Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Undisclosed paid editing

• RayanTarraf (talk · contribs)

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.[1][2] Hypnôs (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

So? DubaiScripter (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

And what do you mean paid editing? Who paid who? DubaiScripter (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

You disclosed in 2017 that you were paid to edit.[3]

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)

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)

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)

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)

DubaiScripter disclosed that they were paid by RayanTarraf's company to edit[4], 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.[5]

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)

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)

DubaiScripter, you have stated that you are indeed a paid editor, paid by Glimpse Digital Agency. --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. 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? --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 DubaiScripter (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Your first time creating an article on him was before 19 February 2017.[6]

On 6 November 2017 he made an edit to your user page.[7]

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)

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)

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)

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)

LMFAO I watched 45 seconds of buildup to investigate the question of why someone was nefariously and erroneously calling Baalbek a Hezbollah stronghold on Wikipedia just to find out that it’s because Reuters, VoA, and a book on Hezbollah all say so? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

... "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)

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)

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)

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)

Yeah, this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• More personal attacks by DubaiScripter: Special:Diff/1261116064 The editors of this age are of Israeli origins or Israeli backed. Considering the current ongoing war it looks like the moderators on here are politically motivated and it looks as if Wikipedia is supporting that. In combination with the above 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 I believe DubaiScripter is prejudging people, in particular conflating interest in Jewish topics to being biased about Israel. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Given a level 3 AGF warning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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 [8], 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: [9] 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: [10] 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: [11]

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)

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)

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)

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)

...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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

...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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Jonathanhusky: I'll put it a different way. Do you think it was in any way acceptable if I had let this edit stand [12]? Perhaps the formatting is a little different but that's basically what you did. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

(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)

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)

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)

Does this edit, made after the ANI was opened, also need to be reverted? SportingFlyer T·C 16:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

[13] 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)

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)

Doesn't look promising. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

• I made a proposal on the editor's user talk page that they can avoid being indefinitely blocked after the temporary block is over if they accept a voluntary editing restriction, imposed by a partial block from Storrs, Connecticut, Talk:Storrs, Connecticut and a topic ban from discussing this town anywhere on the project. This is really where all of their problematic editing arises from so I thought I'd throw this out and see if they can agree to spend their time working on other articles. Sorry to mention this town again, EEng. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, based on their reply to you this appears to be a hill they are willing to die on (I participated in the original discussion but didn't see this thread until today). This is someone so certain they are right and everyone else is wrong that they cannot be reasoned with. As I said at the original discussion, this editor simply drowns out anyone else with massive replies and their own (flawed at best) interpretations of policy and guidelines. I've lived in CT most of my life and I can tell you I've never once heard anyone call the community the name this editor is demanding it be changed to. The only question is if we wait for them to reoffend after the block expires and then apply an indef, or indef them now. It's a shame, because this is such a ridiculous issue to get yourself blocked over. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  I see no urgent reason to do anything but wait. The optimist in me sees something in their response that may be ok. We'll just have to see. The pessimist in me sees no harm in waiting. Anything can be reverted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  I respectfully disagree with Liz. The issue here isn’t to do with the name of a town. The issue is that the user’s default response is to argue vehemently. The user has even tried to set up a series of rabbithole-like meta-arguments based on the progress of previous arguments. It all begins to look rather recreational, as though it's what they are here for.

  It may be better to avoid engagement at the user’s talk page until the current block expires to give them the opportunity to consider their current predicament. Anything else just seems to be provoking them to continue the same behaviour.

  Not engaging may also encourage the user to pursue their arguments elsewhere, e.g. at Monty Python’s Argument Clinic (e.g. “I’d like to have an argument please”, “This isn’t an argument, it’s just contradiction”, etc.).

  If they continue with more of the same when the block expires they know what will happen. Axad12 (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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) 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) (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)

Lavipao edit warring + POV pushing

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

---

• Lavipao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is not the place to discuss content disputes. And your opening salvo on their talk page [14] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

>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)

How so exactly? We edit like that. WP:UNDUE. Beshogur (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This is an argument to make on the Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

"Content dispute" is always the most bizarre reasoning given for refusal at RPP. Yes, this edit war is a content dispute—that's what a #$%!ing edit war is! It's a disruptive content dispute!

Someone should probably write an essay on this. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

But was there any edit warring? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not really my point, so much as:

1. If the RPP was denied because the admin don't see any edit warring, they should say "no edit warring", not "content dispute" (which is vague and unhelpful, and implies disruptive content disputes aren't a valid reason to protect the article).
2. If we assume they meant to say "this is just a regular content dispute, not edit warring", then this is still insufficient—the point of page protection is to stop content disputes from escalating before someone violates 1RR/3RR. The denial should explain how an edit war can be prevented without page protection—otherwise, you're just sending the message "go violate 3RR, then come back for help".

– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:48, 12 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 Lavipao (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

This user is deliberately edit warring and POV pushing. administrators should intervene asap. 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. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@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)

This user abuses 1RR rule, and edit warring, yet administrators doing nothing. Good. 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? Traumnovelle (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[15] "Power hungry losers" That's concerning. They've made more PA's on that reply. They seem to not understand what WP:NPA is. Also "Idiots like you" that's really concerning . Codename AD ^talk 12:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Given that Lavipao has resumed the same editing on Operation Olive Branch and has never posted on the talk page there (and has posted on a talk page once in his entire editing career), I've protected the page for 72 hours so this can be resolved on the article talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • And as their response was this and making the same edit on Operation Euphrates Shield, protected that page for 72 hours as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    Aww the little butthurt power hungry admin doesn't like when people call him out for his blatant propaganda work for the genocidal Turkish government? I hope they're at least paying you or else it's just sad how much work you do for Erdogan for free lmao Lavipao (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    • Lavipao, if you are trying to get yourself indefinitely blocked for personal attacks, you are doing a great job at it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

      [16] lol as soon as you’ve been proven completely wrong by the above talk page comment you block editing on the page to protect your little Turkish propaganda phrase. Idiots like you are why people don’t take this website seriously anymore. Buncha power hungry losers running the site Beshogur (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

      Who gives a fuck if I get banned lol, I tried to correct a Turkish propaganda agents disinformation campaign and have been blocked at every turn by said Turkish propaganda agent. Many sources have been provided for why this user is completely lying and spreading disinformation but instead of anyone doing anything, yall are complaining about my words.

      This site has clearly been compromised by people pushing disinformation instead of the open source collection of information it used to be. Glad that teachers tell their students never to use this site for information it’s clearly not reliable whatsoever. Lavipao (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

      "You are the only person waging this war of disinformation trying to get your “cross border operation” term used instead of the real term, invasion. You have been shown many sources which refer to this as an invasion but yet you continue to fight against the consensus to keep your false narrative. You should be banned from Wikipedia for your obvious bias". Beshogur (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• I see Lavipao has been blocked for a week. This can probably be closed now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 04:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 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 talk page is bad. Northern Moonlight 10:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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).

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)

@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. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

"...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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Raz, there is no "editor consensus" on your claims of a consensus because no editors other than us have been involved in that particular discussion. I brought forth this AN/I partly for reasons stated above. But I agree, we should let others talk and not hog all this space. BootsED (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

"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. TarnishedPath^talk 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 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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (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. TarnishedPath^talk 04:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Further discussion

Replying here as there was a premature automatic archive. It appears there is a consensus for some sort of remedy. Myself and TarnishedPath have voiced support for a post 1992-American politics topic ban, and Bishonen and Doug Weller have voiced support for a page-block on the 2024 United States elections page at least. Doug, on 7 December you asked for more information on NOR and RS issues. I think there has been ample discussion on this point in reply to your question, but if you need further clarification or if that changes your opinion at all, please let us know. BootsED (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@BootsED, if nothing happens prior to a thread being automatically archived that's generally because no uninvolved admin has seen enough for any action. TarnishedPath^talk 01:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

That’s a shame if so. My understanding is that there is a consensus at least for a page block. If not, I will need to know as I will have to create another RfC as Raz is still opposing edits to the page that are without an RfC. BootsED (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about 2024 United States elections or some other page? I've not taken notice of this whole discussion. If you're talking about 2024 United States elections then it seems they've not made any major edits since I made my last edits. TarnishedPath^talk 11:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I’m referring to the 2024 elections page. Raz has said he will revert my edits to the economy section unless there is a consensus to do so. I explained it above but perhaps it was lost in all the text. BootsED (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Just make the changes and if they revert then we can discuss. TarnishedPath^talk 13:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I said what I actually said, which is that I will revert changes which violate the prior consensus unless a new consensus can be established to over-ride the previous consensus. I have been clear on this, regardless of how much cherry-picking to remove context. Good faith edits, in line with the consensus, will not be reverted. Edits, good faith or otherwise, which directly conflict with established consensus, will be reverted per WP:CON and WP:DICC, regardless of their unsubstantiated insistence against the prior consensus and their refusal to even attempt to gain new consensus.

No less than 3 other editors besides myself participated and voiced their opinions relating to the economy section. That makes a total of 4 actively participating editors at that time arriving to a consensus and with no opposing view on what to do in relation to the "economy" section and accepting the current version of it. As passionately as @BootsED may believe that their interpretation of the discussion does not render a consensus, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS can not be over-ridden by one editors passionate disapproval or disagreement. This is not about me or them, it is about upholding WP:PAG. After multiple attempts at directly linking to the discussion and explaining it repeatedly over weeks now, I cannot be much clearer on my position on this. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not a consensus. The section is about the indictments section being too big in comparison to the other sections. The economy section is mentioned among several others, such as the abortion section. No consensus exists for the content of the section in question. Reverting edits you don't like claiming consensus is the definition of disruptive editing. BootsED (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

"The economy...is given a single paragraph while abortion...is given 3 entire body paragraphs...The indictment stuff should also be trimmed down..." That is a direct copy/paste of the very first thing the topic creator wrote, slimmed down to highlight the 3 aspects they were concerned with. The very first thing mentioned is the economy section being too short for how important it was to the election according to several citied sources.

1) Economy section needs to be bigger; 2) Abortion section needs to be shorter; 3) Indictments section needs to be way shorter. Each of these concerns were addressed.

"Ok since the economy section is now big enough I will remove the undue weight template" was the last thing posted in that topic. AFTER abortion got trimmed down. AFTER the indictments section got trimmed way down. The issue was still not resolved. Only AFTER the economy section was expanded to its current size, did the issue of undue weight appear to be addressed via consensus. I did not make that determination, others did. So I will say again, do not attempt to unilaterally overturn consensus because you have a personal opinion one way or the other. Address your concern through proper means, such as establishing a new consensus.

This will be my final message here unless I am pinged by an admin or other user to address the actual point of this NB topic. If you wish to continue to hash out this issue, either with me or with others, the article talk page is the appropriate space to do that, not here on this NB. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

My edits you reverted immediately twice claiming consensus did not drastically change the length of the section in proportion to the other sections. The only "consensus" you claim was that other sections should be made shorter and brought in line with one another. You used that as an excuse to revert edits addressing NPOV issues claiming a consensus on the content. Again, that discussion you posted was a general agreement that other sections of the page should be trimmed down, not that the content that you added to one section was the "final" version that can't be changed unless a new consensus was reached. This is partly why I brought this forward in this NB, as this is what I and other editors have seen as the latest example of your disruptive, tendentious editing and uncivil behavior I detailed in my initial reply above. BootsED (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

As I expected, you have reverted edits to the page and accused me of disruptive editing. I made it quite clear that my edit was not violating section you claim as a consensus. Your prior comments here said your concern was that my edits made the section too short, but your recent revert makes it clear to me you are engaging in an edit war to remove any edits to the economy section. To be clear, the section you have repeatedly pointed to claims of a consensus do not say that your content is "final" and cannot be changed, and no agreement on the content of the economy section was made. There was only discussion that the section should be more than one paragraph, and that other sections should be reduced in size. I believe you are WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM. Your edit describing me as a "revision of possible WP:DE action, violation of WP:CON. User was warned repeatedly on this page and on Admin NB against bold edits in violation of WP:CON and was advised repeatedly to achieve new consensus prior to such edits. User insists on talk pages that they do not require WP:CON to edit" to me is clearly WP:SANCTIONGAME, and at this point, and with the amount of other editors here who have spoken against you already, I think an immediate page ban is necessary at this point. BootsED (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

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 [17]. They were invited to the AfD discussion and then went to 15.ai and deleted the AfD notice [18] and declared my policy based removal of WP:NOSOCIAL and WP:YOUTUBE external links to be vandalism [19]. Their edit summary and some of their activity demonstrates a lack of maturity[20]. He was also warned for making personal attacks [21] coupled with their past activity on Wikipedia such as this edit summary[22] I think some manner of intervention is warranted at this point. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 10:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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).

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)

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 [23] Brocade River Poems (She/They) 13:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Tacotron2 attempted WP:VOTESTACK

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.[24], my colleague apparently took that as a sign to hit the campaign trail. When I saw they solictied RocketKnightX[25] and others[26][27] to the AfD I left a warning [28] about their canvassing. They proceeded to canvass more anyway [29][30][31]. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see your first message. It wasn't done intentionally. Tacotron2 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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 [32]
• Canvassed someone whom you believed would support your outcome because they believed a source was reliable.[33]
• Canvassed someone who said use the source until someone contests [34]
• Canvassed someone who voted keep the last AfD [35]
• Canvassed someone who voted keep the last AfD [36]
• Canassed someone who voted keep the last AfD. [37]

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, I understand. I will follow the behavioral guidelines. Sorry again. Tacotron2 (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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 (talk • contribs)

Proposal 1: Site Ban for User:RocketKnightX

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)
• Support When I looked at their history, they have a history of incivility, borderline WP:NATIONALIST editing[38][39],[40] 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[41] including at one point bizarrely restoring a massive plot synopsis that another editor had created [42] that had been removed by two different editors for being too long [43][44]. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• 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).

