243 advice and guidance please]] ||
|-
| 7 November 2014 || [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#Well-meaning_but_clueless_IP_editor|ANI/Well-meaning but clueless IP editor]] || Blocked for one year
|-
| 1 April 2016 || [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Duncan_Cameron_.28British_Army_officer.29 |BLPN/Duncan Cameron (British Army officer)]] ||
|}
:*[[User:BlackCab]] also filed at BLPN on 1 April. The thread is still open at [[WP:BLPN#Duncan Cameron (British Army officer)]]. One of the diffs is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Belich_(historian)&diff=prev&oldid=705519943 this post by Claudia] on the talk page of the living person [[James Belich (historian)]]. Claudia's previous critique of this man is in [[Talk:James Belich (historian)/Archive 1]]. If another block is appropriate, it could be for two years. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 04:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::In July 2013 Claudia was also blocked for a month by [[User:Moriori]] for similar behaviour. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATe_Kooti&type=revision&diff=562480325&oldid=562479221] That's four blocks I'm aware of, but still no modification of editing behavior. [[User:BlackCab|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:darkslategray; font-variant:small-caps;">'''BlackCab'''</span>]] ([[User talk:BlackCab|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 05:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::A recent interaction with Claudia, to show the level of aggravation she creates, is at [[Talk:Treaty of Waitangi#Proclamations 1840 style]]. [[User:BlackCab|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:darkslategray; font-variant:small-caps;">'''BlackCab'''</span>]] ([[User talk:BlackCab|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 05:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*Nothing more to say on the topic not said above, except that the primary target, [[James Belich (historian)]], has continued to receive professional accolades, implying that professional historian community in no way shares the IP's views. [[User:Stuartyeates|Stuartyeates]] ([[User talk:Stuartyeates|talk]]) 06:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Given the singlemindedness of this person in their attacks on this historian and that their editing is restricted to topics about NZ history, a topic ban would amount to a site ban. Given their disruptiveness, that might actually be a better option. [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 02:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:I'm not sure a ban on the topic of NZ history would do the job. Claudia has also launched her attacks on conventional historical narrative (complete with conspiracy theories) at the talk pages of such articles as [[Māori King Movement]], [[Parihaka]], [[Waitara, New Zealand]] and [[Treaty of Waitangi]], which she could conceivably argue are not articles on NZ history per se. She was given very firm guidance at the time of the last 12-month ban on how to conduct herself, but is in fact doing exactly the same thing. Unless the topic ban was for anything related to New Zealand, I would prefer a complete block, and a longer one this time. [[User:BlackCab|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:darkslategray; font-variant:small-caps;">'''BlackCab'''</span>]] ([[User talk:BlackCab|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 03:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

:: Claudia does seem to have a couple of other interests: boats and bicycles, from memory (and a cursory look at her recent contributions). I don't know enough about those subjects to know whether or not there is any value to her contributions, but at least those subjects don't seem to be as full of BLP-violation potential as New Zealand history.
:: I agree with Gadfium that a topic ban would be approriate - at least as a first step. Maybe a permanent topic ban from the history of New Zealand, or anything to do with the Māori people, or any biographies of living persons - or any combination of the three, up to and including all of them. [[User:Daveosaurus|Daveosaurus]] ([[User talk:Daveosaurus|talk]]) 06:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

:This editor has not changed her editing behaviour since the last block. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Waikato&diff=prev&oldid=712932982#cite_note-8 This edit], summarising/paraphrasing the first paragraph on [http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/Timeline2.html this webpage], confirms my suspicion as to her identity, at the same time confirming that many edits originate from her own work. This is certainly suggestive of extensive POV pushing. [[User:DerbyCountyinNZ|<span style="background:orange; color:blue">DerbyCountyinNZ</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:DerbyCountyinNZ|Talk]] [[Special:Contribs/DerbyCountyinNZ|Contribs]])</sup> 06:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::[[User:DerbyCountyinNZ|DerbyCountyinNZ]], is that related to the bulk of material on the [[Pre-Māori settlement of New Zealand theories]] article? Similar self-published authors involved here. [[User:BlackCab|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:darkslategray; font-variant:small-caps;">'''BlackCab'''</span>]] ([[User talk:BlackCab|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 07:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::I don't think so, maybe just coincidence. [[User:DerbyCountyinNZ|<span style="background:orange; color:blue">DerbyCountyinNZ</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:DerbyCountyinNZ|Talk]] [[Special:Contribs/DerbyCountyinNZ|Contribs]])</sup> 07:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

:::: I'd honestly guess that it's not her site - Claudia appears ignorant of even basic Wiki markup while whoever produced that page seems to at least know their way around a content management / web page creator program. I'd just put that down to Claudia being unable to tell good sources from bad - she's had that problem before (once I had trouble finding any evidence that one of her sources even existed other than as an Internet document, because she used a garbled version of its name that the only other occurences then findable in Google all traced back to one white-supremacist blog). [[User:Daveosaurus|Daveosaurus]] ([[User talk:Daveosaurus|talk]]) 10:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::I have no interest in [[WP:OUTING|outing]] Claudia, but that website and that ideology probably help feed her conspiracy theories that lead to the denigration of Belich, King, Orange, Dalton, O'Malley and every researcher ever employed by the Waitangi Tribunal. [[User:BlackCab|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:darkslategray; font-variant:small-caps;">'''BlackCab'''</span>]] ([[User talk:BlackCab|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 11:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::Please let us not stoop to outing. The IP's ideology is not the problem; the IP's long-term disruptive editing style is the problem. [[User:Stuartyeates|Stuartyeates]] ([[User talk:Stuartyeates|talk]]) 19:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

== Legal threats by Sanjayarora1234 ==
{{atop|User warned. {{nac}} [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please &#123;&#123;[[Template:re|re]]&#125;&#125;</small> 17:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Sanjayarora1234}} made a clear legal threat in summary of this edit: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Velakkathala_Nayar&type=revision&diff=714028143&oldid=714026976 here] [[User:Jim1138|Jim1138]] ([[User talk:Jim1138|talk]]) 06:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

:They've been warned and notified of this thread. Let's see what they do now. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 13:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{abot}}


== Two clear NOTHERE accounts ==
== European Graduate School - the return of Claudioalv ==
* {{la|European Graduate School}}
* See [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Is_there_a_different_administrator_who_can_look_over_the_EGS_article_rather_than_.22Guy.22.3F|this now archived ANI thread]]


{{u|TheodoresTomfooleries}} and {{u|DFLPApologist}} are clearly [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Not sure where else to report so I brought it here. Kind regards, [[User:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI|Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI]] (<small><sup>[[User talk:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI|talk to me!]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:contributions/Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI|my edits]]</sub></small>) 15:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi All. I had [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Claudioalv&diff=next&oldid=712086888 mentioned] that Claudioalv and i were talking off line, to talk through his COI issues more candidly. He has now [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AClaudioalv&type=revision&diff=714015286&oldid=712092826 posted] a disclosure on his user page.


:My contributions very much suggest otherwise. Whether ''you'' like my userpage or not has nothing to do with my contributions to Wikipedia, all of which have been done to improve Wikipedia. [[User:TheodoresTomfooleries|TheodoresTomfooleries]] ([[User talk:TheodoresTomfooleries|talk]]) 15:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
This was one of a few options he and I had discussed for his next steps in Wikipedia. In light of his choice and the disclosure he has made, I am posting the following diffs for the community's consideration. I had also provided these to Claudioalv and given him my thoughts on them.
:My userpage has no relation to my contributions. [[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]] ([[User talk:DFLPApologist|talk]]) 16:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Sigh''' Both users should be trouted for using their user pages for very bad-taste jokes. These pages should be deleted via MfD and, honestly, run a CU just in case. But, assuming these two aren't a pair of socks I think we can let them off with a warning not to do something so pointlessly edgy going forward. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Agreed, I think. Looking through their contributions, there's some potentially-good edits, e.g. [[Special:Diff/1257215939]]. (Although I'd like if someone ran a double-check on those references on the off chance it's subtle vandalism.) [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 17:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*Just pointing out that DPLPApologist's page includes the apparent quote "A homosexual cannot be a revolutionary." [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 16:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I am a lesbian. [[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]] ([[User talk:DFLPApologist|talk]]) 16:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I consider it highly likely that both of these accounts are controlled by the same person. Thd absurdist style is similar and the categories are very similar. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I just ripped off their userbox because I don’t know how to code [[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]] ([[User talk:DFLPApologist|talk]]) 18:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::infobox* [[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]] ([[User talk:DFLPApologist|talk]]) 18:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Furthermore, TheodoresTomfooleries is a left communist, while I am a Maoist. [[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]] ([[User talk:DFLPApologist|talk]]) 18:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::This style of absurdist humor is popular on ''leftist twitter'', which is why our profiles appear similar, and I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t inspired. [[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]] ([[User talk:DFLPApologist|talk]]) 18:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::But here's the thing, friend. This ''isn't'' twitter. This is Wikipedia. While I do agree that your user page should be something that is solely ''you'', certain things to not put in seemed to go without saying. [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 20:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::(after edit conflicts) If they're not the same person then they are friends. I suppose we should at least be grateful for [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:DFLPApologist&diff=next&oldid=1261890279 this edit]. Just block. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::I don't think being friends, or having multiple accounts, is against the rules. However, it does need to be properly disclosed. @[[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]] and @[[User:TheodoresTomfooleries|TheodoresTomfooleries]]: are these two accounts by the same person, or do you just happen to know each other? If two accounts, see our rules about [[WP:sockpuppetry|sockpuppetry]]. I would strongly recommend using only one account, as using multiple accounts is an easy way to get yourself banned. If you know each other, you should avoid making controversial edits to the same pages without disclosing this (which can violate the prohibitions on [[WP:meatpuppetry|meatpuppetry]] and [[WP:canvassing|canvassing]]). [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 19:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::We don’t know each other properly, I just found their profile on the Syria article and thought it was ridiculous. [[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]] ([[User talk:DFLPApologist|talk]]) 19:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::The only alternative account I have on Wikipedia is [[User:Kalivyah]], which I have specifically marked as such (and which I do not use anymore). Other than this, I do not know who @[[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]] is, and I suspect we simply met through the Syria article like she suggests.
*:::::I think it's a possibility I might know her from another platform, but I'm unable to confirm this-- and even whether I do or don't know her, it doesn't make it a case of sockpuppetry. [[User:TheodoresTomfooleries|TheodoresTomfooleries]] ([[User talk:TheodoresTomfooleries|talk]]) 00:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}{{u|DFLPApologist}}, this is not Twitter or social media of any kind. You wrote {{tpq|Unlimited genocide on the first world}} on the other editor's talk page. Why should other Wikipedia editors believe anything that you say? [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


:I've just revdelled about a dozen revisions on their userpage under RD2. I don't think the user was being remotely serious about what they said, but it's still gross and unnecessary. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 20:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEuropean_Graduate_School&type=revision&diff=707871019&oldid=707864822 here] Claudioalv says it is his understanding that what [[User:JzG|Guy]] said ''about him'' is "defamation"
:PMC has apparently revdelled multiple revisions upon my request but the content was extremely inappropriate and gross - I don't think any sane person would interpret it as humour [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#8B0000; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">The AP </span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#AA336A">''talk''</span>]]) 20:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Graduate_School&diff=prev&oldid=708132746 here] he says to Guy "On the opposite, you still refusing to look at the 2015 Accreditation in Malta and you used this talk page and the EGS article to defame the School by abusing your power as an administrator (for example I was blocked without any reason and now I am thinking that other users that you call sockpuppetry had the same treatment)."
::The good news is that nobody on the internet is sane. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 23:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEuropean_Graduate_School&type=revision&diff=709216874&oldid=709134201 here] he says about Guy's editing: " In legalese I would call that bad faith and defamation"
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEuropean_Graduate_School&type=revision&diff=709474431&oldid=709426763 here] he says that Guy has "maliciously built an article in order to defame the EGS"
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Graduate_School&diff=prev&oldid=709781636 here] he says "Waiting 30 days is just postpone the issue that an editor is defaming EGS by keep posting false information."
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEuropean_Graduate_School&type=revision&diff=709698486&oldid=709684363 here] he says to Guy "You are here to defame the school and not to write a neutral Enciclopedia and because the Wikipedia weak policy you have been successful"
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEuropean_Graduate_School&type=revision&diff=709782929&oldid=709781636 here] he says to Guy "By refusing to recognize Maltese law is showing that your conduct is malicious, and your only purpose here is defaming EGS"


*Any reason why both should not be blocked? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 20:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure if he still "owns" these statements or would retract them; I believe he understands Wikipedia somewhat differently now than he did before we started emailing offline. But I will leave that for him to say, and of course the community will do with all this as it will. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 05:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*:They have made fair edits - I guess it's better to warn them that they shouldn't add such inappropriate mentions on the user page and if they continue to make such gross comments - a block? [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#8B0000; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">The AP </span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#AA336A">''talk''</span>]]) 21:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
: The references to defamation are a clear implied legal threat and need to be removed.
*[[WP:ROPE]]. I know this essay is about blocked editors but I think it's an approach that can be useful in situations like this. And also, editors should not solely be judged by their User page but by their Contributions. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
: I did not create the article. The edit history shows that I have made exactly two edits to the article, almost a decade apart. Two.
*:Thank you. [[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]] ([[User talk:DFLPApologist|talk]]) 06:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
: In point of fact, I would be astounded if the creator was anyone other than the school itself. The initial version makes no mention of the accreditation issues even though it pre-dates the accreditation of some courses by Malte, so was at a time when ''no'' accreditation was apparently in place ''anywhere''. As I think others have said, nobody cares about this article other than them (as a marketplace) and a few Wikipedians who are not entirely delighted with commercial entities abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Of the two, the more motivated by far is the school. That is why they have sent so many [[WP:SPA]]s to whitewash the article over the years.
*::[[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]], I'm a big believer in ROPE but you are doing yourself no favors by referring to your fellow editors as a "woke mob". This is a collaborative project and even when we are discussing problems on the project, we talk about them with civility. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
: Finally, does anybody here genuinely think that legitimate schools need to hire attorneys to bully people into calling them accredited? Srsly? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 09:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


== Clear AI slop IP editor ==
* Now that at least one editor has weighed in , I will say that in my view these statements are clear violations of [[WP:NLT]] - especially given their repetition and the fact that person who made them is an attorney semi-representing the school - and Claudioalv should be indefinitely blocked for making them. They can address whether they wish to retract these statements in their unblock request. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 17:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Block applied directly to the IP. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)}}
:*Agree, they should be blocked per [[WP:NLT]] and probably also as [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[User:Joseph2302|Joseph2302]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk]]) 18:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/162.156.70.174]]
*I suggest reading the thread above [[WP:ANI#Legal threat in edit summary?]][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=714128302#Legal_threat_in_edit_summary.3F](and still not archived off this page), in particular [[User:Newyorkbrad]]'s remarks. [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] ([[User talk:Thincat|talk]]) 20:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
**Thanks, [[User:Thincat|Thincat]], for the cross-reference, as I'd like for more people to read what I wrote in that thread. OF course, the portion of my comments dealing with treatment of newcomers wouldn't apply in full to a much more experienced editor. Regards, [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::: The purpose of [[WP:NLT]], as I understand it, is to prevent the chilling effect of threatening potentially expensive off-wiki legal action. In this case the mention of the user's position in a law firm and their relationship with a lawyer retained by the subject is certainly intimidating, and it's hard to believe this is not intentional. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
: Thanks @Jytdog for your explanation about Wikipedia Policy. It was very helpful. As I have already written you, I was not aware about the rules, policy, and regulations in Wiki. It was my understanding that by reading the terms of Use I could write in the talk page (actually I have never edited any article).
:I apologyze with Guy if my affirmation (what I said are personal opinions and do not reflect EGS statements) made above constitute legal threat and WIki does not allow it. It is clearly stated in its policy, but I did not read it. I retract them and I am fine to remove them. I do not know how to do it, but if the community does help me, it would be great.
{{hat| hatting OFFTOPIC part of this}}
However, I do find that the School does not merit to be defined as questionable or pasty (as Guy did), because of the history of the article. I think that Guy does not know the School, but by defining the school in this way he is not an independent administrator who should look over the article(in fact, he reverted the article half an hour late a different ad update it with the Maltese accreditation). That was the reason why I opened the ANI. He would never change his opinion, nor if the President of the U.S. would say that the school is accredited. I was familiar with the EGS accreditation since January 2016 and the history dates back to years. Not being recognized in Texas, does not mean that the school confer degrees mill. This is the general understanding by reading the article and this is not true. I have also sent to @Jtddog the full official maltese accreditation. It was conferred in February 2016 (before the school was an Higher Education School and now it is a University with the recent maltese accreditation). There are no publications about the recent U accreditation because it is recent (however some Maltese article mention the 2016 accreditation, see Rfc in the EGS talk page). I do not understand why Wiki policy does not allow to say that the school is accredited in Malta(this info relies on an official governmental institute documentation and even if it is primary it is verifiable on their website) and we need to wait for an independent article. I think this is discrimination, because Wiki relies on Texas official Department of Education info and does not rely on the Maltese official governmental accreditation. By and large this was the argument I raised. I do not think administrators who looked over the article are idiots, nor I think I am. I do agree with Jztdog: "nobody cares about this article other than them and a few Wikipedians". But what about if Wiki defines your business "pasty" or "questionable"? Would you be happy or would you try to say the contrary if you have good reason to say that? EGS is not my business, and I did not promote them. I was just aware about the Malta accreditation (and the fact that two U.S. states does not mention anymore EGS in any list) and I spent my free time raising an argument on Wiki. I was probably wrong in "how" to raise this argument because I am not an expert of Wiki. But the content of my argument is based on official documents. I know that you disagree until an article publication is made and I still do not understand this rule. But I appreciate your time in clarifying me the Wiki policy. Thanks.
:[[User:Claudioalv|Claudioalv]] ([[User talk:Claudioalv|talk]]) 23:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
: You really don't seem to understand. Texas says that EGS degrees are nto acceptable. To list any institution's degrees as unacceptable is rare and notable. Of course EGS disputes this. There is enough copmmentary in the (non-RS) discusison boards showing serious problems with EGS courses and teaching, that I, personally, would not override the presumption that this unusual fact should be included in the article. Now I myself would not have created an article on this subject, because I do not think EGS is a significant school, but EGS seemingly decided to use Wikipedia as part of its marketing; on Wikipedia we absolutely do not offer a subject any form of editorial control and it is pretty much inevitable that well-sourced criticism will be included. If the subject also engages in a years-long campaign to remove criticism then the bar to including material proposed by the subject in rebuttal to independent sources showing the subject to be less than stellar, increases. It's a variant of the [[Streisand effect]]. Wikipedia articles are [[wikt:warts and all|warts and all]], and this is foundational policy. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 23:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
{{hab}}
:: OK, this ANI thread is not for discussing the content dispute. I have hatted content-related discussion. So Claudialv has retracted the legal threats. The community can determine if that is sufficient to close this, or if Claudioalv should still be indeffed for having made them at all. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 23:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::: Or as a disruptive [[WP:SPA]] on a mission. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 07:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::: Actually I want to edit an other article. My roommate is listed in Wiki with her husband surname even if they divorced some years ago. Divorce certificate is not listed anywhere, she tried to update her article, but she found this task very challanging and the current status is not longer true. I hope that this time I do not have to disclose that I am her roommate, nor that I am not going to charge her for editing a Wiki article. Thanks. [[User:Claudioalv|Claudioalv]] ([[User talk:Claudioalv|talk]]) 15:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::::: Then leave a note on the talk page. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


Behaviour has been sporadically ongoing since June 2024.
== Appeal for removal of ban ==
{{archive top|Consensus is clearly in favor of lifting the editing restriction in light of significant improvement. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 19:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC) }}
Hi, according to a [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Topic ban proposal for Royroydeb|January 2015]] consensus, I was banned from creating BLPs. I at that time massly created poor quality stubs BLPs and even articles about non-notable persons; in rush. Experience has showed me that my actions were wrong. Since then I had promoted the following articles:
*DYKs - [[Alan Carvalho]], [[Digão (footballer, born 1988)]], [[Caio Rangel]], [[Jeremy Dudziak]], [[Hugo Moutinho]], [[Erik Lima]], [[Cristian Bustos]], [[Jorge Alonso]], [[Alejandro Zamora]], [[Rafa Jordà]] and [[Éder Monteiro Fernandes]]
*GAs - [[Josh Walker]], [[Cillian Sheridan]], [[Harry Kane]], [[Serdar Tasci]], [[Zesh Rehman]], [[Darren O'Dea]] and [[Michael Chopra]]
In recent times, I also did not have any conflict with any user about BLPs. It is my earnest request to have my ban revoked. One of the reason is that since now is my holidays, I want to promote more DYKs. I also understand that I will not repeat my behaviour. [[User:Royroydeb|RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি]] ([[User talk:Royroydeb|talk]]) 10:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


'''Block history'''
:I also urge to look at my [[Special:Contributions/Royroydeb|Contributions]]. [[User:Royroydeb|RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি]] ([[User talk:Royroydeb|talk]]) 11:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


- [[User talk:162.156.70.174#August 2024|User talk:162.156.70.174#August 2024|Blocked in August 2024 for linking their AI generated slop articles into mainspace. TPA also revoked.]]
*'''Comment''': This has been appealed three times before: In July 2015 [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive271#Appeal]], again in July 2015 ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273#Appeal]]) and in October 2015 ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#Appeal]]). —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 10:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
**I will say, though, that getting GAs and DYKs on BLP topics, including on sportspeople—when such articles were one of the main reasons for the topic ban—makes me inclined to support this request. That said I haven't taken a deep look just yet. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 10:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Suggest''' On a basis of good fath and the fact that over a year has passed, that the ban is removed- ''but'' with the proviso that the first time such behaviour reappears, the editor is to be immediately sanctioned, by the first available admin, with no requirement to appear before a board. Such action would be, not punative, but preventative: as by now the community knows what would happen. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 10:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
**Another option: If it doesn't look like lifting the ban will happen, is to allow creating whatever in draftspace and submitting it to AfC. I know in one of the last appeal discussions this was suggested, but I think it was after conversation died. Anyway I do '''support''' such a plan as an option, though I still have no opinion on an outright lifting of the topic ban. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 11:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' lifting, this is exactly the pattern we're looking for in an appeal. Blocks and sanctions are cheap, and can be imposed immediately if the original problematic behavior continues, but it now appears likely that WP will benefit by allowing this editor to create new BLPs. <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 12:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
* '''Support''', RRD13 seems to have got to grips with sourcing and article quality standards, the risk of repeat issues looks low on the face of it and a fix is easy if it does recur. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 13:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above comments. The appellant has demonstrated a record indicating dramatic improvement in content creation and appears to recognize and accept their previous problematic behavior. If the problem were to recur it would be fairly easy to put the ban back in place. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 17:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' now that I've looked a bit more. Looks like a much better grasp of standards than we saw before. Time to give Royroydeb a chance! —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 22:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support:''' This is precisely the behavior we want to encourage from topic-banned users. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 00:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - User's improved alot since 2015 and seems to understand policies etc so see no reason to leave the ban in place. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 01:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


- [[User talk:162.156.70.174#August_2024_(2)|Blocked and TPA revoked again later in August 2024.]]
== Automotive IP user ==


'''Has created the following AI slop drafts:'''
An user with different ip addresses wants to use the words "utility vehicle" in lots of articles. It has been discussed at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Pickup truck vs Utility vehicle|WikiProject Automobiles]], and almost everyone agreed that it was a bad idea. That didn't stop him from edit warring to the point that three pages
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=713978196&oldid=713976315 were protected] yesterday. Today he continued with the same type of edits in other articles: {{IPvandal|202.94.72.250}} And when I reverted his edits he begun reverting edits by me and by another user that has reverted his, including several edits in articles unrelated to the "utility vehicle" dispute: {{IPvandal|116.212.233.96}} All the ip addresses he uses seem to be located in [[Perth]]. <span style="color:snow;background:#38E">⛐</span>[[User:Boivie|Boivie]] ([[User talk:Boivie|talk]]) 11:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


- [[Draft:The_Rise_of_Eco-Fascism:_A_Threat_to_Climate_Justice]]
:: Oh, yes. The IP editor is reverting random edits from all those he deems to have been against his utility vehicle crusade. I suggest IP block Australia, that should fix it. [[User:Spacecowboy420|Spacecowboy420]] ([[User talk:Spacecowboy420|talk]]) 11:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::{{small|We don't have utility vehicles in Australia, we have ''utes''. [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 02:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)}}
:::New ip again {{IPvandal|49.199.120.128}} <span style="color:snow;background:#38E">⛐</span>[[User:Boivie|Boivie]] ([[User talk:Boivie|talk]]) 12:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


- [[Draft:Climate_Policy_and_Far-Right_Influence]]
* I put a couple of blocks in place, keep us up to date. Thanks for the report. <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 12:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


- [[Draft:Economic_Impacts_of_Climate_Change]]
:: I wonder if there is anything further that can be done?
:: I'm assuming a huge range block can't work, as blocking an entire ISP's customers is not what wikipedia wants to do.
:: Protecting articles might be hard, as this guy will just go to wherever isn't protected.
:: What happens next? I'm assuming he will get bored and move on to abusing people on facebook or something equally mature. [[User:Spacecowboy420|Spacecowboy420]] ([[User talk:Spacecowboy420|talk]]) 13:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


'''Has added AI slop to the [[Ecofacism]] article:'''
::: Oh. [[Special:Contributions/49.199.76.170]] [[User:Spacecowboy420|Spacecowboy420]] ([[User talk:Spacecowboy420|talk]]) 13:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::: Noted... <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 13:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


- [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ecofascism&diff=prev&oldid=1261793047 Diff #1]
* There are things that can be done. Preference is to start with the lowest-impact tools and see if that does the trick. <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 13:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
* The fundamental problem here is that the world fails to use the correct terminology for utes, instead calling them pickup trucks. Wikipedia should promulgate a new policy mandating all Americans to start using the word ute, as God intended. Until then, we could try an edit filter or semi protection. Or play whack-a-mole. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 13:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


- [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ecofascism&diff=prev&oldid=1261801902 Diff #2]
::: I'm sure my suggestion of range blocking all of Australia, would be equally effective. [[User:Spacecowboy420|Spacecowboy420]] ([[User talk:Spacecowboy420|talk]]) 13:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


'''Has made AI slop threads / replies:'''
:::: Or you could refrain from making continuous personal attacks on talk pages and maybe you would improve your chances of having a reasonable discussion rather than feeling the need to make 'suggestions' to administrators. Also a general attempt to understand the issue rather than relating it back to an unrelated point may also be of some value [[Special:Contributions/49.183.142.79|49.183.142.79]] ([[User talk:49.183.142.79|talk]]) 14:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::Wot? [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 14:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::IP from Perth. Clearly they are concerned about the impending Australia range block. [[User:Timothyjosephwood|Timothyjosephwood]] ([[User talk:Timothyjosephwood|talk]]) 14:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::: I read this as "please block this IP as well". Was that not what they were saying? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 14:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


- [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ecofascism&diff=prev&oldid=1261790897 Talk:Ecofascism #1]
::: I'm not sure, perhaps they were saying please block my entire ISP ? [[User:Spacecowboy420|Spacecowboy420]] ([[User talk:Spacecowboy420|talk]]) 14:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


- [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ecofascism&diff=prev&oldid=1261790897 Talk:Ecofascism #2]
:::: Could be, not sure what bearing it has on the point at hand however [[Special:Contributions/49.183.142.79|49.183.142.79]] ([[User talk:49.183.142.79|talk]]) 14:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::I think the point is a resonable discussion has already been held and most participants including those from Australia and New Zealand (like me) already understand the issues. This discussion appears to have reached some sort of consensus, or at the very least there's no consensus for your changes. Despite that you're edit warring to make these unsupported changes and if you were using an account you'd probably already be indef blocked. But since you're edit warring with multiple IPs, either we have to block the entirety of Perth Optus users or use [[WP:RBI]]. From now own don't be surprised if this applies to your comments anywhere including here since you're still block evading, so they can be removed and you ignored, not because there has not been a resonable discussion or because people don't understand or because they are going off point. <small>You're Australian so I guess we can make some allowances for you being slow on the uptake but even so.... ''Ducks''</small> [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::Perhaps an edit filter to stop this? {{small|I'm going to send my army of drop bears at you, Nil.}} [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 02:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


- [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1231748951 WP:Help Desk #1]
:: One point that I was slightly concerned about... Are editors that continue to revert these edits by the IP editor subject to 3RR? I'm quite happy to revert this guy 24/7, if I know that I won't be subject to any sanctions for making 20+ reverts per day on a single article. [[User:Spacecowboy420|Spacecowboy420]] ([[User talk:Spacecowboy420|talk]]) 06:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::: [[WP:NOT3RR]]: "3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." The IP was blocked for an extensive period of time. IP's are users even if they switch IP. Feel free to revert away. Although you might get bored before they do, I lived in Perth for 3 years and it is singularly the most boring place in the world I have been to. And this is after living in Thetford. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 08:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


- [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1231744594 WP:Help Desk #2]
Please block [[Special:Contributions/60.230.206.154]] as per the above discussion. [[User:Spacecowboy420|Spacecowboy420]] ([[User talk:Spacecowboy420|talk]]) 12:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


- [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=1231748317 WP:Teahouse]
and [[Special:Contributions/49.183.142.79]] (and probably a million new IPs who perform the same ignorant edits) [[User:Spacecowboy420|Spacecowboy420]] ([[User talk:Spacecowboy420|talk]]) 13:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


- [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:162.156.70.174&diff=prev&oldid=1231835756 Their User Talk page #1]
== Repeated recreation of deleted article ==


- [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:162.156.70.174&diff=prev&oldid=1231859497 Their User Talk page #2]
*{{user5|Moonshine7*}}
*{{user5|Moon7star}}
These users keep recreating an article about Jin from [[BTS (band)]] ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jin (singer)]]). [[Jin (Bangtan Boys)]] is their (they claim to be friends) fifth recreation since January. See their talk pages for a record of this. Some were redirected, and some were deleted. They have also both uploaded the same copyvio image on Commons. I think blocks may be needed to stop the constant recreation. [[User:Random86|Random86]] ([[User talk:Random86|talk]]) 13:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


- [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:162.156.70.174&diff=prev&oldid=1261773089 Their User Talk page #3]
* G4'd that one. <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 13:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
* Oh good grief. These people take themselves so seriously. Redirect and protect, is my best suggestion. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 13:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
* Both Moon... editors blocked. <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 13:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


- [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1261926945 AfC Helpdesk #1]
== IP vandal editing ==


- [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1261942209 AfC Helpdesk #2]
Could someone research [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Freedom_Riders&diff=prev&oldid=714206074 User:31.149.155.204]. There is a trail of questionable edits associated with this IP. Thank you. [[User:Mitchumch|Mitchumch]] ([[User talk:Mitchumch|talk]]) 09:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


<span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">'''[[User:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">qcne</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">(talk)</span>]]</small></span> 20:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:Couple of kids mucking about at a school in Alkmaar, NL, it would seem. (non-admin comment) Cheers, [[User:Gricehead|Gricehead]] ([[User talk:Gricehead|talk]]) 10:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


:<sup>Courtesy ping to prior blocking admins: @[[User:Jake Wartenberg|Jake Wartenberg]], @[[User:Paul Erik|Paul Erik]], @[[User:Jpgordon|Jpgordon]], @[[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]]</sup> <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">'''[[User:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">qcne</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">(talk)</span>]]</small></span> 20:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, it's a school IP. They've long stopped now. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 14:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:See also [[Wikipedia talk: Administrators' noticeboard#Subject: Clarification and Assistance Needed for "The Economic Impacts of Climate Change: A Journey Towards a Sustainable Future"]] [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 21:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:I am regular editor who has recently become aware of this user and I am also highly concerned by their behaviour. ALL of their edits, including response to other users and administrators, is clearly AI-generated. When asked to stop, they lie and insist ''they ''are not. ''They ''also insist they are two human collaborators, rather than one person who has developed an unhealthy attachment to an AI-chatbot.
:They have received multiple warnings, all their edits end up getting reverted, they're don't take onboard any input, etc etc My view is that they need to be barred from input into Wikipedia. [[User:CeltBrowne|CeltBrowne]] ([[User talk:CeltBrowne|talk]]) 22:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::IP blocked and silenced. [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107;]]</small></sup> 22:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ground News]]; [[WP:LLM]] involvement & [[WP:COMPROMISED]] suspicions ==
== Repeated personal attacks and baseless accusations made by Legacypac ==


