Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- Adds protection template automatically if page is semi-protected, inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. --><noinclude>{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp|1=vandalism|action=edit|small=yes}}}}{{Pp-move-indef}}</noinclude><noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}</noinclude>__NEWSECTIONLINK____TOC__{{clear}}
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 800K
|maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 964
|counter = 1175
|algo = old(72h)
|algo = old(72h)
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
Line 9: Line 10:
|headerlevel=2
|headerlevel=2
}}
}}
{{stack end}}
<!--
<!--
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
|archiveprefix=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive
== Wikihounding by Awshort ==
|format=%%i
user Awshort has been selectively invoking rules on the article for [[Taylor Lorenz]]. It has taken me some time to really see how it was happenening, but finally today wrote [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#c-Delectopierre-20241227020900-Awshort-20241227010300 this post] on the talk page with examples of how they have been selectively and hypocritically enforcing rules on me (a new user).
|age=72
|index=no
|numberstart=826
|archivenow={{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}sk
|minarchthreads= 1
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 7
|key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505c0c
|headerlevel=2
}} --><!--
-----------------------------------------------------------
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
----------------------------------------------------------
As this page concerns INCIDENTS:
Place the PAGENAME of the incident in the header.
Otherwise, if the notice is about the actions of an individual across several pages, then place the USERNAME of the individual in the header.
----------------------------------------------------------
Do not place links in the section headers.
(Immediately UNDER the header is preferred).
----------------------------------------------------------
Entries may be refactored based on the above.
------------------------------------------------------------>


Additionally, as I mentioned in that post, at one point they accused me of asking another editor for help...which doesn't make any sense? It seems like they were trying to imply to me that I had done something wrong, but I read over some rules first to make sure I was allowed to ask for help. I'm still pretty sure I am! If not...let me know?
== Repeat topic ban violations by Instaurare ==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 19:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1505762843}}
{{User links|Instaurare}} has again violated his [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=478743728#Suggested_topic_ban_for_NYyankees51.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_on_LGBT-related_articles topic ban] from LGBT-related articles by nominating [[List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups]] for [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_anti-LGBT_hate_groups&type=revision&diff=798116161&oldid=797800188 deletion] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&type=revision&diff=798114050&oldid=798110251 this edit]. He has previous violated this topic ban, documented [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive806#Instaurare_.28NYyankees51.29_topic_ban here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Instaurare_violating_topic_ban_again here]. At some point, this topic ban needs to grow some teeth so that Instaurare will stop violating it.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 03:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
:I'm surprised you remembered these things from 4-5 years ago, because I didn't. [[User:Instaurare|Instaurare]] ([[User talk:Instaurare|talk]]) 03:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
::Bullshit.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 03:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Oh? [[User:Instaurare|Instaurare]] ([[User talk:Instaurare|talk]]) 03:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|Instaurare}} Since the AfD is heading for keep, could you kindly to not comment any further, and file an official appeal for your topic ban at [[WP:AN]], which is still being logged in place? [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]][[User_talk:Alex Shih|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 04:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
:::I closed the AfD as "no action" since its initiation was improper from the start. Thought SNOW likely would have been the outcome given more time. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 04:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Alex Shih}} Someone violates a topic ban, and, instead of enforcing it, we recommend they file an appeal? That seems... out of place. —&nbsp;[[User:Nihlus Kryik|<span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Segoe Script; color:red;">nihlus kryik</span>]]&nbsp;&nbsp;([[User talk:Nihlus Kryik|<span style="font-family:Segoe Script; color:silver;">talk</span>]]) 04:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
::::I agree with that, considering there have been previous violations, and I don't believe that the editor has forgotten about the ban (which is irrelevant anyway), I believe a block is in order. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 05:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
::::: I don't disagree, but for a topic ban that was [[Special:Diff/478744147|placed in 2012]] and [[Special:Block/Instaurare|never officially enforced]] despite of previous possible violations in 2013 as indicated by the diffs here, I would like to stay put for the next move of this editor. In the meanwhile, pinging {{ping|HJ Mitchell}} for more information. [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]][[User_talk:Alex Shih|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 05:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::It doesn't matter if it was never enforced it should be enforced now dammit. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 06:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::One can't simply "wait out" an indefinite sanction until people forget about it. At the '''''very''''' least, unless you find out from HJM that the TB has been lifted or has run out, the editor should receive a reminder that it is still in effect, and a stern final warning that any future violation '''''no matter how far in the future from now''''' will be met with a substantial block. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 06:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
::::: {{re|Beyond My Ken}} Fair enough, final warning has been [[User_talk:Instaurare#Only_warning|issued]]. [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]][[User_talk:Alex Shih|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 07:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll just leave these here for further evaluation of the behavior patterns of this editor: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYyankees51/Archive|SPI of NYyankees51]] (his account before renaming, and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion]] ("NYyankees has engaged in an exchange that suggests a battlefield mentality"). I don't think a warning is sufficient, but I'd like to see what Harry Mitchell says. [[User:Mojoworker|Mojoworker]] ([[User talk:Mojoworker|talk]]) 09:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
:Pinging {{U|Harry Mitchell}} [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 19:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::Pinging {{ul|HJ Mitchell}} - I don't know if pinging a userpage redirect works; this is his actual account. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 13:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure how much light I can shed. My main involvement was five years ago and I don't think Instaurare and I have spoken recently. A warning and words of advice would have been reasonable in my opinion for the initial complaint since there doesn't seem to have been an upheld complaint since it was enacted, but I can't see any arguing against a block for another violation ''while the first one is being discussed'' at ANI. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman" Title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 15:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Blocked''' - 4 days ago, {{ul|Instaurare}} edited [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mark_Herring&diff=799612963&oldid=798899495 Mark Herring], the Virginia Attorney General who famously refused to defend the [[Virginia Marriage Amendment]] against same-sex marriage. It is my opinion that this edit falls within the "broadly construed" scope of the topic ban, which has been adequately explained in past discussions (in particular [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Instaurare_violating_topic_ban_again this one]) and which Instaurare was warned about by {{ul|Alex Shih}} less than two weeks ago (link above). While the edit was constructive, [[WP:BMB|banned means banned]], and editing within the scope of the restriction so soon after being both warned and given instructions to appeal is a flagrant violation. It's also neither their first warning, first advice to appeal, nor first violation. The community strongly expressed a desire for Instaurare to stay out of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia no matter how tangentially related ("broadly construed") and there is no indication here that that sentiment has changed. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 13:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


After my post today, Awshort started [[Wikipedia:WIKIHOUND|Wikihounding]]me.
== Repeated personal attacks because they won't get their way ==


Here are diffs where they follow me around to pages it doesn't appear they have had any interest in prior:
* {{User links|24.253.207.96}}
* A few diffs {{diff|User_talk:Alephb|798807483}}, {{diff|Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks|798804986}}, {{diff|User_talk:24.253.207.96|798792492}}, {{diff|Talk:Nephilim|798389812}}
* Despite several attempts to explain what personal attacks are, about reliable sources, etc.
—[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 23:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


°[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Icke&diff=prev&oldid=1265505095 1]
* '''Comment''' It's been going on, with one long break, since at least July 30 on my talk page, from more than one IP address. On my talk page, I've been deleting the attacks, because they're disruptive, personally insulting, and have a "wall of text" repetitive style. July 30: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlephb&type=revision&diff=793015560&oldid=792805244], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlephb&type=revision&diff=793015560&oldid=792805244], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlephb&type=revision&diff=793136143&oldid=793132981]. 2 September: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlephb&type=revision&diff=798621954&oldid=798498806]. 3 September: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlephb&type=revision&diff=798807483&oldid=798623214]. Those are ones on my talk page.


° [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Reptilian_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1265504740 2]
:On the talk page of [[User: Doug Weller]], 30 July: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoug_Weller&type=revision&diff=793022774&oldid=793016403], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoug_Weller&type=revision&diff=793147784&oldid=793110553]. 31 July: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoug_Weller&type=revision&diff=793280046&oldid=793269780], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoug_Weller&type=revision&diff=793285929&oldid=793281191].


°[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1265494879 3]
:On the [[Talk: Nephilim]] page, 30 July: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nephilim&diff=next&oldid=792944326], 1 September [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nephilim&diff=next&oldid=793228292], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nephilim&diff=next&oldid=798376405].
Now, I will of course acknowledge that on the third example, I did make a mistake. I thought I had only removed the text of the sentence, but looks as though I accidentally deleted part of the template too. I am unsure how that happened, so I will try to figure that out.


Either way, Awshort's edit summary was not the language I hope experienced editors would use with newer editors like myself. I have mentioned multiple times in conversations that user Awshort is part of that I am a newer user, so they likely know that.
:On [[User talk:24.253.207.88]], 1 September: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A24.253.207.88&type=revision&diff=798387079&oldid=793270435]. On [[User talk:24.253.207.96]], 1 September: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.253.207.96&oldid=798372513], 3 September [[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A24.253.207.96&type=revision&diff=798792492&oldid=798731186]]. Both of these user pages are filled with various editors trying to get the IP editor to become civil. There has been no success so far. [[User:Alephb|Alephb]] ([[User talk:Alephb|talk]]) 01:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
____


I'll end by saying that this user's behavior is making me reconsider whether I want to devote any time to improving wikipedia. Truly. I've never made a report like this before, anywhere in my life, just to give you a sense of how frustrating and upsetting its been.
*'''Comment''': Additional note: It appears however that the POV edits to [[Nephilim]] have ceased for now so I didn't ask for protection at RFPP yet. —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 01:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
::We've had two instances of IP vandalism on [[Nephilim]] today. I don't know if that's enough to reconsider page protection, but I thought I'd update the issue. I have no way to know whether there is any connection between the matter at hand and those. [[User:Alephb|Alephb]] ([[User talk:Alephb|talk]]) 00:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


I hope that this is the right forum for this. If not, my apologies, and please let me know where to redirect this to.
=== Matter Involving me and Alpehb ===


Thanks for taking a look.[[User:Delectopierre|Delectopierre]] ([[User talk:Delectopierre|talk]]) 08:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
To whom it may concern,


:Hello, Delectopierre, if you have had any discussions where you actually tried to talk out your differences with this editor, please provide a link to them. They might be on User talk pages or article talk pages or noticeboards. But it's typically advised that you communicate directly with an editor before opening a case on ANI or AN and don't rely on communication like edit summaries. Also, if you haven't, you need to notify any editors you mention about this discussion. They should be invited to participate here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 09:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I thought I would give you some data to consider.
::There isn't. I don't feel comfortable discussing wikihounding with them. It is, after all, harassment. [[User:Delectopierre|Delectopierre]] ([[User talk:Delectopierre|talk]]) 09:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Although I did link to my post today where I confronted them with their behavior (except the wikihounding, as it hadn't happened yet). So that is an attempt to discuss the other part.
:::But after I tried to discuss it, instead of responding to it, they started wikhounding me. [[User:Delectopierre|Delectopierre]] ([[User talk:Delectopierre|talk]]) 09:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Maybe you should spend less energy “confronting” and more energy discussing and trying to learn from more experienced editors. [[Special:Contributions/100.36.106.199|100.36.106.199]] ([[User talk:100.36.106.199|talk]]) 13:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I try to learn when experienced editors engage with me in a helpful and respectful manner. Your comment does not fit that description.
:::::As an aside, I wasn't aware that non-admin, IP-only editors, who are <u>not</u> involved with the incidents I've reported would be participating in this discussion. [[User:Delectopierre|Delectopierre]] ([[User talk:Delectopierre|talk]]) 23:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:I've notified Awshort as it still hasn't been done. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 15:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested for doing so. [[User:Delectopierre]], you should have notified [[User:Awshort]] yourself, there are messages instructing editors to do so all over this page including on the edit notice that you see any time you post a comment here. As I said, you are also advised to discuss disputes first with involved editors before posting on a noticeboard. ANI is where you come for urgent, intractable problems, it's the last place you go when other methods of dispute resolution haven't worked. This also looks like a standard content disagreement regarding [[Taylor Lorenz]] and the fact that Awshort reverted one of your edits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Hi @[[User:Liz|Liz]] as I noted above, I attempted to discuss their behavior [[Talk:Taylor Lorenz#c-Delectopierre-20241227020900-Awshort-20241227010300|on the article here]], and their response was to wikihound me.
:::As I said [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-Delectopierre-20241227092000-Liz-20241227091200|here]] I don't feel comfortable discussing what feels like and seems to be harrasment, directly with them, as it felt like intimidation to stop confronting them about what I see as bad behavior on the article. I was waiting for a reply to that statement before proceeding.
:::Is there really no process that allows for an instance when an editor feels uncomfortable? [[User:Delectopierre|Delectopierre]] ([[User talk:Delectopierre|talk]]) 23:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I will also add that it appears as though this is '''not''' the first occurrence of this type of behavior, based [[User talk:Awshort#c-Twillisjr-20241218230600-Internal affairs (law enforcement)|on this comment]] by @[[User:Twillisjr|Twillisjr]]. I don't, however, know any of the details. [[User:Delectopierre|Delectopierre]] ([[User talk:Delectopierre|talk]]) 23:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Re-reading your comment, @[[User:Liz|Liz]]:
:::I think I’ve been unclear. The content dispute is a content dispute. You’re right about that.
:::That is '''NOT''' why I posted here. I posted here because the content dispute spilled off that article and has now resulted in wikihounding. The wikihounding, specifically, is why I posted here. [[User:Delectopierre|Delectopierre]] ([[User talk:Delectopierre|talk]]) 05:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have closed the discussion with the rationale "Nothing more to do here. See [[WP:NOTFORUM]] and [[WP:HOUND]]." [[User talk:Kolano123|<span style="color:blue;"> '''KOLANO12''' </span>]][[Special:Contributions/Kolano123|<span style="color:red;"> '''3''' </span>]] 13:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Could you please explain your rationale? I don’t follow. [[User:Delectopierre|Delectopierre]] ([[User talk:Delectopierre|talk]]) 17:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::First, thank you {{u|ActivelyDisinterested}} for the initial ping and {{u|Liz}} for the follow-up ping. The majority of this is over the [[Taylor Lorenz]] article as a whole, but there have been some policy issues sprinkled throughout. {{u|Delectopierre}} anyone can participate in noticeboard discussions whether involved or not, the 'IP-only editor' you referenced has more edits than both of us combined, and registration is not a requirement to edit Wikipedia nor participate in community noticeboards.
:::{{tq|they follow me around to pages it doesn't appear they have had any interest in prior}} - That isn't [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Awshort/4/Biographies%20of%20living%20persons/Noticeboard accurate] since I post on the BLPN often, as well as using it to find articles I can help out on since I mainly focus on editing BLP's. I checked out the BLPN, noticed it was missing a discussion of interest from earlier in the day (Maynard James Keenan) and checked the edit history to see if it was removed for a reason. I saw the previous edit by DP had [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=1265483952 removed] it as well as another discussion so I restored it. That wasn't me 'hounding' them, that was me fixing an error so other discussions could continue. I checked DP's edit history later to see if any similar edits had been made recently in case those needed fixed as well, saw the edit history for [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=David_Icke&oldid=1265474333 this] edit with the summary ''critics don't accuse him of anti-semitism. he is an antisemite,'' and checked the edit which had been changed to calling the person that. The prior [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Reptilian_conspiracy_theory&oldid=1265473365 edit] had the edit summary of ''adding back david icke qualifier'', so I checked that one as well since I assumed it would be similar. When it was confirmed, I reverted since it seemed a BLP violation as well as [[WP:LIBEL]]. Since there was a talk page discussion regarding the prior one, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Icke#c-Awshort-20241227070700-Hemiauchenia-20241227044700 posted] that I had removed it from another article as well, in case it went to a noticeboard both could be noted. It is worth noting that the edit I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Reptilian_conspiracy_theory&diff=1265504740&oldid=1265473365&variant=en removed] was originally [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Reptilian_conspiracy_theory&diff=1217988265&oldid=1215760239&variant=en added] a few months prior by the same user. I think most editors would have acted in the similar manner regarding the edits and I stand behind them.
:::I think {{tq|Awshort's edit summary was not the language I hope experienced editors would use with ''newer editors like myself''.}} is somewhat disingenuous when on their first full day of editing the Lorenz article after being registered since 2018 and mostly inactive they seemed to know enough policies to quote them in their edit summaries ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1240721050&oldid=1240720920&variant=en WP:AVOIDVICTIM], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1240721411&oldid=1240721050&variant=en WP:BLPBALANCE], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1240722604&oldid=1240722085&variant=en WP:PUBLICFIGURE]), their [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=1241036805&oldid=1241013564&variant=en post] that to BLPN referenced NPOV,  as well as learning other policies that were left on their talk page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADelectopierre&diff=1240643743&oldid=1225800136&variant=en CTOP] by {{u|TheSandDoctor}}, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADelectopierre&diff=1240762311&oldid=1240751757&variant=en NPOV] by {{u|Little Professor}}).
:::And it's hard to reply to the linked conversation above where it's implied I'm hounding in the closing [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATaylor_Lorenz&diff=1266184298&oldid=1265818384&variant=en comments] with only one side of the story presented.
:::[[User:Awshort|Awshort]] ([[User talk:Awshort|talk]]) 13:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::"I checked DP's edit history later to see if any similar edits had been made recently in case those needed fixed as well,"
::::[[Wikipedia:Harassment#Hounding|That is the definition of hounding:]]
::::"Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is 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."
::::I don't understand how this isn't open and shut. [[User:Delectopierre|Delectopierre]] ([[User talk:Delectopierre|talk]]) 21:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The same section that you're quoting also says {{tq|Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or '''correcting related problems on multiple articles'''.}} (bold added) [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 21:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::There is nothing related about the other articles they followed me to, and I fail to see how the problems are related. The only common denominator is me. They will, I'm sure, say they're all BLP. Doesn't matter, tons of this encyclopedia is BLP and if Awshort feels I shouldn't be editing any BLP, there are methods of addressing that belief that don't include following me around wikipedia to make sure I don't do anything they disagree with. [[User:Delectopierre|Delectopierre]] ([[User talk:Delectopierre|talk]]) 04:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's only hounding if they act on it. You need to show at least a few diffs that they are editing on a page you are editing, and they would not have been interested in it otherwise. If they are stalking your history, but do nothing, its technically non-actionable. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 22:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Those diffs are in my original post. [[User:Delectopierre|Delectopierre]] ([[User talk:Delectopierre|talk]]) 04:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Also going "this editor made problmatic edits, I should check their history to make sure they haven't made more, and fix any others they've made" is most assuredly ''not'' hounding. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::After a long winded disagreement on a talk page that included them starting multiple edit wars, my view is there are ''much'' better ways of addressing this. For example, they could have started a conversation on my talk page.


::::::Additionally, who is to say which edits are problematic? I view a number of edits Awshort made as problematic, so I disengaged from the conversation rather than continuing to go in circles.
1. I stated to Alpheb on his talk page, that I was not intending insult, nor was that which I stated unfounded ( having no basis, or merit, i.e a lie) and I clarified each point he brought up and back my statements with evidence that came from his statements to me. I stated the truthful facts, rather liked , or not.


::::::Lastly, could you help me understand how a non-admin editor checking another editor's history and reverting their edits is not hounding? It seems to fit the definition of hounding.
2. I, also, told Alpehb: "As stated before, and state once more, don't message me and I will not respond. Had you not sent your statement that required an answering response, I would not have pursued the matter any further. It was you who initiated the dialogue, not I. If you don't like what is said, don't initiate.


::::::[[User:Delectopierre|Delectopierre]] ([[User talk:Delectopierre|talk]]) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Again, as stated, I '''would not have gone any further then the edit''' and '''the matter would have been dropped''', had you not started the matter with your message to which I responded with the truth that is backed by the evidence given.
:::::::Easy. Someone sees you made an edit they consider problematic. They go and check your other edits to see if you made other problematic edits. They revert any problematic edits they find. Being an admin or not has nothing to do with it. If they ''continually'' do this over a period of time, then it may be hounding. If they go through it once because they noticed something, it's not. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 09:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Fair enough. Thanks. [[User:Delectopierre|Delectopierre]] ([[User talk:Delectopierre|talk]]) 21:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|After a long winded disagreement on a talk page ''that included them starting multiple edit wars''}} - Ignoring the dig about 'long winded disagreement' and just pointing out the following since I was accused yet again of something else
:::::::<ol>'''##''' 'Attempts to discredit her work'
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1240900627&oldid=1240899995&variant=en Inclusion] of RollingStone reference and 'attempts to discredit her work' text by DP on Aug 17, 24
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1262476225&oldid=1262475963&variant=en FMSky] removes on Dec 11 with [[WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS]] as reason.
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1262965251&oldid=1262946750&variant=en Reverted] by DP Dec 13, empty edit summary.
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1262965367&oldid=1262965251&variant=en Removed] again by FMSky with same edit summary
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1262966204&oldid=1262965367&variant=en Reverted] by DP with no edit summary, again
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1262968880&oldid=1262967951&variant=en FMSky] moves text further down based on what the included reference says.
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1262969649&oldid=1262968880&variant=en Reverted] by DP
:::::::</ol>
:::::::{{pb}}
:::::::<ol>'''##''' 'Doxxing standard part of the reporting process'
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1240901400&oldid=1240900901&variant=en Insertion] of text about doxxing, 'standard part of the reporting process' by DP Aug 17, 24
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1259863339&oldid=1259863026&variant=en Removed] in Nov 27 by myself, as it was already included with the same reference earlier in the paragraph.
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1259978069&oldid=1259977541&variant=en Reverted] shortly after by DP
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1260046773&oldid=1260040916&variant=en Removed] on Nov 28 with a quote on what the text of the included reference actually stated, which was not what was included.
:::::::</ol>{{pb}}
:::::::<ol>'''##''' Podcast
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1240851430&oldid=1240770230&variant=en Podcast] section added Aug 17 by DP
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1259863026&oldid=1259718686&variant=en Removed] some of the podcast text that seemed promotional and wasn't supported by the included reference Nov 27
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1259978331&oldid=1259978069&variant=en Reverted] by DP Nov 27
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1260035358&oldid=1259978331&variant=en Removed] both the Podcast reinsertion, and the previous reporting texts on Nov 28 with the same reasoning and asked to take it to TP and try to obtain consensus before insertion again.
:::::::</ol>{{pb}}
:::::::<ol>'''##''' 'Assaulted'
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1240897694&oldid=1240895260&variant=en Harassment] section which included 'assaulted' added Aug 17 by DP
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1260061855&oldid=1260054156&variant=en Removed] the word assaulted from the harassment section on Nov 28 since it was covered in her career section.
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1262967951&oldid=1262966204&variant=en Reverted] by DP on Dec 3 as [[WP:OR]]
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1263113684&oldid=1263099454&variant=en Removed] per talk, undue, and covered in Career Dec 14
:::::::<ol>{{pb}}
:::::::<ol>'''##''' 'Coordinated'
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1263099454&oldid=1262987805&variant=en Vegan416] removed the word coordinated under BLP grounds (accusing Tucker Carlson of coordinating attacks) Dec 14
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1265112453&oldid=1264378857&variant=en Re-insertion] by DP on Dec 24
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=prev&oldid=1265185775 Removed] per WP:SYNTH since the word wasn't in the included reference on Dec 24</ol>
:::::::{{pb}}
:::::::It isn't limited to just this article, though. {{pb}}
:::::::<ol>'''##''' 'Anti-Semitic'
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Reptilian_conspiracy_theory&oldid=1217988265 Anti-Semitic] label of [[David Icke]] added on April 9
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Reptilian_conspiracy_theory&diff=1256723157&oldid=1256356675&variant=en removed] by Zane362 Nov 11
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Reptilian_conspiracy_theory&diff=1265473365&oldid=1259993018&variant=en Re-added] by DP Dec 26
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Reptilian_conspiracy_theory&diff=1265504740&oldid=1265473365&variant=en Removal] by myself on Dec 27
:::::::</ol>
:::::::{{pb}}{{pb}}
:::::::It seems like the very definition of [[WP:OWNBEHAVIOR]] {{tq|An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.}} This isn't entirely an "I don't like Awshort messing with my edits" issue; this is a "I don't like anyone messing with my edits" issue.
:::::::{{pb}}
:::::::::Coincidentally, its also covered in [[WP:HOUND]] at [[WP:HA#NOT]]: {{tq|It is also not harassment to track a user's contributions for policy violations (see above); that is part of what editor contribution histories are for. ''Editors do not own article content, or their own edits, and any other editor has the right to revert edits as appropriate. Unwarranted resistance to such efforts may be a sign of ownership behavior and lead to sanctions.''}}
:::::::{{pb}}
:::::::On almost every attempt to edit text inserted by DP, be it by other editors or myself, editors are met with resistance. That includes when their text that was inserted is changed in any manner, including being reworded or moved.
:::::::[[User:Awshort|Awshort]] ([[User talk:Awshort|talk]]) 19:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== Disruptive editing and pushing of his own "point of view" by [[User:Michael Bednarek]] ==
You don't want to hear the truth, or anything that I say, '''then don't message me and I will not message you'''. (the embolden parts were not part of the original communique, but add here to bring your attention to).
A few months ago, I began to create [[:Category:Songs_from_Des_Knaben_Wunderhorn|some new pages about]] German folk songs, with my own translation under CC-license (that's still quite normal for a bachelor in history (ethnography), I guess). The above-mentioned user started to push his own remarks, reverting my edits (in spite of my authorship and my notices about my VRTS permission and CC), and ended [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2024/December#Song_lyrics_translations here]. At least, we (together with other participants) clearly established that I had had such a right and labelled some of my talk pages with my VRTS-ticket. Nevertheless, already the following page I'd started [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Das_Todaustreiben&diff=1264911112&oldid=1261874060 drew] the attention of the aforementioned person. And that what [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMichael_Bednarek&diff=1264964841&oldid=1264937108 he answers] me (a poet-translator of folk songs and historian/ ethnographer): {{Blockquote
|text="I replaced (or omitted) archaic 'inwit', 'wont'; mark parts of the translation as dubious.", it was a substantial improvement of that article. My remarks on the shortcomings of its translation, which you subsequently labelled "poetic", still stand"}}. The first case that he marked as "dubious" was the gender of the German "Winter". In German, that word is masculine; however, I translated "Winter" as a feminine, and there are a plenty of samples from history when the Germans depicted "Winter" in their beliefs as a female deity or spirit (one might begin from [[Frau_Holle|here]]).


I have neither wish, nor time to consider all such current and future "improvements" (a lot of time we've spent solving the question with the VRTS-ticket itself). I only hope to avoid such "waste" of time and strength in the future — either he isn't allowed to undo or change my poetic translations without my own consent and our consideration, or I stop my further like work. --[[User:Tamtam90|Tamtam90]] ([[User talk:Tamtam90|talk]]) 15:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
This was said and meant.
:@[[User:Tamtam90|Tamtam90]] I have posted an ANI notice on Michael's talk page. Please leave the notice on users' talk page when starting a discussion on ANI next time. [[User:YesI'mOnFire|🔥<span style="color:red">'''Yes'''</span><span style="color:orangered">'''I'mOnFire'''</span>🔥]]<sup>([[User talk:YesI'mOnFire|<span style="color:#00008B">ContainThis</span><span style="color:red">'''Ember?'''</span>]])</sup> 15:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Tamtam90}}, anything on Wikipedia can be changed at any time by any editor. If it is not acceptable for you to have your translations modified by others, I suggest you not use them. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 16:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::: I translated and published my translations in Wikisource, as professional ethnographer. You don't explain the situation, nor the edits of your "protégé": merely reverted my (author's) edits without any consideration. Why not to "change" or "revert" [https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0/%D0%A2%D0%BE%D0%BC_1 all my edits] in Wikisource as well? Please, try it. Or your admin flag doesn't admit such a trick?--[[User:Tamtam90|Tamtam90]] ([[User talk:Tamtam90|talk]]) 16:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::That's a needlessly hostile attitude to take.
::::Of note, your status as a professional ethnographer does not mean your edits are above reproach. Other people may disagree with your translation, that's normal. You do not [[WP:OWN|own]] edits here, so changes to your edits may happen. If that means you "stop <your> further work," then so be it. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Please try to stick to [[WP:CIVILITY]] and avoid casting [[WP:ASPERSIONS|ASPERSIONS]], like baselessly implying that one user is an admin's "protégé". [[User:NewBorders|NewBorders]] ([[User talk:NewBorders|talk]]) 17:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Willing to give some grace to potential second language and things not coming through as intended @[[User:Tamtam90|Tamtam90]] but {{tq|either he isn't allowed to undo or change my poetic translations without my own consent and our consideration, or I stop my further like work.}} falls afoul of edit warring, [[WP:OWN|ownership]]. [[WP:EXPERT]] will be a helpful read, but right now you're closer to a block from mainspace than @[[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] is if you don't re-assess your conduct. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 17:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: Dear friends, I published all my translations before on an "outer" site, not here, though I granted with VRTS all rights to use them — without changing — to the community. That's, to say — publish and reproduce them, not to change in any possible manner and without any consideration. Maybe, I missed, but I haven't found such "conditions" (to change one's works in any possible manner) in [[Creative_Commons_license|these rules]]. --[[User:Tamtam90|Tamtam90]] ([[User talk:Tamtam90|talk]]) 23:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.}} Now, if you want to remove your translations, probably nobody will replace them. But you have no more say in edits going forward than anyone else does. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 23:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::If you publish ''anything'' on Wikipedia, anyone can edit it, in anyway. Full stop. You ''explicitly'' cannot license contributions to be unalterable. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::: Original work is original work. Once [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page accepted] from an outer source, it cannot be changed and posed as '''original''' by anyone. The [[Wenn_ich_ein_Vöglein_wär#Words and melody|third column]] seems to be a healthy solution (for each acceptable derivative, as well) — it's a pity that the opponent doesn't follow [[Talk:Wenn_ich_ein_Vöglein_wär|his own decision and way]] anymore. --[[User:Tamtam90|Tamtam90]] ([[User talk:Tamtam90|talk]]) 08:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::: No, I don't publish ''anything'' on Wikipedia, I republish here the texts added to Wikisource. That rule doesn't apply to any authentic translations previously published outside (one may create some derivatives, but not change with them the original). --[[User:Tamtam90|Tamtam90]] ([[User talk:Tamtam90|talk]]) 08:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::: The button you hit was "Publish changes", so yes, you published it here under cc-by-sa 4.0. I really think you're setting yourself up for a minor disaster by not understanding what the license you're using means. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 14:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::: If you post anything on Wikipedia, you have, in fact, published it. And once you have posted/published it here, ''anyone can change it in any way for any reason at any time''. It can be changed, and saying it "cannot be changed" is a violation of Wikipedia's licensing. If you don't want your content edited by others, don't post it here. It's as simple as that. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 18:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::: According to your claim, one may change here any text loaded on Wikisource, still labelling that as '''original''' (from the Bible or some historical chronicles, from a traveller's notes and so on). However, holding the authorship (demanded by any CC licence), such an ''editor'' would violate the very bases of Creative Commons' spirit: who would share freely their works knowing that the latter might be changed at any time and by anyone and still published under their own names? (Under the authors, I mean here not only writers, but scientists, artists, and other professionals as well). There's a clear border between the original and its ''derivatives''. --[[User:Tamtam90|Tamtam90]] ([[User talk:Tamtam90|talk]]) 08:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I think the issue has been poorly explained. The articles in question contain translations that are cited at Wikisource. Changing the translation then results in a false citation. I think it is important to separate the Wikipedia article and the translation document on Wikisource. The wikipedia article can be edited, the wikisource translation should stay intact. The policy question, is how can Wikipedia editors use the Wikisource translation and how do they cite it? Wikisource surely has their own policies. [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 09:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::: An additional column might be a healthy solution. That's not "a one-hit wonder": such approach does work in some pages on the folk songs: [[The Song of the Volga Boatmen]], [[Kalinka (1860 song)]], [[Arirang]], and other related articles. --[[User:Tamtam90|Tamtam90]] ([[User talk:Tamtam90|talk]]) 09:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::: About "minor disasters": the above-mentioned user undid or "cleant" my changes in three of the last four articles: [[Das Todaustreiben]], <s>[[Wiegenlied (Des Knaben Wunderhorn)]]</s>, [[Es kam ein Herr zum Schlößli]], [[Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär]]. How many new contributors, in your opinion, would withstand such "attention"? I'm not a "newb" in Wikipedia, though I have a sense of some [[Wikipedia:Harassment|prejudice]] (maybe, implicit). --[[User:Tamtam90|Tamtam90]] ([[User talk:Tamtam90|talk]]) 09:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::An inspection of the edit history of 3 of these 4 articles shows that my edits were substantial improvements; I never touched the 4th, "Wiegenlied" (Des Knaben Wunderhorn). All my edits are intended to collegially improve Wikipedia; I don't think I've ever been accused of prejudice or harassment, and I reject that characterisation. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 10:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::: Sorry, three. Yes, and certain your improvements made some admins from Wikipedia and Wikisource to intervene, to solve the previous conflict ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2024/December#Song_lyrics_translations 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Tamtam90&action=history 2]) --[[User:Tamtam90|Tamtam90]] ([[User talk:Tamtam90|talk]]) 11:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{od|6}} This is not the place to settle the underlying content disputes, and I was going to confine my comments to the relevant article talk pages, but I have looked at the articles in question, and I want to weigh in briefly in support of {{u|Michael Bednarek}}, who was right to point out the problems with the "translations" that the OP added to these articles. Some of them are pretty dreadful, to be honest, and they reveal a shaky understanding of both German and English. In the OP's version of [[Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär]], to give just one example, the third stanza bears no relationship to the meaning of the German original and is only barely intelligible in English, and putting it into a different column and labeling it "poetic" doesn't change that. There are two questions here: (1) Should the poems written by the OP and self-published on Wikisource be reproduced as written if they are quoted on Wikipedia; and (2) Should these poems, given their inaccuracies and other shortcomings, be cited or reproduced in Wikipedia articles as reliable translations of the original texts? The answer to the first question is yes, I think: if they are treated as "published" versions and provided with Wikisource citations, they should be probably be used unchanged (as pointed out above by Tinynanorobots). But the answer to the second question is, in my opinion, a firm no: if the OP will not allow the errors to be corrected, then his versions should not be used at all. The author is free to publish and promote his own poems wherever he likes, but he should not be inserting them into Wikipedia articles and fighting to retain them when other editors have pointed out that they misrepresent the original texts, and he should certainly not be dragging those editors to ANI on spurious charges of vandalism and disruptive editing. [[User:Crawdad Blues|Crawdad Blues]] ([[User talk:Crawdad Blues|talk]]) 17:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Strongly agreed on both points. The translation of [[Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär]] turns a poem about someone who wishes they were a bird so that they could fly to their love but cannot, into a poem about someone who once was a bird and is now unable to vomit. [[User:Furius|Furius]] ([[User talk:Furius|talk]]) 17:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The last comment doesn't need any reply: I only hope its author had no chance to translate anything from medieval poetry. About the second question posed by {{u|Crawdad Blues}}: 1) What do you mean under the "errors"? If you mean the so-called "anachronisms" — that's quite normal, to translate them in a proper way. Note, that all (or almost all) songs of that [[Des Knaben Wunderhorn|collection]] have been recorded '''before''' 19-th century, and many of them belong to the folklore of the [[Middle Ages]]. If you mean "word for word" translation — that's impossible for "poetical translation" (you might ask any poet-translator). That's why one may add the third column, for "word for word" translation.--[[User:Tamtam90|Tamtam90]] ([[User talk:Tamtam90|talk]]) 20:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::To {{u|Michael Bednarek}}. You began publicly blame me for my "inaccuracies" and "anachronisms". But what about your own mistakes (assuming that your goal was "word-to-word" translation, not rhyme and [[Metre (poetry)|metre]])? In [[Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär]], you translated: {{Blockquote
|text=Bin ich gleich weit von dir, bin ich doch im Schlaf bei dir}}
:::::::as {{Blockquote|text=Though I am far from you, I'm with you as I sleep}}
:::::::instead of {{Blockquote|text=Whether I am far from you, Or I am near you while asleep}}?
::::::::{{Blockquote|text=viel tausendmal}}
::::::::as {{Blockquote|text=a thousand times}}
:::::::::instead of {{Blockquote|text=many thousand times}}?
:::::::::And once again about some possible "harassment": if your wish is only "to collegially improve Wikipedia", why, right after the first our conflict, you again started to hunt after some "mistakes" and "shortages" in the next article created by me, though other songs from the collection still wait [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie:Des_Knaben_Wunderhorn their translators] (I mean only existing articles and only from the German Wikipedia, compare with those from the [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Категория:Песни_из_сборника_«Волшебный_рог_мальчика» sister project]).--[[User:Tamtam90|Tamtam90]] ([[User talk:Tamtam90|talk]]) 20:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Since these translations are cited to Wikisource under the author's name, altering them without the use of [square brackets] is misquoting (violates [[WP:V]]) and might be a copyright issue.
::::::::However, I also share Crawdad's and Furius's concerns about the accuracy of these translations. Of the two examples listed directly above as erroneous corrections, in the first case "Though I am far from you, I'm with you as I sleep" is in fact a more accurate translation, while in the second case I agree that "many thousand times" is more accurate.
:::::::::: I've rewritten the first sample, trying to make it more exact. Compare with [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/entweder entweder... oder...]. --[[User:Tamtam90|Tamtam90]] ([[User talk:Tamtam90|talk]]) 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::There is also a limit to how much leeway a poetic translation gets; translating "bleib ich allhier" as "I cannot heave"(?!) when the metrically and rhyme-wise equivalent "I cannot leave" is available is way outside those limits. But that's a content issue, not a conduct issue. [[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">'''Toadspike'''</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">[Talk]</span>]] 20:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I think the two salient points have been made clear: 1) if we are directly quoting a translation from Wikisource, then that quotation cannot be "improved" through editing here; 2) if that translation is perceived as being substandard, then there is no reason why we should be forced to use it - this is not a cite from the Authoritative Translations of German Poetry, but Some Random Dude's Private Effort (no offense).
:::::::::Hence, in the cases noted, if there is consensus that it does not do a good job, either remove the translation; provide a literal but more accurate new translation; or provide an altered version that is clearly labeled as being ''based'' on the Wikisource text. - In my opinion, parts of the translation are fine (e.g. the female rendering of winter is actually not an unsuitable touch, even if decidedly "poetical"), some rather less so (although "heave" is a typo for "leave" - right? right?). Fixing up those bits with the help of other contributors might provide good results. I hope Tamtam90 would be sensible enough to not fight tooth and claw against such an effort. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 08:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::{{u|Elmidae}}, thanks for some support. Without an additional pronoun ('myself'), 'leave' would be a better choice. As for the gender, I already mentioned — that's not a "poetical whimsy": so depicted the Winter the Germans and their neighbours (the Slavs): [[Skaði|1]], [[Morana_(goddess)|2]].--[[User:Tamtam90|Tamtam90]] ([[User talk:Tamtam90|talk]]) 12:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The text itself uses masculine gender, so very clearly at the time the poem was written, they didn't, or at the very least the author did not intend that depiction. Whatever - this stuff is for discussion on the article talk page. What needs to be cleared up here is whether you are going to continue to obstruct all attempts to alter the translations according to consensus, because that is going to be a problem. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 13:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Since there is general agreement that decisions about the use of these translations should be discussed on the article talk pages, I will note here that I have removed the disputed translation from [[Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär]], leaving in place the more literal version, which seems to me a better choice for an encyclopedia article. I've explained my reasoning on the talk page; other comments are welcome there. [[User:Crawdad Blues|Crawdad Blues]] ([[User talk:Crawdad Blues|talk]]) 18:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I'm already pointed at two wrong translations of my opponent. Instead, without any further discussion, you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wenn_ich_ein_V%C3%B6glein_w%C3%A4r&diff=1266211736&oldid=1257579305 removed] my "poetic" version and left his "text" (without proper rhyme and metre, though still with some mistakes). Is that a way of how-to-use talk pages in en-wikipedia? --[[User:Tamtam90|Tamtam90]] ([[User talk:Tamtam90|talk]]) 15:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::No one here is your opponent. Though you are doing a good job demonstrating that you cannot work collaboratively with others. [[User:Insanityclown1|Insanityclown1]] ([[User talk:Insanityclown1|talk]]) 05:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Of the two "wrong translations" you point out above, the first is not wrong at all. (The adverb ''doch'' in the second clause shows that the construction is "although X, nevertheless Y"; your "whether ... or" translation is impossible.) Your second suggestion, however, has already been accepted and added to the article. Another editor saw your comment, agreed with it, and made the change. This is how collaborative editing works: sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you don't. I explained my reasons for removing your translation from [[Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär]] on the article talk page. If you can come up with a compelling argument why it should remain in the article, someone else will probably restore it. The place to do that is the talk page. [[User:Crawdad Blues|Crawdad Blues]] ([[User talk:Crawdad Blues|talk]]) 14:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


== Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from [[User:DarwIn]] ==
I give this to you to show where I stand.
[[User:DarwIn]], a known transphobic editor from pt.wiki, is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Thamirys_Nunes&curid=78744356&action=history harassing me here] after his actions led me to leave that wiki permanently. He has also harassed me on Wikimedia Commons. I don't know what to do anymore. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace. This is severely impacting my mental health. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User:Skyshifter|<span style="color:#6E41B5;">Skyshifter</span>]]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User talk:Skyshifter|<span style="color:white"><small>talk</small></span>]]</span> 13:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:You don't seem to have notified the other editor. This is mandatory and this section may be closed if you fail to do so. Use <nowiki>{{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~</nowiki> on that user's talk page. Additionally, you don't seem to have provided specific diffs demonstrating harassment. Please do so. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 13:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::On pt.wiki, DarwIn proposed the deletion of articles I created about transgender topics ([https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:P%C3%A1ginas_para_eliminar/Thamirys_Nunes Thamirys Nunes] and [https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:P%C3%A1ginas_para_eliminar/Minha_Crian%C3%A7a_Trans Minha Criança Trans]), using transphobic arguments, including misgendering and questioning the validity of transgender children. After translating these articles to en.wiki, he is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Thamirys_Nunes&curid=78744356&action=history targeting the DYK nomination], again focusing on his personal transphobic beliefs - as it shows, he doesn't even know how DYK works. He insisted multiple times trying to include his transphobic comment on that page and has just edited it again. On Commons, for extra context, DarwIn unilaterally deleted images related to these articles, despite being clearly involved in the dispute.
::Again, I just want to collaborate with trans topics in peace. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User:Skyshifter|<span style="color:#6E41B5;">Skyshifter</span>]]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User talk:Skyshifter|<span style="color:white"><small>talk</small></span>]]</span> 13:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::We can't help you with pt.wikipedia.org or with commons, only with en.wikipedia.org. Please provide specific diffs for en.wikipedia.org. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 13:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes. However, context is important. This is harassment that began on pt.wiki, has spread to Commons, and is now here. The history has been provided, but, sure, I can provide the diffs instead. He has unilaterally [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Thamirys_Nunes&diff=prev&oldid=1265793538 edited the DYK page] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Thamirys_Nunes&diff=prev&oldid=1265801153 put a "disagree"], despite this being not how DYK works. This is because he really doesn't know, as he only sporadically edits here and only came back to harass me. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Thamirys_Nunes&diff=prev&oldid=1265801153 His comment] is explicitly transphobic and doesn't focus on the article itself at all. After his comment was reverted by me, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Thamirys_Nunes&diff=next&oldid=1265801413 he insisted] saying that I shouldn't call it transphobia, despite it being transphobia. After being reverted again, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADid_you_know_nominations%2FThamirys_Nunes&diff=1265806661&oldid=1265804383 he reincluded the comment]. I asked him to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Thamirys_Nunes&diff=prev&oldid=1265807606 stop harassing me], but [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Thamirys_Nunes&diff=prev&oldid=1265962791 he has edited the page again].
::::I just don't want to be targeted by that editor here. I've left pt.wiki in great part for that reason. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace here. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User:Skyshifter|<span style="color:#6E41B5;">Skyshifter</span>]]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User talk:Skyshifter|<span style="color:white"><small>talk</small></span>]]</span> 13:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Looks like yet another cross-wiki troll by this user. Already [https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Administra%C3%A7%C3%A3o_de_contas_globais/Skyshifter blocked at the Portuguese Wikipédia and Wikimedia Commons], the account is now promoting their POV here, including spreading lies, hideous slurs and baseless accusations against me like "known transphobic", after two of their creations were taken to community evaluation at the Portuguese Wikipedia for lacking notability. The user is also a known sockpuppeter, [https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Pedidos_a_verificadores/Caso/Skyshifter#29_dezembro_2024 with an open case for sockpuppetry] at the Portuguese Wikipédia. In any case, I'm not interested in pursuing this case in yet another project apart from the strictly needed, so do as you please.[[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 13:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have been blocked on the Portuguese Wikipedia for contesting that transphobia was called "valid criticism" on ANI and on Commons for literally nothing. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User:Skyshifter|<span style="color:#6E41B5;">Skyshifter</span>]]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User talk:Skyshifter|<span style="color:white"><small>talk</small></span>]]</span> 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Questioning a women that declared her 4 year old son as trangender after he refused to play with cars and Marvel puppets and preferred what his mother calls "girl stuff" doesn't fit in any reasonable definition of transphobia, a word which [https://pt.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Pedidos/Notifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o_de_incidentes&diff=prev&oldid=69252035 you are well known for abusing] whenever anyone criticizes you at the Portuguese Wikipedia and elsewhere. In any case, I don't think this is the place for this discussion, so this will be my last direct answer to you you'll see in this board. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::And here's explicit transphobia. It's her '''daughter''', no matter how much you hate the idea of trans children existing. The story you've told is also completely distorted. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User:Skyshifter|<span style="color:#6E41B5;">Skyshifter</span>]]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User talk:Skyshifter|<span style="color:white"><small>talk</small></span>]]</span> 13:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' I simply don't want this editor targeting me with transphobic stuff here after he target me on pt.wiki (and left it permanently in great part for that reason) and Commons. I am considering taking medication because of these events. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User:Skyshifter|<span style="color:#6E41B5;">Skyshifter</span>]]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User talk:Skyshifter|<span style="color:white"><small>talk</small></span>]]</span> 13:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
On another matter concerning the article Nephilim, which started everything.
*:*'''Comment''' I would suggest Darwin review [[MOS:GENDERID]]. If the child uses she/her pronouns we should not be referring to her with he/him pronouns. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:@[[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] I would suggest you to recall we ate talking about a 4 year child whose social gender was chosen by their mother after the child refused to play with what she calls "boy toys", such as toy cars and Marvel puppets. If that's not enough that this kind of gender prejudice was already abhorrent and condemned even in the generation of my babyboomer parents, one of the first things we teached as LGBT activists in the 1990s was that our parents don't own us nor our sexuality or our gender. So please let's refrain from doing that kind of suggestions when what is in question is the gender identity of a 4 year old attributed by their mother. Ok? [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 15:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::@[[User:DarwIn|DarwIn]], the bottom line is that ''you don't get to question that.'' As a complete stranger to that child you have no right to do so, plus this is '''not''' the place to even enter into that discussion. How does complete strangers on the internet talking about a child's gender do them ''any'' good? This isn't the place anyway so please just follow guidelines, which have been put in place for a good reason. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 15:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::I questioned the mother, not the child. I've no idea why we are discussing this here, anyway. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 15:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::We're here because this "questioning" appears to be bleeding into transphobic harassment. I would support an indef based on edits like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Thamirys_Nunes&diff=prev&oldid=1265801153] [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:The story told above is completely distorted to fit the transphobic's narrative. Simon223, if you want to get the full story, read [[Thamirys Nunes]]' page or read its sources (with the help of a translator if needed). <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User:Skyshifter|<span style="color:#6E41B5;">Skyshifter</span>]]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User talk:Skyshifter|<span style="color:white"><small>talk</small></span>]]</span> 15:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::I would like to suggest we follow MOS regardless of people's personal opinion of early childhood gender expression. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::Rephrase that as mothers opinions on their 4 year old baby gender expression. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 15:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::Darwin - I suggest you drop whatever agenda you have, treat other editors with respect, and comply with our MOS (including [[MOS:GENDERID]]) - otherwise you will be blocked. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 15:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::::Sure, if in this Wikipedia the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Wikipedia community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 16:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::::Just so everyone knows, the facts are being quite distorted here. It wasn't really an imposition — her daughter, did not want to play with "boy toys", even when being forced by her mom. That's why the mom said she plays with "girl toys" and everything else. The references on said articles weren't thoroughly read, apparently by everybody here.
*:*::::::Adding to this too: DarwIn, in some edits to the article in the Portuguese Wikipedia, added "quotes" on the word trans and some other parts of the articly, as if was his duty to judge if the girl is trans or not. Anyways, I think what happened in ptwiki stays there.
*:*::::::And I want to make clear that I'm only stating the things that happened so everyone knows. I do not support blocking him. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Eduardo Gottert|<b><u>Eduardo <span style="color:#000000">G.</span></u></b>]]<sup><i><b>[[User_talk:Edu22213|msg]]-[[Special:Contributions/Edu22213|contrib]]</b></i></sup></span> 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::Four year olds are generally not considered babies. You really need to drop this - and probably to avoid editing in the [[WP:GENSEX]] area.[[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::::I would suggest a '''topic ban''' is imposed. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::::I would '''support''' a topic ban from [[WP:GENSEX]]. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::::::Given that much of what they've been saying is about living people I think we would need to expand this to at least cover all other BLPs until such a time as they have demonstrated that they actually understand that the BLP policy applies to non-article spaces on wiki as well as articles. Overall this seems more like NOTHERE than something which a topic ban can remedy. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::::::Topic ban from GENSEX and BLP, broadly construed, is fine for me. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::::::I do understand this Wikipedia rules on BLP. Isn't that not enough for you? [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 16:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::::::::Given your comments here and at DYK, you clearly do not. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::::::::You seem to have missed the part when I very clearly stated there that I retired myself from that DYN debate. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::::@[[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] nice try, but I don't edit on that topic, anyway. Let's calm down and enjoy the Christmas season. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::::::This is the opposite of the attitude you need to adopt if you want to remain an editor in good standing. Remeber if you didn't edit on that topic we wouldn't be having this discussion, we're here because of edits you made in that topic area. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::::::Then get your facts right, as I never edited any biography on that topic here, at least that I can recall. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::::::::You fundementally misunderstand the scope of [[WP:BLP]] and the concept of topic area as well. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::::::::Look, I'm at a family gathering and I really have nor time nor patience for this kind of endless debates, specially on culture wars topics. I've already retired from DYN yesterday but you seem to insist on pursuing this kind of Salem witch hunting here, but really, I'll not be anymore part of that. Roger and over, happy new year. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::::::::::I think you may be getting different editors confused, I was not a participant at DYN. I did not pursue you to here. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::::::::::it was a collective you. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 16:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::::::::::::The collective you did not pursue you here either. Only the OP appears to cross over. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*:::::I noticed this yesterday but intentionally didn't mention it since I felt there had already been enough nonsense. But since DarwIn is still defending their offensive comments below, I'd note that the child was 4 years old in 2019. It's now 2024 and they've evidentally seen a medical professional. If at any time they express a desire for a different gender identity we will of course respect that whatever her mother says; but at this time BLP full supports respecting a 8-9 year old and not treating her as a baby. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 22:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*::::::None of this is relevant. We follow sources and [[MOS:GENDERID]]. There is obviously no Wikipedia position on when someone is or is not a "baby" and should have their self-identification reproduced in their biography. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 12:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:They cannot be trusted. Above they said "I'm retiring myself from this topic" and yet has continued to post. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::I've continued to post where? [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:I've already walked away from it yesterday, why you're insisting on that lie? [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 16:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::You are continuing to post here, ergo you have not "walked away" from it, have you? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:DarwIn|DarwIn]] The issue here is not whether you are right or wrong. The issue here is that you are violating a community guideline. That's it. Either you stop or you will end up getting blocked. I have [[User:Ad Orientem#Things I (probably) Won't Do|my own disagreements with that guideline]], and as a consequence I simply stay far away from those articles or discussions. You should too. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::How can I get out of this endless cycle, if each time you ask me to stop and I say I already stopped yesterday, you came back chastising me for having answered again? That's not fair. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Simply post a note at the bottom of the discussion stating that given your respectful disagreement with parts of MOS:GENDERID that you will voluntarily avoid any articles or discussions where that is, or may become, an issue. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Which discussion are you talking about? Now I'm confused. Can't you be more clear? [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:DarwIn|DarwIn]] This one. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 17:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] I've already done it, but you keep writing below it, so it's not in the bottom anymore. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 17:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:DarwIn|DarwIn]] Easiest way to defuse this is to post a '''bolded''' and outdented statement at the very bottom of the this discussion stating you understand MOSGENDERID and will avoid pages or discussions where it may become an issue, and that you will avoid as far as possible, interacting with Skyshifter. If there are other issues here, I have no comment on those. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 17:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Sure, here it goes again: "if in this Wikipedia the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Wikipedia community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so" [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::That is not an appropriate statement, it has your bias/agenda throughout it. Very concerning. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
* Heres the main point I can see RE "Cross-wiki harassment." If DarwIn claims they do not regularly edit this topic space and had not previously participated in DYK discussions how did they come to find themselves there just in time to oppose the contribution of an editor they had extensive negative interactions with on another wiki? [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:that's old stuff, I already posted a note there retiring from that space yesterday. I'm really puzzled on what all this fuss is about. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::This isn't about the transphobia, this is about the harassment (they are seperate by apparently related claims). So how did you find yourself commenting on that DYK? [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I expressed my disagreement with that note, justifying with my opinion, and there's not even any misgendering issue there, AFAIK. Not sure if expressing that opinion here is forbidden or not, but in any case I've posted a note retiring from it already yesterday, so I've no idea what more do you want. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 16:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::And how did you become aware that there was something to disagree with? [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::precisely because we are currently in the process of evaluating the notability of that bio and association she created at the Portuguese Wikipedia, so it's just natural that related issues on other wikis get monitored too, that's part of the process. You don't agree with that evaluation, and that's perfectly OK. To each Wikipedia their own stuff 🤷 [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 16:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Please link the diff from portuguese wiki where the DYK for this wiki came up. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::it's the wikipedia articles created yesterday that we are evaluating, not any kind of DYK note. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 17:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::How is this a related issue then? It sure looks like you followed this particular user around [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::@[[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] no, I followed the articles, as they were also created here yesterday. Is that so hard to understand? [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 17:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Because of edits like this [https://commons.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skyshifter&diff=prev&oldid=976747356]. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::answering an accusation of being a dictator after flushing away the copyviios she uploaded. What's the problem? [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 17:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::No, that diff is the undo. Thats you edit warring apparent harassment onto someone's talk page on another wiki with a kissing face as the edit summary... In that context this does look like cross wiki harassment. Do you have a better explanation? [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Just answered the troll there with another, as I was on the middle of something else. Yes, I know, not the nicest thing to do, but whatever. And why are we discussing Commons here now, anyway? [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 17:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::We're discussing cross wiki harassment, that makes edits on any wiki relevant to the discussion. You appear to have been harassing them on commons and then followed them here to continue the harassment because a temporary block there (which you appear to have had a hand in) prevented them from being active there. You absolutely can not do that. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::I ''answered'' a troll, if there was any harassment was from that account towards me, not the opposite. Please don't invert the situation. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 17:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::Your edits on enwiki had nothing to do with trolling or other behavioral issues from that account, if your edits on enwiki were to address valid concerns informed by your experience on other wikis we would not be having this discussion. It was also you restoring your comment which they removed from their talk page, thats you trolling them and it makes their dictator claim look not like trolling but rather accurate. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::I confess I've no idea why we are still having this discussion, as they were just that. But for the 50th time, these interactions have stopped long ago, and for a similar amount of time I've devotedly accepted and committed to all your rules. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 18:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::In my opinion we're still having this discussion because you are stonewalling, perhaps its a language barrier but you don't come off as trustworthy or engaging in good faith. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