  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.[45]. Coupled with dropping edit summaries like "I said stop!" and "deal with it" and their WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude on talkpages [46] 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)

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)

I must confess, I am a tad confused as to how one demonstrates chronic, intractable behavioral problems problems without bringing up the past behavior considering as they once again did the same behavior while also removing the AfD notice from the article. [47]. Oh well. It would seem I have a completely incorrect understanding of what this whole "chronic behavioral problem" business is. Mea culpa. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 13:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

BrocadeRiverPoems, it seems like you rely too much on coming to ANI, AN and SPI when you encounter an editor you disagree with who might have had moments of disruption. Don't seek to get every adversarial editor blocked from discussions or the site. Learn how to talk out problems instead of coming to noticeboards, seeking topic bans and site blocks. It's like using a hammer to get a fly to move. Learn proportionally. ANI is for serious behavioral problems, not just for editors you might find annoying. An overreliance on ANI starts to reflect poorly on you and whether you have the ability to amicably resolve disputes instead of trying to eliminate contrary editors. That's my honest opinion. At times, you can seem a little relentless. Learn to collaborate with those whom you disagree or, if that fails, keep some distance between you. That's what most of us longtimers do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 10 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). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Weliviewf has returned to editing. I've invited them to participate in this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 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 (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)

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)

Considering they have still continued to do this, I would gladly support a block from Article namespace. Procyon117 (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The editor continues to remove bold formatting from article subjects in lead sections (most of their article edits) and assign incorrect categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I've had a look at some of their first edits, and I've noticed they never always used to do this. In this edit here they actually used an edit summary to try to refute what another editor said. And here they actually commented on a talk page to make a suggestion. In fact, all their edits until 26 October actually seemed fine and reasonable.

For some reason though, starting with this diff, they've used the newcomer task tool and made disruptive edits with it, using generic edit summaries, regardless of if they're actually accurate. Procyon117 (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I've pblocked them from articlespace for 48 hours in hopes of getting them to come to their talk page and discuss what is going on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Much of the thread above is about removals, but there may also be a problem in the other direction.

I found this thread after running across what smelled like AI-generated text added by Weliviewf to an article over the course of several edits [48]. Ironically, I encountered this while going through the edits of another problem editor (see WP:AN#Editor possibly gaming the system) who expanded some of this added text with even more text of the same general nature [49].

I haven't had the time to check Weliviewf's contributions for more AI slop but I wouldn't be surprised to find it. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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 [50] (and many others) [51] [52] [53] 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: [54], [55], [56], and [57]

-Partially deleted talk page discussions in a manner that changes what the original post means (instead of fully blanking): [58] and [59]

-Added uncited section in broken English: [60]

-Nonsense edit summaries: Good title of country [61] and [62] 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: [63] and [64]

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

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)

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)

145 I added additional sources the originator agreed and has removed some of his incorrect information. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 TiggerJay (talk) 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 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. 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 Sharnadd (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sarsenet - honestly I think looking at the edit summaries for the main article space look on par with what most people do when it comes to ES and prose. However, I believe your bigger problem is that the summary does not always accurately reflect the nature of all of the changes made during an edit.

@Sharnadd - I think that it would be helpful if you either included all the types of changes being made in your summary, or better yet, break up your edits into "change topics" that is, if your correcting links, that is one type of edit, whereas removing duplicate content is something else. For example, I take a look at this edit while it might make sense to condense this section since there is already a separate article, it makes no sense to me why you removed chess pie? TiggerJay (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I apologize, I wasn't the clearest in explaining my issues with the ES. I do agree with you that the biggest problems with the summaries are that they're not totally accurate. Sarsenet (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

I'm not sure you're understanding, the problem is not with how you reply to people on your talk page, you can reply however you want, it can be short or very long, or not at all, that is your choice. You can also delete someone's entire post to your talk page. However, the concern presented here was that you were changing other peoples post to your talk page in a way where you removed only part of what they said, instead of the entire thing, which then misrepresents what they said for the record. In general, if you're not completely blanking the page or entire section, then make sure you understand the refactoring link I shared above. TiggerJay (talk) 16:09, 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. TiggerJay (talk) 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 Sharnadd (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, when I was very new I made the mistake of making multiple edits while developing a part of an article and saving the changes while my edits/changes were a partial work in progress. That generally is not a good idea, especially when what you're changing might be viewed as controversial or contested. When that is the case, you certainly want to be adding references at the time of making those changes (in that specific edit). Now, that being said, you don't want to go and make multiple changes to an article. Generally you want to do it either in sections (such as fixing grammar, prose, etc) or all centered around a common change. For example, say there is an article about a UK topic where WP:DATE would generally say that since most of the dates are written out as 12 December, but you find a few places that say December 12, go ahead and fix the whole article to adjust the date. But just the date with an edit summary stating such -- but please don't even that without understanding the nuance presented in WP:DATE, so don't go around "fixing" dates. TiggerJay (talk) 16:06, 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 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)

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)

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)

Sorry,I will refer to you as he if that is correct 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 Sharnadd (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

There are several problems with this diff on Beefsteaks. Among them grammar and spelling problems. I'm not sure what program you're using, but here is just a few examples, with sea salt nd pepper and seared. There is clearly either a typographical error of some sort with the word nd, which was probably originally and, but even as such "with sea salt and pepper and seared" would not be correct. Additionally, ending the statement with a semi-colon would also not be correct for this statement. Using a capital letter for In steak restaurants, you do not capitalize the first letter after a comma. And this list goes on, there are numerous errors in this edit. What I think people are expecting is for you to simply admit your errors, instead of trying to defend these edits, and simply find a way to do better. Also browser based "checkers" like Grammarly, are generally not correct, especially when the content contains markup. It might also explain why you removed several wikilinks for no apparent good reason, which is where writing a good edit summary is important, especially when you make extensive changes with such an uninformative summary. TiggerJay (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Sharnadd (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

(See below first) There does appear to be a serious problem with how edits are being made, I do assume that these were made in good faith, but I believe that it is a competency issue with regards to accidentally removing information too frequently. Here are some examples where I believe content was not intentionally removed (often edit summaries simply refer to adding information), but regardless it was removed, and in some cases, were not reverted until I discovered it during this research -- all from the last week alone: [65] [66] [67] [68] TiggerJay (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry the above first sentence was terribly worded. What I intend to convey is that there is a serious problem with the technical side of how they're editing causing a higher than usual number of unintended (AGF) removal of content from articles (and even on his own talk page). To some degree this is a CIR when it comes to how they edit. It might be due to their use of a mobile device. This is not the only problem, but this is perhaps more egregious than simply poor edit summaries or his UK-bias/whitewashing in edits. TiggerJay (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not a UK bias I just prefer for things to be factual which is why I try and add citations from several different areas. There appears to be a strong American bias on articles with incorrect information Sharnadd (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you speak at all to the concern about what appears to be errors while editing where you're removing information accidentally? And if not accidentally, perhaps another explanation? For example, removing Canada and Hong Kong's entries from Bread Pudding? Or removing an entire paragraph about Gervase Markham from Pie? TiggerJay (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I am going to start editing on the laptop to help avoid these accidental deletions. Sharnadd (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand --- was just doing some editing on a mobile device yesterday, and was reminded just how much more difficult it is, and how easy it is to make errors that way. For example I accidentally made several errors yesterday[69] [70] [71], but always corrected them immediately. The technology issues doesn't make leaving errors uncorrected an acceptable practice. TiggerJay (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The more I look at edits, the worse it seems. Again, likely very genuine attempts to help, but the end results are often filled with problems, such as here -- multiple issues here: (1) a broken reference, (2) a grammar error of an extra space, (3) I'm pretty sure they meant to say "Fried Chicken" and not "Frie" as I cannot find any reliable sources that refer to it without the "d" at the end of the word, (4) they broke a sentence by inserting their edit, removing the word "The" so the next sentence, after the period and their reference is "origin of fried chicken", (5), their edit also interjects into the middle of a narrative about the American expression. Their insertion would have fit much better a few sentences down in the same paragraph (6) their edit summary even included a spelling error. That is a lot of "little mistakes" which when viewed both in the scope of this single edit, but then multiplied across many of their edits, becomes problematic. Perhaps Sharnadd really needs to use the "Show Preview" and/or get more practice in draft space until they become more accurate with spelling, grammar, use of the tools, not removing content, etc. TiggerJay (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I've been noticing. I went through numerous edits both before and after their block in June this year, and saw that their general pattern of introducing multiple issues per edit has persisted since before then. A case in which mistakes were spread out between multiple edits, though, can be seen between here and here, showing removals in both country of origin and dishes themselves without merit. Also, I see more possible UK bias in adding a country of origin to a dish with versions worldwide, seen here. Sarsenet (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

hardly without merit. Do you not think an egg dish should contain egg as one of the main ingredients. I really don't think that a hamburger is classed as one Sharnadd (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You don't think it's American bias to attribute a dish to that country when it has several versions worldwide Sharnadd (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sharnadd - I am interested in seeing you answer the questions? While Sarsenset interjected their thought on the matter, I am curious to see what you hasve to say about the 6 errors found in a single edit? I am not discussing the merits of the information that was added, but rather how it was added, with multiple errors. TiggerJay (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't aware the defence was broken. In what what did I miss something off when listing the book information. I will have time citation bot. There may have been an extra space . 3 no she is wrong it was originally called frie chicken in the 16th century as per the recipes books of the time it's actually after the narrative of an amercian expression. Would they prefer the history to be before. That does make sense as it come before the American expression so shows the evolution of the word Sharnadd (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

After you edit you should verify that the end results are what you were expecting -- all of the errors listed are minor, but when you have so many in a single edit, that is concerning, especially because this is just one example of many where the editing was poorly performed, which is why the person who brought this up here cited WP:CIR. The reference was broken through the improper use of date and year. The problem I have with Frie chicken is that it seems like only in that specific offline book is where it is cited and no where else, which makes it hard to verify. Not only that a "cookbook" I would argue is hardly a reliable source on the topic. On it's own it is not a problem, but when it is combined with your frequent spelling errors (including in your immediate reply above), it leads one to reasonably assume it was another mistake, especially when there is a difficult to verify source provided. Can you provide an online source to support the term "Frie Chicken"? As far as the sentence ordering, take a look at it -- the interjection you provided seems to be an interruption in the narrative flow of what is being said. If the statement is well sourced, then it might be better suited as the first sentence in the history section, but of course it would need to be rewritten as "It evolved" would be the improper start of a paragraph/section. But I would strongly suggest using multiple, verifiable, reliable secondary sources for the "Frie chicken" claim, both in terms of spelling and as the evolutionary basis for American fried chicken. TiggerJay (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

For anyone who didn't notice, a member of the oversight team massively deleted over 100 posts on the ANI page covering more than 1.5 days, apparently due to some egregious behavior, but not likely with regard to our specific discussion here. Edits you might have made between 20:19, December 11, 2024 and 12:22, December 13, 2024 are now lost forever which looks like several replies from @Sharnadd and myself TiggerJay (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah alright, I was wondering what had happened to my notices inbox. I feel that the gist of our points made still remains. Sarsenet (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed... stick... dead horse... time for a non-involved admin closure. TiggerJay (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

My userpage has no relation to my contributions. 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. 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.) – 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." Toughpigs (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am a lesbian. 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. Cullen328 (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I just ripped off their userbox because I don’t know how to code DFLPApologist (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  infobox* DFLPApologist (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Furthermore, TheodoresTomfooleries is a left communist, while I am a Maoist. 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. 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. 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 this edit. Just block. 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. @DFLPApologist and @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 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 meatpuppetry and canvassing). – 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. 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 @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. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The good news is that nobody on the internet is sane. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

But some places are saner than others. The last best place on the internet, as people say. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 10:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Any reason why both should not be blocked? GiantSnowman 20:54, 8 December 2024 (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? The AP (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  'Fair' edits do not excuse blatant trolling. GiantSnowman 12:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. DFLPApologist (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is why I reported this as NOTHERE. While I too find this sort of humour funny on Twitter (minus slurs), it has no place on Wikipedia and the editors in question are doing themselves no favours by continuing in that same Twitter mindset here. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 10:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  User has now added this to their userpage, including "custom_gender = [[Mao Zedong]]-gender" and "| ethnicity = [[Schizophrenia|Hungarian]] | race = [[Hungarians|Schizophrenic]]".

  They are clearly WP:NOTHERE and should be blocked immediately. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Inclined to agree. Liz I massively respect you but "editors should not solely be judged by their User page but by their Contributions" is, respectfully, nonsense. GiantSnowman 12:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  I've blanked the page. This kind of humor is not appropriate. I honestly thought we were making progress when the editor blanked their userpage on their own volition, but it's clear they don't understand what's the issue here. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  If the pages (or similar versions of them) are restored, I will indef block. GiantSnowman 12:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd support an indef, the majority of their edits here have been to just add offensive material to their userpage which is now at MfD. E_F⁵ 14:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - By the way, a strict reading of the guidelines is that the user pages should not have been blanked. The banner on a page that is nominated for MFD says: You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. . So I think that this was an application of Ignore All Rules. In any case, I don't think that blanking is an acceptable Alternative to Deletion in these cases. The material should be removed from the history. If they weren't already at MFD, redaction as RD3 would be an alternative, but they are already at MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Can this thread be closed with a warning to the two editors, allowing the MFDs to run to normal consensus closure? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing, sexism and racism

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

---

Considering that we have four different recent incidents involving User:WhatamIdoing and their handling of sexist or racist edits, I would propose either a topic ban from the two topics, or a final warning. The discussion User talk:WhatamIdoing#Sexism and racism lists the incidents, their responses (including strongly implying that one editor who disagreed was a sock, and threatening to out me because they falsely claimed that I demanded that WhatamIdoing would out other editors), and the lack of progress. The incidents are

• [72]: "much of the discussion seemed to be divided between childless white men living in wealthy democracies, and, well, the entire rest of the world.", which they equated afterwards to "I said that self-identified men tended to have different opinions in a discussion 13 years ago than self-identified women?" and for which they have only private evidence
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of youngest fathers, where they basically claimed that men can't be raped, and where in the ensuing discussion on their talk page their defense seemed to be that consent was a recent invention and 12 year old boys getting married is not a forced marriage by any definition of the term
• Asking Black Kite to revert their removal of personal attacks because just "a little re-wording might be helpful", and they kept defending that post as if all others in that discussion were the issue and the removed post was somehow acceptable
• When an editor posted this transphobic rant, which was bad enough to get them indef blocked, WhatamIdoing simply replied as if nothing untowards was said and this was a perfectly acceptable post. When confronted with this, they used the "I'm a volunteer" card, and lead the blame at my feet for highlighting the issue.