*{{user|Bartimas2}}
I've tried to tell Legacypac that personal attacks are discouraged. It's been enough.
*{{user|Fxober}}
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALegacypac&type=revision&diff=713926454&oldid=713926155 Calling me a troll]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&diff=next&oldid=713927099 Calls my edits troll-like, tries to obfuscate it or something, not to mention, I've no idea what in the world temptating means]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AUser_pages%2FRfC_for_stale_drafts_policy_restructuring&type=revision&diff=714205155&oldid=714204402 Compares me to a pig, I well know it as an idiom as Shaw's quote but it's insult was not lost on me]
I've warned him again and again.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&diff=prev&oldid=713927099 1st warning]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&diff=next&oldid=713927633 2nd warning]
Then, he said that I must keep off his talk page, so I did. And one more:
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QEDK&diff=prev&oldid=714201430 On my talk page]
And I've warned him on the RfC page too.
{{u|HighInBC}} told me that on my talk page that my conduct was sub-par and that I failed to assume AGF [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALegacypac&type=revision&diff=713926155&oldid=713922981 here]. Well, the thing is after Legacypac says something like, {{tq|"It is exceptionally hard to get them deleted at MfD especially for lack of notability, but in mainspace A7 etc can be applied."}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALegacypac&type=revision&diff=711556033&oldid=711555659 diff] you simply can't assume good faith. (It - Drafts)<br />
Legacypac has a good history of personal attacks too, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALegacypac&type=revision&diff=712991779&oldid=712146947 he got warned for one here].
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FDraft%3ADuplekita&type=revision&diff=713308496&oldid=713276651 comparing other editors to a troll (yes, again!)]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2016_April_3&type=revision&diff=713389794&oldid=713387994 accusing someone of PA, the irony]
Some more baseless accusations with no proof:
* {{tq|Ches & WV are essentially joined at the hip, to the point I wonder if one is not a sock of the other.}}
* {{tq|this is just another attempt by WV's meat puppet to attack an editor they disagree with}}
* {{tq|WV loves one way interaction bans.}}
WV - Winkelvi, Ches - Chesnaught555 <br />
Not to mention, Legacypac has a chronic problem with opposition, creating revenge threads on ANI for each of them, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_Disruption_by_User:QEDK here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Godsy_Disruption_.26_GAMING_the_System here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive918#Threats_from_Cryptic_.26_CSD:U5 here]. Also, to top it off, a beautiful piece of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQEDK&type=revision&diff=714199273&oldid=714178362 ad hominem attitude]. Hope I've bored you enough. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|QEDK]] <small>([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:orange">T</span>]] &#9749; [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:green">C</span>]])</small></span> 10:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
* Ease up please QEDK. It has been great having you on my side in trying to get some points across, but we are now making progress. Legacypac has received a awful lot of criticism, sorry that you have received the reaction, but let's ease up and let the RfC have some air. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 10:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:: {{re|SmokeyJoe}} Maybe if you were in my position, you'd say otherwise. We're making progress on the content side of it, yes but that is no reason to take me for granted, I am a human and I see no reason why I am repeatedly attacked even after I tried, again and again, to be the nice person in the whole incident. If he's received criticism, I trust it's for a reason. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|QEDK]] <small>([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:orange">T</span>]] &#9749; [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:green">C</span>]])</small></span> 10:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


This discussion about a news aggregator seems like it may be compromised both by LLM rationales and the possibility of a compromised account. Bartimas's first edit is on this discussion and their rationale reads as a complete chatbot hallucination that makes no real sense, while Fxober may have been here much longer, but it reads the same and does not resemble the writing style or language of any of their past edits, nor interest spaces at all, so I'm suspecting that their account may have been unfortunately compromised. As is this is one of those constant YouTube advertisers that has some controversy I feel like someone external may be trying to weigh down the scales of this discussion outside the first two voters who had proper reasons for their keep (the third from {{user|2603:6011:9600:52C0:414B:816B:94D5:DA4}} is another first-edit just saying 'keep' and just as suspicisious). <span style="font-family: Roboto;">'''[[User:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:royalblue4">Nate</span>]]''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:#B8860B">chatter</span>]])''</small></span> 21:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' {{U|QEDK}} is spot on and I'm glad he provided examples that involve me because I would have done the same. I have been the subject of LP's attacks and sub-par behavior for quite some time. I've asked him to stop, I've warned him he needs to stop. There are others who have done the same and have also been the object of his uncivil behavior. He seems to think he's made of Teflon and continues without care. How long do we, as a community, have to take his abuse? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 11:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:I think Bartimas2 can be dealt with using a {{tl|uw-coi}} warning. I'm also not seeing any evidence of a compromised account nor does Fxober's post appear to be AI generated. I don't think an LLM would use a comma like Fxober did in the first sentence, for example. I take Fxober's !vote to be "keep, other stuff exists" per [[Special:Diff/1260474350/cur|their accompanying edit]] to the article. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 21:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*QEDK: Your "troll" diff shows LP removing your comment from his talk page; your comment, in full, was "{{tq|That's '''''purposeful misinterpretation''''' for ya.}}". Are you saying you were not trolling? The "wrestling a pig" diff shows LP removing his comment where he had written hyper-abbreviated nonsense to mimic your comment written in that style. Doing that is not ideal editor behavior but it's not that bad under the circumstances (why did you write that nonsense?). [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 12:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::{{re|Johnuniq}} I prefer you stop your insinuation, I think everyone (except you i.e.) understood that I wasn't trolling and I've discussed it with specific detail (did you by any chance, miss the edit summaries?). I did not write that nonsense, SmokeyJoe decided to remove vowels from our conversation and Legacypac was well aware of that, since he replied to me when the comment was unmodified and later removed his modified comment. You should know the actual substance of the whole situation before you take on your challenge. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|QEDK]] <small>([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:orange">T</span>]] &#9749; [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:green">C</span>]])</small></span> 12:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&diff=prev&oldid=713926155 You most certainly did make that remark.] As well as [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&diff=prev&oldid=713927099 the other one where you templated him/her]. You know very well what he/she meant by temptating. I don't 100% understand your reply - to be fair. [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!</sup>]] 13:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::::I don't think everyone understood that you weren't trolling. It looked to me like you were trying to illicit a negative reaction. What starts out as a friendly conversation quickly devolved into you making accusations of bad faith. Someone interpreting things differently as you is not the same as "'''purposeful misinterpretation'''". Once you went to the accusations of bad faith you were reverted, to which you responded to with a template, which was reverted, and you gave another template. Is this a productive means of communication?
::::Yes, Legacypac called you some names, but you are hardly without blame here. Attacking somebodies motives is at least as uncivil as name calling. My comment on your user page was meant to prepare you for the fact that both of your behaviour would be looked at if you felt the need to make a post about this here, I am glad you are comfortable with that. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b>]] 13:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{reply|SQL}} When did I say that I did not? And my vocabulary is not well enough, so I guess I haven't come across the word, "temptating", maybe you can shed light on the matter. Also, there's a reason I templated him/her, I meant to warn him of the impending result and not to make rash decisions without thought. He, however, did not care.
:::::{{reply|HighInBC}} I do not fear scrutiny. If the community thinks I assumed bad faith without reason or that I've been in the wrong multiple times, I shall pay the price. You don't need to keep reminding me of that. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|QEDK]] <small>([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:orange">T</span>]] &#9749; [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:green">C</span>]])</small></span> 14:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::You seem to very clearly understand the typo "temptating" to mean "templating". For two, in your rant, you made the statement "I did not write that nonsense, SmokeyJoe decided to remove vowels from our conversation and Legacypac was well aware of that, since he replied to me when the comment was unmodified and later removed his modified comment.". It seems to be in reference to one of the diffs I linked - tho I am having a lot of trouble identifying what you are talking about. [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!</sup>]] 14:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}
I am just wondering what admin action you think should apply to legacy? You assumed bad faith, he called you a name, really it is not something I would block either of you for. It is certainly not something I would block one but not the other for. However I am involved enough in the underlying dispute that another admin can decide what to do, or what not to do. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b>]] 14:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:It's not just you - I don't see what action could be taken here that benefits the encyclopedia, and holds to our policies. I guess, really really technically they could both be warned to behave better in the future? [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!</sup>]] 14:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it calls for just a warning, and since anyone can give a warning here it is. Legacypac, please don't engage in name calling as it is against our policy. QEDK, please don't assume bad faith as it is also against our policy. I really don't know what benefit further action will result in. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b>]] 14:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:See this [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AUser_pages%2FRfC_for_stale_drafts_policy_restructuring&type=revision&diff=714205155&oldid=714204402]. This is the nonsense I was talking about. Also, I thought temptating was tempting but I could make no connection, thanks for shedding the light.
:Since both of you have been involved in previous disputes (typically on the other side), I prefer to not take my advice regarding this from you. The community can decide. Thanks, though. I believe a one-off wrong can be differentiated from repeated disgraceful behaviour, since 2 admins here clearly can't see the difference. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|QEDK]] <small>([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:orange">T</span>]] &#9749; [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:green">C</span>]])</small></span> 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*I just wish all these cats would stop reporting each other. If they can confine their...what's the word...mutual bitching? sniping? at each other to their talk pages, we'd all be better off. *Sigh* [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 15:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::Sadly I've been banned from his talk page with a "Buzz off." *sigh* --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|QEDK]] <small>([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:orange">T</span>]] &#9749; [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:green">C</span>]])</small></span> 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Maybe you don't understand Drmies, but we've tried to be nice, time and again. Yet, we are here again, despite all the effort, now all wasted on him. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|QEDK]] <small>([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:orange">T</span>]] &#9749; [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:green">C</span>]])</small></span> 15:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::::{{tq|"we've tried to be nice, time and again."}} Amen to that. It's as if no one cares about [[WP:CIVIL]] anymore, including admins who seem to be no longer taking it seriously (not pointing a finger at you, {{U|Drmies}}, I'm making a general observation). I understand telling editors they need to toughen up and/or just go about their business and not be so sensitive, but in the case of LP (and, frankly, another editor I can think of immediately) it's a continual thumb of the nose from him in the way of what's collegial and civil. He seems to simply no longer care that he's being unbelievably rude and attacking other editors and that behavior is impeding productive contributions, productive discussion, and productive solutions to problems. In other words: it's gone past being annoying, it's disruptive and destructive. My personal opinion about why he does it is because ''no one is doing anything about it'' and he's been allowed to continue in that vein repeatedly. Anyone even remotely familiar with behavior management could look at the unwanted, inappropriate behavior and attitude from LP in conjunction with the lack of reaction from admins and say: if there are no consequences, the message being sent is "please continue and escalate". And that's exactly what he's doing. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 15:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::I'm not trying to tell anyone to toughen up--but admins (if I can generalize) just get tired of this. The chain of diffs and insults is too complicated and tedious, and maybe iBans all around are the only solution, but then, who would want to enforce iBans, which are notoriously difficult to apply? [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I strive for accuracy in communications and [[Internet troll]] fits QEDK's actions exactly. I have real life work to do today and [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wrestle_with_a_pig wrestling with a pig] is not on my priority list. I'm sorry if anything I said was misinterpreted as name calling. No one has ever been banned from my talk page, but I do remove personal attacks and nonsense from it as is my right. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 15:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*But your accuracy, then, leads to a personal attack. "Internet troll", when applied to a Wikipedia editor, means you don't believe the editor to be contributing to the project in good faith--but ANI is not a good forum if the case is not so easy to make, which I think is what's happening here as well. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*[[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] you are often rude and accusatory in your interactions. I can very well see why [[User:QEDK|QEDK]] has lost patience with you. [[Special:Contributions/217.38.191.252|217.38.191.252]] ([[User talk:217.38.191.252|talk]]) 17:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::@Drmies you are welcome to your idea of what trolling is, but that is not exactly my idea. My meaning is best summed up in the lead of [[Internet troll]] "a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement." There are part time trolls and even single troll type edits so saying an edit is trolling or the editor is acting like a troll does not imply all their activity falls into trolling. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 17:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


== Persistent disruptive behaviour and unsubstantiated [[MOS:PUFFERY]] by 155.69.190.63 ==
For a great laugh, check out WV last userpage edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&diff=next&oldid=713965628] compared to his posts in this thread. Looks like he is calling someone a troll to me. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 18:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:There is no plausible way that QEDK could be called a troll. He started out complaining about specific actions by Legacypac (which have been reverted, per consensus). Furthermore, I see no plausible reading of LP's comments which does not constitute a stealthy attempt to rewrite policies on drafts. Now that the draft policy discussion is out in the open, QEDK, LP, and others should stop commenting on the former actions, but only comment on current actions (of which QEDK's here and LP's on the guidelines and on user talk pages deserve censure.) — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 18:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:Referring to someone as a troll on one occasion among a ton of edit summaries and talk page discussions where few to none such comments have taken place previously is not a good parallel for you to make, LP. Why? Because you personally attack other editors and call them names frequently. If your habit of doing so were not reality, Drmies wouldn't have pointed out to you what he did above. Indeed, I've never known him to just make such comments willy-nilly or without a good reason - he's very reluctant to make such accusations, in my experience. What's more, for you to say, in essence, "Look, they did it, so it's okay for me to do it, too!" is not a good defense. In fact, it's a very childish response. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 19:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


Calling for intervention against persistent disruptive patterns from [[Special:Contributions/155.69.190.63|155.69.190.63]], which has repeatedly added [[WP:RS|unverified]] claims, and tendencies to disregard [[WP:EDITING|editing policies]] and [[WP:CHERRYPICKING|misrepresentation]] in [[List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru]] and other related articles.
== DrChrissy ==


*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Johor_Bahru&diff=prev&oldid=1261482470] Unexplained addition of unverified claims, with no [[WP:RS]].
I hate to do this, but it looks like {{u|DrChrissy}} is on some sort of vendetta against me and has [[WP:WIKISTALK]]ed me to the page [[Earth Similarity Index]].
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Malaysia&diff=prev&oldid=1261483344] Another unexplained edit, without any [[WP:ES]].
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Johor_Bahru&diff=prev&oldid=1261505260] Misrepresenting data from the [[Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat]], which itself does not indicate that "Johor Bahru is also currently the nation's second tallest city in terms of number of 200 metres and above skyscrapers", quite possibly to advance said IP address' [[MOS:PUFFERY]].


Said IP address even attempted to justify why they refused the [[WP:BURDEN|burden of proof]] in [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:155.69.190.63&diff=prev&oldid=1261501934 their talk page] and insinuated me in [[WP:ABF|bad faith]] of disruptive behaviour. [[User:HundenvonPenang|hundenvonPG]] ([[User talk:HundenvonPenang|talk]]) 04:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
For some background, DrChrissy is topic banned from [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=698553387#Clarification_request:_Genetically_modified_organism_.282.29 GMO] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive885#Topic_ban_for_DrChrissy|alt med articles]]. The reasons for this are the account's combative attitude and the problems related to pseudoscience promotion at those delicate areas. I have tried many times to bury the hatchet with this account, and it just seems impossible. The account seems bound and determined to go on the attack.


:I should say, of the three diffs you mentioned, only one (the first) seems like it could even be ''potentially'' objectionable, and I'd have to read through the issue in greater detail before I could comment meaningfully.
It was with some trepidation that I noticed the account followed me to an area I'm working on that is part of my professional expertise.
:Are you sure those are the diffs you meant to point to? [[User:DragonflySixtyseven|DS]] ([[User talk:DragonflySixtyseven|talk]]) 04:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:: My bad, [[User:DragonflySixtyseven|DragonflySixtyseven]]. I have fixed the third link - that is the one where said IP address misrepresented a source to push puffed up claims. [[User:HundenvonPenang|hundenvonPG]] ([[User talk:HundenvonPenang|talk]]) 04:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:Hi {{u|HundenvonPenang}}, I'm responding per your request at {{slink|User talk:Newslinger#Seeking assist in WP:ANI}}. I think your post on this conduct-oriented noticeboard is premature, since an editor should be given an adequate chance to defend their edits with the appropriate [[WP:PAG|policies and guidelines]] in a [[WP:RCD|content dispute]] before they are reported for [[WP:RUCD|conduct issues]]. Please start discussions on the affected articles' respective talk pages and explain why you have determined the edits in question are in violation of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. If an editor repeatedly makes edits against the [[WP:CON|consensus]] that arises from these discussions, then a report on this noticeboard would be warranted. —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 04:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::Hi [[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]], I have no intention of potentially starting an edit war, but said IP address has shown repeated tendencies to disregard established [[Wikipedia:Editing policy|editing policies]], misrepresentation and making unsubstantiated claims. But I shall [[WP:FIXIT]] anyway on the [[List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru]] and concurrently responded to IP address' talk page's allegations. [[User:HundenvonPenang|hundenvonPG]] ([[User talk:HundenvonPenang|talk]]) 05:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::A commonly recommended process for resolving content disputes is the [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|BOLD, revert, discuss cycle]] ([[WP:BRD]]). Instead of immediately reverting the other editor for a different interpretation of a cited source (e.g. [[Special:Diff/1262019325]]), this process involves starting a discussion on the article talk page (e.g. [[Talk:List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru]]) and inviting the other editor to justify their edits.{{bcc|HundenvonPenang}} —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 05:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Hi [[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]], I have added a discussion in the [[Talk:List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru]], but said IP address has instead launched into [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] in [[WP:ABF|bad faith]].
::::To quote exact words from that IP address in their [[User talk:155.69.190.63|user talk]]:
::::*"You seem to have pretend not to see it due to some inferiority complex", and
::::*"This is indeed very sad and is a type of inferiority complex. I feel you."
::::I believe this behaviour is simply uncalled for and warrants intervention for the lack of constructivity on the part of the IP address. [[User:HundenvonPenang|hundenvonPG]] ([[User talk:HundenvonPenang|talk]]) 07:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Pinging [[User:DragonflySixtyseven]] as IP address has responded in their talk page, for your perusal. [[User:HundenvonPenang|hundenvonPG]] ([[User talk:HundenvonPenang|talk]]) 07:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have warned the IP to not accuse another editor of having an "inferiority complex". That is an unwarranted [[WP:PA|personal attack]] and is a policy violation. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== User Thaivo doing... something? on their talk page ==
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=prev&oldid=713524583 The first edit is an obvious attempt to needle me]
{{atop|1=TPA revoked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=next&oldid=713533105 I try to respond civilly]
[[Special:Contributions/Thaivo|This user]] was blocked indefinitely in May 2024 by @[[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] for "clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia". Since then they've been editing their talk page and adding code. I'm not sure what exactly is being done but it seems to be violating [[WP:HOST]]. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 04:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


:Talk page access revoked. Looks like they were using it as temporary workspace for code dumps. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 04:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=prev&oldid=713531444 The next talkpage edit is fine]
{{abot}}
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=next&oldid=713532268 I try to respond civilly]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=next&oldid=713534481 A vague side-eye]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=next&oldid=713542983 I try to respond civilly]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=next&oldid=713544886 Another disagreement with me]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=next&oldid=713545143 I try to respond civilly]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=next&oldid=713545947 Seemingly coming to agreement? (YAY!)]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=next&oldid=713546876 I try to respond civilly ]
''Silence from DrChrissy for two days''
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEarth_Similarity_Index&type=revision&diff=714151914&oldid=714151556 Return and discusses a source in a very obscure journal]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=next&oldid=714153498 I'm pretty appalled that this source is being used. It is very poor]
*'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=next&oldid=714245228 Personal attack by DrChrissy against me]'''
*'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=next&oldid=714262665 Another personal attack]'''
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=next&oldid=714265760 I point out what's going on]

This is becoming a big distraction, and owing to DrChrissy's topic bans on other pages, I'm wondering if an administrator might get him/her to not attack me on discussion pages?

Thanks,

[[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|jps]] ([[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|talk]]) 18:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

::One of the collapsible boxes at the top of this page is "how to use this page" This clearly states {{tq|New threads should carry an informative, neutral title}}. The title to this thread is clearly not neutral and is deliberately intended to Poison the well. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User talk:DrChrissy|(talk)]]</span></sup> 18:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - I don't see any personal attacks, just a few not-nice remarks and a disagreement about content. The only notable thing is that DrCrissy appears to have followed you to the article ([https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?page=Earth_Similarity_Index&users=I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc&users=DrChrissy Interaction checker for article] and [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?page=Talk%3AEarth_Similarity_Index&users=I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc&users=DrChrissy talk page]). Is there a pattern of this behavior, or is it a one-off incident? If the former, not sure why this is being brought up here. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please &#123;&#123;[[Template:re|re]]&#125;&#125;</small> 18:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
**Yep, there is a history: [http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?page=Wikipedia%3AFringe_theories%2FNoticeboard&users=I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc&users=DrChrissy DrChrissy wikistalked me to WP:FTN to promote parapsychology] and [http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?page=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FI9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc&users=I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc&users=DrChrissy Wikistalked me to a sockpuppet investigation that went nowhere]. Note that there is also [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive916#Reverting_removal_of_racism|history between you and I, EvergreenFir.]][[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|jps]] ([[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|talk]]) 18:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Question''' Is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atsme&diff=prev&oldid=714270329 this] canvassing by the OP? <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User talk:DrChrissy|(talk)]]</span></sup> 18:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I don't see incivility from either party. Just looks like a content dispute to me and more polite than many. I would regard the plea to Atsme to be canvassing, though. ([[User:Littleolive oil|Littleolive oil]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 19:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC))
**'''Note''' that Littleolive oil and I have clashed over pseudoscience issues, especially with regards to [[Transcendental Meditation]] which this account has been shown in the past to unduly promote. [[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|jps]] ([[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|talk]]) 19:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Unduly promote... Your opinion and how long ago was that. Come on jps don't try and muddy the discussion here by disqualifying the editors who take the time to speak. I tried to be fair here. This comment does no one a disservice but you.([[User:Littleolive oil|Littleolive oil]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 19:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC))
::Spare me the crocodile tears. I know what your agenda is here and your attempts to be "fair" seem to include making mostly negative statements about me. If this is what you call trying to be fair, I would prefer it if you voluntarily stayed away from conversations that I start which do not involve you. I'll do the same for you. Fair enough? [[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|jps]] ([[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|talk]]) 19:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Actually jps my agenda was to look at this and be fair. I looked at the diffs and saw nothing that supported your allegations and supposedly no one else did either. I wanted to be neutral and to assume the best faith with you and Dr Chrissy so suggested you both walk away You asked for input you got it but you mischaracterized that as potential stalking. I have no idea if Dr Chrissy is following you around but there's nothing in the thread that indicates he is. You did canvass another editor. At the same time I suggested you both drop this; that's fair. I could have made other suggestions based on what you've said here; I didn't. I'm sorry you see my actions this way and are reacting with nastiness. I have no fight with you.([[User:Littleolive oil|Littleolive oil]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 20:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC))
*'''Comment''' The [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=prev&oldid=713524583 "vague side eye"] doesn't seem malicious in any way. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=next&oldid=713544886 "disagreement with you"] doesn't seem to contain any form of personal attack. The alleged [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=next&oldid=714245228 "first personal attack"] is where DrC questions your competence. Looking over the talk page, you do exactly the same in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index#.22Vetted_by_experts.22_isn.27t_a_rationale this section] to another editor. I also see several other editors disagreeing with you, with [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=prev&oldid=714262665 one suggesting] that a topic ban on you may be necessary to stop you disrupting the page and another [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=prev&oldid=714151556 pointing out], quite correctly, that if you want to question the info included, that you find a reliable source. Definitely a better move than [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=prev&oldid=713104211 insisting that you're an expert] on the topic. [[User:Valenciano|Valenciano]] ([[User talk:Valenciano|talk]]) 19:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
**You misunderstand the conversation. The question is not whether we should include criticism in the article. The question is whether the source that is used to determine a particular formula in the article is [[WP:RS|reliable]] considering the numbers have changed. I am an expert on the topic. It is not unreasonable to point that out. [[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|jps]] ([[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|talk]]) 19:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
'''Comment''' Jps is deliberately misleading the community here. I watch the [[WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard]]. At 00:12, 4 April, jps posted {{tq|I could use some more eyes from outsiders}} referring to the Earth Similarity Index article - here[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=713427015&oldid=713379288] Fourteen hours later, at 14:39, 4 April, my first edit to the article was here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=prev&oldid=713520413] In other words, I was responding to the request by jps, nor stalking or hounding. This is a vexatious thread and a total waste of the communities time. It should be dealt with accordingly. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User talk:DrChrissy|(talk)]]</span></sup> 19:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Butting in: I'm a long time proponent of respecting experts on Wikipedia; they are invaluable. Too often they are ignored. Sometime the experts have to declare themselves, but as well, editors have a right to question even experts. In all, I think this could go back to the talk page with a bit more understanding all the way around.([[User:Littleolive oil|Littleolive oil]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 19:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC))
:I encourage people to question me. It helps me understand a lot. What I don't like is when people who offer a bad source and I identify it as a bad source declare that I need to strike that evaluation because I lack competence and therefore they're going to ask for a topic ban. See the issue? [[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|jps]] ([[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|talk]]) 19:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::I'm not an admin and have probably overstayed my welcome here, but at this point may be try treating each other with more respect. Jps this thread mischaracertizes and Dr Chrissy you threatened. You are both experts in different fields so try putting yourself in the other's boots and let this go. You are both important to Wikpedia . Expert are not that common. I realize I'm being obnoxious despite standing behind my comments so will depart before the rotten tomatoes start flying.([[User:Littleolive oil|Littleolive oil]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 19:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC))
:::This does ''not'' mischaracterize the situation. DrChrissy shows up and has caused more problems and headaches. Given our history, ask yourself why that might be. That said, I'm happy to bury the hatchet (again), but I find working with DrChrissy tends to involve over-the-top histrionics and I'm fairly sure it's not going to let up. At least this thread will serve as a record if the problems continue. [[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|jps]] ([[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|talk]]) 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
(e/c)::You most certainly do not encourage people to question you. The very first diff you presented against me in this thread is here.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Similarity_Index&diff=prev&oldid=713524583] You described this as {{tq|"The first edit is an obvious attempt to needle me"}}. It was not. It was a perfectly civil edit to indicate that what you stated was not true under all circumstances. Your bringing this thread to AN/I is disruptive, your misleading the community is disruptive, your canvassing is disruptive and your continued attempts to character assassinate me are disruptive. I suggest admins start looking at action against you, and take into account your rather extensive block log. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User talk:DrChrissy|(talk)]]</span></sup> 19:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:You know very well what you are doing. The attempts to undermine my [[WP:AGF|good faith]] efforts to clean up a rather problematic part of the encyclopedia are plainly seen in the diffs provided above. I replied civilly to many of your concerns, even those which were, frankly, uninformed. The response I got was over-the-top demands that I delete my comments. You're trying to [[WP:BAIT]] and it is extremely tiresome. It would be better if you ''just stayed away from me''. I'll be happy to return the favor. [[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|jps]] ([[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|talk]]) 19:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

== Multiple Personal Attacks by [[User:Garuk Gar]], one of the many many many socks of [[User:Cow Cleaner 5000]]. ==


== IP troll ==
Is there anything more that can be done about the many offensive edits by this user and her virtually unlimited supply of socks? See these (ahem) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Garuk_Gar "contributions"] which are all personal attacks against myself and multiple editors and admin. She has created more than 100 socks[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Cow_cleaner_5000][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Cow_cleaner_5000] to pursue her conspiracy agenda. She also seem to have an ''unhealthy'' obsession with Justin Anthony Knapp, bordering on stalking. Could someone at WP contact her ISP maybe? [[User:Koala Tea Of Mercy|Koala Tea Of Mercy]] (<small>KTOM's [[User talk:Koala Tea Of Mercy|Articulations]] &amp; [[Special:Contributions/Koala Tea Of Mercy|Invigilations]]</small>) 18:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::PS: I assume CC5K is a "her" due to the user's self-declaration of that gender[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FList_of_items_associated_with_Weekly_Sh%C5%8Dnen_Jump&type=revision&diff=710673599&oldid=710673132] and her rant about embracing feminism as the {{tq|"one way forward"}}.[[User:Koala Tea Of Mercy|Koala Tea Of Mercy]] (<small>KTOM's [[User talk:Koala Tea Of Mercy|Articulations]] &amp; [[Special:Contributions/Koala Tea Of Mercy|Invigilations]]</small>) 18:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Unlikely since that same diff says {{tq|My husband [[Justin Anthony Knapp]] is very upset over this article}} yet CC5K constantly attacks Knapp as a terrorist... [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please &#123;&#123;[[Template:re|re]]&#125;&#125;</small> 18:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Actually, [[User:Koavf|Knapp]] says otherwise on [[User_talk:Koavf|his talk page]]... ''{{TQ|"CowCleaner comes back intermittently to say something about how great I am and how a manga magazine is a terrorist organization."}}'' [[User:Koala Tea Of Mercy|Koala Tea Of Mercy]] (<small>KTOM's [[User talk:Koala Tea Of Mercy|Articulations]] &amp; [[Special:Contributions/Koala Tea Of Mercy|Invigilations]]</small>) 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


== IP not making productive edits at templates ==


Being blocked twice over for "personal attacks or harassment" and with a latest comment that reads [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=1261958217 like this], I think it is clear that the user is [[WP:NOTHERE]] and a more extenisve block is needed here as no lessons have been learned or are likely to be learned. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 07:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
How should I handle this? {{user|109.108.250.225}} has been making drastic changes over several templates and articles and has been warned about it several times already [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:109.108.250.225&diff=713332541&oldid=713062109][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:109.108.250.225&diff=713060605&oldid=709501428][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:109.108.250.225&diff=713060605&oldid=709501428]. Some categories are outright bizarre [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=714211906] (was [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:109.108.250.225&diff=714214810&oldid=713332541 warned] about it by {{u|Jim1138}}. His edits at templates are also strange [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=109.108.250.225&page=Template%3ANagorno-Karabakh_Conflict&server=enwiki&max=]. Since I'm only familiar with the NKR template, I can't comment on the other templates he has edited. Perhaps {{u|Laberkiste}} can help me out here? At any rate, would appreciate it if something could done about this. It's causing quite a lot of stability. [[User:EtienneDolet|Étienne Dolet]] ([[User talk:EtienneDolet|talk]]) 19:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:Just because it's not clear, this is about [[User:5.44.170.181]]. What are your issues with this edit? It's not constructive but it's not a personal attack. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:<s>I will look into the recent edits of the IP and rollback every bad one...</s> There are so many edits and some template edits are really fragmented... --[[User:Laberkiste|Laber□]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Laberkiste|T]]</sup> 19:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::The November block was justified but their history since seems unremarkable. Agree with Liz re the comment in the diff. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 08:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
* LOL. try to read more. 1) [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Michael_Woods_(cyclist)&diff=713059935&oldid=704089760] It was not removal, only subtitle was added, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:109.108.250.225&diff=prev&oldid=713062071 see here] apologies from user. 2) Second edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lufthansa_Flight_005&type=revision&diff=714214904&oldid=714214640] because eight Italian swimmers were among the victims. 3) [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Nagorno-Karabakh_Conflict&diff=714215353&oldid=714076604 Here] it was removed the unsourced information. Ukraine is not a "military aid" for any party. Navbox used for navigation between article about topic, not between countries. [[Special:Contributions/109.108.250.225|109.108.250.225]] ([[User talk:109.108.250.225|talk]]) 19:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:I would take this to the [[WP:DRN|dispute resolution noticeboard]]. I also advise the user of IP 109.108.250.225 to try to make one large instead of many small edits to templates (use the sandbox if possible). --[[User:Laberkiste|Laber□]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Laberkiste|T]]</sup> 19:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*Don't advise me such bad instructions. No such rules. I will do so many edits as I want. [[Special:Contributions/109.108.250.225|109.108.250.225]] ([[User talk:109.108.250.225|talk]]) 19:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:38, 9 December 2024

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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


    Brusquedandelion's disruptive behaviour at the recent Talk:Australia RfC

    Brusquedandelion is a generally constructive editor with a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and code of conduct, but they show a lack of restraint when it comes to (perceived or actual) ideological differences and are prone to lashing out against other editors. Brusquedandelion has previously been brought to AN/I for exactly that reason and continued to do so briefly on their talk page after the AN/I notice. They have recently engaged in similar conduct at the recent Talk:Australia RfC, and that behaviour is my reason for creating this.

    The RfC was started by OntologicalTree, a confirmed sockpuppet of KlayCax. OT was blocked one week ago from today, so the RfC was able to run its course. Brusquedandelion was quite disruptive and less than civil throughout the RfC, bludgeoning the process and throwing personal attacks at every reply to the RfC that supported or discussed anything directly contrary to OT's proposed option (myself included).

    Talk:Australia diffs:
    "Please tell us what your actual objection is rather than using word count as a shield."
    "It would be more honest if you just tell us what your actual objection is... It helps no one to hide your actual beliefs like this."
    "The best possible faith interpretation of multiple people not even bothering to mention the g-word in their votes is that they are simply unable to grasp basic reading comprehension."
    "Your claim that this in an encyclopaedic article, not a political tract reveals your true intentions, for your edit is entirely political in nature; you just believe your own politics are neutral, much as fish doubt the existence of water."
    "Fortunately, not one of the proposed options states that colonialism constituted terrorism, ethnocide, and genocide. Please remember that on Wikipedia, WP:COMPETENCY IN reading comprehension is strictly required."
    "If you haven't actually done the survey you suggest others do, why do you feel so confident voting on a matter you are have professes your own ignorance own? Remember, WP:COMPETENCE IS REQUIRED."
    "And may I remind you, one of the handwringers have straight up admitted to having a conflict of interest on this subject, due to nationalist sentiments and grievance politics. Odd that it is me you are dressing down, and not them, when their comments are against the spirit of letter of at least half a dozen Wikipedia policies."
    "I have generally not reiterated my own viewpoints in different places, only made different viewpoints in multiple places. The fact that multiple people tried to bludgeon this discourse by handwringing about word count rather than getting to the crux of the issue merits being pointed out."