I believe it may help too, if Darwin will promise to avoid interacting on main space with Skyshifter. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The verse in the article stated: "When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” '''The Nephilim were on the earth in those days'''—and also afterward—'''when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans''', who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, New Revised Standard Version"


:Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Not that I ever interacted with her there AFAIK, anyway.[[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
This verse is given as reference for a quote in the article that states: "'''The Nephilim''' /ˈnɛfɪˌlɪm/ (Hebrew: נְפִילִים‎) '''were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men'''" before the Deluge, '''according to Genesis 6:1-4 of the Bible'''." (again embolden by me to bring attention to areas).
:I think Darwin should avoid interacting with Skyshifter on all spaces on en.wikipedia.org. It's clear Darwin has made Skyshifter feel uncomfortable, and I don't appreciate it.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 17:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Isaidnoway|Isaidnoway]] I absolutely agree with that, I'm not doing any sort of interaction with that account anymore. I'm still answering here because you keep mentioning me. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 17:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Since you "absolutely agree", then I will take your comment here as acknowledging a voluntary [[WP:IBAN|one-way interaction ban]], broadly construed, as in effect.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 18:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Isaidnoway|Isaidnoway]] yes, that's correct. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
* I think a one-way interaction ban between the editors would be for the best here. While I think there is some merit to a Gender and Sexuality tban, as some of Darwin's recent edits appear to be about [[WP:RGW|righting great wrongs]] in the topic area, I believe the interaction ban would solve most of the issues raised here. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]]</sup></small> 17:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:which "edits"? The 1 or 2 comments in the DYK section? [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 18:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::All your edits related to the subject, both here and on the Portuguese Wikipedia. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]]</sup></small> 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] You're evaluating my edits on the Portuguese Wikipedia to punish me ''in the English Wikipedia?'' [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 19:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::When there is cross-wiki harassment, then yes, your activity on other wikis is relevant. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::@[[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] Can you explain how my general edit history in wiki.pt is relevant in any way to an accusation of cross-wiki harassment? [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 23:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


Would recommend that Darwin ''walk away'' from the general topic. This would avoid any need for topic bans. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I ask how can this statement be true, when the verse states that the nephilim '''were''' already on the earth by the verse, when the offspring was born? So, if the nephilim was not the offspring by the verse, then how can the statement given be accurate and true?


;Clarification
Again, I state, it is up to you staff to consider the matter and act on it, or not, Just don't contact me expecting a response on the matter, for I have said all I am going to say on the matter. It is up you to deal with it, or not.
*Hello @[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] - and others. Please recall that my opinion was specifically over the declaration of the child gender by her mother at or before her 4th birthday, by her mother own account based on classical gender stereotypes. It's specifically about that. I've no way to know what gender the child is or will eventually be in the future, and gladly accept whatever she chooses - as I would if she was my own child. I've eventually been harsher than needed in the DYK comment because that specific situation where a minor is extensively exposed with full name, photographs, etc. by her parents on social networks, newspapers and whatelse is generally condemned in [[Portugal|my country]], to the point of eventually [https://expresso.pt/podcasts/justica-sem-codigos/2022-11-24-Exposicao-das-criancas-nas-redes-sociais.-Os-crimes-os-perigos-e-a-responsabilidade-dos-pais-9ed51c00 configuring a crime] here. Obviously Wikipedia has nothing to do with that when it comes to the spread of information, but in my view - obviously wrong, from the general reaction here - exposing the child in yet another place, let alone wiki.en main page, was a bit too much.
*As for misgendering, I am one of the founders and former board member of [[:pt:Associação ILGA Portugal|ILGA Portugal]], which after 30 years still is the main LGBT association in Portugal, though not an active member for many years for moving away from Lisbon, where it's headquartered. For more than 30 years I've been on the fight against homophobia and transphobia, not specially in Wikipedia, but on the streets, where it was needed in the 1990s here in Portugal, when the whole LGBT thing was just starting and most people couldn't even tell the difference between a drag queen and a trangender woman. I was beaten up, lost my 2 front teeth on homo/transphobic street fights (the first one at 18 years old, for publicly defending from booers in the audience a trangender girl which was acting at a local bar )- and whatelse. I never had even the least impulse to misgender any of the many trangender people that always have been around me, and the few situations where that may have happened were online with people that I knew for years as being one gender, and took a while to sink they are another, because online there's not the ever helping visual clue. So it's kind of disheartening to be treated like this in a strange place by people I don't know just because I expressed an (harsh, agreed) opinion defending the age of consent for children, and condemning their parents interference on that.
*The TBan is not very relevant for me, as I seldom edit here and despite the activism of my past days LGBT is not my primary interest on Wikipedia, but I'm considerably saddened by the misunderstandings, bad faith assumptions, false accusations that have been told here about me, though eventually the flaw is not in the whole group that has their own rules and culture, but in the newcomer which don't understand it well in all its nuances, as was my case here.
*Finally, as the misunderstandings continue, I never came here after Skyshifter, which as is public and she knows, I've always considered a good editor and helped several times with articles and what else (which is also why I felt confident to answer with a 😘 when she called me a dictator in another project, though it was obviously not the most appropriate way to answer it, and for which I apologize to Skyshifter). In this last row I wasn't even directly involved in her indefinite block in wiki.pt, despite being mentioned there. I didn't even touched the articles she created here on [[Thamirys Nunes]] and [[Minha Criança Trans]] or addressed she here in any way. I came here because of the DYK note, which, as said above, I thought was an exaggerated exposition for that case here on the English Wikipedia. As you extensively demonstrated here, it is not, and I defer to your appreciation. Despite that, after this whole situation I've not the least interest on interacting in any possible way with Skyshifter, with or without IBan.
*And that's it. Hopefully you'll excuse my verbosity, specially in such a festive day, but I felt this last clarification was needed. I also present my apologies to all those who may have felt offended by an eventual appearance of cockiness or defiance which I inadvertently sometimes transmit in my speech. I'll return here if specifically asked to, otherwise I'll leave the debate for this community. Again, stay well, and have an happy new year. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 17:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


===Proposed Community Sanctions===
I would not have even stated all this that went on after I made an edit that was deleted had I not got a message that required a response. It would have ended at the edit.<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.253.207.96|24.253.207.96]] ([[User talk:24.253.207.96#top|talk]]) 15:46, 4 September 2017‎</small>
I offered DarwIn an off ramp above and their response was to reiterate their views on a highly controversial subject and their responses to concerns about their interactions with Skyshifter have been entirely unsatisfactory. This looks a like a pretty clear case of IDHT revolving around their strong disagreement with one of our guidelines. Frankly, I came very close to just blocking them after their response to my suggestion. This discussion has already dragged on long enough. For purposes of clarity, nobody is required to agree with all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And yes, gender is a highly controversial subject. I have my own disagreements with parts of MOS:GENDERID. But as the old saying goes, themz the rules until they aint. Editors are free to disagree with community P&G, but are not free to ignore or flout them. It's time to settle this.


'''Proposed''' DarwIn is topic banned from all pages and discussions relating to [[WP:GENSEX]] broadly construed and is subject to a one way IBan with user Skyshifter, also broadly construed. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Just to clarify -- are you saying that you stand by the comments you have made in the diffs above, such as referring to other users as "scum," "control freaks," "liars," and comparing an edit to a rape? Your defense that you simply want to be left alone is belied by the continued posting of personal attacks on other users' talk pages, even after repeatedly being warned not to do so, starting over one month ago. And as for the business of the Nephilim, this is not the right forum for discussing content disputes -- those should be handled elsewhere, such as on the appropriate talk pages. Here at ANI, we are not discussing whether or not your opinions about the Nephilim are correct; we are discussing an ongoing behavioral issue in violation of [[WP:PERSONAL]]. For our purposes here, whether you are ultimately correct or not about the Nephilim simply isn't relevant. [[User:Alephb|Alephb]] ([[User talk:Alephb|talk]]) 16:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


*'''Support''' -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:I agree with what Alephb said above, adding: civil and proper communication is important on Wikipedia as this is how we form consensus including for content disputes. Accusing other editors of bad motives and of bigotry because they do not agree with a proposed edit (which is usually on policy and reliable sources grounds), is not constructive. —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 16:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
*:I note that Darwin has agreed above to the IBan. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 18:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - He's already agreed to avoid that general topic area in future & Skyshifter. ''PS'' - If a t-ban is imposed? limit it to six-months. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support topic ban and IBAN''', both broadly construed - sorry GoodDay but I do not trust this user's words, and so we need a proper sanction. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 18:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Just read through the above and ''good grief''. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 18:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*I said above I would support this proposal if it was brought forward, and I do. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


*I just came across this thread, and it sure looks to me like the IP is a classic case of [[WP:NOTHERE]]. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:Why it should be a one-way iban? Skyshifter started this topic with the characterization of their opponent as "a known transphobic editor". A normal editor would be blocked just for writing this. I am not sure a iban is needed, but if it is needed it must be mutual. [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 18:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::I agree. [[User:Alephb|Alephb]] ([[User talk:Alephb|talk]]) 01:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
:::That's actually a fair point. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It would be more compelling if DarwIn weren't so committed to misgendering a child out of some apparent [[WP:RGW]] impulse. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. One can disagree with another editor, but outright attacking an editor with statements such as {{tq|You are bigoted..}} and {{tq|you are uneducated}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alephb&diff=prev&oldid=798621954 in this diff] is unwarranted. Furthermore, the IP's claims that {{tq|I hold multiple Masters and Doctorates}} are completely worthless, largely because of [[WP:ESSJAY|the Essjay fiasco]]. [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 01:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] You have been misjudging me - It was [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=1265800812 quite the opposite], actually, if it's worth anything. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::The child, according to the reliable sources I have seen, uses she/her pronouns. Your changing your comments from he/him to they/them does not bring even that one comment in line with our MOS. I am not interested in whether you, in your heart of hearts, are a transphobe. I am concerned that your editing in the [[WP:GENSEX]] area is disruptive in a way that will likely make trans editors less comfortable working in the en.wiki project. As a result I think you should avoid editing in that topic area. Furthermore I think you should leave Skyshifter alone as you have not provided a satisfactory explanation for your participation in the DYK thread. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] OK, I didn't knew the child used those pronouns when she was 4 years old, I commit to use them here if I would ever talk about that issue again (which I definitely will not, anyway). [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 20:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::If they weren't before they are now... [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Ok, to be clear, I '''oppose''' a one-way IB. I do not find this argument convincing. [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 19:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::I agree. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' this seems like a reasonable set of restrictions, I hope they can stick to it [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] I never edited in that topic here, as far as I can remember, not is it a primary interest I have, so it certainly will not be difficult to hold, even if it comes out to me as incredibly unbased and unfair. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 19:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Your edits to DYK were within that topic area. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 19:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] And those were the only ones, and I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Thamirys_Nunes&diff=prev&oldid=1265806230 voluntarily stopped them yesterday] immediately after being reverted. How does that configure the kind of systematic behaviour that would justify a topic ban? I really apologize, but in this moment the way I see this is a kind of Salem witch hunt, with people accusing me of all kind of slurs and abominations, even when they are in directly opposition to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=1265800812 my stance here]. You seem to be punishing me for my opinions and the way I (supposedly) think about a very particular issue (if 4 years old have self determination or not), which comes out to me as really unfair and unworthy of a project like this. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 20:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::How is that in direct opposition to your stance there? Your edit summary says "forgot that English has the neutral pronoun, which is useful in these cases. fixed." which suggests that it is in line with that stance [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::@[[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] I'm sorry, I seem to have missed your point. What is wrong with correcting the gender to a neutral pronoun in such a situation? [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::This edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1265970113] might help you get the point. At this point your conduct on this page is becoming a serious behavioral issue... you can't lie, sealion, obfuscate, and misdirect endlessly without consequences. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::@[[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] I can fix those too as I did yesterday, if you think it's important 🤷🏽‍♂️ [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 20:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::You are not supposed to edit comments after they have been responded to in that way. But by fix do you mean change to "she" or do you mean change to "they"? [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::@[[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] Change to "she", following this wikipedia rules, certainly. So if I can't fix them, what do you propose instead to mend it? [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 20:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Given the sheer quantity of lies and obfuscations from you (the truth is apparently a last resort) the only fix I can see is a formal one, a topic ban and an interaction ban. Up above you so easily went from "I never edited in the topic area" to "those were the only ones" that I don't even think you understand that you were caught in a blatant lie. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::@[[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] There was not any "lie", please stop [[WP:AGF|assuming bad faith]]. I thought you were referring to the main space only, which I believe is a fairly assumption to do, if the used word is "editing". [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 20:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::At best you're saying that you lack the competence on enwiki to adhere to any voluntary restrictions. This will be my last comment unless pinged by an editor other than you, my apologies that this has been an unpleasant process for you. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Darwin has a long history of editing in [[WP:GENSEX]] albeit generally less controversially. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tibira_do_Maranh%C3%A3o&diff=prev&oldid=1250422479 an example]. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::@[[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] That's documented with the sources and all, and the proposition there was that the tupinambá was gay, not a woman. It's not even gender related. So you desperatly want something to justify a TB, bring it on. I'm fed up with what seems to be a circular and nonsense discussion on this board, where whatever I say is a lie and with bad intentions. I don't even edit here in the gender topic, but if it makes you happy, bring it on. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 20:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::DarwIn [[WP:GENSEX]] covers gender ''and'' sexuality. You have been saying you aren't interested in the topic area. It appears to be one of your main areas of interest on en.wiki. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::@[[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] Thanks for clarifying that. Fact is that I don't edit much here. I've occasionally added or fixed some LGBT related stuff in the past when it crossed my main interest, History, but it certainly is not a primary interest, despite being LGBT myself. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 20:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Bushranger. [[User:Queen of Hearts|<span style="color: darkgreen;">charlotte</span>]] [[User talk:Queen of Hearts|<sup>👸🎄</sup>]] 20:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. As GoodDay noted, the problem appears to already be addressed. If the problem persists then go for a sanction. Look we let people argue their point here and it does seem like most of the support is because editors feel Darwin isn't contrite enough, not that they expect the issue to continue. Note that I'm not weighing in on any interaction bans. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 20:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per Springee. This entire issue could have been dropped days ago when DarwIn acknowledged he would walk away, and instead seems to have been needlessly escalated again and again and again. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 20:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Pppery}} days ago? I think you might have misread the time stamps. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 00:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the TBAN; personally I'd have indeffed several outdents sooner, but here we are. No opinion on the IBAN. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 23:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Given what's happened, I think an enforceable topic ban is better than Darwin stepping away. IMO the BLP issues is far more concerning than gensex one so I'd support a BLP topic ban as well, but it seems likely a gensex one would be enough to stop Darwin feeling the continued need to express their opinions on a living person. Since Darwin is going to step away anyway and barely edits en, it should be a moot point and if it's not that's why it's enforceable. As for the iban, while I don't think Skyshifter should have described Darwin in that way when opening this thread, I think we can accept it as a one time mistake under the stress of apparently being followed and given questionable way Darwin ended up in a dispute here with someone they'd had problems with elsewhere I think a one-way iban is justified. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] What " continued need to express their opinions on a living person"? My single-1-single comment in the DYK? [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 23:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::{{replyto|DarwIn}} Demonstrating the problem. You claim you only did it once elsewhere but anyone reading this thread can see you did it here so many times [[#c-DarwIn-20241229133200-Skyshifter-20241229132800]], [[#c-DarwIn-20241229152900-Simonm223-20241229150600]], [[#c-DarwIn-20241229154200-Blue-Sonnet-20241229154000]], [[#c-DarwIn-20241229154100-Simonm223-20241229153800]], [[#c-DarwIn-20241229160700-GiantSnowman-20241229154400]], [[#c-DarwIn-20241229172200-Ad_Orientem-20241229171800]]. I think it represents maybe 1/3 of your comments here (whether counting comments or text). There is absolutely no reason for you to go around expressing your opinions on two different living persons to say you're going to walk away. And if you need to express your opinion on living persons to defend your actions, you clearly have no defence. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 00:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::So let's get this straight. You are proposing a topic ban on me because of the personal opinions on (the eventual lack of) selfdetermination of 4 year old children that I expressed here in this board, despite that my editions related to it were limited to a 1-single-1 comment on that issue on the DYK page? This is really looking like [[thought police]]. I tell you, my personal positions are my personal positions, and I'll not change them to please you, even if if costs me a Topic Ban for barely mentioned them on this project a single time before this topic was opened here.[[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 00:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Holding an opinion ≠ expressing an opinion. Only one of these is causing an issue. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I expressed it only 1-one-1 time here almost 1 day before being recalled here to explain it, and after voluntarily saying in the same page that I would not express it again there. Now I'm being punished for explaining it here too, after being requested to do that? This is insufferable. [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::[[User:DarwIn]], I think at this point, further comments from you will not be helping your case. If this is insufferable (and being summoned to ANI generally is), it might help to step back from this discussion and only respond if editors ask you specific questions. When discussions get this long, often the small benefit from continuing to comment does not outweigh the cost of continued misunderstanding among editors. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup>
*:::::::{{Ping|Liz}} Thank you for the wise advice, I'll be doing that.[[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 03:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::{{reply|DarwIn}} you can think whatever you like about living persons. I have a lot of views on living persons which I would never, ever express on wiki for various reasons including BLP. Also you defence is bullshit. No one ever asked you to make accusations around living persons to defend your actions. And yes it is fairly normal that editors may be sanctioned if they feel they need to do such things about living persons on ANI as part of some silly argument or defence. I recall an editor who was temporarily blocked after they felt the need to say two very very famous extremely public figure living persons (and some non living) were sex predators to prove some point at ANI. And I'm fairly sure a lot of people have said and feel those people are sex predators including some Wikipedians I'd even probably agree in at least one case, they just understand it's not something they should be expressing here. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 23:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::For clarity, what I mean by my last sentence is that I'm sure quite a few people would agree with the statements. I'm sure such statements have been made elsewhere probably even in opinions printed in reliable sources (I think the editor did link to some such opinions). I'm sure even quite a few Wikipedians would agree that one or more of these people are sex predators, I think I'd even agree with it in at least one case. However most of us understand that our personal views of living persons, especially highly negatives views are generally not something to be expressed on wiki except when for some reason it's important enough to the discussion that it's reasonable to say it. When you keep saying something and in the same paragraph acknowledge the English wikipedia doesn't consider your opinion relevant, then it's clear there was no reason for you to say it. You're still free to believe it just as I'm still free to believe all those things about living persons that I would never express on wiki. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 06:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:* '''Support''' - Darwin's replies and conduct here indicates that he simply doesn't get it.
:[[User:MiasmaEternal|<span style="background-color: blue; color:white; padding:3px">'''''MiasmaEternal'''''</span>]][[User_talk:MiasmaEternal|<span style="background-color: black; color: white; padding:3px">☎</span>]] 02:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:* '''Oppose''' - Per GoodDay and Springee. [[User:Ciridae|Ciridae]] ([[User talk:Ciridae|talk]]) 05:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' TBAN per Bushranger. Darwin has already agreed to the 1-way IBAN — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:OwenBlacker|OwenBlacker]]</span> <small>(he/him; [[User talk:OwenBlacker|Talk]])</small></span> 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Given the history at pt.wiki, I think this is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. There should be no interaction between the parties, which Darwin has agreed to.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 14:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The agreed-upon IBAN takes care of the ongoing issue. While the edits related to the child were problematic, this doesn't appear to be case of significantly wider problems in this topic area, and the full scope of [[MOS:GENDERID]] may very well be surprising to editors who don't do much in that area. I don't think there's been near enough here to no longer [[WP:AGF]]. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 15:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


* <s>'''Support''' TBAN/IBAN</s> '''Weak support TBAN/Strong support IBAN''' - [[WP:NQP]] suggests that queerphobia is inherently disruptive. calling a queer activist a "troglodyte"[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Thamirys_Nunes&oldid=1265804636], the previous history of abuse on pt.wikipedia, and the current responses from Darwin indicate [[WP:NOTHERE]] behavior. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 16:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{nacc}} It's perhaps worth noting that the IP appears to be pushing a fringe theory based on his/her unique interpretation of an obscure bible translation. My copy of the JPS Tanakh Gen6:4 has {{tq|It was ''then'', and later too, that the Nephilim ''appeared'' on earth–when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring.}} (emphasis mine) Yes, the NRSV translation (the one contained in the ''New Oxford Annotated Study Bible'', which is used as a textbook in Yale's ''New'' Testament introductory course) actually agrees with the "Pastor Bible" on this point, but [[Christine Hayes]] has specifically referred to the JPS translations as being "more accurate"[http://oyc.yale.edu/transcript/964/rlst-145] than the old RSV. And while I don't doubt that many people holding fringe beliefs about the Book of Genesis hold multiple MAs and PhDs in relevant fields, we must remember how many non-accredited super-conservative evangelical seminaries give out degrees to people who ''don't'' engage in serious critical scholarship of the text. So Blackmane's comment that the IP's claims are "completely worthless" is actually wrong -- if anything, they actually count against the IP. I'm not saying that If the IP was right on the substance their personal remarks would be acceptable, just that not only are their remarks unacceptable but they are ''also'' almost certainly wrong on the substance. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 03:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::This reasoning looks like a case of punishing somebody for political and cultural views rather than behaviour.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Followung editors from wiki to wiki because of transphobic beliefs is disruptive, and creepy. A boy named sue is a transphobic song by the way. [[Special:Contributions/107.115.5.100|107.115.5.100]] ([[User talk:107.115.5.100|talk]]) 17:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Oh dear. Do you think I should have a siteban, or would a TBAN suffice?--[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::If I was named after a joke about misgendering people, I'd avoid defending crosswiki culture warriors worried about misgendering people. You may just really be into Shel Silverstein. [[Special:Contributions/107.115.5.100|107.115.5.100]] ([[User talk:107.115.5.100|talk]]) 19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::"A Boy Named Sue", made famous by Johnny Cash sixty years ago [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSLsfwTbo4Q#t=28m55s], is a transphobic "joke about misgendering people"??? Oh my god, some people need to get out in the real world more. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 23:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you for your valuable input. As always, you have advanced the conversation in a helpful way EEng. [[Special:Contributions/107.115.5.100|107.115.5.100]] ([[User talk:107.115.5.100|talk]]) 00:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::No need to thank me. It's just part of the service. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::OK boomer. [[Special:Contributions/107.115.5.100|107.115.5.100]] ([[User talk:107.115.5.100|talk]]) 01:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Well, you certainly put me in my place with that one. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 21:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I understand. Speaking up for the witch is a sign I too might be a witch. I'll try to be more careful in future.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 20:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Misgendering BLPs is disruptive. A Johnny Cash related username is not. Suggest the IP [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] - while we may disagree with Boynamedsue regarding their interpretation here they have done nothing wrong. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 21:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No. It's stopping a disruptive editor from continuing to edit disruptively. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ec}} NQP is an essay. Essentially it's an op-ed piece. It does not carry any force in the realm of [[WP:PG]], and the views expressed there are controversial. (See the essay's talk page.). IMO words with some variation on "phobe/phobic" &c. are being routinely weaponized by people on one side of hot button cultural/political debates as part of an effort to demonize those on the other side of these debates. As such, I am inclined to view the use of such terms as a specie of WP:NPA. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 16:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::fair enough, i'll remove my vote for TBAN.
:::sidenote, I have no qualms with labeling a behavior as queerphobia. I don't think calling out discrimination or disruptive attitudes is inherently a vio of NPA. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 16:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::... I am indecisive.. I'll add weak support for TBAN, I still think the topic area should not have folks who are disruptive like this. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Pervasively misgendering a child based on the belief that a child cannot express a desire to transition is a form of transphobic behavior. If it was a similar comment made about a BLP on the basis of religion or skin colour ''there would be no mention of WP:NPA''. Wikipedia is generally good about handling racism. It is a perpetual stain upon the reputation of Wikipedia that it's culture ''continues'' to worry more about the feelings of people who take transphobic actions than of the victims of the same. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:* '''Oppose''' as unnecessary given the commitments already given. [[User:Waggers|<b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b style="color:#728">s</b>]][[User talk:Waggers|<small style="color:#080">''TALK''</small>]] 11:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hat|1=Let's not. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC). <small>Edited to include edit conflict comment. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
::::I am assuming you haven't spent much time in places [[WP:FTN]] where religious belief and persons of faith are not infrequently and quite openly subject to ridicule. Racism is a subject upon which society has happily come to more or less full agreement. Gender remains an extremely controversial subject with one side regularly resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other. I shall refrain from further comment out of deference to WP:FORUM. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 21:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Fringe ideas get ridiculed at FTN regardless of whether or not they are religious... That so many fringe views are also religious is more a result of the supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual being inherently fringe than any problem with FTN. Religion which is rational and explainable isn't religion any more after all. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 21:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for affirming my point. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 21:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Your point was that "Gender remains an extremely controversial subject with one side regularly resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other." Right? Like for example the [[LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory]] or is that not the side you were thinking of? [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 22:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::No. I was thinking of people who regularly insult and ridicule religious belief and those who hold to it. Something which based on your comment, does not seem to be a source of concern to you. That said, this discussion is veering deep into WP:FORUM territory and I am going to move on. Have a good day. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 22:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't think I've ever seen any of those people suggest that trans people are demons, or did you mean demonize in a way other than literally saying that the other side is demonic/satan's minions? Becuase that would be highly ironic... [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 22:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I am reaching the uncomfortable conclusion that you are attempting to be deliberately offensive. And for the record, you are succeeding. Good day. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 22:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::You weren't aware that a cornerstone of the gender controversy was religious conservatives resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other? Because that is well documented in reliable sources. I don't think you're the one who is supposed to be offended here, you're the one saying what appear to be extremely offensive things and are being asked to clarify what you meant. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 22:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{ec}} I think a significant point here is that while we may tolerate some degree of forumish and offensive comment about gender or race or religions from editors when they are restricted to largely abstract comment or even when they reference other editors, it's far more of a problem when the editors make offensive accusations about living persons especially when these are completely unrelated to any discussion about how to cover something (noting that the editor continued to make the comment even after they had noted how the English wikipedia treats issues). So for example, if someone says a specific religious figure is delusion or lying in relation to how we treat their testimony that might barely be acceptable. When someone just comes out and says it repeatedly for no reason, that's far more of a problem. Especially if the figure is someone barely notable and not notable (as was the case here for one of the individuals each). [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 22:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
{{hat|1=This ''is'' affairs of other wikis. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*'''Comment''' This is definitely not the ideal place to discuss the subject since the whole problem originated with pt.wiki, but since the editor came here asking for help (for the right reasons or not), I will draw attention to the case of the admin accused of transphobia. This is not the first time that DarwIn has been singled out due to his comments on the subject (he has already given several examples of this here), but there is an [https://t.me/wikipediapt official pt.wiki community on Telegram] where the editor has already been criticized for making such comments. There, they were also celebrating Skyshifter's ban (DarwIn commented something like "as a man he was 100%, after transitioning he became unbearable" to refer to her). As much as they try not to link the group to the project, to use this chat you need to associate your Wikipedia credentials, so I am concerned that pt.wiki admins could be seen spreading speeches against minorities in an official space of the project, since Wikipedia is the target of attacks for investing in equity and diversity. In addition to this comment, the admin was also extremely rude and crude towards a [[:pt:Wikipédia:Esplanada/geral/Projeto Mais Wikicobaias na História, ou como o extrativismo intelectual chegou à Wikipédia (9ago2024)|Wikipedia research group that discusses gender, sexuality and race]].


:Again, this is not the ideal place to comment on these issues, but I suggest that the case be submitted to Wikimedia if any intervention or something more incisive is necessary. The local community can accuse me of anything for writing these words, but I am concerned about the escalation of editorial harassment within that space.
::If there are reliable sources for the IP's views, I for one would have no objection to their being mentioned in the article, provided the edit was made in a way that is broadly in line with Wikipedia's basic nature and policies. What's going on here, fundamentally, is not a content dispute. My concern here is that we've got an editor who has ignored [[WP:PERSONAL]] for over one month, distributing personal attacks in long, repetitive, often copy-pasted rants over many talk pages despite a large number of attempts to try and rein in the vitriol. The editor also, with the exception of a single edit to an infobox, has no history of doing anything here ''except'' for promoting a particular view of Nephilim and then lashing out over the results over the course of more than a month. This is not an otherwise productive editor who has simply gone too far on one issue. This is not an editor who has made repeated mistakes and understood them. This is an editor carrying out a single-minded campaign, ignoring Wikipedia's policies, and contributing to the kind of atmosphere that makes many otherwise reasonable editors dislike contributing here. I '''propose a block''' at least until such time as the editor expresses an understanding of [[WP:PERSONAL]] and indicates some interest in doing something other than carrying on the current unproductive dispute. At least for now, the user is [[WP:NOTHERE]].[[User:Alephb|Alephb]] ([[User talk:Alephb|talk]]) 07:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


:PS: The editor was mocking this discussion in the Telegram group while I was writing this. [[User:Jardel|Jardel]] ([[User talk:Jardel|talk]]) 01:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
== Disruptive editing of [[User:Thetruth16]] ==
::Came back after a month with no edits for this? It's quite clear Jardel is taking something personal with DarwIn here. Or he doesn't have anything to do at the moment. And he didn't have such great writing and narrative in his mother tongue, now is writing perfect, well written English. That gets stranger considering he's partially blocked in ptwiki for some beefing with other editors ([[:pt:Wikipédia:Pedidos_a_administradores/Discussão_de_bloqueio/Jardel/5|block discussion]] in portuguese)... Quite strange, to say the least. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Eduardo Gottert|<b><u>Eduardo <span style="color:#000000">G.</span></u></b>]]<sup><i><b>[[User_talk:Edu22213|msg]]-[[Special:Contributions/Edu22213|contrib]]</b></i></sup></span> 03:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::And yes, by "quite strange" I am talking about maybe [[WP:MEAT|meatpuppetry]]. Nobody comes after a month without edits (that was preeceded by some other months before some 5-ish edits), to make an "accusation" based on unfounded arguments, especially after being blocked precisely for beefing and attacking other members of the community in his homewiki. Such a hypocrisy, a user banned for beefing accusating another user of attacks and using the word "transphobia" so vaguely. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Eduardo Gottert|<b><u>Eduardo <span style="color:#000000">G.</span></u></b>]]<sup><i><b>[[User_talk:Edu22213|msg]]-[[Special:Contributions/Edu22213|contrib]]</b></i></sup></span> 03:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::As I expected, the group participants started making accusations against me (that's why Eduardo G. appeared in this discussion) and wanted to insinuate that Skyshifter is writing this text, perhaps wanting to provoke some kind of retaliation later. First, I appreciate the compliments on my writing, which was 100% done by Google Translate; I think Google's engineering is to be congratulated. Second, I'm only here on this page because I noticed the links to this discussion in the Telegram group itself and decided to contribute with what I've been reading for a long time with great disgust. I didn't need to bring much, Darwin himself made a point of making abject comments in this discussion, but if you want, I can bring some screenshots of what they were talking about in the group. Third, I did go 1 month without editing here because my focus is not on en.wiki but on pt.wiki, where I make regular edits. I find it strange that you entered this discussion without refuting any of the arguments above, thinking that bringing up my tarnished "reputation" changes everything that was written by me or in the group. I believe it must be embarrassing to participate in a group where they are celebrating the sanctions that Skyshifter will suffer (thinking that place is a "private club") while at the same time you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skyshifter&diff=prev&oldid=1266002854 send cordial greetings] from the "public side" to the same editor, simulating virtue. In any case, my goal here is only to reinforce that there is indeed materiality in what Skyshifter said with more evidence and once again I recommend that the discussion be evaluated by the Wikimedia team knowing that attitudes that demonstrate prejudice against minorities go against the project's investments in equity, diversity and equality. [[User:Jardel|Jardel]] ([[User talk:Jardel|talk]]) 03:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I will not pursue any retaliation. I'm just stating what I know of this case, and I even supported Sky when the edits were being made. People are celebrating because all of this discussion was brought to even another wiki by her. But I understand you might've written this text, and will not take the subject further. If anybody needs anything, please read the message below. Cheers. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Eduardo Gottert|<b><u>Eduardo <span style="color:#000000">G.</span></u></b>]]<sup><i><b>[[User_talk:Edu22213|msg]]-[[Special:Contributions/Edu22213|contrib]]</b></i></sup></span> 03:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::So, I don't disagree with your argument about the sanctions she's passing on the other project, unfortunately. As for "not pursue any retaliation", I don't think that's what you mean by the phrase "4 successful DBs [user blocking discussions] in a row is not for everyone." directed at me. [[User:Jardel|Jardel]] ([[User talk:Jardel|talk]]) 04:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Jardel|Jardel]] You're wrong, twice. First, it wasn't me saying that. It was NCC-1701, and my user in TG is Edu. And at no point did I agree with NCC's messages. And secondly, the "four DBs in a row" wasn't in anyway directed at you. It was directed to Bageense, who opened 4 block discussions in the last 2 or 3 days and all of them were successfull. You are distorting the messages to condone your erroneous narrative. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Eduardo Gottert|<b><u>Eduardo <span style="color:#000000">G.</span></u></b>]]<sup><i><b>[[User_talk:Edu22213|msg]]-[[Special:Contributions/Edu22213|contrib]]</b></i></sup></span> 04:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Well, if I am "distorting messages" to "tolerate" my narrative, anyone who wants to evaluate can join the group and read the messages posted there or see the pt.wiki discussion against the Projeto Mais Teoria da História na Wiki and talk to its [[:pt:Wikipédia:Projeto Mais Teoria da História na Wiki/Equipe|members]] to see what their opinion is on the matter. I may not be a perfect person, but what I see with great displeasure (coming from those who are "in charge of the gears") is not positive for the project. [[User:Jardel|Jardel]] ([[User talk:Jardel|talk]]) 04:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Joining the group the community would then have no doubts about your intents and distortion of facts. You didn't deny the two things I said above — you know I'm right, you can't bend the facts this much. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Eduardo Gottert|<b><u>Eduardo <span style="color:#000000">G.</span></u></b>]]<sup><i><b>[[User_talk:Edu22213|msg]]-[[Special:Contributions/Edu22213|contrib]]</b></i></sup></span> 04:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


'''As a ptwiki user''' that know what's happening but talked to both sides of the discussion throughout it: This whole discussion started as a beef between Skyshifter and DarwIn. Skyshifter didn't accept some changes DarwIn made to an article "of her" (quotes because articles doesn't have owners. I respect her pronouns), and when discussing with DarwIn, called the whole Portuguese Wikipedia project a sewage ([https://pt.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipédia:Pedidos/Notificação_de_incidentes&diff=prev&oldid=69251366 here])/[[User:Skyshifter|in her UP]], thus being banned and the ban being endorsed on the [[:pt:Wikipédia:Pedidos a administradores/Discussão de bloqueio/Skyshifter/2|block discussion]] <small>(in portuguese)</small>. The discussion was based on the references for the article, was solved in the ptwiki with an outburst from Sky, and that was it.


This whole problem was brought here for a single reason only: Beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn. A single change or a single opinion on a DYK shouldn't be reason for a TB or IBAN anywhere in the world, especially considering that it was a difference interpreting the references. I know that my statement won't change anything, as there is an apparent "consensus" on TBanning and IBANning him, though I wanted to make things clear for everyone.
Over the past year, [[User:Thetruth16]] has been editing the following articles related to former Philippine president [[Ferdinand Marcos]] and his subsequent downfall:
*[[Ferdinand Marcos]]
*[[Benigno Aquino Jr.]]
*[[Corazon Aquino]]
*[[Jabidah massacre]]
*[[Conjugal dictatorship]]
*[[Martial law in the Philippines]]
*[[History of the Philippines (1965–86)]]
*[[Philippine presidential election, 1986]]
*[[People Power Revolution]]


I am totally open for questioning regarding any of my statements above, and I will supply you with any proof I have and you need. Just ping me here and if the inquiry/proofs are extremely important, please leave me a message on my [[:pt:User:Eduardo Gottert|portuguese talk page]] ([https://pt.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Usuário_Discussão:Eduardo%20Gottert&action=edit&section=new&preload=Usuário:Eduardo%20Gottert/PreloadPDUen direct url]). It can be in English, just for me to see you need me here. Cheers. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Eduardo Gottert|<b><u>Eduardo <span style="color:#000000">G.</span></u></b>]]<sup><i><b>[[User_talk:Edu22213|msg]]-[[Special:Contributions/Edu22213|contrib]]</b></i></sup></span> 03:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
He adds content to these articles and uses sources to tilt the article's neutrality to be "pro-Marcos". Here are some examples:


JardelW is a user who was banned from the Portuguese Wikipedia due to his detestable behavior. This individual used the same Telegram group that he is now criticizing. The editor was banned from this group due to his behavior, in which he called respected users of the community [https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Pedidos_a_administradores/Discuss%C3%A3o_de_bloqueio/Jardel/5 "worms, scoundrels, trash and deniers"]. And DarwIn is one of the administrators of the group where he is banned, so you can already imagine why he is here. Now, once again he is trying to destabilize the community by defending an editor who called the entire project a sewer and made unproven accusations against an administrator. At this point, the account is practically banned and the article that caused the discord has its deletion or merge defended by several editors. By coming here, JardelW and Skyshifter are, in a way, stating that the entire community is prejudiced. Yet another offense enters the list as proof of Jardel's destabilizing behavior. Furthermore, this user [https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard&oldid=20502384 already tried] to carry out the same destabilization by contesting on meta the banning of IPs, a consensual decision among hundreds of editors. And when he was still blocked, [https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Severe_conflict_involving_problematic_sysop_on_pt.Wiki&oldid=24254962 went to Meta-Wiki] in an attempt to intervene in the Wikipedia domain, where he is banned, simply because he did not agree with the deletion of an article. And this without presenting any evidence. It is clear that Jardel's objective here is to take revenge on the community, and he will be punished for it. [[User:InvictumAlways|InvictumAlways]] ([[User talk:InvictumAlways|talk]]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 04:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*In the [[Philippine presidential election, 1986]] article, he tilted the neutrality of this article by reiterating that both the ancestors of Benigno Aquino Jr. and Salvador Laurel (Benigno Aquino Sr. and Jose Laurel) both collaborated with the Japanese during World War II. This fact does not fit in this article, since the topic is about the 1986 snap elections. (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Philippine_presidential_election%2C_1986&type=revision&diff=740347055&oldid=739018139 1])
:It is pretty clear thay the intents of Jardel here are disruptive. Your comment hopefully leaves no doubt to the community. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Eduardo Gottert|<b><u>Eduardo <span style="color:#000000">G.</span></u></b>]]<sup><i><b>[[User_talk:Edu22213|msg]]-[[Special:Contributions/Edu22213|contrib]]</b></i></sup></span> 04:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*In the same edit history, this editor added the fact that one of the computer technicians that walked out of the Comelec count, Linda Kapunan, is connected with the Reform the Armed Forces Movement, and indicated that the walkout is planned by RAM, discrediting why the walkout happened in the first place. (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Philippine_presidential_election%2C_1986&type=revision&diff=740347055&oldid=739018139 1])
:As I said above, I am not a perfect person. I may have used foul language to address some editors in a moment of anger, but I felt vulnerable and hurt by editors I held in high regard, and I apologize for what I wrote in the past. Likewise, I do not think it is right that a social channel that is reported as "linked to Wikipedia" is being used as a bar where people can say whatever they want, especially when it comes to prejudiced comments against minorities. At no time did I label all of them, only one of them demonstrated that she was doing so. If I happen to receive any sanction for this discussion, and knowing that bringing issues from pt.wiki here is not ideal, I will receive it for doing the right thing, because I want something to change for the better in a project that I have dedicated so much time to contributing to. I may be prevented from editing on Wikipedia, but if what I bring here helps to change something, I will be happy. [[User:Jardel|Jardel]] ([[User talk:Jardel|talk]]) 05:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*In the [[People Power Revolution]] article, this user added a statement that the one that issued Benigno Aquino Jr. the fake "Marcial Bonifacio" passport is linked with the [[Moro National Liberation Front]], and at the same time, reinforcing the sources that Marcos declared Martial Law because of communist insurgency and the Moro uprising. If you read the whole article, it made it look that Aquino is being linked with communists and Moro rebels. (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=People_Power_Revolution&type=revision&diff=741564831&oldid=739398076 2])
{{hab}}
*In the [[Benigno Aquino Jr.]] article, he reiterated that Aquino's father, Benigno Sr. was a Japanese collaborator during World War II. It also claimed that Aquino did support the Moro rebellion and "rubbed elbows" with the Communist Party of the Philippines in the 1970s. (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Benigno_Aquino_Jr.&type=revision&diff=798824441&oldid=798657278 4])
:[[User:InvictumAlways|InvictumAlways]] - this is your second edit ever, and your account was just created today - how did you get to this ANI post? [[User:Jellyfish|<small style="color:#0080FF;background:#EAEAFF;border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">jellyfish</small>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Jellyfish|&#9993;]] 05:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::I saw a discussion in the group and created the account to not appear as an IP. [[User:InvictumAlways|InvictumAlways]] ([[User talk:InvictumAlways|talk]]) 05:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Jardel|Jardel]] The objective of the channel is to be a more relaxed place. And it's not official, [https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Pedidos_a_administradores/Discuss%C3%A3o_de_bloqueio/Jardel/5#Defesa as you said yourself previously]. Angry moment? Are you sorry? After your block, you attacked editors on a social network, as attested by a CheckUser: [https://t.me/wikipediapt/116305]. And there are no prejudiced comments. That's a lie. Where are the links? And how much time have you devoted to the project when all you do is attack others? Enough of this nonsense. I ask that an administrator evaluate the conduct of this account. [[User:InvictumAlways|InvictumAlways]] ([[User talk:InvictumAlways|talk]]) 05:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I didn't realize the discussion was closed. Sorry. [[User:InvictumAlways|InvictumAlways]] ([[User talk:InvictumAlways|talk]]) 05:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Supporting both IBAN and TBAN'''. Someone who actively believes in misgendering should not be allowed into this area when they have already demonstrably made another editor uncomfortable. The snarky reply to GiantSnowman does not convince me they would respond well if another editor brought up a similar concern in the future.--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 07:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*Can't we give this child and her mother some privacy? What is it about gender issues, as opposed to other medical or developmental issues, that seems to give everyone a right to comment? Let's just report what reliable sources say and leave it at that. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::If the mother had wanted privacy for her child, writing a book which makes it possible to identify her and know intimate details of her biology for the rest of her life, while documenting her transition step by step for hundreds of thousands of instagram followers, seem strange choices. I don't feel there are any privacy concerns here, that horse has long bolted, and we had nothing to do with opening the door.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 09:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::BLP requires we take great care what we say about living persons regardless of the wisdom of their decisions. This is hardly the first time it's come up where both in articles and in discussions we've required editors obey BLP even if there is a lot of nonsense out there which arises in part from decisions subjects have made. Editors can do that stuff on Reddit or 4chan or wherever they want without such requirements. If editors cannot follow our BLP requirements, they need to stop editing either voluntarily or involuntarily. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I don't think BLP covers things that the subject puts into the public domain about themselves or, when we are talking about talkpages, personal opinions on the morality of things they reveal about themselves.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::talkpages def are covered by BLP as per the policy page.and the policy gives wide latitude about what the subject may have redacted if they object to info, even if they had previously or somehow otherwise placed that info in public domain.
:::::concerns about privacy have to weigh against dueness but arguing the book gives dueness to try to be internet sleuths and discover and identify a child is probs not gonna pass the smell test.[[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User ;talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 13:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::The woman's book names the child, and photos of her are regularly published by the mother on instagram. There is an interview with the mother in Brazilian Marie Claire giving the child's full name and photos. I would suggest not much "internet sleuthing" is required here. Wikipedia, and I include Darwin in this, has (rightly) much more concern for her daughter's privacy than she does.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::The mother may have decided to publicise things, but the child certainly hasn't. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Children cannot consent, their parents can. [[WP:CC-BY-SA|(CC)]]&nbsp;[[User:Tbhotch|<span style="color:#4B0082;">Tb</span><span style="color:#6082B6;">hotch</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tbhotch|<span style="color:#555555;">™</span>]]</sup> 21:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I would totally agree, but that is irrelevant here, nothing Darwin did was related to revealing the child's identity. He criticised the mother in strong terms on talkpages and this is what the BLP argument comes down to.--[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support TBAN''', no comment on IBAN. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Thamirys_Nunes&action=history This is blatant POV harassment]. [[WP:CC-BY-SA|(CC)]]&nbsp;[[User:Tbhotch|<span style="color:#4B0082;">Tb</span><span style="color:#6082B6;">hotch</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tbhotch|<span style="color:#555555;">™</span>]]</sup> 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Editors in this topic area can and often do disagree on the underlying issues, which often helpfully ensures that all such material on Wikipedia follows our policies and guidelines. However, the responses to Ad Orientem's request and various replies above shows that the proposed remedies would be appropriate given the BLP issues in play here.-- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose any sanctions''' I’m sorry if I’m interfering in something I’m not involved with, but I’ve been watching this discussion and I think it’s needlessly toxic. What I’m seeing is a misunderstanding of some inappropriate [[WP:OR]] on a hot-button issue sparking a dispute that turned into “DarwIn is a transphobic bully” which I don’t think is true. I think the two main parties should simply avoid each other voluntarily and the situation will quickly de-escalate. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 05:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


=== [[User:Skyshifter|Skyshifter]] taking matters from another Wikipedia to seek revenge. ===
If his edits got reverted, he immediately challenges whoever reverted his edits to counter everything that he had put up there and he uses the [[WP:Reliable sources]] as his shield so that his edits won't be easily removed. He uses sources in such a way that it will favor his "pro-Marcos" ideology. Many users have already complained about his editing behavior and this user got blocked twice for edit-warring. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive346#User:Thetruth16_reported_by_User:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi_.28Result:_Blocked.29 first] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive347#User:Thetruth16_reported_by_User:Object404_.28Result:_Blocked.29 second] ANI report against this user. Recently after removing most of his edits, he reverted it back to his version of the article.
{{hat|1=100% affairs of other wikis. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{atop|result=This entire subsection is about Eduardo Gottert casting aspersions on Skyshifter and providing no diffs or evidence of this "revenge" except for statements about what is going on on another language Wikipedia which have no bearing on what occurs here. I'm closing this now before this [[WP:BOOMERANG]]s on to Eduardo Gottert and editors start proposing a block for personal attacks. Baseless counter attacks are generally dismissed at the English Wikipedia ANI. Please do not reopen this section. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 09:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}}
On the 29th of December, [[User:Skyshifter]] started an AN/I based on a claim that [[User:DarwIn]], a sysop at ptwiki, was cross-wiki harrassing her. To make up those claims, she used as a single proof, of him editing on a DYK nomination [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Thamirys_Nunes&curid=78744356&action=history here]. AFAIK, DYK nominations are open for debate.