After nearly a week, I see no progress at all, no indication that they understand how these incidents, these remarks, appear to and affect others. I don't know if these are the only such edits or not, I hope it isn't just the tip of the iceberg. I know that they post many false and dubious claims to defend their position in other discussions (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Requiring_registration_for_editing), but that's a separate issue. Fram (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to stick my nose in but I just don't get why they're supposed to be getting a warning for 1. Using rhetoric to point out the implicit biases of white, western males. 2. Highlighting the obvious power dynamics in male/female relationships historically; a position they clarified after being requested on their talk page. 3. Assuming good faith. and 4. Failing to call out another user on their misbehaviour. It seems like User:WhatamIdoing is being hounded, their talk page is being used as a forum, and a few editors are trying to find bad faith where none exists. JeffUK 12:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

agree w/ JeffUK...WhatamIdoing is being hounded--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Also agree with this, this is hounding. Point 4, blaming WAID for being insufficiently condemnatory of the actions of others is a particular stretch. Void if removed (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I know I’ve haven't been involved in these discussions in awhile. But I have to agree with both of you. This appears to be unwarranted hounding.CycoMa2 (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@JeffUK, I don't know if you looked at the original discussion for 2, but WAID's comment The List of youngest birth mothers was deleted because editors felt like it was also a "List of child rape victims", which is not relevant for anyone that is (or should be) in this list. was about a list that at that time included at least one person who had been raped by his middle school teacher (she was convicted of child rape). Then WAID further supported keeping the list by linking to some (non-RS!) reports of incidents like an 11-year-old boy fathering a child with a 36-year-old... Posting long passages describing historical practices among royalty -- including a comment suggesting that we can presume a pre-teen prince has consented to having intercourse with a consort, while at the same time saying this intercourse might constitute command rape of the female counterpart -- was at best a poor post hoc justification of her comments that still did not explain, and seemingly deliberately sidestepped addressing, the fact that her initial comments applied to multiple modern boys who were indisputably raped.

She could have just struck the offending comments and acknowledged she was wrong to link to clear CSA cases as proof of coverage of the kinds of boys who "should be in this list", but instead she doubled down defending herself from a strawman, a behavior that I've noticed is a pattern. JoelleJay (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

This entire incident is an unfortunate escalation of <something> that should have ended days ago, and instead has spiraled in to misunderstanding – one on top of another. As one example, there was no strong implication of socking. I hope some people will cool off and stay away from further escalation on the talk page of a very sensible editor, WAID. Neither do I see why WAID is expected to police every a "transphobic rant" on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

There is quite a large gap between "expected to police every "transphobic rant" on Wikipedia" and directly answering to one as if nothing untoward has been said. Fram (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Correction of every to singular made above, thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that this needed to be escalated to ANI... That being said my previous efforts at de-escallation were met with battleground behavior by WhatamIdoing so there is likely an upside to some sort of admin action in terms of getting people to behave better in the future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Was coming to WhatamIdoing's talk page to call her tactless and uncivil,[73] incompetent,[74] or a (potential) "monster",[75] part of your attempts at "de-escallation [sic]"? – Joe (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Summaries don't match diffs. I did not call them tactless and uncivil... I did not call them incompetent... That the point is either moot or they are a monster isn't really arguable, its just true (personally I think the point is moot). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better if everyone voluntarily disengaged and left each other alone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd particularly appreciate it if Fram did not revert other editors on my User talk: page.

As for the list:

• The data about how participated in those l-o-n-g discussions is not solely private; anybody can go look spend a couple of days tallying up their own results. However, some of the information has not (to my knowledge) been volunteered on wiki by the individuals, and some of it will require work (e.g., to find and read non-English discussions; to find the one diff where he self-disclosed that information years ago).
• At the AFD, I wrote: "The List of youngest birth mothers was deleted because editors felt like it was also a "List of child rape victims", which is not relevant for anyone that is (or should be) in this list" (emphasis added). I later clarified this: "I would support the list-selection criteria completely excluding any "youngest father" whose partner has been convicted of statutory rape or about whom reliable sources indicate that there is at least a credible belief that child sexual abuse was involved." There was one such case in the list at the time it went to AFD, plus three notable men who got their teenage girlfriends pregnant when they were 14. The rest of the list was long-dead royalty. People who believe that various emperors were actually victims of forced marriage (which is not the same as Arranged marriage) and sexually abused by their wives, or by court officials hypothetically pressuring them to produce an heir, are entitled to their own opinions but may want to read about Presentism (historical analysis)#Moral judgments. Please consider expanding and sourcing the article while you're there.
• The redacted comment was in an RFC about how editors communicate, including discussion of people who don't write English well. An editor who self-identifies as being a journalist and living in China replied in a thread that contains this comment from @Black Kite: "...to be honest, if their English skills are so poor as to need AI to express themselves, shouldn't we be politely suggesting that they would be better off contributing on their native Wikipedia?" by saying "There is a high degree of racism from Anglos evident throughout this discussion. English is a universal language my friends, and not the property of colonial imperialists." As Black Kite and I discussed, I think this likely represents a poorly expressed but fair comment. I'm also not the only editor who thinks that blanking the entire comment might have been unnecessary. I'm sure that Black Kite would probably be horrified to think that anyone might find any echo of Go back to where you came from in his well-intentioned comment, but I can also imagine that some of those people whose "English skills are so poor as to need AI to express themselves" might well have reacted that way. I blame neither Black Kite nor the newbie, though I think the newbie needed some (non-AI) help to explain their concern. Also, Linguistic racism is a thing, at least according to scholarly sources. Maybe some Wikipedia editors think they know better than the sources.
• As I have already told Fram, I didn't deal with the transphobic comment because I felt like the arguments about the alleged sexual abuse of 5th-century royalty and racism were enough for me to deal with right now. I figured that an uninvolved RecentChanges patroller would handle it before long. I also told Fram to consider WP:STREISAND, but here we are anyway, with that link on a high-traffic drama board.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You linked to coverage of an 11-year-old being raped by a 36-year-old (among other child rape incidents) as evidence that the topic, with your preferred breadth, was notable. You have yet to explain how the sources you linked would support your retconned narrative that "only boys whose partners weren't convicted of rape should be on the list" -- a threshold that itself is a massive double standard.

How can you still not comprehend that 8–12-year-old boys being forced into marriage and consummation with anyone is still CSA even if their partner is also a victim? If you were so wedded to the idea of moral presentism you wouldn't have claimed the girls in these pairs could be victims of command rape, as if that concept is some absolute historical constant.

And insinuating that Black Kite's comment was an instance of "go back to where you came from" is a straight-up aspersion. JoelleJay (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not claim that Black Kite's comment "was" an instance of any sort of reprehensible thought. I claim only that it is not completely unreasonable for someone to have understood it that way, and that it is possible that the newbie who made a general comment, not directed at any specific individual, about racism in the discussion, might have interpreted it that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• This is blatant hounding by Fram and to a lesser extent Horse Eye's Back and should be met with a WP:BOOMERANG. How long are we going to tolerate Fram (in particular) going after someone all-guns-blazing just because they did or said something they didn't like? Why on earth should WAID have to put up with days of interrogation and demands for "evidence" about her recollection of years-old discussions that she was personally involved in? What do this and the three other "incidents" (in the loosest possible sense of the world), have in common apart from the fact that Fram was lying in wait to jump on each one? – Joe (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  I tend to agree. Having spent far too long thinking about this already. For Fram to claim on here that WAID "basically claimed that men can't be raped", when WAID in their first reply to Fram on the subject, said "I think that young fathers can be victims of child rape" [76] is being careless with the facts at best. Misunderstanding cleared up, that should have been the end of the conversation, but Fram instead replied by accusing WAID of being 'clearly and apparently deliberately sexist and racist' [[77]] the rest is history. JeffUK 19:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  I see you still have not actually read the relevant comments. JoelleJay (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have, I disagree with your interpretation of them. More relevant is the fact you've already made that point to me, I chose not to reply, and now you're following me around making ad-hominem attacks instead of dropping the stick; A common theme in this whole debacle. JeffUK 08:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't doubt you have read the comments, but you seem to mix up two things. Both the comment by WhatamIdoing and my reply were about two incidents. On the first, they said "Accurately describing the demographics in a dispute is not sexist or racist." to which I replied "Making wild, insulting guesses about the people opposing your position is in this case clearly and apparently deliberately sexist and racist." You may of course disagree with this, but this was a reply to the quoted part, not to the part about child rape. The second part of their reply, and the second part of my reply, were about the child rape. No one is denying that the girls in the first deleted list were victims of rape. What is the issue is that WhatamIdoing seems to have a problem with seeing that a royal or noble being married and having children when they are still young children of 12 or so, is also rape, and not only of the girl they have a child with. Forced marriage and forced consummation are serious issues, and living an otherwise wealthy and privileged life, as these boys in many cases had, doesn't change this. For some reason, WhatamIdoing applies current standards to the situation of the girls (e.g. calling it "command rape"), but not to the boys, instead comparing their situation at worst to that of voluntary adult sex workers. They even gave the example of Yazdegerd III, king at 8, a figurehead (no real power), father when he was 12 years old, who they claim by virtue of being king was able to give consent. While I'm clearly in the minority here, I consider their different treatment of boys and girls throughout that discussion as sexist and some comments deeply troubling. Fram (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think the crux of the problem is that you characterise their position as, "WhatamIdoing seems to have a problem with seeing..." This is not a healthy way to characterise someone disagreeing with your opinion, they're not 'missing something' and you're not going to make them 'see the light'. "After nearly a week, I see no progress at all..." again, implies that changing their mind to your position is inevitable 'progress.' You may or may not be right, but assuming you are right, assuming others must agree with you, and persisting in trying to force an apology isn't productive. JeffUK 11:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want to cast aspersions against me you're going to have to provide evidence of WP:HOUNDING. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The evidence is in the linked discussion on WAID's talk page and, as you know, I have pointed out some specific diffs a few comments up. You haven't been as bad as Fram and it's not really out of character from what I've seen of you in other discussions, but it is absolutely astounding to me that you could consider your engagement here in any way mediatory. That is, to use your formulation, either a blatant lie or a sign of a catastrophic failure to predict how your words will be perceived by others. – Joe (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain how that equals hounding e.g. "the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, maybe WP:Badgering might be a better description of the behaviour. "Do not badger editors to restate something just because you would have worded it differently" is quite apt. In fact, your comments here [[78]] and here [[79]] are remarkably similar to the very source of the phrase Sealioning [[80]]. JeffUK 13:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I am very familiar with sealioning on wikipedia, that ain't it. I did not ask anyone to restate anything and I haven't followed anyone around... I've contributed to a single discussion split across two pages and I've been the most active commenter in neither conversation. Remeber that "expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children" is prohibited by policy, most views aren't but this one is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Wait, what is your issue with the last one? WAID failed to get mad? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm also questioning the purpose of that last bullet point, considering WAID is not opposed to the current phrasing of the trans women sentence in the Woman article, something that the (now-indeffed) user in the discussion railed against. Some1 (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

When one witnesses very bad behaviour, one can look away (understandable), take corrective action (or alert those who can), or pretend no bad behaviour happened and amicably chat with the offender. It's a bit like seeing some blatant vandalism and instead of reverting it or warning the editor (or if you don't like conflict or have the time to deal with it, doing nothing), you post a welcome message at their talk page, invite them to the teahouse, ... Doing this very strongly gives the impression that you are okay with the previous behaviour of that editor, and sends IMO a very bad message to less experienced editors who may come across such a message and get the impression that this is acceptable on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That's one theory. According to Operant conditioning, responding to one part of an action and not others can lead to the extinction of the unreinforced behavior. In that case, "pretend no bad behaviour happened and amicably chat with the offender" about the good behavior might be just what the doctor ordered – literally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I will be honest with you, I am not to experienced with handling users who say problematic stuff.(Keep in mind this probably due to my age and maturity level.)

But personally I won't respond or say too much to people who say stuff like this "Again, this entire project is rife with identity politics. That much is clear." That just sounds like the kind of stuff my dad would say. Calling out people's prejudice usually goes nowhere; I'm literally a bisexual early twenty some year old christian man in university, I know a thing or 2 about bigoted beliefs.

If I had to respond I would merely just respond to the points the other party made and I would feel no need to respond to their bigoted comments. I especially won't respond to those bigoted comments if that user has been here for years and/or have over 500 edits, because in my eyes they are experienced and know well enough to not to say those things.

Basically bigots from racists, homophobes, nazis, transphobes, and all other bigots can't be reasoned with, they go against all aspects of WP:NPOV policy. This is why these kind of people with such beliefs get blocked indefinitely with out much discussion, notice how Earl of Arundel was blocked indefinitely the same day you reported them.

In a nutshell, I don't see much of a reason to respond to such things because it is a waste of time and it would just be best to report them to admins. I usually feel the need to respond if they are new.CycoMa2 (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep in mind I am currently handling finals, so do forgive the few typos here. I just felt I needed to defend WAID, she is a great contributor by all measurements. Take it from me, I've interacted with her back when I was a sophomore.CycoMa2 (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• This is much ado about nothing and should be closed before the dying star collapses dragging others down with it. Nemov (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• Fram is asking this community to make what would be, ideologically, an extremely hard-right turn by sanctioning WhatAmIDoing for "racism" and "sexism" based on her use of the phrase "childless white males" to describe a group she was criticizing. Unreal. That he's been allowed to badger WaId for days on end for what isn't even close to a policy violation says so much about the pervasive, immortal problem of untouchable users. This problem's existence is acknowledged by everybody except those untouchable users who, conveniently, are the only ones who could ever put a stop to it. City of Silver 19:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Both Fram and WhatamIdoing are untouchable/unblockable, so this comment doesn't get us anywhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Let me clarify: I don't care if someone is untouchable if they never actually do anything wildly bad. One of these two editors has egregiously crossed the line while the other hasn't at all so even though both are untouchable, I only have a problem with one of them. City of Silver 20:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think Fram has relied too much on his interpretion of what WhatamIdoing has said rather than on what she has actually said. For example, nowhere (at least not in the link that Fram provides or anywhere else that I can find) does she say that a male can't be raped. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• While I don't doubt WhatamIdoing's good faith, I think there are things to be concerned about here. The sweeping generalisation about "childless white men living in wealthy democracies" was uncivil: both the gender and the race part were unnecessary stereotyping, even if she was sure of those characteristics in those she remembered participating. "Apparently unconcerned about children" would have sufficed to make the point (I'm not even sure where the "wealthy democracies" conclusion came from). At the AfD, "The List of youngest birth mothers was deleted because editors felt like it was also a "List of child rape victims", which is not relevant for anyone that is (or should be) in this list" does come pretty close to saying boys can't be rape victims. In the third example, that was a nasty personal attack, it does not reflect well on her judgement that she wanted the removal reverted. In the last case, I suspect they didn't read the whole thing, and missed the transphobic bit; again, flawed judgement, but I doubt ikt was deliberate. I disagree that bringing these 4 very recent instances here is hounding, and I'm disturbed at the tone of some of WhatamIdoing's talkpage comments: they seem a bit intolerant of varying perspectives (nolt just mine, which they chose to highlight at one point). But that is their talkpage; none of the instances listed by Fram were there, they were all places where the editor chose to get involved. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't seen anyone argue at any of the linked threads that boys can't be child rape victims. What I've been perceiving (which I grant I also haven't seen articulated anywhere) is a counterargument like the consequences of child rape are uniform across sex assignment of the victim. I certainly hope no one is trying to make a point like that, and anyone who has feelings about my setting the counterargument in "incorrect example" styling is invited to a long sad think about the topic. Folly Mox (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Phil Bridger, she said no one on that list (or that should be on that list) was a child rape victim (while making no mention of the child on that list who was a child rape victim), and then immediately proceeded to claim notability of the list topic was achieved through a HuffPo article on an 11-year-old boy who had a child with a 36-year-old and several other articles (from garbage sources!) involving e.g. 12-year-olds molested by 17-year-olds. JoelleJay (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  The "youngest mothers" list read something like this:

  • Five year old, impregnated by her stepfather in the 1930s. Six year old, impregnated by her grandfather in the 1930s. Eight year old, impregnated by her cousin in the 1950s.