    This report is already getting quite long, so I'll leave it at this for now. Sirocco745 (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that @Brusquedandelion has engaged in battleground behavior and engaged in personal attacks. Because they are otherwise a constructive editor, I propose a three-month topic ban from all edits related to colonialism and genocide, broadly construed. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I support this proposal. While Brusquedandelion is a capable, competent, and generally constructive editor, they have demonstrated their inability to remain civil while discussing topics of colonialism and genocide, and I believe their efforts would be best focused outside of these topics for a while. Having strong feelings on a topic is not necessarily bad in of itself, but it's how those feelings manifest themselves through the person's actions that can cause problems. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the thread, you stated that you are sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity. It's pretty clear from this comment that you are unable to maintain a position of objectivity on topics relating to "colonialism and genocide." Or perhaps only ones relating to Australia, I don't know. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If a comment like Option 1 has a clear agenda to push, and I am sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity is not indicative of a battleground mentality by someone who is quite possibly WP:NOTHERE, what is? This comment was made by @Sirocco745 who filed this report. They are clearly motivated by some sort of grievance politics (of a racial nature) by their own admission. They followed this up by admitting that I could, if I wanted, call me out on a WP:COI if you really wanted to, and you may be justified in doing so. Their words!
    You might feel my response was heavy-handed. Ok. But note that per the usual rules and conventions of an ANI post, a reporter's own conduct is also subject to scrutiny. Did you not read the thread, or did you not think this was worthy of taking into account? Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks to me that all of their edits happening on Talk:Australia by Brusquedandelion occurred on Nov. 9th and haven't continued since. Have there been any personal attacks since that date or that have spilled over to other articles or talk pages? Of course, personal attacks are not acceptable but before imposing a wide-ranging topic ban, I'd like to see if this is an isolated incident on this one day in this one discussion on this one talk page or are occurring more broadly. I also would like to hear from Brusquedandelion on this matter for their point of view. Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, nothing since then. They made four more replies on the RfC after being politely but firmly asked to reign it in by @Moxy and @Aemilius Adolphin at this reply here. The discourse hasn't bled out of the RfC/talk page, and they've been relatively quiet for the past two weeks.
    Only thing I can think of that could count would be Brusque replying to my original attempt at settling this without needing to bring it to a noticeboard. They previously said I sounded like I was "channeling the spirit of Cecil Rhodes" on the RfC, and when I mentioned this in my original notification, their only response was to link Cecil Rhodes's article. Reply found here. Passive-aggressive? Maybe. Worth counting as further discourse outside of the RfC? Not really. Sirocco745 (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking a stern warning and explanation of the community norms..... unless there's some sort of pattern of behavior here? It's a contentious topic.... that many people feel has a tone of racism involved. Just need to explain they need to tone it down. Moxy🍁 03:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to raise an issue of possible canvassing. I was going to leave a message on @Brusquedandelion's talk page about their behaviour when the ruckus started when I found this odd message. It looks like someone was alerting them to the discussion on the Australia talk page and feeding them with talking points.https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brusquedandelion&diff=prev&oldid=1255261107 Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was also KlayCax. CMD (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the sockpuppet User:DerApfelZeit went around to a lot of articles in contentious areas and then to user talk pages, trying to stir things up. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I did not asked to be canvassed. I don't know this person, and given they're banned already I am unsure what the relevance is here. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevance, Brusquedandelion, was the consideration that maybe their comments provoked your response on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 19:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is correct, for better or for worse. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OP has posted a bunch of comments above, but the actual reason they are reporting me is because of my comment comparing their views to those of Cecil Rhodes. They didn't feel the need to file this report until they posted on my page, including a comment about how they don't know who Rhodes was. I replied only with a link to his Wikipedia page. In a sense, this is probably their strongest case against me, so I am not sure why they didn't mention it in the original post. Perhaps it has to do with the reason I invoked this comparison: OP made a vile series of remarks about aboriginal Australians in which they referred to them and their culture as uncivilized, that one can't trust a treaty signed with non-English speaking indigenous peoples, and that hunter gatherer peoples are not worthy of political or moral consideration. These are all sentiments Cecil Rhodes would have affirmed. Perhaps this qualifies as a personal attack by the letter of the law here at Wikipedia, but talking about Aboriginal Australians this way is against upwards of half a dozen Wikipedia policies. OP will claim, as they did at my page, that I am casting aspersions, but they have actually explicitly admitted they are motivated by racial grievance politics; more on this point later. First, OP's comment that resulted in the comparison, for the record:

    the problem is that prior to settlement, the Indigenous peoples of Australia had zero form of officially Th government or judicial system amongst themselves because of the nomadic and kinship-centric nature of their tribes. Additionally, the Indigenous peoples didn't speak English and operated on a significantly different culture to the rest of the civilised world at the time. No centralized governing body means the British had no legal entity to formalize an agreement with, and the cultural differences and physical distance between the various groups and territories of Indigenous peoples meant that even if the British were to create a blanket legal structure for them, they had no guarantee that the terms of such would be satisfactory or even followed by the various groups.

    Anyone familiar with the official justifications for colonial policies, past and present, will hear their echo here. The fairly explicit claim that the aboriginals are uncivilized is the most egregious remark here, but the entire comment is rooted in a view of indigenous peoples that belongs to 19th century British imperialists, not on Wikipedia. These ideas about native peoples (in Australia and elsewhere) have been summarily refuted in the scholarly literature on this subject, but regrettably despite their repugnance they persist in popular culture in many nations. If any admin feels I need to back up this claim with sources, I will oblige, as fundamentally grim as it is that such views even need to be debunked.
    Some further comments from OP:

    The entire paragraph is thick with the negative connotations so common in degradation of foreign colonization and this era of historical hindsight apologetics. Easily fails WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.

    Apparently, it is NPOV to take a dim view of colonization. Does OP have a favorable view of colonialism, in particular in the Australian context? A question left for the reader.
    Finally, OP is manifestly, by their own admission in the thread, motivated by a politics of racial grievance. First, they tell us that As a fourth generation Australian, I am personally sick of the rhetoric that OntologicalTree is trying to have accepted. Make no mistake, this issue is personal, and OP has found their WP:BATTLEGROUND. Then they inform us:

    Option 1 has a clear agenda to push, and I am sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity. Yeah, you could call me out on a WP:COI if you really wanted to, and you may be justified in doing so.

    These comments speak for themselves, since OP is themself admitting their prejudices. Even if OP were right ("Australian whites and their colonization of the country have been unjustly vilified" etc. etc.), this just isn't the website for it; see inter alia WP:RGW and WP:NOTAFORUM.
    Returning to what OP has quoted above, the vast majority of my alleged bludgeoning consists of reminding people what the substantive issue at stake is: whether to classify these events as genocide. The RFC was somewhat poorly worded, unfortunately, but there's not much to do about that now. The effect was that a number of replies did not explicitly admit a stance on the core issue, but nevertheless voted against the use of the "genocide" label.
    I would prefer a straightforward discussion of the merits, or lack thereof, of the use of this word. It would have made the RFC much more productive. A number of people essentially dodged the core issue on their vote altogether, and I thought this merited being pointed out. I admit I was strident, but I don't think any of my comments about this issue were especially uncivil. I also removed myself from the discussion as soon as people said I was commenting too much. I didn't feel need the need to continue this on anyone's talk page nor over here at ANI.
    OP did, however, likely expecting an apology when they posted to my talk page, and reporting me when none was forthcoming. So:
    I apologize for my stridency to the community at large. I will make an effort to regulate my tone in future discussions. I do not feel this thread is representative of my general conduct here, and I will certainly make an effort to not let it be the standard I set for my comments in future discussions. I was frustrated by an apparent refusal by certain folks to actually discuss the core issue, but there are more skillful ways I could have gone about this. And I was especially frustrated by certain comments, in particular those of OP, that affirm colonial stereotypes and ideologies.
    I do not feel an apology is owed to OP until such time as they own up to the racism of their remarks. With regards to possible sanctions, I don't see how you can argue my criticizing OP's racism, even if I had been ten thousand times ruder about it, would be less civil or worse for Wikipedia's project as a whole than OP's remarks about aboriginal Australians, motivated as they are by racial grievance politics, per their own confession. Said confession also seems like a much stronger argument for a topic ban in particular, compared to anything I have said, since they have admitted an inability to retain neutrality in such discussions, as well as a particularly noxious reason for that inability—though I am only bringing this up since OP themself has asked for this sanction against me. Personally I only hope that OP realizes why such comments are unacceptable, that no one is witch-hunting him or his people, and that such ideologies have no place here anyways. It seems they are otherwise a constructive editor, and if they are able to make a good faith acknowledgement of this lapse, I wouldn't see any need for sanctions against them personally. Of course, all of this is up to the admins. Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brusquedandelion: you've accused someone of racism. Please provide diffs or quickly withdraw your claim, or expect to be blocked for a serious personal attack. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you not read my comment? It has verbatim quotes that can be found in the linked discussion (Talk:Australia); as far as I can tell, nothing has been edited or archived. Are you an admin and if so is this a formal request for a diff specifically? Because if not please do not go around threatening people with blocks for not providing information they already provided. I am really quite busy today, but if an administrator is formally making this request, I will oblige. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You always need to provide diffs when you make such allegations, whether asked to or not. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why diffs are important, as they provide context. The first two quotes come from Diff 1, and the last quote comes from Diff 2. I'm no expert, but statements like I certainly don't approve of what happened back then, and I will openly admit that I am not proud of the racism that Australia was built on. I agree that they committed a large number of atrocities and that there is much work to be done to repair the damage done. (Diff 2) do not sound to me like racism. In context, I get the impression of trying to preserve historical context, not proving the OP's racism alleged by BD above.
    Diff 1 provides an explaination for why the British did not negotiate with the natives and, even there, their words very much acknowledged that the actions were unjust. (See The British did falsely claim terra nullius... in Diff 1). I also was unable to find any mention of the statement BD put in quotes as "Australian whites and their colonization of the country have been unjustly vilified" on the talk page; I presume these were scare quotes.
    If there is missing context or background, BD would be well-advised to provide it. Most of us are laypersons and will likely miss more subtle types of racism, if that is what is alleged. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is why diffs are important, as they provide context.

    The discussion as it stands provides all the context the diffs do, as nothing has been deleted.

    (Diff 2) do not sound to me like racism.

    Providing an example of a not-racist comment is not a refutation of any racist comments that were also made. Given you were just enjoining us to value the context of the interaction: it is a common strategy for people to preemptively hedge before making an unsavory statement, but the very fact of this statement in the context of the subsequent unsavory statement only reinforces, and does not mitigate, the nature of the statement that follows, since it implies at least some awareness that the commenter understood their subsequent comments could be seen in a certain light and thus felt the need to clarify. "I'm not racist but..." has never been followed by a not-racist statement in the history of the English language.
    That said their hedge is not exactly the same as "I'm not racist but...". In principle it could have been followed by a relevant, reasoned, evidence-based, and non-prejudicial explanation for why the proposed RFC should resolve one way or another. Instead the commenter chose to grandstand about perceived slights against white Australians and uncritically regurgitate certain views and dogmas of the British Empire.

    Diff 1 provides an explaination for why the British did not negotiate with the natives and, even there, their words very much acknowledged that the actions were unjust. (See The British did falsely claim terra nullius... in Diff 1).

    The portion of the "explanation" that comes after The British did falsely claim terra nullius... is an uncritical parroting of the British imperial view of native Australians. The very fact that they do reject the terra nullius argument, but not the subsequent ones, indicates these are views they actually hold or at least held in that particular moment in the context of an RFC that they felt challenged their national pride. I understand such feelings may be fluid and encourage Sirocco to reflect on them.

    I presume these were scare quotes

    It is a brief summary of their multiple comments that make that point in more words, which I already quoted and did not want to copy again, for reasons of length and redudancy. Given the context of the RFC, do you feel this is an inaccurate summary of those comments, copied again below for your convenience?

    The entire paragraph is thick with the negative connotations so common in degradation of foreign colonization and this era of historical hindsight apologetics. Easily fails WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.

    Option 1 has a clear agenda to push, and I am sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity. Yeah, you could call me out on a WP:COI if you really wanted to, and you may be justified in doing so.

    Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already admitted that I conducted myself poorly in the RfC and that my comments/suggestions were driven by my own feelings on the topic in combination with what I already knew about the topic (or at least, what I thought to be true).

    Instead the commenter chose to grandstand about perceived slights against white Australians and uncritically regurgitate certain views and dogmas of the British Empire. First off, when writing or talking in a conversational tone, I generally don't criticize or exalt the subject until after I have explained what I know. I later stated my opinion on the subject in the RfC, being that the British's acts against the Indigenous Australians were undeniably racist and wrong in every definition of the word. I do not feel the need to apologize for the acts perpetrated by those settlers; I am not descended from them, only tangentially associated by merit of nationality. I am more annoyed that our government focuses on saying sorry all the time instead of proving sorry by taking actual action to support Indigenous families and communities, and it is this political apologetic rhetoric that I am tired of seeing and hearing on a weekly basis.

    The "white" part of "perceived slights against white Australians" definitely isn't correct either. Australia is a country where you could walk past the entire skin colour spectrum on your way to work every day and not think twice about it, and this peaceful co-existence of cultures is something I am very grateful for here. The "perceived slights" part though? Personally, being told on a weekly basis by the government that "the land you live, work and study on doesn't belong to you and it's our fault as a nation that it doesn't belong to the Aboriginal people anymore" doesn't make me feel very welcome in the country I was born and live in.

    Regardless, let's get back to the subject at hand, that being your behaviour. You can create a separate AN/I thread if you wish to discuss my personal conduct, but I started this one because, as shown in the diffs of my original post here, you were consistently not assuming good faith and bludgeoning the RfC by replying to almost every comment left by other users that didn't align with what you deemed to be the correct manner, not to mention the personal attacks. The point of an RfC is to draw the attention of uninvolved editors to a discussion with the hope that they will contribute constructively by providing new voices and second opinions to the conversation. Whether you see it this way or not, the general consensus of this thread so far is that you disrupted the RfC and have demonstrated a pattern of using personal attacks when disagreeing with other editors. Please try to stick to the topic of this thread, which is your behaviour. Sirocco745 (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be fixated on an uncharitable interpretation of Sirocco's comments. You've pointed out that one not-racist comment doesn't mean the person isn't racist, but in my view, you've failed to demonstrate racism in the first place. I do not believe your scare-quoted passage is an accurate summary, no. Similarly, I do not feel that, just because colonizers used something as an excuse, means it is inherently racist or untrue. I can see where you're coming from that it could be, but I also don't believe it's the only interpretation, and we're supposed to WP:AGF. Since this is a matter of judgement, I hope other editors will chime in to give a broader representation of the community either way, not just me saying, "Meh, I don't see it". EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have come off as confrontational with my comments in the RfC, and I apologize for that. I have always accepted that Wikipedia is not the place to air personal or political grievances and have done my best to keep to that policy, but I slipped when replying to the RfC. My motto is "don't let your motive be your message", but I forgot to keep my personal feelings out of the discussion this time.

    First up though, the reason why some of my comments were rooted in a view of indigenous peoples that belongs to 19th century British imperialists is because I was presenting the views of 19th century British imperialists. These views are horribly outdated and illogical based in emotional fallacy, but because I was (probably over)explaining the racist reasonings the British justified their actions with, many of my comments in the RfC could be used to support BD's claim of racism when taken out of context.

    In hindsight, "The entire paragraph is thick with the negative connotations so common in degradation of foreign colonization and this era of historical hindsight apologetics. Easily fails WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT" wasn't the best way to word my disproval of Option 1. In relation to the RfC, Option 1's rhetoric is that the wounds are still fresh. The problem is that while the damage is still felt, the wounds themselves aren't really fresh at all; Option 1 covers almost 200 years worth of events in a single paragraph and insinuates that they all happened at/around the same time. This is why I pushed against Option 1 and explained British actions and motives.

    @Brusquedandelion, I would also like to deny your claim that I started this AN/I thread because of your actions against me specifically. I assume that you've read the opening sentences of WP:ASPERSIONS, since I included it in my initial attempt at reaching out.
    "On Wikipedia, casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe. Because a persistent pattern of false or unsupported allegations can be highly damaging to a collaborative editing environment, such accusations will be collectively considered a personal attack."
    The large number of diffs that show you being uncivil towards multiple editors in the RfC were always going to be the reason this came to AN/I, not your comments against me. Sirocco745 (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will respond to this in the next few days, not later than Tuesday 00:00 UTC; it is a holiday weekend here in my country and my time is very limited. If at all possible I ask the administrators not to resolve this thread until that time (unless this is going to be a nothingburger of zero sanctions all round, in which case, please resolve posthaste).
    One preliminary comment about the most relevant portion of your comment: if you were simply explaining what the views of the British were, and not agreeing with them, you would have told us so, as you did literally in the prior sentence: The British did falsely claim terra nullius by legally declaring the Indigenous peoples as "fauna" so they could invalidate Britain's first requirement for occupation, which was that if there was an existing population, Indigenous or otherwise, land should only be obtained through negotiation. No such claims are made in any of your other comments. In fact, those comments are themselves placed after a However separating that last sentence from the rest of the claims you assert in authorial voice, implying the function of the subsequent comments is to provide objective, evidence-based, non-prejudicial reasons why negotiation would have been impossible anyways, so the whole terra nullius dogma was merely the British doing their best under unfortunate circumstances. Indeed this is exactly what the concluding remark of the paragraph all but states, to leave no room for confusion as to OP's point: No centralized governing body means the British had no legal entity to formalize an agreement with, and the cultural differences and physical distance between the various groups and territories of Indigenous peoples meant that even if the British were to create a blanket legal structure for them, they had no guarantee that the terms of such would be satisfactory or even followed by the various groups. In summary, treaties would have been impossible, so why bother?
    Importantly, the stated justifications are not objective, evidence-based, or non-prejudicial: e.g. the first comment However, the problem is that prior to settlement, the Indigenous peoples of Australia had zero form of officially recognized government or judicial system amongst themselves has been debunked in the anthropological, sociological, and historical literature extensively. As far as we can tell, all human societies (that existed for any real amount of time) have had, minimally, some form of customary law. They have norms governing what is and isn't ethical or acceptable, means for restitution or punishment in the event of the transgression of these norms, and, most importantly for this discussion, a general understanding of informal and formal agreement between two or more parties that granted each a set of obligations and/or privileges. These are, as far back as we can reasonably verify, human universals. Believing they didn't, which, regrettably, literally millions of non-indegenous Australians, Americans, Canadians etc. still do about their respective Indigenous peoples, is a legacy of colonial thinking, and in effect places these people outside the category "human"—turns them into fauna—by denying them what we know to be a fundamental feature of our social life as a species. In this sense, (not so) ironically, OP's comments reproduce the specific British imperial dogma they rejected in the prior sentence. (Mind you, this is not even the most egregious remark here. Again in authorial voice, a little later on, Sirocco informs us the aboriginals are not to be considered civilized.)
    Finally, I propose a litmus test: would such comments, if copy-pasted into a Wikipedia article, be considered WP:WIKIVOICE, or attributed text, per the relevant policies? If so, then they are also in authorial voice when written by a single editor outside a mainspace. To me, it is obvious how this litmus test resolves here, but I'll leave it to administrators to confirm this. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh for goodness's sake, I do not believe that Aboriginal Australians are sub-human! I have admitted so many times that I didn't conduct myself properly in the RfC and that the wording of many of my comments could easily be interpreted as racist because I talked about racist acts and the reasonings behind them without condemning them immediately after. What more do I need to say, how much more do I need to apologize, and what will it take to prove myself non-racist to you? This is definitely Wikilawyering, but now it's starting to feel like borderline harassment. Sirocco745 (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Theres a lot of battleground behaviour here, which compounded with the personal attacks made in this thread (that they apparantly stand by) leads me to support the proposal above by Voorts. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're against battleground behavior, do you not see the comments I copied above from Sirocco as examples of it? If you think my assessment of their comments is a "personal attack" are you stating, for the record, that you think there is nothing racist about those comments? Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be succinct and direct: please link (give where they can be found in context with the submission(s) of the author; a diff) and quote the statements you believe to be racist. You have made what appears to be about a dozen quotes, none of which I see to be clearly racist. If the community judges them to be so, then they will be dealt with appropriately. Buffs (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If any neutral editors have the time, could you please take a look at this thread and give your input? I understand that Wikipedia has no deadlines and that no one is obliged to interact with the various discussions, disputes, etc. that occur daily, but there hasn't really been any significant development since I started this AN/I thread eight days ago. I guess I'm just nervous. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll give my 2 cents: there's a battleground here. Both of y'all need to tone it down. I don't see the discussion at Australia as inappropriate. People have voiced their opinions and someone can close it when it gets to the end. When trying to summarize so much, such assessments are going to be necessarily long; just be patient. Buffs (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, sorry about that. As stated earlier, I understand that ANI is not the place to settle content disputes and I started this thread with the intent of focusing on @Brusquedandelion's behaviour. It kinda got a bit out of hand though.. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you not see a problem with calling other users racists and defenders of genocide? Sirocco is not the person who needs to tone it down. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked for clarification above. Without evidence, it is indeed inappropriate, but I'm also trying to keep an open mind about the possibility that the accusation is accurate. Sirocco can help matters by backing down a little and not offering long responses in the future (don't fan the flames). Buffs (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are eight diffs in the opening post including a variety of accusations and incivility. Keeping an open mind that they might all be accurate seems excessively hopeful. CMD (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Alejandroinmensidad engaged in BLP and 3RR violations as a SPA (possible SOCK as well)

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


    Alejandroinmensidad (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account engaged in a disruptive behaviour involving Pedro Sánchez-related edits (with them adding contentious material to a number of articles, namely Pedro Sánchez, Álvaro García Ortiz and Begoña Gómez) in a heavily POV-ish way, in breach of WP:BLP). The last straw has been their breaking of WP:3RR at Álvaro García Ortiz after reverting TheRichic for attempting to reword some of the text to comply with BLP. I had previously attempted to warn them in their talk page, but they responded with indiscriminate accusations of vandalism (which by themselves constitute a personal attack and a violation of WP:AVOIDVANDAL). They were also noted by another user about WP:AC/CT (diff), but the user keeps on with their behaviour. Further, I have also detected evidence pointing to likely sockpuppetry, which I denounced through this SPI (where the situation is more throughly explained). Impru20talk 22:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BLPN might be a better forum for discussing these edits. It does seem like a lot of edit-warring going on on Pedro Sánchez. Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was already brought there a few days ago at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez, but the disruption has continued as the issue has been left unaddressed (and anyway, the BLPN thread does not address neither the behavioural issues nor the sock suspicions, which have evolved ever since). It's now basically impossible to do anything sort of keeping reverting this user if no admin steps in. Impru20talk 07:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I already pointed it out at the SPI case (see Update 1), but ever since the SPI was opened the user has been conducting a number of random edits through several articles in addition to their focus in the usual ones (while avoiding engaging in any discussion related to the ongoing issues), probably to attempt avoiding being singled out as a SPA. Impru20talk 07:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One problem I see, Impru20, is that it looks like this has been a solo effort by you to get attention on this editor's contributions, in the SPI, on BLPN, on the editor's user talk page and now here in ANI without receiving much response from other editors. If there is contentious material being posted on this BLP (which gets over 1,000 views/day), we should get more eyes on this article and others where there might be questionable edits. Is there anyone here who is comfortable assessing Spanish language sources that could provide a second (or third) opinion? Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a solo effort by me, Liz? And this? Maybe this? I am getting attention on this editor's contributions because they are being disruptive; they are reverting anyone who dares to restore a less POVish (and more BLP-compliant) version of the articles, and when they are confronted about that it's just personal attacks from them. The only solutions left are to: 1) keep reverting them (surely not what we are expected to do as per WP:EW); 2) discuss with them (this was done, and failed), and 3) bring the issue to venues where it can be properly addressed if points 1 and 2 are not possible (which was done: firstly to BLPN, then as SPI when I noticed they could be a sock, then here when that was left without solution yet the user kept engaging in disruptive behaviour). There are personal attacks, there is a 3RR violation, there is even behavioural evidence of sockpuppetry (with two users, one logged in editor and one IP, being confirmed socks). What else is required for any action to even be considered? Seriously, I ask you with all honestly, because it's fairly frustrating that they are basically left to do what they please without anyone actually caring. Impru20talk 20:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Impru20, with regards to Álvaro García Ortiz, it looks to me like Alejandroinmensidad's edits are more accurate than yours, if Google Translate is accurate in translating the cited source. So, why are you trying to keep less accurate content, and why have you not discussed this at Talk: Álvaro García Ortiz? Cullen328 (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not edited Álvaro García Ortiz, Cullen328, so it's difficult any edit there could be more accurate than mine. Now maybe you could focus on Alejandro's 3RR violation there, any of the behavioural issues that have been denounced... I don't know, something that has actually happened. Impru20talk 22:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Impru20, I apologize for mixing you up with TheRichic. However, Alejandroinmensidad reverted false content three times over several days. That is not a violation of WP:3RR. Cullen328 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, Cullen328, but:
    1. How is this content false? You may agree or disagree with the wording, but it is not false. One of TheRichic's denounces against Alejandroinmensidad (which I share) is that they treat (unproven) statements of certain people as absolute truths, typically resorting to the sources that fit their view the most (often without any WP:BALANCE or sense of impartiality). Again, I ask you: how is that content "false"? Specially considering your response here is limiting yourself to decry TheRichic's behaviour.
    2. As per WP:3RR, reverts conducted just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior.
    3. You could maybe skip point 2... if it wasn't because all reverts done by Alejandroinmensidad at Álvaro García Ortiz came after being explicitly warned in their talk page about WP:AC/CT on articles about living people (diff).
    4. ANI is about behavioural problems (which have been denounced and evidence provided); the explicit BLP issue was addressed (or attempted to) elsewhere: here it is being brought because of it showing a behavioural pattern and a SPA-theme focus on Pedro Sánchez-related edits (which I said). Aside of 3RR, there have been explicit personal attacks (repeated accusations of vandalism without any evidence nor justification), edit warring and behavioural evidence of SOCK which is not even being addressed. So, what are people intended to do against it? To keep edit warring Alejandroinmensidad to death? Impru20talk 22:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Cullen328 and Liz, this user Impru20 has been continuously deleting text and references from many users in everything related to the government of Spain for many years ago: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. He has deleted on multiple occasions, without any explanation, my contributions, which I consider to be treated from a neutral point of view. That is why I have reverted its vandalism, I have not deleted the text of any user. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Impru20, the El Mundo headline translates as The Supreme Court indicts Attorney General García Ortiz for the leak of confidential data from Ayuso's boyfriend: The Second Chamber unanimously opens a case against Álvaro García Ortiz for the crime of revealing secrets. TheRichic's preferred wording was "García Ortiz has been investigated" and Alejandroinmensidad's preferred wording was "García Ortiz was charged by the Supreme Court". Everyone can see that Alejandroinmensidad's summary of the source was accurate and that TheRichic's summary was incorrect. You simply do not understand WP:3RR, which requires more than three reversions in a 24 hour period. Alejandroinmensidad reverted only three times, and they were at 19:14, November 29, 2024, and then roughly 27 hours later at 22:10, November 30, 2024, and then roughly 48 hours later at at 22:04, December 2, 2024. Three reverts in three days is not more than three reverts in 24 hours. Cullen328 (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328, Alejandroinmensidad has literally breached WP:AVOIDVANDAL in front of your face in this very same discussion and you still have nothing to say about their behaviour? Also, they are linking literally random, occasional and entirely unrelated edits to the discussion to blame me of "vandalism"... and you still have nothing to say to it? On another note: Alejandroinmensidad, bold edits are not vandalism, the edits of mine you link have nothing wrong in them. Heck, half of the edits you link are not even mine (one is yours), for God's sake! Impru20talk 23:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Cullen328, I am not understanding what your reasoning is here. You have now edited part of your previous comment ([7]), when all of it is essentially off-topic. This is not an issue of edits at Álvaro García Ortiz (an article which I have not even edited), but an issue of general behavioural concerns, which Alejandroinmensidad is exhibiting with impunity in this very same thread. I have provided detailed diffs, links and evidence yet still none of it is being addressed and I am now being singled out for edits I did not even made. I understand that every editor who opens a thread here is equally subject to BOOMERANG, but it's the first time I see it being applied to someone for edits done by other people, including the denounced editor's! Impru20talk 23:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have hundreds of text changes from other users in articles related to the government of Spain for years, just looking at your history to realize that most of the edits are vandalism. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to clarify a couple of things:
    1. A headline by itself is not information, it can be biased and you have to read the rest of the article.
    2. If we read the El Mundo's article, at no point does it say that the attorney general has committed any crime, but rather that a criminal procedure has been opened and he and his surroundings are being investigated for an ALLEGED crime.
    3. In Spain, the term "imputar", translated in the article as "charge", is synonymous with "investigar" (to investigate). In fact, the term was modified a decade ago because it led to the erroneous conclusion that the person who was "imputado" was being accused. The accusation phase comes later, when the judge issues the "auto de acusación" (indictment), and then the person is "accused of" or "charged with" a crime. At this point, it can be said that the person is accused.
    4. "[...] García Ortiz was charged by the Supreme Court for having revealed the emails of the boyfriend of the president of the Community of Madrid" (what the article says) is just saying that he did it when we do not know what happened and a court of justice is investigating if anything happened.
    Having said all this, yes, I rewrote the article because the person is not accused of anything (yet), has not committed any crime (yet), and we cannot interpret the information in the article as it suits us. Greetings. TheRichic (Messages here) 06:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In Spanish and English, the terms charge (imputar) and investigate (investigar) are not synonymous. In the article in "Mundo" it is clearly explained that Álvaro García Ortiz is charged of leaking the emails. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To "charge" someone means that person gets investigated by the judicial authorities. It is the same. The issue is that you want to use "charge" as a synonymous to "accuse" (this has not happened, at least not yet). However, I am not going to discuss semantics with an editor who clearly doesn't understand what "vandalism" is. Impru20talk 18:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is false. To charge is not to investigate, it is to file criminal charges, which is what the Supreme Court has done with Álvaro García Ortiz. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To charge is to investigate. That's why in Spanish the legal term was literally changed from imputación to investigación. See here: Being charged means that the investigating judge has determined that, either through a complaint or a lawsuit, there are indications that the person under investigation could have committed a crime." (...) "Then, the judge agrees to carry out the investigative procedures that he deems appropriate to clarify it." (...) investigated "means that the judge has admitted the complaint for processing, has initiated preliminary proceedings and has been classified as such." There are indications of crimes such that requires the judge to investigate them, but that condition does not assume the veracity of the accusations nor of the crime (a lot of people who are charged end up with their charges lifted without a trial) nor is the person yet accused, which comes at a later stage of the legal process. You are really manipulating what being charged means. Impru20talk 22:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No matter how much you repeat a lie, it does not become the truth. To charge is not to investigate, neither in Spanish, nor in English, nor in law.
    I have not said that the Prosecutor is guilty, but the Court sees indications of a crime, that is why he is charged. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided you evidence and sources and you still treat it as a "lie", despite you yourself now just casting aspersions and personal opinions here. Impru20talk 10:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Impru20, I made an error in confusing you with TheRichic. I immediately apologized and then struck out the portions of my original comment that were inaccurate. That is what editors are supposed to do when they make a mistake. You are the editor who accused Alejandroinmensidad of BLP violations at Álvaro García Ortiz and you also accused that editor of violating 3RR. I decided to investigate one of the three articles you listed in your original post, and picked the middle of the three. I learned that there was no BLP violation, that Alejandroinmensidad's edits were more accurate than TheRichic's, and that the editor did not violate 3RR, at least in recent months. That is the full story. Cullen328 (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alejandroinmensidad, please be aware that Impru20 has made nearly 200,000 edits to the English Wikipedia and has never been blocked for vandalism. The term "vandalism" has a very specific meaning and can only be applied to editing with the deliberate intention of damaging the encyclopedia. Impru20 is not a vandal and false accusations of vandalism are disruptive. So, please stop. Cullen328 (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328, I am not referring to him, I am referring to his editions. It removes content from many users without giving any motivation. In addition, he always does it in articles referring to the government of Spain. In any case, I will not answer his provocations again. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling a user's edits vandalism is the same as calling the user a vandal. Just don't do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alejandroinmensidad is obsessed with calling another editor a vandal even in an ANI thread and against repeated warnings, but somehow they are still assumed to be able to work collaboratively? You cannot discuss anything with this guy (and this is not an assumption, this was tried and failed). At the very least, there is an obvious WP:CIR issue here, and they will only keep edit warring everyone as they see any edits undoing their own (or those contents they prefer) as "vandalism". Impru20talk 06:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is exactly what TheRichic has stated above. Further, it's telling that, so far, the BLP violations at Pedro Sánchez (which are what started the whole ordeal) have not even been addressed; Alejandroinmensidad added false statements, and others they added were done without BALANCE (as I pointed it out to them several times: diff diff); these were reverted by Alejandro exhibiting the exact same behaviour as here (i.e. falsely accusing others of vandalism). They also accused me of "removing links" when they removed references themselves under accusations of "vandalism" just to attempt to re-assert a version of the articles that depicted Sánchez and his government in the worst way possible of the several available (diff). You cannot cherrypick sources and information to present a biased view of the person without contradictory information (which exists in this case) being presented as well. There is a BLPN case opened on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez yet, somehow, almost everything is being ignored to attempt to present Alejandroinmensidad's behaviour as legit, when it is one of the most egregious SPAs I have seen as of lately, being here only for the purpose of these Pedro Sánchez-related edits (also, as commented on the SPI case, they only resorted to making random edits to other articles when the SPI case was opened and they were noticed about it, diff). Impru20talk 07:32, 4 December 20Im24 (UTC)
    Impru20, if your concern is about Pedro Sánchez, then why the heck did you make false claims of BLP problems and false claims of 3RR violations at Álvaro García Ortiz? Administrator time is limited. Throwing false claims in with possibly legitimate claims is a waste of time that makes administrators reluctant to look further. I would rather get some sleep. Cullen328 (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328, I explicitly mentioned and linked Pedro Sánchez in my first post and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez in subsequent ones; spoke about Pedro Sánchez-related edits; linked to other venues where the situation was also thoroughly explained; and only mentioned Álvaro García Ortiz as part of the articles in which Alejandroinmensidad had a focus on. Liz understood it perfectly in their first reply. It is you who then became focused with Álvaro García Ortiz for no reason even when I told you that it was not the main cause of concern (only as part of the larger SPA effort). With all due respect (and maybe I cannot stress the issue of respect enough, but I have to say this), but you cannot just say what you said here when you already had an error (rather major, as it redirected the focus of the discussion into me having to refute a false claim) by confusing edits of other users with my own edits and now accuse me of doing what I did not do. The presented evidence was there for reading. The 3RR claim was not false: reverting just outside the 24-hour window is explictly acknowledged as EW; WP:GAME exists; and the reverts were conducted right after a warning about living people's biographies being contentious topics was added to the user's talk page. Administrator time may be limited, but so is that of other editors (such as mine), and frankly: it's frustrating that I have had to provide a detailed (while summarized, because too lengthy ANI cases are typically accused of WP:TLDR) description of the situation so for it to be also systematically ignored. Impru20talk 08:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Impru20, you are still incorrect about 3RR. A violation requires a minimum of four reverts within 24 hours though some administrators might act at 25 hours. In this case, there were three reverts (not four) to clearly more accurate content over a three day period of about 75 hours. There is no possible interpretation of the policy that allows that to be called a 3RR violation. The notion that I looked into Álvaro García Ortiz "for no reason" is ludicrous. I looked into that article for a very real reason, namely that you mentioned that article in the first sentence of your report. If you did not want an administrator to look into that article, then why on earth did you mention it? Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And then in your second sentence, you wrote The last straw has been their breaking of WP:3RR at Álvaro García Ortiz. So, I look into your "last straw" and you get angry with me. It makes no sense. Cullen328 (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328, 3RR clearly states that The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. They made three consecutive reverts to the same content without any justification and just after receiving a warning on contentious topics because of their edits and reverts in BLP-related articles, and they just got away with it. I also mentioned other articles and you did not look at them. On Álvaro García Ortiz, I said it was the "last straw" (this is, cumulatively after a lot of other issues), yet you interpreted it as the main focus of the issue. I can understand that you analyze that article (that's why I mention it), not that you focus solely on it. I don't get angry with you, I just don't understand why you have taken it with that article and insist in ignoring everything else, In the course of all of it, you have casted two wrong facts about me (one about my (non)edits in that article, another one on what I said in this ANI thread). You have forced me to defend myself on issues that were not related to what I did or said while a disruptor is getting away with their disruption. This is my issue with you. Impru20talk 18:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Impru20, you say that their edits were without any justification and yet the El Mundo reference that follows the content shows quite clearly that the edits were fully justified and accurate and that the other editor was adding inaccurate content. I do not know how else to explain it but those three specific edits over three days plus were not edit warring and in particular, nowhere near a 3RR violation. No admistrator is obligated to investigate every single aspect of a lengthy ANI post that mentions three articles. I chose to look into the one that you called the "last straw" and learned that what you have been saying about the edits in question is wrong. I apologized to you when I made a mistake. Perhaps you should consider apologizing as well. Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cullen328, the user is misrepresenting what "being charged" means (this is what it means). The other editor did not add any innacurate content, and I dare you to explicitly state what of TheRichic's edit was innacurate, because that was legally and factually correct. You have been accusing them of adding "innacurate" or outrightly "false" (sic) content for a while even when they explicitly explained themselves here ([8]), just because you took a single source (the one provided by Alejandroinmensidad) without balancing it with other sources first, precisely when a lack of BALANCE was one of the (multiple) issues denounced here. Heck, both TheRichic and myself have gone through many more explanations here than Alejandroinmensidad, who just kept themselves calling everyone else as "vandals" even in this ANI thread (there was a time in which that alone would have merited a block) and manipulating and misinterpreting sources (as they keep doing at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez).
    Again with all due respect, but I say this in light of this latest reply of yours: your intervention here is becoming absurd. Yes, you chose to investigate one article, just as you chose to omit everything else. I repeat myself: It's not my fault that you did not care to take into account the "lengthy post" (which I already attempted to summarize, but what should I do if the issue affects more than one article and involves a general behaviour?) in which the evidence was presented. If you did not feel yourself like doing the review of this case, it would have been better to pass it to another colleague who could have had the time to do it. But yes, surprisingly (or not so): incomplete reviews may lead to incomplete judgements.
    And yes: "No admistrator is obligated to investigate every single aspect of a lengthy ANI post that mentions three articles", but now you have basically chosen to cast aspersions (?) on a fellow editor over and over and over again, without even caring to consider their explanations, just because you have been unable to accept that your way of handling this (focusing on one aspect and omitting everything else) has been wrong from the beginning. If someone is deserving an apology here that's not you (nor me, either). Cheers. Impru20talk 23:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As an update: is nothing going to be said about this blind revert in Pedro Sánchez by Alejandroinmensidad to a third editor who, with good reason, stated that the subject of this article is Pedro Sánchez, not his family, especially when there appears to be no suggestion of any direct involvement of Pedro Sánchez himself (diff), a claim that Alejandroinmensidad has not even cared to respond to? Is nothing going to be said about how Alejandroinmensidad is being presented evidence at Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez and he just outrightly defends having wrong and/or misrepresentative material at the Pedro Sánchez article? Including an explicit situation of WP:THREATEN (diff)? Maybe we can just exit from this Álvaro García Ortiz article-loop and deal at once with a single-purpose account with a WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on using Wikipedia as a way to do politics. Good faith goes as far as it goes; this is just sheer, explicit and deliberate manipulation at this point. Cheers. Impru20talk 11:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already answered in BLP: Pedro Sánchez; "In the sub-article "Third term in office" the events of Pedro Sánchez's government are commented on. The corruption scandals of Pedro Sánchez's family are key to that government."
    I am tired of this user's harassment and insults. Moderators must take action. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alejandroinmensidad edits like this, presenting the opinion of one newspaper as fact, are not acceptable per WP:WIKIVOICE. We certainly can include criticism of him, but that should be done in a neutral and balanced way. Similarly, since the article is about the subject himself, I struggle to see the relevance of any accusations against his brother (which you added here) in which Pedro S himself is not involved. The article is Pedro Sánchez, not Pedro Sánchez' family.
    I've opened a section on the article talk page here to which you should contribute and discuss the changes you want rather than edit warring, which would probably result in sanctions against your account. Additionally, all users involved should stop the accusations and counter-accusations, which will not produce anything positive. Since this is, at heart, a content dispute, this ANI thread should be closed for now, with the caveat that WP:3RR and sanctions do exist. Valenciano (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already explained the reasons for including the scandal of Pedro Sánchez's brother: The scandal of Sánchez's brother is related to Pedro Sánchez because the judge accuses him of influence peddling, of having obtained his job thanks to the influence of Pedro Sánchez. A job in which he would receive a salary without doing any work. It is a similar case to that of Alfonso Guerra and his brother Juan Guerra.
    The references I have given are not newspaper opinions, they are information that contrasts the different versions that Sánchez has given regarding Delcy Rodríguez's trip. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Valenciano, Cullen328, speaking of WP:3RR, do these four reverts of two editors' edits within a 4-hour timespan count as such? See diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4.
    Because it would be extremely hilarious that a 3RR breach happened even after 1) the discussion about it in this ANI thread, 2) Valenciano's warning just above, 3) the warning on contentious topics on Alejandroinmensidad's talk page by a third, uninvolved party and 4) a new, specific warning on WP:3RR made in that user talk page by another third, uninvolved party. Where are we going to set our level of tolerance to disruption, exactly? Impru20talk 14:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Another update: Alejandroinmensidad has just edited the Pedro Sánchez article to insert an editorial opinion and present it as a fact ([9]). This is prohibited under WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL. They were told both through an edit summary ([10]) and at the BLPN discussion ([11]) how this was wrong, yet they still re-added it anyway without caring to give an explanation. Is seriously nothing going to be done here? Impru20talk 11:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked Alejandroinmensidad for one week for edit warring and violations of the WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies. Cullen328 (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by this response, I do not think the editor is going to care about our rules. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaand they pinged me to their talk page to claim that comment was "ironic." Definitely NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah HandThatFeeds, it isn't that it wasn't obvious from a long shot by the time I brought this case to ANI, but Good Lord. It just took a one-week block for them to openly acknowledge that their edits are motivated by some sort of crusade against "communism". I was benevolent citing WP:CIR a couple days ago: it's definitely a WP:RGW and WP:NOTHERE case. Impru20talk 09:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After this, I have extended the block to indefinite as they currently do not exhibit any evidence of being here to collaborate. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Requesting reversal of premature closure of talk page section by TheRazgriz