She accused him of transphobia, a very harsh word, over some 5 edits on the same page, and all the other arguments in her accusation were from the ptwiki with absolutely no relation to the English Wikipedia, and she tried to "force" that it was a cross-wiki harrassment, when it wasn't. The sole reason for that AN/I is a beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn.
There was also a proposal to impose a topic-ban to this user since the his edits are getting too disruptive to the neutrality of the article mentioned above. Please check if the edits itself adheres to [[WP:NPOV]] and a topic-ban or a block can be imposed for this user. Thank you. -[[User:WayKurat|WayKurat]] ([[User talk:WayKurat|talk]]) 14:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


But all of this happened only, and just because of her banishment for the portuguese wiki. She is the cross-wiki harrasser in this situation, as she came to a project where DarwIn hasn't got nearly as many edits as his home-wiki and most of his edits are on discussions or category/commons related, to try blocking him and thus tarnish his block log.
::Let me tackle the issues raised point-by-point:
::*It was Marcos who said that the opposition party collaborated with the enemy when they questioned his records in fighting the Japanese during WWII: http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-23/news/mn-28079_1_war-record. [[Benigno Aquino Sr.]], Ninoy's father, and [[José P. Laurel]], VP candidate Laurel's father, were leaders of the [[KALIBAPI]] that supported Japan during WWII, as you can see in the [[KALIBAPI]] article.
::*I didn't state that as a matter of fact, I said some believed and I cited this Manila Standard editorial: http://manilastandard.net/opinion/columns/virtual-reality-by-tony-lopez/141677/setting-the-record-straight-on-edsa-1.html%7Caccessdate=August%2030,%202015. It would be better if the contribution is attributed to the author, still this warrants rewriting and not deletion.
::*In the article [[Rashid Lucman]], you can see that [[Rashid Lucman]] issued the passport named Marcial Bonifacio and the same person founded the Muslim separatist group. [[Rashid Lucman]]'s son himself said that his father sent young Filipino Muslims to train in Malaysia and these guerillas formed part of the MNLF: http://www.philstar.com/letters-editor/604043/will-noynoy-aquino-be-hero-muslims-mindanao
::*I addressed the issue on Aquino's father being a Japanese collaborator during World War II above. And there was a picture<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benigno_Aquino_Jr.#/media/File:Philippine_puppet_government_officials_in_Japan_1945.jpg</ref> of him being arrested by the Americans which you deleted /censored. Ninoy's links with the communist rebels are supported by multiple verifiable sources and definitely not my point of view: http://www.manilatimes.net/the-ninoy-aquino-i-knew/31974/ and http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/198820/news/specialreports/ninoy-networked-with-everyone-reds-included


This is all for revenge of some articles that are being debated and will be either deleted or merged with other articles, and especially over her permanent block on the Portuguese Wikipedia, after calling the whole platform a sewage ([https://pt.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipédia:Pedidos/Notificação_de_incidentes&diff=prev&oldid=69251366 here] and in [[User:Skyshifter|her UP]]), [[WP:ASPERSIONS|casting aspersions]] over other users and using [[WP:DUCK|ducks]] and [[WP:MEAT|meatpuppets]] to revert back the articles (one of her meats is currently being blocked from ptwiki too, see it [[Wikipédia:Pedidos a administradores/Discussão de bloqueio/Eughoost|here]], with all the proofs). The [[:pt:Wikipédia:Pedidos a administradores/Discussão de bloqueio/Skyshifter/2|block discussion]] taking place at the moment has 10 administrator votes in favour of the block, and absolutely no contrary opinion whatsoever.
::As you can see above, all the contributions you deleted (which I reverted) cited reliable sources and are verifiable. We have a content dispute here yet you keep on raising about my conduct [[Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Focus_on_content]], current and past, while you yourself have deleted a large swath of cited content without discussing first contrary to [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete]], which says that "the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten". Content disputes are better discussed in the talk page [[Talk:Benigno_Aquino_Jr]] but it seems like your preferred route in handling content dispute is to delete, and to report to admin after your deletions got reverted. [[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]] ([[User talk:Thetruth16|talk]]) 12:05 pm, Today (UTC−4)
::{{ping|Thetruth16}} Do not post in the middle of other people's posts, post after their post. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 16:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


Despite some not-so-good arguments from DarwIn in the AN/I above, it is more than clear that the reason for the opening of the said AN/I was '''personal''' and for '''revenge'''. I'm open to any questions regarding this topic, as there is plenty of evidence to sustain my claims. All of this that she's doing would clearly fall under [[:pt:WP:NDD]], here called [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] I think, and [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]]/[[WP:POINT]], and in the AN/I above she's commiting [[WP:BLUDGEON]], repeating the eye-catching word "transphobia" over and over, without sustaining her argument accordingly, seeking to block a sysop at other 3 projects and rollbacker here, with the sole objective of tarnishing his block log, just for revenge and self-fullfillment.
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Philippine_presidential_election%2C_1986&type=revision&diff=740347055&oldid=739018139 These] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=People_Power_Revolution&type=revision&diff=741564831&oldid=739398076 two] diffs linked to by OP are concerning because their edit summaries bear little to no relation to the actual changes. That tactic is common enough among [[WP:TEND]] editors that I believe there should be a section added to that page on it. {{ping|WayKurat}} Did you mean to include a different link in your second point? [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 16:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Ian.thomson}} The second point covers [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Philippine_presidential_election%2C_1986&type=revision&diff=739016833&oldid=739014646 this edit]. Thetruth16 reverted back his edits on September 2016 then added the "Linda Kapunan" information with it. Also, take note of the sources he gave on this edit. It is all self-published. He replaced it with a "more reliable" source after I have pointed it to him. -[[User:WayKurat|WayKurat]] ([[User talk:WayKurat|talk]]) 16:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
:::: All the sources I gave above supporting my existing contribution are definitely not self-published as per [[WP:RS]]. If they are, I wouldn't mind part of my contribution being deleted. But what you did was you deleted everything that I edited even if there are multiple reliable sources cited and this violates [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete]]. [[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]] ([[User talk:Thetruth16|talk]]) 16:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Thetruth, please stop saying that I am "censoring" your edits. I am pointing out that since you have started editing here, all of the Marcos-related articles' neutrality are now tilting "pro-Marcos". Please also stop shielding yourself with Wikipedia's policies. A lot of editors have already pointing out that your edits are mostly pro-Marcos and anti-Aquino and you are using Wikipedia policies on reliable sources to protect your contributions. Let other editors and administrators check the neutrality of your edits. -[[User:WayKurat|WayKurat]] ([[User talk:WayKurat|talk]]) 16:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
:::: [[User:WayKurat|WayKurat]] I added the contribution stating that Ninoy Aquino has links with the communist / muslim insurgents and this is properly cited with reliable sources, does it really matter if this edit is pro-marcos or anti-aquino? And isn't deleting this well-cited contribution considered censorship? Following your argument, contributions citing reliable sources should be deleted/censored if they don't speak in favor of Ninoy Aquino since they tilt the article to become "pro-Marcos"? {{ping|Ian.thomson}} [[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]] ([[User talk:Thetruth16|talk]]) 17:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


<span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Eduardo Gottert|<b><u>Eduardo <span style="color:#000000">G.</span></u></b>]]<sup><i><b>[[User_talk:Edu22213|msg]]-[[Special:Contributions/Edu22213|contrib]]</b></i></sup></span> 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
: In my experience, [[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]] has been editing the above articles in the original post in a skewed manner, especially in phrasing to favor Ferdinand Marcos and to demonize Marcos's opponents. He has been a disruptive editor and has been blocked twice. His edits have been highly disruptive to the mentioned articles. It looks like he is at it again at the [[Benigno Aquino Jr.]] article, demonizing Aquino who was one of the stuanchest opponents of Marcos and is considered a hero in his home country. -[[User:Object404|Object404]] ([[User talk:Object404|talk]]) 10:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
:: So you are suggesting that we sweep these reliable sources under the rug just because they might "demonize" Ninoy Aquino, just like what WayKurat did by deleting well-sourced content without discussing his deletions at all? Does these sources from national newspapers and TV all deserved to be censored and not mentioned in Wikipedia? http://manilastandard.net/opinion/columns/virtual-reality-by-tony-lopez/141677/setting-the-record-straight-on-edsa-1.html%7Caccessdate=August%2030,%202015, http://www.philstar.com/letters-editor/604043/will-noynoy-aquino-be-hero-muslims-mindanao, http://www.manilatimes.net/the-ninoy-aquino-i-knew/31974/, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/198820/news/specialreports/ninoy-networked-with-everyone-reds-included.
:: And deleting without discussing or even trying to rewrite just like what WayKurat did isn't disruptive? And restoring the deletion is? Talk about double standards. How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete? Also, Your comment pertains to your previous experience which has already been dealt with and not in this current issue.[[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]] ([[User talk:Thetruth16|talk]]) 12:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::: You keep inserting content which is off-topic and unrelated to the article & its subject, such as "Malaysia had financed a secessionist movement in Muslim Mindanao led by the [[Moro National Liberation Front]] to undermine Philippine interests."<ref>{{cite journal|last=The Manila Standard|title=‘Malaysia’s new plans to undermine Philippine interests’|url=http://manilastandardtoday.com/opinion/columns/hail-to-the-chair-by-victor-avecilla/177688/malaysia-s-new-plans-to-undermine-philippine-interests.html|accessdate=May 19, 2015}}</ref> specifically to make the subject look bad. -[[User:Object404|Object404]] ([[User talk:Object404|talk]]) 13:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
:::: It was for context, since earlier in the article different sources have mentioned that Ninoy was supportive of Malaysia's cause in its dispute with the Philippines on Sabah. I do understand your point that it can be deleted to make the paragraph more coherent. Also, I can see though that you have retained the more than 90% of what [[User:WayKurat|WayKurat]] has deleted/censored. [[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]] ([[User talk:Thetruth16|talk]]) 14:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
*Thetruth is more than ready for a NOTHERE block, and this discussion is not giving me any reason to think otherwise. WayKurat, thank you for bringing it here; I know these reports are time consuming, but they are worth it, if only for the record they establish. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 14:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
: {{ping|Drmies}} as you can see above, all the 4 examples [[User:WayKurat|WayKurat]] brought up have been refuted. So you think that these 4 should have been censored/deleted? If they have to be re-written in an more neutral tone, other editors should be rewriting them over time consistent with [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete]]. However, some of the facts that [[User:WayKurat|WayKurat]] has been trying to censor/delete are hard to refute, like Aquino's links with the communist insurgents which can be verified by multiple sources throughout the article. [[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]] ([[User talk:Thetruth16|talk]]) 17:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
:*Yeah no I didn't see that. The problem isn't even so much the factuality, partial or complete, of some of the things you thrown in--it's the verbosity, the edit warring, the synthesis, the POV. And the talk page behavior. Did I mention the edit warring? [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 17:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|Drmies}} Per [[WP:EW]], I understand that reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. And the policy in question here is [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete]]. Also, I would have preferred to discuss content dispute in the talk page [[Talk:Benigno Aquino, Jr.]]; however, as you can see, [[User:WayKurat|WayKurat]] failed to respond on the points I raised in the talk page (and even above), focused on conduct and instead of content contrary to [[Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Focus_on_content]], resorted to mass deletions (even if everything is consistent with [[WP:RS]]) and finally reported me to admin while he himself is violating Wikipedia rules. [[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]] ([[User talk:Thetruth16|talk]]) 18:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Thetruth16, I did not respond to your disputes to stop this edit war and as I mentioned above, let the other admins and editors here check the neutrality of your edits. As I have noticed on your editing style, you keep on adding this kind of information and if someone challenges you about the neutrality of these, you will give them the headache to check every edit you make if its neutral.
:::From day one, that is what you are doing here, even since you have adding questionable information anonymously [[Special:Contributions/180.190.114.163|using an IP address]]. And to think to some point last year that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=People_Power_Revolution&type=revision&diff=738865266&oldid=738863981 you used blogs and self-published sources that are also being used by those pro-Marcos Facebook pages and websites], that already set the tone of your editing style. To reiterate what Object404 was saying, your edits villify Marcoses opponents and at the same time you glorify their achievements. -[[User:WayKurat|WayKurat]] ([[User talk:WayKurat|talk]]) 01:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:::: If you want to let other editors check the the contributions you deem non-neutral, then why did you [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete]]. You could have created a discussion in the talk page to gain consensus, which you didn't. Also, it's moot and academic if I used sources that didn't comply with [[WP:RS]] last year - it wasn't aware of the guidelines then, and these all sources have all been removed. I don't even know why you have to bring this up now that all the remaining contributions and sources very much comply with [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]]. [[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]] ([[User talk:Thetruth16|talk]]) 04:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:Thanks {{ping|Drmies}}. As of this moment, Thetruth16 is reverting back his version of the articles mentioned above, more than 24 hours after the his edits were removed. This somehow bypasses the [[WP:3RR]] rule. -[[User:WayKurat|WayKurat]] ([[User talk:WayKurat|talk]]) 15:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
:: Talk about double standards? Didn't you [[User:WayKurat|WayKurat]] delete my edits more than 3x? Didn't you violate [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete]]? Just now [[User:Object404|Object404]] did a review on my edits on [[Benigno Aquino Jr.]] and [[Philippine presidential election, 1986]] and way over 90% of what I contributed that you've censored/deleted have been retained. Besides, all the 4 points you raised above have been more than adequately addressed.[[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]] ([[User talk:Thetruth16|talk]]) 16:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::: I did not "retain" your edits, [[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]]. I just haven't had much time to review the articles above nor edit them with which your biased edits have been very damaging to their form and are a big headache. -[[User:Object404|Object404]] ([[User talk:Object404|talk]]) 16:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::::"Headache" is a good word to use here. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 17:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
:::: [[User:Object404|Object404]] Good thing that you understand this Wikipedia guideline [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete]], which says that there is no need to immediately delete contribution (which are well-sourced, but you argue as non-neutral) that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time, unlike [[User:WayKurat|WayKurat]] who just deleted/censored everything that doesn't speak favorably of Aquino (including his links to the communists) even if they are from reputable sources. Just so [[User:WayKurat|WayKurat]] is aware of the relevant Wikipedia policy, I'll put them here verbatim just so he/she won't keep on violating it: "The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias." and "Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted." [[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]] ([[User talk:Thetruth16|talk]]) 16:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


:{{replyto|Eduardo_Gottert}} You need to provide evidence when opening an ANI thread, not on request. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*My suggestion is that any time an account is created with the word ''truth'' anywhere in it, that a separate shadow copy of the wiki be created just for them. Their edits will affect only that copy, and only they will see that copy, with their edits. They can edit away for years without bothering anyone, and without getting blocked. Everyone's happy. '''[[User:EEng#s|<font color="red">E</font>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<font color="blue">Eng</font>]]''' 16:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::'@[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] The evidences are above. I said if you need any '''further''' evidence, you may ask. All of the necessary evidence are on the request. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Eduardo Gottert|<b><u>Eduardo <span style="color:#000000">G.</span></u></b>]]<sup><i><b>[[User_talk:Edu22213|msg]]-[[Special:Contributions/Eduardo Gottert|contrib]]</b></i></sup></span> 06:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Where's the evidence? What we know is that DarwIn came here despite little involvement and made a highly offensive statement that can reasonably be characterised as transphobic. While I don't feel Sky Shifter should have described it so, better to let others decide, it was entirely reasonable for Sky Shifter to call for action against DarwIn for it. What is your evidence that they did it for revenge instead of for the fact that after a disagreement with DarwIn in a different wiki, DarwIn suddenly appeared in this wiki, one they themselves agree they barely edit, to make a highly offensive statement that Sky Shifter reasonably felt was transphobic. After doing so, they then appeared on ANI to make similar highly offensive statements were they made offensive accusations against living based on their own opinion. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 06:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Honestly, the argument is pretty clear above. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Eduardo Gottert|<b><u>Eduardo <span style="color:#000000">G.</span></u></b>]]<sup><i><b>[[User_talk:Edu22213|msg]]-[[Special:Contributions/Eduardo Gottert|contrib]]</b></i></sup></span> 06:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::If you agree you're wrong then please withdraw this ANI. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 06:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I did not agree in any place that I am wrong. I just stated that the evidence is pretty clear above, with all the block discussions and diffs needed for understanding the problem. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Eduardo Gottert|<b><u>Eduardo <span style="color:#000000">G.</span></u></b>]]<sup><i><b>[[User_talk:Edu22213|msg]]-[[Special:Contributions/Eduardo Gottert|contrib]]</b></i></sup></span> 06:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Your statement was very unclear. You said "the argument" which I interpreted to mean my argument. If you're still claiming your argument is clear, then please explain how it can be when part of your argument is it was unfair for Sky Shifter to go around saying "transphobia" when many of us agree that even if it was unnecessary, it was not unsupported given the comments DarwIn was making do seem to be transphobic. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 06:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::As we were talking about my evidence, I think saying "the argument" clearly refer to me. And as to the reason for the opening of this ANI, it's because the revenge seeking of Skyshifter. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Eduardo Gottert|<b><u>Eduardo <span style="color:#000000">G.</span></u></b>]]<sup><i><b>[[User_talk:Edu22213|msg]]-[[Special:Contributions/Eduardo Gottert|contrib]]</b></i></sup></span> 06:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I wouldn't say it doesn't considering as I said, one of the reasons your argument was flawed, but you didn't address that in any way. Nothing you've said above or since has explained why you're claiming Sky Shifter using the word "transphobic" is evidence for "revenge" when it's a reasonable characterisation of what DarwIn said. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 06:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{ec}} I would add it's very unclear what you thinking you're adding that wasn't already considered above. In the above thread a 1 way iban on DarwIn seems to be getting serious consideration. A two way iban seems to have been rejected based on the assessment that whatever the wrongs with Sky Shifter's approach, it wasn't serious enough to warrant an iban. The fact that Sky Shifter was in a dispute with DarwIn on other wikis, and DarwIn was involved in their blocked is likewise not a secret, part of it was stated by Sky Shifter when opening the thread and the rest was stated by DarwIn. The sock allegation likewise. So what do you think you're adding to the discussion that wasn't already considered and seemingly rejected by the community above? [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 06:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:It is time for a [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. You already said all of that above. You seem to have been canvassed here from a discussion outside of this wiki. Go back there and let them know cross wiki harassment will get you blocked here. [[Special:Contributions/107.115.5.100|107.115.5.100]] ([[User talk:107.115.5.100|talk]]) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::I added more evidence and context. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Eduardo Gottert|<b><u>Eduardo <span style="color:#000000">G.</span></u></b>]]<sup><i><b>[[User_talk:Edu22213|msg]]-[[Special:Contributions/Eduardo Gottert|contrib]]</b></i></sup></span> 06:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You simply cast aspersions as part of a cross wiki harassment campaign against someone over transgender related issues. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. [[Special:Contributions/107.115.5.100|107.115.5.100]] ([[User talk:107.115.5.100|talk]]) 06:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Your statement doesn't even make sense. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Eduardo Gottert|<b><u>Eduardo <span style="color:#000000">G.</span></u></b>]]<sup><i><b>[[User_talk:Edu22213|msg]]-[[Special:Contributions/Eduardo Gottert|contrib]]</b></i></sup></span> 06:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::We can add [[WP:CIR]] to the reasons you are blocked then. [[Special:Contributions/107.115.5.100|107.115.5.100]] ([[User talk:107.115.5.100|talk]]) 06:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Am I? And where am I in violation of [[WP:CIR]]? <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Eduardo Gottert|<b><u>Eduardo <span style="color:#000000">G.</span></u></b>]]<sup><i><b>[[User_talk:Edu22213|msg]]-[[Special:Contributions/Eduardo Gottert|contrib]]</b></i></sup></span> 06:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I used plain English and you said you couldn't comprehend it. [[Special:Contributions/107.115.5.100|107.115.5.100]] ([[User talk:107.115.5.100|talk]]) 06:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


**Good idea. {{re|Thetruth16)) ""Especially contentious text" can be deleted if appropriate, you are wrong in thinking it is against policy, there is no policy forbidding that. Essays aren't policy. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 18:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
:I thought it was pretty well determined in that prior ANI thread that DarwIn's edits and statements absolutely were transphobic and bigoted. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 06:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::The reason for the AN/I opens is still the same, revenge. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Eduardo Gottert|<b><u>Eduardo <span style="color:#000000">G.</span></u></b>]]<sup><i><b>[[User_talk:Edu22213|msg]]-[[Special:Contributions/Eduardo Gottert|contrib]]</b></i></sup></span> 06:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
***Let him edit at [[Wikipilipinas]], and join the hundreds of Wikipedia vandals that have been banned here. -[[User:WayKurat|WayKurat]] ([[User talk:WayKurat|talk]]) 01:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
*I've read many of the posts on the Portuguese wiki, and it is pretty clear that the Skyshifter's complaint above is a deliberate expansion of drama from there. The Portugese wiki is not Uganda, people do not get banned there for being Trans, and former admins don't get banned without causing a lot of disruption. It is clear these two users really strongly dislike each other and need to stop interacting in any way.--[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 06:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
****So you can violate [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete]], censor and delete relevant and verifiable contributions without being questioned? [[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]] ([[User talk:Thetruth16|talk]]) 03:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
*:People obviously doesn't get banned for being trans. She was sysop there, commited some errors, but stayed there even after 5 months of being on estrogen. And the community knew it. What caused her block there was calling the project a sewage and then outbreaking and attacking other users. I suggest they get a two-way IBAN, at least, not the one-way as proposed on the other AN/I. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Eduardo Gottert|<b><u>Eduardo <span style="color:#000000">G.</span></u></b>]]<sup><i><b>[[User_talk:Edu22213|msg]]-[[Special:Contributions/Eduardo Gottert|contrib]]</b></i></sup></span> 07:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*****No, so you won't tilt Wikipedia's neutrality and push whatever advocacy you have behind these edits. -[[User:WayKurat|WayKurat]] ([[User talk:WayKurat|talk]]) 06:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
***Noted, but don't forget that the text in question here are verifiable and are all from reliable sources. As you can see in the 4 examples above (and rebuttals), assertions and verifiable facts are being censored here just because they are not pro-Aquino. Did you see that the photo of Aquino's father being arrested by the Americans was deleted and links to the WWII Japanese collaborator party [[Kalibapi]] was also deleted just because it doesn't fit the 'good guy' narrative that [[User:WayKurat|WayKurat]] is trying to espouse? [[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]] ([[User talk:Thetruth16|talk]]) 18:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
:: It's not the usage of WP:RS that's the problem with [[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]]'s editing, it's his style of editing and wording which is biased towards glorifying Marcos, making him look innocent and demonizing Marcos's opponents. -[[User:Object404|Object404]] ([[User talk:Object404|talk]]) 23:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::: You are shooting the messenger? So you could as well blame the reliable sources - editors in the national newspapers, photographers, and TV - for any revelation that makes Marcos looks innocent and that demonizes Marcos' opponents? And editing for the opposite - sources that demonizes Marcos is totally fine? It's the reliable sources' POV and factual revelations and not mine. And censoring everything, including Aquino's association with the communist rebels and his father's association with the Japanese in WWII, just like what [[User:WayKurat|WayKurat]] notwithstanding [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete]] is the way to go? [[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]] ([[User talk:Thetruth16|talk]]) 03:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:::: No, but you keep [[Poisoning the well]]. An example of [[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]]'s biased wording style to make Marcos look good was his initial insistence that it was only communists and leftists who were the main targets of [[Ferdinand Marcos#Human_rights_abuses|Human Rights Abuses]] during the regime of Ferdinand Marcos, when in fact thousands of innocent civilians were the victims of torture, murder, mutilations, etc. He even protested the usage of the word "innocent" to describe the innocent victims, which can be seen in the article's history logs - [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ferdinand_Marcos&offset=&limit=500&action=history]. The section has since been sort of balanced. -[[User:Object404|Object404]] ([[User talk:Object404|talk]]) 06:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
::::: Ok, don't use this forum to argue and discuss about content, since this has already been dealt with. At that time, other editors questioned the word "innocent" as well, and one editor even said in[[Talk:Ferdinand_Marcos#Human_rights_abuses_section.3B_initial_sentence]] that the word innocent you inserted is "too vague, not to mention emotionally loaded." And when you said that you'll dig up more sources, those are the facts", [[User:RioHondo|RioHondo]] said that this statement itself is problematic. And weren't you told to mention the name of the authors whose opinions you presented in as facts in [[Ferdinand Marcos#Human_rights_abuses|Human Rights Abuses]]? See, you accuse me of being biased, but many other editors here [[Talk:Ferdinand_Marcos#Human_rights_abuses_section.3B_initial_sentence]] get a sense that you yourself are biased. [[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]] ([[User talk:Thetruth16|talk]]) 11:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::: So you're saying the thousands of falsely accused human rights victims were not innocent? -[[User:Object404|Object404]] ([[User talk:Object404|talk]]) 06:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::: I never said that. Of the tens of thousands of accused victims, there are accused victims who are innocent and there are accused who are't innocent, nobody knows for sure. Many editors in [[Talk:Ferdinand_Marcos#Human_rights_abuses_section.3B_initial_sentence]] who got a wind of your editorial bias pointed out that it's wrong to say that all the accused are innocent which you stated in your contribution. [[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]] ([[User talk:Thetruth16|talk]]) 15:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


:I would add that unless I'm missing something, the block discussion on the Portugese Wikipedia [//pt.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Pedidos_a_administradores/Discuss%C3%A3o_de_bloqueio/Skyshifter/2&oldid=69256401] seems to have been started about 30 minutes before the ANI thread [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1265965887]. It has no contributions by DarwIn [//pt.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Pedidos_a_administradores/Discuss%C3%A3o_de_bloqueio/Skyshifter/2&action=history&offset=&limit=5000]. It is theoretically possible I guess it somehow factored into the motivation of Skyshifter opening the ANI thread, but this seems extremely unlikely. There's a good chance Skyshifter wasn't even aware of it when opening the thread. In other words, there's no reason to think Skyshifter was even aware they were likely going to be permanently blocked from pt at the time of opening the thread although they did say they weren't going to return. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 07:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
===Topic ban proposal===
::She opened an NI, ptwiki equivalent of AN/I against DarwIn with crazy arguments. You can see it [[:pt:Wikipédia:Pedidos/Notificação_de_incidentes#DarwIn|here]]. It was prompty closed, and she was very well aware of the consequences she would face, and of the opening of the block discussion, and clearly opened the AN/I because of that reason. The block discussion started at 1130 UTC, and the AN/I was posted at 1300, at a time that Skyshifter had already taken notice of the discussion, as you can see [https://prnt.sc/mBXXn1h_Pwp2 here]. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Eduardo Gottert|<b><u>Eduardo <span style="color:#000000">G.</span></u></b>]]<sup><i><b>[[User_talk:Edu22213|msg]]-[[Special:Contributions/Eduardo Gottert|contrib]]</b></i></sup></span> 07:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Given the facts stated above, the attitude towards other editors and editing style of this user, I propose that he will be topic banned from [[Ferdinand Marcos]], the listed articles above and any other related articles. Please advise if you concur. Thanks. -[[User:WayKurat|WayKurat]] ([[User talk:WayKurat|talk]]) 06:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
::If you wish to make these Wikipedia articles one-sided and censor all [[WP:RS]] sources that editors like [[User:WayKurat|WayKurat]] and [[User:Object404|Object404]] find contrary to their spin, then go ahead. They want to make it a black and white, good person or evil person, and nothing else in between. People can still learn through other means anyway if other Wikipedia editors insist to censor creditable sources per [[WP:RS]] that don't portray Marcos as evil, and Aquino as a saint. There'll be no discussion and everyone's life would be easier. People will never find out that Aquino was linked to communist rebels through Wikipedia and they'll instead find it through other reliable sources. [[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]] ([[User talk:Thetruth16|talk]]) 15:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


*This is ''very blatantly'' a tit-for-tat. As mentioned above there is the distinct smell of fishiness about it, and {{tqq|as she came to a project where DarwIn hasn't got nearly as many edits as his home-wiki and most of his edits are on discussions or category/commons related, to try blocking him and thus tarnish his block log}} - yes, the editor who has ''three FAs'' on en.wiki "came to this project" to do this. Suggest this be promptly closed as I hear a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] inbound. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 07:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I have had some of the Marcos-related articles on my watchlist for a long time since noticing a problem at a noticeboard. The original problem was resolved but I have seen Thetruth16's enthusiastic slanting of a couple of articles over an extended period. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 10:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
*:I am not saying she isn't an avid used of English wiki. I just stated that she took ptwiki matters here for revenge and self-fullfillment. <span style="color:#4444F2;font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Eduardo Gottert|<b><u>Eduardo <span style="color:#000000">G.</span></u></b>]]<sup><i><b>[[User_talk:Edu22213|msg]]-[[Special:Contributions/Eduardo Gottert|contrib]]</b></i></sup></span> 07:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Thetruth16 has been quite a problematic editor. -[[User:Object404|Object404]] ([[User talk:Object404|talk]]) 10:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
*::If you aren't asking for any sanctions against Skyshifter, then why did you open this sub-section, just to sling some mud at her? Give it a rest already, you're just creating more drama than is necessary.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 08:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I have witnessed Thetruth16's editing for a while. He tends to cherrypick details from a lot sources and rebuke other sources in order to slant the neutrality of the articles. [[User:Phthalocyan|Phthalocyan]] ([[User talk:Phthalocyan|talk]]) 19:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::::I think that the background of this dispute is very relevant. Obviously, neither Skyshifter or Darwin should face any repercussions here for behaviour on pt.wiki, but it isn't possible to understand what is happening here without discussing what happened there. For me, having read what happened over there is the main reason I wouldn't yet TBAN Darwin, and would call for a two-way rather than one way interaction ban.--[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 08:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
** [[WP:DUE]] argues for the inclusion of significant viewpoints and facts from reliable sources. Prior to my contributions, the articles contain many non-objective sensationalized news slanted towards demonizing Marcos and glorifying his opponents (and they still do). Reliable sources, even if objective facts are presented, were censored, removed, or are deemed as 'Whitewashing', and there still is some conscious effort by many editors here to keep censoring these materials and do full reverts without objectively checking sentence-by-sentence or even attempting to rewrite contrary to [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete]] . [[User:Thetruth16|Thetruth16]] ([[User talk:Thetruth16|talk]]) 05:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
*'''Support''' This user's actions definitely fall under [[WP:SPA]] and is therefore encouraged to expand his editing activity in improving the many other topics about the Philippines in need of care. —[[User:Seav|seav]] ([[User talk:Seav|talk]]) 06:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
{{hab}}


== Incivility in Jeju Air ==
== User:Two.25.45.251 ==
{{atop|result=I'm going to close this discussion. The editor has been blocked from editing [[Jeju Air Flight 2216]] and its talk page which is where the problems here originated. I think that there has been less than ideal behavior from several editors in this dispute. Right now, Westwind273 has primarily been posting on their own User talk page and expresses the desire to move on from this. They have been instructed not to remove comments from article talk pages. We don't demand apologies from editors we just ask that they stop any disruptive behavior. I think all parties need to stop provoking each other, drop the stick and refocus on editing articles. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{User|Westwind273}} was gently told off in [[Talk:Jeju Air Flight 2216#Unneeded airports built in dangerous locations ]] about not making [[WP:FORUM]] statements. Instead they [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]ed with editors whom they engaged with in an extremely uncivil manner while making false accusations and engaging in [[WP:IDNHT]]. Amazingly following a warning by another user that they would be taken to ANI they started removing their comments without explanation and since then reverted. Regardless, I am posting this to ensure that they take the hint and to demand action, seeing that it is not the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Westwind273&diff=prev&oldid=1266323307| first air incident]] they have been caught for such [[WP:NOTHERE]] behavior. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 02:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


Diffs:
I'm going to go out on a limb and request some sort of clemency for {{User|Two.25.45.251}}, who has been blocked by {{U|Favonian}} as a sock of the Best Known For IP. The Long-Term Abuse page is [[Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP|here]], and the registered account has just been added to it. So far as I know, this is the first account this editor has ever registered. He's been a long-time determinedly unregistered editor. His edits have been mostly gnoming, with emphases on removing POV (notably for a long time, the phrase "best known for", hence the moniker) and on fixes to statements about science. Note [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP&diff=618949161&oldid=618948854 this edit summary] by {{U|Ritchie333}} on that LTA page, a couple of weeks after he created it: "this one has never done actual [[WP:VANDALISM]] as such". The "long-term abuse" consisted of edit warring and incivility when he was reverted. There is a very long story here, including numerous AN/Is (many, possibly most, started by the person himself objecting to being treated as a vandal). During my adminship, I was part of an effort with {{U|Drmies}} (I believe it was my idea) to get him to stop being uncivil and thereby break the cycle of his being blocked and then blocked again for block evasion. I remain convinced that his article edits are not merely well intentioned but overwhelmingly good. However, the effort failed (although he's been noticeably more civil since), and he was community banned in January 2016 after [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=700172815&oldid=700171836#Proposal_to_community_ban_the_.22Best_known_for_IP.22 this discussion at AN].
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeju_Air_Flight_2216&diff=prev&oldid=1266323823]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeju_Air_Flight_2216&diff=prev&oldid=1266324054]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Westwind273&diff=prev&oldid=1266322541] [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 02:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


:Update, user had been reverting their comments in talk without consent of other editors involved. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 03:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Most recently, it was his blocking by Winhunter and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive962#Blocked in violation of policy|complaint here]] that led to a case that is currently open but on hold at Arbcom. During that discussion, {{U|Berean Hunter}} revealed that he had been contacted by the IP's employer and had advocated the editor take the standard offer, beginning with registering an account.
::And left this uncivil note [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Seefooddiet&diff=prev&oldid=1266327318] on another {{User|Seefooddiet}}’s TP. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 03:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::That was my user page even, not my talk page. Strange [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 03:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Pardon my reflex. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 03:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::No worries, I had the same reaction lol. I instinctually checked my tp and was surprised it was on my user page instead [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 03:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Seems they’re pretending you didn’t tell them off personally [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Westwind273&diff=prev&oldid=1266328692]. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 03:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::And more [[WP:IDNHT]] after yet another warning on their own TP [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Westwind273&diff=prev&oldid=1266327688]. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 03:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Note that the editor has been ''removing other peoples' comments''' forom [[Talk:Jeju Air Flight 2216]], and has been edit-warring four times to attempt to do so. I've given them an only warning. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::A parting aspersion [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Westwind273&diff=prev&oldid=1266328818]. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 03:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::And more [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Westwind273&diff=prev&oldid=1266329723]. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 03:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:For more context, they've engaged in open insults to other people previously.
:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1212925406&title=Talk:2024_Haneda_Airport_runway_collision][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Westwind273&diff=prev&oldid=1213238021] [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 03:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::They deleted both these insults after making them to hide evidence. Consistent pattern. [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 03:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:For context, there's a discussion on their conduct ongoing on [[User talk:Westwind273#December 2024]]. In it, they keep leveling an accusation at me, and deleting my response to the accusation. [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 04:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::They made another [[WP:NPA]]. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seefooddiet&diff=prev&oldid=1266337782]. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::And doubled down with [[WP:IDNHT]] after being warned again: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Westwind273&diff=prev&oldid=1266345997] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Westwind273&diff=prev&oldid=1266345432] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Westwind273&diff=prev&oldid=1266361272] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Westwind273&diff=prev&oldid=1266330515]. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 05:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
This editor has a significant problem with [[WP:GAME]] as well, specifically in regards to [[WP:NOTAFORUM]]. They profess to know of that, and are likely genuinely aware of it, but the following pattern of talk page comments gives me the impression that they are mostly interested in venting an opinion, with no article improvements suggested: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narita_International_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1266348296] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeju_Air_Flight_2216&diff=prev&oldid=1266271529] (the one in question here) [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:TOP500&diff=prev&oldid=1173205589] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki&diff=prev&oldid=1167805013]. These aren't the majority of their talk page comments but are a significant minority. It's only due to [[WP:AGF]] that we can assume they are related to improving the articles in question but had this user not had any other edits, these would be promptly removed per NOTAFORUM. This pattern of conduct is problematic because it hinders others' abilities to engage in the threads, especially combined with their unwarranted blaming of others for not magically discerning their intentions, as happened in this incident.--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 07:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


:@[[User:Westwind273|Westwind273]] does show a consistent pattern of [[WP:ABF]]. I asked them to clarify how these were relevant to the discussion and they demanded to know why I was attacking them. I don't know if administrator action is fully warranted but a 24 hour touch-grass break is probably a good idea in my opinion. [[User:guninvalid|guninvalid]] ([[User_Talk:guninvalid|talk]]) 07:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The editor's statement at the Arbcom case request—or that of the recently registered editor now blocked for being the BKFIP—is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=798719426 here]. I had noted some of the statements the editor quotes, and the one calling him a vandal particularly saddened me. This person has wound up community banned despite not being a vandal, and to my mind that is at odds with our purpose here, and calling him a vandal because of the existence of an LTA case page, or even because he is community banned, an unforgiveable looseness of terminology. Whatever we do about uncivil editors, whether registered or not, we must not throw around terms like "vandalism" if the edits don't justify use of the term.
::In all honesty, I am surprised that an 18-year old account shows [[WP:NOTHERE]] behavior I'd expect to encounter otherwise in newbie accounts. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 08:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:They've effectively said they're ok with being banned. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Westwind273#c-Westwind273-20241231083000-Jasper_Deng-20241231081800][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Westwind273#c-Westwind273-20241231083300-Liz-20241231081300]. Honestly given the lack of remorse over the behavior and continual lack of understanding of why it was poor, despite numerous people all explaining it over and over, I'd argue some kind of block would be helpful. I'd argue it's a [[WP:NOTHERE]] situation; despite their claims of just trying to be a good editor, they keep disruptively engaging with others to the point that it's needlessly distracting, and refuse to modify their behavior when asked to. [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 09:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::I nearly forgot but could this be a Tyhaliburton sock? I am starting to recall both of them making uncivil and condescending statements. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 09:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Block this account indef as NOTHERE [[Special:Contributions/2603:8080:D03:89D4:90C8:7FFC:E377:47B8|2603:8080:D03:89D4:90C8:7FFC:E377:47B8]] ([[User talk:2603:8080:D03:89D4:90C8:7FFC:E377:47B8|talk]]) 17:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have reported [[Special:Contributions/Westwind273|User:Westwind273]] to [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism|AIV]] as [[Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia|NOTHERE]] [[Special:Contributions/2603:8080:D03:89D4:90C8:7FFC:E377:47B8|2603:8080:D03:89D4:90C8:7FFC:E377:47B8]] ([[User talk:2603:8080:D03:89D4:90C8:7FFC:E377:47B8|talk]]) 17:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|Borgenland}} Doubtful, as the user's history stems all the way back to 2006. --[[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 17:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I've issued a [[WP:PBLOCK]] from the accident article and its talk page. This is ''without prejudice'' to any other admin taking further action against this editor. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 17:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::If it’s a sock, bring in a CU clerk [[Special:Contributions/2603:8080:D03:89D4:90C8:7FFC:E377:47B8|2603:8080:D03:89D4:90C8:7FFC:E377:47B8]] ([[User talk:2603:8080:D03:89D4:90C8:7FFC:E377:47B8|talk]]) 17:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::A block from a single talk page seems lukewarm to me. They openly insult other people, there's no sign they'll stop doing so in future because they've never acknowledged wrongdoing or expressed regret, and nothing is done. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1212925406&title=Talk:2024_Haneda_Airport_runway_collision][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Westwind273&diff=prev&oldid=1213238021] [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 00:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Editorialising ==
This editor has been community banned, and the administrative corps generally follow comunity consensus. But it seems to me that he has a right to make a statement at the Arbcom case, regardless of bureaucracy, and that he also deserves credit for finally doing what many people begged him to do, and registering an account. Can any of the experienced editors here suggest a way forward, if it's only letting his statement remain at the case page and transcluding further statements from his talk page? I do feel this person is owed far better treatment than, say, Willy on Wheels: he has not edited "for the lulz" or to push a point of view, and if he's ever vandalized, I've not seen it. Nor, as I say, do I see him being seriously uncivil in recent edits, although I may have missed it. I defer to the wise folks here; I'm out of ideas. (And I'm now going to notify everyone I pinged. I won't notify Winhunter; anyone who disagrees with that judgement call, go ahead.) [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 18:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


:'''Comment''' This user specifically stated they are not [[Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP]]. I have only limited experience with the LTA we call "best known for ip", but what experience I have shows that this person routinely attempts to actively deceive administrators during unblock requests. If this user is indeed "best known for ip", they are doing the same here, too. This is said without prejudice; I cannot tell if they are the same person. Is it not the case that this user could make a statement to Arbcom via email? If it is not the case, I would endorse unblocking a talk page ''solely'' for this purpose. I believe Yngvadottir is not suggesting we lift the community ban, and so I make no statement on this point. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 20:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


On the pages [[Uluru Statement from the Heart]] and [[Indigenous Voice to Parliament]], [[User:State Regulatory Authority]] has made numerous edits editorialising content since 19 December and has not engaged with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Uluru_Statement_from_the_Heart#Transfered_to_past_tense_perspective talk discussions] about the need to keep a NPOV. e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Uluru_Statement_from_the_Heart&diff=prev&oldid=1266508621], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Uluru_Statement_from_the_Heart&diff=prev&oldid=1264946607], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Uluru_Statement_from_the_Heart&diff=prev&oldid=1264186060], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament&diff=prev&oldid=1266387798] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Uluru_Statement_from_the_Heart&diff=prev&oldid=1266513039]. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Safes007|Safes007]] ([[User talk:Safes007#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Safes007|contribs]]) 01:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
:'''Comment''' Even if they aren't the BKFIP, they are clearly admitting to evading a ban here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=798719426 Keep them blocked. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 21:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Uluru_Statement_from_the_Heart&diff=1266508621&oldid=1266415908 This] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Uluru_Statement_from_the_Heart&diff=next&oldid=1266508621 this] aren't great on the face of it. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 02:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::It is my understanding that Yngvadottir is not disputing block evasion. I haven't looked at the case, but it seems the question raised is whether, assuming the editor was "only" uncivil but not harmful to articles, the response was proportionate, and whether evasion of an unjust block would be excusable. (As I said, I haven't looked at the case; I'm only trying to clarify for myself and others what the argument is about.) [[User:Samsara|Samsara]] 01:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::I've given them a "stop edit-warring" (because that's what it is, among the other issues) final warning. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Isn’t the username itself a violation for pretending to be some agency? [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 10:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I was about to say, at a minimum it should be a soft block with a note to pick something else. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">[[User:sp|<span style="color:#000;">spryde</span>]] | [[User_talk:sp|<span style="color:#000;">talk</span>]]</small> 17:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Please note that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament&diff=prev&oldid=1266387798 this edit] takes the article-space statement from the [[Indigenous Voice to Parliament]] article describing a body intended to {{tq|recognise Indigenous Australians as "the first people of Australia"}} (quotes in original) and adds a wikilink from 'first people' to the article [[master race]]. Surely equating Australia's Indigenous / first people, a historically disempowered and disenfranchised group, with the Nazi concept of Aryan supremacy ''in article space'' and within a quotation (thereby assigning this Nazi implication to the Referendum Council being quoted) calls for more than a warning over edit warring? [[Special:Contributions/1.141.198.161|1.141.198.161]] ([[User talk:1.141.198.161|talk]]) 06:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Adding that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2023_Australian_Indigenous_Voice_referendum&diff=next&oldid=1265263108 this edit] adds wikilinks that characterise the failure of the referendum to patriotism an opposition to racism, but highly questionable characterisations. This user appears [[WP:NOTHERE]] to me. [[Special:Contributions/1.141.198.161|1.141.198.161]] ([[User talk:1.141.198.161|talk]]) 07:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