  The "youngest fathers" list read like this:

  • 11-year-old future king, with his consort in 14th century. 12-year-old future emperor, with his wife in the 5th century. 12-year-old reigning king, with his wife in the 7th century.

  If those sound like morally comparable situations, then I think you're entitled to your opinion – and I to mine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes those sound like morally comparable situations, child rape is morally comparable to child rape. It seems weird that I even have to say that or note that children can't consent to sex. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  WP:Presentism comes to mind; while child rape clearly was a moral crime by the 20th century, those earlier centuries were a far different time, and we shouldnt be trying to force modern ideas on those cases. — Masem (t) 17:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Except there were also multiple modern cases of young fatherhood, including one infamous child rape case, as well as multiple other definite child rape cases cited by WAID as applicable coverage of the topic... The whole reframing it in terms of "but this list was just child kings and at least one case of modern child rape" is a distraction that deliberately ignores the whole "linking to story on 11-year-old raped by his mom's friend" thing that WAID thought would belong on the list (if the child was notable). JoelleJay (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  That last "if" clause undercuts your claim that I thought those should be on the list, since what I actually said was exactly the opposite.

  An editor directly asked me at the AFD "Are there any reliable sources at all that actually discuss these people as a grouping"? I provided several easily found sources that did exactly that: discussed it "as a grouping". Some of them I described as "tabloid-y or listicle", which is the opposite of me endorsing their quality or suitability for use in a Wikipedia article, but they answered the question that was asked, which was about whether other publications had a list of youngest fathers. Unlike the one you keep pointing at, most of them involve a teenage girlfriend (e.g., "A 13-year-old boy from ____ will become one of Britain's youngest fathers after his 14-year-old girlfriend became pregnant" or "15-year-old girlfriend ____ became pregnant...DNA tests later proved the baby was instead 14-year-old _____'s child") and almost all of them involve non-notable people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  You cited (mostly very clearly non-RS, which is a separate, quite concerning, problem) articles about individual living boys who were raped, of which some had passing mentions of other boys who may have been raped, as examples of coverage of the topic as a group. If that coverage is supposed to support the notability of the topic, which was the point of that question, then any coverage of an individual that would contribute to notability necessarily would qualify the individual for inclusion on the list if he was notable. Otherwise the coverage is not of the topic (or any subset thereof). Obviously one of those children becoming notable would not disqualify him from inclusion, so his not currently being on the list/notable is irrelevant. It should also be noted that at no point in either your first or second post did you remotely suggest that you did not support the topic's scope, which included the boy raped by his teacher.

  The majority of the articles you linked were not (only) on same-age couples. As I said elsewhere, they also included a 13-year-old boy with a 17-year-old girl who had been dating him since he was 11; a 12-year-old with a 17-year-old; a barely-12-year-old with a 15-year-old; and a 9-year-old. We also have the article on a 13-year-old whose partner we have no info on and thus should apply the same assumptions about age compatibility that we would for a girl: none. These would all be statutory rape in multiple states. JoelleJay (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  They don't need to be morally comparable. As alluded by @Folly Mox, one can believe that a little girl being raped by her father is worse than a 12-year-old king forced to consummate his marriage to his 12-year-old wife, or even than a middle school boy being groomed and raped by his teacher, while still recognizing that the latter two cases could have been/were child rape, and that the topic of the list -- using your definition of what "should be" on it -- unambiguously includes modern boys who were raped. JoelleJay (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Have you looked for sources saying that the 12-year-old king was forced to consummate his marriage? Even a source hinting that it might have been that way? Any source at all, beyond speculation from a couple of Wikipedia editors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Frivolous, trouts all around. Per Joe Andre🚐 03:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Agree with and support all of the above comments → hounding ... should have ended days ago ... would be better if everyone voluntarily disengaged and left each other alone ... blatant hounding ... much ado about nothing and should be closed ... Fram has relied too much on his interpretion of what WhatamIdoing has said rather than on what she has actually said ... Frivolous, trouts all around. There's nothing actionable here. Shut this down. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think we should close the thread until we've determined what to do about Fram's behavior. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, this thread should be shut down, as they oft say, it's generating more heat than light. There's nothing actionable here. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• I had been staying out of the thread at User talk:WhatamIdoing § Sexism and racism because of the respect I hold for both Fram and WhatamIdoing, but now that this has been escalated to a dramaboard, I feel compelled to join others in asking Fram to let this go. This is less tip of the iceberg and more phantom island. Folly Mox (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't planning on pursuing this after this discussion, and I sure hope that I'm wrong and most of you are right, that would be for the best. Fram (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• I am no doubt going to regret weighing in on this, and it currently doesn't look as though it is going anywhere, but to focus purely on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of youngest fathers dispute:
  • 1 December: WAID says The List of youngest birth mothers was deleted because editors felt like it was also a "List of child rape victims", which is not relevant for anyone that is (or should be) in this list. The plain reading of this to me is that WAID believes that nobody on the list of youngest fathers was raped.
  • 3 December WAID says As I said, I don't think that this list's selection criteria should include known victims of child rape. The list as presently written contains one victim of statutory rape, and I think that entry should be removed. The part of her comment which is at issue is not though that the list shouldn't include victims of rape, but that it doesn't. (As an aside, the fact that she is willing to characterise the list of youngest birth mothers as "child rape victims", but consistently says that the father in question was a "victim of statutory rape", or "widely recognised as an abusive relationship" or even more passively that the case "involves a conviction for statutory rape" feels deeply uncomfortable to me)
  • Later on 3 December, WAID says on her talkpage that I have added a detailed clarification at your request. the clarification implicitly acknowledges that the father in question's "partner has been convicted of statutory rape" (again with the minimising "has been convicted of statutory rape" versus WAID's characterisation of the mothers' list as documenting "incest and violence committed against these girls"). She still does not strike the original comment which continues to say that nobody on the list was raped (including the young man in question, who at this point WAID clearly knows is on the list).
• Extending as much good faith as I possibly can to WAID, she communicated badly, doubled down when called out on it, and then the argument about the "childless white men" comment (which I think was a bad idea to make but nowhere near as troubling as the List of youngest fathers stuff) distracted everyone from the actual issue. A less charitable reading would be that it's a straightforward violation of WP:CHILDPROTECT. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• I have to admit I was a little baffled by WAID's request for me to unredact an obvious PA, though I am prepared to say that her argument was not problematic, even if I didn't agree with it. The non-reaction to the transphobic rant was a little disappointing, although Wikipedia - whilst being very good at combatting racism and misogyny - is currently worryingly giving a free pass to transphobia in some circumstances, as can be seen by the Telegraph RfC, for example. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Advice - Both parties should walk away from the contentious topics-in-question, for about 3-months. A breather would be best. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• I've opined above, so this can only be a comment, but I am disturbed by those saying Fram should be sanctioned for bringing this here. Repeated statements that they regard as problematic, followed by digging-in: that's the kind of thing this noticeboard is for, even when the decision is that the reporter was misinterpreting something or making a mountain out of a molehill. And I still see problems with WhatamIdoing's statements and conduct. As I said above, I am willing to extend good faith, but I don't see a collegial allowance for fellow Wikipedians to have different opinions or recognition of the possibility she made a mistake (as I believe she has done in a couple of these instances, including the child rape issue, where I believe what she wrote to be indefensible. Children are children and forced sex is rape). We all have biases and blind spots. Her, me, all of us. The anonymity of Wikipedia makes it all the more vital to recognise that fact and to recognise that we usually don't know who we're talking to—and possibly hurting or doing an injustice to. Fram's direct, but has not been rude here that I've seen. WhatamIdoing should back down a bit. IMO. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I've read the evidence brought forward and would like to state my opinion as someone who often stumbles upon WAID due to overlapping interests. WAID primarily edits medical articles (at least as far as I am aware), and doing so means that you are more likely to get involved with more sensitive topics. It is almost unavoidable to get involved in contentious topics when editing medical pages as much as WAID does. They are often the first to respond to a talkpage message on a medical article or a question on WP:MED. They have provided a lot of sane advice over the years. With that being said, people misword things, or don't explain themselves well enough all the time. This isn't a huge deal if you are only editing non contentious topics. To ban WAID from these topics would be a great diservice to the Wikipedia community. Again I want to emphasize that they are often the first to repond to various queries on medical pages (including contentious topics which again overlap heavily). To limit this would have huge affects. For example, the TBAN proposed would mean WAID would be off limits from Talk:Cass Review where they have made countless helpful contributions. I would agree with others that WAID "is being hounded, their talk page is being used as a forum, and a few editors are trying to find bad faith where none exists". IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

IBAN for Fram

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

---

• Support one-way IBAN for Fram. where they basically claimed that men can't be raped,—this is such an egregious misrepresentation of WAID's comment here that I can't believe it was a good faith misunderstanding—it's either an intentional lie or reckless disregard for the truth. WAID clearly says the exact opposite of what you're claiming in that thread—that at least one boy on that list was sexually abused, and that they would not object to excluding male victims of sexual abuse from that list. IBAN is the bare minimum for slandering^NALT another editor like this, but I don't think we should rule out more severe actions. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• I support an IBAN for Fram. Maybe make it a 1 week IBAN.CycoMa2 (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• I also support an IBAN for Fram, this is disruptive Big Thumpus (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• support one-way IBAN for Fram--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not hounding to call out bigotry, and a few people in this discussion have shown their true colors here by endorsing said bigotry. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fram's "basically claimed that men can't be raped" was in fact about this comment by WAID, where she said that The List of youngest birth mothers was deleted because editors felt like it was also a "List of child rape victims", which is not relevant for anyone that is (or should be) in this list. [my emphasis]. At the time of writing, the list included Vili Fualaau. Fualaau first met Mary Kay Letourneau when he was about seven, and she was a teacher in his school. When she was 34 and he was 12, Letourneau became pregnant with Fualaau's child. She was convicted of raping Fualaau. After she was released, with the condition that she have no further contact with him, she met him repeatedly and became pregnant with another child by him when he was fourteen. She was returned to prison for violating her bail condition. WAID may not have explicitly claimed that men can't be raped, but she certainly claimed that this young man was not raped in a way which plays into a widespread societal belief that men cannot be raped, and we should not fault Fram for reacting strongly to that. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support for both an interaction ban and a community ban for Fram. Acalamari 20:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Isn't a community ban a bit harsh.CycoMa2 (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This was not an unreasonable filing, and whilst I don't support any sanction for WAID here I'm a little concerned about the lengths some people have gone to defend something that wasn't ideally stated at the best. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose An IBan isn't for one mis-statement. Trouts for both and let's move on. North8000 (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd expect to see a prolonged an intractible history of poor engagement with a specific user before even considering an iban. I'm not seeing that here. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose No one comes out of this covered in glory. Far too extreme a measure. Completely over-the-top reaction. Per Black Kite and Thebiguglyalien. And who the hell is User:Big Thumpus? SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 21:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - I found the original statement, to which Fram objected, to be offensive. Anyone talking shit about childless women as a class like that would be keelhauled. Fram's response? A bit over-the-top, in my estimation, but not sanction-worthy. Carrite (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Using rotating accounts for edit warring

The user Æ is a good character rotates between two accounts, Æ's old account wasn't working and Ægc's friendly xbox alt, as well as at least two IPs, 2403:4800:351A:BE15:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2001:8003:58EA:E700:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), to engage in edit warring. In the most recent example, Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing, the user added unnecessary wording, to which I disagreed. Instead of following WP:BRD, the user reinstated their edit with another account, stating only "I am not a sock. I am not a sock. Remain calm." instead of engaging in any sort of dicussion. After I referred to WP:BRD explicitly, the user's next revert, again from another account, reiterated: "Do not panic. This is still me. I am not a sock. Both of my accounts are out of action at the moment, but they are not banned. I am not a sock. I am not a sock. I am not a sock.", once again not attempting to settle the issue via a discussion.

This is not an isolated case, however. The following examples, from the past month alone, come to mind:

• Spacewar!: The user makes a factual error that I challenge. After one commentless revert, they are reverted by another user (Rhain), and their second revert only reads "Just get over it mate, you're probably not gonna be winning this one anyway; this is not a threat". Their following two undos claim "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!" and "Fight me. Just fight me.", only ceasing their warring when a third user intervened.
• Grand Theft Auto (video game): The user introduced unsoucred claims and is reverted by Rhain. After they partially reinstate their edit, another user enforces WP:NOPIPE, which the user reverts without comment. After being reverted with reference to the guideline involved, the user claims "Why does everything I touch automatically devolve into an edit war? Because of you. Yeah, you. Maybe." and only stopped when I reverted them.
• List of largest empires: I was not involved in this one, but the user went back and forth with two others, including comments like "Looks like we should prepare for war..."
• Animator vs. Animation: Another article Rhain was involved in; the user reverts Rhain without comment three times within 13 hours, and provided no rationale even after the minor edit war ended.

The user appears to intentionally provoke edit wars while often blaming the issue on the other user(s) involved, with individual edit summaries almost leaning into WP:NOTHERE territory, especially after the user has already been on this platform for a little over two years and will have come across the most important guidelines in this time.

This report was initially posted to WP:AN3, but Bbb23 suggested it be posted here instead.

IceWelder [✉] 14:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

To add onto this, they've gotten involved in edit wars on Terminator 2: Judgment Day and have made some very WP:NOTHERE statements like "Attack me more, and you may face a rain of terror from my also-usually-non-disruptive alts (they never disrupt articles, but for users, that's a different story)" and the statements made on their talk page here, alongside seemingly taking the mick out of another user for making a simple mistake, shown here.