    I have recently engaged in lengthy talk page discussions with TheRazgriz regarding his edits on the 2024 United States elections page. Upon informing him today that I was escalating to the dispute resolution process, TheRazgriz prematurely closed a talk page section that dealt with the nature of our disagreement at hand, labeling it as "resolved" when it was not. There was no snowball as claimed in the closure message, and the subject matter that was absorbed into another section in the body was still in dispute. While the issue of the content in the lead was in fact resolved, the greater context of the claims that were made and were discussed in the section were not. The last comments in that section were made only 10 days prior, and the most recent comments involving this dispute were made today. BootsED (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I've undone the closure and fixed the formatting issues that were broken by the user in accident that resulted in broken indentations of the existing discussion. Raladic (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your assistance! BootsED (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For transparency and clarification: The dispute had migrated away from that topic and into a different topic on the page well over a week ago, and as noted by @BootsED here the resolution finding was accurately portrayed. Disputed content was not removed via closure. As point of that specific topic had been addressed and is no longer an issue, therefore unlikely to require further contribution, I fail to see the point in un-closing it. But it is what it is. Just want it clear this isn't a conspiracy of nefariousness. TheRazgriz (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, here's the point: it's poor practice to close a discussion in which you're heavily involved, certainly so in any issue that lacks a very strong consensus, and doubly so in a contentious topic such as the 2024 United States elections page. (Heck, I wouldn't dare to close a CT discussion I was involved in even for a snowball.) That's the point. Ravenswing 06:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think you should have more than 224 edits before engaging in closing discussions. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's always worth considering if a discussion even needs a close. In this case, it seems unlikely that the resulting close was something which would be useful to link to in the future. If editors have moved on, it also seems unlikely that a close is needed to stop editors adding to a discussion where it's moved past the point of being useful. And in fact, if editors do feel they have something useful to add, I'm not convinced it would definitely be useless. It's possible that the close will stop editors wasting their time reading a discussion where there's no need but IMO in a case like this the benefits of that are definitely outweighed by the disadvantages of making an involved close, and probably outweighed even by just the negatives of closing. As for collapsing, well the page isn't that long. And frankly, it would seem better to just reduce time before automatic archiving rather than collapse that specific discussion. Or even just manually archive some of the older threads. Noting there are bunch of older threads which seem to be way more unlikely to be revived or that anyone needs to see. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ravenswing & @Nil Einne, I agree with both of your valid points, and they will be considered in the future. No arguement from me against either of those good points.
    @Doug Weller, I expect you have mistakenly assumed I have only ever edited WP from this (somewhat new-ish) account in making that comment. That is incorrect. I have left uncounted thousands of edits as an IP User since 2007, though I only have begun to edit CTOP and political content since creation of this account.
    To all of you, thank you and have a good day. TheRazgriz (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken. But remember a lot of people won't know that. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is a perfectly valid point, which is why I spent so much time tinkering with my userpage to help those who may make that mistake. :) Thank you. TheRazgriz (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pinging Pbritti, who earlier today stated on TheRazgriz's talkpage that "I noticed you do a lot of closing". I'd like to know more about that, please, Pbritti, as this ANI thread has so far only been about one instance of inappropriate closing. Is there a wider problem that we need to address here? Bishonen | tålk 13:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
      That line is a surprise to me as well. If memory serves, I believe I have only closed 2 topics in total. I believe maybe 3 or 4 if including manual archiving within that categorization. The topic which @BootsED brought to attention here is the only one which I can imagine would be contentious in any way. It is certainly the most recent I have performed. TheRazgriz (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I stumbled on a closure of Talk:Bryson City, North Carolina, where TheRazgriz closed a discussion to to conserve space. I don't think this is intentionally disruptive behavior (even if it were, it's not exactly amy sort of serious offense). TheRazgriz has evidently been productively engaging on that article since before they registered. I only mentioned it because I figured that TheRazgriz might think such closures are standard. They're not, but they're also not worth starting an ANI over. A good first step to preventing this sort of escalation from repeating is removing the notice at the top of User talk:TheRazgriz, as that might give the impression that they are an editor unwilling to respond directly to constructive criticism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just an aside, we can't tie a registered account to an IP editor and I don't think we should make any assumptions here about anyone's previous identities if they edited unregistered. Unless they choose to disclose, exceptions only for trolls and vandals. Liz Read! Talk! 19:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No no, @Pbritti is correct, and my userpage makes that public info.
      Thank you for that, it would otherwise be a perfectly valid point to make. But in this case, it is both true and public knowledge by me to all of WP.
      (Additional edit to clarify, it is public that I edited for years as an IP user, and one of the first contributions on this named account was in reference to one of the IP edits I had made. What is not public is what my current IP is, which changes every so often for security reasons) TheRazgriz (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @TheRazgriz: We're glad you registered, by the way. You've been pushing hard for some useful overhauls on CTs. Glad to see someone make the leap from IP to registered and bring that experience with them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Setting aside the potential issues laid out above, I'd add that it's entertaining to see an Ace Combat 5 reference in 2024. Ed [talk] [OMT] 07:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A massively underappreciated title in the series with way more lore building under the surface than was ever reasonable, was very surprised and pleased when AC7 gave folks who never played it back on PS2 to play it in the modern day and get some love. Heartbreak One is core reason why the Phantom II is to this day my favorite aircraft. Glad to see a fellow fan! Thank you, and have a good day. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BrandtM113 WP:LAME edit war, no attempts at discussion, frequent warnings

    On David Madden (executive), there is a red link for Michael Thorn, a president of Fox, and Sarah Barnett, a president of AMC Networks. User:BrandtM113 has, five times in the last 3 years, come to the page to remove the red links. [12] He has never left an edit summary, so I have no explanation for this unusual fixation.

    In March 2022 I sent a message to BrandtM113 [13] telling him about WP:REDLINK and how red links are useful in helping editors find gaps in knowledge, and stopping new pages from being orphaned from birth. With the complete lack of edit summaries, I don't know if he thinks Thorn and Barnett should never have a Wikipedia article, which is quite the claim.

    Repeating the same edit with no summaries, no talk page discussion, is disruption even if it is over several years. I think a WP:CIR block may be useful. His talk page has more notices than I care to count for removing content without a summary, adding content without a source, repeated disruptive edits (doing the same edit, again) [14], outright vandalism [15]. This user has had more than enough warnings and it's literally like talking to a brick wall with the lack of edit summaries or discussions. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 6 months. Let's see if that is long enough time to get their attention. Oz\InterAct 19:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, 99.7% of this editor's 6,297 edits are to main space, they have made few edits to Talk space and fewer to User talk space. They don't often have an edit summary but they are very active and all of the talk page warnings are more than a year old so perhaps they have taken the advice on board. I was hoping that they would resond here but now they are blocked as I was writing this. I hope they file an unblock request and start communicating. Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Today, the user made the exact same edit that was made in 2021, 2022 and 2023, after having being told in 2022 about the exact Wikipedia policy that made that edit disruptive. I don't call that taking advice on board. If there is some crucial reason to remove those red links on the David Madden page, it should have been said in an edit summary or on the talk page. If a kid on my street played knock-and-run on my door once a year for four years, I'd still consider that as annoying as doing it once a day for four days. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The user did not edit between 22 October 2023 and 24 October 2024, after two warnings in September 2023. That's a year of not editing, rather than a year of constructive editing. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I don't understand why you let this little error get so under your skin that you brought this to ANI. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people take Wikibreaks. I did myself for six months in 2009. I'm at a loss of what could be construed as sinister about that. Ravenswing 15:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding some formatting to an infobox that the relevant wikiproject dislikes is not "outright vandalism". Espresso Addict (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This still seems like an excessive sanction for removing a few redlinks and not using talk pages. Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oz, given this editor's neglect of talk page edits, it is unlikely that they will even know they can file an unblock request. They did post a meager response on their user talk page. Any chance this 6 month block could be reduced? Just thought I'd put in a pitch for mercy for what was really a minor edit infraction. Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cycling through IPs

    I have a question about vandalism accounts. I help edit a series of reality TV articles and, from what I can tell, there appears to be a single user who will edit with either rumored spoilers for upcoming episodes or flat-out fake information. They don't use an account and the IP used will eventually be warned/blocked but then they will just pop up sometime later using a similar but different IP. Is there any potential resolution for this that isn't an endless game of whack-a-mole? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahp2 (talkcontribs) 07:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RANGE? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll need some IP accounts first to see if a range block is appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 09:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, here are seven I suspect are the same user. All do the same type of unannotated edits on similar pages. 222.153.65.98, 222.154.16.98, 222.153.14.129, 222.153.114.170, 222.153.13.121, 222.153.68.214, 222.153.50.12. Noahp2 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The IPs are assigned to a telecom company, so there could be collateral damage. This range - Special:Contributions/222.153.0.0/16 - seems the most used (222.154.x.x being an outlier). FifthFive (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there anything I need to do/request? Looks like two of these IPs have been active in the last few days Noahp2 (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Undisclosed paid editing

    Never disclosed their paid editing.

    According to User:DubaiScripter: Glimpse Digital Agency is a Marketing, Digital Marketing and design production studio set up in Dubai in 2017 by Lebanese Rayan Tarraf.[16][17] Hypnôs (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I note that this user has not edited since March this year, and has only made three edits, none to mainspace, since 2017. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So? DubaiScripter (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, as originally worded as a complaint against RayanTarraf (talk · contribs), this report cannot be said to be of an urgent incident or a chronic, intractable behavioural problem, as required for this noticeboard. It has, however, broadened its scope since then. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And what do you mean paid editing? Who paid who? DubaiScripter (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You disclosed in 2017 that you were paid to edit.[18]
    If you are unaware of this, are there other people that have had access to your account? Hypnôs (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is getting paid for editing? Rayan Taraff or Dubai Scripter? Do you have any diffs of problematic content that they have added to articles? Isaidnoway (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @Isaidnoway I just noticed a big discussion on social channels going around the article of Baalbek in Lebanon. Apparently, Some editors are using Wikipedia for political benefits in order to push war agenda. Which is terrible of course. I went straight to the article in order to see what is happening and found that many referenced articles have actually no backing or reliable sources. Two minutes after requesting access to edit, I received the notification of Hypnos questioning my integrity which makes me think that what is being said online is actually true. DubaiScripter (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    incase you want to see what I'm talking about https://www.instagram.com/khalilshreateh/reel/DB1rDyqNjCc/ DubaiScripter (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DubaiScripter disclosed that they were paid by RayanTarraf's company to edit[19], and have created the page Rayan Tarraf three times. But since they seem to be unaware of this, the account is possibly used by someone else now.
    Regarding Rayan Taraff, I can't go into details due to WP:OUTING, but the pages they created are either related to them or have a promotional tone.[20]
    Since joining the Mohammad & Obaid AlMulla Group in 2017, Beshara has played a key role in its growth and success.
    American Hospital Dubai, under Beshara's guidance, has achieved significant healthcare innovations, particularly in the field of robotics and artificial intelligence. Hypnôs (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but you are assuming too much. Not related, Nor paid. These pages were my attempts at learning on how to create new articles for known companies and figures that are not already on Wikipedia which I obviously failed to do but that certainly doesn't mean I'm paid and the section you quoted about American Hospital CEO is depicted directly from their articles which you can find online. And if you are talking about the option where you choose if you were paid or not for an article that was also a failed try when i was trying to find my way around understanding how this works. So again, no I never got paid nor do I know these people in person.
    Now the real question is... Why is @Hypnôs very insistent on diverting from the original issue which is using Wikipedia for Political gain? DubaiScripter (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DubaiScripter, you have stated that you are indeed a paid editor, paid by Glimpse Digital Agency. --Yamla (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as I have mentioned in my previous reply. I had chosen that option in one of my attempts to understand why the article is being rejected but I can confirm that was by mistake. not really paid by anyone. DubaiScripter (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DubaiScripter, please be exactly specific. What exactly is your relationship to Rayan Tarraf and to Glimpse Digital Agency? --Yamla (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No relationship. This guy made a lecture once were I worked and he inspired me to dig in Wikipedia and see how it works. So I kept trying to write an article about him or his company in order to learn. More like a test subject.
    Even though there was enough articles to support the guy i never managed to get it published. I even tried choosing the option were it says I was paid or even try to create a link to the person or his company but also didn't work.
    anyways I gave up on my Wikipedia skills. Anything else you would like to know? because the focus here should be the Political involvement of some admins.
    Thanks DubaiScripter (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first time creating an article on him was before 19 February 2017.[21]
    On 6 November 2017 he made an edit to your user page.[22]
    If the only relation to him was this one time lecture that inspired to to make an article about him, how did he know your user name and why did he make an edit to your user page months later? Hypnôs (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, please watch this video https://www.instagram.com/khalilshreateh/reel/DB1rDyqNjCc/ which explains exactly why @Hypnôs is doing this. He is plainly mentioned in there. DubaiScripter (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to stop this - I suggest you read the contentious topic notification on your talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My last message: Whoever is reading from the esteemed and amazing non-biased Admins... That are obviously more experienced and much better than me. Please check the this issue and don't let misinformation run loose on Wikipedia. https://www.tiktok.com/@zeez870/video/7435060973855116562?q=baalbek%20wikipedia&t=1733319093938 DubaiScripter (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, @Hypnôs I've noticed that in the talk page your name is mentioned 27 times and that in trying to block the removal of exactly what I came to check. All, I can say is that this issue is blowing up on social channels and it's only reflecting badly on Wikipedia Admins and Wikipedia as a reliable source. I also, noticed that you are only interested in historical pages that are related to the Jewish community which makes me believe that you are biased but again it that's my assumption. I could be wrong DubaiScripter (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ... "this issue is blowing up on social channels"? Really? How about providing us some links to those? You wouldn't happen to be involved in pushing that, would you? Ravenswing 15:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not pushing anything... I saw this video yesterday broadcasted on TV https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSjvepY85/ and it seems that there was a discussion panel at the university where I teach talking about how Wikipedia is being used for political reasons and everyone was talking about this guy @Hypnôs on how he is purposely adding fake details to the Baalbek article.
    Then I noticed that so many people are reposting the video or duetting it on both TikTok and Instagram. This original link alone has 81K views.
    Came in to check it out and unfortunately it was true a fake narrative is being added on to that article. Everyone can see it. And now I even have doubts based on your tone @Ravenswing that you are either the same person or work together.
    I don't want to get involved in all this political nonsense but all I can say is that whoever you guys work for... I don't really care but you are only giving Wikipedia a bad name. People will lose trust in this platform and because of what you are doing, you will end up destroying a very unique heritage sight that has nothing to do with your wars.
    No need to answer. I'm out. DubaiScripter (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK I think you really need to understand that if you don't cease making personal attacks against Wikipedia editors you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your comportment, so far, indicates you are not interested in collaboratively building an encyclopedia as you seem to have joined to act upon a specific grievance against a specific editor. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a prime example of Ravenswing's Third Law cropping up here: "The vehemence (and repetitiveness) with which an editor states that those who oppose his actions/edits/POV can only have sinister motives for doing so is in inverse proportion to the editor's conformity to (a) relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines; and/or (b) his articlespace edit count." If you really do believe that any editor who fails to agree with you is part of some conspiracy against you, then I agree with Simonm223; you are not fit to edit Wikipedia. Ravenswing 16:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nazmul995, See also sections, and promotion

    Nazmul created their account on November 22 and has racked up 525 edits, of which 16 are deleted - they've created drafts that have been deleted per WP:G11, including a self-promoting userpage. Mostly what they've been doing is adding massive See also sections to Bangladeshi places. Often, the See also section is larger than the article. Yesterday, Worldbruce left a message on their Talk page about the problem. The user not only didn't respond but continued to add See also sections. This morning, I added "Why are you adding massive See also sections to articles? It's disruptive." after Worldbruce's post. The user hasn't responded but instead persists in their agenda. I thought about a short-term block to get their attention, but decided to come here instead to get more input because it's an unusual problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nazmul995's most recent edits are adding 10+ "See also" links to every one-sentence "X is a village in Bangladesh" article, like this. Doing so is unhelpful and against the spirit of MOS:LINK. I'm guessing from a photo they uploaded, File:Tanvir Mehedi.jpg, that they may be more accustomed to a hierarchical work environment than a collaborative one. It would be good to have at least one more voice reach out to them and try to persuade them to redirect their energies into something constructive. Many ways to help are linked at Wikipedia:Community portal. If that doesn't work, it might get their attention and make them consider their edits more carefully if someone in authority blocked them briefly, and mass reverted their "See also" edits. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time of this writing, their last 80 edits (all today) have been to add the same boilerplate list of links to the "See also" section in 80 different village stubs. Their edits have all been to articles beginning with the letter "A" and have been done in alphabetical order of the article names. They seem to be going through an alphabetically sorted list of villages and making the same edit to all of them. I strongly agree that this is not helpful and should be stopped. CodeTalker (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given subsequent messages on User talk:Nazmul995, I think this editor was well-intentioned but they definitely overdid the article additions. Apparently, they are now aware of talk pages. Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption at Storrs, Connecticut by Jonathanhusky

    For several months several editors have been claiming Storrs, Connecticut should be Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut. It was at ANI several months ago - see [23], which led to the creation of an RfC.

    The RfC is clearly heading for an oppose, but it has been heavily bludgeoned by Jonathanhusky. For some reason, a merge discussion was initiated part of the way through the RfC - the whole thing is a bit of a mess.

    I'm coming here now since today I noticed Jonathanhusky had updated the article in a way that was clearly unsupported by the RfC and marked it as minor: [24] After I reverted - and I admit I did revert a bit too much because there were a series of edits, so I just picked the last table version - Jonathanhusky accused me of misusing the tools: [25] Finally, the edit that got me here, which is something I've never seen before - Jonathanhusky marked several strong opposers, including Mathglot, JamesMLane, and R0paire-wiki as "actually supports" in the RfC, while marking the edit as minor, and without signing the comments: [26]

    This behaviour, especially the bludgeoning and that last edit, is clearly disruptive/WP:OWNership behaviour and there needs to be at the very least a topic ban if not an outright block. SportingFlyer T·C 05:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have an opinion on the merits of this filing, but it should be noted that Jonathan also filed for a third opinion regarding this article. I procedurally declined that filing since there were clearly more than two editors involved in the matter already. I don't even know that this is particularly relevant to this ANI filing, but since it crossed my watchlist and since Jonathan is being accused of trying to bludgeon the matter, I figured I should at least note it. DonIago (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That last pretty much counts as "editing another editor's comments" doesn't it? - The Bushranger One ping only 05:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted their edit where they "interpreted" other editors' "votes" as the opposite of what they said. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ...have been claiming...

    It is important to note that this statement is false - the official name of the community is "Storrs-Mansfield" and "Storrs" is only an informal, unofficial version. This has been verified and cited in the talk page discussion - the RFC is and was always started to determine the best way to respect the inclusion of the "common name" alongside the official one foremostly. Although a page name change (or "page move") was a prior topic, the RFC nor the actual discussion was at any point regarding that.

    The RfC is clearly heading for an oppose, but it has been heavily bludgeoned by Jonathanhusky.

    ...I noticed Jonathanhusky had updated the article in a way that was clearly unsupported by the RfC...

    Jonathanhusky marked several strong opposers...as "actually supports" in the RfC...

    It is not "bludgeoning" to reply to one's comment nor is it disruptive to respond to individual points.

    As can be seen by reading the actual editors' comments referenced, and then furtherly explained in a discussion comment, they actually did support the proposed edits. The suggested text follows the established and accepted Wikipedia style.

    This behaviour, especially the bludgeoning and that last edit, is clearly disruptive/WP:OWNership behaviour...

    Incorrect. When users publish multifaceted comments it is not inappropriate to respond to those facets with individual respect toward their points. As a furtherer of the discussion, I am allowed to respond to new evidence, theories and ideas, and able to (as any other user) explain why I do or don't agree with a comment or the reasoning presented, or asked clarifying questions. In fact, I have tried referencing verified reliable sources and relevant Wikipedia policies to figure out what applies and what doesn't. Not all participants did, and as well, others either repeated storied or irrelevant explanations (perhaps they did not know better) or refused to consider the valid points presented in a reply.

    I understand that you have initiated this process, but, this has to be looked at from the perspective of the unanswered questions regarding how to properly and respectfully write about this community (and others like it) on Wikipedia. Jonathanhusky (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't matter if you interpret their comments/explanations as "they actually did support". Editing other editors' comments in a discussion, especially changing their explict, bolded !votes, is a bright line. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No portion of the editors' original comments were actually removed. This fact needs to be respected.
    What I did was, solely, ensure that readers knew the honest view of the editors' responses. You say that these were so-called "votes" - in a discussion which is exclusively a discussion, not a call for "votes" - which say "opposed" but their explanations say they don't really oppose the point.
    Then other editors see just the "opposed" but don't actually read or understand the comment, drawing a false conclusion. It is unfair to penalize me for adding clarifying labels. Jonathanhusky (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jonathanhusky, it is up to the uninvolved closer to review all of the comments and weigh the arguments when they assess the discussion. You are an involved participant and as Bushranger states, no editor edits other people's comments or "interprets them" by editing them in any way unless they need to hat disruptive content which is not the case here. Just know that if you try this again, you will be facing a block. Liz Read! Talk! 08:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an interpretation when the original editors said it themselves. And, please, stop saying that I've edited anyone else's comment. I didn't, haven't, and don't plan to - What I did was akin to a sticky note on the cover page. It's actually disruptive to say one thing when you mean something else. What I did is not and was not disruptive. Jonathanhusky (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    However you choose to interpret what you did (realizing that experienced editors disagree with you), consider yourself warned not to do it again. Liz Read! Talk! 08:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ...realizing that experienced editors disagree with you...

    Then go to the discussion and see for yourself - for goodness' sake, half of the responses labeled "opposed" aren't about the RFC, they're about a page name change (or "page move"). And you're saying that those prima facie irrelevant responses aren't invalid?
    You mentioned an uninvolved closer. If everyone feels so strongly about the so-called "conclusion" of the discussion, then please start the process to render a decision. Obviously, the editors who have an opinion on the subject have commented and if they actually read and understood the evidence, and participated fairly, you can clearly see that they support the lead paragraph and other changes as suggested. Jonathanhusky (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no then — this is not a negotiation. What you did was sanctionable misconduct, so you can't do that again, full stop. El_C 09:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So any comment labeled "opposed" will stand no matter what the editor says, in that very same or other comments in the discussion? Even if they really didn't disagree, or the comment had nothing to do with the topic? Jonathanhusky (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. A closer might deem an argument as weak enough so as to give it little to no weight, but you can't take another's agency away by editing their comment. El_C 09:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, I did not edit anyone else's comment. The text, data, and material of every other editor's comments and edits were not changed, deleted, or altered.
    Stop insinuating and accusing me of something I did not do. Doesn't Wikipedia have policies against personal attacks? Jonathanhusky (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see the diffs just fine. You do not have the authority to edit inside their comment field. You are not being personally or otherwise attacked, but you do need to step away from this at this point, because it's increasingly coming across as WP:BLUDGEON and WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, which are in themselves sanctionable. El_C 09:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jonathanhusky: I'll put it a different way. Do you think it was in any way acceptable if I had let this edit stand [27]? Perhaps the formatting is a little different but that's basically what you did. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne, it appears you did not actually understand the substance of this issue.
    Firstly, since you were logged in and you are not me, it is obvious that such an edit in your example would have been thrown out immediately, automatically considered a target onto the other user, and perhaps result in you getting the first-person wish you typed on your own keyboard. Furthermore, you added something which wasn't suggested or supported in that or any of my other comments.
    If we take a look at the real case here, we have editors who wrote "opposed" even though they didn't mean to. I did not remove any of their original "opposed" labels, nor any of their content. This fact needs to be respected. I placed before them, in a colored superscript italic indicating that it was an added emphasis not a part of their original comment "actually support".
    I then linked to the reply that backs up that claim with "see their comment". It is obvious to any reader that the "sticky note" was and would have been separate from the editor's original comment, but clear (in the link and in the actual text) that the "opposed" would no longer be appropriate.
    Had I removed any portion of their comment, or even not supported the change with linked evidence I could potentially understand the concern, albeit a form of crying wolf. Practically speaking, these were clarifying edits.
    To accuse me of malfeasance and disruption is and was inappropriate and incorrect. Jonathanhusky (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathanhusky is clearly in an "I am not going to listen to anyone else because I am right" mode. Accordingly, I have blocked Jonathanhusky for one month from editing Storrs, Connecticut and Talk: Storrs, Connecticut. They can spend that month contributing productively elsewhere and pondering the fact that this is a collaborative project where decisions are made by genuine consensus instead of misrepresentations and pushiness. Cullen328 (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If you actually read the discussion, you'll note that I'm actually one of the most willing editors on the platform to consider that my suggestion may be in need of improvement or doesn't fit. I was practically the only person to even attempt to seek out the relevant policies, entries in the manual of style, and precedents. And discussed them based on specific points with other editors. I didn't name call and I didn't push an agenda.
    Go back and see that other editors started drawing conclusions and accusing me. Since when, in a discussion, am I not allowed to respond to individual points?
    You called my editing disruptive, which is not true and frankly rude. Jonathanhusky (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you need to step back from this thread, or face additional sanctions. You do not have an inalienable right to to respond to individual points indefinitely. You are free to disagree, but not misuse (WP:BLUDGEON) this space further. El_C 10:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflict) I just actually read the discussion, and there is no way to interpret those comments other than that this village should first be named as Storrs and then Storrs-Mansfield be given as an alternative name, the opposite way round to the RFC. Being polite does not excuse lying. Frankly, you are lucky that you can still edit here. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) On further thought, I've added ANI to the p-block list (now totaling three pages). Hopefully, this will suffice and we can avoid a sitewide block. Added: what Phil Bridger brings up is concerning. El_C 10:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. If this person still wishes to edit, they should know that they are standing on the edge of a precipice and should take several steps back. Cullen328 (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that merge discussion can be safely closed. It's going nowhere, and is another example of their disruptive behavior at that article. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this edit, made after the ANI was opened, also need to be reverted? SportingFlyer T·C 16:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I closed the thing. There might be an argument made for merging the two articles in question, and a very simple 'sometimes known as ...' line in there, but better for those to be discussed politely in a separate thread. Also note this change was made over on the simple-english wiki without discussion while this was all going on. Connecticut - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which I have reverted JeffUK 17:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've modified the block to be site-wide due to continued edit warring, but reduced the length to two weeks. I think a lot of good faith has been extended to Jonathanhusky, but they're not listening to any of the advice or cautions provided.-- Ponyobons mots 22:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    [28] Definitely not listening, and IMHO very likely to resume conduct once the block expires, so best to keep an eye on the various articles when that happens. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jonathanhusky originally made identical Storrs-related edits from a variety of IP accounts in September 2024. Best to keep an eye out for logged out editing. Of course, at this point, I think this article on this CT town is on more Watchlists than it was 3 months ago when this dispute all first started. Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't look promising. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked through the recent bits on his talk page, the constant wikilawering, refusal to listen, and refusal to accept that he could have in any way be wrong, combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works (with it being implicitly stated that he'll resume the exact same behavior that got him blocked when the block expired) leads me to believe that an indef now would be not uncalled for. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed 100%. The user's recent lengthy post on his talkpage (in response to your suggestion above) pretty much proves your point. Axad12 (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Current use of Storrs-Mansfield

    Unnecessary aside hatted for the sake of EEng's stomach - The Bushranger One ping only 23:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My stomach thanks you. EEng
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    As of this moment, there are exactly two uses of Storrs-Mansfield in mainspace, one in Storrs, Connecticut and one in Mansfield, Connecticut, both the title of the 674 Bus-line used as a reference in regards to public transportation.Naraht (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (a) How does this bear on this complaint? (b) If I hear the words "Storrs" or "Mansfield" one more time, I'm gonna vomit. EEng 22:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing from Guillaume de la Mouette

    Involved: Guillaume de la Mouette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    So I was looking through Special:NewFiles to make sure my tornado images went through, and I came across File:1983 John (Jack) Thornton.jpg, which is missing all information. Then, I came across Thornton's Bookshop, where the following text was added by the user (feel free to remove it with "copyvio removed" if this is a copyright violation, my Earwig isn't working), which was reverted by me and instantly re-added:

    The founders and rules of the British Empire took the fame of Oxford to the far corners of the earth. Many of them were, of course, educated at Oxford; they ate Oxford marmalade for breakfast; in the twilight of Empire a few of them even relaxed in Oxford bags. Yet the name o£ Oxford is known to millions throughout the world not because of trousers, or marmalade, or even scholarship, but because they have received their education from books supplied by Oxford booksellers. Oxford, a city which had a well-established book trade; the makers of medieval books - the scribes, limners, illuminators, and binders - and their sellers clustered around St Mary's and in Catte Street, near the Schools which stood on the site now occupied by the Bodleian. Their customers were the men of the University, but the invention of printing wrought a revolution in the availability of books and in the ability to read them. It was not, however, the printers themselves, but the booksellers, who were the key figures in the dissemination of this vast new literature. The learned booksellers of Oxford were soon adapting themselves to new ways. John Dorne had a shop near St Mary's in the 1520s from which he sold a great variety of books: the old learning was represented by Peter Lombard, and the new by Erasmus; but amongst the learned folios Dorne also stocked school textbooks, ballads, sheet almanacs, and the astrological prognostications which our ancestors loved. Each year he had a stall at St. Frideswide’s Fair and at Austin Fair which provided valuable additional income. Dorne, and, no doubt, his contemporaries about whom little or nothing is known, had begun to bridge the gap between town and gown, supplying the needs and tastes of both. Outside the city there were no printers but there were books and men who sold them. As early as 1604 we know of a stationer in Charlbury. Stationers normally had a few ballads and Bibles on their shelves and from The original site of the bookshop in Magdalen street c. 1860 near the Oxford Memorial and the Randolph hotel them country bookshops developed. By 1800, all the major towns in Oxfordshire had a tradesman who was, at least in name a bookseller. Most of them are shadowy. Only accidental survivals, like the little Holloway cache rescued by Johnson, or the much larger Cheney archives, can add flesh to the bare bones of names and dates. We can, however, argue by analogy with similar survivals elsewhere in England. Such analogies suggest that there were few towns of any size in which there was not a bookshop able to supply the needs of the locality. In Oxfordshire, as elsewhere the book trade was essentially distributive, and the similarity between the trade in Oxfordshire and that elsewhere emphasises the point that Oxford itself is not only not the whole story but is rather a deviation from it. The learned men of Oxford made the city a major centre of learned publishing; but beyond the walls the county pursued a quiet and uneventful existence in which the book trade was one of many which catered to its modest needs.