:Similar [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Uluru_Statement_from_the_Heart&diff=prev&oldid=1266558067 edits] by IP address [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/120.18.129.151 120.18.129.151] which has a block on other pages have also been made. [[User:Safes007|Safes007]] ([[User talk:Safes007|talk]]) 07:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' If this user wishes to make a statement on the Winhunter case, they can do so by email to arbcom-l, or they can email me and I will copy it to the case page as a clerk action (assuming that the content is not in violation of policy). [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 22:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
::That smells somewhat of [[WP:LOUTSOCK]], doesn't it? Anyway, given a ''very'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:State_Regulatory_Authority&diff=prev&oldid=1266572795 stern warning] to the user in question here. We'll see how they respond. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 07:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as one of the many, many, many blocking admins. BKFIP's song and dance has for years been that their "good" edits ought to wholly excuse any possible misbehaviour, of which there has been plenty (see [[WP:BKFIP]], I'm not going to repeat the laundry list). So this account claims they're not the same person, well so have nearly every one of the IPs listed on the LTA page, and the editor has admitted in the past that our list is "massively incomplete". They've behaved in exactly the same manner as BKFIP: angrily objecting to a series of "good" edits being reverted and then edit warring into a block, resuming the edit war when the block expired, lashing out at anyone who didn't agree with their "good edits" justification, and swearing they're not BKFIP. I have zero doubt that they are, and BKFIP is an editor who [[WP:TE]] and [[WP:CIR]] could have been written about. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 01:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::The block on other pages is due to a range block, not that particular IP. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 08:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::That being said, I fully agree that we throw around the term "vandal" much too liberally. BKFIP has never been a [[WP:VANDAL|vandal]] as far as I'm aware, but certainly a [[WP:TE|tendentious]] and [[WP:DE|disruptive]] user. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 01:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
:*What are you ''opposing''?? The question was "can you suggest a way forward"? So you're opposing ''any'' solution? <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 01:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
:::I'm opposing the proposal to offer this editor clemency. I ''also'' don't believe there's any way forward that doesn't force administrators to tiptoe around an editor who admittedly has no interest in even ''trying'' to get along with others and collaborate, and has a history of causing major drama whenever there's any hint of a need to discuss their edits. I'll add more below in a bit. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 15:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
*I had an interaction with BKFIP a couple months ago, and based on that, I am not terribly hopeful that we can find a solution here besides the ongoing on whack-a-mole with their IPs. I found that they were completely unwilling to admit that there was even a possibility they were wrong. Even if they were correct about the content issue (and I do not believe they were in this case) such an attitude makes communication very difficult. So mark me down as pessimistic. That said, if we wanted a way forward: with sockpuppeteers, we generally ask for them to sit out a block of a certain length, and then appeal, upon which the standard offer usually includes an unblock and some restrictions. We ''could'' try the same thing here; ask them to sit out a six month block; appeal thereafter; if they don't use IPs in the meanwhile, unblock them, but place a 1RR restriction and possibly a civility restriction (yeah, I know those work too well). I can't really come up with something easier than that. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 03:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


*So, {{noping|State Regulatory Authority}} stopped editing, just before this ANI got posted. And today, {{noping|Federal Regulatory Authority (FRA)}} began editing [[Uluru Statement from the Heart]] - making ''exactly'' the same edits as SRA. FRA has been blocked for disruptive editing and username violations, and I'm blocking SRA as a sockmaster. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::(Responding to remarks and suggestions above, not just to Vanamonde93, but parking here for neatness' sake.) A 1RR has been tried in the past. As to civility restrictions, as I say, my impression is he is much more civil now, but the community's patience has been exhausted and a ban is a ban. I'm not asking for it to be reversed because I'm clearly way outside the community norm here; I believe I was the only one arguing against it in the ban discussion, which I linked above. But [[WP:CIR]]?? This editor writes excellent English and his edits are overwhelmingly good, including demonstrating a grasp of science I wish I had. (Not all, however. I've been on the receiving end of a tongue-lashing from him myself for not agreeing with all his edits.) He very much had a point about knee-jerk reverts—until he was banned. There may be developments in the case of which I'm unaware; in particular, I see an Arb making statements about him baiting admins into blocking him, and I have no idea how his editing history of which I'm aware can be construed that way. What I see is someone with a laudable addiction to improving the encyclopedia and expertise we can use, who has a terrible temper and sufficient mastery of the language to sling stinging insults, but who has (in my estimation) come increasingly close to keeping a civil tongue in his head in accordance with community norms, and has also worked with us by finally registering an account, for which I think we should afford him some modicum of allowance. Maybe the suggestion to e-mail Arbcom is a start, thanks. Maybe the arbs will also allow the statement he already made to be restored? [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 05:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::::There is certainly a common community antipattern of the form "make reasonable good-faith edit, get reverted/templated/blocked/otherwise mistreated, overreact with incivility, get written off as a disruptive vandal". This case may have started out that way, but I don't think it's a great fit for that pattern anymore; it now looks a lot more like "make edit likely to prompt inappropriate reverting/templating/blocking/etc and use that overreaction as an excuse to stir up drama". But arbcom does have a way of making everything look worse. If you think you have a better way to approach this situation, I certainly won't stand in the way. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 09:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


== [[User:John40332|John40332]] reported by [[User:CurryTime7-24|CurryTime7-24]] ==
I think there is no harm in restoring his comment to the Arbcom case. I know "[[WP:BMB|Banned means banned, goddamit!]]" but what have we got to gain by [[WP:NOTCENSORED|censoring]] his views? He is a party to the case and we should put his opinions up - we don't ''have'' to agree with them. Asking him to email arbcom sounds like a pointless dog and pony show, when we actually ''have'' the statement already in our archives. More specifically, I would revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Winhunter&diff=next&oldid=798876629 this edit] but the page has been full-protected so I guess it would be "admin abuse" to do so. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 10:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


{{moved from|[[WP:AIV]]|2=[[User:ToBeFree|ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 14:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:Paging {{ping|Amortias}} who protected the page. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 10:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::The page(s) were protected as no case has been opened and as such no evidence should be being submitted, if and when the case is officially opened and evidence is required this may be included (it being presented by a blocked user may need to be dicsussed seperatley) until then the pages should be left as the are. If the committee wish to have this included they are free to include it themselves as tehy can overrule any clerk action, anyone who wishes to have the information added to the page is free to request it from the clerks or lodge a a request to the committee via e-mail or at the [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard|arbitration noticeboard]]. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 12:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
:::That removal also included two sections added by IPs, some or all of which material has now been added to my talk page. It doesn't belong there and goes into things I know nothing about, because I don't know anything about the other banned user mentioned in the removal edit summary, although I did at one point know a lot about the BKFIP case. It's only his statement, under the registered account I named in the section header, that I would ask to be restored at some point. At what point is also above my pay grade. {{ping|Opabinia regalis}} thanks, and maybe you ''do'' know when it should be added. I suspect you are confusing two cases, but as I say, I may have missed more recent developments. I would also not have removed talk page access; venting after a block is expected; but since he's banned, he's not going to get unblocked, so presumably that factored into {{U|Huon}}'s decision. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 14:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::::I've had very limited wiki-time lately, so I wouldn't be surprised if I were confused (but if you're thinking of Vote X, no, I've got those two straight. I think. ;) The case is in suspended animation for the time being, so my preference would be to leave it alone for now and sort it out later if and when WinHunter returns to participate. For the time being, the post is in the history and not going anywhere. In any case, if some sort of alternative resolution is going to be reached here, I'd rather see it emphasize improved future behavior than focus on past events. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 05:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
===Proposal for Two.25.45.251===
Anyway, we have actually made some significant progress, as this user has now created an account. That means they are ''accountable'' in one place, rather than jumping IPs and evading blocks (which is the real problem). So, taking Yngvadottir and NE Ent's suggesting of "a way forward", I am going to propose the following solution:


{{vandal|John40332}} &ndash; On {{No redirect|:Psycho (1960 film)}} ({{diff|Psycho (1960 film)|1266578685|1265765039|diff}}): account is being used only for promotional purposes; account is evidently a spambot or a compromised account. User's recent edits have been dedicated almost invariably to inserting links in classical music-related articles to an obscure sheet music site. Behavior appeared to be [[WP:REFSPAM]] and [[WP:SPA]]. Personal attempts to curb this behavior or reach a compromise were rejected by user. [[WT:CM#Feedback on sheetmusicx.com links?|Further attempts to engage with them at WT:CM]] resulted in [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]], despite three other editors informing user that their edits appeared to be spam or some kind of advocacy. [[User:CurryTime7-24|CurryTime7-24]] ([[User talk:CurryTime7-24|talk]]) 08:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
# Unblock {{u|Two.25.45.251}} - call it an amnesty. This means drawing a line in the stand and saying "right, we're starting again". I'm going to forget about any blocks I have pulled; conversely nobody else is to bring them up. It's in the past - forget about it.
:Not a bot and not spamming, you just keep [[WP:HOUNDING]] me repeatedly, I cited sources to the publisher of the books in question. You appear to suffer from [[WP:OWN]] and act like I need your consent to edit the articles you feel that belong to you. You also know I'm not a compromised account, you spam [[:Assume_good_faith]] on your reverts but you're mostly bullying other editors into submission.
# All edits go on that account - no IPs, no sockpuppetry
:You've been asked to stop disrupting editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CurryTime7-24#January_2025 , and continue to harass any edits that touch "your" articles.
# If they post to a noticeboard saying "Admin 'x' lied about 'a', 'b' and 'c'" - ''leave it''. Rebuke it factually if you really need to say anything.
:You also keep saying I add citation to obscure music sites, just because you don't know something doesn't make it obscure. Additionally, you are the only person raising this as an issue because you're extremely controlling of the articles, you don't own Wikipedia and hopefully some other editor or admin can remind you of that. [[User:John40332|John40332]] ([[User talk:John40332|talk]]) 09:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
# Anyone who is not ''absolutely'' sure of what's vandalism and what's good-faith, read [[User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to vandalism]] first, and ''recuse totally'' from taking action
::Are you claiming that SheetMusicX is a reliable source for these articles? If so then someone (it may be me but I don't guarantee it) should take it to [[WP:RSN|the reliable sources noticeboard]]. I note that several editors have queried this, not just CurryTime7-24. John40332 is clearly not a spambot or compromised account, so please avoid over-egging the pudding. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
# If you have to revert this editor, leave an edit summary that can be defended later (eg: "see note on talk page [link]", "consensus from other articles is that this is okay for these circumstances, sorry, will discuss on talk in a minute") - NO TWINKLE, NO HUGGLE
:::It is reliable and listed with other [https://daniels-orchestral.com/other-resources/publishers/s/ respectable publishers], it's the homepage of the Canadian music publishing house Edition Zeza, their books are part of the [https://recherche-collection-search.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/Home/Search?q=edition%20zeza&DataSource=Library& National Library Collections], [https://search.worldcat.org/search?q=edition+zeza&offset=1 WorldCat.org] shows their books in libraries around the world etc, I shouldn't even have to dig this far because 1 editor decided he [[WP:OWN]] Wikipedia. The links I had included provided relevant information about the articles I was editing (orchestration, dates, duration etc). Cited information from a publisher of said work, which is exactly what [[WP:SOURCEDEF]] suggests doing. [[User:John40332|John40332]] ([[User talk:John40332|talk]]) 18:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
# Any ''genuine'' cases of edit warring that are grievances by other editors, go to [[WP:AN3]] and follow the usual procedures
:::The editor's history does seem suspicious. From 2014 to 2023 they made a total of 24 edits to article space, almost all of which were to [[Charlie Siem]] and [[Sasha Siem]]. Then after more than a year of no edits, in the last 5 weeks they have made 38 edits to article space, of which all except three added a reference to sheetmusicx.com. This is a commercial site that sells sheet music. As far as I can see, every reference added was a link to a page that sells a particular piece of sheet music. This certainly seems like [[WP:REFSPAM]]. [[User:CodeTalker|CodeTalker]] ([[User talk:CodeTalker|talk]]) 19:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
# Do NOT block without consensus here
::::So is the problem that I'm actively contributing now, or that the cited sources aren't good enough? You guys are grasping at straws at this point.[[user:CurryTime7-24]] added links to commercial sites [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sunset_Boulevard_%28soundtrack%29&diff=1265651328&oldid=1265506877 diff1] , such as to Fidelio Music (to which he appears to be an affiliate) and yet no one raises a flag. Even when I added a source without removing his, he removed mine [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sunset_Boulevard_%28soundtrack%29&diff=1265708324&oldid=1265707899 diff2] to keep only his link to Fidelio Music. [[User:John40332|John40332]] ([[User talk:John40332|talk]]) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::There is no "you guys" here. You have exactly the same status, as a volunteer editor, as I do. I have no idea who CurryTime7-24 is, or whether that editor is an affiliate. I just know about reliable sources and that we should not be linking to ''any'' commercial site, except possibly to the original publisher of a work. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 19:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*[[User:COIBot]] has compiled a page, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Local/sheetmusicx.com]] of edits with links to this website. This list was not created by CurryTime7-24 but by a bot looking for instances of conflict-of-interests. All of the problems you are concerned about, John40332, would not exist if you would just stop posting links to this website. If you would agree to stop referring to sheetmusicx.com, you wouldn't be "hounded" or be defending yourself and we could close this complaint. Can you agree to that editing restriction? And, if you can't, then why are you insisting on linking to this particular website? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Because it's a valid source according to:
*:[[WP:REPUTABLE]] - "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources"
*:[[WP:SOURCEDEF]] - The publisher of the work (and not only the first ever publisher, any reputable publisher of a work)
*:[[WP:PUBLISHED]] - "Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form."
Interestingly, "someone" (and I'm not saying it's CurryTime7-24) came to my talk page yesterday to write [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohn40332&diff=1266641486&oldid=1266641390 "kill yourself"], I can only think of 1 person who is hounding me this much though, but that doesn't seem to be taken seriously. [[User:John40332|John40332]] ([[User talk:John40332|talk]]) 07:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:That's not "interesting", that's despicable; as is your insinuation. As for sheetmusicx as as source: for what? That they published some work? Why is that noteworthy? -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 08:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::As a source for information about the work. Yes it's despicable, and as I said, no one takes it seriously, I'm not insinuating anything, admins can look into the IP themselves. [[User:John40332|John40332]] ([[User talk:John40332|talk]]) 08:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::So, you would prefer that this dispute continue on, which could lead to sanctions for you, rather than simply stop using this website as a reference? To me, when I see that kind of behavior, it's typically a sign of a paid editor. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 09:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::There's no dispute, it's a reliable source and [[user:CurryTime7-24]] makes a fuss about it because of his [[WP:OWN]] syndrome and potential [[WP:COI]] with his affiliation with Fidelio Music.
::::Why are you against a source that complies with [[WP:RELIABILITY]] ? [[User:John40332|John40332]] ([[User talk:John40332|talk]]) 09:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Because your use of that source is pretty clearly intended as promotional. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's hard to understand how you can say "there's no dispute" when there is quite obviously a dispute; six editors in this thread alone have questioned your use of that source. You have invoked [[WP:RS]] to claim that the website is an acceptable source, but I'm not sure you have understood what that guideline says about commercial sites; they are allowed as references '''only''' to verify simple facts such as titles and running times. You have not used sheetmusicx.com for such purposes; you have used it to tell the reader where they can purchase sheet music ([[Special:Diff/1258991325|1]], [[Special:Diff/1260943677|2]], [[Special:Diff/1262409488|3]], [[Special:Diff/1264528866|4]], [[Special:Diff/1265222861|5]], etc). [[User:CodeTalker|CodeTalker]] ([[User talk:CodeTalker|talk]]) 01:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I used it to add relevant information that didn't exist on Wikipedia.
::::::When I added "Psycho A Narrative for String Orchestra" [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Psycho_%281960_film%29&diff=1265507312&oldid=1265407863 diff] that exists since 1968 and never mentioned on Wikipedia, but CurryTime decided to harass me there too.
::::::When I added the orchestration for Tambourin Chinois [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tambourin_Chinois&diff=1263781302&oldid=1217888913 diff], which CurryTime decided to remove too.
::::::I used information by the publisher to confirm facts, as per [[WP:RS]], if commercial sources are not allowed to verify contributions, then why is everyone so quiet about CurryTime's affiliation to Fidelio Music links ? So far these comments are a good example of [[WP:HUNT]], first I was accused of spamming, then of being a bot, then that my account was compromised, then that the source used wasn't reliable, if you run out of ideas try my religion or ethnicity. [[User:John40332|John40332]] ([[User talk:John40332|talk]]) 08:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, you added the bit about Psycho - which included the link ''with the same phrasing as on the other edits'' where it was obvious "buy this music here". Your edits are either promotional or are indistinguishable from being promotional. That is why they are being removed. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:It would be nice if an admin would compare the IP address 181.215.89.116 that told me to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John40332&diff=prev&oldid=1266641390 kill myself] on my Talk Page, to existing users, now that would be fun to find out who is so against my edits, because so far the only action was a suspension. [[User:John40332|John40332]] ([[User talk:John40332|talk]]) 08:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::[[WP:NOTFISHING|Checkuser is not for fishing]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::In any case the most obvious guess is: some unrelated troll who saw your name on this board. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 22:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 86.21.135.95 ==
The basic idea behind this is that I feel admins as a whole need to set an example and show we are unscrupulously fair and beyond suspicion. Quite frankly, I feel like bloody well indef blocking the next person who makes an incorrect vandalism call on this user, but I suppose we've got to AGF that people think they're doing the right thing even when they're not.


{{userlinks|86.21.135.95}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning & hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|List of The Den programmes|prev|1266655770|1}}, {{diff|List of The Den programmes|prev|1266506577|2}}, {{diff|U&Gold|prev|1265434514|3}}, {{diff|Plus (British TV channel)|prev|1263668364|4}}, {{diff|List of programmes broadcast by Channel One|prev|1262977654|5}}. [[User:Waxworker|Waxworker]] ([[User talk:Waxworker|talk]]) 18:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
If we don't do something like this, this dispute is never going to end - ever. How many years has it been going on? [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 14:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
*Thank you Yngvadottir, Ent, Ritchie. I agree with most of what Ritchie has to say, maybe all of it. How long? At least since 2011. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 14:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
*Oh dear. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Two.25.45.251&diff=798715797&oldid=797394653 This] is the first edit to that editor's talk page not left by a bot. I have never seen an IP address that started with the word "Two". The warning was placed by an account which had been active for three days, allegedly; it is funny how Two.25.45.251 just keeps putting fingers on sore spots, wittingly or unwittingly. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 14:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::For the record, I never said that the username looks like an IP address. The AntiSpoof MediaWiki extension won't allow you to create accounts without any letters (at least in the version I use on my wiki). Therefore, someone could attempt to register an account and deceive it to look like an IP address by simply changing one of the numbers to spell out that number in words. For users who aren't very familiar with how accounts work, that account could look like an IP address at first glance. Also, I must note that when my actions were mentioned at ANI, I was not notified and was only aware after going though the inappropriate reverts by Drmies of my good-faith edits. [[User:Pillowfluffyhead|Pillowfluffyhead]] ([[User talk:Pillowfluffyhead|talk]]) 19:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
:::{{u|Pillowfluffyhead}}, you have had an account for four days. You need a ''lot'' more clue before you start getting involved in issuing warnings to anyone about anything. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 05:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
*Just to be clear, yes, please, Ritchie333. I hope it works. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 19:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' an unblock or clemency. Just within the past six weeks or so, this editor has:
**[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2.25.45.251&diff=prev&oldid=793060374 Written this edit summary].
**Denied being the Best Known For IP editor, including in the unblock request of the account I declined. I don't think there's any genuine doubt they are that banned editor, is there? In that case, we're all agreed they're a habitual liar.
**Evaded the ban plus a block.
:They ''could'' probably fly under the radar and improve grammar if they were able to collaborate with others. What gives them away, time and again, is their superiority complex (I'm not using that lightly, but as [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] said above, they are incapable of considering that they might be wrong, and simultaneously they belittle and insult all who disagree with them; not admitting that they're always perfectly right must be a sign of inferior intelligence) and their inability to work with others or deal with opposition in a civil way. I see no indication of a change, no commitment to a change, no recognition that their past behaviour was problematic, not even a recognition that their past behaviour was ''theirs''. Do we need copyeditors ''this'' badly that we're willing to subject editors to this kind of abuse? [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 23:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{u|Huon}}, the principal difference now (as I think {{u|Berean Hunter}} mentioned on the last ANI thread) is that his employer knows about his history on WP, and as I understand it has "had a word". That's why he's now finally got an account, and it also gives me some confidence that if he tries socking or IP block evading again, he's going to end up getting his employer collateral blocked again, and get another disciplinary action. I apologise for being vague about this as the full context of this is stuff I've been told in private by BH, but I do believe circumstances are now different. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 09:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Ritchie333}} The employer knows about ''what'' history, exactly? The one Two.25.45.251 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Two.25.45.251&diff=prev&oldid=798726961 denies is theirs]? Do you find that claim credible? If circumstances are now different, surely Two.25.45.251 has acknowledged that their past conduct was inappropriate and committed to a change in conduct towards other editors? I seem to have missed that; all I saw was "[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Two.25.45.251&diff=prev&oldid=798726961 I have only ever made good edits]" and "[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:190.45.54.212&diff=prev&oldid=461925720 I get more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely]". Is that inspiring confidence in you that we'll see a change? (And to [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]]: Yes, it ''is'' fair to hold them to those statements of 2011 when there's no indication of a change of mind or a change of attitude. Did you see any of that? Where?) What the proposal ''will'' do is make it much more difficult to enforce civility standards down the line; if some unwitting admin were to block them unilaterally for their next piece of viciousness, I foresee them not addressing their own conduct but claiming the mantle of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=798719426 victimhood].
:::It's generally agreed that being right is not an excuse for edit warring, because edit warring is ''still'' disruptive even when you're right. I don't think being right should be any more of an excuse for this pattern of "viciousness", for exactly the same reason. People who are unable to comply with the [[WP:5P4|fourth of our pillars]] should be just as unwelcome as those who can't comply with the first or second. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 21:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
::::Perhaps one could ask them if they have changed their views since 2011? [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 21:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::They deny being the same person and assert they only ever make good edits. Do you find those assertions credible? Should we ask them whether they have changed ''those'' views since September 3? [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 21:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::I'm happy to email you with what I know about this user, but the general gist of it is "stop this or you will lose your job". [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 11:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Ritchie333}} And the solution is, instead of being happy that we finally might see the end of the disruption that has been going on for years, to enable him to continue with exactly the same behaviour, with no commitment to change and no acknowledgement of past issues, and instead to impose restrictions on everybody else? I'm sorry, but whether they threaten their job by continuing this conduct is their issue. To me this seems as if we were more concerned about the consequences their actions might bring upon themselves than about the problems they bring to Wikipedia. I don't think we should let a disruptive editor hold themselves hostage in this way. I also note that both you and [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] haven't answered my question. The user we're discussing [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATwo.25.45.251&type=revision&diff=798726961&oldid=798725927 here] denies being the Best Known For IP. Do you find this assertion credible? [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 15:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Oh, sorry, I was hoping we might get some sort of positive response from them in line with the efforts people are trying to make here - like a confirmation of identity, which would help square this account and the proposal here with the "''boss knows what they've been doing''" development. So I held off to see how they'd respond - and then I forgot. And now, to be honest, I think it's becoming moot. As NE Ent suggests below, it's looking like the community is going to reject this proposal, or if accepted it would be by such a fine margin that it would be unrealistic to expect everyone to abide by all of the suggestions. I'd hoped we could find some constructive way out of this mess rather than just keeping on playing whack-a-mole, especially as there are indications that they genuinely want to contribute constructively (It always pains me when I see good contributions removed just because they were made by a block evader), but I can see that's unlikely to happen now. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 15:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I support the principles behind {{U|Ritchie333|Ritchie's}} proposal; but I just do not see the justification in this case. Is this an editor so much of a net positive that we can cut them as much slack as is being proposed here? We have block evasion, incivility, edit-warring, and just plain being difficult. Now I'm willing to forgive some of that in the belief that by registering an account the user wishes to start afresh, in a sense. But Ritchie seems to be proposing to effectively place the ''community'' under some restrictions with respect to this editor, and apart from prohibiting sockpuppetry (which is prohibited anyway) allow them to do as they please. Now those restrictions are not bad ones, and really (apart from the point about twinkle) should apply everywhere. But I for one am not happy accepting them back without safeguards to prevent this from degenerating again. In particular, I would want a '''1RR restriction'''. Also, it may be a good idea to restrict them from following up an article talk discussion with diatribes on user talks; that is specific, and enforceable. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vanamonde93|contribs]]) </small> 04:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
**I don't really understand this train of thought. The point isn't "slack", it's figuring out the least-disruptive solution to the problem. And the result, hopefully, would be subjecting editors to ''less'' abuse. I admit that "no blocks except by consensus" thing sticks in my craw a little, because I can think of much more deserving editors who fell into that "get blocked for being rude about being unfairly blocked" trap and never got an offer like that. I guess trying something like that is an investment in the future good-but-volatile editors who might benefit from a similar plan.... <small>Well, I still think the first post is an AGF overdose and this is a lulz problem, not a poor self-control problem, but I can hope to be wrong.</small> [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 05:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
***{{ping|Opabinia regalis}} Maybe "slack" is the wrong word to use; but heck, if ''you'' were rude and disruptive tomorrow, another admin could block you without coming here first. BKFIP has been remarkably disruptive in the past, but but we need consensus, on ''ANI'', before blocking them? I can't get behind that. My proposal was very specific: if we think they can contribute positively, unblock them, and restrict them from the worst of their previous behavior: edit-warring, and posting angry messages on user talk pages. 05:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as currently written. I feel we need a 1RR restriction, but that's not a deal-breaker for me: what is is placing certain restrictions on anybody who deals with them, as I've said above. Strike points 6 and 7, and I could support. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 05:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
*I '''support''' [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]]'s proposal, as I see it as offering a decent hope for a disruption-free future. The thing about Two's employer knowing about the problems does offer us something that is different this time too. Also, with an account, it will be clear that there will be plenty of eyes on Two's editing if an unblock is granted, and equally clear that a return to old habits will almost certainly result in an effectively permanent indef block. We potentially have something good to gain here, for relatively low risk. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 14:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
*:PS: I've added a "Proposal" subheading above, to make it easier for people to locate what is actually being proposed - I hope [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] doesn't mind. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 14:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I made a bolded "oppose" comment further up the main thread but since there's an actual proposal here now, restating my opposition. I applaud the effort to find a way forward but there are many parts of this I don't like, and so this comment is long. For one, I don't know why this editor and not any of the other dozens of banned users who "make good edits" but don't work well with others. I'm fine with amnesty for editors who show that they recognize why they were blocked and make an indication they'll try to avoid those actions in the future, that's what we have the standard offer for. This editor has not done so at all, in fact they've outright said they're going to keep right on with everything that gets them blocked and banned because they think they get what they want anyway (paraphrasing from [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:190.45.54.212&diff=prev&oldid=461925720]). Furthermore, with the nature of their IP-hopping and "good edits" they could get away with evading this ban for a very long time if they didn't always fall back into the same pattern of drama whenever anyone reverts them for anything, and as such I don't have any faith that trying to limit them to an account is going to be of any use at all, even if we assume they've changed their mind about their stated intention to evade any block they disagree with (which you'd think, and they've demonstrated, is every block). BKFIP has made these sorts of assurances before to escape a block, and has broken their promise each and every time. Even so, I'm all for second* chances and would probably support this or at least stay out of the way, but this proposal also puts unusual restrictions on every editor who interacts with BKF, requiring everyone else to jump through hoops to avoid crossing an editor with a short fuse and long history of antisocial behaviour. Sometimes our fellow editors get things wrong, like calling constructive edits vandalism or mistreating IPs - we can deal with those on a case-by-case basis and we should, but part of editing here is being able to deal with people disagreeing with you from time to time, especially when you're right. BKFIP won't or can't, and it's not in the project's interest to make special rules for editors who are this dysfunctional, no matter how good their edits are. I'm also not pleased about the message this sends that if you persistently evade a community ban long enough that it just goes away.
:If there's a way forward for this editor, it starts with them respecting their ban and sitting out for six months, and then demonstrating that they have any intention at all to avoid the situations that have led to their past blocks. I don't believe that creating an account that's as close to an IP address as you can technically make demonstrates any intention at all for that to be their only account going forward, and besides, creating an account has never been required and isn't now. It's not just the ban evasion that's a problem: the core of it is the user's negative overreactions at the drop of any hint of trouble that needs to be addressed, and they could have been doing that just as well as a dynamic IP over the years. Instead of looking to improve, we have yet another round of the aggressive edit summaries and revert warring that led the latest IP to be blocked, all of which occurred ''before'' they were identified as BKFIP (it originally had nothing to do with ban evasion); had they responded more appropriately it's likely nobody would have ever made the connection. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 17:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
::Re "''they've outright said they're going to keep right on with everything that gets them blocked and banned because they think they get what they want anyway (paraphrasing from [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:190.45.54.212&diff=prev&oldid=461925720])''" - is it really fair to condemn someone for the rest of their Wikipedia existence for something they said back in 2011? [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 20:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Nothing that the editor has done in the intervening six years suggests that their statement is any less true now than when they wrote it. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 21:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:::No, of course not. <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 02:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
::::I think you're missing what I'm getting at. There are two sides to this; you've covered the edit warring and incivility, but every time he has complained about being reverted for "vandalism", the other party has also been in the wrong - that's why we've got an Arbcom case in cold storage right now. So, my plan is to take the "incorrect vandalism revert" part out of the equation, and see what we're left with. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 11:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::I hear what you're saying, but that's just not even close to the entirety of the problem. BKF doesn't just respond poorly when they're mistakenly called out for vandalism, they respond poorly whenever anyone challenges them over anything at all. Take for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Profanity&oldid=683416443#Appallingly_bad_intro this discussion]: this resulted from BKF editing a section to remove what they perceived as copyvio, while one editor disagreed with removing some important parts from the article's lede and another disagreed that the existing text was copyvio in the first place. All three editors had valid concerns, but rather than discuss and come to an agreement, BKF angrily insisted that their opinion was infallible and insulted the other editors' intelligence until their IP was blocked. In that instance the other two editors tried to address BKF's concerns, nobody called BKF a vandal, nobody reverted an IP just because it was an IP, it was just a simple content dispute that set BKF into meltdown mode. And yeah, that was two years ago, but once again I've seen nothing to suggest BKF has tried to improve at all, and the latest incident suggests to me that the pattern is ongoing. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 13:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
* '''Procedural Oppose''' I think that Arbcom and/or the WMF need to be directly involved here. Also, we're discussing an editor who has stated in writing they aren't BKFIP (I'm unsure whether they are claiming to be the same user as {{userlinks|2.25.45.251}}). [[User:Power~enwiki|Power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|talk]]) 22:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:: I search for laughter in life. "Procedural Oppose" is pretty damn good. Thanks. --<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 06:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Rather like "unscrupulously fair" in the first post. That made me laugh. [[User:PaleCloudedWhite|PaleCloudedWhite]] ([[User talk:PaleCloudedWhite|talk]]) 08:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
* '''Support''' Ritchie's proposal entirely, and thanks to {{u|Yngvadottir}} for bringing this here. Let's look forwards rather than pick at scabs. If this fails it'll be easy enough to fix, but if we don't even try, then I'm disappointed in "us". --<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 01:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
::Well quite. If he reverts to type he'll be indeffed soon enough. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 11:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
:::And if he doesn't then we gain an experienced, valuable editor. Honestly, this seems like a "no brainer" to me, and an opportunity to put stuff behind us, where it belongs. There's literally nothing to lose, and lots to potentially gain. I'd be very proud of "us" if we took this no-risk "chance" here, however it turns out, and somewhat disappointed if we don't. --<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 05:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
*Contra Yngadottir (who I admire very much anyway), I thought BKA was a terrible editor from the get-go, making lots of what could be called good-faith edits under AGF, but which made the articles worse. I'll leave the policy questions to the wikilawyers but I think the project is better off without BKA. [[Special:Contributions/173.228.123.121|173.228.123.121]] ([[User talk:173.228.123.121|talk]]) 02:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
::You could always just log in and tell us who you are, but I'm aware of the deep irony that suggestion might invoke in this case. --<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 03:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


:I've given them a second warning. [[User:Galaxybeing|Galaxybeing]] ([[User talk:Galaxybeing|talk]]) 04:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Oppose''' His edits aren't always an improvement, yet he reacts the same way with abuse and hostility. The excuse that people revert him "because he's an IP" is hogwash, its an excuse that he was given and he has latched onto with great gusto. In reality he's simply trolling and any decent edits that get made are purely incidental. Really if you've ever been unfortunate enough to come across one of his none improvements you wouldn't be thinking of unblocking this guy. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 09:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:And BTW they've been behaving like this a lot longer than 2011, I first came across this editor back in 2007. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 09:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
::10 years ago? Go figure. There's a certain sort of dedication there, for good or ill. --<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 10:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:::He likes to create drama, I bet they're loving the attention. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 16:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Wee Curry Monster}} I have to take issue with your assessment. It is possible that I am indded assuming too much good faith, as Opabinia regalis suggests, but I'm not the only one who has spoken up here and elsewhere saying that the majority of this person's edits are good. Perhaps you are confusing him with another IP editor, or perhaps you're thinking of one particular emphasis he's had with which you disagree, such as regarding "best known for" as POV? Otherwise, I find your assessment puzzling and think the imputation of bad motives to him inappropriate. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 16:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::I'm definitely thinking of this IP editor and comments like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Gow&diff=next&oldid=460692294 Censored], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Gow&diff=next&oldid=460694026 Censored] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Gow&diff=next&oldid=460702274 Censored] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Gow&diff=next&oldid=460708050 You dopy little Censored, "wee curry monster".] I've seen several threads started by him at ANI, which I would definitely class as trolling (but of course they're difficult to go back and find due to his IP hopping). I would just like an environment where you can discuss edits in a reasonable manner, without some foul mouthed troll gobbing off when someone has the temerity to disagree with him. I am really bemused that you think this guy is somehow an asset to the community, can you point to some particularly brilliant article he's penned? A little copy editing is not worth the grief and drama this editor creates. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 17:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::Wow, 4 f-bombs and a "retard"? And all 2011? That's not very bad at all, and it's very old news. As I said above, he's genuinely been more civil in recent years. I'd say you're about quits with the "foul-mouthed troll" above, but I admit I'm at the extreme edge here, and I admit, my mother wouldn't like him. But this is a writing collaboration, not a vicarage tea or even a business. Yes, I do think his editing is a net positive. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 17:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Not just the f-bomb, in 10 years of editing, I've seen some stupidity but never felt the need to refer to another editor as a dopey fucking cunt. Funnily enough not even my old rugby team would consider that sort of language acceptable. So do I take it from your remarks you don't feel that editors can expect discussions to be civil? It certainly seems that way. And I don't think his editing is a net positive, I think its been a time sink for years. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 19:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::As I say, it's regrettable he called you a fuck and a retard in the last link there, but you're going pretty far back for your examples and he stopped cold with the "c-word", to my knowledge? I think there's a bit of a false dichotomy here. I don't agree 100% with all his edits; he's told me off for not doing so; I don't think he's our best copyeditor, but he's damned useful to the encyclopedia (I see more editors elsewhere in this thread judging his edits as generally good than sharing your opinion of them, and I'm particularly concerned because he has a good knowledge of science, and I for one don't), and I don't define incivility by lists of words that you're not supposed to say on TV. To my mind, calling an editor like this a troll is as bad as dropping an f-bomb, and snideness is vastly underestimated in its effect on the editing environment. But I'm not the person to decide this. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 21:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::As it happens, I'd forgotten the guy admitted to getting his kicks abusing other editors [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:190.45.54.212&diff=prev&oldid=461925720 ''I get more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely"'']. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 17:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::Not what they said: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:190.45.54.212&diff=prev&oldid=461925720 ''I get more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely, and '''the end result is exactly the same.''' It's very, very depressing to see how reasonable, sensible people like yourself became the minority. Believe me, if you were the majority, I would not be viciously slagging off anyone.''] (Emphasis mine.) <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 17:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
* Discussion continues, but slowly, and meanwhile the editor has talk page access revoked and therefore can't even make a statement to be reported here. That seems unfair to me. May I propose restoring talk-page access as a bit of [[WP:ROPE]] or a gesture of good faith on our own parts? [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 16:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' [[WP:AGF]] is not a suicide pact, I've seen this editor break every promise they've ever made to be civil to other editors. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 17:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
While the thought behind the proposal is good, I'm neither for it nor against it because it won't matter.
* Within Wikipedia, there is a group, I'll use the term ''Chaotic Good'' loosely, who believe the most important thing is the encyclopedia. Therefore, any edits that improve it should be allowed to stand rather than systemically reverted because of who made them. (This becomes especially sticky when the edit fixed a [[WP:BLP]] problem.)
* There is also a ''Lawful Good'' group who believes the most important thing is the encyclopedia. Therefore, any individual whose actions continually impair the function of the project needs to be firmly discouraged, regardless of any positive edits they may make.
* Neither good has a plurality and both have logically reasonable positions. Of course the two views are incompatible, so we muddle along on a case by case basis.
The are two possible outcomes to this discussion:
* The consensus is against (current trend). Well, that's the status quo the Wikipedia community can argue about for ''another'' decade.
* The proposal passes -- the idea that we can get the entire community to abide by 3, 4 and 5 is unsupported by historical evidence, and what happens when it doesn't?? Does that then excuse BKFIP's subsequent behavior? Secondly, it's only a matter of time before there in an accusation of sockpuppetry -- it's hardly a unique phrase e.g.[https://consequenceofsound.net/2017/07/10-artists-best-known-for-cover-songs/] and there are like a billion English speakers. The idea that every writer is a special unique snowflake that can be identified by any minor edit is ludicrous, and of course there's the possibility of a [[agent provocateur]] troll deciding to stir up trouble. Regardless of whether BKFIP follows the proposed rules, someone will decide they're not.


== Editor may lack a mechanism to communicative effectively ==
The sensible thing to do would be to take the [[WP:RBI]] approach -- as that page points out "In the past we have neatly categorized vandals and constructed shrines for them on Wikipedia." Well, the past is present: I mean the guy even has their own shortcut [[WP:BKFIP]]. We should leave the good edits, revert the bad, short term block any IP with excessively poor behavior. Delete the shrine. And take some [[Wikipedia:Wikidryl|Wikidryl]]. <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 21:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Basaatw indef'd. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|Basaatw}}
[[User:Basaatw|Basaatw]] generates all of their prolific Talk comments at [[Talk:2024 United States drone sightings]] with an LLM. They've indicated [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_drone_sightings&diff=prev&oldid=1266257215] this is the only way they are able to communicate and, when probed, seem to have committed [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Basaatw&diff=prev&oldid=1266619607] to exclusively using the LLM to respond to other editors' questions and comments.


The issue is that the AI-generated Talk comments are so contorted and unnatural that they have the effect -- and I don't think this is Basaatw's intent -- of diverting all discussion to the unusual writing style of the comments as opposed to the actual content of what Basaatw is trying to express (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_drone_sightings&diff=prev&oldid=1266660221], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_drone_sightings&diff=prev&oldid=1266476999], etc.).
== User: 36.72.55.141 ==


As I hinted to Basaatw here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Basaatw&diff=prev&oldid=1266454806], if they are unable to communicate using unaided cognition, and the technical adjunct they're using to assist them is also ineffective at communicating in a way in which our OI editors can interact, their contributions are having the effect of being disruptive (and, again, I don't think that's purposeful). We've generally accepted that editors must possess some method [[WP:CIR|{{xt|"to communicate effectively"}}]] as a condition of editing.
{{userlinks|36.72.55.141}} based in Indonesia has made a mass of edits today. The edits to [[BBC News (TV channel)]] and all other BBC date entries are vandalism and I have reverted them. I'm not qualified to comment on the numerous other changes - although they do appear to be incorrect. Should this user be blocked?
:He seems to be messing with dates, should I revert the rest of the changes? &mdash;[[User:JJBers Public|<font color="red">JJ</font>]][[User Talk:JJBers Public|<font color="green">B<sup>e</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/JJBers Public|<font color="blue"><sup>rs</sup></font>]] 12:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::Probably, I just haven't the time to check all the "edits". Regards, [[User:David J Johnson|David J Johnson]] ([[User talk:David J Johnson|talk]]) 13:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
:::I've reverted them all where they hadn't already been reverted. Regarding a block, the user is long gone now. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 15:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::::Thanks for your help. [[User:David J Johnson|David J Johnson]] ([[User talk:David J Johnson|talk]]) 08:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::He hasn't gone away, still meddling with dates, so I've blocked for 31 hours. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 23:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


I am [[WP:INVOLVED]] in this article so am not a good evaluator of the situation or potential remedies. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 18:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== Odd "<" editing ==
:Courtesy pinging {{yo|Anne drew}} and {{yo|BusterD}} whose edits I linked. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 18:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


:What I find a little frustrating is not knowing whether these are Basaatw's original thoughts rendered through a [[large language model]] (e.g. [[ChatGPT]]), or if I'm really just wasting my time conversing with a software program. I'm not against the careful use of LLMs to edit articles or even to contribute to discussions, but if your comments are long and numerous, of questionable quality, and are clearly AI generated, responding to them becomes a [[WP:DE|waste of editors' time]]. – [[user:Anne drew|<span style="color:#085">Anne&nbsp;drew</span>]] ([[User talk:Anne drew|talk]]&nbsp;<b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Anne drew|contribs]]) 19:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Over the past few days I've run across many instances of someone replacing all the left brackets (<) on a page with the unicode characters for the symbol: & l t ; . (Apologies; can't get it to show up correctly here without spacing.) This results in broken refs, messed up punctuation, and sometimes a pretty unreadable page.
:I think a number of good thoughts were used when you posted over at {{section link|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard|Humans sharing accounts with machines}}. I haven’t looked at this accused users posts yet, but I think distributive or unproductive editing or correspondence should be handled the same regardless if a LLM was used to assist the user or not. There might be a room for an ounce of extra AGF (but not much) similar to what we might extend to a user who is using a translator because their English isn’t very good. But at the end of the day, using a standard translator or an advanced LLM is not an excuse for being disruptive and this should be treaded as such. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 19:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::Oh my goodness, I just took a look --- boy does that ever [[WP:QUACK|QUACK]] like LLM! Such that the responses seem to generally sound apologetic in tone, but but their further edits do not actually correlate to their apology. Looking at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_drone_sightings&diff=prev&oldid=1266086942 this apology] they still continued to break references, abit in a different way. At the time of that apology all of the references were good [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_drone_sightings&oldid=1266068137] but then after a series of edit, the page was left with 4 broken references. Regardless of the LLM aspects, this is still a disruptive editor. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 22:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:If this editor ''really'' cannot communicate without an LLM then their English is not good enough to write anything in Wikipedia articles, so they should be blocked per [[WP:CIR]]. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:Using LLMs is just the user's problem ''now.'' The user's account was created in 2006 but the first edits appear in 2016. The ''second contribution'' was used to create [[Scott Binsack]], summarily deleted as promotional by [[:User:DGG]]; the warning from [[:User:Kudpung]] is still the ''top entry'' on the current [[User talk:Basaatw]]. The [[Special:DeletedContributions/Basaatw|user's deleted contribs]] show three deleted drafts. The second of those was [[Draft:Franklin Boggs]], which was deleted by [[:User:JJMC89]] for clear copyright violations. The third was [[Draft:Parsec Incorporated]], an admitted COI draft which was speedy deleted as G11 by [[:User:Jimfbleak]]. These contributions were over four years ago. Seven years ago Basaatw created [[Sidney Simon]] (which may also be a COI case) but looks quite notable on my first pass. It's hard to ignore the many revdelled versions ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sidney_Simon&diff=884872062&oldid=877102019 diff]) which were [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sidney+Simon&date-range-to=&date-range-to=&tagfilter=&deleted=1&action=history apparent copyright violations] as well. After a three year inactive period, in October the account came back to make [[User:Basaatw/sandbox/Jamie Lackey]]. This last Sunday, the user shows up with their shiny new ChatGPT and since then, that's the only sort of edit they've made. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 22:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::My popup shows this account has made 157 edits since 2006, and my narrative above discounts ~75% of those. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 22:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*I'm not sure what should be done here but I just wanted to mention that the use of LLM is not always be due to poor language skills, there can be physical disabilities that would prompt the use of this technology to communicate. I gather that the editor has not been specific on why they rely on LLM but I wouldn't jump to any conclusions yet. Regardless of the reason though, if this use of a AI assistance is becoming disruptive, I can see that action might need to be taken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 01:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{Xt|"there can be physical disabilities that would prompt the use of this technology to communicate"}} Yes, that's an important reminder. I'm inclined to believe whatever the ultimate resolution is, it impose the lightest impediment on the editor's participation that's possible. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 02:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Just adding that if their [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Basaatw&oldid=752985017 original user page is accurate] then they are almost certainly a native English speaker in their 70s. [[User talk:Photos of Japan|Photos of Japan]] ([[User talk:Photos of Japan|talk]]) 10:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*I've requested on their User talk page that they come and participate in this discussion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|they}} [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Hi;
*:Thank you for inviting me to this discussion. When Chetsford and Liz Read reached out, I came here to engage because I believe in Wikipedia's collaborative spirit.
*:I want to clarify my use of tools in contributing to Wikipedia. I use LLM technology to draft, under WP:TOOLS, which encourages editors to use resources to improve their work. I take the time to review and edit the content myself, ensuring it reflects my understanding and complies with community standards.
*:Editors have raised concerns about my handling of references. While I acknowledge this as an area for improvement, WP:COLLAB reminds us that none of us is perfect. To improve my referencing, I'm reviewing feedback and welcome specific examples of where I can do better.
*:I value being part of Wikipedia and contributing to its mission. Being included in this discussion shows how open communication helps us all work better together. I welcome specific feedback about my contributions and am committed to meeting community expectations while fostering a collaborative spirit.
*:Best always [[User:Basaatw|Randall N. Brock]] ([[User talk:Basaatw|talk]]) 14:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Please stop using LLMs for your responses. Honestly, it's annoying, to say the least. --[[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 15:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{Green|I use LLM technology to draft, under WP:TOOLS, which encourages editors to use resources to improve their work. I take the time to review and edit the content myself, ensuring it reflects my understanding and complies with community standards.}} Could you explain how you reviewed WP:TOOLS and how it encourages llm use? [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 15:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


===Proposed CBAN on use of certain technological adjuncts by editor===
Examples can be seen at [[Triple bond]] and [[Peshawar cricket team]].
Noting, as I previously have, that I am INVOLVED, I propose Basaatw be subject to a [[WP:CBAN]] on adding content to Wikipedia created by LLMs, NLP pipelines, procedural generators, rule-based chatbots, or similar technological adjuncts, and that this ban extend to include both mainspace articles and Talk pages. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 22:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm at NOTHERE with this person. They are trolling multiple admins. We commonly indef for less than that. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 22:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::I would agree somewhere between NOTHERE and CIR. It doesn't matter how you use the tools, if you're being unconstructive, the LLM is at best just an excuse, which we don't really care much about after multiple attempts have been made to bring correction. It is right up there with bad edits using a mobile device, it can be the reason for the mistake, but that doesn't mean we just let people continue to use that excuse, instead they need to step up with their use of preview/etc., and be responsible for their own actions. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 23:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''PBan''' - [[WP:NOTHERE]] behavior, and would also like to call the [[WP:CIR]], if you need LLM to be able to respond, we can't have meaningful positive criticism and learning of community norms. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 16:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Agree. The problem with LLMs is that they don't understand the rules of Wikipedia. A user who is copy/pasting LLM responses is unlikely to learn the rules of Wikipedia, precisely because the user trusts the LLM to provide adequate answers. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 17:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::LLMs don't sound like aware intellectuals, they sound like marketing bullshiters. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 17:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Indef''' [[WP:NOTHERE]] at all really. They just have a chatbot putting word-slurry onto our encyclopedia. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Blocking indef as NOTHERE''', given their two new GPT-created threads on [[Talk:2025 New Orleans truck attack]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_New_Orleans_truck_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1266898382 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_New_Orleans_truck_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1266892392 2]). Looking at their entire edit history, they clearly not here to create the best online encyclopedia. They were here to create articles about connected subjects; now they're here apparently to calibrate LLMs for talk pages on high visibility articles. They've upgraded to proposing pagespace wordings and giving deadlines. We don't feed trolls; we shouldn't enable trolls using LLMs when the evidence is clear. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User: 2600:1004:B253:C3D5:0:F:EA83:6701 - POV pushing? ==
This always comes from an anonymous user, and every time that I've checked, it has been that account's only edit. A large proportion of the pages seem to be on Indian topics, but I don't know what percentage of wiki articles fall into that category, so maybe that means nothing.
{{atop|1=Blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|2600:1004:B253:C3D5:0:F:EA83:6701}}
2600:1004:(continued) has been putting Islamophobic/bigoted comments on multiple talk pages [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_New_Orleans_truck_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1266667686|83] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1266676474], then when confronted, responded with an NPA violation.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_New_Orleans_truck_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1266687702] Was just gonna go home to my computer and give some warnings from Twinkle, but was suggested to bring this up here. First time bringing something up at ANI so sorry if I screwed up. [[User:Wildfireupdateman|the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather]] ([[User talk:Wildfireupdateman|talk]]) 20:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


:In my opinion, the aforementioned IP is clearly NOTHERE and should be dealt as such. [[User:Wildfireupdateman|the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather]] ([[User talk:Wildfireupdateman|talk]]) 20:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
The character replaced is almost always <, occasionally &, and once >. Also, very rarely (maybe 2 in 50 times), an edit summary is given, such as recently at [[Shani Prabhava]].