They seem generally constructive in terms of their copyediting, but there are a bunch of issues piling up here. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 14:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow... I really don't like them saying Just get over it mate, you're probably not gonna be winning this one anyway; this is not a threat. There's very clearly a bad history here and consistent edit warring by @Æ's old account wasn't working. I'm tempted to indef them altogether, but I recognize the nature of their edits haven't been super controversial (just entirely unnecessary), but their behaviour has clearly been disruptive and inappropriate. I'll leave it for another admin, because I don't typically handle behaviour related blocks like this, but I'd support a month long block so that they can actually recognize the issues that they're causing and be given a chance to do better. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The urge to indef is strong. I guess I'm in a good mood, though. I blocked the latest IP range long-term to stop the logged-out editing. I also blocked the Xbox alternate account, seeing as how it's being used to join in edit wars. And that threat to use alternate accounts to harass someone was over-the-top. However, my hope is that this was a moment of stupidity from a young editor. Maybe blocking the alternate accounts will send enough of a message that this kind of behavior is not tolerated. I settled for a week long block on the main account. I think this is a really light sanction given all the problems here, but the edit warring seems to be the primary problem. If this turns out to not be enough of a warning, I guess we can always do the indef block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you made the right decision,I feel as if this is a editor who may be a tad bit immature (given his actions), but who has good intentions (?). . . L.E. Rainer 01:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: just checking, did you mean to leave User:Æ is a good character entirely unblocked? (It looks to be the "old account that isn't working" but-) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to be abandoned. I guess I could block it anyway with a note that it's been abandoned in favor of the new account. The problem is that sometimes people report situations like this at SPI ("the master was blocked, but there's a sock puppet still active") without realizing that someone has been restricted to a single account instead of being kicked off the island. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, could you clarify things for me because with all of these accounts, it's not clear to me what their "main account" is. Is it User:Æ's old account wasn't working? It's not User:Æ which is a different account from years ago. I'd just like to know who all of these IPs and alts track back to. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Liz All of the accounts appear to link back to User:Æ is a good character, which was created back in 2022. User:Æ's old account wasn't working appears to show a vague timeline of their accounts. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, basically that. Æ is a good character is the original account, but the password was lost. Æ's old account wasn't working is now the main account being used. This account was temporarily blocked, and the other accounts were indefinitely blocked because the user threatened to use them to harass people. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I would definitely like some feedback from this user about how their accounts "stop working." It seems like an excuse to create multiple accounts to obfuscate their editing. Accounts don't just stop working; if they forgot their passwords there is a way to rectify that. This edit summary in particular (Both of my accounts are out of action at the moment) is very odd. What does "out of action" mean? How does an account become "out of action" after being used within the last week? Considering the disruption being caused, I would submit that we need an explanation from them about this, with the goal of getting them to settle on a single account to be used from now on. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes people think they need to create a new account for every device they have access to. When they don't have access to that device, they think the account is unusable. I've seen this before at WP:SPI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Roby2029!

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

---

Roby2029! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a relatively new user who has been making a large number of edits, which I believe to be in good faith, but almost all have had to be reverted. They have not responded to any messages left on their talk page. They seem to edit via mobile so it's possible they haven't seen them.

This seems to be a case of WP:CIR though this editor likely has the potential to make good contributions if they take the guidance that has been offered to them on board. Would a short block be warranted to draw attention to their talk page messages and pause their current editing spree?

They also have another account at RobyLiverpoolMersyside! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Orange sticker (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinging DrKay as they have left a message on this user's talkpage. Orange sticker (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

On occasion they veer almost close to relevant, or well intentioned, but far too many just misunderstand the topics that they are editing or seem to be intent on pushing a particular POV. And of course vast majority (I won't say all as I haven't looked at all their edits) are unsupported, and almost immediately reverted as such. Koncorde (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I blocked the editor. The old account is stale and I've left it alone. Communication is a must, and I blocked them because of the lack thereof. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Jacobolus and WP:ASPERSION

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

---

I'm not here to discuss the content dispute at Binomial theorem but to report Jacobolus's behaviour when they come through a content dispute and for WP:ASPERSIONS. Days ago I removed some content that, according to me, was poorly sourced. I was reverted by JayBeeEll, but I decided to revert them few days later after having checked again the quality or the sources. Then came Jacobolus, they reverted my edit and while I tried to discuss the matter on the talk page, this user accused me of bieng rude, insulting the sources and so on [81]. From that point on, Jacobolus kept editing the article without any consensus, even reverting my status quo edit, my compromise edit and is now thretening me to keep reverting me. I would like to know if this is a normal behaviour from such an experienced editor. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The diffs provided don't demonstrate any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of @Jacobolus I'd suggest trouting the OP for creating a frivolous drama board post and closing promptly as no action before a group of very experienced editors decide to start airing their personal grievances with each other on the drama board in a hopefully-not-inevitable game of duck the boomerang. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Labelling legit concerns about the sources as "insults" and "rude" and threatening to edit war aren't considered wrongdoing ? If so, then I agree with closing this report.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Can someone help me out at talk:Binomial theorem? I'm getting quite frustrated by now. Wikaviani blanked a perfectly fine paragraph twice based on a complaint about the sources being too far removed from the topic, so I tracked down some closer secondary sources by subject experts. Then they continued to repeatedly remove perfectly fine material with heavily sarcastic comments about the new sources. I asked them several times to knock it off with the insulting language, and the only response was (a) further insulting language directed at me and several scholars living and dead, and (b) comments along the lines of the post here. –jacobolus (t) 15:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not insulting the sources when I say that they are not expert for that specific field. All of them are respectable scholars, mathematicians, physicians, etc, but none of them is an expert source in the field of history of maths in Asia. Also, why did you revert my compromise and status quo edits and threaten me of an edit war ? I told you that I agreed with all your edits except the one about Pascal's triangle, which is an extraordinary claim about Indian mathematicians having discovered this triangle 7 centuries before Pascal. Honestly, I would also apreciate some help there too, since I find very difficult to have a constructive discussion with Jacobolus, evry time we have a disagreement, I get accusations of being rude or insulting the sources.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, on what basis do you bemoan the sources, @Wikaviani? Do you have more professional, WP:SME sources that you can cite by Asian maths historians in replacement of perfectly fine sources by the scholars familiar with the subject? Otherwise, I'd suggest you knock it off on that measure.

As for Pascal's triangle and your concerns with WP:FRINGE: can you either prove that the source about it is unreliable by presenting evidence that it is fringe, or can you find other sources that provide information contrary to the current? I'm sure Pascal's Triangle wouldn't be too hard to do that for. BarntToust 15:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I will gladly discuss the matter at Talk:Binomial theorem if you want, I opened this report to know if it is normal for an editor (Jacobolus) to behave with fellow Wikipedians who disagree with them like that (false accusations of insults, owning the article, and so on).

The claim i want to remove is about the history of maths and, sadly, mathematicians and physicians are not historians, i checked on Google the fields of expertise of the sources cited by Jacobolus, I found that they are not complying with the criteria of what a reliable source is, here on wikipedia, namely :

• The piece of work itself (the article, book)
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
• The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

You can take a look at this edit of mines for that. As to the theory about the discovery of Pascal's triangle, we have several expert sources like Roshdi Rashed who claim that it was discovered by a mathematician named Al Karaji and this is said few lines later in the article. So Jacobolus has listed not less than 8 weak sources to support a claim that is rejected by our best sources and everytime I say that, I am accused of insults towards the sources. As I said, I agree with most of their work, which is well-sourced, but this specific sentence is an extraordinary claim that requires multiple good sources. when I said that to Jacobulus, they responded "If you remove this perfectly fine sentence you will be reverted. Your personal understanding of sourcing policy does not accord with WP:RS and your behavior and comments here continue to well outside Wikipedia policy and norms.".---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

For folks here, here's a close literal translation of the 10th century source:

"After drawing a square on the top, two squares are drawn below (side by side) so that half of each is extended on either side. Below it three squares, below it (again) four squares are drawn and the process is repeated till the desired pyramid is attained. In the (topmost) first square the symbol for one is to be marked.. Then in each of the two squares of the second line figure one is to be placed. Then in the third line figure one is to be placed on each of the two extreme squares. In the middle square (of the third line) the sum of the figures in the two squares immediately above is to be placed; this is the meaning of the term pūrṇa. In the fourth line one is to be placed in each of the two extreme squares. In each of the two middle squares, the sum of the figures in the two squares immediately above, that is, three, is placed. Subsequent squares are filled in this way."

Saying that this is the same as Pascal's triangle seems more like self-evident than extraordinary, if you ask me. For reference, here's the top few rows of what we now call Pascal's triangle:

${\begin{array}{c}1\\1\quad 1\\1\quad 2\quad 1\\1\quad 3\quad 3\quad 1\\1\quad 4\quad 6\quad 4\quad 1\\\end{array}}$

–jacobolus (t) 16:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Wikaviani, can you present the best sources? Otherwise, what is there now will do until the SMEs are researched and added.

I must admit, as a person disinterested in the field of maths, there needs to be more modern sources published in reliable journals to support claims, such as a source that by name calls it, say, a precursor to the triangle. In short, is there any documentation of this source as the first instance of or an aperitif to the triangle? BarntToust 17:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are asking for, but there are numerous and varied sources calling this the same as Pascal's triangle, written by a variety of authors over a wide range of time periods, including sources about Vedic metres, about the history of Indian mathematics in general, about the history of combinatorics, or more generally about the history of broad areas of mathematics. Authors include close subject experts who did detailed examination of this specific topic, career historians of Indian mathematics who wrote high-level survey books about it and were editors of math history journals, career mathematical historians focusing on other regions or time periods mentioning it for comparison, and professional mathematicians who published significant books about the history of mathematics in reputable publishers or peer reviewed papers in reputable math history journals. All of the sources listed are well within the bounds of WP:RS, several of them have been quite widely cited, and frankly we're already well into "citation overkill" land.

I really don't understand the problem, and I don't understand why Wikaviani continues to call professional historians "unreliable", not "serious", not "expert", suggest that the Indian journals and professional societies are not reputable, and so on. –jacobolus (t) 17:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, shoot, that's good to hear, if these sources are reliable, then all is well. Wikaviani seems to believe some sources are not good enough, when they are in their eyes B+ or A- sources, wanting A+ or S-tier level sources that don't seem to be anywhere close to being produced.

If it's not any more trouble over this concern, let's make this subject a distant memory, no? Now, onto the specifics about Pascal's triangle. BarntToust 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but those sources from Pascal's triangle contradict what Jacobolus wants to include in the article about the binomial theorem.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You make a good point, which is that the history section at Pascal's triangle is also substantially incomplete and should be expanded. –jacobolus (t) 18:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but first, you need to find the relevant sources for that and avoid behaving like you do at Talk:Binomial theorem with non expert sources to counterbalance the above expert sources.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"I really don't understand the problem, and I don't understand why Wikaviani continues to call professional historians "unreliable", not "serious", not "expert""

Maybe because those sources are either outdated or not from specialized historians, as I already told you multiple times.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have been linking to WP:SME, which is subject matter editors, and irrelevant to the discussion. @Wikaviani, I meant to say, please find these subject-matter expert historians/scientists you seem so keen on comparing to the works of the current, adequate-yet-not-absolutely perfect sources.

Another thing: Old doesn't mean bad, okay? Shakespeare's works are centuries old, yet still remain some of the finest writing ever produced by humanity. If since newer research might almost always supersedes old understandings, it is the burden of you to show what is better. BarntToust 18:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, old does not mean bad, but in the field of scientific researches, age matters. I don't get you about the expert sources, I listed some of them above and they are cited in the article about Pascal's triangle with precise page numbers and cannot be challenged by non expert sources (WP:UNDUE)---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

My speculation is that this is an ideological fight aimed at scoring points for one ancient culture over another which has been dressed up, as a wikilawyering strategy, as a fight about source credibility. Otherwise I can't come up with an explanation for demonstrated zeal and uncivil behavior.

We have two non-contradictory, uncontroversial, and widely repeated claims here:

1. The earliest known example of something close to the binomial theorem per se – that is, expansion of an algebraic expression like $(x+y)^{n}={}$${\tbinom {n}{0}}x^{n}+{\tbinom {n}{1}}x^{n-1}y+{}$$\cdots +{\tbinom {n}{n}}y^{n}$ – can be found al-Samawʾal's 12th century work al-Bāhir, credited by him to a now-lost work by al-Karajī (c. 1000).
2. Indian scholars of poetic metres investigated the same numbers ⁠${\tbinom {n}{k}}$⁠ (combinations or binomial coefficients) many centuries earlier than that, including arranging them in a shape like (the modern form of) Pascal's triangle by the 10th century, and in a form nearly identical to Pascal's 1665 arrangement (also found in Cardano 1570) by the 6th century.

These two claims are substantially independent, and Rashed making claim (1) without saying anything about Indian mathematics is not a rejection of claim (2) – indeed it's entirely unsurprising that in Rashed's book about the history of Islamic arithmetic and algebra and in a chapter specifically concerned with whether al-Samawʾal's work used mathematical induction or not, he wouldn't go on long digressions about Indian investigations of poetic metres.

For some reason though, Wikaviani is insisting that anything not mentioned in Rashed's 1994 book must be "extraordinary" and it's not sufficient to have either close subject experts or broader experts writing survey sources making the claim, because they aren't, for Wikaviani, good enough.

It's entirely unclear what would be acceptable as a source: for any possible source added Wikaviani seems to be able to come up with some kind of reason to reject it, often involving making false claims about the author, impugning their reputation, insulting me personally, or making sarcastic dismissals with air quotes and rhetorical questions.

Claim (2) is even made (in a slightly mangled way) by Robertson in MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive, one of the two authors Wikaviani previously specifically called out as a source they support. (I don't think this reference is worth using in the article, because it is a mention in passing and stated slightly incorrectly.) –jacobolus (t) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Rashed is clear and leaves no room for doubt in his work when he says that the first description of Pascal's triangle to our knowledge is to be found in a now lost work from Al Karaji.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@BarntToust: Yes, of course, we have several high quality sources at Pascal's triangle, among which, Roshdi Rashed's book (published in 1994) "The Development of Arabic Mathematics Between Arithmetic and Algebra" (page 63), The "Encyclopedia of the history of science, Technology and Medicine in non western cultures", Helen Selin (a book published in 2008) and "From Alexandria, Through Baghdad", published in 2013 by Nathan Sidoli and Glen van Brummelen, both historians.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Well yes, do they have anything to say on Asian origins of the concept? If not, that means nothing. If they refute this info, great for your argument. If they agree, well, huh, I guess that an extraordinary claim about Indian mathematicians having discovered this triangle 7 centuries before Pascal will be proven. BarntToust 18:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

They don't support the discovery of the triangle by Indian mathematicians, rather by a Muslim mathematician named Al Karaji c.1000 AD, that's the point.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok both of you see how this is entirely a content dispute, right? Can we please get a mercy close on this? Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. While we're here, however, I would appreciate it if Wikaviani could desist from further sarcasm and insulting language directed at either me or at professional historians. –jacobolus (t) 19:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Here we go, more baseless accusations ... where are my insults ? Ok for closing this, but we have no solution for the content issue.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I listed them for you and your only reply was "if my comments were insults, go ahead and report me". It's not clear that there's much point in repeating this again here, where everyone already seems tired of this conversation.