    This is comlete cruft and promotional, and this user has a clear-cut COI, as seen here. I think administrator intervention is needed, as they've been reverting Filedelinkerbot, me, and don't seem to listen to warnings on their talk page. EF5 16:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder if this person knows what this is all about. It's an introduction to the history of the book trade in Oxford Guillaume de la Mouette (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An article about a particular bookshop is not the place for an article about the poorly sourced Draft:History of the book trade in Oxford. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that this situation is problematic. The SPA user's extensive edits to that article are also entirely unsourced. I have reverted the article to the position before they started their spree (which seems to include a large IP edit in 19th Nov). Axad12 (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a very extensive archive of the bookshop, this goes back to about 1840. I am currently writing the history of 5 generations of booksellers in this, Oxford's oldest bookshop. I have just over 280 photographs, documents, letters etc just for the period 1835 - 1983. Of these I choose a few for Wikipedia. It is of course also strange that I keep on having to confirm copyright for photographs we, my wife and I took between 1983 and 2023. I added an introduction to the history of the book trade in Oxford till Thornton's opened in 1835 which you have now deleted and I now find that the site is back to the old one before I worked on this for days on end. It's simplistic. Guillaume de la Mouette (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Be that as it may, material added to Wikipedia articles must be properly cited to published sources and must be written in neutral encyclopaedic language. It also must not include large blocks of text taken from other sources. See WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:COPYVIO for further details on the relevant policies. Axad12 (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote the introduction myself, after all I have been a bookseller for more than 60 years. I let the previous generations speak about the history of the firm. But I realise that you allow AI to review all of this. a pity. Guillaume de la Mouette (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been tracking and watching storms for about 3 years now. Does that mean that I'm an "expert"? No! Please don't assume bad faith, as there are some serious NPOV issues here and we aren't "AI generated". EF5 16:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what AI has to do with this. Would you mind expanding?
    Please also note that Wikipedia is no place for original research as per WP:OR. If you have researched the subject, the appropriate place to publish that research is in book form (or similar) not on Wikipedia (which simply reports what other already published sources say). Axad12 (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and I was in the legal field for over thirty years before my retirement, and that doesn't mean I get to override Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and the consensus of other editors to jam in whatever meandering prose I want. You would be well advised to pay attention to Axad12's counsel, as well as reviewing the links at WP:PILLAR before editing further. Ravenswing 16:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote the introduction myself, after all I have been a bookseller for more than 60 years. I let the previous generations speak about the history of the firm. But I realise that you allow AI to review all of this. a pity. Guillaume de la Mouette (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your (mis)understanding of the role of AI here? The reason your work has been reverted has been stated very clearly above. The need to revert you was observed and agreed by human beings alone (all of whom who have seen your work appear to oppose it). Axad12 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12: They're now trying to re-add the info "secretly" under an IP (2A02:8012:B5B2:0:421:7B31:2D08:281E). I think block is in order? EF5 16:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This situation is rather sad, it would have been a lot more constructive if they had had a look at the policies I had pointed them to rather than starting to edit war while logged out.
    I suppose it's up to them whether they want to be a useful contributor within the bounds of the relevant policies and guidelines, or someone who got blocked for edit warring.
    Guillaume, I would seriously suggest that you opt for the former course. Axad12 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks, I'll give up, a pity you are happy with an inferior description which fortunately I have saved and will be part of my Faringdon chronicle volume 5 to be housed in both the Bodleian library and the central Historical archive in Oxford. And by the way, the above I am he not they. :) Yes I still need to correct the introduction. Guillaume de la Mouette (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was assuming that the book plug was going to happen at some point. Axad12 (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Guillaume de la Mouette, the bottom line is this: If you want to edit Wikipedia, then you must comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Neither your expertise nor your age give you any exemptions. Cullen328 (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: They continue to blank content, as seen by their recent contributions. EF5 17:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328, despite my dickishness, let's look at some of Guy's contributions. Today, adding a crap ton of unsourced content to Thornton's Bookshop, and another edit, deleting some of the unsourced content? Weird stuff. BarntToust 17:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked Guillaume de la Mouette for one week for disruptive editing. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, @Guillaume de la Mouette, good luck with seeing if you can sneak your Amazon.fr print-ordered book into the donation boxes at the local libraries that you haven't yet been kicked out of for similar, prior incidents. BarntToust 18:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BarntToust, that remark was completely inappropriate and unnecessary. Cullen328 (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with the unnecessary part, but.. inappropriate? I would characterise that as "chiding" and "dank" before I'd consider it inappropriate. BarntToust 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an off-kilter reading of what's probably going on with Guillaume, but still definitely not helpful. I'll see myself out, eh. BarntToust 19:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    actually, looks like this is a bookseller? huh. weird. BarntToust 19:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    BarntToust, since you failed to take the hint, consider this a formal warning: Never address a another editor in such a mocking fashion again. Cullen328 (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    alrighty, no mocking. I should instead invite the editor to indeed wait until his works are published by a reliable publishing house, then provide identifying info, such as ISBN in order for his knowledge to be utilised in the project. BarntToust 20:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't doubt actually, misplaced mockery aside, that this information Guillaume has put forth is true. But, as some essay said once, "Wikipedia isn't truth, it's verifiablity". So, let's wait for the book to be published, and judge from there. BarntToust 20:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lavipao edit warring + POV pushing

    This user is deliberately POV pushing on Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch articles, comparing these to US invasion of Iraq and Russian invasion of Ukraine. While these articles do not even include the word "invasion" as title but "operation". Also in international politics, only handful countries have called this an invasion. Undue weight. I reported this vandalism and asked for page protection but admin called this a content dispute, which is funny because the one editing 6 to 8 years old text is right in this context. Weird! Beshogur (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Beshogur, you're a very experienced editor, you know you have to present diffs so that editors can investigate your complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 08:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's I can do on mobile.
    Operation Olive Branch
    rev before
    rev after
    Operation Euphrates Shield
    rev before
    rev after
    Beshogur (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinion on this content dispute, but it undoubtably is a content dispute. It doesn't matter that at least one editor thinks they are "right in this context" - it is still a content dispute. And an invasion is not necessarily bad. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In these both articles operation appears 10x more than invasion. And invasion is subjective. This can not be compared to Iraq or Ukraine invasion. The ratio of local Syrian rebels were 10x more than Turkish troops, yet it's conducted by the Turkish army. It is not even against the Syrian regime but ISIL and YPG. "not necessarily bad"? so let's change everything slightly to not necessarily bad instead of stating factual things. Beshogur (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place to discuss content disputes. And your opening salvo on their talk page [29] of "Revert your edit or you will be reported. This is the consensus." is not the right way to deal with a content dispute either. They probably shouldn't have reverted their change back in again without discussing it, but honestly, if that's the level of discussion they're introduced to I can see why they didn't think discussing it would be helpful. JeffUK 10:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am complaining the way administrators treat this as a content dispute. I asked for page protection and intervention against vandalism, but nothing. Administrators doing these do not even check the content. This is a disruptive edit and action should be taken. So he's changing something and I have to convince him. What a joke honestly. This is simply time wasting. Both of his edits are like "is an invasion bla bla" then suddenly 2-3 times the word operation appears in the lead again. Both were not described as a military invasion, but had been described as an invasion by a very fringe minority. If he thinks both were a military invasions, he should ask for title change "2016 invasion of Syria", etc. Beshogur (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also leaving this here as an example Operation_Olive_Branch#International reactions (simple read the countries):
    • Cyprus: The Republic of Cyprus condemned the Turkish invasion in Afrin
    • France: evolves into an attempted invasion (assumption)
    • Sweden: to protest the Afrin invasion (statement of the newspaper, not Swedish government)
    • US: US State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert called on Turkey not to engage in any invasion of Syria's Afrin (doesn't have a source, and US called this an operation, not invasion)
    for Operation_Euphrates_Shield#International_reactions
    • Cyprus: the unacceptable invasion of Turkey into Syria
    Now tell me how his edits is appropriate? Beshogur (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is whether we should describe this as an invasion or an operation not a content dispute? It is certainly not vandalism. The use of that word is a personal attack. And it's perfectly possible for something to be both an invasion and an operation. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not arguing this resulted in a military occupation (see Turkish occupation of Northern Syria) but military invasion =/= military occupation. Invasion aims to conquer a land, while the Turkish army doesn't control a piece of land there, but uses proxy, which makes this different from US invasion of Iraq or Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is simply wrong, and we should be realistic. I don't care if anyone calls this an invasion or not, I am trying to say a fringe minority calls this an invasion. I don't get how Military operation suddenly became a taboo word after Russian invasion (yes yes I know the special military operation). Beshogur (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    >I don't care if anyone calls this an invasion or not, I am trying to say a fringe minority calls this an invasion.
    Then say that a fringe minority call it an invasion! something like '[the operation]..characterised by some as an invasion.." would be an excellent compromise and a valuable addition to the article. JeffUK 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How so exactly? We edit like that. WP:UNDUE. Beshogur (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an argument to make on the Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that (the article talk page) is the right place to talk about this content dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello! As others have said this is a content dispute, which should be discussed on the talk page for the specific article. There is no POV or vandalism occurring, I’m just attempting to clean up the article by using correct and accurate language that reflects consistently the language used throughout this website for invasions. As I’ve provided before, there are many examples of pages on invasions throughout Wikipedia, such as the US invasion of Afghanistan or the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
    User Beshogur has been continuously reverting away from correct language to use euphemistic, purposefully-confusing terms such as “cross border military operation” which is a term not used in other Wikipedia articles.
    The user seems to have a very strong conviction that only Turkish government phrasing or sources should be used to describe this event, even though around the world this invasion has been widely covered as an invasion. I suspect a strong POV issue with this user Lavipao (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is deliberately edit warring and POV pushing. administrators should intervene asap. Beshogur (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are also edit-warring and you've failed to open a talk page discussion despite telling Lavipao too. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Traumnovelle: because he's clear POV pushing? We have to revert POV pushing on wikipedia, not trying to convince the POV pusher. I asked several times page protection or intervention for vandalism (yet him having like less than 50 edits). Beshogur (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This user abuses 1RR rule, and edit warring, yet administrators doing nothing. Good. Beshogur (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What 1RR rule is there on these pages? On the user's talk page you reference an introduction to ARBPIA, what does a Turkish military operation in Syria against Kurdish groups have to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict? Traumnovelle (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    a Turkish military operation in Syria against Kurdish groups: Not ARBPIA, but WP:ARBKURDS. "The topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed...has been designated as a contentious topic" - and thus 1RR applies. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to know. It might be best to explain to give a proper explanation of it to Lavipao. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Their responses do not look promising. Calling another editor a "Classic no-life activist editor" is not good. Codename AD talk 21:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A classic case of WP:THETRUTH. I've given them what can be considered a final warning. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor508 + their IP (86.28.195.223) POV pushing

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


    The two (the same person actually) are pushing their POV at UEFA Euro 2028, even though it is a long-standing consensus that the countries are always listed alphabetically. Single purpose accounts and IP editing with their pro-Wales edits and complexes against England, those edits are not done in a good faith and needs to be permanently blocked - or semi-protect the page in question for several months.

    Difs Editor508:

    Diffs 86.28.195.223

    Snowflake91 (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • The user was already partial-blocked from the article, I have done the same for the IP. If the IP is the user evading a block, they'll find they've just extended their block significantly, since I blocked the IP with "block registered users from this IP" enabled. Black Kite (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Emiya1980 Repeated Edit Warring

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


    Emiya1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) My colleague has been engaged in numerous edit wars, most recently demonstrated here [30] for another edit war at Hirohito. While both parties engaged in an Edit War, and the admin responding chose not to block either editor, Emiya1980's edit warring seems to be a chronic, intractable issue. Emiya1980 has received multiple warnings for Edit Warring, here at ANI, and on his talkpage [31][32][33][34][35][36] and yet continues to engage in edit warring, even crossing the bright line of the WP:3RR in the latest edit war.

    I propose implementation of a WP:1RR restriction on Emiya1980 for at least six months, to prevent further, continued disruptive edit warring. Withdrawn. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Given how much I’ve collaborated with BRP recently, I am rather taken aback by their decision to have me subject to further sanctions without speaking with me beforehand.
    I have made a point of trying to conform to Wikipedia’s expectations since being subjected to sanction in October. The recent edit war over at Hirohito is the only evidence provided of me being a disruptive presence since then. In the past, I have tried to compromise with LilAhok on that page but he/she has responded more often than not by digging in his/her heels. I am not the first editor whom LilAhok has gotten in a heated dispute with and I doubt I’ll be the last.
    I ask that all I’ve said be taken into consideration before reaching a decision. Emiya1980 (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't this go to WP:ANEW, or if it's with a specific problem, WP:DRN? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 15:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given how much I’ve collaborated with BRP recently, I am rather taken aback by their decision to have me subject to further sanctions without speaking with me beforehand.
    I have spoken to you beforehand. I urged you to be less combative and to WP:DISENGAGE, which is why I found it disappointing to see that you violated WP:3RR in a conflict on Hirohito with an editor that I suggested you WP:DISENGAGE from months ago [37]. My proposal for a WP:1RR is as much for your own good as it is the encyclopedia, because perhaps you'll just let things go and not run the risk of a site block. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Emiya1980 hasn't edit warred since an admin closed that report at ANEW with two days of full protection. BRP seems to think that admin wasn't aware of previous conflicts and if they had been, they wouldn't have let Emiya1980 off so lightly. I'll ask. @Crazycomputers: did you know about the behavior reported here? If not, do you think it's problematic enough that Emiya1980 should now get 1RR restriction, a block, and/or any other sanction? City of Silver 18:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive489 § User:Emiya1980 reported by User:LilAhok (Result: Page protected)
    Typically when investigating ANEW reports, unless there is a specific comment regarding past behavior, I look only at the facts presented at the time. For any participants I conclude are edit warring, I also will take their block log into account. In this case there was no reference to past behavior, so I didn't dig into either participant's history.
    The other party in the edit war was starting to make an attempt to discuss on the article's talk page, and I did not want to stifle that discussion with a 2-party block, so I opted for page protection instead. However, it does not seem that Emiya1980 engaged in discussion on the article's talk page at all, so this approach unfortunately did not have the intended effect.
    Having said all of that, I don't think a block is necessary at this time. Emiya1980 has not really even edited substantially since the ANEW report. I count one single edit in mainspace since then. Blocking now, a full week after the edit war, without a recurrence of the problematic behavior, would be in contravention of WP:NOPUNISH.
    Looking at the links provided by BRP:
    • Heinrich Himmler: They reverted once and then ceased. For an incident that happened 4 years ago, this is not terribly concerning to me.
    • The edit warring at Talk:Benito Mussolini is concerning, especially since it involves removing/striking other people's messages. Emiya1980 should be reminded of WP:TPO, if they were not at the time.
    • Unless I'm missing something, at World War II related to this discussion, I see one revert.
    • The last is the edit war is the one handled by me at ANEW.
    Out of these four incidents, two of them would be within the proposed 1RR sanction. Unless more compelling evidence is brought forward demonstrating that this is a chronic and intractable problem, I do not think additional sanctions are warranted. As the situation stands today, I think the standard edit warring policy is sufficient to handle future issues. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Emiya1980 hasn't edit warred since an admin closed that report at ANEW with two days of full protection. BRP seems to think that admin wasn't aware of previous conflicts and if they had been, they wouldn't have let Emiya1980 off so lightly
    My suggestion was borne entirely of the fact that the user has accrued an unusual amount of edit warring notices across the past year, and the idea that a WP:1RR restriction would prevent further disruption. The links I provided are not the only warnings that Emiya1980 has received. It isn't that I believe the Admin would have reacted differently, it is a matter of feeling like the community should take action to prevent further distrubances.
    Here is a list of edit warning notices and other evidence demonstrating a timeline of repeated behavior:
    Regarding "Missing something at World War II", as explained here [63] Making a change, getting reverted, re-reverting, and being re-reverted again actually can constitute edit warring.
    Supplying any further diffs would be overkill at this point (in fact, it already is overkill). I was succint in the diffs I supplied on the first round for fear of applying too many, but it demonstrates at the very least that Emiya1980 has been engaged in edit warring in September 2024, October 2024, November 2024. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that (with regards to the links posted for “November 2024”) both warnings against edit-warring on my talk page were posted by LilAhok who was likewise edit-warring on Hirohito. While the second warning is signed as “Ulises Laertíada”, said post was made by LilAhok not the former.Emiya1980 (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, if they're running around signing notices as someone else, that's a problem. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can verify that LilAhok did apparently leave a warning on Emiya1980's page and signed it as @Ulises Laertíada for some reason [64] Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, yeah, pretending to be another editor is not acceptable, and should result in sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [65]
    In this post, I clearly said I signed it by mistake. In August 2024, another user reminded me to sign my edits [66]. I am not used to signing edits since wiki usually does it automatically. Sometimes it doesn't. @Emiya1980 even mentioned it in the post and crossed it out because I admitted to that mistake on the admin board. Why would I pretend to be another editor when all edits are recorded on the history page? LilAhok (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest you look at WP:Signature, then. All you need to sign anything is four tildes ~~~~ to generate a signature. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know that. i'll take a look at WP:Signature. LilAhok (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Contrary to LilAhok's protestations of ignorance, this is not the first time they have been warned about improperly signing comments. [67] Emiya1980 (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Heinrich Himmler - Emiya1980's edit warring behavior demonstrated through reverts and partial reverts on 14 September 2024.
    User's preferred version: [68] - 20:45, 14 September 2024
    Reverts & partial Reverts on same content:
    [69] - 19:15, 14 September 2024
    [70] - 20:53, 14 September 2024
    [71] - 21:06, 14 September 2024
    [72] - 22:33, 14 September 2024
    [73] - 23:00, 14 September 2024 LilAhok (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing how LilAhok has seen fit to support sanctions against me in this thread, I think it's only fair to point out that LilAhok likewise has a history of edit-warring with other contributors besides myself. [74]. [75]
    He/she also appears to have recurring problems with copyright violations. They have been warned by editors about such conduct on at least three separate occasions. [76], [77], [78]. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LilAhok and Emiya1980: Neither of you is going to get in trouble for previous issues per WP:NOPUNISH, which says "Blocks should not be used...if there is no current conduct issue of concern." If you keep going back and forth dredging up old stuff like this, that probably will be considered a "current conduct issue of concern" and blocks could come into play. Why not disengage and move on? City of Silver 00:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved on from the situation, but it appears that Emiya1980 has not, as shown by their behavior in this discussion.
    Although Emiya1980 was reported by another user for edit warring, not myself, they have nonetheless mentioned me in this discussion. This was a consecutive edit by the user. [79]
    As I pointed out earlier [80], I acknowledged my signature mistake in a previous administrative discussion, and Emiya participated in that conversation by asking, "I am curious though. Why did you sign your warning on my page as another editor?" [81] (This question had already been addressed by me long before the user asked it). [82] Emiya even went so far as to strike through their own question.[83] Despite this, Emiya knowingly misrepresented my actions by bringing up my earlier mistake in the current discussion. [84] Emiya1980's comments were not constructive to the discussion and were malicious in nature, as other users were speculating about whether I was signing my posts under different usernames. Had I not addressed the issue, there was a possibility that I could have been sanctioned or banned.
    WP:CIV - I have issued multiple reminders and warnings to the user, advising them to refrain from engaging in uncivil behavior towards me.[85] I posted a final civil warning on their talk page after 3 violations. Prior to that, I made three reminders of the user's uncivil conduct.
    Emiya1980's deliberate misrepresentations of my actions, despite it having already been addressed, constitute a violation of WP:CIV. Despite multiple reminders and warnings, and considering the seriousness of the most recent violation, should the user's behavior be reported? LilAhok (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm misreading, but I believe their intent in bringing up the signature incident in this thread was to make it clear to people reviewing the diffs that both warnings were actually issued by you, not to suggest that you be sanctioned for that accident. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LilAhok: After you stated "I have moved on from the situation," you typed out almost 300 words of you rehashing complaints that have already been addressed, proving that you have absolutely not "moved on from the situation" one bit. I'll say again: "Neither of you is going to get in trouble for previous issues". Just now in their message below this one, admin Crazycomputers told you that since there isn't a current problem, neither of you is going to get in trouble for previous issues. Since neither of you is going to get in trouble for previous issues, why keep trying? City of Silver 02:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I'm very close to proposing an interaction ban between these two editors. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you do I'll support it. You're actually the reason I'm so frustrated; I was reluctant to lasso you into this because I felt like it could end up being a major waste of your time and a day later, sure enough, it's been little more than a major waste of your time. On the matter at hand, anyone who wants to know why an interaction ban is in order can trudge through this thread and see how much pointless bickering could have been avoided if these two editors were both required to leave each other alone. City of Silver 05:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your consideration. Ultimately it is what it is, and given that I handled the most recent ANEW report it's probably inevitable that I ended up here one way or another. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking through these diffs, I'm not really seeing anything new. I see a lot of warnings to Emiya1980, but warnings are not evidence of anything other than that they're aware of our edit warring policy. In the diffs you provided, many are EW warning notices, others are duplicate links, and still others are links to reverts made by other editors. When you filter all of this out, it's pretty much the same list as you initially posted.
    I'm not stating categorically that there's no problem with their behavior (there is), or that additional sanctions aren't necessary (they might be). I'm just stating that I don't think their problematic behavior yet rises to the level where additional sanctions are required -- at least I don't see evidence of that. An admonishment that this behavior is unacceptable and that future incidents will likely result in a block should be sufficient at this time. Of course, this is just my opinion, and any other administrator is welcome to chime in here if they disagree.
    To be clear, if they want to voluntarily adopt a 1RR restriction as a stricter guardrail to help them avoid extended edit wars in the future, I would have no problem enforcing that. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers, I'm not hard pressed on the issue, so I'm not going to fight you about it or anything. If you feel that there isn't anything more to do, then I'm fine with that. I do want to note that I very specifically wasn't suggesting that Emiya should be blocked from the site, which was why I was proposed a 1RR restriction instead of suggesting they should be blocked. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent NPOV violations on Cavalier Johnson by multiple users involved in Michigan State University's Urban Politics course

    The article on Cavalier Johnson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been disrupted by multiple editors with edits that violate NPOV. When an NPOV edit from one user gets reverted, the reverted content usually gets readded by another user, sometimes over multiple edits. Could potentially be a case of meatpuppetry, as the editors concerned seem to be involved in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Michigan_State_University/Urban_Politics_(Fall_2024).

    Concerned editors are JuliaG886 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), MiaReese26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and SarahReckhow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    Devchar (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't AP2 lack a distinction between national and subnational politics in the United States? These would fall under that CTOP if true. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In theory, that's true. However it is unusual to indefinitely protect articles about local pols under CTOP. Not saying it hasn't been done. But it isn't routine. I think this issue is fixable if we can get the word out to the involved editors so they know to avoid slanted language in articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't implying protection. I was implying more formal CTOP warnings. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies. I misunderstood your comment. Any editor in good standing is free to drop a CTOP notice on another user's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this is clearly problematic. I have EC protected the page for 1 month. I will be happy to lift the protection once everybody concerned understands our guidelines and policies on BLPs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Michigan State University class in question ended yesterday. If the usual pattern prevails, we will never hear from these student editors again. I wonder what grade will be given to the student who wrote Johnson credits his desire to be mayor as being rooted in his passion for service and serving the city he grew up in. When the word "passion" appears in the biography of a living person, it is a violation of NPOV about 99.9% of the time. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Student editing, while problematic, has the same sort of problem so many new editors have around tone. It's a problem that frequently makes me despair, but I believe there's incremental hope for better. And instructor reverting without explanation is a problem. Squarely our problem, because somehow we failed to convey the seriousness of it.
    I've asked Helaine to intervene with the instructor. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk)/User:Guettarda/ 20:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm mildly concerned that the teacher of the course (SarahReckhow) doesn't seem to know what constitutes an NPOV violation (see their reply to me on their talk page). I'm not sure if this an actually valid concern though. Devchar (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User82532 clearly NOTHERE

    This edit is quite self-explanatory. I had reported them at WP:AIV due to a previous edit, but looking at these edits, their talk page and their contribution history, this should probably result in an indef rather than a temporal block. Impru20talk 19:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, and combined with, on top of a vandalism block in April, just indef now. SerialNumber54129 19:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Welp. Impru20talk 19:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef'ed. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 19:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every edit this person made today, including the one on their talk page, ought to get revdelled. City of Silver 19:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually curious as to how they were not indeffed back in April for those edits that were revdelled. Canterbury Tail talk 19:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vyzlette - Unconstructive editing and editing while logged out

    As a result of abusing multiple accounts for years to make unexplained, unnecessary and mostly incorrect additions (often containing improper grammar) to the plot section of several film articles (with a particular fixation on The Other Woman (2014 film) and occasional edits to The Other Guys), Vyzlette (talk · contribs) recently had two sockpuppets indefinitely blocked (see the SPI report), while the most recently used account (Vyzlette) was left untouched as the administrator felt this wasn't a case of malicious sockpuppetry. Less than a week later, Vyzlette continued to persistently make unexplained, unconstructive and nonsensical additions to the plot section of The Other Woman (2014 film) ([86][87][88]). After a couple attempts on my end to communicate with Vyzlette at their talk page (to no avail), the user began making edits to The Other Woman (2014 film) while logged out as 76.103.44.169 (talk · contribs) for a few days before switching back to Vyzlette ([89][90][91]). snapsnap (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Request TPA revocation from Pavanreddy211

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


    TPA needs to be revoked from Pavanreddy211 (talk · contribs). They may be WP:NOTHERE again. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Thanks for the eyes. BusterD (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent POV edits and probably COI on The Gersh Agency

    User:Mischit has been making POV/promotional edits to The Gersh Agency since March. These involve removing sourced negative information diff for eg, adding promotional tone, etc. Here is the most recent example from this evening. User has been engaged on talk page (in March, and today) and their user page, but no response in any case. I can't revert their edits again without breaching 3RR. Jdcooper (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Their edits (primarily on articles about YouTubers and controversial figures) are not helpful and are frequently reverted; the user then does not listen to corrections and is argumentative. I'm unsure if they are just an overconfident young editor or are here to be intentionally disruptive.

    The most recent run-in with this user was on the Jaden McNeil page, which has had notability issues since it was created. They went unaddressed, so I turned the page to a redirect. On the talk page, the user has justified reverting the decision by pointing out other unrelated individuals, saying that the subject of the article is "good at exposing" people, and mentioning that I'm Catholic. None of this addressed the issues, and this seems to be a recurring problem with the editor, on top of how few of their edits are constructive and the frequent edit warring.

    Happy holidays, Swinub 23:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    On Wikipedia, you're supposed to discuss. It's argumentative? That's the point, that's what the talk page is for. I mentioned how you were Catholic and might be a nick Fuentes fan (who identifies as a Catholic nationalist) because you mentioned how I was a Jaden McNeil fan. And I've only got a few warnings for edit warring a while back, but that was a while back and I dont do that anymore. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the issues with the Jaden McNeil page went "unaddressed" because they're aren't any issues at all. He's got thousands of followers and reliable sources like the ADL cover him. Also just to be clear I'm not a fan of jaden's anti-semitic views but how he exposes his former Neo-Nazi friend Nick Fuentes. Also Im not just advocating to keep the page up just because I like what he does, but because he's definitely notable HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    one last thing before I go. You said my edits frequently get reversed. That doesn't happen a lot. It happens a few times when an editor disagrees but it always gets resolved in the talk page and we come to an agreement. And you said I point out unrelated individuals to argue about the McNeil page staying up. Syrian girl is also associated with Nick Fuentes. She's not a "unrelated individual." And I used her as an example to keep the Jaden McNeil page because she got a Wikipedia article when she had 30,000 subscribers on YouTube and still doesn't even have 100,000.
    Happy holidays HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She is unrelated, and her notability is clearly established. As explained in the original edit summary, Jaden McNeil is known for "being the former Turning Point USA chapter president of Kansas State University," posting an edgy tweet in 2020, and briefly being associated with Nick Fuentes. This does not establish notability. Yes, the ADL mentioned him; they cover everyone in online right-wing politics, most of whom do not and should not have an article on here. Swinub 23:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She is related because she's associated with Nick, and yes her notability is established now. But when she first got an article she only had 30,000 followers on YouTube and was getting only a couple thousand views a video. If you go to syrian girl's channel, her most recent videos only have 1,000 views. She's notable now because syrian girl's post often go viral and get hundreds of thousands and sometimes hit a million views. But 10 years ago that wasn't the case and she still got a Wikipedia page. If you're saying Jaden McNeil isn't notable because he doesn't have many followers on a YouTube channel he doesn't even post on and has 0 content currently, look at why syrian girl is notable, viral tweets. many times Jaden McNeil's tweets get 100-400k views. One of his recent ones got 4 million views, and if there's reliable sources like the adl mentioning him. He's notable. The ADL doesn't cover every right-wing influencer, even small ones. That's simply impossible. And Jaden isn't only known for making one tweet about George Floyd in 2020. That needs to be updated lol. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    HumansRightsIsCool, why do you keep talking about views, followers and tweets? That's not how notability is established on Wikipedia and you've been around long enough to know this is the case. You shouldn't be mentioning biographical information about other editors, that shouldn't come into discussions about notability, focus on content, not contributors and their off-wiki lives.
    Swinub, I gather you don't get on with HumansRightsIsCool but you need to present diffs/edits to show disruption to support your claims that you think this editor should be blocked. If this discussion devolves into a content discussion about specific articles and notability, I, or another editor, will hat it as content disagreements shouldn't be discussed at ANI. Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok first off, you're asking why do I keep talking about views, followers and tweets. Well swinhub started it by saying Jaden is only well known for one tweet about George Floyd 4 years ago in 2020. He's the one who first brought up fame and how famous Jaden is. And I haven't just been talking about views and tweets, I also mention how reliable sources cover Jaden McNeil like the ADL when he claimed it's just local sources. And I mentioned how swinhub was Catholic because Nick Fuentes identifies as a Catholic nationalist, and he's deleting the page about the enemy of Nick Fuentes, Yeah sorry I brought that up didn't know that was inappropriate and I should assume good faith and shouldn't assume personal bias HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's about notability, not "fame," something you should be aware of if you are making the sort of edits you make. I did not claim he was only known for the tweet; I claimed that it is one of three things he is known for, none of which indicate notability. The ADL calling someone anti-semitic also does not indicate notability. Swinub 00:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like you're talking about fame when you say "notable" though if you keep saying he's only known for 3 things. he has multiple reliable sources covering him, that's Wikipedia's policy on notability. And sorry but now I have to talk about fame again because you said he's only known for 3 things 4 years ago. If you go on his Twitter account his posts get tens of thousands and views, sometimes going up to 400k-1 million views. I saw one of his posts hit 4 million views. He's not notable for for only three things. Also please top deleting the Jaden McNeil page when we're still actively discussing, we haven't reached conscious yet and now you're starting to edit war. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i meant "stop" not "top" HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Swinub 01:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been editing this encyclopedia for a while now adding what I thinks best for pages. I'm building. Your the one who's deleting and deleting. Even if there's reliable sources in this article. we haven't come to an agreement and you deleted the page 2 or three times already. And you claim I'm the one starting edit wars lol. I honestly don't know what you're talking about. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My last comment. HumansRightsIsCool, Swinub has not deleted any pages, he's not an administrator. Swinub, I asked you to present diffs of disruption which you haven't done. No action is likely to be taken if you don't provide evidence of the claims you are making. The only thing I see right now is two editors bickering. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok he technically didn't delete the page. He just removed everything on the page and made it a redirect HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It might be relevant to remind people that notability is not inherited, and that millions of views of a post does not establish notability. What established notability is what reliable secondary sources say specifically about the subject themselves. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    New, uncommunicative editor adding European Cultural Centre University & Research Projects Award

    Nisa-helena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a relatively new editor who has made nearly 180 edits only to add links to and information about the European Cultural Centre University & Research Projects Award to many articles. In many cases, the edits include an external link which is not something that should be added to the body of an article. In many cases, the additions are also vague and unnecessary. I would love to discuss my objections and help this editor but they are not responding to any messages or even using edit summaries. A message from another editor may get their attention but a brief block may be necessary. ElKevbo (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So is it now perfectly acceptable for an editor to add vague information and external links to articles while refusing to communicate with other editors in any way? ElKevbo (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want somebody to check out the user's behavior, please post some diffs as examples. Toughpigs (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every single edit they have made is to add this information. No communication whatsoever. ElKevbo (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Small correction: Their initial edits after creating their account in October were not about this award but focused on adding information about books published by the centre. ElKevbo (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Checked out this user's contribution history and @ElKevbo is not exaggerating. He doesn't need to post diffs because if you check the contributions, every single one of the diffs follows the pattern he mentioned. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Crikey, they're even adding spam to articles of people who were "shortlisted" for these nonnotable awards. Editor has had plenty of time to respond to the several warnings. Block. EEng 08:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked for a week in hope of their communicating. If they instead resume on the expiration, it'll be indef time. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    76.130.142.29 and weird forum-like talk page posts, etc.