::The IP range [[User:2600:1004:B253:C3D5:0:0:0:0/64]] has been blocked for 31 hours. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 00:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd love any insight as to why I keep seeing this. (And if this is not the proper place to report this, please correct me - this is not my area at all.) Let me know if there's any other info I can provide that would be useful. Thank you! [[User:Jessicapierce|Jessicapierce]] ([[User talk:Jessicapierce|talk]])
{{abot}}
:I'm not sure there is much that can be done at the moment. The two examples you gave were by two different IPs. Thanks for the fixes though. [[WP:AIV]] is available should the problem become more widespread. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 18:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


== User:Historian5328 ==
:In only one of your examples was the edit "that account's only edit". Two of the IPs already had multiple edits to a variety of articles. If you examine each accounts' other edits, you can see whether they were constructive or not, and if not, revert the edit(s). If there is a pattern, then warn the user (see [[WP:WARN]] for some sample templates), and if necessary, report them at [[WP:AIV]]. If there is continuing vandalism to a single article by multiple IPs or an IP-hopper, then you can request semi-protection of the article at [[WP:RFPP]]. -- [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 19:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Historian5328}}
: I've seen this, too. I chalked it up to some browser bug. I suppose it could be vandalism. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 21:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I have been dealing with persistent additions of unreferenced numbers to [[Somali Armed Forces]], [[Somali Navy]], etc for some time. Rolling them back - they're never supported by sources that validate the data, or the sources are distorted.
::Thanks very much for the replies. My fault, re the "only edit" thing - although I gave poor examples here, I assure you the vast majority of this has been from IPs with only one edit. This is what led me to think it isn't vandalism, but an error/bug/mystery. No big deal, just thought I should report it. [[User:Jessicapierce|Jessicapierce]] ([[User talk:Jessicapierce|talk]]) 22:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
:The problem sounds like the character entities fooling either the user's browser or the internal (Wikimedia server) wikitext parser into not recognizing what were intended as html-like formatting tags, sort of like a grammatical [[hypercorrection]]. I'd AGF and communicate to the person that they're causing problems rather than solving them. If it gets out of hand, an edit filter could intercept the changes. [[Special:Contributions/173.228.123.121|173.228.123.121]] ([[User talk:173.228.123.121|talk]]) 02:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


In the last couple of days a new user, [[User:Historian5328]] has also started showing this behaviour. But in [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_equipment_of_the_Somali_Armed_Forces&diff=prev&oldid=1266662788] this edit he's entering fantasy territory, saying the [[Somali Armed Forces]] are equipped with the [[Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II]], which has never been exported beyond the [[United States Air Force]]. I would request that any interested administrator consider this account for blocking. Kind regards and Happy New Year, [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the info, I have also seen this multiple times while on RC patrol. [[User:Tornado chaser|Tornado chaser]] ([[User talk:Tornado chaser|talk]])
:Editor clearly has some serious [[WP:CIR]] issues, given this [[WP:MADEUP]] stuff, and using...let's say ''non-reliable sources'' elsewhere, without responding to any of the notices on their talk page. I've pblocked them from articlespace so they can come here and explain themselves. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::Just noting that the editor's username is [[User:Historian5328]], not [[User:Historian 5328]] and they were informed of this discussion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 00:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::In the same regard, I would kindly request that any interested administrators review [[User_talk:YZ357980]], who has been warned over and over and over again about adding unsourced and completely made up material (Somali Navy for example, consisting of 3,500 personnel..) [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 03:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I see you corrected their username in this report after I mentioned the mistake. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Liz, the original vandal and very problematic editor, who should be blocked immediately, was YZ357980. With all due regard to Historian5328, they display very similar behaviour, which immediately created a warning flag in my mind. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 21:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I’m relatively new to Wikipedia editing and only recently discovered that there is even a talk page. Regarding the active personnel for the Somali Armed Forces, I listed approx 20,000–30,000 (2024) and included a citation, which I believe does not warrant being blocked. I’m a beginner in Wikipedia editing, have no malicious intent, and do not believe I should be blocked. Moreover, I read from a Somalia media source that the Somali government had acquired A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft, believing the source to be authentic up until I discovered I was blocked. This was a mistake on my part, as I am new and inexperienced (2 days.) The individual who requested me to blocked must have had bad experiences which I’m not responsible for. I am requesting to be unblocked. [[User:Historian5328|Historian5328]] ([[User talk:Historian5328|talk]]) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Discussion continued on user's talk page. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
A reminder that the arbitration committee has designated the Horn of Africa a contentious topic, so don’t be afraid to lay down a CT advisory template for either user. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1011:B32F:11B9:C826:BD54:45DF:3286|2600:1011:B32F:11B9:C826:BD54:45DF:3286]] ([[User talk:2600:1011:B32F:11B9:C826:BD54:45DF:3286|talk]]) 08:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Both done - thanks for the reminder. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


== Threats of off-wiki action and [[WP:PA]] ==
== Disruptive editing by [[User:Motorsporteditor]] ==
{{atop|result=It looks like this situation has been resolved. Automelon is warned not to make legal threats or to blank other editor's draft articles. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|JoJa15}}
*{{userlinks|Automelon}}
Users have traded personal attacks and thinly-veiled legal threats on an (unrelated?) users talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DidYouGetSniped%3F&oldid=1266743935 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DidYouGetSniped%3F&direction=next&oldid=1266743935 here]. Both users appear to be [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[User:Cyberdog958|<span style="color:navy;">''cyberdog''</span><span style="color:orange;">'''958'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Cyberdog958|<span style="color:teal;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 01:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


:Regarding these issues, my ''thinly veiled'' legal threats are mainly a scare tactic. This user is impersonating the creator of the game War Brokers, and is threating to ban a player. We have discovered the identity of the impersonator on the offical War Brokers discord, and request that this account (Joja15) be somehow restricted so that they cannot make false claims and impersonate the real, and legitimate Joja15. Thank you [[User:Automelon|Automelon]] ([[User talk:Automelon|talk]]) 02:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
After receiving a final warning for removing an AfD template from [[Josh Tibbetts]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Motorsporteditor&diff=798774857&oldid=798774265 diff 1]), stating that they would be blocked if they did it again, they did exactly that, removing the AfD template from [[Sam Cartwright]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sam_Cartwright&diff=prev&oldid=799116210 diff 2]). I've already reported this to AIV, where I think this report correctly belongs, but was declined first on erroneous and then procedural grounds ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=799124592&oldid=799124437 diff 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Titoxd&diff=799136677&oldid=799130715 diff 4]). Additionally, this editor has engaged in other general disruption ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Leonardo_Da_Silva_Lopes&diff=prev&oldid=798773412 diff 5], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Sir_Sputnik&diff=prev&oldid=798771945 diff 6]) and made personal attacks against [[User:PlyrStar93]] and myself ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PlyrStar93&diff=prev&oldid=798774068 diff 7], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Sir_Sputnik&diff=prev&oldid=798772347 diff 8]). I think a brief block is called for here. [[User:Sir Sputnik|Sir Sputnik]] ([[User talk:Sir Sputnik|talk]]) 22:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::Ahem. [[WP:CIVIL]], [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:NLT]] apply to ALL users, including those who fancy that Wikipedia is a proper venue for furthering off-wiki feuds. I strongly recommend you review those policies and comply with them in the future. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 02:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Issue has been resolved, with the impersonator revealing himself. Sorry for this strange issue [[User:Automelon|Automelon]] ([[User talk:Automelon|talk]]) 02:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::JoJa15 has been blocked for impersonating someone else's online username (while not another ''Wikpedian'', impersonating someone known primarily by an online handle is still not on). Automelon has been warned not to make legal threats. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Walls of text ==
=== Contant Stalking by [[User:Sir Sputnik]] ===


Please block [[Special:Contributions/2601:647:6510:25D9:D426:7245:BE4D:A179/64]] for [[ad nauseam]] [[WP:WALLS]] at [[Talk:Jehovah]]. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 03:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The AfD template I removed from [[Josh Tibbetts]] and [[Sam Cartwright]] said I could do so once some changes were made. I made those changes and removed the tags yet [[User:Sir Sputnik]] continued to try and remove the page and remove my account. I feel like a temporary block should be put in place for bullying. [[User:Motorsportbattles]] 7:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:{{u|Motorsportbattles}}, AfD templates say no such thing. As a matter of fact, they say directly the opposite. You may be new here, but the editors frequenting this board are not. That is an entirely disingenuous defense. Care to try again? [[User:John from Idegon|John from Idegon]] ([[User talk:John from Idegon|talk]]) 07:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Motorsportbattles}} You wouldn't be having this problem if you weren't repeatedly creating articles on footballers who fail our [[WP:NFOOTY|notability guideline]]. If you don't stop doing this, you may eventually find yourself back here with a request for a new article topic ban, which I would fully endorse – at the moment you're just wasting other editors time by forcing people to go through the AfD process. [[User:Number 57|<font color="orange">Number</font>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<font color="green">5</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<font color="blue">7</font>]] 11:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Blocked'''. The name seems to be Motorsporteditor, as per Sir Sputnik's report, not Motorsportbattles, which they confusingly sign as. The timestamp is wrong too.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=799192382&oldid=799191925] [[User:Motorsporteditor|Motorsporteditor]], please sign using four tildes, (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>), then it'll come out right. People need to be able to get to your page by clicking on your signature, and to [[WP:ping|ping]] you — the pings by John from Idegon and Number 57, won't have reached you, simply because you signed the wrong name. Anyway, I think Motorsporteditor needs a block right now for disruptive editing such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Sir_Sputnik&diff=prev&oldid=798772347 this], and I've given them 31 hours. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 20:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC).
*This user is not at all new. They have been here since 2014 and much of their editing has been unconstructive.[[User:Tvx1|T]][[User Talk:Tvx1|v]][[Special:Contributions/Tvx1|x]]1 14:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


:As a first measure, I blocked the /64 for 31 hours for disruptive editing. That covers most of the disrupting IPs. Maybe wait a bit before seeing if further measures needed. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 03:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== Edit warring on [[United Firefighters Union of Australia]] ==
::I'm not comfortable at my level of experience blocking a /48. Other admins are welcome to increase the range if they feel it is necessary. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 03:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
On {{la|United Firefighters Union of Australia }} The following three seem to be edit warring over a [[wp:content dispute]]. The article needs to be PP at the least.
* {{userlinks|Firefighter83}}
* {{userlinks|Atriskboy}}
* {{userlinks|NSWFire}}
[[User:Jim1138|Jim1138]] ([[User talk:Jim1138|talk]]) 06:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


The IP promised to never repent at {{diff2|1266763006}}. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 03:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi Jim,


The talkpage will likely need semi-protection, as the individual is changing IPs. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 03:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Atriskboy and myself are not edit warring with each other, it appears we are both reacting to constant vandalism of that page by user NSWFire and a static IP address user - FF83 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Firefighter83|Firefighter83]] ([[User talk:Firefighter83#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Firefighter83|contribs]]) </small>
:{{nonadmin}} The article certainly needs a few extra eyes, since it appears to be a massive fustercluck. No comment on who's right and/or wrong. [[User:Kleuske|Kleuske]] ([[User talk:Kleuske|talk]]) 11:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


:Yup, it seems they are upon a /48 lease. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 03:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello. It's rich to call what I have done vandalism. It is true that the UFU is currently carrying a $200,000 + debt arising from the split of all members bar three, and it is documented in their annual report. They have also received much formal criticism for their continued defence of members who have been found untrustworthy. However, I am happy to split these subjects off into a second page - perhaps called "United Fire Fighters Union Australia - Controversies" to keep both the peace and to avoid accusations of white washing. [[User:NSWFire|NSWFire]] ([[User talk:NSWFire|talk]]) 23:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
::[[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]], I don't see that you alerted them to this discussion at ANI. I looked at the talk page for the IP they primarily used and there were warnings but no ANI notice. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi, {{u|Liz}}, I did inform the IP of this ANI thread, but only once, not in three places. See [[User talk:2601:647:6510:25D9:D426:7245:BE4D:A179]]. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 07:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Well, thanks for trying. It is admittedly hard to communicate with IP editors whose accounts jump around. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yup, my two cents were that only the last used IP ''could'' be the correct one for issuing such a notification. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 07:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


::I'm not seeing any recent edits from the /48 other than from the /64, except a single edit from 2601:647:6510:4ceb:ed9a:4797:9b0a:bd70 about 4.5 days ago. I have no qualms with blocking a /48 if necessary and/or semiprotecting the targetted talkpage where they are being disruptive/evading. But I'd want to see stronger evidence that the /64 block isn't sufficient. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 07:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I see that Firefighter83 has now deleted the subject matter previously agreed to be factual, branding it opinion. I strongly urge that it is resumed, as it relates closely to the history of the current publicity. [[User:NSWFire|NSWFire]] ([[User talk:NSWFire|talk]]) 04:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
::: A partial block from that single page for the /48 would work, it is vanishingly unlikely that anyone else on that range would want to edit that one talkpage out of 7 million. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 10:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


== Vandalism, sockpuppetry and bad redirects from User:NamayandeBidokht / User:12shahriyari ==
:There appears to be no such agreement, as I stated in my edit, your addition reads as an opinion piece or press release and therefore is not an appropriate addtion to this article. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Firefighter83|Firefighter83]] ([[User talk:Firefighter83#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Firefighter83|contribs]]) 04:42, September 7, 2017 (UTC)</small>
{{atop|1=Both users cu-blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::Full-protected indefinitely, and then re-full-protected for three days because indefinite was a mistake. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 05:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|NamayandeBidokht}}
*{{userlinks|12shahriyari}}


Despite [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NamayandeBidokht&oldid=1266822752 warnings], this editor is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AEsfad&diff=1266821991&oldid=1266757895 removing sections] from village articles and creating a string of redirects ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Esfad&diff=prev&oldid=1266822161 to WP namespace]) and continued same behaviour with [[Special:Contributions/12shahriyari|a different account]]. I'm reporting here because as well as bans being in order someone will need to fix those redirects. ---- [[User:DandelionAndBurdock|D'n'B]]-''[[User_talk:DandelionAndBurdock|📞]]'' -- 11:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not going to comment on the content until the edit warring issue is settled. Both Firefighter83 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_Firefighters_Union_of_Australia&diff=799346163&oldid=799325907] and NSWFire [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_Firefighters_Union_of_Australia&diff=799316850&oldid=799295604] have continued the edit war after being given edit warring warnings. Both appear to have broken 3RR after the warning. I support edit warring blocks for both. Atriskboy stopped editing the article after the warning and did not break 3RR, but was edit warring on this article and the related [[Country Fire Authority]]. All 3 very likely have a conflict of interest in this issue. .
::There is alsonow an SPI case at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NSWFire]] concerning a new account [[User: Ethicschecker]] that was created eight minutes after the edit warring notice and has now edited the article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_Firefighters_Union_of_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=799197926] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_Firefighters_Union_of_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=799325907].
::[[Country Fire Authority]] is part of this mess too, with a number of SPAs in common, and several other SPAs active. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 05:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
:::I'm generally not fond of handing out blocks when ''several'' people have been warring at one or two pages; easier to protect the page, and if the users are otherwise good editors, it avoids creating their block logs. If you think that blocks would be better than protections here, please explain your reasoning. Of course, disruptive sockpuppetry, if proven, is good reason for sustained blocks on all accounts involved. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 05:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
::::I don't know that blocks will solve this any more than temporary full protection will (unless an admin actually makes a definitive edit). The parties do not seem to be able to work this out. 3rr violations after an edit warring warning are a definite bright line issue, and this ANI was an edit warring thread so that was my take. My comment was made at almost the same time as the protection. I would have looked at things differently if the article had already been protected.
::::We have a big mess of SPA and apparent COI editors who have taken their union infighting to the Wikipedia pages. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 06:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


:And while we are here, can someone also help move back [[Wikipedia:Bahmanabad-e Jadid]] back into mainspace. It's blocking me from making that move. [[User:Adamtt9|Adamtt9]] ([[User talk:Adamtt9|talk]]) 11:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== Persistent disruptive editing at [[Kathi Darbar]] ==
{{atop|Reported user blocked. Sock possible based on behavior but suggest filing SPI if someone wants to pursue that further. Closing for now as being stale (5 days no action). {{nac}} [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 19:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)}}
{{u|Bhagirathkamaliya}} has just returned from a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABhagirathkamaliya second block] for vandalim/disruptive editing at [[:Kathi Darbar]], and is already edit-warring there to include the same unreferenced content as before. The editor has had numerous warnings, but has never acknowldeged one – and indeed has never posted on a talk-page – so there doesn't seem to be much hope that a polite explanation will cause any change in behaviour. [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 14:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:: Escalated the block to 1 week; but I think by this point indefinite is probably appropriate also. [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]][[User_talk:Alex Shih|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 15:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:::This particular one may be linked to [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kjp007]] but I don't have time to look deep now. Also, when it comes to these caste pages, it'd be helpful if a {{tlx|Uw-castewarning}} is left for the user along with the first warning as it'd avoid the need for ANI etc. &mdash;[[User:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#BA181F">Spaceman</font>]]'''[[User_talk:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#2B18BA">Spiff</font>]]''' 15:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
*Considering [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kathi_Darbar&diff=prev&oldid=789923738 this] (User:Aniruddhbhaidhadhaldhadhal) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kathi_Darbar&diff=prev&oldid=798192076 this] (User:Bhagirathkamaliya), yeah maybe. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 16:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
*{{U|DoRD}}, do you see anything with your special CU glasses that I don't? You ran it on that master before... [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 16:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
**It's not impossible that they're related, but except for being located in the same geographic area, they don't match technically. ​—[[User:DoRD|DoRD]] ([[User talk:DoRD|talk]])​ 17:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{abot}}


== [[User:Vofa]] and removal of sourced information ==
==Request block of User:Johnvr4==
{{Userlinks|Johnvr4}}


This seems to be an ongoing issue.
I would like to request a block of User:Johnvr4 under [[WP:NOTHERE]]. To quote [[User:Nick-D]] in March this year, Johnvr4 "doesn't seem interested in working collaboratively to develop neutral and appropriate encyclopedia articles. ..I believe that a block would be justified by [his] repeated attempts to create articles which are unreliable and inability to listen and respond to the concerns which multiple editors have raised about them .. . Fundamentally, I don't think that Wikipedia is an appropriate location for the stuff [Johnvr4] want[s] to publish, or that [his] approach to doing so is in line with Wikipedia's collaborative ethos." ([[User talk:Nick-D#U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands]]). Johnvr4 is repeatedly trying to create articles which are severely biased against the U.S. government's view on things, and distorts sources to do so. This was raised at the original [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat]] by [[User:Moe Epsilon]], in regard to a reference which was distorted [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Operation_Red_Hat&diff=559258628&oldid=559256245], at [[User_talk:Johnvr4#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie]], and at [[U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan]] over the reasons for removal of nuclear weapons from Okinawa (partially due to a perceived vulnerability to terrorism, which Johnvr4 repeated tried to downgrade from the article). He also is repeatedly unable or unwilling to recognise a consensus formed against him [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoySmith&diff=799235673&oldid=799234208] and has recreated his preferred version of deleted content three times in his sandbox after an MfD was closed against him (see [[User talk:Johnvr4#Red Hat content]], and further advisory by [[User:RoySmith]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4#Recreation warning]]). Another example of concerns about his editing style came from [[User:AustralianRupert]] at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_30&diff=798361715&oldid=798323328]. This user is [[WP:NOTHERE]] to build an encyclopaedia in line with WP's principals, and I kindly request that he be blocked from further editing. Regards [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 20:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
* '''Support''' [[User:Power~enwiki|Power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|talk]]) 01:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
* '''Support for now''' I'm still not fully done reading below, so I'll put this in for now. &mdash;[[User:JJBers|<font color="red">JJ</font>]][[User Talk:JJBers|<font color="green">B<sup>e</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/JJBers|<font color="blue"><sup>rs</sup></font>]] 01:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
*Additional comment: at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_30&diff=798312905&oldid=798306436] Moe Epsilon said: "You have only edited a small handful of article topics and I can't look through your editing history and find an example of you making major changes to an article and then not having a major dispute on the talk page. Your contributions have either been deleted outright, reverted partially or debated upon heavily. That is concerning. I told you back in 2014 that was concerning because I took a single reference you supplied, which was used several times in your writing, and it wasn't factually accurate according to what the references said." which again is another indicator of the problems this user causes. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 02:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
:*Please pardon my interruption but I'd like to inform this discussion of [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge#New_requests]] for[[Operation Red Hat]] where the history of the text that [[User:Moe Epsilon]] once accused me of "cooking up in my spare time" as a reason for AfD as well as Bucksohot06 assertions about it in MfD, DRV, and here will soon be visible again. those editors and others had been told very clearly the assertion <s>he continues to put forth</s> about submitting that text is untrue. Buckshot06 restored that very text. The restored page history will make those misrepresentations apparent despite his stated opposition to restoring it.[[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 05:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
*Sincerely regretful '''support''' from an involved party. I actually sort of like John. My second discussion with him on my talk page indicates that he ''can'' carry on a concise and non-bludgeoning discussion when he chooses to. He was very polite about accidentally referring to me as "he" instead of "she", and came to my talk page to apologize about feeling like he'd villified me/dragged me into this mess. I genuinely don't think John is being intentionally disruptive just for the sake of causing problems. I think if we could get him to edit about anything else that he ''didn't'' have such a strong passion for, he'd be a great contributor. I think the problem is that he has such an obsessive passion for how he sees Red Hat/weapons deployment/related topics that he gets complete tunnel vision and blocks out anything that contradicts his own view of the topic and our policies here. He gets frustrated that we can't see what he sees, leading him to produce ever-lengthier posts trying to convey his point but instead alienating his intended audience in the process. I don't know that there is a viable alternative to blocking, possibly save a broadly-construed topic ban for anything related to Red Hat/weapons deployment/similar. But I admit I have doubts as to whether that would be effective or merely a postponement of a block. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 03:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
:*I'm not sure if my comment here is appropriate but I am OCD and spectrum. But not just on any one particular issue. I also have some nerve damage, adrenal tumor that jacks me up, and I nearly failed typing (sorry for the typos- I'm disabled). I would consider myself an expert on the material simply because I have read every reliable source I had cited (there were like 250) and did not synthesize if I had to use a public domain report or lesser primary source until a better one is found. ''Numerous times'' I have suggested to simply follow our sources or allow addition of a new ones as a compromise to end every dispute. However, that literally never ever happens with said editor as I have documented repeatedly. I was/am frustrated, mouthed off a bit too. To nearly everyone. I was actually shaking after it was nominated and then deleted. I apologize again.[[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 05:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - I've taken a look at a randomish sampling of editing over the last few months and don't feel that a NOTHERE argument applies. Obviously, there is some less than optimum pugnacity with the editing, but this appears to be a good faith editor adding sourced content. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 03:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I actually hatted a discussion on PMC's talk where Johnvr4 was going over oard, but he came back and had a reasonable conversation. I'm not convinced that the very [[WP:INVOLVED]] Admin is correctly asessing this situation. We don't have to follow the US Govt view of things and accusations American is editing against American seems hard to believe. Perhaps BuckShot06 needs to lay off Johnvr4 and Nohnvr4 should edit other topics. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 04:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
* '''Support''' Having followed this since the original AFD, I can safely say this is probably the eventual route that will have be taken. If he is not blocked, then a topic ban will definitely need to be implemented, broad-construed to prevent him from working on anything related to Operation Red Hat and military-based articles. John has a very hard time communicating concerns and actually addressing problems with his content, and this is a long standing issue. {{ping|Carrite}} I feel like John is here to add sourced content as well, however his content is misleading or [[WP:SYNTH|synthesized]] at times, and several editors have addressed that. It's a problem that goes back to the days of him first editing five years ago on the same topic. His behavior hasn't changed much and his problematic content went from being on the main articles to his sandboxes, which he has attempted to write for four years now with little to no improvement to follow Wikipedia standards (which is what the MFD was about). If John is not willing to take a topic ban and edit other topics, then this has to be the route to take because he is so engulfed in this behavior around these topics that it is now disruptive. I only support a block now because the few times I saw John edit outside his usual few articles, it ended up in content disputes as well and having content disputes this frequently is toxic. Regards, — [[User:Moe Epsilon|<span style="color:royalblue; font-family: Segoe Script">Moe</span>]] [[User talk:Moe Epsilon|<span style="color:royalblue; font-family: Segoe Script">Epsilon</span>]] 04:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Can't support the NOTHERE assertion as I don't feel anything has been presented to support it. Let's start by removing the useless stuff from the equation, the discussion on Nick-D's talk page can be succinctly summarised as "NOTHERE block and be done with it". This is not really helpful to ''this'' discussion. Provide me with a reason to support the NOTHERE assertion that does not ''stem'' from a NOTHERE assertion. The AfD from '''2013''' is unhelpful because, while it demonstrates (possibly) incompetence or poor source utilization it doesn't do anything even close to demonstrate NOTHERE (not to mention it was ''four'' years ago). Then there's the discussion on John's page ([[User_talk:Johnvr4#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie]]) that eventually boils down to, the sources don't use the word interceptor therefore don't use the word interceptor. Everything else was cleared up by quotes from the actual sources, or at least appears to have been based on Buckshot's response; {{tq|[t]hanks for these. Clearly inteceptor isn't referenced. I will remove the words 'interceptor' etc, ... , and substitute with 'hydrogen-bomb-armed'}}. I mean this discussion if anything is demonstrative of the "here" part of NOTHERE. Then, last but not least, I'm actually presented with a concern that could be addressed. So let me address it; recreation of a procedurally deleted article that has undergone deletion review that supported the original deletion closure is valid grounds to argue ''disruptive editing''. Please don't do that again. Sometimes, you'll have to accept that your work is not suitable for the encyclopaedia. Now, I'm going to take a moment to address something that was sort of brought up tangentially, but, isn't the central concern. '''Concern''': I find that Johnvr4 has a problem maintaining composure and civility when discussing (or arguing) with other editors. This is not helpful to them or others. For example, the discussion on Johnvr4's talk page that I mention John actually asserts that they '''will''' edit war for their preferred version because of perceived incompetence on the part of Buckshot06. Evidence; {{tq|... I'll keep putting it back in. An edit war will ensue and your failure to read sources or discuss until now...and assertions (like those above) about the alleged lack of a similar passage in sources will be your huge problem}}. In conclusion, I don't see NOTHERE as presented, but, I do see civility and composure issues that may need some form of addressing. [[User:Mr rnddude|Mr rnddude]] ([[User talk:Mr rnddude|talk]]) 06:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
**The 2013 AfD is actually highly relevant, as JohnVR4 has kept trying to recreate this article (in various forms) despite the concerns raised in the AfD and its result, and the many subsequent discussions. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 10:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
***If I may interject, the appropriate link to that discussion is here :[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie Air defense interceptors/Genie] The argument was whether the Interceptor came directly from the original source I used- clearly it did yet the other editor would not acknowledge the ''obvious fact'' that the word was in that source despite thanking me for sources. I sort of citation bombed him with sources that quote F-100s, with Nukes, Genies at Naha on Alert as well as most of the WP main pages that also had it because he was being so absurd. And we are here talking about it now simply because he said a word is not there in that source. But it is and always has been. It was an Edit War and that concern was 100% his absurdity and I warned him to never ever try to fight anyone over that point. Yet that is precisely what he did today! Please please explore it further! And look at the reverts made that are contrary to reliable sources. He's done that exact same thing multiple times while stating in MfD that I never improved or condensed any material from my sandbox! That main space material was moved from my sandbox. [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 07:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
****The context for the quote and my prediction of an edit war was in response to Buckshot06's threats and actions to ''keep'' removing our very highly reliably sourced content: "You need a source for nuclear-armed interceptors standing ready for scrambling on Okinawa, and until you provide that, I've remove the paragraph again. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)" I hope that addresses (or characterizes) [[User:Mr rnddude|Mr rnddude]]'s ''concern''.


{{Userlinks|Vofa}} has lots of warnings about disruptive editing in their user page and a block.
::::I thought I was pretty nice about it in warning him given the wall I was beating my head against by simply continuing to even interact with that editor. The full quote was: "...Do not make me pull out quotes! I don't have time for such silliness. No one does. If you cant or won't read the sources, I'll keep putting it back in. An edit war will ensue and your failure to read sources or discuss until now...and assertions (like those above) about the alleged lack of a similar passage in sources will be your huge problem. So I'm going to formally warn you now. Stop and review the sources that you've said you already reviewed. If you had done so, we would not be having this discussion!".</ins> [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 18:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC) 20:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC) <ins> I have only just remembered that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan&type=revision&diff=771205335&oldid=771170281 Buckshot06 deleted that very source on Mar, 20].</ins> [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 20:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
::::*Huh, you're right. It's clear as day on the 1981 CDI article. I had missed it both on your talk page and in the article; {{tq|During the late 1950s and early 1960s the F-100 Super Sabre served as a primary '''interceptor'''}}. On top of that the Mindling/Bolton source explicitly states that F-100s '''were''' present at Okinawa and '''were''' nuclear arms equipped. That said, content is an issue that two people can mutually resolve if they are willing to discuss. Content problems shouldn't be the reason we are here. There are better ways to deal with these kinds of issues than outright edit-warring too. One, you can ask for a [[WP:3O]]. Two, you can withhold the material and discuss on the talk page (this was done, both at your talk and at the article talk, so kudos for that). Three, if need be, you can do and RfC. I've found a section (argument really) that I'm going to go read through. I am getting more lost, rather than less, as to what the issue actually is. [[User:Mr rnddude|Mr rnddude]] ([[User talk:Mr rnddude|talk]]) 09:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Block. JohnVR4 is essentially a single purpose editor whose contributions are focused on adding inaccurate and POV pushing material. This includes material which is not supported by the citations provided, as well as cherry picking material and developing large articles which are nothing but [[WP:SYNTH]] - to such an extent that they can't even be reduced to stubs. As noted in the post at the top of this discussion, multiple interventions by a large number of editors in good standing have not been successful in persuading him to change his ways or even seriously acknowledge that his editing is problematic. I think it's fair to say that the editors who have been involved with JohnVR4 have exhausted their patience with him. As he is not editing Wikipedia in good faith or in a collaborative way, he should be blocked to prevent further edits which post misleading information and disruptive conduct. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 10:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. There are clearly problems here, but I'm convinced that JohnVR4 has good intentions and genuinely believes his additions are beneficial to the encyclopedia, and is not ''deliberately'' trying to push inaccuracies and POV (even if that might at times be the result). As such, I don't see that [[WP:NOTHERE]] is applicable - "''Difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms''" is given as a specific "not not here" example. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 11:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
*:Just to add, I think a topic ban would stand a better chance of consensus, if someone were to propose one with an appropriate scope. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 14:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. [[WP:NOTHERE]] is for users who come here purely to troll other wikipedians. While his edits/comments might cause problems, this is a good faith editor, who needs to improve some aspects of his editing. Perhaps a short topic ban, so he can learn to edit well on subject that he isn't closely connected to might help. [[User:Spacecowboy420|Spacecowboy420]] ([[User talk:Spacecowboy420|talk]]) 12:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. (involved editor) In one of the last interactions with Buckshot06 (when I thought we parted ways) I left him this message[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AU.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan&type=revision&diff=773323194&oldid=773244892]: ''"...We just seem to bring out the worst in each other and only produce long discussion with out agreement, and embarrass each other then feel bad, over human errors. I tried to explain to you myself numerous times that our sources need to be looked at closely. The fact is that three other editors also looked at that concern and could not have missed it then failed to point that out to you when you asked, probably did disservice to both you and to I. We unnecessarily wasted a lot of time on this. The way I have interacted with you since was a direct reflection of my frustration in feeling that you are also difficult to work because you refused to look at the sources to verify content. If our paths cross in the future I hope that the interaction will be constructive and fruitful and not at all like many of our previous interactions. Peace. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)'' Unfortunately, as one might note, what I had suggested and hoped is not even remotely what has happened since. [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 15:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
* '''Conditional Support''' - Having had a look at [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]]'s edits I have to agree with [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] that "JohnVR4 is essentially a single purpose editor whose contributions are focused on adding inaccurate and POV pushing material." However the discussion here shows that he is eager to continue as an editor on wikipedia. My proposal would be a topic ban for all nuclear weapons and military in Japan related articles; with an additional warning that any further disruption of wikipedia will result in an immediate block. [[User:Noclador|noclador]] ([[User talk:Noclador|talk]]) 16:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Topic ban at most''', since this is topical and there's no indication the editor is [[WP:NOTHERE]], i.e. not generally constructive and trying to do the right thing. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 23:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' block. JOhnvr4 is clearly here to be a contributing editor, but he really needs to heed advice from the more experienced editors that have been trying to help him. I would not oppose a short term topic ban to help him get to grips in subjects outside of this topic area. Mentorship may also be an option. [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 00:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


Most recent example of removal of sourced information: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Turco-Mongol_tradition&diff=prev&oldid=1266580536][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Turco-Mongol_tradition&diff=1266580700&oldid=1266580536][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Turco-Mongol_tradition&diff=prev&oldid=1266580789]
===Hounding of JohnVR4, userspace and main space submissions by Buckshot06===
{{Userlinks|Buckshot06}}


I checked the source and the information is there on page 7.
Buckshot06 and I have longstanding, heated and unresolved content disputes. He has characterized the disputes as me creating Fake articles and has made numerous baseless policy concerns in talk and recently at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat ] as well as to support his arguments in discussions. I have responded to his faulty assertions here:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_30 DRV JohnVR4 user spaces] and at my talk page. His near-pathological misrepresentations take walls of my text to explain away and as a result my concerns are ignored most recently at [[WP:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_30]]. He has repeatedly threatened to Mfd my userspace draft that was actively being edited 1.5 hours before he nominated it over obviously ridiculous concerns or assertions (such as those he raised in the previous section). His assertions are easily disproved in discussion, diffs, quotes, sources, and every other available method to Wikipedia editors.


Previous examples include: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Finns&diff=1256972951&oldid=1254677153][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Merkit&diff=prev&oldid=1264658266]. Also see: [[Talk:Finns#Vandalism_by_user:Vofa]] [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 16:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Despite my numerous pleas, Buckshot06 repeatedly refuses to read or acknowledge majority and minority opinions in cited reliable sources and then battles over text based upon his strong views and advanced degrees instead of reviewing the reliable sources (especially the newer ones) or opening a content dispute where our issues should be publicly resolved rather than being reverted or deleted outright or having an edit war. He then accuses me of not listening or a plethora or other dubious accusations. I wanted to work together and have asked for help but is is clear that Buckshot06 and I cannot see eye to eye and never will. We have decided to stay away from each other and he has now apparently followed up on a second one of his past (and also ridiculous) threats by opening the above section. This is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Terrorist_threat_and_weapons_removed_in_1972-_Apparent_POV third time he has Accused me of an Anti DoD/US stance without the slightest merit] and he does not seem to realize that I write from a reliable and documented source standpoint and most importantly, I am from U.S. a military family, from the U.S., which I still support (despite our country's current regime embarrassment). I take I great offense at his third anti-Us accusation (I warned him about it before) as well as his accusation that my thousands of edits were all in bad faith and do not improve Wikipedia -which he has already contradicted in his own words more times than I can count.


:Just to clarify, I just noticed that there is indeed an unsourced paragraph.
That editor has near-pathological pattern of misrepresentation including in his misleading explanations of the links he provided in the above section.
:The reason for removal of sourced information would then be "removed text not relevant to Chagatai Khanate and Golden Horde in introduction". However the source does mention {{tq|The first of the changes leading to the formation of the Turco-Mongolian tradition ...}} and then gives Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate as examples. I don't see any [[WP:V]] or [[WP:DUE]] issues.
On the advisory by [[User:Moe Epsilon]]- For example, one editor User:Moe_Epsilon at the [AFD] <s>fabricated</s> a concern about my editing and claimed "I cooked something up." Then that editor made all types of other ridiculous assertions that are disproved by a source (plus the ones already mentioned) which I added only minutes before Buckshot06 deleted the entire sandbox4 draft just this week! The Diffs that were deleted (which I cannot see because I am not an administrator) would ''prove'' that I did not write that passage- but there is no just way to see it now since all the diffs are gone. (Well not just yet anyway...[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge#New_requests]]) The diffs would prove that Buckshot06 himself put that nonsense that got the page deleted right back on the main space and abused all of the sources he cited.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMark_Arsten&type=revision&diff=758463384&oldid=758323068] Note also that Buckshot06's POV version of [[Operation Red Hat]] is missing most of the majority and minority viewpoints in every single one of the sources he has cited.
:I am concerned about removal of sourced information that does not seem to have a rationale based on [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]] [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 16:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od}} I owe [[User:Moe Epsilon]] a bit of an apology. to clarify all my previous comments, he in fact did not accuse me of writing the night move passage at AfD. That was the false assertion of an IP editor. I sincerely apologize for ''any'' representation that connecting Moe's comment of cooking stuff up and the faulty concern that I submitted the passage about moves of chemicals at night. Sorry for that mix up Moe. [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 11:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
::Hi there. The matter seems to be resolved. I did remove an unsourced paragraph and general claims not relevant to the introduction. I do not see a problem with it. You seem to have linked three edits I made. In the first edit, I had to revert because I accidentally chose the minor edit option. In the second edit, I have restored the previous version, but without a minor sign. I did not remove any sources (based on what I remember) I hope to see through my edits and understand what I did or did not do wrong. Please, avoid making an ANI in bad faith. [[User:Vofa|Vofa]] ([[User talk:Vofa|talk]]) 03:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You removed source information. The part that starts with {{tq|The ruling Mongol elites ...}}
:::{{ping|asilvering}} from the editor's talk page, you seem to be a mentor. Removing sources or sourced material without explanation, or with insufficient explanation or rationale, such as "Polished language" [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Finns&diff=1256972951&oldid=1254677153], is an ongoing concern with Vofa. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 15:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Im not sure why I’m being stalked, but the edits you’re showing as examples of myself removing sources are more than two months old. I’ve stopped removing sources. [[User:Vofa|Vofa]] ([[User talk:Vofa|talk]]) 19:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|asilvering}} This issue is still continuing [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Turco-Mongol_tradition&diff=prev&oldid=1266985478] [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 15:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::And you previously spoke to Vofa about this where...? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{u|asilvering}}, I hadn't talked about removing sourced material without sufficiently explaining the rationale.
:::::I did talk about this however [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVofa&diff=1264776570&oldid=1264658037]. See: [[User_talk:Vofa#December_2024]]
:::::I don't seek or expect a permanent block over this. But as a mentor and an administrator, maybe you can comment on removing sourced material without sufficiently explaining the rationale. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 19:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]], that's a ''threat'', not an explanation. If you have a content dispute with an editor, which is what this appears to be, you need to be able to talk it out with them on the article's Talk page. @[[User:Vofa|Vofa]], please be careful to make sure your edit summaries explain what you're doing. I see that there ''was'' an unsourced statement in the link Bogazicili just supplied, so I presume that's what you meant by "unsourced". But the other statement you removed ''did'' have a source. It's ok to split your edits up into multiple edits if you need to do that to explain them properly, but you could also just give an edit summary like "removed unsourced; also, removed statement [for these reasons]" that addresses both changes. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 23:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Asilvering}}, I would not characterize this as a "content dispute". I was not involved in most of those articles. I got concerned after seeing edits market as minor removing sources or sourced material without any or proper explanation. That is not a content dispute, that is an editor conduct dispute. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::What Vofa does at articles related to Turko-Mongolian history is not a content dispute but vandalism. It took me a lot of time to manually revert the hoax years and figures he added in [[Turkmens]] article to decrease their population and he also removed sourced basic info from the lede of the [[Merkit|Merkit tribe]] which I had to restore. These are just some of few sneaky vandalism examples that I caught among the pages I patrol by Vofa. If you see his talk page, he has been warned a lot of times by many other editors for such mischief. [[User:Theofunny|Theofunny]] ([[User talk:Theofunny|talk]]) 07:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:Theofunny|Theofunny]], Vofa hasn't edited the Turkmens article since before they were blocked. That is obviously not an ongoing issue. As for [[Merkit]], I ''also'' see no discussion of those edits. If you have a problem with how someone is editing, you need to communicate with them. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 08:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::{{u|Asilvering}}, my concerns were removal of sourced information or sources without proper rationale or explanation. Do you think that was communicated enough to Vofa in this topic, or do we need further communication? I'm asking in case Vofa continues this type of behavior. Hopefully that won't be the case. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 08:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Im going to repeat this again;
::::::::::I have not removed any sources since I was warned about it.
::::::::::I do not see an issue with my recent editing.
::::::::::You should communicate with me on any issues that you have with me. [[User:Vofa|Vofa]] ([[User talk:Vofa|talk]]) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{u|Vofa}}, do you see any issues with this edit: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Turco-Mongol_tradition&diff=prev&oldid=1266985478] [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 11:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Thank you. [[User:Vofa|Vofa]] ([[User talk:Vofa|talk]]) 11:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::This member often vandalises, in an article about [[Oirats]] he wrote huge numbers without backing them up with sources and tried to prove it was true. This is rabid vandalism. [[User:Incall|Incall]] <sup>[[User talk:Incall|talk]]</sup> 12:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


== Potential range block ==
On the advisory by [[User:RoySmith]]- [[User_talk:RoySmith#Ignoring_of_views_at_DRV]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Closure_review_DRV_of_JohnVR4_userspace_Sandbox_drafts Administrators noticeboard#Closure_review_DRV_of_JohnVR4_userspace_Sandbox_drafts]
{{atop|1=Blocked/17. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 09:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hi, I am following up on an archived discussion from last month. At the time I suggested that that a single user was seemingly making disruptive edits from a range of similar IPs. A range block (Special:Contributions/222.153.0.0/16) was identified as a possibility, though with the potential for some collateral damage. The discussion was then ended without follow up. The behavior in question has since continued so I wanted to get an indication one way or the other whether this would be feasible. One of the pages they have started to vandalize will likely have high traffic over the next few months. [[User:Noahp2|Noahp2]] ([[User talk:Noahp2|talk]]) 16:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
: Link? [[Special:Contributions/50.224.79.68|50.224.79.68]] ([[User talk:50.224.79.68|talk]]) 16:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::To the archived discussion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1173 under "Cycling through IPs" [[User:Noahp2|Noahp2]] ([[User talk:Noahp2|talk]]) 17:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Having perused [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1173#Cycling_through_IPs the archived ANI] I agree that a rangeblock of {{rangelinks|222.153.0.0/16}} might be considered. The block could be limited to one week and might be applied only to article space and template space. Collateral damage should be minor. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 17:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Would it be possible to do a longer block, either preemptively or later if the 1 week is ineffective? Several of the IPs have been blocked for a week or more and it hasn't changed behavior so far. [[User:Noahp2|Noahp2]] ([[User talk:Noahp2|talk]]) 17:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::/16 is a very large range, a smaller range would be preferable. Which articles are being edited? I do see a lot of Drag Race articles in the contributions, if so, then [[Special:Contributions/222.153.0.0/17|222.153.0.0/17]] may be what’s needed, still large but half the size of the /16. The other [[Special:Contributions/222.153.128.0/17|222.153.128.0/17]] doesn’t seem to have any Drag Race edits. [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 22:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yeah those are the ones that I'm concerned with so the smaller range seems fine. [[User:Noahp2|Noahp2]] ([[User talk:Noahp2|talk]]) 03:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::OK, after hearing the other suggestions I have blocked [[Special:Contributions/222.153.128.0/17|222.153.0.0/17]] for a month for disruptive editing. Let me know if this is not enough to address the problem. It seems there is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A222.153.0.0%2F17 a history of blocks of this /17 range], both partial and full, going back to 2007. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 03:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks! [[User:Noahp2|Noahp2]] ([[User talk:Noahp2|talk]]) 04:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Andydor07 seems to be a promotional account connected to James Acho ==
BuckShot06 makes various entirely merritless claims which I've already disproved to him. In the examples he provided he has fiercely contested moves from my sandbox and is still actively contesting them which proves his main issues with me is a content dispute where he wont acknowledge what a reliable source says (and Note his totally disproved POV complaint) but more importantly his assertions that my sandbox draft where the material is coming from has not been improved nor condensed are utterly absurd: [[Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Terrorist_threat_and_weapons_removed_in_1972-_Apparent_POV]] and here: [[Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie]]
{{atop|1=Blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|Andydor07}}
*{{articlelinks|James Acho}}
From the {{diff2|1074861192|first mainspace edit}} this account made through today, the only article this account has edited is [[James Acho]] (aside from 2 edits to [[Alan Trammell]]), and the edits are consistently promotional in nature or disruptive. A few examples:
*{{diff2|1266885861|Adding blatant puffery}}
*{{diff2|1266884087|Adding puff pieces as sources}} — the sources are unnecessary and aren't connected to any added text
*{{diff2|1266884003|Removing reliable sources}}
*{{diff2|1266883173|Replacing reliable source with a puff piece}}


The rest of their changes are similar and there are many of them. They've ignored several warnings given today. [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] ([[User talk:Daniel Quinlan|talk]]) 17:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Other highly relevant links would be:
#[[User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_Suggestion_Comment]]
#[[User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_again]]
#[[WP:Articles_for_deletion/Operation_Red_Hat]],
#[[User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19#Operation_Red_Hat]],
#[[User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19#Userspace_copy_of_Red_Hat]],
#[[User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_Suggestion_Comment]],
#[[User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review]]
#[[User_talk:Nick-D#OP_RED_HAT_ongoing_issue_notification]]
#[[User_talk:Nick-D#Red_Hat_material_move_to_MK.2FSEARCH.3F]]
#[[User_talk:Nick-D#U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan.27s_southern_islands]]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANick-D&type=revision&diff=773117291&oldid=773091621 Deleted message]
#[[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_137#Massive_2-part_Okinawa_draft]]
#<ins>[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohnvr4&type=revision&diff=772635719&oldid=772628009 "Every one of these concerns are real, now, and valid" deleted comment.] (re:[[Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Terrorist_threat_and_weapons_removed_in_1972-_Apparent_POV|this discussion]])</ins> 12:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
<ins>#[[User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review]] Prior to condensing sandbox </ins> In response, to these comments I received, I had thereafter moved out about 1/3 of the sandbox content as well as the reduced the scope then split the remainder in User:Johnvr4/sandbox in half.