To help resolve a content dispute it's much more useful to recruit eyeballs from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science. I have to run but I'll open a discussion on WPM when I get a chance. –jacobolus (t) 20:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Those were not insults, and everybody here can see that. I'll proceed from the above links then, or, you can go ahead.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

We've been over this repeatedly, but since you really keep insisting:

I cited some of the best known, most influential, and most celebrated historians of Indian mathematics (e.g. Radha Charan Gupta and Bibhutibhushan Datta) and and you dismissed them as "nothing very impressive, some obscure mathematicians of Indian origin".

Amulya Bag (Google scholar page, IAS page) is a professional historian of Indian mathematics and science who wrote multiple books on the subject and from 2002–2018 was the editor of the Indian Journal of History of Science, one of the top journals about the topic.

Can you understand how it might read as insulting when you first call his paper a '"source"' with sarcastic quotation marks around it, then later throw similar sarcasm quotes around his name itself, as part of a string of rhetorical questions whose sarcasm is further highlighted with italics: 'So according to you, "Amulya Kumar Bag" is a world class expert? Wow, so how many influencial books has this guy published? with what publisher? how many awards has he? how about his academic career?' Later you followed up with claiming he "has not the expertise to challenge prominent historians", called his work not "serious" and a "poor source", said he is "not expert in the field of history of maths" and "not an expert historian of maths", and called him "unreliable".

I don't know what problem you have with Prof. Bag, but your comments here have been, and continue to be, inappropriate. See WP:BLPTALK for more. –jacobolus (t) 20:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with Bag and WP:BLPTALK is completely irrelevant here, just stop throwing baseless accusations of "insults" around. Bag's work is 60 years old source and I do not consider it as a world class expert, there is no insult here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Amen to that, Simon. A mercy close to the bickering, por favor. BarntToust 19:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Goswami21 not adhering to consensus and engaging in personal attacks.

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

---

• Goswami21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article S. B. Deorah College, which was first created by Goswami on November 12, was nominated by me for AfD, but it was later closed as G11. Subsequently, Pharoh redirected the article to Gauhati University, which was not an issue. However, Goswami later removed the redirect and recreated the article. I had to nominate it again for AfD on November 18, where the consensus was to redirect the article to List of colleges affiliated to the Gauhati University. This closure was handled by OwenX on November 23.

After the article was redirected, Goswami recreated it again on December 8, going against the AfD consensus. When I restored the article as per the AfD decision and notified him on his talk page, he reverted my edit and made a personal attack, stating: I think you have some mental issue. GrabUp - Talk 17:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Goswami - instead of recreating the article against consensus, if you think there's new significant information that could overturn the AfD, head to WP:DRV. FifthFive (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for one week for disruption and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Jwa05002 engaging in repeated personal attacks and aspersions

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

---

Jwa05002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is happening over on Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely. Currently, there is an open move request, wherein this user has made their position clear. Several different times, in fact, responding to most or all disagreements [82][83][84], and including outside the discussion in question [85][86], to a point that, in my view, reaches WP:BLUDGEONING levels.

However, the main reason I'm making this report is that last diff. In order:

• Akechi The Agent Of Chaos stated that schizophrenia can't kill you itself [87]
• Jwa05002 responded with Schizophrenia absolutely leads to a higher mortality rate (among people who are diagnosed with it) and is used frequently as a contributing factor to a person’s death according to the NIH.[88]
• I responded that this was a disingenuous reading of "schizophrenia as a contributor of death".[89] I also signaled my personal discomfort, as a schizophrenic person, for the way that disease had been weaponized in the debate, and that I wished "people", in general, stopped circulating misinformation about it.

In my view, this was a reasonable request, as this weaponization of something I suffer from, done for ideological justifications by parties like Daniel Penny's selected forensic pathologist, in this extremely political debate about vigilantism, is offensive to me, personally. I did mean the idea of weaponization more as a general assessment of what had been said during the Penny trial as a whole, rather than a specific accusation towards this specific user, with the only caveat being that if the user keeps making the (false) claim that schizophrenia is a direct physical contributor to a choking death, I would find it offensive.

Of course, uninvolved users are free to judge for themselves whether this was an unfounded aspersion.

The more basic point here is that, regardless of whether I was right or not to talk of weaponization, I believe I made evident my discomfort at the way schizophrenia was being rhetorically handled here. And to be clear, at this point, as shown by my original comment, [90] I was neither clamoring for any specific retraction, nor asking them to stop commenting; my only goal was to signal to them to perhaps moderate their language a little, due to this being a sensitive topic, to me specifically.

• In response, this person doubled down on the claim I found offensive, while simultaneously accusing me of "weaponizing [my own illness]", and of trying to "silence discussion [I] don’t like".

While I suppose that one could theoretically make the argument, no matter how spurious I find it, that I was "weaponizing" an illness I myself suffer from, am familiar with, and have discussed with plenty of medical experts, within this conversation, I believe at the very least that the bad-faith reading of my contention here is completely inappropriate. There was a statement I found offensive, as someone personally involved in the topic, and I signaled that personal offense. There is no intent to "silence" anyone (as can be shown by the fact I did not prevent anybody from discussing in the move request or on the page as a whole, nor did I seek to shut down most of the arguments here), merely to stop people from spreading a false claim that I found hurtful.

• When I laid out how uncomfortable this accusation made me, warned them about the policy on personal attacks and aspersions, and urged them to retract their statements, their reaction was to double down on these aspersions once again, and then again following my last response.

I would appreciate an apology for, and retraction of, at least the aspersions, and ideally the offensive claims as a whole; but at a minimum, I believe this editor, at least concerning this particular topic, seems to be unable to work collaboratively, and civilly. So, either a temporary block, to give them a chance to reflect, or a topic ban, in my view, may be justified here (edit: having reflected on it, I don't actually know if a topic ban would be appropriate, because apart from this incident, I can't definitively state that the user's behavior on the topic was particularly beyond the pale; I think just an acknowledgement that their behavior, specifically towards me, was not appropriate, may be enough for me here). LaughingManiac (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I provided citations to scientific studies and expert opinions (reported by reliable sources) that schizophrenia absolutely can be a factor in people’s deaths (similar to the way depression would be considered a factor in a suicide)

The user responded by bringing up their personal diagnosis as schizophrenic (this was unnecessary and irrelevant to the discussion, as was their assertion of being grossly offended, again by the opinion of experts and scientific studies)

The person then implied I was spreading misinformation (despite multiple cites of scientific studies and expert opinions) and stated misinformation shouldn’t be shared. Again, the implication in that statement is clear…..they wanted to silence discussion they disagreed with.

There has now been an admin complaint and a suggestion I be banned from any discussion on the topic. If anything this a far clearer example of bludgeoning than anything I’ve. These users are quite literally attempting to bludgeon me into silence about this topic.

If anything these users seem far too personally and emotionally close to the topic at hand to speak objectively about it (again, they are calling scientific studies and the opinions of experts “misinformation”) Jwa05002 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Although I feel I laid out the situation well, I do need to correct your basic misrepresentations here.

"schizophrenia absolutely can be a factor in people’s deaths (similar to the way depression would be considered a factor in a suicide)"

This is not what the assertion you made implied. Your original statement was correct on its face (i.e. it is true that "schizophrenia leads to a higher mortality rate"), and no one was challenging you on this.

However, the context here is a discussion wherein the question is "Was schizophrenia, the mental illness, a direct physical contributing factor to a person's death, and more so than the minutes-long chokehold said person was subjected to?" (as Akechi's quote above clearly implies, since it does not state that "schizophrenia can't be a factor in people's deaths", but rather that "schizophrenia can't kill you itself").

Within this context, the statement you're deriving from the defense's pathologist, which suggests that schizophrenia was some sort of direct physical contributing factor in the victim's death equivalent to "sickle cell crisis" and "synthetic marijuana" ("Chundru said he believed Neely died from “the combined effects of sickle cell crisis, the schizophrenia, the struggle and restraint and the synthetic marijuana” that was in his system") is, as I've mentioned, misinformation concerning schizophrenia.

"I provided citations to scientific studies and expert opinions"

I would also remind you that this perspective you shared was only one within the debate, and that other "expert opinions" were raised in objection of Chundru. The fact the jury disregarded them doesn't make those objections false, nor does it make you right in presenting only one side of this debate as correct. That, at least, is a basic violation of WP:NPOV.

Ultimately, though, all of the above is generally a content dispute. Again, the basic contention I had here was not that you cite this pathologist, but rather that you're making these implications, in your own words, while ignoring what other people are saying to you in response, and refusing to take into account the idea that some of this rhetoric you're (falsely) presenting as science-based may be offensive to people related to the subject. You do not get to dictate what people who suffer from a specific disease find offensive or not, and it is not "irrelevant" to signal that I find your behavior problematic.

All I asked of you is to treat your fellow editors with basic consideration, as WP:CIV outlines. Instead, you elected to accuse me of raising these objections with the explicit goal of silencing you - something which is an unfounded aspersion, given I originally only stated I found the rhetoric offensive, and nothing more than that. And that aspersion, which you have now repeated multiple times, is the main subject of this report. LaughingManiac (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, the user being offended by the subject of the discussion is completely irrelevant. (If the user finds the topic itself this disturbing, perhaps they should not engage with it).

The user’s personal experience related to the topic is irrelevant.

Demanding that discussion be censored or even silenced (especially discussion citing sources and medical experts) is even further evidence that the user in question is too emotionally charged about the topic to engage in objective, reasonable discussion about it. (Redacted) 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, but are you using a logged-out IP to support your original claim? (to reiterate, I have no issues with the forensic pathologist's claims being used in the discussion, even in the article itself, as long as RS report on it; my only contention is presenting misinformation on schizophrenia as truth) LaughingManiac (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

not intentionally. Previous comment is mine, I just wasn’t logged in because I pulled the browser up from email. Jwa05002 (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Having reflected on this again, I acknowledge that my personal experience, and the prejudice I have perceived as associated with it, should not influence the content of Wikipedia (or good-faith discussions about the topic at hand), per the second pillar of the encyclopedia; and I recognize that Jwa05002 did have a point in stating this, regardless of how I might have received their claims; so, even though I still consider the original discourse offensive, and I wish Wikipedia had some stricter policies on this, I am willing to entirely drop this aspect of the complaint, and try my best to avoid bringing it up in topic discussions, as long as there's recognition on their part that my concerns were not expressed in bad faith, and that they shouldn't have assigned ill-intent to me.

If we can agree on this "compromise" in positions of sorts, then I'd be okay with putting an end to this whole thing. LaughingManiac (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds great. Thanks! Jwa05002 (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Shadow. 547 - "shut up", "stupid", "ur crying"

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

---

Shadow. 547 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NOTHERE behaviour;

...yeah the result stuff did get removed because some random guy called Airshipman something like that yeah he didn’t like it and was yapping about Timurid victory should be blah blah blah...

woah woah woah looks like someones having a bad day 😂 also i removed the result timurid victory and ur crying...

dude shut up i dont care i wasnt planning on editing it again because of stupid airshipmanjungle i dont like him and i thought we left this days ago so just shut up This was in response to a warning about their personal attacks, says a lot about this user.

Courtesy ping @AirshipJungleman29: --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 User blocked for 31h for personal attacks and incivility. In particular, the response to the warning about personal attacks with further personal attacks indicates flagrant disregard for the NPA policy. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Chris! HistoryofIran (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Bloganathan

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

---

I noticed that User:Bloganathan violates WP:SELFCITE and WP:CITESPAM by exclusively adding his own publications. Even after being notified (User talk:Bloganathan), he continues his practice. What to do? 194.230.147.152 (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, indefinitely, mostly to help them find their talk page and because they don't edit consistently so a time limited block is unlikely to make a difference Star Mississippi 00:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I remember dealing with this editor a while back. Should we just revert the edits in which citations containing their name are added without adding any additional information, like this one? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Slow edit-warring by TheMaxM1

• TheMaxM1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

It has regretfully come to the point that I need to report this here. This user has been edit-warring on the Castle in the Sky article for the past couple of months. (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) Despite multiple warnings about their behavior and many opportunities to engage in productive discussion or at least provide a basic explanation, they have mostly declined to do either: they stopped responding at their talk page and the latest (fifth!) revert was made without an edit summary. I still hope this can be resolved with words, but a partial or complete block may be required in this situation. Let me know if there are any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I did provide any explanation because I thought that my edits were legit. I understand that it shouldn't be there if you can't provide a legit source, but I think that there's a lot of info floating about the internet that can be traced to some citation. --TheMaxM1 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PROVIT. Having an impression that there’s support for your edit isn’t enough. You must back up your words with evidence if your words are challenged. Otherwise, you need to drop it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

TheMaxM1, it goes rather above the point of the sourcing issue now. The main issue here is that even though I've objected to your changes several times, you have continued to revert to your preferred version without responding to my questions or sometimes even acknowledging the warnings I leave you. Again, this can all be fixed if you commit to reverting yourself, fully discussing the changes on the talk page before editing the article further, and implementing the changes only once there is consensus. This is the accepted standard practice (WP:BRD) and it helps us collaborate on the work much more effectively. Are you willing to follow these steps? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Since I've received no response again, I've gone ahead and restored the status quo revision for you. Please do not make any further changes to the relevant section of the article without gaining consensus for them on the talk page. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet: MonstroIsACoinEater

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

---

User:MonstroIsACoinEater seems to be doing the same thing as User:BlockyDragonHead. / RemoveRedSky ^[talk] 01:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Not any more (indef). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

This sort of report could go to AIV, which usually gets faster results. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

2601:18C:8102:2FC0:0:0:0:0/64 = block evasion of 166.182.0.0/16

• 2601:18C:8102:2FC0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, I am reporting the IP user above, for continued disruption of Jim Henson Pictures related topics and block evasion of 166.182.0.0/16.

Let's compare some edits from the 166.182.249.211 address (part of that blocked /16 range) as an example:

• On Jim Henson Pictures: compare diff by 166.182.249.211 to diff by 2601:18C:8102:2FC0:x:x:x:x
• On Planet 51: compare diff by 166.182.249.211 to diff by 2601:18C:8102:2FC0:x:x:x:x

The block evasion is incredibly obvious in my opinion when comparing those two diffs on each page. Passes the WP:DUCK test.