    76.130.142.29 has been making odd forum-like talk page posts that are often unconstructive for a while now, such as those listed at their talk page and more recently this one at Talk:Aileen Wuornos and this one at Talk:Ron Lyle. Also, their responses on their talk page show quite an attitude problem. If I were still an admin with full blocking powers, I would block them for clearly continuing their editing pattern despite adequate warnings (or *maybe* give them *one* final warning), but I'm not so I've brought this here. Graham87 (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I posted a warning to not use talk pages as a forum. They posted a couple surly messages in response to previous warnings on their user talk page, let's see if the recent notice has any effect. Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: Thanks for that. You gave them exactly the same warning level that I did a couple of sections above your post though ... that feels a bit redundant from here, but maybe that's just me. Graham87 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Different admins have different approaches. I like to hear from an editor at ANI or see how they respond to a warning before taking action unless they are just vandalizing and disrespecting other editors. Especially with some new editors, they sometimes don't realize they have crossed a line until they are given that "Final warning." It's amazing to me but many newer editors just don't take the first warnings very seriously. And, if I can be honest, I think some of our standard warnings are very verbose and use 200 words what could be said in 20. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruptive and tendentious editing by TheRazgriz on the 2024 United States elections page

    TheRazgriz has engaged in persistent, disruptive and tendentious editing on the 2024 United States elections page, including making multiple ad hominem attacks against myself, (calling me an emotional biased editor engaging in borderline vandalism, accusing me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and of acting with intentional bad faith) and making several WP:UNCIVIL comments on the talk page pointed out by other editors. TheRazgriz did apologize once on my talk page, but continued to engage in such attacks against myself afterwards. TheRazgriz has been called out by several other editors on his talk page for uncivil comments on this and other pages, which are promptly removed shortly thereafter. In comments on his talk page, Wikipedia admin Bishonen has noted Raz's use of "rudeness and sexualized language" (ex: "stroke off your ego", calling people "boy"). Wikipedia admin Doug Weller noted that his message in reply to Bishonen "comes across as somewhat arrogant". User Magnolia677 made a warning against Raz of potential edit warring on the Bryson City, North Carolina page.

    I previously submitted an AN/I incident against TheRazgriz on December 3rd following his premature closure of a talk page section which was upheld. TheRazgriz has since made multiple novel and rejected interpretations of Wikipedia RS and OR policy, all of which have been unanimously rejected by editors both in an RfC I opened and a discussion on the Original Research noticeboard. During discussions, TheRazgriz refused to provide any reliable secondary sources for his claims, instead claiming the ONUS was not on him. TheRazgriz has also been called out by other editors that his claims about the content of prior edits was incorrect as shown by edit history.

    TheRazgriz has frequently refused to engage in meaningful discussion with myself, with his repeated insistence that he is right and I am wrong (one example: "I have proven that assertion to be true. Can you disprove that assertion?"), and only relenting once overwhelming and unanimous agreement from other editors that his interpretation of policy is mistaken. Despite his interpretations being unanimously rejected by other editors multiple times, TheRazgriz has continued to insist his edits and interpretations of policy not disputed by at least three editors cannot be removed. TheRazgriz has falsely claimed a consensus exists within the "Undue weight in lead" section of the talk page for his "final" edits to the Economy section, which he has previously used to revert edits to the section and as of today claims he will continue to revert using consensus as the reason.

    I do believe that TheRazgriz does think his interpretations of policy are correct. However, as a new editor with roughly 250 mainspace edits (Raz claims he has over 114,000 edits on other unregistered accounts but that his IP address changes frequently), and with his discussions and interpretations of policy being unanimously rejected by multiple editors, I believe that TheRazgriz requires further knowledge of Wikipedia policy in order to become an better editor. BootsED (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What has troubled me about this editor is that after I've had some conversations with them about policy and questioning claims that they've made on their user page that they seemingly followed me to an RFC on Israel, casting a !vote at Special:Diff/1261260050 that they weren't entitled to make given that they are not WP:XC. Now the edit can be forgiven for an editor who is new, however what concerned me was that they had never edited in that area before and then ended up doing so after I had made edits in that RFC. When I questioned the circumstance in which they made that edit, they WP:ABF and accused me of disruptive behaviour. When I suggested they strike their incivil comments before it escalate, they deleted the discussion between us and in the edit summary wrote "Removed unproductive comments, potential WP:DE" again WP:ABF and accusing me of engaging in disruptive behaviour. Given the litany of WP:ABF and WP:UNCIVIL directed at other editors at Talk:2024 United States elections as well as what I have experienced first hand, it is patently clear to me that this editor does not hold the level head needed in order to be participating in the post 1992 American politics CTOP area and should probably be topic banned. TarnishedPathtalk 04:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not "follow" you. As someone who is new to the named user side of things, I am still exploring the deep dark rabbit holes "behind the curtain" that I had only rarely ever seen glimpses of before as a casual IP editor. With this other user having brought up something to a NB which involved me, it activated my curiosity around NB's and that led me down yet another rabbit hole of exploring which led me to the RfC, from a NB and not from the page itself. As my userbox on my userpage shows, I do indeed have an interest in such subject matter. As also pointed out, all of that subject matter is out of bounds for profiles with less than 500 edits. Even if I wanted to establish a record of interest in the area, how would I possibly have done so? That feels like a very unfair point.
    Never the less, I do have a personal interest in that, but due to my IRL background I would caution myself from participating much, if at all, in that subject matter. I first recognized my bias after Oct 7, and as such I have made a promise to myself to not seek out any subject matter relating to Israel, Hamas, Palestine, etc for editing, only for reading, as this bias does not come from a place of passion but from a place of personal lived experiences. However that RfC was on if a particular news outlet was RS or not, and I wanted to offer my opinion only after reading the RfC opinions and confirming that others shared my view on that org, and for the same reasons. As was confirmed here on my page after they removed the post for the 500 edit issue, there was no other problem with my edit. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:BootsED, ultimately, what outcome are you looking for with this second complaint? You clearly spent quite a lot of time putting this all together but it's not clear what result you are seeking through this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not want to presume what action should be necessary for this editor, as I will admit this is only the second time I have engaged in an AN/I discussion and I am unfamiliar with this user's actions compared to other similar incidents and what actions were taken against them in the past. I agree with TarnishedPath that there should at least be a post-1992 American politics topic ban. However, his misunderstanding of basic policy and frequent uncivil behavior makes me question whether or not his disruptive editing will simply continue on other non-American politics articles and if he will show the necessary humility and willingness to learn. BootsED (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Their inability or unwillingness to understand core WP:PAG, particularly WP:RS and WP:NOR, is troubling especially given they claim to have been editing since 2007-08 with 114,000+ edits. TarnishedPathtalk 06:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a good look that User:TheRazgriz does not understand why pinning demeaning language on the top of their talk page is bad. Northern Moonlight 10:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have warned TheRazgriz about bludgeoning the process at Talk:2024 United States elections. If nothing changes, I consider page-blocking them. Bishonen | tålk 15:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    I'd support at least that. I want to know about any possible NOR or RS issues. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller, on the issue of WP:RS please see Special:Diff/1261261442 where they try and claim a citation from NYT as subpar (Yourish & Smart| at the same time as pushing usage of WP:NYPOST "to give Republican perspective". When I asked them to clarify in which context NYPOST is reliable, by providing a specific story (see Special:Diff/1261274529 and Special:Diff/1261276064), they responded at Special:Diff/1261281341 that "I am speaking generally" in regards to NYPOST and that "The NYP is thus depreciated as a source of factual reporting, but on the matter of partisan reporting I would assume they would be a RS in reference to reporting aspects from the perspective of the right". During the aforementioned reply they advise that they read the RFC on the reliability of NYPOST to arrive at that conclusion.
    In regards to Original Research, see this WP:NOV/N discussion where they are told by multiple editors that they a section of text they were promoting was original research. Even after clear consensus on WP:NOR/N they didn't remove the offending material and it took me removing it at Special:Diff/1261297519 to remove the original research from the article. TarnishedPathtalk 01:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of Razgriz's opinions on RS is that opinion pieces are RS if they are written by an "expert" source and can be used to make claims in the narrative tone. His NOR/N discussion revealed he believes that he can interpret data from primary sources to make synth claims, and his comments suggest he does not understand what a primary versus secondary source is.
    I have also brought up several issues with NPOV in the Economy section of the page, which Razgriz has dismissed claiming I am engaging in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. BootsED (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "...and can be used to make claims in the narrative tone." That is not true of my position. My position is they can be used against arguments in the narrative tone. I specifically argued they shoudl not ever be used as justification for presenting a WikiVoice assertion, more and better RS would be needed for such, but that if something is being asserted in WV, then yes the opinions of subject matter experts can be used to demonstrate a significant counter-point. This is in line with WP:NEWSOPED, "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have stated before, this falls into WP:FALSEBALANCE. You did use the NYP to make a WikiVoice assertion. The NYP article you posted was not an op-ed, but a regular article. You did not state that it came from the NYP or an individual writing in the NYP in the body of text either. The sentence immediately prior was: After Biden dropped out and endorsed Harris, the Harris campaign made a large shift in Democrat messaging on the economy issue, particularly on the topic of "affordability" where Democrat messaging began to widely accept that basic goods were still too expensive for the average American.
    Other issues I had with squarequotes and NPOV framing was your sentence: with President Biden and Rep. Nancy Pelosi often remarking they "inherited" economic problems from Trumps first-term, claiming it was now "strong" under their leadership. I also pointed out your repeated use of "Democrat", where the correct tense should have been "Democratic messaging". BootsED (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That statement also came with an additional citation beside NYP, and was done prior to me becoming aware of the change in NYP status. That is not a fair point to argue. We all make mistakes and errors. I am only human. I have been on WP for nearly 2 decades now, and until this year I did not edit much in relation to contemporary topics. The last time I had used NYP as a source, it was a valid source per WP:RS. That has since changed, and I acknowledged that wrong. I dont appreciate that you are also confusing the timeline of events for those trying to piece together this rather lengthy puzzle, on a moot point no less. Let it go. To me this is starting to get to the point of WP:DEADHORSE.
    Your second and third points were addressed before you even made this NB, where I admitted you were correct. I even added one of those as a fun factoid on my userpage, to help spread awareness and to have a little fun at my own expense as it obviously highlights to you and anyone else who sees that Talk topic that I made a bit of an arse of myself with that one and hadn't even known it at the time. I'm not sure why you bring this up again here. What is your point in doing so? Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, as shown here, your NYP citation was the only citation used to make that claim. Other editors had to remove NYP from the page after you conceded the point. Other points were only partially addressed by other editors afterwards, but many of the issues I have pointed out still remain on the page. You only admitted I was correct on the NYP point after unanimous consensus by other editors, and still contested there was any issue with your other edits to the page as I have pointed out repeatedly here. You only conceded where unanimous editor consensus was against you, but as I have stated in my initial post, you still insist that you will undo any edit of mine not backed up by at least three other editors.
    Quote: I will have no major opposition if at least 3 editors (yourself and two others) agree to the new changes. ... If you get the simple majority with yourself and at least 2 others at the end of this, you make the change and as I maintained from the outset, I will not undo it. If you (surprisingly) fail, then the changes are not made. I was very specific about my issues with your edit, as seen here and here, which you claim I was not. I have not touched the page for days now to avoid an edit war. This is partly why I brought forwards this AN/I issue, as you are using false claims of a consensus and explicitly promising to revert any edits to the page which is very disruptive. I do not need an RfC to make any edit to the page because you disagree with it, and other RfC's and discussions have all unanimously ruled against you for incorrect interpretations of Wikipedia policy. Do I need to make an RfC to debate your every interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Because this is what you are suggesting. BootsED (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is not at all what I have suggested, and I believe you understand that already, but I have already addressed all of this in previous comments, despite your persistence in removing context in order to uncharitably misconstrue small portions of edits and comments within a different framing. I will not continue to waste space and the time of admins who will have to go through this mountain of a mess. The only point I will make here is to remind you that even as I write this, you still do not have any support for your position against the view of WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS being reached previously, so I would caution against continuing to press on that point to then misconstrue elements of my argument that are obviously based around it.
    Your initial posting here was extensive enough, and my reply against your accusations was exhaustive as well. We should not use this NB to have further back and forth. I ask out of respect for the process that this be our last messages here unless admins request further input, unless you have something further to add to your initial complaint against me (emphasis to discourage re-hashing points you may already have made here).
    I am sorry we ended up being uncivil to one another, I am sorry that we could not move forward in good faith, I am sorry you wish to only see every statement I make or position I take in the most uncharitable and unflattering light, and I am sorry you feel that good faith opposition to your proposed edit is disruptive. Besides "shut up, say you are wrong, and go away so I can do what I want", I do not know what it is you actually want out of me from any of this. So for now, I will let admins review was has been presented, and let them decide how best to proceed. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I offered a good faith compromise to settle our disagreement via WP:CON, and you have elected to do all of this? To be blunt, this seems like a lot of cherry-picking and mischaracterization of my actions, along with whitewashing and outright ignoring many of your own actions. Allow me to try and correct the record in defense of myself, and hopefully the truth.

    I apologize to the admins ahead of time, I struggle with being concise at the best of times, but I don't know how to condense the following any more than I have here. There is so much to comb through both with what the other user did say and things they left out, things that are mentioned out of hand that dramatically alter the framing and context and even the facts, and I'd like to address all of it. I've shortened parts that to me justified another 2 or 3 paragraphs of focus, and I even deleted 3 entire sections to make this post shorter. I'm not asking for special treatment, but for fair treatment.

    Addressing the Assertion of "No Consensus"

    A formalized RfC is not the only method of consensus building, per WP:CON, specifically WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, and @BootsED has made incorrect reference to a topic on this point (their link goes to the correct topic, but its presentation and incorrect title here falsely frame it away from an objective reading). The topic in which consensus was reached was titled Undue weight in "Issues", in which another editor explained why they had added the undue tag to the Issues section. In that topic there were a small number of perceived problems which were worked on to be solved. If you follow that discussion, you will note a number of things:

    1) I did not create that topic noting the issues within the issues section

    2) My participation there shows my immediate and consistent good faith differing to other editors suggestions and recommendations for improving the section

    3) There is not a single point in the discussion in which I argue any sort of "I'm right, you're wrong" or similar, demonstrating that the exact opposite is my default response to perspectives counter to mine

    4) The absence of any participation by @BootsED whatsoever, either as the discussion was unfolding or with any attempt to revive the discussion to note their apparent disagreement with the outcome, and;

    5) The most obvious agreement was that the Economy section needed to be longer/expanded as all cited WP:RS noted its importance as an issue in the election, and its short length did not reflect that fact well.

    After reading through that discussion, you can note @BootsED make his first bold edit to the "Economy" issue HERE, not terribly long after the other user removed the "undue weight" tag from the section in line with the referenced consensus building topic, and that their bold edit noticeably reduced the length of the section, obviously opposite the goal of the consensus building discussion.

    Addressing assertions of WP:OWNERSHIP vis a vis "False Consensus", & speculation of WP:IDONTLIKE

    When I reverted @BootsED's edit to that section of the article, I stated in the edit notes that this was done to uphold a consensus that had been reached recently per the talk page, and simultaneously requested the user to discuss before making further bold edits to that section to conform with both WP:CON & WP:CTOP by conforming with WP:DICC. You then see here @BootsED restoring their challenged edit and asserts that I was falsely claiming a consensus.

    If you follow the various talk topics, you will note that while @BootsED does garner support on other points of disagreement (EX: if the term "lawfare" should be used in the lede, or; if there was WP:OR in an edit concerning polling data), you will note a glaring lack of any support for this specific point of "No Consensus"/"False Consensus" which he has continued to raise. Despite the noticeable lack of any support for this assertion from other editors, @BootsED continued to challenge the prior consensus building effort that had been done HERE first by asserting that it had not happened at all by ignoring my reference to the other, prior topic, then asserting that the topic had no consensus on the subject, and to this day still continues to insist it is a falsehood I am pushing to "prohibit editing" despite the fact that I have maintained from the first revert diff forward that a bold edit to that section should be discussed first and that is it. At one point while trying to find another way to explain my points, I used the term "final" version when making reference to the version of the section prior to his bold edits. Ever since, he has continued to try and reframe this usage as though I am engaging in WP:OWNERSHIP behavior over the section, which he has all but directly accused me of throughout this disagreement over editing this specific section.

    This is where my consideration of potential WP:IDONTLIKE comes in, as I could not otherwise explain:

    1) The constantly aggressive assertions insisting there had been no prior consensus and accusing me of fabricating a claim of consensus to engage in WP:OWNERSHIP, and;

    2) The consistent refusal to attempt to gain a (new) consensus which would easily have solved this perceived issue once and for all.

    As I write this now I still do not understand what could presumably explain the behavior, outside of: not liking that the edit was reverted; not liking the idea that I could have been right on an issue, or; not liking the idea that they could have been wrong on an issue. There was no support for the user's edit, no support for their assertion that there was no consensus, and no attempt to either let it go or seek to problem solve via compromise. On this point, if absolutely nothing else, I am at a complete loss to understand a different, more sensible explanation than those three possibilities.

    Refuting false assertion of "I'm always right, you're always wrong" logic

    I have already noted elsewhere in this reply examples verifying that this is an absolute fabrication, and indeed that @BootsED has themselves engaged in this sort of behavior they have accused me of.

    The most glaring example which by itself makes one wonder why @BootsED would continue to push this obvious falsehood: Here @BootsED once again would make this assertion that I was refusing to accept being wrong about anything, that I was insisting I was right about everything and insisting that they were wrong about everything. Here is the message by me in which that WP:GASLIGHT reply was made in response to.

    I note no less than 3 points in that prior message in which I was acknowledging that they had made a correct point and thus where I had been previously incorrect. No other exchange between myself and @BootsED is as black and white crystal clear as this on this issue. The fact that they continue to make such statements after this is why I have no qualms about calling it exactly what it is: an outright lie. There is no misunderstanding it after that. I challenge them to directly answer why they made such a slanderous and false assertion directly in response to a message which clearly shows such an assertion to be false?

    Whatever else one may come to conclude about any of this, certainly one would be unreasonable to assert that the evidence would show that I have shown "repeated insistence that he is right and I am wrong", as they claim. Even the example they have provided to try and "prove" that point, doesn't. It shows my belief that I had proven my side of the issue, and asking them if they could disprove from the opposite side of said issue. I did not say "I am right, you are wrong", I said "I'm sure I am right, but can you prove me wrong?" Seems rather unreasonable to misrepresent that in the manner they have done here.

    "Despite his interpretations being unanimously rejected...continued to insist his edits and interpretations of policy not disputed by at least..."

    A bluntly false framing in which this user decides to try and make it seem as though there is any support for their position or that my position is outright unreasonable, and it just makes it even more confusing. "Despite his interpretations being unanimously rejected by other editors multiple times, TheRazgriz has continued to insist his edits and interpretations of policy not disputed by at least three editors cannot be removed." This really comes across as if their justification for their stance is just whataboutism, specifically "what about that other time where you were wrong?" Someone can be right about some things and wrong about others. "A broken clock is right twice a day" is a popular phrase for a reason. You cannot just dismiss because "Raz was wrong about other, unrelated things."

    There is no "unanimous" view on this at the time of this NB being authored, there is as of yet not a single editor which has voiced a shared view with them on this or attempted to at least counter my view on this. Furthermore, the linked/cited message they refer to shows no such claim to be valid, this idea that my interpretation of policy needs 3 editors to overturn...frankly, that is just nonsense. It isn't a matter of overturning personal opinions on policy, its about abiding by a policy they refuse to recognize, in letter or in spirit, even in the compromised manner in which I have given them to consider. I'm not sure what purpose is better served by refusing a consensus compromise and instead taking this action to escalate to admins.

    Concerning the closing of a Talk topic

    The talk page which I closed was no longer active, and no attempt had been made to revive it, and it seemed to be misunderstood. I closed it with a summary which @BootsED themselves admitted was accurate as far as its summary relating to the issue with the "Economy" section (though disagreeing with a different part of the summary describing other issues as having snowballed, which I in retrospect agreed that was an inaccurate way to describe the other issues, I could have and should have found a more accurate descriptor).

    I did not challenge the reversal of the closure whatsoever, nor did I challenge the opposition from my referring to the other matters as snowballed, and agreed with point brought up by @Pbritti on my talk page HERE discouraging closing of topics I myself have been involved in. That is in-line with WP:CLOSE and good advice anyway, and I have not attempted to close any topics since (and don't plan to again in future).

    Refuting allusion to events surrounding the Talk closure

    I do absolutely reject the false framing here by trying to assert that in some sort of "response to having my closure un-closed" I then would start making arguments from my perspective on WP:RS and WP:OR, and the assertion that they are "unanimously rejected by multiple editors" when other users have given credit to parts of my arguments and interpretations, such as: HERE, where a user on the NB still disagreed with my interpretation but gives credit to my line of argument.

    I also had been making my arguments relating to such issues well before @BootsED even created the NB relating to the closure, as seen throughout THIS topic, so again this framing is false, which appears to try and make it seem as if I perhaps went on some sort of WP:DE spree, at least that is the takeaway I was left with upon reading just that specific portion of the initial NB topic.

    Concering alleged "refusal" to engage

    Follow the link they provided. Then see just how many back and forths we had each had leading up to that point. Then return that that diff and re-read what I stated there. Regardless of if you agree with the point I made there or not, of if you would take either of our "sides" on that issue, certainly one cannot agree that this is an example of me "refusing to engage". Furthermore, while WP does indeed highly ask for participation in discussions and such, I find no rule, guideline, or even essay which notes that I am required to engage with someone until they don't want to engage with me anymore. I am not their toy or other plaything. I get to decide if I wish to continue to engage or not, and what I wish to engage with or not, and I do not find it reasonable to suggest that I have no free agency in this regard.

    Clarifying that my position is that the 2020 conspiracy is long-settled as FALSE, and my edit should not have been misconstrued to claim I believed otherwise

    This is largely unimportant, but many aspects of this history of back and forths seem to me to be getting confused in relation to these specific points. Ignore if you like, this is mostly me getting this off my chest because I am sick of being repeatedly misrepresented on this point.

    I was trying to take the meat and potatoes of the edit @BootsED had done there, and tried to do what I believed to be cleaning it up in a better way. At a passive read, the first thought I had about their edit there was that it came across as "hammering the point". "Gee, I wonder if the reader really gets the point that it was all a big lie? Sure we've led this horse to water, but surely we can dunk their head under for a bit just to make sure, right? Should we hold their hand a little more? Perhaps yet more weighted language will help them really get how false the falsehood falsely is?" And none of that comes from an opposition to calling it a falsehood on-face, only that I wanted to try and tone down what I saw as over-editorializing language to more naturally present the point to the reader.

    What I can only surmise is that the @BootsED suffered a hiccup in judgement with respect to this particular issue. When all you have is a hammer, every screw looks like a nail. All he saw was "false" go away, and they decided I was challenging the validity of calling it a falsehood at all. In light of the rest of the context as I've laid out for my actions here, I hope whoever does care to read this comes away at least understanding that I was never challenging if it is or isn't false or if it could be referred to as such, only trying to do a good faith edit that ended up being disagreed with. I don't see FALSE as the only acceptable way to talk about a falsehood, much less each and every time it is mentioned. That to me is an Einstellung effect which I do not suffer from or share. I did not take it kindly that this was misrepresented in the first place, and it frankly pissed me off to have that mischaracterization repeated multiple times over a disagreement over grammatical and sentence structure edit disagreement from the editor I had made the correction to. I do believe my reply of "Your Majesty" then seems to be at least much more understood...though in retrospect, it was unwise.

    Concerning WP:UNCIVIL behaviors

    I apologize, but this will have to be the lengthiest as it is the most serious of concerns here, and the specifics require me to overcome the false framing presented by the other User.

    As admitted by @BootsED, when I noticed he had taken offense from my statements relating to them having a potential unaddressed bias which could be effecting their editing on this WP:CTOP subject matter, I apologized (to be clear, I did so twice. Once within one of the many back-and-forth replies immediately after, and a second time where I specifically apologized on his talk page which he makes mention of above, as I wanted to make sure it didn't get lost in the heated discussion). I stated in the message here that my intention was not to personally offend, only to call attention to what I perceived as a potential issue. When @BootsED made it clear that they had taken that statement as a personally offensive statement, I immediately apologized to clear the air and hopefully reinforce that our disagreement should be done as a matter of "professional" disagreement, not personal attacks and uncharitable assumptions. Perhaps they do not accept that apology, but they have admitted above to recognizing it as such. I stand by that apology, I meant that apology, and it is very important to me to apologize the moment I have caused someone an unjustified offense. It is a point of personal responsibility, regardless of if I will or will not be forgiven.

    First action that Offended me

    Here in the above NB message after acknowledging the apology, they then follow up that admission by whitewashing their own actions afterwards to remove context from later actions I would take. Later on, in the RfC relating to the use of "false" in relation to "lawfare" claims and such, another Users comment about why they voted "SUPPORT" highlighted to me something I had not noticed prior: That the RfC was also over if using "false" in relation to the 2020 election fraud conspiracy pushed by Trump was valid or not.

    This confused me, as there had previously not been any discussion or noted disagreement with such, and this greatly offended me as it appeared to make me or anyone taking any sort of "OPPOSE" stance as also seeming to support the WP:FRINGE view that defends the conspiracy as being valid...something I have not done, certainly not in the context of any Wikipedia page. I made it crystal clear this allusion offended me greatly. At no point did @BootsED offer even a fake apology for the presumed offense given, instead not only defending their view that it belonged as part of the RfC, but also doubling down on the allusion itself by making the false assertion that I was "now agreed" with referring to that conspiracy as false, this time more directly asserting that I had stood in opposition to that at some prior point in time.

    Reinforcing the Offense as intentional

    Despite multiple efforts to clarify my position and request that they retract these inaccurate allusions, @BootsED outright refused and instead demonstrated what seemed to be passive-aggressive uncivil behavior. His reply here seemed to me to not be done out of a position of assuming good faith, but instead out of a personally uncharitable assumption that they wished to reinforce at my expense. Arguments do not necessarily always have to be "fair" per se, but they should be done with civility and assuming good faith unless given a clear reason to assume otherwise. I do not see that reply as assuming good faith towards me and my position. It would have been simple to say simply "No offense intended", "I'm sorry you took it that way", etc. Instead, passive aggressive reinforcement of the offense is what was given.

    And when it is @BootsED who has caused an offense, they repeatedly refuse to accept that offense was either given or taken, and don't even offer a fake apology to clear the air and proceed in good faith. If I could offer apology, twice, for a single offense out of a desire to want to move forward in good faith with a disagreement, why is @BootsED unwilling to do a fraction of the same when the shoe is on the other foot and they are the party from which offense has been either given or taken? Why do they instead do nothing less than explicitly reinforce the perceived bad faith? So I called that repeated choice out. And at that time, again, they could then have chosen to recognize the error. Again, they did not apologize or otherwise seek to move towards a fully good faith interaction. Instead, they send this message, which serves as nothing more than a way to assert that I have done everything wrong and they have done everything right...which they then with zero irony would go on to accuse me of doing later on.

    After all of this, I still wanted to work in good faith. I drew a line in the sand with the users outright attempt at WP:GASLIGHT by asserting I was engaging in an "I'm always right, you're always wrong" capacity DIRECTLY in response to my message acknowledging I was wrong and they were right on no less than 3 different points. That to me was a point of nearly no return...but still I tried. I offered an olive branch. Either take the olive branch and we can move forward in good faith, walk away if we cannot, or engage in bad faith and have it escalated. The user seemed to take the olive branch, but instead of seeking good faith compromise, the user demanded that I promise not to make further edits. When I indicated that "good faith" includes good faith opposition, and offered a possible compromise and ASKED if that is something they could agree to...they authored this NB topic. So here we are.

    This ends my "testimony", as it were. We are all biased to ourselves, and as I am sure is the case with all disagreements: There is "their side", "my side" and "the truth" is somewhere in the middle. The only real question is a matter of degrees. I have not addressed assertions posited by certain others here, because again I am not good at being concise. Did you really WANT this to be twice the size? I think not. If Admins would like to ask me about those other things, I am more than happy to answer, I am just trying to be considerate of your time and patience.