:I undid their edits using Twinkle. We’ll see how long that lasts. [[User:DACartman|DACartman]] ([[User talk:DACartman|talk]]) 19:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Note these exchanges among others:
::Well, that didn't last very long. [[User:DACartman|DACartman]] ([[User talk:DACartman|talk]]) 20:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
"When I file the AN/I over your WP:OR, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES reliance, WP:POV, WP:OWN, WP:SYNTH, and battleground reverting editing, you will be notified, in accordance with policy. In my considered opinion, you should be writing research pieces for publication that allow you to state polemics, not trying to operate on a site that is supposed to be neutral. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)"
:::Handled. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 20:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:"...Given your threat of an apparently inevitable pending ANI, why don't we just file that ANI case right now over the use of sources, edit warring, and POV on this page? Per your assertion, can you show me in this article any of My OR, or an incorrect use of primary sources, POV, OWN, or Synth? These unfounded assertions are going to be looked at under a microscope. Have you forgotten the main section to this sub-section? It is titled: Terrorist threat and weapons removed in 1972- Apparent POV ? Johnvr4 (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)"
{{abot}}


== Revoke TPA for Itallo Alessandro ==
Also:
{{atop|1=TPA removed. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}}
"...I remain baffled about how I could be 'cutting you out' after pleading with you immediately above to edit the mainspace article. Your options are twofold: remain editing only your userspace draft, which is not really what a userspace draft is for, or actually get involved in the mainspace. Please engage with me, here or elsewhere, to tell me about well sourced issues which ought to be in the mainspace article, and we can get them in there!! Not every connected issue that you write about in your userspace may end up in the mainspace, but I can certainly see there are issues you write about which ought to be mainspaced. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC) [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMark_Arsten&type=revision&diff=769074318&oldid=769074153]
{{noping2|Itallo Alessandro}} is indeffed for sockpuppetry and now seems to be copying random articles to their talk page. Seems TPA should be revoked.The sockmaster has also had their TPA revoked. [[User:TornadoLGS|TornadoLGS]] ([[User talk:TornadoLGS|talk]]) 20:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Done. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 20:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== "Wikifascist" & [[Wikipedia:Casting aspersions]] ==
"I've already said how I believe most of what you have left under Red Hat actually belongs under 112 (or possibly under Project Deseret), and I've laid out my reasons, none of which are invalidated by further things you've said, or by the Chemical Weapons Movement History Compilation, as far as I've scanned it so far. But never mind -- I will cut straight to the chase. Would you prefer I start a [[WP:MFD]] (miscellany for deletion) discussion on your preferred, but disputed, version of the article in your sandbox, in line with [[WP:FAKEARTICLE]], not in six months as I had intended to propose, but now? Then we'll get this cleared up sooner rather than later. Cheers [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 15:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)"
This one is pretty straightforward. An editor ({{ping|Last1in}}) has deemed it OK to refer to me as a "wikifascist" on their talk page ([[User_talk:Last1in#My_ill-considered_comment]]). A clear case of [[Wikipedia:Casting aspersions]], I find this to be extremely offensive. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 03:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:So apparently the editor has "retired" but is continuing editing using IPs? Anyway placed a warning for personal attacks on Last1in's user talk page. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, that seems to be the case. Sorry, I should have mentioned that — it's all around weird. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 04:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== Disruptive editing, Edit war, Block evasion, Personal attack ==
#[[Project 112]] Was moved out from my sandbox three days PRIOR to his demands! [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Project_112&type=revision&diff=770642939&oldid=752828268 Project 112 ''move from sand box on March 16, 2017'']
{{Atop|All the IPs who have edited recently have been blocked. See [[WP:ANEW]] for more details.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 17:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
#[[Deseret Test Center]] ''Was moved out from my sandbox three days PRIOR to his demands! '' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Deseret_Test_Center&type=revision&diff=770628285&oldid=765608422 Project Deseret move from Sandbox on March 16, 2017]
#[[U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan]] ''Was moved out from my sandbox two days PRIOR to his demands! ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan&type=revision&diff=796540165&oldid=770776551 U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan ''Created from my sandbox on March 17, 2017'']
#[[United States military anti-plant research]] ''Was moved out from my sandbox one day PRIOR to his demands! ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_States_military_anti-plant_research&oldid=770980712 United States military anti-plant research ''Created from my sandbox on March 18, 2017'']
#[[Project MKUltra]] ''Was moved out from my sandbox one day PRIOR to his demands! ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Project_MKUltra&type=revision&diff=770967499&oldid=769257812 ''Project MKUltra move from Sandbox on March 18, 2017'']
#[[1968 Kadena Air Base B-52 crash]] ''Was created from my sandbox 12 hours PRIOR to his demands!'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=1968_Kadena_Air_Base_B-52_crash&type=revision&diff=785774526&oldid=771026962''Created from sandbox on March 19, 2017'']
#[[Japan and weapons of mass destruction]] ''Was moved out from my sandbox four days after his demands!'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Japan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction&type=revision&diff=776193647&oldid=770220481 ''Japan and weapons of mass destruction move from sand box PRIOR TO March 19, 2017'']


{{userlinks|76.68.24.171}} is repeatedly violating [[WP:POLICY]], including disruptive editing contrary to [[WP:DE]] and [[WP:NPOV]], engaging in [[WP:EDITWAR]], evading a block of [[user:COLTashrif1499]] in violation of [[WP:EVADE]], and making personal attacks violating [[WP:NPA]]. This IP User was also blocked few months ago for these activities and again doing after block expiration.<br>I urge an immediate block of this IP along with an investigation into related accounts or IPs to prevent further misconduct.
Last, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Japan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction&type=revision&diff=770910142&oldid=770836920 Buckshot06 himself moved material he knew to be from my sandbox] into another namespace [[WP:ARTICLE]] ''one day PRIOR to his demand''.
<ins>Most importantly, "''I note you've already started breaking down your inputs into smaller chunks, after the long discussion with me at Mark Arsten's page'', but please think about the rest too!! OR, POV, and sourcing errors (like trying to keep pure allegations in the article) destroy your credibility when you're trying to contribute here!! [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 13:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)"[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohnvr4&type=revision&diff=772635719&oldid=772628009]</ins> [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 12:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


Some examples:
'''''I sincerely that hope the above exchange with him entirely clears up the ''total and absolute absurdity'' of Buckshot06's assertions in nominating my draft for deletion FIVE MONTHS TO THE DAY after his ridiculous prior threats to MfD the draft. All endorsements in support of his entirely false assertions are faulty and his abuse of the noticeboard processes (both MfD and ANI) is now shamefully exposed'''''. (bold for emphasis)
#Attacks: [[user talk:Cerium4B#⚠️ Warning Regarding Personal Attacks and Uncivil Behavior|HERE]] and [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nawabganj_National_Park&diff=prev&oldid=1257012938 HERE (edit summary)]
# Disruptive editings & Edit war: {{contributions|76.68.24.171}} ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Khulna_Division&diff=prev&oldid=1267043820 Adding inappropriate words], continuously adding poor images of political and religious places [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Khulna_Division&oldid=1267043820 Revision as of 16:02, 3 January 2025]) (Here is the version I had updated [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Khulna_Division&oldid=1267040791])
#User also uses these IPs to support their edits: {{smalldiv|
##{{userlinks|2607:fea8:571e:ce00:d81a:9c9d:4833:65a4}}
##{{userlinks|2607:fea8:571e:ce00:d8c:6de5:ff66:5c6c}}
##{{userlinks|2605:8d80:6433:5419:acb6:e682:2454:6031}}<br>{{highlight|After block expiration|green}}
##{{userlinks|2607:fea8:571b:8000:91c9:e741:c1ee:5aa2}}
##{{userlinks|2607:fea8:571b:8000:9979:b44e:bfc2:f9e9}}
##{{userlinks|2607:fea8:571b:8000:b072:749e:a671:e7ad}}}}
'''[[User:Cerium4B|<span style="text-shadow:-4px -4px 20px;color:darkgreen;font-family:Papyrus;">— Cerium4B</span>]][[User talk:Cerium4B|<span style="text-shadow:-4px -4px 20px;color:red;font-family:Papyrus;">—Talk? •</span>]]''' 11:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


:I restored this to your revision [[User:Cerium4B|Cerium4B]]. This user keeps making noncconstructive edits such as the edit in [[Khulna Division]]. Also this IP address keeps doing edit warring. [[Khulna Division|This article]] needs to be protected against disruptive editing and edit warring. [[User:Migfab008|Migfab008]] ([[User talk:Migfab008|talk]]) 11:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I ask that Buckshot06 <s>be stripped of his administrative privileges entirely</s>, <ins>Be sanctioned for purposeful untruths,<ins> Leave my userspaces alone, and be prevented from causing further disruption, redevelopment, or improvement to Operation Red Hat with the administrator rights he has been granted.
::Thanks @[[User:Migfab008|Migfab008]],
His behavior includes: [[WP:HOUND]]
::Now check [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=1267066897&markasread=333286773&markasreadwiki=enwiki&oldid=prev&title=Khulna_Division this] '''[[User:Cerium4B|<span style="text-shadow:-4px -4px 20px;color:darkgreen;font-family:Papyrus;">— Cerium4B</span>]][[User talk:Cerium4B|<span style="text-shadow:-4px -4px 20px;color:red;font-family:Papyrus;">—Talk? •</span>]]''' 13:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
#The 4+ year assumption I am acting in bad faith
:{{userlinks|Diddy is based}} user joined 15 minutes ago and reverted an edit on the above topic and commented hate speech.
#locking that page
:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=1267066897&markasread=333286773&markasreadwiki=enwiki&oldid=prev&title=Khulna_Division (check edit summary)]
#Deleting the PageHist
:I think this is the same user I’ve reported here.
#Restoration of the exact problems that caused an AfD
:Please check this report as soon as possible. '''[[User:Cerium4B|<span style="text-shadow:-4px -4px 20px;color:darkgreen;font-family:Papyrus;">— Cerium4B</span>]][[User talk:Cerium4B|<span style="text-shadow:-4px -4px 20px;color:red;font-family:Papyrus;">—Talk? •</span>]]''' 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
#deletion of mass amounts of reliable sources and relevant text
::It’s confirmed that {{user| Diddy is based}} is {{user|76.68.24.171}}
#Purposeful misrepresentation of facts in discussion, reverts, rollbacks, nominations and noticeboards
::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1267069415 They cleared reports involving them] '''[[User:Cerium4B|<span style="text-shadow:-4px -4px 20px;color:darkgreen;font-family:Papyrus;">— Cerium4B</span>]][[User talk:Cerium4B|<span style="text-shadow:-4px -4px 20px;color:red;font-family:Papyrus;">—Talk? •</span>]]''' 13:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
#<s>harassment</s> <ins>hounding</ins>
:::Please see [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:76.68.24.171 reported by User:Migfab008 (Result: )]]. [[User:Migfab008|Migfab008]] ([[User talk:Migfab008|talk]]) 14:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== Liverpoolynwa24 and [[WP:CIR]] issues ==
I may have difficulty responding in a timely fashion due to a hurricane in my location) [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 23:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Red carded. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*To deal with the central request immediately, {{u|Johnvr4}}, Arbcom is the '''only''' place where you can {{tq|ask that Buckshot06 be stripped of his administrative privileges entirely}}. That is unless Buckshot voluntarily hands them in. Arbcom has a five hundred word limit for case requests (your wall is significantly longer than this), however, I strongly recommend against trying to get ARBCOM involved as they will deny this request on procedural grounds. Instead, your time would be much better spent, getting rid of as much of the assertions or irrelevant material as humanly possible. Very few people are going to be willing to spend their time reading 12k bytes of material. Whole articles have been written with less. [[User:Mr rnddude|Mr rnddude]] ([[User talk:Mr rnddude|talk]]) 06:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
{{userlinks|Liverpoolynwa24}} has repeatedly added plaudits such as "widely regarded as one of the best [position] in the world" to multiple articles about Liverpool F.C. players, copying and pasting sources from the body to make it seem like this is well sourced - the issue is that '''none''' of the sources ever say any of these things. Per their [[User talk:Liverpoolynwa24|talk page]], they have repeatedly received warnings (and a previous block) for this, but have continued regardless. They have also removed well sourced categorisations of same on the pages of non-Liverpool players without any edit summary or explanation (which they never leave anyway). They received a block of 1 week from HJ Mitchell in July, but continued immediately ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Alexis_Mac_Allister&diff=prev&oldid=1240307017 1]) after the block.
**Understood. I will reserve making that request for now. Since the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Closure_review_DRV_of_JohnVR4_userspace_Sandbox_drafts DRV closure review] was closed. Must I recap all in this forum and can both requests be open simultaneously? Thank you John.
:::*That depends, is Roy Smith's closure in any way shape or form relevant to this specific AN/I case and the interactions between you and Buckshot06. If no, then it doesn't belong here. If yes, then keep everything together in one place. Perhaps leave it until this has been resolved first. I don't think there is significant pressing concern that would prevent you from waiting to ask the question a week from now rather than today. [[User:Mr rnddude|Mr rnddude]] ([[User talk:Mr rnddude|talk]]) 07:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
::::* Yes <s>I'm not sure how to answer that. and no?</s> The relationship is that Buckshot the editor who nominated my user spaces for deletion and I expand my answer in the section below (with Roy). A now involved editor above strongly felt that the issues were the exactly same thing and closed my request however I went to DRV for specific answers and the were ignored completely. Below, I've asked the closer to reopen the request that I made in closure review. [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Closure_review_DRV_of_JohnVR4_userspace_Sandbox_drafts]] [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 16:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


Me and several others have left them messages asking them not to do this and explaining the issues with their edits, but have been [[Wikipedia:IDONTHEARYOU|continually ignored]], and the editor has continued ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Fabinho_(footballer,_born_1993)&diff=prev&oldid=1266985812 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Caoimh%C3%ADn_Kelleher&diff=prev&oldid=1257453363 2]) to do this in spite of this. Enough is enough at this stage, and [[WP:CIR]] applies.<span id="Ser!:1735905060852:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;'''[[User:Ser!|ser!]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Ser!|chat to me]] - [[Special:Contributions/Ser!|see my edits]])</sup> 11:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
===Discussion===
* Yeah, enough is enough; if all they're going to do is add unsourced puffery to Liverpool players (and, I notice, remove ''sourced'' material from players of other teams) then they're [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Indeffed. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


==Fistagon sock/vandal back again==
: This thread appears to be the immediate follow-up to a closed [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 30|DRV thread]], itself a follow-up to a [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/OpRedHat|XfD thread]], itself a follow-up to an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat|AfD from 2013]]. [[User:Power~enwiki|Power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|talk]]) 01:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Fista-gone again. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::The DRV was a followup to the [[User talk:Premeditated Chaos#Deletion of userspace material|discussion at my user talk]], which followed my closure of the MfD (reverted once by John because he disagreed). &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 02:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The Fistagon sock has returned again, this time under the name {{Userlinks|Diddy is based}}. As usual, they have been vandalising numerous articles and leaving their uncivil edit summaries. Could action be taken please and the summaries revdeled? Many thanks - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 13:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Happily confirm Power~enwiki's summary, as well as PMC's note. The MfD was about my last throw to see if Johnvr4 was anything more than an SPA. It appears he has not changed his ways at all, and I do not believe he should be here. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 02:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
:::: Noting also [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review DRV of JohnVR4 userspace Sandbox drafts]]. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 04:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


:On [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]], he even reverts my first ever report. This makes me angry as well. Block this user indefinitely ASAP. [[User:Migfab008|Migfab008]] ([[User talk:Migfab008|talk]]) 13:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::This is not a Forumshopping exercise and as [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] notes above, those discussions have been opened in appropriate places (as stated above) where I have already asked for a review of the closure. Around January 5, 2017 I again notified Buckshot that his his assertions and actions re my draft were without merit and his harassment would lead to the possibility of sanctions and my Ignoring All Rules. nevertheless I incorporated his suggestions.
:::::I did IAR and restore following each questionable recent deletion because every assertion he has made in moving to deletion discussions is a blatant misrepresentation of facts which other editors have (unbelievably) echo. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RoySmith#Ignoring_of_views_at_DRV]. The IAR restorations were immediate followups to questionable deletions but Buckshots06s efforts to ban me from the topic have persisted long before my IAR restorations.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMark_Arsten&type=revision&diff=758463384&oldid=758323068] I have edited numerous pages that prove his SPA noticeboard assertion are not accurate and that he knows that assertion to be untrue. Baseless SPA accusations by Moe Epsilon were addressed here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2017_August_30&type=revision&diff=798393929&oldid=798392368]. I also edit Electronic music project, Mil history, and others and wrote a nice article on [[Beacham Theatre]] as is mentioned on my user page while I took a break from all of controversies I've written about- which Buckshot06 is suddenly and very weirdly fixated on. He stated his purpose was to put a summary on the main space and something about the units and had no further interest. Those summaries he state were his sole purpose in this subject exist on the main space already and have for some time.


:: They're already banned, this is a sock. Revision deletion {{done}}. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 15:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::As I stated above and will repeat here, this thread is about the constant misrepresentations by Buckshot06 in very recent discussion and noticeboards- including those listed above- resulting in deletions of my attempts to improve WP. Per his previous section this appears- at least partially- to be an immediate follow up to Buckshot06s actualized threat from April 2017 to come here over a prior content disputes and sourcing that he wanted to edit war over, appeared to have gotten got all wrong, wanted to avoid content dispute and still wants to battle over, followed by my April 2, 2017 willingness to also come here if that is this was the forum that he chose to explore his use of that source (plus a list of other sources). Link:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Terrorist_threat_and_weapons_removed_in_1972-_Apparent_POV] I hope this information clarifies rather than confuses.[[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 04:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Many thanks, [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite]]; I'm much obliged. Cheers - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Power~enwiki]] Please do not close my valid request for a closure review of [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review DRV of JohnVR4 userspace Sandbox drafts]] unless a particular WP policy requires it. I went to DRV for specific reasons, brought up specific concerns in policy and provided more than adequate proof yet the DRV request was closed by ignoring all of my concerns with out even reading them. That closure without addressing any of those concerns is reason for the request for closure review. I ask that you please reopen the review request that you recently closed if/when possible. Thank you, [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 06:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|Migfab008}} Take it as a mark that you accurately assessed the situation:) [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 16:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{Re|Johnvr4}}--If you feel, that the true evidence that everyone is correct is adhering to your {{tq|Supervalid}} beliefs and actions, I'm sorry to state that does not promise you a bright future on our site.And secondly, where this chain stops?You challenged the MfD at DrV.You are challenging the DrV at AN.Prob. iff the AN thread is let to run, a few days after it's clearly foreseeable close, you will be going to _____??I'm also genuinely concerned about the recreation of deleted and deletion-challenged material.That being said I am sorta ''neutral''' about the invoking of ban/block hammer and will take the oppurtunity to sincerely request you to either leave the topic area or put a dead-stop to your disruptive antics.[[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">''Winged Blades''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric| Godric]]</sup> 09:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:::Hi Winged Blades, I was hoping that I would be vindicated, my concerns would be validated, counter arguments would fall apart and be seen for what they were when actual facts were presented. I hoped that each valid concern that I raised in the DRV, and MfD closure would be reviewed since they were ignored in closing it (see comment below). I would hope the drafts would then be restored so I can finish developing them in my sandbox and moving material the does not fit out. Then Id like move the sandbox to my user space and then ask for further community review and publishing on the main space if or when it is deemed ready. [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 13:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I'm involved (I closed [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 30|the recent DRV he started]]) so I'll not voice an actual opinion here. But, based on what I've seen, {{U|Johnvr4}} really does need to back away from flogging the Project Red Hat dead horse. It's obvious he's passionate about that subject, but the community has clearly spoken, and he needs to move on. I don't see any good that can come (either to himself, or to the encyclopedia) of him continuing to push his view of that topic. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 11:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
:*Roy, your ''actual opinion'' you've posted above is based ''solely on something you stated you ignored completely'' but you did note [[WP:STALE]] applied in closure so that's something. You've ignored my valid policy views and closed the DRV because you didn't want to read it. [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closure_review_DRV_of_JohnVR4_userspace_Sandbox_drafts| That closure has not yet been reviewed]]. How the consensus of the community was reached is ''just one'' of issues that you were expected to answer. That was why I came to DRV. [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 13:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Correct me if I'm wrong, I've read through all the links that were provided above (one of them was a duplicate, FYI) but in a nutshell this is boiling down to:
# Johnvr4 wants editors to help review the sources, not necessarily all of them but some critical ones.
# Get back to him on what needs to be improved with regards to how the draft could be improved re sourcing and details.
# Johnvr4 did not want content to be excised from their draft version. (Something I gathered by this statement {{tq|I hear your concern and I understand it. I've simply asked you to look past that concern for the time being and discuss with me the other concerns like the primary sourcing and level of detail etc}}, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review this] thread.
# Johnvr4 did not like that fact that an older article was being expanded, incorporating content from his draft. (This was discussed at length, quite vociferously)
# Most critically, Johnvr4 did not want others messing with his draft.
:Does this sum everything up? [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 05:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
::Yes for the most part and thank you [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] for taking the time to sort that out. The areas I gathered needing improvement (your #2) are at the end of that #3 thread link. That the Dec. version of the draft was too big was already understood by all (#1).
:: I would add that I wanted ''constructive'' criticisms and tagging of any problematic areas (your #1). I got mass excising (your #3), and being basically shut out of the topic/category (Article was revived a few times) and got what I believed were POV fork solutions instead of improvements to our main space (your#4). At that point I asked for certain editors not to "mess" with that sandbox (your#5).
::Importantly, those areas needing improvement and those observations identified in those discussions were being addressed and incorporated into my sandbox (despite numerous assertions to the contrary). Was it a FAKE article, STALEDRAFT, abandoned or did it meet any of the requirements for deletion?
::I am a still basically a rookie editor and not an administrator-please help me if I break etiquette or policy. There is a hurricane pending in the event I lose access to power or internet during discussion. Please ping me if a response or action is needed. I have a lot going on IRL. Thank you very much again, [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 17:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


== SplinterCell556 is [[WP:NOTHERE]] ==
::::Buckshot06 sure seems to have taken [[WP:INVOLVED]] actions but it is extremely hard to fight an Admin. Best to protect your self, family amd neighbors in real life. Come back and request a copy of your work be emailed to you. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 04:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
{{atop|{{NAC}} {{u|SplinterCell556}} blocked for [[WP:NOTHERE]] and trolling. Also clearly using AI in their responses below. [[User:The Corvette ZR1|<b style="color:#ff6600;">'''''The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1'''''</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:The Corvette ZR1|<b style="color:#0a0a0a;">''(The Garage)''</b>]]</sup> 21:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Perhaps I'm slightly jumping the gun here but I feel this user coming to ANI is already inevitable.


{{u5|SplinterCell556}}
:::::Buckshot is involved as was explained to him by Nick-D in describing his own involvement nine months ago. That is a reason we are here at ANI.
:::::Quote from [[User_talk:Nick-D#U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan.27s_southern_islands]]:
::::::@Buckshot06: From looking at the article's talk page, it seems pretty clear that this is an editor conduct issue '''rather than a content issue'''. As it's a long-running issue, I'd suggest that you seek some form of admin intervention regarding John. Arguing about the article's content doesn't appear to be producing results, with material that was identified as problematic years ago and more recently continuing to be posted. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Thanks Nick.
:::::::What sort of action would you suggest? Do you believe you are 'involved', or can you yourself consider taking action? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::::To be honest, a block per WP:NOTHERE or similar given that John, unfortunately, doesn't seem interested in working collaboratively to develop neutral and appropriate encyclopedia articles. Given that I've commented a fair bit on this matter and when it was raised a few years ago I think that I would be 'involved' here. You may want to contact one or more of the admins who serve as coordinators for the military history project ahead of ANI and ask that they look into the matter: my reading is that the underlying issue here is - despite the walls of text - quite simple, especially given all the attempts to work with John by a range of excellent editors and could be handled by any uninvolved admin without a need to use ANI or similar. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
:::::End quote. Apparently, there are or may be a bunch of administrators who are involved that they asked to look into the matter. I don't know. [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 19:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


Out of this user's four edits, all have been reverted (full disclosure, two by me). Two of them are bad-faith talk page requests calling [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democratic_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1267066216 the Democrats Marxists] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=1267068261 Hilary Clinton a communist], while their mainspace edits involve [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_drone_sightings&diff=prev&oldid=1267063993 promoting a ludicrous conspiracy theory] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=24Hours_(band)&diff=prev&oldid=1267061749 something incomprehensible]. In short I have no doubt this user is [[WP:NOTHERE]] to build an encyclopedia. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>]])''</sup> 13:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Proposal concerning JohnVR4 ===
"Johnvr4 is topic banned from contributing to or discussing articles regarding either Japan or weapons, broadly construed, anyway on the English Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban to [[WP:AN]] after six months."
* '''Support''' <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 19:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
* '''Support''', assuming there will be no consensus for the block. I hope we can convince John to turn his energies to something he feels perhaps less strongly about. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 21:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
* '''Comment'''.I do not understand this proposal at all given the assertions of Buckshot06 already being proven to be bogus. Can we determine the merit of arguments, restore the drafts, then review them to determine whether a topic ban is appropriate? Have I abused the system? Thank you [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 22:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
{{Collapse top}}
::It does not matter unfortunately. Buckshot06 is an Admin, so unless you can present damning evidence of abusing their position they will not be sanctioned, and even then likely not. You are best served to drop the dispute and edit elsewhere for a while. Defining this topic your way is not worth getting blocked or topic banned over. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 23:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
:::I do have fairly damning evidence and have provided those links. I'd like the User space drafts restored right after exactly how and why they were deleted is explored and I want his harassment of me and of my submissions both past and future to end. I would like an agreement from him that that he will review the sources and refrain from fact-deficient assertions when editing this subject or in speaking to or about me. I'm not sure if that compromise can be enforced but that is my very reasonable proposal. If the issue is that two ANIs for similar reasons can't be open at once then place mine on hold. I don't understand the ANI policy but that section has relevant links for the ANI he opened which is slowly getting to the behavior that needs to be understood. (what or who is BRZ that suggested this proposal?) [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 01:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
::::Johnvr4: Put aside your belief in the correctness of your position for just a moment, and clear your mind. Then start at the top of the discussion, skip all of your own comments, and read only the comments by other editors. Do you get the sense that anyone involved in the discussion is supporting your position? I think that if you're honest with yourself, you will see that that doesn't appear to be the case. This is a good bit of [[WP:CLUE]] for you that continuing to advocate your position aggressively is unlikely to end up in a result you'll be happy with, and could very possibly result in a sanction placed on you. You have to judge whether it's worthwhile to pursue your goal considering those circumstances. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 02:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::I think every single editor would agree with me ''if'' they simply looked at the differences of [[User:Johnvr4/sandbox]] between Dec 2016 and it's deletion this week or the Afd version vs the Mfd versions. Buckshot06, Nick-D, and Moe won't ever agree with me again and many might tend to agree with them simply because they are ''usually'' highly wise, accurate, and reliable (I admit I would do that 9 times out of ten for that same reason in ''most'' cases) ''but'' if editors could please take look at those diffs, all of the assertions about my "preferred" version (vs the newer sources), not condensing material, not reducing scope, not improving, of not putting it on the main space, or of leaving it indefinitely would simply fall apart.
:::::I'm not saying it's perfect by any stretch and it's not even ready for formal draft submission -but it is so close! It's already split into three separate parts for three WP articles and it covers both sides ''of all'' the complex issues and is consistent with 177 sources as opposed to the POV current [[Operation Red Hat]] that doesn't remotely properly cover the majority points of the 12 of the reference it has had since its recreation. I feel strongly that it simply should not be deleted and that deleting it would be an extreme disservice to the WP project. I just took a 5 month break from this topic and 1.5 hours after returning for a moment to add a new source that addressed Moe's previous concern, Buckshot06 nominates it for MfD with misrepresentations that would take any administrator about 45 seconds to disprove. A Tempundelete of my user spaces would also clear it up. Promptly. [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 03:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::''"I think every single editor would agree with me ''if''..."'' So, you're not going to do as I suggested and evaluate as neutrally as possible what other editors have already said above. Instead, you're going to stick to your personal party line that you are right, and everyone else is wrong, and everyone else would agree with you if they would only think as you do. That's tautologically true, but I'm trying to point you to what is the '''''practical reality''''' here, which is that you are virtually alone, and no matter how many times you repeat your tropes, you're going to remain alone or heavily outnumbered. If you refuse to recognize that, then all I can say is that I hope you enjoy the sanction that is almost certain to be heading your way -- just don't say that you weren't warned. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 05:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::[[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] Can I implore you to read BMK's wise words again and heed his advice? Admins can and have examined your most recent drafts, and nobody here is agreeing with you. It all works by consensus here, even if that consensus is, in your opinion, wrong - I've disagreed with consensus many times, but I have to accept it, and you have to accept it. Simply continuing to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong, and that everyone would see things your way if only... well, that's an approach that is guaranteed to fail. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 09:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


:I've issued a CTOP notice. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with you Ken (and Boing!), However, I just took a 5 month break only to find myself challenging the MfD deletion of my User space draft and I am ''fairly certain'' it was not nominated or endorsed correctly. The main space article is simply a POV version that was opened by that editor literally during my discussions with him (and Nick) about improvements to my sand box draft. I've incorporated their suggestions in the deleted sandbox version over the last 5 months and the redevelopment was not complete. That is reality. It is undeniable. Assertions to the contrary are ''factually inaccurate'' ''in our present reality''.
:Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concerns regarding my opinion. It's important for us to maintain a constructive environment and ensure that all contributions adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. I appreciate your vigilance in upholding the integrity of the content. If there are specific points or edits you believe need further discussion, I’m open to dialogue and would like to work together to improve Wikipedia! Thank you. [[User:SplinterCell556|SplinterCell556]] ([[User talk:SplinterCell556|talk]]) 14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Ken, those assertions and other content disputes are why we are here and my frustration stems from arguing over content with an editor who wont review our reliable sources. Other commenting administrators (such as Mr rnddude) have confirmed my assessment (in at least one case to date) and any editor who looked at that would likely do the same.
::{{u|SplinterCell556}} Please read the notice on your user talk page and be aware that rules are enforced more strictly in this topic area. Be aware that Wikipedia summarizes what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] say about a topic. If you have sources that say Hillary Clinton advocates for abolishing private property ownership(what communism actually is), you can offer them on the article talk page. I know you don't- because she doesn't. Universal health care is not communism(unless the UK, France, and most of the western world is communist) and doesn't even have to involve government provided health care. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::"Admins can and have examined your most recent drafts," They have? Buckshot06 asserts that draft still it has not been improved nor condensed in scope and size and Nick-d says its POV and fails Verifiability. The deleted sandbox had Buckshot06 and Nick-Ds suggestions incorporated between Jan and May 2017. That is a primary reason why I feel their repeated assertions about that draft are so absurd. No one has seemed to even read what I've typed on noticeboards and deletion reviews and I ''highly'' doubt they took any time to look at the diffs of a deleted sandbox draft or the sources that used to support it. If they had there would be a lot of examples to support those assertions vs the sources that state what I submitted. If the draft was tempundelete-d during this discussion we could simply look right at the text and sources to see whether the assertions hold water. [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 12:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Okay. [[User:SplinterCell556|SplinterCell556]] ([[User talk:SplinterCell556|talk]]) 14:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::I just put this into several AI-generated detectors (GPTZero, Grammarly, Copyleaks). All three suggested it was AI-generated, with GPTZero giving it a 100% chance. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>]])''</sup> 14:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you for bringing this to my attention, fellow human. I take concerns about AI generated very seriously. It is important to us to ensure that our messages reflect genuine and kind thoughts without AI interference. I will take a closer look at my replies in question and verify their legitimacy. If they are indeed AI-generated, I will work on correcting them and ensuring that any content added aligns with Wikipedia's standards. I appreciate your diligence in maintaining the quality of our articles!
:::AI-generated content may lack the nuanced understanding and contextual awareness that human editors bring. This can lead to the propagation of inaccuracies or misinformation, which undermines Wikipedia’s reliability as a source of information. AI models operate as 'black boxes,' making it difficult to trace how a specific output was derived. This lack of transparency can be problematic in collaborative environments that rely on verifiable and attributable contributions. AI systems can inadvertently perpetuate societal biases present in their training data, leading to skewed or unfair representations of topics. This is particularly concerning in an encyclopedia that aims for neutrality and comprehensiveness. The use of AI-generated content raises questions about copyright, authorship, and accountability. These factors need careful consideration to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
:::In light of these issues, it's essential for every wikipedia user to critically assess the impact of AI on their contributions and prioritize human input to maintain the integrity and quality of Wikipedia. Thank you, fellow human. [[User:SplinterCell556|SplinterCell556]] ([[User talk:SplinterCell556|talk]]) 14:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{ping|331dot}} don't think the CTOP notice will be enough. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>]])''</sup> 15:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Are you saying that you don't know if you used an AI? That's concerning(and you appeared to use an AI to tell us that) [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Maybe he doesn't know whether [[List_of_Blade_Runner_(franchise)_characters#Rick_Deckard|he himself is AI]]. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 15:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:I've NOTHERE blocked for trolling. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Endorse this. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{+1}} An AI detector isn't necessary to know that's AI. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 15:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Persistent unsourced/unexplained date changes by 2A02:8070:A283:1C00:0:0:0:0/64 ==
::::::::[[User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review]] During sandbox draft content discussion between Buckshot06 and Nick-D and I : "I've changed my mind; I've taken the material, retained the material on the core Red Hat CW/BW storage-and-disposal-from-Okinawa-to-Johnson subject, and relaunched the Operation Red Hat article. It still needs a lot of cleanup, but this is an example of what a more focused article, drawn from your text, would start to look like. It is *only* about thing that can be referenced to be referring to anything labelled Red Hat, so please do not start adding other subjects to the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC) " [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 12:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Date of block expiry changed to later. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::::::::None of Buckshot06's topic versions cover the entire subject and my draft was MfDed 1.5 hours after I added [http://english.ryukyushimpo.jp/2012/08/16/7705/ this source that redefines entirely his strong views on relevance to the core topic]. New source added: "The report refers to the possibility that in terms of its timing and the location, moving the barrels of Agent Orange from Okinawa to Johnston Island was a part of Operation Red Hat. A statement from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 2009 referred to military herbicides having been stored in Okinawa during the period from August 1969 to March 1972 and later disposed of in Operation Red Hat. The relationship between Agent Orange and Operation Red Hat is indicated." Please explain. [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 12:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
{{userlinks|2A02:8070:A283:1C00:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps making unsourced/unexplained date changes, continued after a 1 week block for "date vandalism" on December 24. Examples of unsourced date changes: {{diff|Super Pac-Man|prev|1267037790|1}}, {{diff|Nintendo 64|prev|1267041693|2}}, {{diff|Pac & Pal|prev|1267038329|3}}, {{diff|WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Party Games!|prev|1267041875|4}}. [[User:Waxworker|Waxworker]] ([[User talk:Waxworker|talk]]) 15:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::One more try. Johnvr4, please read and seriously think about [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]]. The more you continue to hold on to your fixed position, the more it appears to others that you are fundamentally misaligned with core Wikipedian values, such as [[WP:CONSENSUS]], and therefore the more likely it is that this discussion will result in a sanction for you, and that sanction will be harsher than it might have been if you had only allowed yourself to let things go instead of digging in your feet. Please understand, I'm not talking about right and wrong -- I haven't looked into the complexities of your situation seriously enough to make a judgment like that, and, in any case, this is just on online encyclopedia project, not the North Korean missile crisis -- I'm simply evaluating what's gone on here and the likely response to your intransigence. I think that you have to consider not what you believe to be right, and not what result you desire, but the probable result of this ongoing interaction, and decide if that result is worth your continuing to hold the line. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 17:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::I absolutely hear and understand you Ken. I feel that consensus will be eventually be determined by the quality of the argument put forth but that I just haven't to date presented it in a fashion that can be overcome by a poll of other editors who do not have time to look into the merits of each assertion. It is too complex. I do understand that. I simply want the user space draft restored and have very valid policy reasons why that should have already happened. [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 17:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::OK, your choice. Good luck. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 20:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
{{Collapse bottom}}
*'''Support''' since a block is likely to fail, and since it is an undesirable outcome anyways. Maybe being topic banned for six months, John can clear his mind and just focus on other topics and helping there. If he is knowledgeable in any other topics whatsoever, he should be able to make positive contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia and let Japan/weapon-based topics go for a while. In the meantime, off of Wikipedia, maybe you can work on the articles on O.R.H. or related topics, personally. In some situations where I didn't want a public sandbox, I used a Word document and maintained wikitext and went from there. That way, John, you can work on bringing the articles up to publication with less conflict once you repeal the topic ban. Regards, — [[User:Moe Epsilon|<span style="color:royalblue; font-family: Segoe Script">Moe</span>]] [[User talk:Moe Epsilon|<span style="color:royalblue; font-family: Segoe Script">Epsilon</span>]] 04:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
::Moe, I hope you saw my apology above for my misstatement involving you and thanks for the suggestion. I thought that was what I was accomplishing in user space and that the improvements in my sandbox would speak for themselves. [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 13:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' As second-preferred option after a block. As noted in my comments above, Johnvr4's editing on these topics does not meet a range of key Wikipedia standards, including [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]], and attempts by multiple editors to provide advice to address this issue have not been successful. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 11:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
{{Collapse top}}
::There is zero evidence to support Nick-D's statement and much to disprove it. Nick-D was asked [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANick-D&type=revision&diff=772644337&oldid=772559565 here] for one example of what he has asserted and couldn't provide one.


:They'd already been blocked for a week for the date vandalism, so I just gave them another month. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Further, Nick-D and involved editor, admitted that the much older Dec. version of my sandbox was improved and he told that to Buckshot06, (another involved editor), who seemed to be abusing his discretion at that time. "... I'm not sure if I'm following the above discussion, but ''It would be best to not use the 2013-era text '''given John's comments on how he's improved upon it and sought to address the concerns over sourcing, etc, raised in the AfD. Nick-D '''''(talk) 22:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)"
{{abot}}

::I had improved the sandbox while incorporating their suggestions between Jan. and Mar. which even Buckshot06 admitted elsewhere (at least twice). Yet Buckshot06s asserted at MfD just 1.5 hours after my last edit, that the draft was '''''without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD''''' and Nick-D echoed his statement: "As the material is not being actively edited to address the concerns raised, it should be deleted. ... Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)"

::It seems clear that both editors knew full well that their assertions at [[WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat]], here, and other place sounded untrue when they wrote them. Their dubious statements have been echoed by several other editors. [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 19:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:::<small>'''Johnvr4: Please stop outdenting every time you respond to something. The proper procedure is to add one more tab (i.e. one more colon, with a bullet counting as a colon) than the comment you're responding to. I've had to fix almost every response of yours here. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 20:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)'''</small>
::::{{ping|Johnvr4}} Your conviction that everyone will agree with you if only you can find the right way to present your case is causing you to [[WP:BLUDGEON]] this discussion. Please stop - this is a '''''community''''' discussion, and not every comment requires a response from you. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 20:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
{{Collapse bottom}}
*'''Support''' since he will not take good advice. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 02:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per {{u|Nick-D}}. [[User:SophisticatedSwampert|Sophisticated<i>Swampert</i>]] [[User talk:SophisticatedSwampert|<sup><i>'''let's talk about that'''</i></sup>]] 06:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' (but fix the "anyway" typo to "anywhere"): There is clearly a serious problem here, but it's very topical, and we don't block people for topic-limited things, especially when the behavior is very long-term (i.e., even a lengthy block would likely result in resumption of the behavior when the block expired). An indefinite block could be considered, but I don't see sufficient evidence that the problem rises to that level. This is a content and PoV dispute about a particular subject area, so removing the editor from discussion and editing about that should fix it. If not, we'll know soon enough. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 23:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

== Implied legal threat, edit warring, content blanking SPA ==

*{{user links|Polysci1977}}
*{{article links|Jimmy Dore}}

Title says it all. User repeatedly blanking content on article claiming "defamatory content". Likely same as IP editor who did the same earlier. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 06:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:Claiming that material is defamatory is not a legal threat, as discussed at [[WP:NLT]]. [[User:Jonathan A Jones|Jonathan A Jones]] ([[User talk:Jonathan A Jones|talk]]) 07:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{Re|Jonathan A Jones}} I'm having trouble locating that discussion. Can you point me to it? I've seen people treat claims as bordering on legal threats, often citing DOLT. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 18:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:::See the section '''Defamation''' where it says "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat". One could argue over whether an assertion that material is defamatory is a discussion of libel, but I think it's close enough. Having been on the wrong end of legal threats in the past I think I know where most admins would draw the line, and I don't think these comments reach the required threshold. [[User:Jonathan A Jones|Jonathan A Jones]] ([[User talk:Jonathan A Jones|talk]]) 18:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:::: Thank you! [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 23:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You are posting defamatory content, not sure how to handle this, but I have to pursue this now and will keep doing so until concluded. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Polysci1977|Polysci1977]] ([[User talk:Polysci1977#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Polysci1977|contribs]]) 06:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You should raise your concerns at [[WP:BLP/N]]; the way you are handling things at the moment is likely to end badly. [[User:Jonathan A Jones|Jonathan A Jones]] ([[User talk:Jonathan A Jones|talk]]) 07:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

:: {{u|Polysci1977}} has already been warned about edit warring while logged off it seems, and was also advised to either take the content dispute to [[WP:BLPN]] or [[Talk:Jimmy Dore]], where similar discussion has been ongoing. The page will be semi-protected for one week for the time being to allow discussions to take place. [[WP:NOTHERE]] should be applicable if the same kind of disruptive editing behaviour continues. [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]][[User_talk:Alex Shih|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 07:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

:::Indeed; my comment was more aimed at [[lurker]]s: I learned a lot by reading BLP/N and AN/I for a while. [[User:Jonathan A Jones|Jonathan A Jones]] ([[User talk:Jonathan A Jones|talk]]) 09:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:Regardless of the original post (which did not qualify as a legal threat), this new "You are posting defamatory content, not sure how to handle this, but I have to pursue this now and will keep doing so until concluded" appears to be reasonably interpretable as one. After warnings.<span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span>

*No activity by this user for a few days. Requesting this be closed for now unless someone agrees with {{U|SMcCandlish}} that a legal threat was made in that last remark. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 19:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

== User:Ejbaluyot ==

{{userlinks|Ejbaluyot}}, previously discussed at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive960#User:Ejbaluyot creating nonsense articles]], is continuing to add nonsense to articles, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rest_in_peace&diff=799496613&oldid=799292377 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Apple_Inc.&diff=prev&oldid=799391475 this]. It is clear that this editor does not have the English-language skills to contribute to the English Wikipedia, and their edits are creating work for other users, so I am requesting a [[WP:COMPETENCE]] block. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 11:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:Blocked indefinitely, as the editor was becoming a time sink and [[WP:CIR|competence is required]] to constructively edit Wikipedia. Editor may appeal the block as per normal, and I would welcome their contributions in the future should their quality of edits improve -- [[User:There'sNoTime|There'sNoTime]] <sup>([[User talk:There'sNoTime|to explain]])</sup> 11:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
::Might want to delete their usrpage as well. It's a fake article in and of itself and is filled with a bunch of self-promotional nonsense. [[Special:Contributions/74.70.146.1|74.70.146.1]] ([[User talk:74.70.146.1|talk]]) 11:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Agree, CSDed. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Widefox|Widefox]]</span>; [[User talk:Widefox|talk]]</span> 11:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
::::I would agree too on block due to competence concerns. Seems like edits are amateurishly written.[[User:Ramos1990|Huitzilopochtli1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 00:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

== User:FF-UK ==
{{atop|The discussion have been closed by me (with his last comment removed).Until and unless he resumes such activities, we are done here.[[User:Godric on Leave|<span style= "color:green">''Winged Blades of Godric''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Godric on Leave|On leave]]</sup> 13:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)}}
I tried this morning to start a discussion with {{userlinks|FF-UK}} on his talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FF-UK&diff=prev&oldid=799543119] regarding some civility issues that have emerged in [[Talk:Amazon.com#Requested_move_15_August_2017|an active RM discussion]], but I see the user reverted my message without comment.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFF-UK&type=revision&diff=799563368&oldid=799543119] The user's posts in the discussion ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmazon.com&type=revision&diff=799385668&oldid=799376477][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmazon.com&type=revision&diff=799538296&oldid=799528191], etc.) have been veering into the personal and disruptive, something that I and others have already pointed out in the discussion.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmazon.com&type=revision&diff=799528191&oldid=799449767][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmazon.com&type=revision&diff=799130156&oldid=799102364][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmazon.com&type=revision&diff=799202344&oldid=799201796] If the user is unwilling to engage on the subject of this behavior, what's a reasonable next step? Thanks for any advice/assistance. [[User:Huwmanbeing|╠╣uw]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Huwmanbeing|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 14:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:To be honest I would suggest just keeping calm and ignoring it. With an attitude like that he's going to slip up and get swatted by an admin at some point. His shouting won't carry much weight for whoever closes the move discussion, but there are enough valid arguments on his side that I suspect the whole thing will be closed as no consensus. [[User:Jonathan A Jones|Jonathan A Jones]] ([[User talk:Jonathan A Jones|talk]]) 15:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
*FF-UK has made 21 edits to the move discussion, divided into actually ''more'' responses — I make it 31 — responding to and arguing heatedly with pretty much everybody. That's [[WP:BLUDGEON| pretty disruptive in itself]]. I started to count the number of exclamation marks also, and the number of times they accused people of dishonesty, but I got lost. It's the kind of behaviour that discourages other editors, and I have given FF-UK a strong warning. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 16:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC).
*'''Update''': A closer has now marked the Amazon discussion as <nowiki>{{closing}}</nowiki> while a result is considered — but I see that despite instructions asking participants not edit the discussion, [[User:FF-UK]] just posted yet another comment. [[User:Huwmanbeing|╠╣uw]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Huwmanbeing|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 18:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
{{ab}}

== Problem with a SPA ==

{{user|C. W. Gilmore}} a [[WP:SPA|singularly focused]] account, who has already been blocked once for edit warring is being highly disruptive. 2017 Portland train attack, three insertions in under an hour linking a known extremist and killer to Patriot Prayer, thus by extension to the person Joey Gibson, in my opinion this is a blp violation. PP is never mentioned without the founder of the group being named, I had edited the article so mention of the group, along with Gibson appeared in the same line as Gibson denouncing Christian, along with the fact that Christian was ejected from the rally, so as to avoid any guilt by association, this has been reverted twice [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2017_Portland_train_attack&diff=prev&oldid=799590458][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2017_Portland_train_attack&diff=prev&oldid=799592990], without being marked as reverts. Gilmore appears to be here to right great wrongs, and for Christ's sake, someone tell him an article on a right wing free speech group does not have to mention Donald Trump in every fecking paragraph, he is bloody obsessed with that. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 17:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

And here is his [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2017_Portland_train_attack&curid=54160821&diff=799595305&oldid=799592990 latest] edit "One month prior to the stabbing, Christian appeared at the Patriot Prayer right-wing "March for Free Speech" in Portland's Montavilla Park sponsored by [[Patriot Prayer]]" Yup PP is now mention thrice in the same para. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 17:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:Whoever responds to this should also look at [[Talk:Patriot Prayer]] for context on both the reporter and reported, here. [[User:Funcrunch|Funcrunch]] ([[User talk:Funcrunch|talk]]) 18:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
::Yes, please note the section on (Jeremy) Christian. Please, also do a quick internet search of "Patriot Prayer Jeremy Christian" and see the number of legitimate news articles that link them, thankyou.[[User:C. W. Gilmore|C. W. Gilmore]] ([[User talk:C. W. Gilmore|talk]]) 03:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:::I can report that others returned the hyper-links between the Patriot Prayer page and the Portland Train Attack. I do hope the editor will leave them alone this time, for pulling them apart, is to pull both out of context of Portland, Oregon from April until June of 2017. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/06/jeremy_christians_vocabulary_a.html[[User:C. W. Gilmore|C. W. Gilmore]] ([[User talk:C. W. Gilmore|talk]]) 06:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

== Repeated disruptive editing by Franciscus14, no communication on their part ==

{{User links| Franciscus14}} has received a multitude of warnings for their disruptive edits. Most of these edits have involved unexplained removal of sourced content and replacing profile images by poorer ones, both mostly (or entirely even) at BLP / [[Association football|footballer]] articles. At the same time, there has been a striking lack of communication on their part: as far as I can tell, they have never responded to any warning and they never use edit summaries. Two hours ago, they again removed sourced content without any explanation: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lamine_Sané&diff=799611387&oldid=796632425 link]. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 21:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:Maybe the user doesn't know they have a talkpage. Blocked for a week, in the hope that they'll discover it. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 19:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC).
::I experienced someone like this before. Has anyone tired to ping them? But you know what? In looking at their contribution history, this editor makes all their edits on mobile phone without any edit summaries. I am not sure if all the features work on your mobile phone (e.g. alerts, notifications). And I think that personal talk pages are limited so he may not be aware of all the warnings other editors have put in. If the disruptive editing persists, then it would be best to do a longer block.[[User:Ramos1990|Huitzilopochtli1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 00:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

== Niagara (painter and singer) ==
{{Archive top|Not an appropriate request {{NAC}} [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 12:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)}}
*{{la|Niagara (painter and singer)}}

Can I get a revdel here? [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Niagara_%28painter_and_singer%29&type=revision&diff=799669840&oldid=788270253] I don't know if this unsourced material is correct but assume that the subject of this BLP doesn't want it published. [[User:Kendall-K1|Kendall-K1]] ([[User talk:Kendall-K1|talk]]) 14:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:Definitely not suitable for revdel, which generally shouldn't be requested here for matters like this, and almost certainly shouldn't be removed from the article. The name has been reliably reported in multiple sources, including the ''Washington Post''. I'm not quite sure that "birth name" is quite the right term, but it's stated that way in many apparently reliable sources. The subject's wishes wouldn't be relevant in this context. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 16:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
::The material was added without a source citation, which is a violation of BLP policy. I see you have re-added it, but only sourced part of it. I have again removed the unsourced material. [[User:Kendall-K1|Kendall-K1]] ([[User talk:Kendall-K1|talk]]) 16:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:::This is not a revdel candidate, in any event. [[User:GeneralizationsAreBad|GAB]]<sup>[[User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad|gab]]</sup> 17:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}