Keep in mind this IP user was already previously reported to WP:AIV a while ago by User:FilmandTVFan28 (diff), but that report has sat there unnoticed for nearly 7 hours now and it looks like it's going to get automatically removed as stale. Yet, since that AIV report this /64 IPv6 range has done yet another wave of disruption, so due to the lack of attention at AIV and the continued disruption I am proceeding this to AN/I here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

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

---

67.180.213.51 (talk · contribs) keeps adding unsourced information. See for example their edits on Aimaq people where they continually restore their edits with the same copy-paste edit summary and write: Edit contains new and relevant information, Edit contains sources, Sources are credible and credited in needed areas. This is despite them not including any sources. They have received more than enough warnings by now. Mellk (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Also possibly introducing hoaxes at Tartaria. Mellk (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Might have been better for WP:AIV, but an admin could impose a short block on this IP. Conyo14 (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

By posting this here, it will just now stop a quick block on this IP, had it been reported on WP:AIV. This is the second day and the IP is still freely edit warring and not cooperating. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 08:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I hope I am wrong, and they still could be reported to AIV, as an editor did now. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 08:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Agressive user Dupexz1256

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

---

Dupexz1256 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User Dupexz1256 was edit warring at Bosnian War article when I interacted with his soapbox and pov edits. He is enamoured with convicted war criminals. He has left this agressive message at my talk page: Special:Diff/1262497664. I request his account be indef blocked for this behaviour. He is not here to build an encyclopedia but to spread propaganda. YBSOne (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Why hasn't anyone blocked @Dupexz1256 for being disruptive yet? It's a pretty cut-and-dry report. 2600:1700:103A:D800:84B:7F65:10AF:7CEB (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked any further than to click on the diff provided. Anyone saying things like that should be blocked immediately. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and  Done. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Flusapochterasumesch reported by User:Bowler the Carmine

Flusapochterasumesch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is being disruptive in Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson. They are generally hostile towards other editors ([91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]), do not seem to understand the nature of Wikipedia as a tertiary source ([98] [99]) and a collaborative project ([100] [101]), and has expressed their intention to remain willfully ignorant of policies and guidelines ([102] [103] [104]); despite my general note ([105]) and personal warning ([106]) to stop, and several editors' attempts ([107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114]) to redirect them away from disruptive behavior. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I first noticed Flusapochterasumesch on Talk:Justin Welby, in which the user proposed several unhelpful edits, including describing a living person as a bastard son (diff) and a fairly pointless edit based on a pedantic reading of the word "coincided" (diff). When I replied that this edit would not make sense, responded with "I see you replied to me just after three-thirty today. Coincidentally, I was moving my bowels at precisely that time" and added a personal insult with "stop wasting my time you pompous dolt." (diff). I have not had other interactions with this editor but based on my own observations and the interactions reported above, I am not sure the user is WP:HERE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Flusapochterasumesch's posts on Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson are necessarily ruder than those of other people. But their comment on their own page in response to Bowler the Carmine's warning shows that they are somewhat wilfully misusing that talkpage, stating "I wasn't proposing, or advocating for, any edits, changes or inclusions to the article. I was indirectly expressing disapproval of the WP:POLICY" and "My only purpose in adding to the comments in Talk tonight was to draw out what I perceive to be ridiculous WP:POLICIES". They are new (ish), and may not be aware that the only purpose of talkpages is precisely "proposing, or advocating for, edits, changes or inclusions to the article". I have tried to explain this on their page, and hope they'll agree to start using the talkpage for its intended purpose, and to take any discussion of policies to the talkpages of those policies.PS, I wrote this up before seeing Dclemens1971's comment above. That conduct may indeed require a sanction (though it was a month ago, so maybe not now). Bishonen | tålk 15:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC).

I spent a little time going through Flusapochterasumesch's contributions and found several more personal insults:

• irritating and abject moron (diff)
• I think you take your wise-cracking to a forced level of expressing superiority, which in turn comes across as someone with an inferiority complex who is bitter at many things and people. (diff)
• Telling another editor their username goes before you like flatulence from a retroperambulating bovine (diff)
• In response to a normal disruptive editing warning, said it might help you to step away from your belligerent irrationality for a pair of days in order for your ultimately cowed response to be semi-cogent, semi-logical, sensible and without passionate anger, overt aggression, disgusting sectarianism, horrific racism, clatty sexual discrimination or stupidly-irrational hatred. (diff)

Flusa has been warned on multiple other occasions (diff, diff). In removing one of the warnings from their talk page, they called it "possible vandalism" (diff). The personal attacks continue (the most recent diffs above are from this month). Despite dishing out insults, however, Flusa is quick to take offense (diff) at being told to "relax."

Finally, Flusa wrote: if I ever entertained any thoughts of investing any meaningful energy in this project I'd dispatch myself haste post haste... Not only is the hypothetical reference to self-harm in extraordinary poor taste, it reinforces the idea that Flusa is WP:NOTHERE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll just point out that my interaction with Flusa right below this complaint had no prior backing and got me super confused on why they needed to disassemble a simple good faith message providing a small amount of context. It feels like this user is here mostly for a WP:FORUM, not necessarily the contribution of an encyclopedia. Conyo14 (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Permanent link to interaction below for posterity. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely the first time I've seen someone read dark motives about use of the word "even." And offended as such on the behalf of a third party in a dispute that didn't involve them! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

There was some further criticism of Flusapochterasumesch on their talk page, which they removed: see [115]. It refers to an earlier interaction in which I had suggested that it was not appropriate to refer to a good-faith editor as "a blatant child abuse apologist". So, there is quite a history of impolite behaviour at multiple sites. Flusapochterasumesch could really be an asset but absolutely there needs to be a change of attitude towards other editors and towards following our rules. There have been repeated warnings: does anybody sense any change in behaviour in response? JMCHutchinson (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I think one reason Flusa keeps getting warnings without escalation (until now) is that they regularly blank their talk page, so other editors giving warnings (myself included) may not have seen the history and realized the behavior warrants escalation. Considering the insults have continued up through four days ago, I think we're well past where warnings are appropriate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I made a list of all their talk page blankings:

• 1 discussion, apparently for profanity,
• 1 disruptive editing warning and subsequent replies,
• 2 messages about behavior,
• 1 older warnings banner,
• 1 message about NPOV,
• 1 content dispute(?)
• 1 content dispute,
• 2 messages about personal attacks,
• 1 message about personal attacks,
• 1 message about civility.

That's 8 warnings/messages warnings/warning-adjacent messages they've received so far. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC); edited 18:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

They also have several posts here on ANI that appear to have been removed by admins on Dec 11, which is concerning. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure it was just a REVDEL situation and not explicitly their comments. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I've traced it the revdel's back. They're unrelated to this case. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I advised them a month ago, [116], that their strong personal views on current news subjects were compromising their editing. That message was also blanked. It is pretty clear from their editing that their aim here is not to build an encyclopaedia, but to argue about current news items on which they hold strong views. KJP1 (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Sistani nationality and original name

Hello about (Ali al-Sistani)

I’m writing to raise a concern about user @Montblamc1 repeatedly editing the page about Ali Sistani. I’ve added at least six reliable sources, including Sistani's official site (sistani.org) and CNN, which clearly state that:

• Sistani was born in Mashhad, Iran.
• His native language is Persian.
• He holds Iranian citizenship by birth
• (Even on his Arabic Wikipedia page, he is introduced as an Iranian Shia cleric:

[Source](https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A)

Despite this, @Montblamc1 has reverted the edits multiple times to include unsourced claims, such as labeling Sistanis native name in Arabic and as "Iraqi"," which isn’t supported by his official English site. They haven’t provided any reliable sources for these changes.

I’ve tried to discuss , but my edits keep getting reverted without valid justification. I don’t want to escalate this into an edit war, so I’m asking for your guidance:

• Should I continue editing the page to reflect the reliable sources, or would that worsen the situation?
• Will you intervene to address this issue and ensure the edits follow Wikipedia’s standards for sourcing and neutrality?

Thank you for your time and help! Taha Danesh (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Moved from WT:AN. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You did not discuss this on the talk page. Talk:Ali al-Sistani#Name and nationality. That being said, the user has had several warnings already and even had another ANI complaint. Conyo14 (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You write that the user @Mountblamc1 "even had another ANI complaint", but isn't it more accurate (i.e. accurate) to say they have another ANI complaint? I see that complaint hasn't been added to in about 9 days, and @Mountblamc1 is pushing back against all the aspersions being cast against them - the last of which remains uncontested for these past 9 days. Therefore is it reasonable of you to cast that up against the complained-about user? The other possibility is that the complained-about user's prior complaint is unjustified or unwarranted, in common with this one. And you do begin your contribution by pointing out that the editor behind the most recent compalint (this complaint) did not raise their concerns on the article in question's talk page? It sounds like you're telling the complainer that they didn't follow the proper mitigation processes before complaining, and at the same time casting unqualified aspersions against the complained-about editor. Would you recommend that complainers follow the correct processes or should the community sanction @Mountblamc1 on the basis that they have (not had) a prior, undecided, active complaint against them that they appear to have refuted without contest? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• This looks like a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Disruptive edits on al-Sistani page, POV-pushing. Editors were told that this was a content dispute where discussion should happen on the article talk page (or Dispute resolution). Why open a new complaint, Taha Danesh? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Liz. That is essentially what I just said. It is disappointing to see a third-party (@Conyo14) jumping in to point out another open incident, when it is very much stalled and is being competently defended by the complained-about editor. Maybe they are in the wrong, maybe they are not - but it is improper to point to another unresolved dispute. That could simply mean the complained-about user is being unfairly targeted for making valid edits that the complainer does not like. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  Relax. Just giving out information. @Novem Linguae made this continuation, I believe. Conyo14 (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  That's very helpful, thank you @Conyo14. Was there any reason when you were "just giving out information" you used the word 'even' in the phrase "[the complained-about user] even had another ANI complaint"? That seems loaded to me, but I'm certain in line with WP:AGF that you didn't mean it as such. It seemed like you were being prejudiced but I accept that I wrongly interpreted you. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, and I meant to say that I find you telling me to "relax" to be condescending and I take offence at that in the context. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  Ok Conyo14 (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Continued unsourced changes in biographies of living persons by Wimpyguy

Wimpyguy (talk · contribs) was previously blocked in October 2022 for BLP violations. Since then, they received warnings and messages about unsourced changes in November 2022, March 2023, July 2023, May 2024.

1. Today I noticed they added categories at Alex Kapranos which are not supported by citations in the article body.
2. Going through their previous edits I noticed their previous change, a category addition to Alex Winter, from 29 November, was also not supported by the article body.
3. An earlier edit from 23 November, a category addition at Michael Rapaport appears to be supported by the article body.

I haven't checked the accuracy of 1. and 2. But Wimpyguy has been warned enough to know categories need to be supported by inline citations just like any other content. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your point numbered 1, I see the offending editor added categories to the Alex Kapranos page that categorised him as a Scottish Nationalist and Scottish Republican (which are essentially the same thing). This source [117]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-29284532 supports those assertions - therefore it might have been better to check the accuracy of your number 1 point (which you acknowledge you did not do) and perhaps start by asking the offending editor to consider adding the supporting citations in the article body that you diligently noted to be missing. Categorising someone as a Scottish Nationalist or Scottish Republican is surely not something you consider pejorative? As a Scot I am aware that roughly half of Scots self-identify as those things, and are proud to do so. Was it really necessary for you to raise this incident instead of simply asking @Wimpyguy to do a little more work to reference his edit to the Alex Kapranos article? I'm not sufficiently interested now to review your number 2 grievance, the accuracy of which you once again say you did not check, and (extraordinarily) I see that your third point concerns an edit that you openly acknowledge "appears to be supported" by the body of the article. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 11

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

---

The appellant arguing on behalf of Shakir Pichler from 157.211.83.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) admits that they are evading a block as User: KryptonicChristine and User: ChristineBamtonics. I am filing here rather than at SPI both because SPI does not seem to be the right place to deal with block-evading IP editors, and to call attention to possible disruption about the (redirected) article. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE user

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

---

Bringing this straight to ANI rather than messing around with warnings as I think it's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE.

Mujjaf4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made 3 contributions at the time of writing:

• The first is a personal attack against Daniel Case.
• The second is clear vandalism.
• The third is what I'm interpreting as another personal attack; I assume they've interacted with Seasider53 before on a different account or logged out.

— Czello ^(music) 07:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked per NOTHERE. As per the above.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Cinderella157 gaming the system

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

---

• Article: Second Nagorno-Karabakh War
• User involved: Cinderella157 (talk · contribs)

Map of Nagorno-Karabakh

Map of the Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh

First, it starts with I am taking some stuff back from this revision by @Oloddin:. Not reverting to revision, just took some old stuff which stood here for years. My first edit. Then Cinderella157 reverts me by saying A detailed explanation is given in the article. The infobox is not a place for detail or nuance. We don't try to write the article in the infobox. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE Which is misleading because this user's

Just found this users old edits regarding this in 14 April 2024.

• 1st edit edit here removing detailed stuff from "| territory =" does not even violate the Template:Infobox military conflict, which says: territory – optional – any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict; this should not be used for overly lengthy descriptions of the peace settlement.
• 2nd edit here changing "| place = Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding Armenian-occupied territories, Armenia–Azerbaijan border" to "| place = Nagorno-Karabakh".

Both of edits are very very misleading since the lead says: The Second Nagorno-Karabakh War was an armed conflict in 2020 that took place in the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding occupied territories While this user claims Azerbaijan gains control of 73% of disputed territory, which means it took place only in Nagorno-Karabakh, while the most of fighting took place outside. I just made a research on this, on 14 April 2024 this user removed this stuff from the infobox added the original 73% text to the article below, but it's simply wrong as well (area with number 7 on the map right below). See my edit on the talk page. Maybe could've asked for help instead of giving wrong information for 8 months now?

So on 12 December 2024, 07:46 I explained my edit (not a revert) and on 12 December 2024, 11:32 this user doesn't even bother to reply and goes straight away to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring saying I reverted twice, because why? I don't know.