    To the admins who read all of this, you have my respect. This is a bit much even for me, but again I didn't know how else to condense it further than this. Perhaps you and others see an obvious way to do that, but it isn't to me. This is something I struggle with IRL, I don't mean to be a burden on your time. I don't care if you agree with me or disagree with me, in whole or in part, or if you feel you want to take some action against me. These are all your choices, not mine. All I want to do now is again thank you for your time, and especially if you read every word, thank you from the bottom of my heart for giving me a real and honest chance to explain myself and my side of the story in my own uncensored words. I promise I really will try to keep it as short as I can if you wish to ask me any questions. Thank you. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TheRazgriz, your apology for taking up our time is appreciated, and I accept that you're not being so verbose on purpose, but it still makes it very, very hard to engage with you. It seems to me that you defend yourself at length against a lot of charges that are a matter of opinion (such as whether your actions show "immediate and consistent good faith", whether your interpretations of policy on article talk have been successfully challenged, etc, etc), while failing to write a single word about the important sourcing matter described by TarnishedPath + BootsED immediately above your post, including how you reject NYT while pushing usage of WP:POST. That is egregious, and suggests your grip on the reliability of sources is tenuous (and also tendentious). This, cited by BootsED, is downright wikilawyering. I apologize if you did address this somewhere above and I missed it; I did read the whole, but I admit my eyes were trying to glaze over. The same thing keeps happening, probably not just to me, at article talk. A pageblock from 2024 United States elections and its talkpage seems an absolute minimum of a sanction here; your editing of the article is tendentious, and, however much you apologize for it, your use of the talkpage in defense of that editing is destructive and ruinous. See also my comments on your own page about bludgeoning article talk. Bishonen | tålk 06:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    As I addressed here, my defense for using NYP was based on my apparent outdated recollection of the WP:RS list/consensus. I had recalled that just a couple of years ago the conensus was "Generally Reliable" on most subjects and that for the issue of politics it was "No consensus" on if it was or was not reliable. This was pointed out by others to be incorrect as that that had changed. I confirmed that to be true, and admitted my fault openly.
    Also, I am not challenging NYT, that is a mischaracterization of my position there. Specifically I was challenging the use of 1 article based on 2 issues: 1) The 2 credited authors are, according to their own biographical information, a Graphics Journalist and a Graphics Editor, and 2) The piece they had authored spoke in very authoritative terms and tone on a scholastic field in which neither author are authorities to speak in such a way. Neither author, as far as any of the research I conducted could find, have any formal or informal education on the subjects of Political Science or Law. Specifically, the issue was that not only were these 2 non-authorities being cited at all, but also being directly quoted at length within the citation, the entirety of which was just their personal opinion presented as authoritative fact.
    I have taken no issue with any other sourcing, from NYT or otherwise, as I see no issues with how those other pieces are represented, but the way this was being used at no less than 3 different points within the article seemed problematic. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Raz, you have stated your opposition to the NYT as a RS as per your comment here. BootsED (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop gaslighting me, and admins at this point, by trying to yet again control and misconstrue the framing of a fact to better suit your opinion.
    What I did state about NYT itself is a fact widely reported, such as here. I am allowed to have a personal opinion that the ONE and ONLY NYT article I directly challenged is likely a result of that hampered editorial standard having allowed an error. Nowhere do I argue that opinion as a fact or to justify an edit. You and everyone else who reads that clearly knows I am challenging your preferred citation by Yourish & Smart. Yourish & Smart are not NYT, and NYT is not Yourish & Smart. My challenge is against the authors legitimacy so speak on the matter they speak on in authoritative tone, combined with how you would like to use the citation in the article. That is literally it. It isn't deeper than that, so please stop digging.
    What you do NOT see there is any assertion by me that comes close to me being in "opposition to the NYT as a RS". Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I offered a good faith compromise to settle our disagreement via WP:CON, and you have elected to do all of this?" @TheRazgriz, this is a highly unhelpful attitude and yet another misinterpretation of WP:PAG. WP:CON doesn't require that other editors compromise with those who are putting forward faulty policy positions. That's not how we do things around here. You need to start listening to other editors when you are wrong. No one is right all of the time. TarnishedPathtalk 10:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, no one is right all of the time. That is my point. Allow me to suggest that no is wrong all the time either.
    So I ask: Can you explain how this is not an example of WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, and what WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS would look like in practice as opposed to this example? I understand all other participants positions on their interpretations of other policies in other discussions (and their repudiation of mine), but no one (including you) have explained what or how I must be incorrect here on the issue of WP:CON. It is simply asserted that I must be wrong, because I have been wrong on other subjects. That is highly fallacious, and I believe you can understand that. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote: You need to start listening to other editors when you are wrong (emphasis mine) I didn't write that you are wrong on all occasions. TarnishedPathtalk 13:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that. With that in mind, and understanding that something needs to be said in order for me to listen to it, could you answer and explain the question I posted previously? Thank you. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that I didn't participate in that discussion and wasn't involved in or witness any editing that went along with that discussion I don't feel like I can give a good interpretation. TarnishedPathtalk 04:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandal/troll/sock back again

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


    The fistagon vandal/troll/sock is back again, this time under the name Bubblegutz 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? If someone could please take the appropriate action and do a reveal on the edit summaries, I’d be very grateful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked, working on the revdel. —Kusma (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All gone. —Kusma (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Brilliant, thanks Kusma. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:RocketKnightX Disruptive Editing

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

    The user had been involved in an Edit War at 15.ai, when I proposed a TBAN for RocketKnightX in response to their persistent disruptive editing of 15.ai, I dropped the complaint when they said they would stop [92]. They were invited to the AfD discussion and then went to 15.ai and deleted the AfD notice [93] and declared my policy based removal of WP:NOSOCIAL and WP:YOUTUBE external links to be vandalism [94]. Their edit summary and some of their activity demonstrates a lack of maturity[95]. He was also warned for making personal attacks [96] coupled with their past activity on Wikipedia such as this edit summary[97] I think some manner of intervention is warranted at this point. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 10:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing the AfD template is pretty disruptive, as the template has clear in-your-face text that says "do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed". Talking nonsense about vandalism in the edit summary when reverting a well-explained edit here is not good either. Doing these things after promising to stop "causing issues" at the article is block-worthy. Blocked 31 hours. Bishonen | tålk 11:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Part of me wouldn't be surprised if RocketKnightX is involved in the sock/SPA disruption at the afd, or even a User:HackerKnownAs sock. WHile it wouldn't surprise me if true I don't suspect enough to take to SPI, afterall the evidence would be behavioural and there are some differences in behaviour. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think they're a HKA Sock given the wildly different behaviors, but RK was suspected of being someone else's Sock in an ANI discussion that produced no results [98] Brocade River Poems (She/They) 13:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tacotron2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am just creating this complaint as a sub-section because it is directly related to RocketKnightX's activity. After having a discussion where they were made aware that The person who solicits other people inappropriately may be subject to administrative review if the behavior is severe enough.[99], my colleague apparently took that as a sign to hit the campaign trail. When I saw they solictied RocketKnightX[100] and others[101][102] to the AfD I left a warning [103] about their canvassing. They proceeded to canvass more anyway [104][105][106]. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't see your first message. It wasn't done intentionally. Tacotron2 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, I can probably believe that you didn't see my warning. What I do not believe is that you didn't know what you were doing was wrong when an admin already told that people who solicit (i.e the people asking others to the vote) inappropriately may be subject to administrative review. After that message you:
    • Canvassed a known disruptive edit warrior [107]
    • Canvassed someone whom you believed would support your outcome because they believed a source was reliable.[108]
    • Canvassed someone who said use the source until someone contests [109]
    • Canvassed someone who voted keep the last AfD [110]
    • Canvassed someone who voted keep the last AfD [111]
    • Canassed someone who voted keep the last AfD. [112]
    Notably, you didn't provide a notice to any editor who was involved in editing 15.ai who might reasonably be expected to vote delete, nor did you canvass anyone who voted delete in the last AfD. Why you felt it necessary to specifically invite Elmidae when you pinged them in your response to the AfD I also do not know or understand. Notably, you did not invite the following editors who were active recently at 15.ai Polygnotus, Thought 1915, YesI'mOnFire, Sj, Cooldudeseven7, The Hand That Feeds You, or the editors who voted Delete last time such as LilianaUwU, Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum, and Cinadon36.
    This is pretty clear WP:VOTESTACKING. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done intentionally? In the discussion on my talk page (User talk:Rsjaffe#AfD Issues), you were worried about being labeled as canvassed and I made the distinction that we are generally looking at the canvasser, not the canvassed. This was in a discussion about what sort of behavior merits reporting to ANI. And after all that, you claim ignorance of the issue? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be honest with you. I had a brain fart. I thought canvassing was coordinating off Wikipedia to stack a vote. I thought that if you did it on a user's Wikipedia talk pages directly, it wasn't canvassing. I don't know why I thought that. I read something similar to that somewhere else on Wikipedia and I must have misinterpreted it, where asking editors to contribute to a discussion was encouraged. I'm sorry about that. Tacotron2 (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, read WP:CAN, and please reply that you understand and will follow the behavioral guideline from now on. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A Summary

    This, like many cases here at WP:ANI, is a conduct dispute that began as a content dispute. The content dispute was at 15.ai, and was over what the infobox should say was the status of the web site. Some editors said that the web site was under maintenance (and temporarily down for maintenance) and should say that. Other editors said that the web site was abandoned and should say that.

    A request was made, on 5 October 2024, for moderated discussion at DRN by an editor who was then indefinitely blocked for unrelated conduct. However, other editors took part, including User:BrocadeRiverPoems and User:RocketKnightX. The DRN is archived at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_250#15.ai. I then started an RFC on the status of the web site, at Talk:15.ai. That was meant to resolve the content dispute.

    User:HackerKnownAs then filed a complaint at WP:ANI against User:BrocadeRiverPoems on 16 November 2024, that is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#BrocadeRiverPoems_behavioral_issues. That complaint and the reply were both Too Long to Read. User:HackerKnownAs and some other editors were then blocked for sockpuppetry.

    User:RocketKnightX continued to edit-war, and User:BrocadeRiverPoems proposed a topic-ban against RocketKnightX from the page 15.ai. RocketKnightX said that they would stop edit-warring. At about this point, that ANI was closed.

    User:BrocadeRiverPoems then nominated the article 15.ai for deletion on 2 December 2024. I have not (as of the time of this post) done a source analysis on the article, and so do not have an opinion on the AFD at this time.

    User:BrocadeRiverPoems closed the RFC as an involved snow close on 4 December 2024 to omit the status of the web site from the infobox, because there are no reliable sources stating either that it is under maintenance or that it is abandoned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talkcontribs)

    I think that the conduct of User:RocketKnightX is a strong net negative for the community. They agreed to stop edit-warring, possibly only in order to avoid being topic-banned, and have resumed edit-warring. They removed the AFD banner, which is very clearly forbidden, while accusing User:BrocadeRiverPoems of vandalism. I think that RocketKnightX has exhausted the patience of the community and should be banned by the community.

    • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support When I looked at their history, they have a history of incivility, borderline WP:NATIONALIST editing[113][114],[115] where they continue act disruptively within the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Armenia-Azerbaijan and a number of other problems that indicate WP:NPOV and WP:CIR issues[116] including at one point bizarrely restoring a massive plot synopsis that another editor had created [117] that had been removed by two different editors for being too long [118][119]. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I see Robert enumerates exactly the same problems with RocketKnightX's editing as I did above, where I gave them a 31-hour block (currently an active block) for them. The only difference is that Robert assumes bad faith of RocketKnightX's undertaking to stop edit warring ("They agreed to stop edit-warring, possibly only in order to avoid being topic-banned, and have resumed edit-warring"). We're not supposed to do that, and I'll point out that RKX agreed to stop on 18 November and only went back to disruptive actions at 15.ai (not actually to edit warring, but to the aforementioned removal of the AfD banner and accusation of vandalism) again on 7 December, three weeks later. The agreement to stop in November doesn't look to me like part of a heinous plan to continue disrupting; it seems at least as likely that they had simply forgotten about it three weeks later. It was six words that look angrily dashed-off; not some elaborate undertaking. The whole notion that RKX has already "exhausted the patience of the community" seems weirdly excessive. I stand by my 31-hour block as the more appropriate sanction. Bishonen | tålk 13:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
      I do feel that WP:CIR is a very valid, chronic concern with this editor regardless of edit warring, specifically the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus. In October they asked me what they should do in cases of disputes. When I told them what they should do, about dispute resolution, etc. they responded Too hard. This site is the hardest thing to do.[120]. Coupled with dropping edit summaries like "I said stop!" and "deal with it" and their WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude on talkpages [121] and I'm not really sure what the community is expected to do when the user has self-proclaimed that learning dispute resolution is too hard. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're bringing up edit summaries from months ago, this article has been the subject of way too many project discussions already and I think that comments made in October have already been dealt with when those discussions were closed. If there have been recent issues, you can share those edits but don't dig up the past. I'm with Bishonen here. Yes, this is not an enormously productive editor but this seems like overkill. Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by User:Upd Edit

    Upd Edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has made edits only on the Shahi Jama Masjid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article, trying to promote a single claim that a hindu temple existed beneath the mosque. Though they cite books as sources, the reliability and verifiability of these sources are questionable. (See 2024 Sambhal violence) Their edits violate WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE,

    • Issues:
      1. Their contributions are solely focused on the Shahi Jama Masjid article. Edit count
      2. WP:V and WP:RS Violations: The user relies on obscure or unverifiable sources to support controversial claims.
      3. WP:NPOV Violation: Edits consistently emphasize the unverified temple claim, creating bias and disregarding alternative historical perspectives.
      4. WP:DUE Violation: Though sourced,Their edits focus too much about the temple claim, even though it's not the most important part of the mosque's story. The mosque itself should be the main focus.
      5. WP:EDITWAR and Disruptive Behavior: The user reverts changes made by other editors. Example:
      1. Moved page to wrong title
      2. reverted
      3. reverted
      4. reverted
      5. reverted
    • Request:
      1. Investigate their editing patterns and advanced skills for potential WP:SOCK violations.
      2. Review whether the user’s edits and behavior align with Wikipedia policies on WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE.

    Thank you! - Cerium4B • Talk? 15:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple of days ago, a fellow editor claimed that I was a sock of Kautilya3 and nobody paid any heed.
    Today, Cerium4B—who is yet to make a single edit to the article talk-page despite my and Kautilya3's consistent demands—has the chutzpah of raising a barely coherent complaint with no substantiation. Notably, my ANEW report against Cerium4B was not acted upon because an administrator thought Kautilya's reinstatement of my content (and a warning to Cerium4B) to have resolved the issue.
    In not unrelated news, someone else, with similar editorial proclivities, believes me to be a sock of someone else. What next? Upd Edit (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support page-block - Given that this user is simply a single purpose account dedicated to relentless POV pushing and edit warring on this article, a page block (both talkpage/article) seems to be the way here before supporting a broader topic ban on him. CharlesWain (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would perhaps add more credence to your suggestion if you choose to take part at the t/p discussion, as requested, than hit the revert button and request sanctions. Upd Edit (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - When I first came by this article (which is the subject of a current dispute in India), I found an edit war between the filer and User:Upd Edit, with the former repeatedly deleting the well-sourced content added by the latter. There was also an AN3 complaint against the filer, which can be consulted to see that their reverts cited no policy-based reasons whatsoever.
    I gave WP:CTOP alerts to both the ediors (as well as another editor who was involved at that stage), and pinged the filer as well as the other editor from the talk page, inviting them to discuss their objections on the talk page. I have also explained that reverts need to be policy-based, and cannot be instances of WP:CENSOR or WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
    I was surprised to see that the filer has done a yet another revert today of the same nature, and hasn't written anything on the talk page. This clearly indicates a restart of the edit war, and I believe the filer should be sternly warned, if not sanctioned for thier continued edit warring.
    As for "disruptive editing", I see none from User:Upd Edit, but plenty of it from the filer. This complaint itslef lacks evidence and presents the filer's self-assured judgements about the content, which should have been rightly discussed on the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Kautilya3. Upd Edit (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is at least the third time that this editor has been dragged to a noticeboard, and this seems just as baseless as the others. Where are the diffs of misbehaviour? The only diffs that we have been given show that the user has been reverted, and it is just as likely that the reverter was wrong as that they were. Talk about it on the article talk page, as it is a content issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Phil Bridger. Upd Edit (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You also had this ANEW case you didn't respond to, Cerium4B. Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, @Liz
    I should have participated on talkpage. But, in this case, I couldn’t figure out how to engage with this user. Upds edits relied on unverified, questionable sources to push a controversial claim, which multiple editors and I felt was irrelevant to the mosque’s main topic. These edits violated WP:NPOV and WP:DUE policies, and I believed they needed administrative attention. Their Talk:Shahi Jama Masjid#Upcoming edits proposal (focused on hindu things) is also irrelevant to this article, where Kautilya3 is collaborating with Upd.
    On the ANEW report, I didn’t respond because Upd had already broken the WP:RRR rule, before I did. I thought admins would review the full situation. If I was found to have violated the rule for abuse, I would have accepted any decision against me.
    Upd is a new user but has a high level of skill, which raised concerns about potential WP:PROJSOCK violations. This is why I believed this matter needed proper investigation.
    When an experienced editor like Kautilya supported those biased edits, it added to my concern. Both were ignoring neutrality, I believe. which made me feel admin intervention was necessary.
    And I am also a new user with about 1700 edits trying to learn the policies. I do not have much experience but was trying my best to address the issue.
    I still strongly believe this case requires a deep investigation by the administrator. - Cerium4B • Talk? 19:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is an "unverified, questionable source"? I see no discussion at the talk-page, challenging the reliability of my sources. The very binary Hindu-Muslim way of seeing things is at the crux of the larger political issue but be that may, you are welcome to join talk-page discussions with coherent non-IDHT arguments. Upd Edit (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just discovered that 18 days ago Upd Edit was brought to the wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#Upd_Edit_-_project_sock? for project sock,
    when they had only 5 edits!
    In a comment, Phil Bridger expressed opposition to the report.
    Many of you couldn't reach a decision on this matter! - Cerium4B • Talk? 19:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite me asking for a page block above for Upd edit due to persistent edit warring, he still has made the third revert in 24 hours on the article. [122] This is not a single incident but part of a chain of reverts by this user in this week alone [123][124][125] and similar POV pushing trying to point out a supposedly "Hindu" origin for this mediaeval period Mosque through highlighting of Hindu mythology that has no relevance to it. [126] A page block is much needed for this user. CharlesWain (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a ridiculous suggestion. He is the only contributor that knows anything about the subject! Rest everybody else is just throwing stones. Please get them to discuss the issues on the talk page instead of messing with the mainspace. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And what is your own role on the page? Here I see you deleting a block of text and calling it "restoring improvements"! Did you explain your issues on the talk page? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is actually ridiculous is that you have to support a POV pusher and that too in such a desperate manner. Knowing something about the topic gives him no right to edit war constantly with different editors, and clearly he is trying to push a view here about pre-islamic origin to the mosque by undue emphasis on unrelated hindu mythology about this place in the article that clearly does not belong there. No scholar appears to be making a connection between Kalki and the Mosque and Upd Edit was misrepresenting an academic's quote in order to corroborate such a tenuous connection on the talkpage. In any case, the page has been extended confirmed protected because of his disruption. CharlesWain (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He is only trying to defend his own content that has been improperly deleted. Every one of us has a right to do so. Branding it as "edit warring" won't get you anywhere. If he is POV-pushing, you need to demonstrate it on the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption and personal threat

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


    Vartgul is going on a rampage and removing well-sourced information from many articles and when their edits are revered they turned to personal threats. See contributions page for disruption. Threat is here[127]. Semsûrî (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semsûrî does not create accurate content with sources in any of their edits. All the content they provide spreads views classified by the United Nations as those of a terrorist organization, promoting misinformation that supports terrorism. They edit content in a non-encyclopedic manner, based solely on their own political views. Vartgul (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Incivility by newbie

    Bryan7778888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been reverted and told off by @AstrooKai and me on account of their edits that reek of WP:BLP and WP:V violations and WP:OR, has doubled down in WP:IDNHT and resorted to making WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSION, WP:CRYSTAL and falsely accusing us of sockpuppetry on the flimsy grounds of happening to be editing some of the same topics (and in total ignorance of our edit histories). While I acknowledge being harsh in some comments in a knee-jerk reaction to such WP:CIR arguments on the offending editor, I believe that their continued replies mark them further into WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND territory. Borgenland (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    All of this only began when I reverted their edit on the article Stacey (singer) and other alike edits on the articles Maloi (singer) and Colet (singer), where they added about the subject's ancestral descent without citing a source that would verify this. I told them that needs to be verifiable by citing a source, but they said that:

    It is in the sources when they stated the places they where born. People in Bohol are Boholanos, People from Nueva Viscaya are ilocanos and people from Batangas are Tagalog. I believe for lack of better word, that it is your ignorance for not understand the sources better thank you.
    — User:Bryan7778888 08:43, December 7, 2024 (UTC)


    They were actually referring to demonyms which are the terms used to refer to people who were born from a place, but they added it to the articles as the subjects' ancestral descents. I explained it to them that "demonym" (which is the thing that they're referring to) and "descent" (ancestral or genealogical link) are two distinctive concepts. I told them that even these small details could be challenged by anyone. That is why it is important to be extremely careful in terms of verifiability when adding content to BLP articles. I was simply correcting their mistake and trying to guide them on how to do it right, but they justified their action by saying that:

    Nueva Vizcaya and Nueva Viscaya is the same. Just like Filipinas and Pilipinas is the same. One is Spanish and the other is from a local. And 62.3% of Nueva Viscaya is Ilocano and Stacy speaks Ilocano. So it's very rendundant. You're simplyfighting to win and shame the other. At least be logical and professional.
    — User:Bryan7778888 14:45, December 7, 2024 (UTC)


    Meaning they were basing their assumption of the subjects' ancestral descent solely based on ethnic statistics. I told them that this was a violation of WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTALBALL, but they ignored all of this and personally attacked me and Borgenland, calling Borgen a "dictator" and accusing me of having Borgen as my alternative account.

    This could have been avoided if they had just acknowledged and accepted their mistake, but they didn't WP:LISTEN and went ahead with these unacceptable behaviors instead. AstrooKai (Talk) 17:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do wonder how I could have been rapidly editing in Syria [128] [129] and Poland [130] and commenting on offending user's TP [131] at the exact same time. Borgenland (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also wonder on how a person with tens of thousands of edits and is inclined with politics and stuff would create a new account for music-related edits only. I don't think anyone would go through all the hard work to create a new account and establish there a reputation in music-related articles when they could have just done it in their first account in the first place. My user page literally contains every thing there is to know about me here on Wikipedia, and we both have very distinctive interests.
    Additionally, why would I reply to your comments on talk pages if am "you"? This is hilarious. AstrooKai (Talk) 18:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bryan7778888 has been editing for TWO days. You can assume that they don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines and as an experienced editor, you will need to explain them to them. How about we give them some time and grace to digest all of the information you have posted on their User talk page before coming to ANI?
    This doesn't seem like an "chronic, intractable problem", it's just a new editor learning how things are done here. Assume ignorance, not maliciousness. You shouldn't have the same expectations of them as you would of an editor who has been active for a year. Liz Read! Talk! 20:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that @AstrooKai has sent them the standard warning templates. In that case I hope I don't have to update it with something that would lead to further sanctions. Borgenland (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP vandalism by PyrateDru

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


    User:PyrateDru has been vandalizing the MrBeast page to revert all mention of Ava Kris Tyson’s name to her deadname. Requesting indef.

    Snokalok (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming good faith and that they are just unaware of Wikipedia norms I've given them a warning for now. Lets hope they get it. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Snokalok, it's advised to try talking with an editor before posting a complaint about them to ANI, especially for a new, inexperienced editor. Try informing them before seeking a sanction. ANI is the place to come if other efforts to resolve a situation have failed. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that’s fair. Snokalok (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing from Delectable1

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


    Involved: Delectable1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Here we are at ANI again, for something unrelated. The following timeline speaks for itself:

    • You two know each other to some extent. For some reason you want this video posted. I have not even begun to protest your actions. You both are unusual and try to throw weight around. That doesn't work here at Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson.
    • Where to start, you write about tornados. You say that you "have been here since 2024." News item, this is 2024. Why are you doing some of the quirky things you do? Consensus? How many polls have you operated on here? at my talk page.

    I'm inclined to say they are NOTHERE, and admin intervention is needed. EF5 21:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll note that the above warning messages were all removed by the user themselves, implying they had read them, and in today's case they removed talk page messages about edit warring before proceeding to continue said content dispute. Departure– (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just now: (diff) from this user, a comment on contributors, not content. Departure– (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Diff) I guess they really feel the need to comment on contributors, not content, and reinstated that PA. Seems to be WP:CIR at the very least, and in my eyes, WP:NOTHERE, because we've given 'em enough rope. Departure– (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, WP:ICHY applies - (diff) they removed the ANI notification from their talk page. Departure– (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick note, that was WP:ASPERSIONS at least, but not to the level where it was removable. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-admin comment Blocked as a checkuser sock. Departure– (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Harassment by another user

    User:Remsense appears to have made it their mission to stalk my contribution page and revert my edits, regardless of the context.

    They just reverted two of my edits, demanding in both cases that I take it to the talk page, in one https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mary_II&oldid=prev&diff=1261805142, I was already trying to bring the issue to the talk page, and the second https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=1261805984&oldid=1261433489&title=German_Empire is just completely stupid as almost every single country page uses the greater coat of arms. The first dispute they had absolutely nothing to do with, and the second revert took place a few minutes later.

    I don't necessarily want them blocked, but I just want them to leave me alone. I can't have a good faith discussion with somebody like this. OddHerring (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure why this person considers me undoing two edits to pages on my watchlist that I disagreed with to be a conduct issue and not content disputes of the most routine kind, or why they think I care who they are beyond the totally unearned hyperaggression they seemingly express in response to the most trivial disagreements. Remsense ‥  02:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not just reverted me twice:
    Flags of Austria-Hungary‬ - 1 revert
    Mongol Empire - 3 reverts (and he ganged up on me in the talk page with what I assume to be his friends.)
    OddHerring (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, you're right. The added context really does give me pause, actually: the eye-popping rate of 7 reverts in 103 days—all unprovoked and with no reasoning whatsoever—is surely some sort of record for unbridled harassment on here. Remsense ‥  02:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that they are STILL reverting my edits after I posted this. OddHerring (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not familiar with site norms (e.g. WP:ONUS, WP:BRD) or do not feel that they apply to you, and are simply not entitled to have your disputed changes published by default pending the expected "D" in BRD. Remsense ‥  02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Remense, to bring this a close, can you give this editor some space so they don't feel hounded? OddHerring, I don't think this needed to be brought to ANI. Know that all editors get reverted at times. You can expect it to happen in the future. If you have questions or they didn't leave an explanatory edit summary, approach the editor on their user talk page for more information. Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any recommendations of means to register disagreements with edits I may have n the future, or is it best in your mind to just assume others will do so in my stead? That's the only thing I worry about: it's not exactly constructive to assume it's impossible for another person to feel harried somehow—to make it clear to third parties, I've interacted with this person twice, previously in August—but depending on the extent of those expectations I'm not sure how their changes wouldn't in effect become beyond reproach. Their demand on my talk page that I must "report them" if I disagree with their edits as opposed to anything like a typical consensus building process is not reasonable. Remsense ‥  03:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wanting to be left alone to edit in the way you want doesn't seem like something we should be encouraging. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sean, there are other editors who can check an edit. You can assume when an editor comes to ANI that other editors will be looking at their contributions. I'm sorry, Remsense, but I don't understand the question you are asking me. I went looking at your User talk page to see what comment you were referencing but I didn't see anything that fit into what you were trying to say. If you want, we can move this to my own user talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right of course. I'm really just trying to encourage more of a 'nothing matters', 'meh', 'whatever' response to having one's edits reverted. I find it helps a lot. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with being reverted and having to defend by changes, but not if it means I have to do all the work and the other guy can just constantly say the same thing over and over again as if it proves anything (i.e. Talk:Mongol Empire). That's not a discussion, that's just obstruction. OddHerring (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, calling an editor you are involved in dispute with an idiot and then linking it months later as evidence in an ANI dispute is one of the strangest maneuvers I've seen. [132] Brocade River Poems (She/They) 04:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, either you are an idiot or are arguing in bad faith. I will figure out a way to go around you now. —@OddHerring

    Bruh – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And if people chime in to support my positions, that's to be interpreted as my friends ganging up on them. I get I haven't been the most effective or patient communicator here, but I've felt expressly boxed out of any assumption of good faith on my part from the very beginning. Remsense ‥  04:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This guy thinks he knows more about the Mongol Empire than the actual Mongolians https://mn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Их_Монгол_Улс (seal is displayed prominently, featured article by the way), but whatever, I'm the asshole somehow. OddHerring (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this extend to the other editors who have opposed the addition of the seal as inappropriate?[133] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yes, OddHerring, for trying to use an argument that falls apart if you think about it for more than two seconds. Are the only knowledgeable people on the Roman Empire from Rome? Are the only knowledgeable people on ancient Babylon the tour guides who live at the modern day ruins?
    I can only speak for myself—I don't know how well you regard taking Genghis Khan to featured article status on this English Wikipedia (and with more than eleven citations!!!!)—but I immediately count over a dozen basic errors/omissions on that Mongolian Mongol Empire page, which anyone with the most basic smattering of knowledge of actual scholarship on the Mongols would spot.
    And for the record, accusations of "ganging up" are not particularly appreciated here, particularly when, again, they fall apart when you think about them for a second. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are clearly the one who doesn't know site norms, since you have repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing and edit warring against me. OddHerring (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I attempted to take the German Empire infobox issue to talk, and they have completely ignored it. Seems like they don't have any respect for WP:BRD either.
    And no, it's not because they're doing something else. They have made three unrelated edits, and three unrelated reverts since this complaint started. OddHerring (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If no one else has a problem with the edits here, then I guess I give up (in their words, I win by default) and they will be allowed to push their disputed changes, because I've been given zero indication that they have any intention of listening to me. Given the previous gem from August, it is not an unreasonable conclusion: this time around, they've already expressly told me to GFM and that they cannot perceive my actions as being in good faith, so I'm a bit strapped here, no? Remsense ‥  04:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be willing to listen to you if you would:
    1. Lose the snark.
    2. Hold yourself to the same standard of evidence that you hold me to. OddHerring (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You made bold changes and they were contested. I explicitly asked you to elaborate on "we always use greater seals"—which is a novel observation on your part, with seemingly no basis in actual content guidelines—but you apparently feel it to be self-evident as to be enforceable across all applicable pages. That's something you need to explain, not me. Remsense ‥  04:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is the exact reason why I think you just have it out for me. What is the objection to my changes? Why are you opposed? OddHerring (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So am I just not allowed to edit if somebody reverts me but won't take it to talk? Because that seems to be the rule here. OddHerring (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran an Editor Interaction Analyzer check to check on this. It doesn't seem to show substantial evidence of hounding. Since June 1st (roughly the time @OddHerring started editing extensively), neither editor consistently starts editing pages before the other. The overlap seems to be explained by a common interest in map games European history c. 1300-1914 (but maybe also 1936-1945). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the levity, but the insinuation I'm a Paradox gamer is the meanest thing anyone's ever said about me on here. Remsense ‥  04:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be helpful if Remsense explained their objections in detail and didn't just say that the onus was on OddHerring to explain the changes. It would also be helpful if OddHerring didn't use edit summaries like Enough with the crappy PNG and her husband's arms after she died. Take it to talk or get blocked. (Special:Diff/1261801292). Walsh90210 (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that's a bit rude, but most of the revert messages I get (in general) are like that and make similar demands. OddHerring (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Really not trying to be coy to prove a point here, but I guess the reason I haven't expressed my core objection of "the greater arms are useless at thumbnail size" is because I get the sense they'll just tell me to fuck off and that my concerns rooted in principles that're actually present in the MOS don't matter. Hopefully that's at least a little reasonable given the precedent discussed above.Remsense ‥  04:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not arguing that greater coat of arms in the infobox should be the standard, I'm arguing that it is. And if you say that doesn't matter, you are arguing against consensus as a principle. OddHerring (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Walsh90210 et al., hopefully the dynamic is a bit more clear now as to why I'm having trouble with the OP's AGF, especially given that I'm tripping over all the rope they've lugged into the discussion with the apparent goal of trying to hang themselves. Unless anyone has other questions or concerns, I'll be tuning out now. Remsense ‥  04:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So just to be clear, they are now completely unwilling to take any disputes over editing to talk, but will continue to revert. If that isn't edit warring, I don't know what is. OddHerring (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind. A completely random third person reverted me instead. OddHerring (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (To be clear, OP has already gotten their way on German Empire as I am too pessimistic in their AGF to try any more than I already have, and their dispute on Mary II has to be sorted out with another user who I happen to agree with. There isn't anything left to talk about as far as I am aware.) Remsense ‥  05:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that my attempt to deescalate this complaint was not of much use tonight. Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I did appreciate the attempt, but I'm not sure there was much you could've done. Remsense ‥  07:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think editors get hyper focused on their own disputes and don't realize that every.single.editor on the project has other editors they don't get along with and they coexist with each other by keeping their distance and avoiding provoking each other. Everyone here has disagreements. Those editors who last for decades are those that find a way to negotiate all of this and who focus on the work and not each other. Liz Read! Talk! 08:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure if you're suggesting I've exhibited some shade of that myopia in this case, but I would submit there's a difference between "an editor that doesn't get along with another editor" and "an editor that can't get along with anyone". OP's is a comparatively small sample size, but all points so far speak to the latter characterization, if I'm being honest. They have never been civil to anyone who's challenged them, and I'm not sure I can agree that a permanent state of editing around them is a viable outcome for anyone else who draws their ire. Reading above, it's not only a clash of personalities: they're just blatantly wrong about how consensus works and what our standards are, and they've given us no reason to think they care about rectifying that. Remsense ‥  08:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Remsense, my comment was a general observation about how to edit on the project when there are editors you don't get along well with, it was not targeted to this specific dispute. Liz Read! Talk! 23:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User LesbianTiamat

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


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

    User LesbianTiamat has asked me to resign as an admin on grounds of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing.[134] I have declined the request.[135] Her antagonism towards me appears to have originated with my reverting a number of their edits at Jefferson Davis, which was followed by discussion on the article talk page.[136] Their response to that discussion was to edit my user page in a manner that I believe can only be described as malicious.[137] This was quickly reverted and I posted a firmly worded caution on their talk page.[138] The discussion which followed was not IMO productive and was characterized by snark and a general reluctance to acknowledge that her conduct had been extremely inappropriate. This despite my requesting an uninvolved admin, Cullen328, to have a word with her given where things stood at the time.[139], which he kindly did. I am not going to post links to all the diffs in that discussion, but I would encourage anyone reviewing the matter to look at the editing history for LT's talk page as she heavily edited the conversation, including some of her own comments after I had replied to her. I would also encourage anyone reviewing this matter to take a look at the history of LT's user page from that period. While I found her responses to be troubling, and they did raise doubts in my mind as to her temperament, I had largely forgotten the matter when LT suddenly turned up on a long stale discussion[140] at User talk:LilianaUwU with their accusations of misconduct and their request for my resignation.

    Both as an admin and editor, I take the community's trust very seriously and do not regard lightly any accusations of misconduct. I respectfully invite the community to review my conduct here and if anyone believes I have fallen short in my behavior, misused the tools, or demonstrated a pattern of POV pushing, as per LT's accusation, I am completely prepared to discuss any concerns. In particular I would note that LT seems to take very strong umbrage with a statement on my user page in which I make clear that owing to my disagreement with parts of MOS:GENDERID, that I generally refrain from editing in subject areas where that is likely to become an issue.

    Unfortunately, I have rather serious concerns about LT's own behavior. I believe there is credible evidence of WP:HOUNDING,[141] and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior at the least. And this recent development has renewed my concerns as to whether or not she possesses the temperament required to be able to contribute effectively here. Frankly, her hostility towards me seems to have become something of an obsession. If there is a feeling that I'm off base here or over-reacting feel free to let me know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I was just about to start my own topic against this user following my own experience with them, in which I attempted to confront them about their editing behavior and was was immediately dismissed and possibly even threatened despite my best efforts to assume good faith in them. Granted, they did respond later on, and I commend them for that, but that does not excuse their behavior. All of my concerns with them can be found in the revision I linked above. They are extremely problematic and needs to be dealt with. λ NegativeMP1 04:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Ad Orientem: The old incident is over. We solved it and moved on. I don't get why people keep reigniting it. I had to remove it from my talk page because people kept adding fuel to a fire that should have been extinguished. I agreed to not do it - is that not what you wanted? Is that not the purpose of going to the talk page? It's over.
    2. Ad Orientem: I'm not ready to bring up an ANI discussion regarding your adminship. I told you that I would do so when I had gathered the evidence, so that you have a chance to prepare a defense. I am not hounding, only carefully observing and gathering evidence for the proper procedure. I made the request for you to step down because I was on the same page. Timestamps will reveal that the award on LilianUwU's talk page was given before my comment. It was pure chance that I saw you there, Ad Orientem. I have no intention of hounding you. I will follow proper procedure as you said to. There will be no further word from me to you until it is time to post an ANI thread (except for this discussion, obviously).
    3. NegativeMP1: I don't understand how you can interpret anything I've ever said in my entire history on Wikipedia as a threat. Please clarify. I wrote a quick comment dismissing you (I will cease this behavior) then addressed each of your points in a second, much longer commment. I dismissed your comment on the presumption that your message was retaliatory in nature due to timing, the "boomerang" that Ad Orientem brought up. I apologize for presuming collusion if it was independent.
    LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 04:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think people "keep reigniting it" is because it's clear from how you handled that situation on your talk page that you do not understand (or do not want to admit) that your behavior was inappropriate. Your agreement to not repeat the behavior is couched not in an apology for your behavior (or at minimum an acknowledgement that it was inappropriate), but in an overt claim that Ad Orientem would violate WP:INVOLVED should you repeat the edit, yourself violating WP:AGF.