== [[User:Oogles]], CIR concerns ==

[[User:Oogles]] is an oldtime editor, albeit with a limited set of articles he edits, and who hasn't edited much since 2015 until now. He recently resurfaced on [[The Devil's Advocate (1997 film)‎]] (one of his old haunts) {{Redacted}}. In removing referenced material, he begins with heated personal attacks [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThe_Devil%27s_Advocate_%281997_film%29&type=revision&diff=798997460&oldid=781308372] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Devil%27s_Advocate_%281997_film%29&type=revision&diff=798996671&oldid=798993324] showing a lack of understanding of what was written, or the chronology of the subjects. He then leaves two incoherent messages on my user talk to that effect, with a [[WP:LEGAL|chilling]] header. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARibbet32&type=revision&diff=799001282&oldid=797049014] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ribbet32&diff=next&oldid=799001282]

After [[User:Mavriksfan11]] chimes in with a [[WP:3O]], what follows is a torrent of incoherence and [[Non sequitur (logic)|non-sequiturs]] from Oogles, in 11 posts all one after the other. After commenting on a grammatical/readability issue that was already resolved, non-sequitur #1: "Have at it, hackles" [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Devil%27s_Advocate_(1997_film)&diff=next&oldid=799466010] Confuses ledes with paragraphs again, after having been advised of a difference: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Devil%27s_Advocate_(1997_film)&diff=next&oldid=799473056] Non-sequitur #2 on the identification of an evangelical character: "Granted, she did fuck Satan, I mean Milton, and had a kid" [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Devil%27s_Advocate_(1997_film)&diff=next&oldid=799474081] Goes back to the already resolved issue again [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Devil%27s_Advocate_(1997_film)&diff=prev&oldid=799473305] and again [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Devil%27s_Advocate_(1997_film)&diff=next&oldid=799476074] Followed by this incoherence: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Devil%27s_Advocate_(1997_film)&diff=next&oldid=799478794]

After the 3O is implemented, he [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit wars]] to undo it [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Devil%27s_Advocate_%281997_film%29&type=revision&diff=799769997&oldid=799513377] . This is followed by the second torrent of seven bizarre posts. Noting the possibility of ANI should 3O fail, he responds with non-sequitur #3: "Not the article, so no need to edit details like that" [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThe_Devil%27s_Advocate_%281997_film%29&type=revision&diff=799764955&oldid=799511361] Confuses "lede" and "paragraph" again, violates [[WP:LEAD]], and ignores 3O: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Devil%27s_Advocate_(1997_film)&diff=next&oldid=799765437] Non-sequitur #4: invoking [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] referring to a plot point in a different film as analogous to a real-world lawsuit: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Devil%27s_Advocate_(1997_film)&diff=next&oldid=799768695] Non-sequitur #5: "Done with opening paragraph? If so, I'll go to next edit" [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Devil%27s_Advocate_(1997_film)&diff=next&oldid=799769074] (talking to himself there?) Followed by this incoherence: "You can inform me on mine, if you want, I won't view it, but have fun with that. " [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Devil%27s_Advocate_(1997_film)&diff=next&oldid=799769688]

Sadly, I think we have a clear-cut [[WP:CIR]] case here, or at least a [[WP:IDHT]] given the ignoring explanations, pointed-out guidelines and the 3O. [[User:Ribbet32|Ribbet32]] ([[User talk:Ribbet32|talk]]) 21:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

:{{Non-admin comment|admin}} Just want to point out that the legal threat you allege (using "legal action" as a header) seems to be referring to mention of legal actions in the article, why do you think it was a threat? [[User:Tornado chaser|Tornado chaser]] ([[User talk:Tornado chaser|talk]]) 23:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
::Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I thought it actually ''was'' a threat, just that the header, when I first saw it, was chilling and disturbing before I clicked on it and saw what it was. It just ties into the question of whether this user knows what words mean and what our policies are. [[User:Ribbet32|Ribbet32]] ([[User talk:Ribbet32|talk]]) 23:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

:: View the actual edits. That's all. [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 23:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
::(and I totally wouldn't sue Ribbit, why bother? That was notification of a revert, which I will NO LONGER do in the future. [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 00:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::I did't say not to discuss reverts with other users (and I don't think [[User:Ribbet32|Ribbet32]]said this either.) Ribbet32 was questioning your choice of words,not saying you shouldn't notify him of anything. [[User:Tornado chaser|Tornado chaser]] ([[User talk:Tornado chaser|talk]]) 01:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::: That's fair, I will no longer notify anyone of anything. I'll just edit appropriately. Can he stop reverting now? OR at least TALK after the FIRST revert? Talk is OK. Why this this film is unique for having the end in the opening - and legal information in it. [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 01:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::No one said to stop notifying users of anything. Do you understand why this discussion was started? As for your defense {{tq|View the actual edits}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Devil%27s_Advocate_%281997_film%29&type=revision&diff=799769997&oldid=799513377 these edits of yours] (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Devil%27s_Advocate_(1997_film)&diff=prev&oldid=798996671 especially this one]) don't exactly justify the problematic communication highlighted in the diffs provided by Ribbet32. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 01:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::: So "especially this one" is where "defenses" (ie: legal defenses) weren't available to WB, INC? Source? [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 01:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::[[WP:NOTVAND|There was no reason whatsoever to call the material you removed vandalism]]. This is not about article content (of which I'm not especially thrilled by either revision) but your behavior. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 01:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::: The COMMENT part of the edit? That is fair on that. Is that what this is about? [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 01:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::If someone raises [[WP:CIR]] concerns about you, it's generally a good idea to see what evidence they're providing and try to understand where they're coming from. You are not helping your case at all. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 01:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::: I know that. He was all happy about doing it. Does it matter if he "wins" - not really. I'm not trying to "help my case" That would be a case where this 1 movie now has legal information, and spoiler in the opening paragraph - which is bad :) [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 01:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::There is a wikipedia policy that spoilers are ok. [[User:Tornado chaser|Tornado chaser]] ([[User talk:Tornado chaser|talk]]) 01:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::Not even really a spoiler, just something revealed in the last 10 minutes. But what about legal info in lead? How bout we put all that (not true) things in the legal section, then talk about sources? HOWEVER - If the sole issue is claiming vandalism, with that specific word, in a comment - I am guilty of that. With no agenda. [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 01:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::: The NUMBER of edits seem to be an issue (where, does it really matter, when all inline and hasn't been edited in years?) Anyhoo, I've illustrated "Responsiveness" here too, as I did on the talk page for the edited articles. However, if issue is Ribbit is afraid of me or something lol, guy is on a crusade, and if he wins - I don't care! [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 02:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::: 99.9% of my edits are from IP, and those are never changed (and me and Oogles never edit same pages) I login when history is important to the edits. [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 02:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::My "crusade" is to expand Wikipedia film articles using references, and when a disagreement pops up, to discuss with the other editor. When someone covers their ears and then goes "DAH DAH DAH DAH DAH" and repeats the same arguments, it hinders the project. I explained my rationale for including information in the lede citing [[WP:LEAD]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThe_Devil%27s_Advocate_%281997_film%29&type=revision&diff=799014463&oldid=798999812]; you've repeatedly ignored that and repeatedly cited a non-existing rule that a lawsuit has to go all the way up to the Supreme Court to be worth mentioning in the "opening paragraph", regardless of real-world ramifications of a settled case. [[User:Ribbet32|Ribbet32]] ([[User talk:Ribbet32|talk]]) 02:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
{{od}}So, as a long time member (and contributor) to wiki - guess the logical thing is put the end of movies in the first paragraph, legal info and no big deal right? Lets just do that for every single movie. Seems logical. [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 02:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:(The above reply is the actual first time I heard him respond to it) Do you have a settlement letter? explaining the exact details of cash transfer? And it wasn't the supreme court. [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 02:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:Anyway, dude, this all belongs on the talk page for the article where I'm sure, we could resolve things, -- or, whatever the fuck this is, you can delete me too -- Don't give a fuck if you're successful on that, either, as, most of my edits from work or when VPN or whatever (again, not on the same article, I have no sockpuppets) I login, because history is important. [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 02:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::Why do you insist on improper formatting? (I fixed it) [[User:Tornado chaser|Tornado chaser]] ([[User talk:Tornado chaser|talk]]) 02:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::: I'm personally rooting that Ribbit wins. Just cause it's so terribly funny.
:::Oh also: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use [[:Template:ANI-notice]] to do so.
:::The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors. The templates {{Pagelinks}} (for pages) and {{Userlinks}} (for editors) may be helpful.
:::::Um, Oogles, why did you post that unsigned boilerplate notice [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=799827180&oldid=799826973]? You know I notified you immediately. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oogles&diff=prev&oldid=799790400] [[User:Ribbet32|Ribbet32]] ([[User talk:Ribbet32|talk]]) 02:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::: That's what it was? Thought the tags messed it up, did anyone think it was NOT from me?, under my username for the edit?[[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 02:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::: Really, you shouldn't have me editing a frequently edited thread like this. BTW, I'll still contribute :P In donation and 99.99% of edits. (Mostly grammer) Which I spelled wrong. [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 02:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::: The end result is I guess every movie needs the the last 10 minutes revealed in opening paragraph and legal info all in there. Seems like the best place for it, right? Not the legal section. (Note, I won't be doing that, a hope is that editors keep Wiki reliable) [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 02:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
* While I agree there are some [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]] and [[WP:EDITWAR]] issues to address in Oogles's behavior, I think Ribbet32's "appears to have suffered a complete mental breakdown" [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] clearly warrant a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] in addition to, and completely severable from, actions (if any) taken with regard to Oogles. Nasty speculation about other people's brains is about the worst [[WP:CIVIL]], [[WP:NPA]], and [[WP:AGF]] transgression there is. I also agree with Tornado_chaser that interpreting an edit summary of "legal action", pertaining to article content about a legal action, as some kind of legal threat is unreasonable. Frankly, it's ridiculous [[WP:DRAMA]]-mongering. ANI does not exist for editors to tone-police each other in nit-picky, subjective, "I wish I'd gotten a trigger warning"-style ways that seem to have more to do with the complainant's own feelings and or inferences than anyone's intent or implications. ANI is also not a free-for-all playground for demonizing other editors' mentalities. Similarly, [[WP:Competence is required]] is something we refer to for "is this editor able to get along and do they have sufficient writing and English-language experience to even help out here?" determinations; it is not a "is this person smart or sane enough for our liking?" page. If you cite CIR in reference to someone, you should make clear you mean the former, but here the complainant actually intends the latter and is being very pointed about it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 06:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::What he said. [[User:Ribbet32]], please remove your comments on another user's mental health. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 12:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::It seems like I already explained what I meant by "chilling", but fine, redacted. [[User:Ribbet32|Ribbet32]] ([[User talk:Ribbet32|talk]]) 16:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::: I agree with it, as well. We can have a "discussion", first - before to this - really wasting everyones time - extreme. [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 16:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::::I am a little concerned about CIR due to confusing comments like the one above. [[User:Tornado chaser|Tornado chaser]] ([[User talk:Tornado chaser|talk]]) 16:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::::: I agree with GoldenRing's comment - and SMcCandlish. More clear? Don't agree there was an editwar, (I can't hear you was after the fact) [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 16:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::::: I'm also more than happy to provide ammunition for someone on a crusade (Note NONE of this is about actual edits to the actual article). So just explain, what ammunition you want, for this case. I'll do my very best to provide it. [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 16:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::::: (Note* Provide it to action against me, just cause that's funny) ;) [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 16:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::: I guess, under the reason sited, I could through poop at my monitor, then post a picture of it. But, I'm not really *that* interested in providing that ammunition. [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 17:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::What is it you want an admin to do? so far this seems like a content dispute that turned into 2 users criticizing each other, ANI is not the place for content disputes, and in a content dispute you discuss content, you don't just keep criticizing the other person. [[User:Tornado chaser|Tornado chaser]] ([[User talk:Tornado chaser|talk]]) 19:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::: What do *I* want an admin to do? Nothing is fine by me - ask the person who started it. [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 18:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::It seems like consensus has shifted to this being a mere "content dispute": personal attacks, edit warring against consensus, and editing beyond your language ability be damned. Someone might as well close this. Trout me if you like. [[User:Ribbet32|Ribbet32]] ([[User talk:Ribbet32|talk]]) 23:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::That was uneventful. [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 05:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
{{od}}I didn't mean there is nothing for an admin to do, I was saying that ANI is a place to ask for admins to look into things or take action (or argue that an admin shouldn't take action against you), not just to argue endlessly (and do try do discuss things in a more constructive way than "keep criticizing me cause it's funny" or "I could throw poop at my monitor"). as for what (if any)action admins should take against who, thats up to the admins. [[User:Tornado chaser|Tornado chaser]] ([[User talk:Tornado chaser|talk]]) 13:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
: Well, they should get to adminin' already. [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 16:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

== [[User:Ramos1990]] revert-warring RfC tag, attempting to poison RfC ==


== Hate Speeches in edit summaries ==
Hello: I opened an already-ID'd RfC concerning an article and its adherence to [[WP:POLICY]] this morning [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_atheism&diff=799704562&oldid=799460270], and another contributor has now twice [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_atheism&diff=next&oldid=799715440][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_atheism&diff=next&oldid=799790434] added other categories to it (clearly an attempt to distract from the policy issues and confuse/poison any discussion). In a further attempt to do this, he has now just added a new RfC for many categories[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_atheism&diff=799793698&oldid=799791754], which will also pollute any discussion and the RfC boards. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;font-size:85%;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111111;">[[User:ThePromenader|<span style="color:#ddd;">THE<span style="color:#fff;">PROMENADER</span></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="color:#fff;">[[User_talk:ThePromenader|✎]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/ThePromenader|✓]]</span></span> 22:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
{{Atop|Range blocked.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 17:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:Hello everyone, the RfC that User:ThePromender opened up today (September 9, 2017) [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_atheism&diff=799704562&oldid=799460270] is literally a continuation of the the RfC he opened a few days ago (September 4, 2017) over the exact same discussion he started [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AState_atheism&type=revision&diff=798966147&oldid=798963696] (on September 4, 2017). Perhaps because he is unhappy with the results? Even when you look at this "new" RfC from today (September 9, 2017), he does reference the original September 4, 2017 discussion by clearly stating '''"For more background and sources, please refer to the conversation just above."''' and this time he does not include the other two categories (History and Religion/Philosophy) for which he started in the the first discussion see here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AState_atheism&type=revision&diff=799706296&oldid=799207642]. All I did was restore the same categories since it looked suspicious that he would make another RfC 5 days later and this time he would only limit the categories for consultation to just "policy" (today) when he originally had "policy, history, and religion/philosophy" just 5 days ago.


User is using hate speeches in edit summaries. (In [[Bengali Language]])
:To summarize, User:ThePromender's behavior looks very odd since why would he open an RfC on September 4, 2017 which included 3 categories for consultation ('''policy, history and religion/philosophy''') and then close, reopen, and start another one RfC on September 9, 2017 and ''reference'' the September 4, 2017 discussion with only 1 category ('''Policy''') this time around? It seems his first attempt (which did include the "policy" category, by the way) was not going in his favor so after 5 days, he is trying again but this time limiting the categories to just "Policy" to try manipulate the outcome. I think the original RfC from September 4, 2017 was good enough since it touched on policy and had the RfC policy category linked. It looks like no one agreed with him that a policy was violated so he is trying again and blaming me..
{{userlinks| 2607:FEA8:571B:8000:21F7:A044:CB68:F9D}}
*[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Harivansh_Rai_Bachchan&diff=prev&oldid=1267093276]
*[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=BNS_Sher-e-Bangla&diff=prev&oldid=1267093133]
*[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bangabandhu_Bridge&diff=prev&oldid=1267092234]
*[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bangabandhu_Bridge&diff=prev&oldid=1267092071]
*[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bachchan_family&diff=prev&oldid=1267091065]
*[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chittagong_Division&diff=prev&oldid=1267090862]


User is related to this case. A range block is needed as soon as possible. ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing, Edit war, Block evasion, Personal attack]])
:By the way, I agreed with some of User:The Promenader's suggestions throughout the September 4, 2017 discussion and even ''encouraged'' some changes to address his concerns. But apparently this was not enough. Please take note that User:ThePromenader has recently been "warned not warned not to comment on the motivations or conspiracies of other editors without hard evidence to back his claims and to edit collegially, even with those with whom he disagrees." by an admin who closed an ANI on September 3, 2017. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive963#Conduct_of_User:Xenophrenic_with_respect_to_Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion.2FLog.2F2017_July_4]. [[User:Ramos1990|Huitzilopochtli1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 23:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


'''[[User:Cerium4B|<span style="text-shadow:-4px -4px 20px;color:darkgreen;font-family:Papyrus;">— Cerium4B</span>]][[User talk:Cerium4B|<span style="text-shadow:-4px -4px 20px;color:red;font-family:Papyrus;">—Talk? •</span>]]''' 17:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:: This is an interesting interpretation of events, but since during our conversation, [[User talk:Ramos1990|Ramos1990]], we both demonstrated and agreed that the article title was a [[WP:NEOLOGISM]], I centred the RfC on that [[WP:POLICY]] offence. There is no need to go into a content-debate (which would just distract/drown the central point). Come to your own conclusions about the urgent 'need' (edit-warring) to add categories to an RfC that isn't even one's own.
{{Abot}}
:: Character 'questioning' is no answer for the [[WP:POLICY]] offenses in question (strangely absent from the above comment), but by all means, my entire record is open to all. I have nothing more to add to this.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;font-size:85%;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111111;">[[User:ThePromenader|<span style="color:#ddd;">THE<span style="color:#fff;">PROMENADER</span></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="color:#fff;">[[User_talk:ThePromenader|✎]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/ThePromenader|✓]]</span></span> 23:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:: Only that now the RfC is about (society and sport?!) everything ''but'' the [[WP:POLICY]] offense it was opened for. Mission accomplished? <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;font-size:85%;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111111;">[[User:ThePromenader|<span style="color:#ddd;">THE<span style="color:#fff;">PROMENADER</span></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="color:#fff;">[[User_talk:ThePromenader|✎]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/ThePromenader|✓]]</span></span> 00:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::No we did not agree that the term was even a neologism especially since it is cited in the 1800s, per your own google search. I mentioned that a few times too and you yourself went as far back as "Pre-WWII" and "Post-1950s" (your own words on its history). Also no other editor agreed that it was a neologism either per google book and scholar finds (used in handbooks, references, textbooks, and even topical dictionaries now). Another editor made the correction on the RfC categories you were not willing to do - make it the same as you had it when you made the first RfC. Also no need to make multiple RfCs when it is about the exact same discussion. Also why make another RfC on the same discussion over the same issues after only 5 days, right under it? Wasn't the first time enough?
:::Also, User:Redrose64's correction of your RfC categories was correct: here is what the [[WP:RFC]] says on the "The "Wikipedia policies and guidelines": ''"The "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" category is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply them to a specific case."'' I did not know that before. [[User:Ramos1990|Huitzilopochtli1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 00:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::: Why all the selective-reality-interpretive character doubt-accusation sowing (that the accused always feels obliged to answer in case someone 'believes' it)? I'm new to RfC, and I closed the old one because it was badly formatted [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_atheism&diff=799065717&oldid=799064027], but we continued the conversation all the same. You acknowledged even [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_atheism&diff=prev&oldid=799198792 here] that the term is coined/used by a particular group - that's the very definition of a [[WP:NEOLOGISM]]. Articles like that are normally deleted, but it only gets worse from there. Read the entire conversation [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_atheism#Who_defines_the_.27state_atheism.27_concept.3F] if you're interested, but this ANI is not about that, but your edit-warring and attempted RfC-distraction-poisoning. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;font-size:85%;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111111;">[[User:ThePromenader|<span style="color:#ddd;">THE<span style="color:#fff;">PROMENADER</span></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="color:#fff;">[[User_talk:ThePromenader|✎]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/ThePromenader|✓]]</span></span> 01:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::: PS: I did not know that, either. Like I said, I'm new to RfC. So, since you did indeed think that the RfC would target the [[WP:POLICY]] offenses demonstrated, that explains a lot. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;font-size:85%;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111111;">[[User:ThePromenader|<span style="color:#ddd;">THE<span style="color:#fff;">PROMENADER</span></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="color:#fff;">[[User_talk:ThePromenader|✎]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/ThePromenader|✓]]</span></span> 01:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::No I did not acknowledge that it was neologism because it was not and I mentioned that it was found in 1859 per your own list [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AState_atheism&type=revision&diff=799159840&oldid=799157156]. It is not a newly invented term - even you have discovered a "Pre-WWII" and "Post-1950s" history. A term that has +60 years and more is not a new term, or a newly coined term. The fact that it has a "Pre-WWII" history should be enough. Anyways, no I was not trying to poison anything since you had the "Policy" tag since your first RfC and I never contested it. I thought it was good idea to have "policy, history, and religion/philosophy" and the fact that you made another RfC over the exact same discussion 5 days later and how you removed the "history, and religion/philosophy" made me suspicious and you reverted me when I tried to restore the balance you had made in the first RfC. Not once did I ever remove the "Policy" category in either the 1st or 2nd RfC by the way (I even kept the "policy" on my attempt at making an RfC [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AState_atheism&type=revision&diff=799793698&oldid=799791754] since you kept on reverting me!) I only tried to restore the others. I have never heard of RfC so I am new to this too. No worries. Apologies if I made any mistakes on my end about it.[[User:Ramos1990|Huitzilopochtli1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 01:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::: This is mostly a discussion about a content dispute, and ANI does not deal with content disputes. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 04:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::: Someone here keeps ''trying'' to turn this into a content-dispute. That is exactly what's going on with the RfC tag, as it <s>isn't</s> wasn't about content, either [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AState_atheism&type=revision&diff=799704562&oldid=799460270], but somebody really, really, really wants it to be about 'content' and not [[WP:POLICY]], even edit-warring and modifying other-contributor RfC requests to that end, and that ''behaviour'' is exactly what this complaint is about. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;font-size:85%;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111111;">[[User:ThePromenader|<span style="color:#ddd;">THE<span style="color:#fff;">PROMENADER</span></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="color:#fff;">[[User_talk:ThePromenader|✎]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/ThePromenader|✓]]</span></span> 04:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*{{Re|ThePromenader}}--I reviewed the entire RFC-scope and agree with the category-additions.At any cases, it will just attract a few more eyes.Also I can't see how this's different from a content dispute.[[User:Godric on Leave|<span style= "color:green">''Winged Blades of Godric''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Godric on Leave|On leave]]</sup> 13:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::The very words 'more eyes' were my conclusion, too [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Redrose64&diff=prev&oldid=799866612], but I don't see how revert-warring another contributor's RfC appeal can be about content. Anyhow, ''alea iacta est'' <s>so this can be closed, I guess</s>. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;font-size:85%;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111111;">[[User:ThePromenader|<span style="color:#ddd;">THE<span style="color:#fff;">PROMENADER</span></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="color:#fff;">[[User_talk:ThePromenader|✎]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/ThePromenader|✓]]</span></span> 17:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::It is unfortunate that you barely wrote "more eyes" conclusion barely today and not yesterday when you made this ANI and accusations. I was trying to re-add the "more eyes" like you had it on the first RfC yesterday since it was the exact same discussion and you reverted me and made this ANI because of it. On top of that it looks like you have been manipulating other editors comments on the State Atheism talk page by moving around my comment to another section [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AState_atheism&type=revision&diff=799867918&oldid=799866925]. Please do not move comments by other editors on talk pages since there is a reason I put it there. This is odd behavior on your part. I would not alter or move any of your comments so I expect the same from you.[[User:Ramos1990|Huitzilopochtli1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 18:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::: Again, that's an interesting after-the-fact interpretation of events, and [[Poisoning the well]] against another contributor for unrelated (and falsely related [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_atheism&diff=799939323&oldid=799936757]) events is no answer for your trying to make another contributor's [[WP:POLICY]] RfC a 'content' one that it wasn't, and the fact that you edit-warred to push that through (and had a 'need to distract' so great that you (abusively) opened a second RfC [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_atheism&diff=799793698&oldid=799791754]) only speaks for itself. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;font-size:85%;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111111;">[[User:ThePromenader|<span style="color:#ddd;">THE<span style="color:#fff;">PROMENADER</span></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="color:#fff;">[[User_talk:ThePromenader|✎]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/ThePromenader|✓]]</span></span> 23:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::Everything done at ANI is after-the-fact interpretation, by definition. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 23:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::: That was a 'rewriting history' put in the nicest way possible. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;font-size:85%;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111111;">[[User:ThePromenader|<span style="color:#ddd;">THE<span style="color:#fff;">PROMENADER</span></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="color:#fff;">[[User_talk:ThePromenader|✎]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/ThePromenader|✓]]</span></span> 09:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
* Respondents to the first RfC complained that it was a trainwreck. Under such a circumstance it's standard operating procedure to close the first RfC as malformed and do a second better one. I don't think the second one is much if any better; it is not neutrally asking the community a question, but aggressively pushing a [[WP:TRUTH]] / [[WP:GREATWRONGS]] / [[WP:NOT#ADVOCACY]] viewpoint, just like the first one did. So it should also be closed, but probably by an administrator. That doesn't make it an excuse for editwarring. So, both editors deserve a {{tl|Trout}} for a different reasons. ANI isn't the place to argue about neologisms, and [[WP:NEOLOGISM]] doesn't even apply here; no one is trying to create an article about a non-notable word; the term is attested to at least the 19th century, and is found in many reliable sources newer than that, so it's probably not a good RfC topic, either. If there's going to be another RfC about that article (likely about its content), it needs to follow [[WP:RFC]]. If one is opened and it's a third trainwreck, RfC respondents will indicate that it is one; no editwarring to delete it, close it, or de-mark it as an RfC is needed. If WP:NOT#ADVOCACY problems continue, that's possibly an ANI-addressable disruption matter, but for now it looks like the editor is trying (albeit clumsily) to actually have an RfC about the nature and content of the article, and other editors are pointing out that it's clumsy and resulting in improper RfCs. It might make sense for a third party to draft and open an actually neutral RfC on the matter. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 23:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:: I would really appreciate that third-party aid, as I'd like nothing better than to return to my Paris-based articles corner, but that article really needs a policy-checkup; practically none of its sources even mention the article title (term), and I don't even know where to start with that. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;font-size:85%;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111111;">[[User:ThePromenader|<span style="color:#ddd;">THE<span style="color:#fff;">PROMENADER</span></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="color:#fff;">[[User_talk:ThePromenader|✎]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/ThePromenader|✓]]</span></span> 10:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


== Another Alon9393 puppet ==
== [[User:Bacardi379]] and [[United Lands Central Security Agency]] ==
{{atop|Article deleted by Black Kite. {{nac}} [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 19:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)}}
{{atop|1=Tgvarrt was, indeed, a sock of Alon9393, and has been blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Greetings. I put two editors on notice a few hours ago to alert you to a puppet of the already blocked user {{u|Alon9393}}, exactly this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tgvarrt account] alerted by {{redacted|outing}}, who has created an article and is basing his comment edits on deletion requests. At the moment he only exists in the English edition, but he may make the jump to other editions at any time, specially Spanish edition. [[User:Pichu VI|Pichu VI]] ([[User talk:Pichu VI|talk]]) 17:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
This user created several articles that I nominated for AFD at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Lands Central Security Agency]]. Bacardi379 has repeatedly removed AFD tags [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:United_Lands_Central_Security_Agency&diff=799668852&oldid=799588116][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:United_Lands_Central_Security_Agency&diff=799672306&oldid=799671763] and has repeatedly moved the pages into the Draft: namespace [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:United_Lands_Central_Security_Agency&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:United_Lands_Route_6&action=history] in attempts to evade the AFD process [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:United_Lands_Route_6&diff=799662369&oldid=799662324][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Imzadi1979/Archive_8#Article_for_deletion].


:{{u|Pichu VI}}, as stated in multiple places on this page, you '''must''' notify a user when starting a discussion about them. I have done this for you. Please note that here on enwiki, sockpuppet accusations belong at [[WP:SPI]], and linking to a user's supposed Twitter account that they haven't linked to on-wiki may be considered a form of [[WP:OUTING]]. Additionally, you are going to have to make your case more clear. I do not understand why a user contributing constructivily to various AfDs (a totally normal thing, and they found AfD naturally after one of their articles was nom'ed) and posting a page they made on twitter = sockpuppetry. [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:4A10:601:C9CA:A5E5:5DD9:2208|2001:8003:4A10:601:C9CA:A5E5:5DD9:2208]] ([[User talk:2001:8003:4A10:601:C9CA:A5E5:5DD9:2208|talk]]) 21:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
What is the proper course of action here? --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 23:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
::I see now that the accused sockmaster was blocked for making disruptive AfD votes, but they clearly wanted to leave forever, and the accused sock didn't immediately go to AfD, they only found it because one of their articles was nominated. It's normal for new AfD voters to not know the exact P/G to backup their votes (but thank you to them for trying in good faith). Accused user, see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject AfD Engagement/HowTo]] if you'd like to learn about some key notability guidelines to use. In fact, them not using guidelines actually shows that they may be a real new user still learning about everything, not a sock of someone who used to (incorrectly so) reference guidelines. [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:4A10:601:C9CA:A5E5:5DD9:2208|2001:8003:4A10:601:C9CA:A5E5:5DD9:2208]] ([[User talk:2001:8003:4A10:601:C9CA:A5E5:5DD9:2208|talk]]) 22:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
* I've closed the AfD as delete because these appear to be hoaxes (i.e. there are no Google hits for them whatsoever except Wikipedia and mirrors, which given that they're supposedly major companies, roads etc. is extremely unlikely). In the vanishingly small possbility that they're not, they - for the same reason - don't pass GNG anyway, so we've lost nothing. It's very weird, though; the same user has created road articles previously that ''aren't'' hoaxes (I've just been checking a few) so I don't know what's going on there at all. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 23:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
*I believe there is enough evidence of socking and have filed a report at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alon9393]].--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 22:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
**Thanks for taking care of it. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 00:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{abot}}


==User:YZ357980==
== Topic ban proposal for Qewr4231 ==
*{{userlinks|YZ357980}}
I have just rolled back this edit
([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Somali_Armed_Forces&oldid=1266928990]) which (1) inaccurately introduces an incorrect Somali name into [[Somali Armed Forces]]; (2) installed a poor homemade copy of the Armed Forces crest dubious copyright and authenticity into the article, when a PD photo is visible in the infobox image; and (3) violated [[MOS:INFOBOXFLAG]] with the infobox.


I would kindly request any interested administrator to review the very dubious insertions of inflated personnel numbers introduced by this user into various Somali military articles, plus the error ridden and biased edits warned about at the top of the editor's talk page, with a view to a [[WP:TOPICBAN]] from African & Middle East military articles, widely construed. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 21:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a topic ban for editor {{u|Qewr4231}} on anything related to [[Kip McKean]], the [[International Christian Church]] and the [[International Churches of Christ]]. Editor is a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ&diff=prev&oldid=799897719 self-described former member] of the church, he obviously had a painful time, but unfortunately he has been using Wikipedia talk pages '''for the better part of a decade''' as a soapbox for venting about the church and what he describes as its [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Christian_Church&diff=644880857&oldid=644879547 cultish practices]. This goes back to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ&diff=prev&oldid=304914883 2009]. After years of this behavior and years of being asked not to soapbox, and subsequently [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&page=Qewr4231&type=block three blocks for this behavior in 2015], the editor still finds opportunities to dump preachy screeds like [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Christian_Church&diff=prev&oldid=799896952 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ&diff=prev&oldid=799897719 this] today. He often disappears for long stretches of time, sometimes six months or more, (so long-term blocking is probably not terribly effective) and then returns with the same behavior. It really becomes a timesuck for the two editors who are actively trying to maintain these articles, {{u|JamieBrown2011}} and {{u|Coachbricewilliams28}}.
:[[User:YZ357980]] doesn't have a history of communicating with other editors. I have posted to their talk page, encouraging them to come to this discussion but I'm not optimistic that they are even aware that they have a User talk page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 01:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::I have given them a final warning and also a chance for them to participate here. If they don't, let's see what they get. [[User:Galaxybeing|Galaxybeing]] ([[User talk:Galaxybeing|talk]]) 06:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


==Incivility and ABF in contentious topics==
The previous blocks have obvious been unhelpful, but I'm not aware of the editor having problems at any other articles, so I think the topic ban would perhaps be a more humane way to approach this. I don't get the sense Qewr4231 is a bad fella, but this is an area that is especially prickly to him, and I think he needs an external system to help him with self-control. Thanks, [[User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] ([[User talk:Cyphoidbomb|talk]]) 16:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


[[user:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]]'s uncivil comments and assuming bad faith on multiple contentious talk pages is not necessarily egregious but I suppose it ''is'' problematic and chronic, consistent and ongoing. I would appreciate some assistance. Here are some diffs from the past few days:
*'''Support''' I second this, greatly. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Coachbricewilliams28|Coachbricewilliams28]] ([[User talk:Coachbricewilliams28#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Coachbricewilliams28|contribs]]) 17:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Support''' topic ban. Despite blocks of increasing lengths, Qewr4231 has been unable to avoid soapboxing and advocacy regarding this specific group of articles. A topic ban will set a clear boundary and allow the editor to contribute productively to articles on unrelated topics. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 18:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills.
*'''Support''' topic ban. I agree. He is not a bad guy, so it shouldn't extend beyond what you are suggesting, but he clearly has an axe to grind. [[User:JamieBrown2011|JamieBrown2011]] ([[User talk:JamieBrown2011|talk]]) 19:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883
::I think that some International Church of Christ members, Kip Mckean himself, and International Christian Church members are editing these pages and putting a pro-ICOC, pro-ICC, pro-Kip Mckean stance on the articles. I know for a fact that some of the information in the articles is incorrect, but I get blasted every time I say that the information is incorrect. Any negative material on Kip Mckean, the ICOC, and the ICC seems to get blocked and discussed away. There are hundreds of websites, YouTube videos, and ministers outside of the ICOC and ICC that refer to them as cults; however, editors seem to want to block all of this information. I think that people, possible ICOC and ICC members are trying to block true information about the ICOC and ICC from being posted on Wikipedia. I think that some editors are bullying me. [[User:Qewr4231|Qewr4231]] ([[User talk:Qewr4231|talk]]) 02:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::I feel that editors such as JamieBrown2011, Cyphoidbomb, and CoachBriceWilliams28 are bullying me over the International Churches of Christ, International Christian Churches, and Kip Mckean pages. The pages themselves sound like advertisements for these people/organizations. I know that some of the information contained in those articles is not true because I am a former member of the International Chruches of Christ. I feel that these and other editors are blocking information about the International Churches of Christ, the International Christian Churches, and Kip Mckean. I also think that the International Churches of Christ page, the International Christian Churches page, and the Kip Mckean page should be deleted from Wikipedia as these are not neutral topics. Sorry, I'm not that great of an internet user and I don't know how to link to all of the different Wikipedia rule pages. [[User:Qewr4231|Qewr4231]] ([[User talk:Qewr4231|talk]]) 02:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


WP:NPA
:::Q, the issue is that your experiences have given you tunnel vision preventing you from seeing the truth behind your circumstances. Your rigid , religious sentimentality has seemingly warped your perception of reality....Again, I would NEVER have an issue with your posts IF what you said was true. I don't honestly care about all this POV talk regarding you; it's merely the accuracy. Based on all my research, things are radically different in both churches you seem to soapbox on plus Thomas (aka Kip) is on record refuting and disproving majority of the very things you say fairly conclusively even for a no non sense guy like me. I completely understand that you feel the overwhelming videos and blogs in existence give you credibility HOWEVER this is an academic forum. If someone FEELS a certain way, they can't just rewrite wiki based on their emotions. That is the opposite of science and academia. [[User:Coachbricewilliams28|Coachbricewilliams28]] ([[User talk:Coachbricewilliams28|talk]]) 02:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324
::::There you go again with the bullying. How do you know everything you say is true and everything I say is false? I have evidence that proves certain things about Kip Mckean, the ICOC, and the ICC; however every time I try to show that evidence on Wikipedia other editors dismiss it as soapboxing. Stop bullying me. Wikipedia is not an academic resource. I am in a doctoral program at a university and Wikipedia is not accepted as an academic resource. It is not accepted as a resource at all. [[User:Qewr4231|Qewr4231]] ([[User talk:Qewr4231|talk]]) 02:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::::What I said is true. Don't call me a liar I lived the ICOC and experienced it for five years. I knew kip Mckean personally. I knew his wife personally. I know things about them that you don't even know. [[User:Qewr4231|Qewr4231]] ([[User talk:Qewr4231|talk]]) 02:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


Profanity
:::::Wikipedia is not for [[WP:GREATWRONGS|righting great wrongs]]. I suggest you drop it, or you'll just end up indefinitely blocked. —&nbsp;[[User:Nihlus Kryik|<span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Segoe Script; color:red;">nihlus kryik</span>]]&nbsp;&nbsp;([[User talk:Nihlus Kryik|<span style="font-family:Segoe Script; color:silver;">talk</span>]]) 03:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
* '''Support''' TBAN. Whatever secrets {{u|Qewr4231}} knows, if they haven't been published in a [[WP:reliable source|reliable source]], they're likely not appropriate material for Wikipedia. [[User:Power~enwiki|Power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|talk]]) 03:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966
** That said, I'm very concerned about the content on [[International Christian Church]] (not to be confused with [[International Churches of Christ]] which has a longer history and larger membership) and am considering AfD on that article if I cannot find reliable and independent secondary references. I will discuss my content concerns on the talk page. [[User:Power~enwiki|Power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|talk]]) 03:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor
::: {{u|Power~enwiki}} The [[International Christian Church]] has 80 churches with ~5,300 members. The previous conclusion to the AFD proposal was "keep" because this is a rapidly growing group formed ~2 years post [[International Churches of Christ]] implosion. I passively support this idea based on the idea that '''independent''' sources are few and far between. I resist this idea because what if in 10 more years they are @10,000 members with 200 churches? Surely we can't ignore their existance just because their primary citations come from their own publishing affiliate. [[User:Coachbricewilliams28|Coachbricewilliams28]] ([[User talk:Coachbricewilliams28|talk]]) 14:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877
@Coachbicewilliams28 Why do you care so much about the ICC and whether or not the ICC grows and expands? I'm not ignoring them. What I am saying is this: The ICC is not worthy of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia should contain factual information instead of controversial material that can't be substantiated with facts [[User:Qewr4231|Qewr4231]] ([[User talk:Qewr4231|talk]]) 12:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


Unicivil
*'''Support TBAN''' While I am somewhat sympathetic to this user's motivations, I think he/she needs to realize that Wikipedia editing privileges are for helping to build the encyclopedia. A user who hasn't made a single mainspace edit in three years should not be using talk pages as soapboxes, and the above comments are enough to convince me that, whether Qewr4231 is right or not, he/she should let cooler heads solve the problems with the articles. If it was really only undeclared COISPAs shooting Qewr4231 down on the talk pages, they would be the ones getting reported here. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 03:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027
@Hijiri 88 How does supporting articles on controversial organizations that have very little factual evidence support Wikipedia and help build up Wikipedia? One of the reasons that Wikipedia is not accepted as an academic source at almost every university is that Wikipedia has tons of pages on controversial topics created by editors that are either pro or con that topic. And these controversial topics have little to no real evidence to back them up. Is it good that most of the information on the ICOC comes from their own websites and sources? What if I started a company or organization, created a Wikipedia article, and then sourced it with information from mostly my organization's website? Would that be a neutral article or would I be advertising my organization? [[User:Qewr4231|Qewr4231]] ([[User talk:Qewr4231|talk]]) 12:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441
*'''Comment''' No opinion on the ban, but the articles seem to need some tone cleanup and maybe more (Wikipedia shouldn't be talking about "bitterness in his heart" in its own voice), and I confess to some curiosity about a church that calls itself the Sold-out Discipling Movement, or (wait for it...) SODM. Hmmmmmm. '''[[User:EEng#s|<font color="red">E</font>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<font color="blue">Eng</font>]]''' 03:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


Contact on user page attempted
:: {{u|EEng#s}} At one point I was looking for a source for this SODM name origin. The best I found was a video clip on youtube explaining how a detractor from the [[International Churches of Christ]] used it as an insult and the leadership of the [[International Christian Church]] believed it to be clever. The name meaning is merely to say, they believe in mentoring one another for accountability & selling out their personal dreams in life for the cause of their savior. Not unheard of. [[User:Coachbricewilliams28|Coachbricewilliams28]] ([[User talk:Coachbricewilliams28|talk]]) 14:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:::It's like when the [[First Unitarian Church of Berkeley]] moved to the adjacent town of Kensington, but elected not to rename themselves the First Unitarian Church of Kensington. (Think about it.) '''[[User:EEng#s|<font color="red">E</font>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<font color="blue">Eng</font>]]''' 14:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795
*'''I do not support the ban.''' [[User:Qewr4231|Qewr4231]] ([[User talk:Qewr4231|talk]]) 03:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:<REDACTED BY Hijiri88.> [[User:Qewr4231|Qewr4231]] ([[User talk:Qewr4231|talk]]) 03:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::::{{re|Qewr4231}} You are entitled to your own religious beliefs about who is going to heaven and who is going to hell, but you are not allowed attack named living people by calling them "liars", "frauds" and the like unless you have a reliable source. Generally speaking, calling a self-identified Christian "not a Christian" or "not a real Christian" is also a no-no. [[WP:BLP]] applies to this page as well as the article space. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 04:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent
::Your vote, much like your comment above, don't matter. You're only digging the hole deeper. In fact, that latest comment is probably enough to get you banned outright. So... good job shooting yourself in the foot. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 03:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::If an editor looks like he's shooting himself, should we contact [[WP:EMERGENCY]]? '''[[User:EEng#s|<font color="red">E</font>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<font color="blue">Eng</font>]]''' 03:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267163557[[User:Lardlegwarmers|Lardlegwarmers]] ([[User talk:Lardlegwarmers|talk]]) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Tarage Thanks I'm so glad that my vote and my comment doesn't matter (sarcasm). Is Wikipedia a club that only some people are privy to? Do you blacklist people that dont' conform to your opinion(s)? Wikipedia is not an academic source. Wikipedia is not accepted at any university as an academic source. Up until now I have never criticized Wikipedia. I am just saying that Wikipedia doesn't have correct information on three of its pages: ICOC, ICC, Kip Mckean. [[User:Qewr4231|Qewr4231]] ([[User talk:Qewr4231|talk]]) 12:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


:Think this calls for a fierce [[wp:trout|trout]] slapping and some direct words. I cannot really endorse a [[WP:BLOCK|forced wikibreak]] according to [[WP:COOLDOWN]], as this is just an [[wp:explode|angry user]] and frankly, I don't see ''direct'' personal attacks, I just see unfriendly behavior and prick-ish attitude, no outward disruption of the project either. Also, I have to ask for further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions, as {{tq|some diffs from the past few days}} are not indicative of chronic issue. The holiday times, like Christmas, Hanukkah, and New Years' can be some of the most stressful times for people during the year. Not saying I like seeing this, but I can understand the feeling. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">[[User:BarntToust|<span style="color:#1D2570;">Barnt</span>]][[User talk:BarntToust|<span style="color:#483d8b;">Toust</span>]]</span> 04:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::At this point I don't care. [[User:Qewr4231|Qewr4231]] ([[User talk:Qewr4231|talk]]) 03:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::Would I be the person to provide you with that {{tq|further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions}}? I did think that it would be more than a [[WP:FISHSLAP]], since that's for {{tq|one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior}} and this is more like a perpetual bad habit that needs something a bit stronger, like a stern [[admonition|warning]]. [[User:Lardlegwarmers|Lardlegwarmers]] ([[User talk:Lardlegwarmers|talk]]) 06:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Lardlegwarmers|Lardlegwarmers]]: I don't see anything violating policy with regard to direct personal attacks or even profanity directed at a person, but rather directed to the topic in the discussion. ''Hob should know better'', and as per BarntToust, Hob really deserves a trout to be a bit more civil and how to [[WP:AVOIDEDITWAR]]. But I would ''caution you'' about [[WP:BOOMERANG]] and the new attention to your activity and involvement this has drawn to your own edits. For example your [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Lardlegwarmers&oldid=1266920935 inappropriate recently deleted user page], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AActivelyDisinterested&diff=1267207811&oldid=1267207421 removing sections from other people's talk page], and it seems like you're having a problem handling a [[WP:DISPUTE]] and assuming bath faith of editors. You are not going to win a battle to get your material included by trying to report other editors in bad faith.
:Furthermore it does appear that you might be [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] because your attempts at [[WP:POVPUSH]] for your specific perspectives regarding Covid are meeting resistance at every turn. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Editors'_Behavior_in_Talk_Pages passively accusing editor behavior], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=next&oldid=1267198080 directly accusing a specific editor bad behavior], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1242 claiming WP is political], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_lockdowns#World_Bank/UNICEF/UNESCO_&_Brookings_Inst._are_reliable?_(moved_from_Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard) RSN Report #1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_461 RSN Report #2 to push for an article edit request], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1244#h-Covid-19_drama-20241218190600 bringing the Covid discussion over to the teahouse], and now this ANI report. Without evaluating everything you've discussed in the past few weeks, at quick glance it appears that you're having problems understanding [[WP:PG|Wikipedia's policy and guidelines]] and are having contentious discussions with far more experienced editors. That isn't to say that we assume that they're correct and you're wrong, but when you're receiving pushback from multiple very experienced editors, I would encourage you to slow down a bit and try to fully understand the policy, and isntead of arguing to "win", you need to read about how you need to work towards [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. Because at the end of the day, without consensus, you will continue to have a lot of problems. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address ''unique issues'' as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Wikipedia was in response to an administrator’s suggestion<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lardlegwarmers#c-Liz-20241210000200-Editors_getting_banned_for_being_a_%22dick%22,_editing_Covid-19_articles</ref> that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines.<ref>"{{tq|All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution.}}" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests/ANI</ref> Thank you for your time and input. [[User:Lardlegwarmers|Lardlegwarmers]] ([[User talk:Lardlegwarmers|talk]]) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


{{reflist}}
:There's the door. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 03:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


== Thread on List of Crypids talk page has devolved into an unproductive flame war ==
:Qewr, I think I made it clear that I was not proposing a total editing ban at Wikipedia, rather a ban over topics specifically related to Kip McKean and his churches. Your continued rants here are not helping your cause, and your attempts to portray yourself as a victim of bullying are grossly disrespectful to people who endure actual bullying. You've been approached relatively politely for '''years''' and you've not made any material changes to your own behavior. Nobody's ever said you can't think, feel, or exist, only that you can't use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I'm very sorry that you had a shitty experience at this church, and I do feel for you, but Wikipedia is simply not the place to work out these issues. And I'll say it again in case you missed it: I don't think you're a bad fella, but you seem to be incapable of participating in this area in a constructive fashion. If you want to participate in a less controversial area like weightlifting, I've no interest in getting in your way. [[User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] ([[User talk:Cyphoidbomb|talk]]) 03:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