For information, I added a map. Yes this is a content dispute thing, but this user falsely reporting me of 1RR without even bothering to use the talk page, trying to get me blocked asap. Beshogur (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Dingleberry Hpmp repeatedly uploading non-free BLP photos

Dingleberry Hpmp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new editor. Not a mobile editor, but has never responded on their talk page. Yesterday, I tagged their upload File:Gianni-DeCenzo.jpeg for F9, and saw that they've uploaded non-free images of living people and been notified of the issue three times before this F9.[118][119][120] Suggest partial block of Dingleberry Hpmp from uploading files until they indicate that they understand (and will comply with) the rules around non-free images. Schazjmd (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Indef pblocked from Filespace until communication improves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Dollhouse Nights disruptive changes

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

---

Dollhouse Nights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new editor. Not a mobile editor, but has never responded on their talk page. Dollhouse Nights repeatedly makes edits that split sentences into fragments.[121][122][123][124][125] Most of their 23 edits have been reverted. After the initial "good faith" welcome template, I left a message gently pointing out the problem with their edits. This was followed by 3 templated warnings from me and another editor.2024 The problems are continuing after these warnings and the many reverts.[126][127]

There doesn't seem to be any bad faith or malicious intent in their edits, and there's been no edit-warring to restore their edits; they simply lack the competence to edit prose, and have ignored suggestions that they find a way to contribute that doesn't rely on being able to punctuate properly. If they won't communicate or choose a task more suited to their skills, other editors have to review and revert/clean up after each of their edits. Schazjmd (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Spicy has partial-blocked Dollhouse Nights from article space; hopefully they will communicate at their talk page or here so we can work something out so they can contribute. Schazjmd (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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

62.1.163.195

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

---

62.1.163.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - I blocked this IP last week for repeatedly adding unsourced/undated stats to footballers. They have returned and are straight back to it. Can we get a longer block please? GiantSnowman 18:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. 1 month. And this seems like a very familiar user we've seen before. Canterbury Tail talk 18:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. Too many edit like this... GiantSnowman 19:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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

How do we handle crossover issues at a foreign language wikipedia?

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

---

Recently the community dealt with Ezra Ben Yosef at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#Ezra Ben Yosef. There was also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judeo-Ge'ez which was deleted as a hoax/OR. Yosef was blocked for problematic editing on a series of pages involving the Beta Israel people; including misrepresenting sources to push a OR/ fringe POV content. An anon IP just pointed out at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Judeo-Ge'ez that the French language wikipedia has the same issues with a basically identical article in French currently existing at fr:Judeo-Ge'ez. I don't speak French, so I don't think I can handle an AFD in another language, although I am the editor who principally read through the materials in English and highlighted the factual misrepresentations being done by Ezra Ben Yosef. Is there a way that admins can notify equivalent admins on a foreign language wiki about the problems we have dealt with on the English wiki that are also damaging to the French wiki with a current article full of factual errors and misrepresentations that is essentially a hoax? 4meter4 (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is a list of administrators] on the French language Wikipedia, with the level of English they speak. Maybe try contacting one of them. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

There's also fr:Wikipédia:Bistro des non-francophones although it's fairly inactive. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried both suggestions.4meter4 (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Update. Thanks Nil Einne for the helpful suggestion. The French wikipedia deleted their article after I raised it there. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:31.222.81.248 = LTA BKFIP sockpuppet detected

• 31.222.81.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, I am reporting the IP address above, as I highly suspect it is yet another sockpuppet of WP:LTA/BKFIP once again.

I just got off my gaming session today and refreshed my Wikipedia to find two revert notifications, both from the 31.222.81.248 IP address, and when I looked closer as to what edits of mine they were undoing, they were reverting my reverts of edits made by a previous BKFIP sock, 89.207.175.7, which were made on 30 June 2024 (and that IP was also blocked for block evasion that day).

Let's compare some diffs:

• On Wycombe (UK Parliament constituency): diff by new IP is an exact repeat of diff by old IP
• On Ashford International railway station: diff by new IP is an exact repeat of diff by old IP

As if that wasn't telling enough, check this out. BKFIP is known to absolutely loathe warning templates left on their user talk page.

• On User talk:31.222.81.248: the person removes a warning message by User:Heythereimaguy with the edit summary don't leave dishonest messages (compare this to edit summaries on previous IP's talk page)
• On User:Heythereimaguy (the user who left that warning message): the IP leaves this message to express how much they dislike warning templates

To my eyes, this passes the WP:DUCK test when looking at those diffs above. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

They've already IP hopped to 31.222.81.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Manticore 10:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked 31.222.81.153 for 3 months, and 31.222.81.248 for two weeks. — The Anome (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@The Anome: Thanks a lot!

But I don't think we are done yet, as I found one more sock - an account, after looking at the page history of Self-referential humor through the 31.222.81.153 IP that User:Manticore talked about:

Actinic (talk · contribs)

Compare diff by account to diff by that blocked IP.

The edit summary of this edit reads: removed irrelevant crap added repeatedly by editor obsessed with the idea that only people trying to get their cats high read this article. That 'passive-aggressive' tone sounds familiar to me after having seen it many times from previous socks. Similar thing going on this talk page post too. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@AP 499D25, @Manticore, and @The Anome, thanks for taking care of this! I really appreciate it. Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Copyeditor changing direct quotations

86.42.148.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is copy-editing articles relating to Ireland at a rate of knots. Their edits include changes to direct quotations. They do not respond to messages on their talk page. I have to go out in a minute but could people please cast an eye over their edits? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Ahmad Shazlan persistently adding preferred content despite objections and multiple entreaties to discuss on talk page.

I have gone back and forth on this issue with User:Ahmad Shazlan, and they insist on restoring their preferred version of the page contents, without making any real effort to discuss the matter, despite the fact that I've encouraged them to do so multiple times, both in my edit summaries as well as on their talk page. In fact, as you can see here, they have already received a warning regarding this matter from another editor, but to no avail. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

BAPS promotional editing by Ram112313

Ram112313 is a single purpose account dedicated to promoting this religious organization, before they were blocked for edit warring in order to WP:CENSOR details about a controversial lawsuit this organisation has been involved in[128][129][130][131][132][133][134], they learned nothing from their previous sanction and recently edit warred on Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha to censor details related to political affiliation of this organisation[135][136][137] and when confronted they denied that they were edit warring. [138][139], they have consistently used AI in order to generate talkpage messages[140][141][142][143] and denied doing it[144] despite the fact that multiple users have suspected them of using AI to generate messages including an admin who told them to stop doing it [145][146]. They have also made copyright violations in order to promote this organisation[147]. They were previously brought to ANI[148] by @Ram1751: for the same concerns and have refused to address them and improve their conduct. Many users have noted the same issues about this user as me. [149]

Now they have introduced promotional content[150] related to BAPS citing their organisation's own websites about non notable awards and other recognition. They were previously asked by @ToBeFree: to stop editing anything related to BAPS[151] as their conduct here has been disruptive but they refused to accept such a restriction[152] and have only been disruptive since.

Some type of restriction on this user from this area is necessary now because this user has not edited any other topic area ever since joining and is refusing to learn at all. CharlesWain (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, with Special:Diff/1262790523, enough is enough. Blocked indefinitely. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Sourced info being changed disruptively

Matthias Becer is being disruptive at Bağpınar, Şırnak by changing sourced information to their liking. I've now reverted their changes more than once and warned them twice on their talkpage to no prevail. They write that "I made the changes, cause that is my village, i was born there and the information was too rudimentary and not right." but ultimately the info was referenced well by more than one source. It is clear IJDLI and OR violations. Semsûrî (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Semsûrî, this editor's account was created a day ago and they have made a total of 5 edits. It seems like quite an escalation to bring them to ANI. They replied to one of your messages on their user talk page, could you continue the discussion there and try to explain Wikipedia policy to them? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Persistent dispruptive editing/ warring by user Thebighomie123

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

---

User Thebighomie123 is persistently making disruptive edits. Their MO is to make opinion-based edits and present them as factual statements. A good example is this edit calling the Djokovic Nadal rivalry 'the greatest' instead of 'among the greatest'. They have made this exact edit without discussion 4 times, and each time it has been reverted. They continue to make the edit with inappropriate edit summaries. Here are the four edits in question 1 2 3 4 Similar patterns are seen across other pages. On Georges St Pierre, they have reinstated a potentially misleading statement against consensus three times, and ignored consensus. Here are the edits 1 2 3

Overall, the high number of reverts of their edits, their battleground style, and their overall disruption require remedy in my opinion. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thebighomie123 attempted to delete this report and was reverted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

This person is such a hypocrite and is just trying to intimidate and bully me. They are doing the exact same thing as they are accusing me of; frequently adding their own opinion without consensus. See here :Georges and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=John_Lennon&oldid=1262431902 Thebighomie123 (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

See that @NEDOCHAN decides without consensus that Georges-St-Pierre is not a ‘notable’ actor and removes it without consensus. They also decide without consensus that John Lennon and Paul McCartney’s partnership is the ‘most successful in history’ again without consensus. How is this maintaining NPOV? This is blatant hypocrisy. Thebighomie123 (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

So if NEDOCHAN was disruptive, you're allowed to be disruptive too? Can you explain how their interpretation of your edits was incorrect or how it was appropriate for you to remove this thread despite that being against talk page guidelines? TheWikiToby (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk page notice

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

---

I have a question with regard to this notice: [153] Can any user arbitrarily place a tag on a talk page referring to something as pseudoscience? There already was a contentious topic notice on the page, what is the point in placing another one other than trying to label the topic of the article "pseudoscience"? I also have a question with regard to another notice: [154] Can anyone create a notice that reflects his personal opinion and place it on top of a talk page to prevent further discussions on a certain topic? If you check the talk page page and recent archives, you can see that there is no consensus for the views expressed in this notice, and the topic is being hotly debated. Apparently, the faq notice was created in response to this discussion, where the opinions are clearly divided: [155] I would appreciate if someone checked the notices at the talk of this article and kept only appropriate ones. JonJ937 (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Conversion therapy and rapid-onsent gender dysphoria are fringe views. The FAQ should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. AN/I is for chronic or urgent incidents, not discussing content disputes. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not about the content but about the appropriateness of tags. How many contentious topic tags does one page need? Normally one is enough. Speaking of fringe, the sources calling SEGM fringe and accusing of supporting conversion therapy are mostly not independent. The fact that SEGM advocate evidence based approach and question the use of puberty blockers and surgery on minors is not actually a fringe view. In latest news, the UK government indefinitely banned giving puberty blockers to minors under 18 [156]. Most of Europe follows the UK approach. If this is a fringe view, then Europe is fringe. One can see that SEGM is often approached by the mainstream media for comment. NYT, Economist, AP, BMJ and others do not call SEGM fringe. This is a very politically charged and polarizing topic, but as Wikipedia editors we need to rise above the politics and edit in accordance with NPOV. I agree, this may not be the best place to raise this issue but my point is that any notices at talk should be in line with NPOV, rather than reflect certain views. JonJ937 (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

If a CTOP applies, a page should be marked as such. The rest of your comment is, again, related to content. You should discuss the sourcing or lack thereof on article talk and follow the dispute resolution processes as needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

JonJ937, Voorts is correct here. There isn't a minimum or maximum number of CTOP notices that can be noted, it's what topics the subject falls under and the lead paragraph of this article cites this organization's views as fringe. Whether or not a subject of an article falls under a CTOP category can be discussed on the article talk page. You are also coloring the views of editors you disagree with as political but not your own which is likely not accurate as we are usually unaware of our own biases. Any editor can tag an article or talk page with a notice they believe is appropriate just like any other editor can contest this notice and start a discussion. You haven't brought up any conduct in this discussion that could be considered an "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems" so I'm going to echo Voorts and send you back to the article talk page. Also, you cited a diff as a problem but didn't notify the editor making that edit, User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, of this discussion which you should always do so please do this in any future complaints that you open on ANI or any other noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Fmksmnkn5 disruptive editing, BLP violations and COI

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

---

I'm reluctantly coming here regarding Fmksmnkn5 (see talk page), as it's been over a year and this situation has been worsening. I'll try and summarise here, but I'm not going to be providing a long list of diffs as there would be hundreds to include. Hopefully someone else can provide examples if needed, or otherwise an admin can review edits independently. This is related to women's football player articles.

• This began on 26 November 2023, with a simple request to update timestamps when updating football player articles statistics. [157] The request was more or less ignored, with other editors including myself making the same request over the course of one year. The editor was eventually warned they may be blocked from editing for such disruptive editing/vandalism, and may be taken to an admin noticeboard. [158]
• In December 2024, these issues were again brought to my attention with the inclusion of unsourced content on Fran Bentley's page,[159] that was subsequently reverted,[160] with the editor warned about unsourced content.[161] The response from the editor was "Can confirm it is true anyway so doesnt need to be sourced." [162], which triggered the need for these issues to arrive at a noticeboard.
• The editor claims to be a former coach of Bristol City W.F.C.,[163] but has not declared such a WP:COI on user page.
• The editor is otherwise capable of updating timestamps when updating stats, see example,[164], so this is certainly not a WP:COMPETENCE issue, but instead an "ignore everyone else and carry on" based issue.
• The editor has been notified of the discussion, editors referred to above have been pinged. [165]

I've come to the conclusion that this editor is WP:NOTREALLYHERE in the context of WP:NOTHERE, or at a minimum, disregards the process of WP:V as well as the general MOS of how player stats are updated. In case it's not obvious, updating player stats without updating timestamps is a WP:BLPVIO, even when unintentional. Ie to claim Person A made X amount of appearances with Y goals by Z date, when the information is completely false, should very much be considered a violation of BLP policy.

Ideally this editor would simply commit to updating timestamps when updating stats, and avoid including unsourced content to articles, but otherwise doesn't appear to have any intention in doing so thus far. I'll acknowledge that in discussion with the user I certainly haven't been as civil as I should have been, due to the growing frustration regarding these issues. CNC (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

RevDel for RD2

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

---

I think it would be appropiate to RevDel this revision for criterion RD2. Thank you. Milo8505 _(talk) 19:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The message from the Foundation begging for money above the error message when visiting the RevDeled page is priceless. I am surprised it doesn't show up here at ANI too. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:7887:1A7B:2A2:7279 (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

One of the benefits of using an account instead of an IP, you don't have to see those banners at all. Schazjmd (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Milo8505: generally you should email an admin instead of posting revdel-able material on a public noticeboard and drawing attention to it. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Kionseeeeeegma making offensive and disgusting remarks in WP:SAND

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

---

• Kionseeeeeegma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have reverted many of their edits. I will send a few examples of their disruptiveness. It appears they may be WP:NOTHERE Here's some refs of the edits. Stumbleannnn! Talk to me 05:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I have also noticed that they also have triggered the vandal filter multiple times. Stumbleannnn! Talk to me 05:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as a vandalism-only account. Thank you for reporting, Stumbleannnn!. I've moved this section to the bottom of the page, where it's supposed to go; I hope you can find it there. Bishonen | tålk 06:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC).

Thanks! this case can be closed now. Stumbleannnn! Talk to me 06:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

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