    But I recognize that you will abuse your admin powers and ban me if I again shine a light on what you attempt to obfuscate, so I shall refrain from such action.

    This entire incident was instigated by you, and your abject refusal to admit how inappropriate your edit to their userpage was is very concerning. Essentially every comment made by you during that discussion screams I didn't hear that. You kept pointing to how you agreed not to repeat the behavior while ignoring concerns that your explicitly stated motivation for stopping was unsatisfactory.
    I have no familiarity with Ad Orientem's long term edit history, so I cannot comment on any accusation of civil POV pushing, but in this particular matter I can absolutely say that I found their behavior both appropriate and civil, and yours neither of those things. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I recognized that my behavior was inappropriate for Wikipedia and agreed to stop it. I see no purpose in continuing beyond such agreements.
    I won't apologize (except to Frost (sorry Frost), who thanked my edit, which I interpreted as being a civil end to our conversation), but I will alter my behavior on Wikipedia to comply with Wikipedia's rules.
    I hear your every word. I have my disagreements with Wikipedia's policies, but I am an internet veteran and understand that internet communities have rules to follow if one wants to be a member of them.
    Today, I attempted civility. I will make further efforts to be overly-civil, so as not to undershoot the goal of civility during collaborative disagreements. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 05:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BOOMERANG isn't a threat, it's just a reminder to avoid vexatious/frivolous complaints at ANI, because sometimes when investigating we find bad stuff the original reporter did that they get in trouble for. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a great way to suppress genuine complaints. I'm not saying that that's the intent, but if that's what you do around here, I suggest reconsidering doing that to avoid chilling effects. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 05:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Chilling? Not hounding me? If this isn't hounding, then we need to just remove that from our P&G. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Open a discussion I shall, once the evidence is gathered and organized. I fear no boomerang, as I am one of the WP:BOLDest editors on this site. I advise that you watch your actions and check your biases before doing anything, because I am watching you for the purpose of removing you as an administrator. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 02:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

    Well, that last sentence crossed the line into hounding. I shouldn't have said that. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 05:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not heavily edit my comments after a reply. If any such thing occurred, it was due to MediaWiki's known flaws regarding simultaneous edits. That actually happened just now on this page, and I immediately reverted my edit.
    I asked Cullen328 about the own-comment-editing policy on Cullen328's talk page, and the response was exactly in line with my bona fide belief as to what I have been doing.
    And I absolutely did not edit another user's comment. (Except for when an edit conflict occurred, which I pointed out.) That is a false accusation, or a horrific mistake on my part for which I deeply apologize. (Note: There has been confusion in the past regarding the word "comment." When I say "comment," I mean what happens when you click reply.) LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 05:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, I recognize that another user's page was an inappropriate venue. I should have gone to Ad Orientem's talk page, following appropriate ANI procedure. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 05:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a troubling conversation with LesbianTiamat back in October which can be seen in this diff. The editor edited Ad Orientem 's user page to misrepresent the administrator's own words in an inflammatory fashion. Instead of acknowledging their error and apologizing, LesbianTiamat was combative, argumentative and dismissive. This is clearly an editor who holds grudges and is willing to pursue them over months. As for their contributions to Jefferson Davis and Talk: Jefferson Davis, those edits showed a similarly combative reluctance to accept Wikipedia's core content policies. If you ask me off-Wikipedia what I think of Jefferson Davis then I will be frank about how much I despise him, but this is an encyclopedia and we simply cannot call someone a traitor unless that person was convicted of treason by a court of law. Otherwise, British editors would be free to call George Washington a traitor to the British crown in Wikipedia's voice. And so on in countless biographies of people who rebelled but were never convicted of treason. As for the editor's comment at Talk:The Birth of a Nation, I changed it to something that doesn't suck the film's dick, that type of sexualized comment in a discussion that has nothing to do with sexuality is utterly inappropriate. I see this editor's contributions as deeply problematic and I am struggling to come up with a solution. Cullen328 (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't touch the page on Jefferson Davis after the incident reached my talk page, at least to my memory.
    I'll avoid vulgarity in future comments. I don't think the sexual nature is relevant because I was using it as an idiomatic set phrase, but I will filter further comments. That thought did not cross my mind; it is everyday language in my dialect, which is not that of Wikipedia as a whole, and thus inappropriate.
    And yeah, I did that edit to Ad Orientem's userpage. I said I wouldn't do it again, and I haven't. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 05:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LesbianTiamat: Have you apologized for it? City of Silver 06:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    About that one specific edit that seriously crossed the line regarding Wikipedia's rules on editing others' user pages? No, I have not. But I have not repeated the behavior, and I have no desire for further interaction. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LesbianTiamat: If, as you say, that message "seriously crossed the line regarding Wikipedia's rules on editing others' user pages," either apologize for it or explain why you won't. People notice when you dance around issues rather than face them head-on and that sort of reticence will do you a lot more harm than good in the long run. City of Silver 06:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that actions speak louder than words, and have very strict personal rules regarding when I apologize. I'm not betraying that personal policy.
    In the context of Wikipedia, I apologize. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not you intended it, this sounds like a non-apology, at best. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I feel that WP:BLOCKP#3 might offer a simple solution here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's my sentence? LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 05:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For my own part, I would be content with an indefinite WP:IBAN. But I think there are issues here that go beyond her rather obvious hostility to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that seems excessive when I'm actively correcting my behavior. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that you accused me of misconduct and asked me to resign without producing any evidence, and openly threatened to follow me around with the intent of having me desysopped, I would argue than an indefinite IBAN would be pretty much the minimal response. What possible reason would you have for wanting to still be able to interact with me? -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I haven't collected it all yet! And if collecting evidence is considered hounding, I'm really in a Catch-22 here. I guess I'll completely back off. You're just one admin out of hundreds. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, you asked him to resign, saying [y]ou may not realize it, Ad Orientem, but you appear to have become a civil POV pusher... before you had even attempted to collect evidence regarding whether or not your assertion was correct? Can you explain how this is not naked casting of aspersions? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I guess it's a big mistake that I didn't put everything in a document before making said request and casting aspersions! It is casting aspersions. I thought I was handling things civilly by making a request, and it turns out I wasn't!
    The evidence, at this point it's irrelevant; I'm not going to hound Ad Orientem.
    And to clarify, I do not hold grudges - I stand by principles. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, collecting evidence from past behavior to make a report is not hounding. It is within your rights to do that. It was asserting that you'd follow them around to wait for them to "trip up" in the future that's hounding, and in particular for the purpose of removing you as an administrator is making it personal. You've already admitted that sentence was inappropriate, so I don't think further discussion is necessary. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that crossed the line. I knew in the back of my head that I shouldn't have added that, but was fired up in the moment and felt indignation, and that I had to do something. I will not do that again. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And do you have any intent to apologize to Ad Orientem for casting aspersions? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the context of Wikipedia's rules and the community the two of us share, I apologize for breaking the rules regarding casting aspersions without first gathering evidence into a presentable format. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Crusading, really. Secretlondon (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LesbianTiamat: An IBAN (interaction ban) is a ban on interacting with another user, so it would be very mild. It's like a restraining order preventing you from talking to @Ad Orientem on talk pages or reverting their edits. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I made a mistake. WP:ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI I don't want to interact with Ad Orientem, but I also don't want Ad Orientem interacting with me. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 17:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LesbianTiamat We can end this right now. All you need to do is agree to the IBAN. I've already stated I have no desire to interact with you and will refrain from doing so unless absolutely necessary. Your acceptance of the IBAN in the section below IMO would be enough to close this discussion and we can both move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're done here if we've both agreed that we don't want to interact with each other? LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 17:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to state your acceptance of the IBAN in the section below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    The editor claims I'm actively correcting my behavior but her recent edits that happened before this ANI discussion began show little evidence of that. The idiomatic set phrase defense is . . . unpersuasive. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that your point is that I added sexuality, which was not my intent. If it's unpersuasive, well, I really don't have anything else to say, because everything I said here is the truth. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How on earth can you write something that doesn't suck the film's dick, and then argue that adding sexualized commentary was not my intent? That literally makes no sense whatsoever. Cullen328 (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's how I talk. It's how people around me talk. I'm actually really at the same level of incredulity as you because it's something I hear every day. It won't be posted on Wikipedia again. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is a worldwide collaborative project, and people from a wide variety of countries, social and religious groups, ages and educational levels need to be welcomed here. If you think that the sexualized insults that you claim are common in your social milieu are appropriate for Wikipedia, then perhaps you need to be restricted from editing Wikipedia. You are creating, in effect, a hostile work environment for people with different social norms. When I was a teenager, I had many friends who freely and frequently dropped f-bombs to protest against the prevailing social norms of that era. I don't talk that way on Wikipedia and neither should anyone. We should use standard, businesslike English in our interactions with other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already said it won't be posted on Wikipedia again. I get it. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 07:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "it" won't be posted again is nowhere near enough. What is needed is a dramatic transformation in your style of interaction with other editors. Drop the combativeness and adopt friendly collaboration. And I do not mean things like the mean-spirited barnstar that you left at User talk: LilianaUwU#courage strength and cuteness to you. Cullen328 (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that we have another misunderstanding here. That barnstar was given out of solidarity. It is specifically for members of my birth-status group, and is a reference to a well-known (within the group) meme.
    One person chastised me for giving the award because that person felt it was not deserved, and you're saying it's mean-spirited. I have now removed the lines that could be considered mean-spirited towards others, keeping it completely positive. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 08:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no misunderstanding. Your intention was clear. I will leave this now for input by other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If openly transgender users are going to be criticized and threatened with discipline for sharing goofy inside-jokes with other openly transgender users, then Wikipedia's even more transphobic than I feared. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly I really don’t think the barnstar bears factoring into anything. As Hydrangeans mentioned, this is a trans editor making a joke with another trans editor. It really doesn’t warrant any level of response Snokalok (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Wow, I did not notice the comments LesbianTiamat left with that barnstar previously (to be 100% clear, the barnstar isn't the problem--it's the comments made toward Ad Orientem that were left with the barnstar, which were removed in this diff).
    More importantly, LesbianTiamat's attempt to brush off the comments as a "misunderstanding" (followed by her noting that she removed the lines that "could be considered mean-spirited toward others"...seriously, "could"???) shows that she does not get it, despite her assurance that she is actively correcting her behavior. I would support an IBAN in this case, and LesbianTiamat would do well to take Cullen328's advice to dramatically transform her style of interaction with other editors, drop the combativeness, and adopt friendly collaboration. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the quote in the diff: And don't let Ad Orientem or that IP editor get to you. I've had problems with that admin before, and will be voting for his recall. Stand up and fight, just as you've been doing. Call for a different admin if you need Wikipedia's rules enforced.
    To be honest, I'm not seeing the cause for dramatic alarm. The text amounts to trying to reassure another transgender user in the face of perceived transphobia. Openly saying that one "will be voting for his recall" is toasty, yeah, but it's not slurs or insults or personal attacks. I personally have a really high bar for civility, so I do personally think LesbianTiamat was behaving less than ideally, but behaving below an ideal is pretty different from what she's being accused of (being mean and combative). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this, the message attached to the barnstar reads as reassurance and certainly to my view does not meet the bar for any level of incivility towards OP. Snokalok (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hydrangeans, you can not make charges like that without providing evidence or you are also casting aspersion. This thread was winding down and you just escalated things. Liz Read! Talk! 08:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I can’t speak to the noqueerphobes quote, but the confederate one is from one of the diffs OP posted. I’ll repost it here. Talk:Jefferson Davis#Treason, first post.
    That said Hydrangeans, you should be thorough in your citations, especially for a matter like this. Snokalok (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about forgetting the NOQUEERPHOBES link; I've added a link in my initial comment. As for the statement about Jefferson Davis, I thought that being linked in OP was sufficient, but I'll remember to be thorough in the future.
    As for escalation, Ad Orientem started the thread, and at ANI OPs can also be scrutinized. If things really have winded down, then I don't think there's much cause for alarm that my one comment would somehow drastically and unjustly change that. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave Snokalok a barnstar in appreciation (it's silly, and based on a userbox) and then this happened.
    @Rambam 2025 gave the reversion reason Rv retract your comments about AO or pay the price! (Another user stepped in and reverted the blatant targeted vandalism.)
    This looks like hounding to me. And it's part of a pattern I noticed. However, with the casting aspersions thing, my documentation of the prior event with AO cannot be posted without significant work, as I tracked only the usernames of those going through my contributions and reverting my good-faith edits. I also am unsure of the extent of the damage, as I have not completely surveyed it - I have roughly 1500 edits.
    An unknown editor may possibly be violating WP:CANVAS and WP:HOUND against me. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 13:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mysteriously, the edit summary is now gone. I was not aware that that was even possible. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 13:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just passing by, Rambam 2025 was blocked as a sock/vandal below. Sarsenet (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a one-way IBAN proposal is still on the table. I'm not convinced that threat of hounding will no longer occur. No one, editor or admin, should edit thinking that another editor is scrutinizing their every edit to capture "evidence". I mean, no one wants to edit like that on the Project, no matter who you are. Liz Read! Talk! 09:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’ve read over OP’s post several times, and I have concerns.

    The opening quote User LesbianTiamat has asked me to resign as an admin on grounds of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing.[131] I have declined the request.[132] Her antagonism towards me appears to have originated with and the subsequent quotes I had largely forgotten the matter when LT suddenly turned up on a long stale discussion[137] at User talk:LilianaUwUwith their accusations of misconduct and their request for my resignation. and this recent development has renewed my concerns as to whether or not she possesses the temperament required to be able to contribute effectively here make this thread read to me as though the central issue here is that LT asked OP to resign as admin. Certainly, the manner in which this request to resign was given was not at all in line with Wikipedia standards of civility, and that is its own issue, but nonetheless, the way this thread is currently written reads as “Could you resign?” “No” being the central issue instead of the incivility, and that concerns me greatly. But perhaps there’s some wiki guideline I’m missing that makes it all make sense. Snokalok (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Signature tangent, resolved as no action required. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting One Way IBan for LesbianTiamat

    Based on their history and above discussion, I am satisfied that LesbianTiamat harbors extremely strong personal animosity towards me, likely motivated by ideological prejudice. Despite ample opportunity to produce at least some evidence to back up her aspersions and request for my resignation, she has failed to do so. Nor am I satisfied by her extremely grudging acknowledgments that her actions were wrong. The wording is often carefully couched and leaves me convinced that while she very reluctantly accepts her behavior was contrary to community policies and guidelines, that she believe she occupy the moral high ground. I note that after denying hounding, when I posted their direct quote threatening to to do exactly that with the objective of having me desysopped, her response was "I shouldn't have said that." At this point. I cannot conceive of any constructive reason why she would want to interact with me. And frankly I do not want to spend the rest of my time on the project looking over my shoulder knowing someone with such openly declared hostility is looking for an opportunity to attack me. I respectfully ask the community to impose an indefinite WP:IBAN on LesbianTiamat. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How about a two-way ban? One-way is absolutely unfair and unjust.
    A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption. (troll/pester) 17:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For my part, I will be quite happy to avoid any interaction with you that is not necessary in my administrator capacity. And even then, I would probably refer anything not time sensitive to another admin. That said, I have done nothing wrong here. A two way IBAN is not appropriate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've done nothing wrong outside the context of Wikipedia.LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 17:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are reinforcing my entire point. You still don't believe you have done anything wrong. Honestly, if this were a situation involving two other editors and I were an uninvolved party, looking at this objectively I'd be at least thinking about an indefinite block. Your editing history suggests you see Wikipedia as an ideological battlefield. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But we're within Wikipedia here. This is honestly a totally perplexing response to me. It's like if I broke a US law and my defense was "but I didn't break a Canadian law." Yes... and? --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem: Could you please state exactly what "ideological prejudice" Tiamat "likely" has against you? You didn't explicitly say what belief(s) you have that she might find objectionable and I don't want to guess because if I guess wrong, that's probably me violating AGF. City of Silver 17:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See her edit on my user page. I believe it is self evident. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite one way IBan for LesbianTiamat, as the minimum action required here, with a warning that any more disruptive editing may result in further sanctions. Cullen328 (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite one way interaction ban, per the behaviours exhibited in the thread above (especially, and quite shockingly, including "I advise that you watch your actions and check your biases before doing anything, because I am watching you for the purpose of removing you as an administrator") as well as vandalism of AO's userpage a couple of months ago. The fact that this has been going on for seemingly months means the problem clearly isn't going away easily. Daniel (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept. To paraphrase Che Guevara, you will only be blocking a woman. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 18:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on LT's acceptance of the proposed IBAN, I am satisfied that no further action is required. As far as I am concerned, the matter is resolved. Unless there is an objection, could an uninvolved admin please log the IBAN, post the appropriate talk page notice and close this discussion? Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Weliviewf disruptive editing – review requested

    I left User:Weliviewf many warnings and requests about editing errors that they were making. The editor removed those warnings from their User talk page, so they can be presumed to have been seen. The editor continues to make the same sorts of disruptive edits. I found a half-dozen significant errors in a dozen recent edits. They are making good edits to prose, but often accompanied by errors like nonexistent templates or categories, removing valid formatting, and making unhelpful changes. See the talk page history for my requests to them.

    The editor is also newly registered, but their behavior gives every indication that they are an experienced Wikipedian.

    At this point, I feel like another set of eyes is needed to judge the level of disruption and if anything else may be going on here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I also thought of bringing them here due to their many revisions of removing content without explanation or with misleading edit summaries (such as this one claiming minor edits while also removing 72,000 bytes). Not only that, but they also remove the references, external links and categories for no reason. I do agree that some of their edits are genuinely beneficial, however edits like this, this and this are completely unhelpful, removing entire sections of various articles, breaking tables and templates, and leaving sentences incomplete.
    They are completely aware they have a talk page, as they have removed content from it on two occasions, but the fact that they refuse to address concerns brought up on their talk page is concerning (I never left any warnings on their talk page because I thought what was already there was sufficient and didn't want to seem like I was piling on, however they don't seem to acknowledge them at all except for removing those warnings, which they have the right to do of course). Procyon117 (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jonesey95, I haven't looked at their edits but it looked like you left 8 messages on their user talk page over 15 minutes! Given their previous behavior, do you think this was an effective way to communicate with them? It's overkill. Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a message for each different problem that I found, including problems that they had previously been warned about. They made many different kinds of errors and disruptive edits at a high rate of speed. I also reverted some edits and pinged them from edit summaries, hoping that different styles of notification would help. Everything I have read about blocking says that editors need to be given adequate warnings. As for whether it was effective, I don't think the previous warnings were effective, but I know that they are required. If these do not work, I need more help. Hence my request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Weliviewf has returned to editing. I've invited them to participate in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I too have cleaned up some of the edits made by Weliviewf, but the task is rather overwhelming and they have created a lot of work for other editors, much of which still remains to be done. I see three basic issues:
    • First, they remove vast portions of an article for no discernible reason (1, 2, 3, 4, etc). At first I thought these were accidental mistakes, but it seems to be such a persistent pattern that I can only assume that it's deliberate. They have also edit warred to restore these mass content removal edits on the same page after they were reverted (eg. 1a and 1b and 1c; 2a and 2b and 2c)
    • Second, they repeatedly make changes that violate the MOS. For example, they remove bolding from the article subject in the lead sentence in most of their edits (eg. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc) even though they have been informed at least three times that this is contrary to the MOS (1, 2, 3).
    • Third and perhaps most importantly, they do not communicate at all. They have selectively removed warnings from their talk page twice (1 and 2), so they are aware that their talk page exists and that other editors have been warning them, but they have neither responded to the messages nor changed the behavior that they were warned about. As far as I can tell, they have never edited a talk page of any kind.
    CodeTalker (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the problem now. They are making a lot of very BOLD edits. They might need a partial block from Article namespace so they start discussing these major changes they are doing to a variety of articles on the project. Liz Read! Talk! 09:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sharnadd and disruptive editing/CIR

    Hi, Sharnadd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing disruptively recently and with a past block in June 2024 (block warning on talk page), I think more action is required. I don’t think their edits are vandalism and may not warrant a full rollback but I do think they are disruptive and might need a WP:CIR block. I [142] (and many others) [143] [144] [145] have addressed this in both user and article talk pages, but they do not seem to understand the issues raised. It also appears this editor may not have a good grasp of English due to the misspellings and grammar issues they have introduced.
    -edit warring to readd reverted information: [146], [147], [148], and [149]

    -Partially deleted talk page discussions in a manner that changes what the original post means (instead of fully blanking): [150] and [151]

    -Added uncited section in broken English: [152]

    -Nonsense edit summaries: Good title of country [153] and [154] Added book shop I go marks and Spencers is a supermarket. There are full service hotels at a service station not motels which generally have the doors outside

    -Removal of info with confusing, misspelled edit summaries: [155] and [156]

    Please let me know if there’s any mistakes, or additional information needed. Thanks, Sarsenet (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There's an evidwnt error in the ES of that "uncited section" diff, "Added types" should be "typos". Narky Blert (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thata not true I haven't been disruptive posting. I had been adding information with citations. I know that you had a problem as I made a spelling mistake on a posting by that's hardly Sharnadd (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    145 I added additional sources the originator agreed and has removed some of his incorrect information. Sharnadd (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    146 I apologised to Cassiopeia as when I edited I had accidently removed some information from lower down and she put it back for me Sharnadd (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    147 I sent belbury the current information that is per the regulations as he had a query on regs after Brexit Sharnadd (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    148 to 151 it wasn't an editing war. Someone was removing information as I was added several citations as they did not think the citations were good enough but they had not seen guardian citations. Information was left on as citations given Sharnadd (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    152 and 153 when you mentions the problem with my accidently spelling he word placed as places I would happily have blanked your discussion from my talk page if I knew how to do so it seems I can only edit Sharnadd (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    156 to 157 what would you prefer the edit summary to say. Would you prefer that they remain blank Sharnadd (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    157 to 158 it was t confusing at all. The page was listed as breakfast sandwich from United states. Since It discussed the American breakfast sandwich in the overview history and ingredients I removed the reference to other types. Since you stated it was for all types of breakfast sandwich I removed the origin as united states Sharnadd (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your edits for Breakfast sandwich the problem is that your injecting your own understanding, but that is not how Wikipedia works when it comes to adding or removing information -- for example, see WP:TRUE TiggerJay(talk) 22:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks that is why I ended up removing the origin as though the breakfast sandwich being discussed was solely about the American type rather than general sandwhichs as it discussed the American sandwhichs in all parts of the article. It really didn't seem to refer to general sandwhichs Sharnadd (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer that you use clear, concise edit summaries as when they're present, they're not constructive. Sarsenet (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I usually use clear concise summaries stating what I have added or why I have changed an article but since you do not like them I wonder if you had an example of what you prefer. Such as if there is a spelling mistake I would say spelling corrected or if I have added to the history I would say further historical information provided Sharnadd (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding removing other peoples talk messages in part, such as this example -- there is no special "full blanking" tool or feature, but instead the problem is that you partially deleted only some of what the other editor posted on your talk page. That is an inappropriate form of WP:REFACTORING. You have the ability to "edit" and fully remove the discussion, as the second example regarding Pie seems to be your intention there. TiggerJay(talk) 22:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes thanks I will just try and blank it or do just a short response next time. Sharnadd (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards to Delicatessen those edits broadly fall under WP:3R which is a form of edit waring, even if unintentional. Your edits were removed more than once, and regardless of your reasoning, you do not simply re-add information that was removed without either (1) fully addressing the initial concert; or (2) bringing the discussion to the talk page to find consensus with other editors. TiggerJay(talk) 22:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ah thank you. I was still adding citations at the time. The man who changed them thought they weren't a good source so I apologised and put back with the guardian. He apologised that he hadn't seen it. I them added the BBC and guardian. I will just message him with the extra situations next time and explain I am adding more Sharnadd (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First a caution about how you're responding to the various links provided, those numbers are dynamic and may change at any point, which will cause confusion. For example, at the time of me writing this reply, 145 is now part of the section above regarding User LesbianTiamat which I am certain you're not referring to... So please use a different way to explain the various edits. For example, what is currently #157 will change, so perhaps when responding you might say for example: for Beefsteak and this diff my reason is xyz... TiggerJay(talk) 22:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks I thought they would also lin to the pages she had a problem with. So the one with a incorrectly spelled word will link to something else. Will do thanks again for your help Sharnadd (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not 100% sure who you're referring to here, but if it's me, I'm not a "she." Thanks, Sarsenet (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry,I will refer to you as he if that is correct Sharnadd (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The beefsteak page that you had a problem with I ran through several grammar checkers and it is fine
    I will add some citations showing the common ingredients we serve with steak Sharnadd (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone with more experience look at Syrian Air Flight 9218. It's been created in response by a theory by some that radar data recorded by this plane shows that it may have crashed, with theories it was carrying the President of Syria. Given how entirely speculative the entire thing is, and the 1RR restrictions, someone more competent than me needs to have their finger on this one. Nfitz (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional info on the theory that is going around social media. It should be noted that reliable sources have discussed the flight, but have made it clear that details about it are unconfirmed and speculation: The Telegraph, Reuters. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, it's certainly interesting. But entirely speculative. And at this point it happened about 12 to 13 hours ago. The article just shouldn't be here, if there's no actual physical evidence of a crash, or a missing plane. Planes have been vanishing in that area all day on radar; this one just had odd looking data before it vanished. This isn't encyclopaedic. Anyhow, I'm out of here for a few hours. Nfitz (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on most to all points. (Not sure about the "Planes have been vanishing in that area all day on radar" part as this is the first I have heard of that.) --Super Goku V (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, some reliable sources are quoting Russian government officials saying that Bashar al-Assad is in Moscow and has been granted asylum there. Cullen328 (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And there we go. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's moot now, but some planes from the Gulf and Iran were vanishing on approach to Tartus, see [157] this. Vanishing around the same point near the "crash site". Nfitz (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandal/troll/sock back yet again

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


    The fistagon vandal/troll/sock is back yet again, this time under the name Rambam 2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If someone could please take the appropriate action and do a reveal on the edit summaries, I’d be very grateful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks, Diannaa, that's great. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Two clear NOTHERE accounts

    TheodoresTomfooleries and DFLPApologist are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Not sure where else to report so I brought it here. Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 15:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My contributions very much suggest otherwise. Whether you like my userpage or not has nothing to do with my contributions to Wikipedia, all of which have been done to improve Wikipedia. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My userpage has no relation to my contributions. DFLPApologist (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    DFLPApologist, this is not Twitter or social media of any kind. You wrote Unlimited genocide on the first world on the other editor's talk page. Why should other Wikipedia editors believe anything that you say? Cullen328 (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just revdelled about a dozen revisions on their userpage under RD2. I don't think the user was being remotely serious about what they said, but it's still gross and unnecessary. ♠PMC(talk) 20:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PMC has apparently revdelled multiple revisions upon my request but the content was extremely inappropriate and gross - I don't think any sane person would interpret it as humour The AP (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The good news is that nobody on the internet is sane. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Clear AI slop IP editor

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


    Special:Contributions/162.156.70.174

    Behaviour has been sporadically ongoing since June 2024.

    Block history

    - User talk:162.156.70.174#August 2024|Blocked in August 2024 for linking their AI generated slop articles into mainspace. TPA also revoked.

    - Blocked and TPA revoked again later in August 2024.

    Has created the following AI slop drafts:

    - Draft:The_Rise_of_Eco-Fascism:_A_Threat_to_Climate_Justice

    - Draft:Climate_Policy_and_Far-Right_Influence

    - Draft:Economic_Impacts_of_Climate_Change

    Has added AI slop to the Ecofacism article:

    - Diff #1

    - Diff #2

    Has made AI slop threads / replies:

    - Talk:Ecofascism #1

    - Talk:Ecofascism #2

    - WP:Help Desk #1

    - WP:Help Desk #2

    - WP:Teahouse

    - Their User Talk page #1

    - Their User Talk page #2

    - Their User Talk page #3

    - AfC Helpdesk #1

    - AfC Helpdesk #2

    qcne (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy ping to prior blocking admins: @Jake Wartenberg, @Paul Erik, @Jpgordon, @Materialscientist qcne (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia talk: Administrators' noticeboard#Subject: Clarification and Assistance Needed for "The Economic Impacts of Climate Change: A Journey Towards a Sustainable Future" Cullen328 (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am regular editor who has recently become aware of this user and I am also highly concerned by their behaviour. ALL of their edits, including response to other users and administrators, is clearly AI-generated. When asked to stop, they lie and insist they are not. They also insist they are two human collaborators, rather than one person who has developed an unhealthy attachment to an AI-chatbot.
    They have received multiple warnings, all their edits end up getting reverted, they're don't take onboard any input, etc etc My view is that they need to be barred from input into Wikipedia. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IP blocked and silenced. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This discussion about a news aggregator seems like it may be compromised both by LLM rationales and the possibility of a compromised account. Bartimas's first edit is on this discussion and their rationale reads as a complete chatbot hallucination that makes no real sense, while Fxober may have been here much longer, but it reads the same and does not resemble the writing style or language of any of their past edits, nor interest spaces at all, so I'm suspecting that their account may have been unfortunately compromised. As is this is one of those constant YouTube advertisers that has some controversy I feel like someone external may be trying to weigh down the scales of this discussion outside the first two voters who had proper reasons for their keep (the third from 2603:6011:9600:52C0:414B:816B:94D5:DA4 (talk · contribs) is another first-edit just saying 'keep' and just as suspicisious). Nate (chatter) 21:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think Bartimas2 can be dealt with using a {{uw-coi}} warning. I'm also not seeing any evidence of a compromised account nor does Fxober's post appear to be AI generated. I don't think an LLM would use a comma like Fxober did in the first sentence, for example. I take Fxober's !vote to be "keep, other stuff exists" per their accompanying edit to the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruptive behaviour and unsubstantiated MOS:PUFFERY by 155.69.190.63

    Calling for intervention against persistent disruptive patterns from 155.69.190.63, which has repeatedly added unverified claims, and tendencies to disregard editing policies and misrepresentation in List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru and other related articles.

    • [158] Unexplained addition of unverified claims, with no WP:RS.
    • [159] Another unexplained edit, without any WP:ES.
    • [160] Misrepresenting data from the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, which itself does not indicate that "Johor Bahru is also currently the nation's second tallest city in terms of number of 200 metres and above skyscrapers", quite possibly to advance said IP address' MOS:PUFFERY.

    Said IP address even attempted to justify why they refused the burden of proof in their talk page and insinuated me in bad faith of disruptive behaviour. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I should say, of the three diffs you mentioned, only one (the first) seems like it could even be potentially objectionable, and I'd have to read through the issue in greater detail before I could comment meaningfully.
    Are you sure those are the diffs you meant to point to? DS (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, DragonflySixtyseven. I have fixed the third link - that is the one where said IP address misrepresented a source to push puffed up claims. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi HundenvonPenang, I'm responding per your request at User talk:Newslinger § Seeking assist in WP:ANI. I think your post on this conduct-oriented noticeboard is premature, since an editor should be given an adequate chance to defend their edits with the appropriate policies and guidelines in a content dispute before they are reported for conduct issues. Please start discussions on the affected articles' respective talk pages and explain why you have determined the edits in question are in violation of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. If an editor repeatedly makes edits against the consensus that arises from these discussions, then a report on this noticeboard would be warranted. — Newslinger talk 04:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Newslinger, I have no intention of potentially starting an edit war, but said IP address has shown repeated tendencies to disregard established editing policies, misrepresentation and making unsubstantiated claims. But I shall WP:FIXIT anyway on the List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru and concurrently responded to IP address' talk page's allegations. hundenvonPG (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A commonly recommended process for resolving content disputes is the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (WP:BRD). Instead of immediately reverting the other editor for a different interpretation of a cited source (e.g. Special:Diff/1262019325), this process involves starting a discussion on the article talk page (e.g. Talk:List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru) and inviting the other editor to justify their edits. — Newslinger talk 05:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Newslinger, I have added a discussion in the Talk:List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru, but said IP address has instead launched into personal attacks in bad faith.
    To quote exact words from that IP address in their user talk:
    • "You seem to have pretend not to see it due to some inferiority complex", and
    • "This is indeed very sad and is a type of inferiority complex. I feel you."
    I believe this behaviour is simply uncalled for and warrants intervention for the lack of constructivity on the part of the IP address. hundenvonPG (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging User:DragonflySixtyseven as IP address has responded in their talk page, for your perusal. hundenvonPG (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have warned the IP to not accuse another editor of having an "inferiority complex". That is an unwarranted personal attack and is a policy violation. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User Thaivo doing... something? on their talk page

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


    This user was blocked indefinitely in May 2024 by @Daniel Case for "clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia". Since then they've been editing their talk page and adding code. I'm not sure what exactly is being done but it seems to be violating WP:HOST. jolielover♥talk 04:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page access revoked. Looks like they were using it as temporary workspace for code dumps. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP troll

    Being blocked twice over for "personal attacks or harassment" and with a latest comment that reads like this, I think it is clear that the user is WP:NOTHERE and a more extenisve block is needed here as no lessons have been learned or are likely to be learned. Gotitbro (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just because it's not clear, this is about User:5.44.170.181. What are your issues with this edit? It's not constructive but it's not a personal attack. Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The November block was justified but their history since seems unremarkable. Agree with Liz re the comment in the diff. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]