:Hold on. I'm not saying Qewr4231 is perfect, but I do not see large scale disruption by this editor. They are not edit warring article space. They are making suggestions on Talk that have some value. It is Coachbricewilliams28 who appears to be struggling most with Wikipedia norms, like RS. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 07:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::To expand, {{u|Hijiri88}} suggests above that, "A user who hasn't made a single mainspace edit in three years should not be using talk pages as soapboxes". However, {{u|Qewr4231}} said [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AInternational_Christian_Church&type=revision&diff=797072153&oldid=797071895 here] that they feel they have a conflict of interest, so they refrain from editing the article directly and stick to Talk. That's what we ask people to do: Qewr4231's avoidance of mainspace around these articles is not a failing. Instead, Qewr4231 is making Talk page edits that appear to me to be a genuine attempt to improve the quality of Wikipedia. Here are some of their more recent edits: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AInternational_Christian_Church&type=revision&diff=660930944&oldid=660009064], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AInternational_Christian_Church&type=revision&diff=743257826&oldid=734541484], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AInternational_Christian_Church&type=revision&diff=760637830&oldid=747913075], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AInternational_Christian_Church&type=revision&diff=792476207&oldid=783238449], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKip_McKean&type=revision&diff=797074401&oldid=745283437], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKip_McKean&type=revision&diff=745283437&oldid=745281164], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKip_McKean&type=revision&diff=743259463&oldid=677708826], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKip_McKean&type=revision&diff=677612417&oldid=677612352], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKip_McKean&type=revision&diff=677612084&oldid=667703360], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AInternational_Churches_of_Christ&type=revision&diff=751627001&oldid=748753628], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AInternational_Churches_of_Christ&type=revision&diff=792556907&oldid=767273493]. Those all look OK to me, attempts to help and appropriate Talk page chat, with consideration given to reliable sources. Constructive edits, in other words.
::Qewr4231 did make [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AInternational_Christian_Church&type=revision&diff=799896952&oldid=798266763 this edit] recently that might be considered soapboxing. It was moving away from useful Talk page discussion into a forum-style discussion, but it's hardly the greatest Wikipedia sin ever. Qewr4231 is generally seeking to work within Wikipedia rules and is not, as some have suggested above, seeking to insert information based on personal experience into article space.
::Meanwhile, [[Talk:International_Christian_Church#Moving_Forward]] shows that {{u|Coachbricewilliams28}} has been taking a while to understand [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:NPOV]], so describing them as an editor who is "actively trying to maintain these articles", as {{u|Cyphoidbomb}} does above, is not quite the wording I'd use.
::So, I think a topic ban is over the top. It would be advisable for several editors to take a break from these pages and focus their efforts elsewhere for a while. I am not surprised that Qewr4231 feels bullied and I hope s/he can move beyond this incident. I entirely support Hijiri 88's point below: what these articles need most is more eyes on them to improve them. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 10:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Bondegezou}} I appreciate contrary perspective on the matter and someone acting as advocate for Qewr4231. What do you propose as an alternative to topic ban? No sanction and we just delete any posts that veer off topic? This isn't a sarcastic question, I'm genuinely curious what you think would be helpful. Further, I would be fine with dropping the topic ban proposal and removing the three articles from my own watchlist if several of you want to pick up the management per Hijiri88's suggestion below. I have zero interest in this subject. Regards, [[User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] ([[User talk:Cyphoidbomb|talk]]) 14:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::::I would propose merely being polite, but ignoring comments that are less helpful. I see you deleted Qewr4231's soapbox-y comment. Fine: problem solved. Qewr4231 didn't dispute that act, as far as I can see. So where's the problem? I wish all problems on Wikipedia were so easily ignorable: there's no edit-warring here, no substantial uncivility. I don't see why everyone can't just continue on as they are doing. Qewr4231 (in the last couple of years) is otherwise making some useful suggestions for the articles: if you don't find them useful, leave them. If you do, act on them. If there are occasional "posts that veer off topic", delete them, or hide them, or just leave them alone. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 14:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::Just to clarify, my statement above about the lack of mainspace edits was about Qewr's apparent general lack of interest in building an encyclopedia, not about his voluntarily refraining from editing the articles on topics in which he has a COI. Actually, I find that latter claim somewhat dubious -- if he was only not editing those artixles because of his COI, that wouldn't explain why he has not edited ''any'' articles in several years. Wikipedia editing privileges exist for the purpose of building the encyclopedia, and when someone refuses to use them for anything other than soapboxing, the typical approach is to sanction them in some manner. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 00:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::: Thank you for your clarification. I looked through a fair number of Qewr's edits over the last two years. I would only call one or maybe two of them soapboxing. The vast majority appear genuine attempts to improve the articles concerned. Occasional off-purpose posts to a Talk page should not get someone topic banned. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 16:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::: {{u|Bondegezou}} Admittedly, my [[WP:RS]] struggles have been due to the lack of 3rd party content on the subject. The citations used historically on the ICC wiki have been either from their own nascent publishing arm, the Icoc themselves or a blog from a former member. My casual suggestion within the talk was to utilize the self published sources so long as it is reasonable to conclude their accuracy. Ie: Church demographics. As for the [[WP:NPOV]] I hopefully fixed that by observing the tone and style of other writers. Just a rookie mistake. I have no interest in a POV, merely accuracy. [[User:Coachbricewilliams28|Coachbricewilliams28]] ([[User talk:Coachbricewilliams28|talk]]) 14:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::::{{re|Coachbricewilliams}} If what you are saying is accurate, then the ICC article should be deleted. Topics that have not received sufficient coverage in reliable, '''independent''' sources do not get articles on Wikipedia. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 23:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::::Repinging [[User:Coachbricewilliams28]] after botched attempt above. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 00:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


[[Talk:List of cryptids|Talk:List of cryptids - Wikipedia]]
=== As for the articles and the other SPAs/near-SPAs on the other "side"... ===
I notice several impartial observers, myself included, are pointing to the problematic nature of one or two of the articles in question, and it might be worth noting that one of the users [[User:Cyphoidbomb]] pinged initially is an SPA, and the other is a near-SPA (with over half his mainspace edits and almost 90% of his talk edits to the same article). Whether or not Qewr is TBANned, it might worth putting more eyes on the articles themselves as well. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 04:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:No objection from me (why would there be?). It's definitely an area that needs more eyes. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard/Archive_10#Need_extra_eyes_at_Kip_McKean_and_ICC_articles I asked WikiProject Christianity] to help out a couple of years ago to little avail. [[User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] ([[User talk:Cyphoidbomb|talk]]) 14:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::Wanted to quote the coach here - "While I have experience in both the ICOC and the partially accurate splinter church in discussion (ICC)" from the Talk page. A topic ban for Qewr4231, Who has never edited the article, is in sledgehammer and nut territory. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' the dog.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''bark''']] 14:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Roxy the dog}} I appreciate the perspective. As I noted to Bondegezou in the subsection above, I'm fine with dropping the TBAN proposal and withdraw from watching those articles, if other people want to pick up the slack. This is an issue though that has been going on for many years and though it's gotten less frequent, it's still a needless distraction. Regards, [[User:Cyphoidbomb|Cyphoidbomb]] ([[User talk:Cyphoidbomb|talk]]) 15:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:::{{re|Roxy the dog}} I don't know if "he's never edited the articles -- we can't TBAN him" is the right way of looking at the problem. He's been engaging in gross violation of the BLP violation ''in this discussion'', and BLP definitely applies to the talk space as well. Aside from a TBAN, what else would you propose to make the disruption stop? A block? [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 23:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


The thread, '''''List rapidly further degrading''''' initially started out as another attempt to delete the list and similar Cryptozoology pages but has now devolved into toxicity with insults and personal attacks directed at users engaging with the thread. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Edelgardvonhresvelg|Edelgardvonhresvelg]] ([[User talk:Edelgardvonhresvelg#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Edelgardvonhresvelg|contribs]]) 05:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::Note to all----> Just to be clear, I've never been a member of that church. They were a force on my old university though. I def saw their red tshirts from time to time. That + recent research is my "experience." [[User:Coachbricewilliams28|Coachbricewilliams28]] ([[User talk:Coachbricewilliams28|talk]]) 15:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:Note that this account, an [[WP:SPA]] created in August of 2024 and focused on cryptozoology subjects, is likely one of the cryptozoology-aligned accounts discussed below ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baiji&diff=prev&oldid=1239873766 for example, the account's first edit is a cryptozoology edit]). [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 05:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Coachbricewilliams28}} Well, have you considered editing some Wikipedia articles on other topic areas? It doesn't look good when your only contributions are related to a conservative religious group and we're being told that they are disproportionately positive. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 23:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::I am not entirely focused on cryptozoology, as I have edited topics related to film, music, literature, zoology, video games, extinction, and technology. How is asking for an article to be cited on a zoology article related to cryptozoology? [[User:Edelgardvonhresvelg|Edelgardvonhresvelg]] ([[User talk:Edelgardvonhresvelg|talk]]) 06:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::[[User:Edelgardvonhresvelg|Edelgardvonhresvelg]], what action are you seeking here? If you are making a complaint about personal attacks, you must provide evidence/"diffs" of examples of the conduct you are complaining about. Just mentioning a talk page without identifying the editors or edits that are problematic will likely result in no action being taken. You need to present a full case here and if you mention any editor by name, you need to post a notification of this discussion on their User talk page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


== User lobbying fringe subculture off-site for fringe subculture and suspicions of [[WP:MEATPUPPET]]ry ==
::::::: Yes, I would love to. I was using this page as more of a sandbox because I found the rules initially confusing. I do plan on staying in the realm of theology and kinesiology though. Great suggestion. I'll begin to venture out. [[User:Coachbricewilliams28|Coachbricewilliams28]] ([[User talk:Coachbricewilliams28|talk]]) 23:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Well, you'll forgive me for being skeptical. You've had an account for almost a year, which really akes it look like if you wanted to edit other topic areas you would have done so already. But good luck, anyway. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 00:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


*'''Support topic ban''' - Per {{u|Cullen328}}. [[User:Miles Edgeworth|Miles Edgeworth]] [[User talk:Miles Edgeworth|<sup>'''Objection!'''</sup>]] 03:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


Over at [[cryptozoology]] and the very questionable [[list of cryptids]], both extremely [[WP:FRINGE]] topics strongly linked to for example [[Young Earth creationism]], myself and a few other users find ourselves having to respond to a lot of accounts that either openly or less than openly state that they're members of the article's subject subculture and that, like the subculture's founders, have a strong distaste for experts ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_cryptids&diff=1267210133&oldid=1267203152 here's an example anti-RS/anti-expert comment from today] from one such fairly new account, {{ping|KanyeWestDropout}}).
To be clear I have edited other articles. I have edited the America's Test Kitchen page and the Cook's Country page and/or made suggestions to those pages on the talk pages. Anyway, I don't know why Wikipedia cares so much about the International Churches of Christ, the International Christ Church, or Kip Mckean. There isn't enough factual information on the International Churches of Christ, the International Christ Church, or Kip Mckean to really state what is fact and what is not fact. Ex-members know what the truth about Kip Mckean's movements is. There are hundreds if not thousands of Christian ministers, YouTube videos, and ex-members claiming Kip Mckean's organizations to be pyramid schemes and cults. How do you think Kip Mckean got rich? How do you think Kip Mckean became a millionaire? He's been doing his thing for a long time. Back in the 60s or 70s Kip Mckean was expelled from the traditional Church of Christ for doing his thing. And, no, this is not soap boxing. I'm merely pointing out that the ICOC, ICC, and Kip Mckean articles lack factual information; truth. I will list some of those sources that are not accepted by Wikipedia that point to the ICOC, ICC, and Kip Mckean having less than scrupulous practices.


One of these editors, {{user|Paleface Jack}}, has been caught lobbying off site ([https://cryptidz.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Paleface_Jack/The_Sad_Fate_of_WikiProject_Cryptozoology right here]). The user has also likely done so elsewhere that hasn't come to light. This user's efforts appear to have led to a variety of [[WP:MEATPUPPET]]s popping up to [[WP:Wikilawyer]] any and all changes they disagree with, an effort to shape the articles to the subculture's preference.
https://www.gotquestions.org/International-Church-of-Christ.html
http://www.reveal.org/library/activism/srausch-warning.html
http://www.cultwatch.com/icc.html
https://carm.org/international-church-christ-cult
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aITLu2hvwlo (This one is a Fox new report on the ICOC)


Again, it's important to emphasize that not only has Paleface Jack been caught red-handed here but he has likely also lobbied elsewhere, leading to long-term problems for these and associated articles.
Why does a simple Google search bring up hundreds of websites that talk about the ICOC being a cult? Why would an encyclopedia even publish an article on an organization that hundreds of websites are calling a cult? Shouldn't encyclopedias stick to factual things and not controversial groups? How can you say that any article is neutral the subject is so controversial? The ICOC, ICC, and Kip Mckean pages should be deleted in my opinion. That's the problem with Wikipedia: Anyone can create an article on anything that has no facts to substantiate it. [[User:Qewr4231|Qewr4231]] ([[User talk:Qewr4231|talk]]) 12:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


As some users here know, I edit a lot on fringe topics and have all but single-handedly written our coverage on topics like [[cryptozoology]], utilizing nothing but the highest quality possible sources. Along the way, I've endured relentless insults and less-than-pleasant anonymous messages. I've been a personal target for users like Paleface Jack and co for years.
This is the last thing I will post here: In order for Wikipedia to be considered a bonafide academic source; a factual source, Wikipedia itself needs a cleanup of hundreds of articles on controversial topics that have no real facts substantiating/sourcing them. Controversial topics that don't have a lot of good sources shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia should they? [[User:Qewr4231|Qewr4231]] ([[User talk:Qewr4231|talk]]) 13:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


As is far too typical in our [[WP:FRINGE]] spaces, any action by myself and others introducing [[WP:RS]] on these articles is responded to with endless talk page lawyering and complaints from these cryptozoology-associated or -aligned editors, who fill talk pages with page after page of insult-ladden chatter about anything that doesn't fit their preferred messaging. This not infrequently includes insults toward non-adherents abiding by [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:NPOV]] (as an example, recently one of the users decided to refer to me as a "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#%22Wikifascist%22_&_Wikipedia:Casting_aspersions wikifascist]", for example). This pattern has been going on for years and is a clear indication of long-term [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing]] and I've frankly put up wth it for far too long.
== User:Evan.Slater ==
{{atop|Advice being delivered on user talk page. No action needed at this time. [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 23:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)}}
{{Userlinks|Evan.Slater}} has been warned, multiple times, by myself and other editors concerning their edits, more specifically to [[The X Factor (UK series 14)|'' The X Factor'' (UK series 14)]], by adding [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|unsourced and/or poorly sourced content]] to the article, concerning pop entertainer [[Cheryl (entertainer)|Cheryl]]. User is clearly [[Wikipedia:NOTHERE|not here to edit constructively to the encyclopedia]], and there is no [[Wikipedia:RS|reliable source]] to back their claims, which they have been citing since the beginning of the month, among adding in other speculation, based on tabloid reports and online rumours. I've reported the user, multiple times, to the vandalism noticeboard; each time it is removed as "stale," etc. Clearly, this user is not here to be a helpful member of the community, and there needs to be repercussions to their continued actions. '''<small>[[User:livelikemusic|<span style="color:#ab83ab">livelikemusic</span>]]</small>{{#if:[[User:livelikemusic|<span style="color:#ab83ab">livelikemusic</span>]]||[[Category:Pages using small with an empty input parameter]]}}''' <small>[[User talk:livelikemusic|<span style="color:CadetBlue">talk!</span>]]</small>{{#if:[[User talk:livelikemusic|<span style="color:CadetBlue">talk!</span>]]||[[Category:Pages using small with an empty input parameter]]}} 17:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


This is an all too common pattern that many editors who edit in new religious movement, pseudoscience, or fringe spaces will recognize as an unfortunate reality of editing in these spaces on the site.


I recommend that Paleface Jack be topic banned for off-site lobbying for meatpuppets, if nothing else, as well as likely associated accounts per [[WP:MEATPUPPET]]. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 05:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


:I think you're misinterpreting what I said. I don't have any disdain for Loxton and Prothero, all I said was that cryptozoologists have historically discussed a large number of "cryptids" which is something you could see from reading cryptozoologist papers ans books. I've previously cited Loxton/Prothero on cryptozoological wikipedia pages [[User:KanyeWestDropout|KanyeWestDropout]] ([[User talk:KanyeWestDropout|talk]]) 06:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
ONLY READ IF INVOLVED IN MY RECENT ACTIVITY ON WIKIPEDIA: I understand that I have been vandalising Wikipedia on The X Factor (UK series 14) page concerning pop singer and entertainer Cheryl and making edits that she will be appearing on the show and I have left this unsourced. Clearly it would look like I am not here to use Wikipedia constructively but I honestly say I need to learn how to use Wikipedia and edit articles properly, such as in this case I need to learn how to source any content I edit on the References page and make sure I source this content properly. I understand I should not edit anything if I don't know what I am doing and make sure I get to know how to use Wikipedia if I was to edit a Wikipedia page. I apologise for any trouble that I may have caused to Wikipedia or anyone involved in reporting my content I have added to Wikipedia that has been considered as vandalising Wikipedia and I promise that I have learned this for the future if I was to edit a page again. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Evan.Slater|Evan.Slater]] ([[User talk:Evan.Slater#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Evan.Slater|contribs]]) 16:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::This user's actual comment in response to my mention of Prothero & Loxton, a dreaded [[WP:RS]]: "Learning about cryptozoologists by reading secondhand sources is a poor way to find out what cryptozoologists have actually done historically" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_cryptids&diff=1267210133&oldid=1267203152]). Funny how a spotlight on ANI can change an editor's tune. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 07:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


::The incident Bloodoffox is referring to happened years ago when I did not know that was even a rule. It was a mistake I have not repeated, nor have I violated any rules since that incident.
:Hi. Even though I'm not involved in your recent activity on Wikipedia, I read this and I have a question. Why did you only respond to that person's concerns now? Even though it's strange that they left you a final warning, then another final warning, then a third final warning, you still should have replied to them at some point in the last week. [[Special:Contributions/2602:306:BC31:4AA0:8490:BE75:32E0:9C30|2602:306:BC31:4AA0:8490:BE75:32E0:9C30]] ([[User talk:2602:306:BC31:4AA0:8490:BE75:32E0:9C30|talk]]) 17:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::Evan.Slater's editing pattern backs up their explanation of test editing, and I think it's a pretty big leap here to suggest they're not competent to edit or deliberately vandalizing - they're just inexperienced. I've left advice on Evan.Slater's talk page to use their sandbox for test editing and ask if they have questions. That's all that's called for here. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 19:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}


::That being said, Bloodoffox has a history of antagonizing other users associated with the topic. I am not aware of any of the other occasions where he has been harassed by users, so I sympathize. There are bad editors on this site that do that behavior or make edits that are, in kinder words, sloppy. Fringe topics are constrained as they are to avoid pandering or making it a massive advocation for them and should remain within the neutral guidelines that are enforced on fringe topics.
==Name change==
Can someone please post the decline reason for my name change to my talk page? I can't get into the email account that I used to sign up for Wikipedia so I can't see the email. [[User:Ya Mans|Ya Mans]] ([[User talk:Ya Mans|talk]]) 18:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Ya Mans}} Are you sure your request has been declined? Did you [[WP:CHU|follow the instructions for changing your username]]? [[User:I JethroBT|<b style="font-family:Garamond; color:green">I JethroBT</b>]] [[User talk:I JethroBT|<sup>drop me a line</sup>]] 20:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{replyto|I JethroBT}} I changed it a few days ago but I want to change it again. Do I have to wait a certain amount of days before I change it again? [[User:Ya Mans|Ya Mans]] ([[User talk:Ya Mans|talk]]) 21:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:::How about if this is that last time you change your name, OK? '''[[User:EEng#s|<font color="red">E</font>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<font color="blue">Eng</font>]]''' 15:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::::Aight. [[User:Ya Mans|Ya Mans]] ([[User talk:Ya Mans|talk]]) 17:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


::Yes, the topics do need a lot of work, and its hard to find the few good editors that know what they are doing with fringe topics. I myself follow the topic out of interest, not advocacy, and I rarely edit on it mainly cause of a backlog of other projects. I don't pop on to cause trouble as Bloodoffox loves to accuse me of, among the many personal attacks he has made against me. I have had no such incidents since my mistake way back in the day and I have not made any since then. The sole reason I commented in the discussion was because I could see it was rapidly devolving into an antagonistic nature, and though my words could have been put differently, I always wrote that we "needed to find common ground". It has become a point of frustration with this, because of personal attacks on my character and what I have contributed to this site. I am not a disruptor by any means and Bloodoffox has keep making accusations or belittling comments in regards to me and other users who disagree with him. His aggressive and belittling behavior has a huge role in antagonizing other users and it does need to stop. I might be frustrated, but I cannot see how this does any good with moving projects and topics forwards. Banning me from the topic is unnecessary and overkill. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Paleface Jack|Paleface Jack]] ([[User talk:Paleface Jack#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Paleface Jack|contribs]]) </small>
== Croatoan21 – disruptive editing part 3 ==
:If the only example of off-wiki canvasing is a single blog post from seven years ago, I'm not seeing any case for sanctions. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 07:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::This is the only clear incident I've encountered. However, there's good reason to suspect that there's more. Note also that although the user is happy to apologize about it when called on it here, the user also never deleted the off-site lobbying on the cryptozoology wiki. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 07:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::I can see a case for a {{tl|trout}} for the OP, at the very least. (Trout-erang?) - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 07:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm sorry, Bloodofox, if this has been a contentious area to edit in (there are many such areas on the project) but we can't sanction editors based on suspicions, we require evidence of misconduct and if it is off-wiki behavior, it might be more appropriate to send it to ARBCOM. You have provided a narrative statement of how difficult it is to edit in this field but with few diffs illustrating conflict and other editors have providing competing narratives. This isn't your first trip to ANI so you know what is required here for an admin to take action. And if you do provide some more evidence, I encourage you to provide RECENT evidence (like from the past 3 years), not diffs or statements from when an editor was new and unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and practices. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::While the editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Paleface_Jack&target=Paleface+Jack&offset=20140106032117&limit=500 has been been editing since 2013] and his off-site post was from 2018 (yet somehow claims to not know it was not OK to canvas for meatpuppets off-site), I figured this might be the case and hoped more would come to light about what's going on off-site (I expect more will, in which case I'll return). [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 08:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


== Rangeblock request to stop ban evasion by Dealer07 ==
cc {{reply to|Euryalus|Dennis Brown|c=}}
{{atop|1=Blocks fall. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 07:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{checkuser|Dealer07}}
*{{rangevandal|62.74.24.0/21}}
*{{rangevandal|2A02:85F:F070:E175:0:0:0:0/64}}


The Greek vandal [[User:Dealer07]] was blocked for edit-warring over nationality and ethnicity. In the past few hours, five new Greek IPs have been rapidly restoring preferred edits: [[Special:Contributions/62.74.24.244]], [[Special:Contributions/62.74.24.229]], [[Special:Contributions/62.74.24.251]], [[Special:Contributions/62.74.24.220]] and [[Special:Contributions/62.74.24.207]]. I propose we engage a rangeblock rather than play whackamole on a series of single IPs. Can we block the range [[Special:Contributions/62.74.24.0/21]]? Thanks in advance.
Disappointingly, following two blocks ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=742125002 report 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=745798917 report 2]) for disruptive editing {{User links|Croatoan21 }} is still at it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Iker_Muniain&diff=prev&oldid=799967476 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Roland_Varga_(footballer)&diff=799968523&oldid=798848742 2]. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 22:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


Note that the range [[Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F070:E175:0:0:0:0/64]] was blocked very recently for the same reasons. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 06:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
== User making legal threats + personal attacks against me over talk page discussion ==


*I've blocked {{IPrange|62.74.0.0/18}} for 6 months and {{u|Ahecht}} has blocked {{IPrange|2A02:85F:F070:E175:0:0:0:0/64}} for 1 month. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I would like to alert necessary admins to the talk page discussion at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:UK_Independence_Party#Political_Position:_Change_to_.22Right_Wing_to_Far_Right.3F.22]. It is a controversial topic, but cautiously, I started a discussion to gauge consensus about a given change and have not edited the article in question. Despite this, a certain user, [[User:Delors1991]], has got extremely and unnecessarily offended at my proposition and has bombarded me with personal attacks, threats and general uncivil behaviour in both the discussion itself and as an act of vandalism to my user page [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:TF92&diff=799970171&oldid=796753596] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:UK_Independence_Party&diff=799971082&oldid=799969956] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:UK_Independence_Party&diff=799980536&oldid=799977750], which also contains a threat to "reveal my real identity"--[[User:TF92|TF92]] ([[User talk:TF92|talk]]) 23:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:: Nonsense - no threat was made to [[User:TF92|TF92]] to "reveal [his] real identity". A request was made to him for him to reveal his real identity himself, Wikipedia not being intended to be a shelter or vehicle for the vilest defamation against members and supporters of a party which obtained 3.9 million votes in the 2015 General Election and whose view on Brexit was supported by 17.4 million people in the 2016 Referendum. Here is the link: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User%3ATF92&type=revision&diff=799970171&oldid=796753596] with the words "Please provide your real life identity so the normal remedies may be availed of - you evidently intend to continue your extreme and appalling abuse."
Therefore, this editor's claim that a threat was made to reveal his real identity is demonstrated to be false. It is probably either a deliberate distortion or the result of his inability to properly construe English. In each case, he shouldn't be doing this. If he thinks it is acceptable to publicly smear supporters of a respectable political party, including myself, as extremists, he is wrong. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Delors1991|Delors1991]] ([[User talk:Delors1991#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Delors1991|contribs]]) 01:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delors1991&diff=prev&oldid=799985528 Delors1991 notified] (which is required). {{small|Also, are there unnecessary admins??}} [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 00:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::Delors1991 responded to a talk page proposal to change the description of UKIP from right wing to "far right" in a highly combative fashion, including several implied legal threats and an unacceptable demand that TF92 out themselves. In my opinion, this behavior is out of line and calls for a block unless Delors1991 withdraws those remarks. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 01:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
*Delors1991 blocked by Orangemike. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 02:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

== Proposed deletion of pages. Also, I feel like I am being bullied on Wikipedia ==
{{archive top|1=User has also posted this above at the section titled "Topic ban proposal for Qewr4231"; no need for two open discussions on the same topic. [[User:Only|only]] ([[User talk:Only#top|talk]]) 02:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)}}
I feel that editors such as JamieBrown2011, Cyphoidbomb, and CoachBriceWilliams28 are bullying me over the International Churches of Christ, International Christian Churches, and Kip Mckean pages. The pages themselves sound like advertisements for these people/organizations. I know that some of the information contained in those articles is not true because I am a former member of the International Chruches of Christ. I feel that these and other editors are blocking information about the International Churches of Christ, the International Christian Churches, and Kip Mckean. I also think that the International Churches of Christ page, the International Christian Churches page, and the Kip Mckean page should be deleted from Wikipedia as these are not neutral topics. Sorry, I'm not that great of an internet user and I don't know how to link to all of the different Wikipedia rule pages. [[User:Qewr4231|Qewr4231]] ([[User talk:Qewr4231|talk]]) 02:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:If articles are bad, our solution is almost never to delete them; our solution is to improve them. Such discussions take place on the talk pages of the articles themselves. --[[User:Orangemike|<span style="color:#F80">Orange Mike</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:Orangemike|<span style="color:#FA0">Talk</span>]] 02:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

== User:SwisterTwister ==
{{hat|[[WP:DENY]]}}
I am tracking this editor for a while and I think It's time to stop him before he deletes whole WP without even reading the subject of deletion. We lost too many good contributors already. This guy don't respect the rules, delete articles without even reading, get's into topic he is not familiar with. Analytic will show that AFD's by this user are always closed with the support of the same group of contributors. Further analysis confirms the pattern which means the decision is made prior to discussion making a discussion pointless. This is highest level of abuse of the authority. (Worth checking other cases, this is well known abuser. Do a google search, Check the blogs, forums and threads to discover how many great authors we lost). Although he tries to help against vandalism, this user gone to far and become vandal himself. There is absolutely no way to create article if this decide not to let you. Even in the debates, serving modified informations and relaying to same group of few editors to back him up. History of known vandalism and ban discussion. There is no way to do anything on WP unless you establish good personal relation with this user. The informations presented by this person in debates are heavy modified in manipulative way. Requires further investigation by other contributors in order that we remain objective. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Itsenough|Itsenough]] ([[User talk:Itsenough#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Itsenough|contribs]]) 23:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:An SPA with three edits. This one, one adding SwisterTwister to AIV, and one creating [[Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/SwisterTwister ‎]]. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 23:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*Would somebody kindly direct this troll to the exit - I'd do it myself but I don't have my admin tools with me right now. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 23:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
*Indeffed as [[WP:NOTHERE|clearly not here to improve the encyclopaedia]]. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 00:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== MRSTEALYOURBEEOTCH ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">{{Quote box
| title =
| title_bg = #C3C3C3
| title_fnt = #000
| quote = Now blocked, nac [[User:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">'''S'''wister'''T'''wister</font>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 05:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
| width = 30%|halign=left}}
:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive top-->
----
{{user|MRSTEALYOURBEEOTCH}}
I have 2 concerns about this editor, if the part of the username "BEEOCH" is meant to sound like "bitch" and weather they are a sock, as I recall seeing a user named something along the lines of mrstealyourgirlfriend. [[User:Tornado chaser|Tornado chaser]] ([[User talk:Tornado chaser|talk]]) 01:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

:If you believe the username is a blatant violation of the username policy, report it to [[Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention]]. —'''[[User:MRD2014|<span style="color:blue">MRD</span><span style="color:red">2014</span>]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:MRD2014|Talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/MRD2014|Edits]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[WP:HELP|''Help!'']]</sup> 02:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

*{{ec}} {{nacc}} Suggest softblock for borderline username violation ([[WP:DISRUPTNAME]] isn't clear if humorous use of euphemism is technically as bad as unambiguous profanity -- "indirectly" implies that the username "YOUAREASTOOPIDBEEOTCH" would be would be inappropriate, but a username that implies "I'm gonna steal your girlfriend" with a profane word for the latter is a bit more ambiguous).
:As for whether it's a sock, normally [[User:Tornado Chaser]] would have to have clearer evidence ({{user|mrstealyourgirlfriend}} doesn't exist) to request a CU, and failing that I don't think there's much to be done.
:[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 02:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
*Y'all just report that kind of shit at AIV with a brief explanation. VAU block applied. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 04:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
----
: ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] --></div><div style="clear:both;"></div>

== Persistent blanking of politically themed content despite numerous warnings ==

This editor is, in spite of warnings, persistently and disruptively adding uncited content removing content from politically categorized articles as shown
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=David_Duke&diff=799690890&oldid=799630967 here]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories&diff=799692593&oldid=799235299 here]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Climate%20change%20denial&diff=764291097 here] in which the edit summary amazingly simply reads ''blanked the page''
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=791879767&oldid=791864323 and here]
to name a few.
The editor has been warned by [[user:DrFleischman]], [[user:Bishonen]], [[user:General_Ization]] and [[user:edaham|myself]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IntelligentName&diff=prev&oldid=799738653 as shown here] after having received guidance on several occasions from other editors who were following guidelines and being polite. At the very least this editor needs to receive firmer caution that we have editorial policies and standards for interaction with other editors. I don't think this editor should be allowed to comment on the talk pages or make contributions to articles about politics. [[User:Edaham|Edaham]] ([[User talk:Edaham|talk]]) 09:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

*[[User:Edaham|Edaham]], I agree about the disruptive editing, but the user hasn't AFAICS done anything wrong after my warning, so I'd prefer to wait and see. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 10:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC).
::OK it could be a time zone issue or me looking at the times of the warnings being issued rather than the actual edits. Apologies if this was an inappropriately filed ANI report, hopefully there's not a problem with bringing attention to a page with that many warnings on it. [[User:Edaham|Edaham]] ([[User talk:Edaham|talk]]) 10:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::: It's fine, [[User:Edaham|Edaham]], and thank you for watching out for disruptive editing. The way the user removes all warnings without response, and without so far having changed their ways, isn't exactly promising. However, since I warned them explicitly that there might be a block coming their way in case of further disruption, there's nothing more to be done right now. Also, Doug Weller has given them a [[Wikipedia:discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] alert for American politics. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 14:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC).
* <small>(uninvolved)</small> I was remarkably pinged because of a booboo on the filer's end (Which they thankfully [[Special:Diff/800067138|fixed]]). Anyways, with regards to the "Blanked the page" one, I'd like to point out that that edit summary was an [[WP:AES|automatic edit summary]], not written by the user. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 11:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::you live and learn. I've never blanked an entire page before and didn't know about this automatic summary [[User:Edaham|Edaham]] ([[User talk:Edaham|talk]]) 19:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

== [[Goguryeo]]: Requesting quick assistance ==

{{user|Richeaglenoble}}

Requesting quick assistance as I am unable to implement action due to being [[WP:INVOLVED|involved]]. This is a possible case of [[WP:NOTHERE]] and [[WP:CIR]] (evident through these comments: [[Special:Diff/800068355|1]] [[Special:Diff/800069863|2]]), please take a look at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Goguryeo&action=history revision history] of the page starting from [[Special:Diff/800056268|08:44, 11 September 2017‎]]. For additional reading (not very long), [[User talk:Richeaglenoble]] contains everything. [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]][[User_talk:Alex Shih|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 10:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

:This is unfair.I uploded my picture legitimately.I took the picture from National meseum of Korea.Alex shin just hate to call Goguryeo as empire.Koreans call goguryeo as "empire" commonly.I hope Alex shin loves korean history.[[User:Richeaglenoble|Richeaglenoble]] ([[User talk:Richeaglenoble|talk]]) 10:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

::[[WP:RS]] is the standard--''uninvolved/independent sources'', not self-claims of the subject of an article or self-claims to have unpublished inside knowledge. Comment on the content, not the editor. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 10:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:::I'd '''support an indefinite CIR block''' until REN recognizes the relevant Wikipedia policies. The above comment that completely misses the point is apparently characteristic, looking at his recent edit summaries. Either way, he's made four reverts in less than three hours, so should definitely be blocked to prevent more edit-warring in the immediate future. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 11:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:::BTW, the editor has clearly been logging out to edit-war at the [[Yuan Dynasty]] and [[Han Chinese]] articles.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yuan_dynasty&offset=20170905121413&limit=13&action=history][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Han_Chinese&diff=798013078&oldid=797984493] Clearly this is another anti-Chinese Korean nationalist SPA, most likely somebody's sock, and the focus on articles on the Han Chinese ethnicity and how they supposedly miscegenated with Mongols makes this look like another really ugly/racist "pure or mixed blood" affair. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 11:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:::On my talk page the user has [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hijiri88&diff=prev&oldid=800082820 agreed] to go looking for sources, but I really don't trust him. The fact that he has now essentially admitted he didn't have sources already is telling, and I see no reason to believe he won't twist any sources he finds to agree with what he already wants to write. He also still hasn't self-reverted, even though he ''admitted'' he did not have a source, nor apologized for any of the other tendentious aspects of his editing. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 12:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
: Would another admin please take a look at the page. Many thanks. [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]][[User_talk:Alex Shih|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 07:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::The disruption on the article has continued, including poor grammar/spelling and misrepresentation of sources (exactly as I predicted, he read the sources as saying exactly what he already wanted to write). Also worth noting that of his three image uploads, one is a clear COPYVIO (he calls it his "own work" despite admitting in the same edit to have scanned it from a government textbook), and the other two are quite possibly in violation of [https://www.museum.go.kr/site/eng/content/policies_on_using_images the relevant museum's rules], if the photo was even taken by REN, which I find questionable -- I'm not an expert, but doesn't the texture of the background look like a scanned image from a book more than an original photograph of a three-dimensional object? And then there's the edit-warring -- he made his ''sixth'' revert just over 24 hours after his first. Has this user made a single edit to the encyclopedia that isn't a liability? [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 09:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

== Posting emergencies to ANI ==
Replacing the original thread here with a reminder that credible threats of [self-]harm should be reported ''immediately'' by emailing <code>{{nospam|emergency|wikimedia.org}}</code>. Further instructions can be found at [[WP:EMERGENCY]]. Details of emergencies should never be posted to highly-visible noticeboards such as this one. Cheers. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 16:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

== Apparent behavioral problems at [[Holly Neher]] and related pages ==
{{atop|reason=As per {{u|Mr rnddude}}: Minor- ''too minor'' for AN/I- behavioural concerns, combined with what, further, is a dispute regarding content. Either way, this is achieving even less now than when it started. In any case, repeated requests to 'stay civil' when no determinable incivility has taken place is only likely to result in- ''actual''- incivility. Thus, it is best avoided. {{nac}} &mdash; [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:maroon">'''fortuna'''</span>]][[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:navy">'''''velut luna'''''</span>]] 12:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)}}
See also: [[Talk:Holly Neher]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Neher]].

What started as a disagreement has turned for the worse. In a nutshell, [[User:SchroCat]] and [[User:Paulmcdonald]] (me) have a disagreement on the notability of an article. I have attempted to support my viewpoint with policy, guidelines, and essays to support argumentation. I have found the response to be heated, profane, and otherwise unproductive.

Examples:
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHolly_Neher&type=revision&diff=799247414&oldid=799235141 adding arguemnts] to the OldProdFull template (entering an argument into historical record after the fact)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Holly_Neher&type=revision&diff=799930543&oldid=799928979 revert] per [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hidden text]] as inappropriate use of hidden text--using it as a talk page
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Holly_Neher&type=revision&diff=800138414&oldid=800132768 profanity] in the article history is unproductive
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHolly_Neher&type=revision&diff=800145525&oldid=800142560 profanity] in the talk page
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Holly_Neher&type=revision&diff=800140187&oldid=800138414 removal of sources and content] material to the AFD discussion
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Holly_Neher&diff=prev&oldid=799269668 forceful comments against media] appears to be using Wikipedia to "prove a point" about the state of journalism in society
* continued statements of personal point of view and repeating arguments already made

It seems that the more polite I attempt to be, the harsher the response I receive. Please review and advise.--[[User:Paulmcdonald|Paul McDonald]] ([[User talk:Paulmcdonald|talk]]) 20:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

:Hello Paul. I am sorry that you have run into these problems. It appears to be consensus that established editors can be as potty-mouthed as they wish, and are unlikely to suffer any sort of sanctions. Is it important to you that potty-mouthed editors should suffer some form of sanction? If so, then you probably need to head to a different website.

:Another place that you can learn about the consensus on civility is [[User talk:Drmies]], where another editor is currently making a similar case. What has been recommended is that the editor should just go and edit some other article somewhere. [[User:MPS1992|MPS1992]] ([[User talk:MPS1992|talk]]) 22:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

::''Query'' wouldn't that simply be [[Wikipedia:WikiBullying]]??--[[User:Paulmcdonald|Paul McDonald]] ([[User talk:Paulmcdonald|talk]]) 22:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

:::Personally I think this is just a storm in a teacup and the fate of the article is going to be resolved at the AfD. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 03:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::::Why do you think this is about the fate of the article? If someone's on the "winning" side of an AFD, they can be as uncivil as they like?--[[User:Paulmcdonald|Paul McDonald]] ([[User talk:Paulmcdonald|talk]]) 11:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::Profanity =/= incivility. Especially when it's not directed at an editor; {{tq|the text that was there was fucking awful}} is directed squarely at what you'd written, and not at you. I've looked at that talk page, calling you obtuse was the only touch of incivility on there and that line was struck by Schrocat himself. I'll lightly recommend that you [[WP:STICK|drop the stick]] here as this is going nowhere and is unlikely to go anywhere (let alone anywhere productive) anytime soon. [[User:Mr rnddude|Mr rnddude]] ([[User talk:Mr rnddude|talk]]) 11:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
*I agree with [[User:SchroCat]] that stuffing the article full of marginal sources wherever they'll fit has left the prose... extremely inelegant to say the least. [[User:Reyk|<font color="Maroon">'''Reyk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|'''<font color="Blue">YO!</font>''']]</sub> 06:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{abot}}


== Taboo of archaeologists ==
== Request for reviewing the block of a disruptive user ==
{{archivetop|This is fundamentally a content dispute, I see nothing admin-actionable here. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 10:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}

This is about {{diff2|1267245598}} by {{u|Jahuah}}. They claim that an unprovenanced archaeological object is authentic. Bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss unprovenanced objects in public. It's a taboo of their profession. So, no bona fide archaeologist can give the lie to the authenticity of that object without losing their job. Since if they mention that object in public they get sacked. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 06:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I request all admins to take a look at the [[User:Umair Aj]]. The User is been currently blocked for couple of weeks for sheer disruptive editing. The blocking administrator was himself
Shocked to see the disruptive and malicious editing of the user [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Umair_Aj&diff=798238247]. From the past record of the user it is also proved that the user is a proven master sock,
and the two sockpuppets of the user has been indefinitely blocked [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Umair_Aj/Archive]. The user was blocked for sockpuppetry for a week, after getting unblocked continued their disruptive editing and now is again blocked for two weeks, with a final warning of an indefinite block. It is clear from the users history their intention is to create disruption through their malicious editing, only to get away from scrutiny welcomes new users through twinkle. I think as soon as this block will expiry the user will again create disruption. [[User:Anoptimistix|Anoptimistix]] ([[User talk:Anoptimistix|talk]]) 06:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:{{re|Anoptimistix}} So... you came here just to badmouth someone who is blocked and can't defend themselves? Classy. Do you have any ''evidence'' that they are evading their block? The SPI archive you link appears to show one instance of sockpuppetry from two years ago, and [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Umair Aj#06 August 2017|the live SPI]] shows you making an accusation you have been unable or unwilling to substantiate in more than three weeks, and one other account being CU-blocked for [[WP:BEANS|technical reasons beyond my comprehension]] and similarly failing to enable email to discuss with the blocking admin. Unless UA has done something since his block to justify upping to indef ... well, it looks like you are more unhappy with [[User:Swarm]]'s choosing not to indef off the bat than anything else, which means ... well, if this is really about Swarm, you probably should have notified them. Unless that is what your email two days ago was about. You are not going to get "all admins" to do anything about this if you have been unable to convince the blocking admin to reconsider their own decision. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 09:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::This is not the first time either, and I should warn Anoptimistix that if this behavior continues then they are just as likely to be blocked. They sent a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpacemanSpiff&diff=793664109&oldid=793660226 similar canvassing email to me] because I'm "{{pink|from India like me}}". I did not reply to the email but [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpacemanSpiff&diff=793669697&oldid=793669593 notified via edit summary that I thought both their edits were problematic and COIN or ANI will soon deal with them both and I had no interest in getting involved]. Both editors have unclean hands here, targeting each other and the articles created definitely need a look-in by regulars at COIN and/or some extra love at AfD. The behavioral problems stem from that. &mdash;[[User:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#BA181F">Spaceman</font>]]'''[[User_talk:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#2B18BA">Spiff</font>]]''' 11:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:::And, Anoptimistix, your actions [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Ruchi04&action=history here] are nothing more than a waste of community time, and I'm sure this isn't the only such thing out there. &mdash;[[User:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#BA181F">Spaceman</font>]]'''[[User_talk:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#2B18BA">Spiff</font>]]''' 12:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Then there's your overlap with at least one paid COI sock farm -- one of the reasons [[Siddharth Slathia]] was salted under a few titles, but you seem to be aware of that when you created it at [[Sidharth Slathia]] despite referring to the subject as [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sidharth_Slathia&oldid=791186137 Siddharth Slathia] within the article. Please explain this as well. &mdash;[[User:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#BA181F">Spaceman</font>]]'''[[User_talk:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#2B18BA">Spiff</font>]]''' 12:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
{{u|Hijiri88}} {{u|SpacemanSpiff}} I apologise if this thread seemed inappropriate, as you both are much experienced and are here since years and I respect you both. I agree {{u|SpacemanSpiff}} I should not have sended email to request you to intervene (I sended that because from my point of view the user appeared to be a wikihounder and the evidences given by admin swarm was more than nough to prove my point), and as you were an uninvolved administrator plus I really like the cricket related articles which you created. And yes fair point SpacemanSpiff I should have [[WP:BOLD|Boldly]] moved that article about the new user which was about themself to their userspace instead of taking to Afd. Next time I will boldly move such articles to the users userspace. And SpacemanSpiff the subject of Siddharth Slathia had in-depth coverage by reliable news media [[Hindustan Times]] which made it pass [[WP:GNG]] and also [[WP:MUSICBIO]], and the last admin who deleted it was inactive and I had already requested to unprotect it's creation at [[WP:RPP]] to allow me to create it, however my request was denied as the admin who denied it wasn't familiar with the reliability of Indian media and it's coverage. Please assume good faith SpacemanSpiff, I was about to go at Request moves to move that article after it's creation, but I started creating articles about Indian villages ad Census Town and bringing nominations of great content creators at PERM.[[User:Anoptimistix|Anoptimistix]] ([[User talk:Anoptimistix|talk]]) 12:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

{{u|SpacemanSpiff}} The problem starts back in 2014 when Siddharth Slathia's was not enough notable to merit an article, but after 2016 September the entry of [[Jio|Reliance Jio]] changed the scenario, Indian music listeners started exploring Youtube and appreciating Singers who sing cover versions, as they were a subject of public interest they got enough in-depth coverage per [[WP:GNG]] to merit an article of their own. I hope I have answered to your question. But now my interest more lies in creating articles about towns, villages and geographical places. [[User:Anoptimistix|Anoptimistix]] ([[User talk:Anoptimistix|talk]]) 13:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:I'm not buying this, if this was one issue in isolation then it can be passed off as not knowing, but these are multiple issues where you have deliberately chosen to behave this way. I'm also not convinced that you should have the autoreviewer flag and all your creations have to be checked. &mdash;[[User:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#BA181F">Spaceman</font>]]'''[[User_talk:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#2B18BA">Spiff</font>]]''' 13:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

{{u|Hijiri88}} The brief evidences of disruptive editing given by long-time prolific admin {{u|Swarm}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Umair_Aj&diff=798238247] is enough to justify my concern. And yes I could not give more evidence even after two weeks at the live SPI, becoz that page revision history was deleted by an admin (please check the log of that page). And I personally have requested the checkuser on their talk page to close it down. My heartfelt apologies for late reply to {{u|SpacemanSpiff}} and {{u|Hijiri88}}, and Hijiri88 yes I have contacted the blocking admin, but since after the admin Swarm's years of service, they now remain less active so i came here and my concern are genuine about the user Umair Aj , please see this, the latest case related to the user Umair Aj [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Umair_Aj&diff=795024124&oldid=795022760], (a good faith user appealed the user Umair Aj to stop edit warring, but instead of taking it's cognizance they reverted it the appeal notice, this shows the [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] attitude and there is another evidence which [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Umair_Aj&diff=795030347&oldid=795028624 is yet another revert of a warning], yup [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Umair_Aj&diff=795215144&oldid=795215086 this is another revert of edit warring notice]. Admin Swarm on the users talk page as well as I here have given more than enough evidence. But still Hijri88 you think I am badmouthing ? For your info Hijri88 I spend large time on this project for welcoming new users and I firmly believe in Editor Retention, Regards.

{{u|SpacemanSpiff}} Yes you can surely check my creations at Xtools, most of them are about villages and census town, notable living people and songs which are created per [[WP:BIO]], [[WP:NSONG]] and [[WP:GEOFEAT]]. [[User:Anoptimistix|Anoptimistix]] ([[User talk:Anoptimistix|talk]]) 14:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

:{{u|Anoptimistix}}, at RFPP you were specifically advised to submit that draft to AfC, and then if it was accepted it could be moved: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=790038344&oldid=789715650#Siddharth_Slathia]. Instead you ignored that advice and changed the spelling to get around the protection:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sidharth_Slathia&diff=798355086&oldid=798354855]. Why? --<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

{{u|Begoon}} Apology for that dear, the first time I requested I had made a draft about it on my sandbox but a user {{u|Winged Blades of Godric}} wrote on my talk page that my request was not accepted (you can check my talk page history), the next time I request I don't know what happened of that as I used a small mobile device to edit Wikipedia which requires lot of hard work, and I get notification when my fellow wikipedian inlink my created article and ping me, rest updates about my request I do not get until I get message on my talk page. [[User:Anoptimistix|Anoptimistix]] ([[User talk:Anoptimistix|talk]]) 14:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:Ok, it was a different, later draft. Its history shows no AfC submission I can see, and anyway that doesn't answer my question about altering the spelling to get around the protection (2nd diff above):[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sidharth_Slathia&diff=798355086&oldid=798354855]. --<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 14:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:And then there's [[Arijit Singh|this copyvio]] from as recently as two months ago. Clearly, you shouldn't have autopatrolled rights, as your contributions need to be reviewed. Unless {{U|Malinaccier}} has some objections because they reviewed the copyvios as well as the removal of many articles at AfD and didn't think it to be a problem, I will remove that right from you. &mdash;[[User:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#BA181F">Spaceman</font>]]'''[[User_talk:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#2B18BA">Spiff</font>]]''' 14:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|SpacemanSpiff}} Hi. As you know, the autopatrolled right merely marks a newly created article as patrolled, which I do not see as a problem based on [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/?user=Anoptimistix&project=en.wikipedia.org&namespace=all&redirects=none Anoptimistix's created article log]. If you believe that Anoptimistix will create a new article in the future that is a copyvio based on continued copyright violations or that there are other deeper misunderstandings of article policy, then removal of the autopatrolled right is appropriate and I of course defer to you. You appear to be much more personally familiar with Anoptimistix's editing abilities. From the outside, the issues you have raised may be best dealt with by a block or a clear and final warning to Anoptimistix before a block if they are part of a pattern of continued disruption. '''[[User:Malinaccier|<span style="color:#003153">Malinaccier</span>]] ([[User talk:Malinaccier|<span style="color:#003153">talk</span>]])''' 15:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
{{u|Begoon}} I edit Wikipedia from a small Android device, the only update which I got is this
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anoptimistix&diff=789434258] by user {{u|Winged Blades of Godric}}, I swear I was unaware about the suggestion given by the admin on my second request. [[User:Anoptimistix|Anoptimistix]] ([[User talk:Anoptimistix|talk]]) 14:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:And the reason for the spelling change to the title: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sidharth_Slathia&diff=798355086&oldid=798354855]? Perhaps you missed that part of my question again? --<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 15:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
{{u|SpacemanSpiff}} you love cricket so does I love music, so I create music related articles but it's also true that I have numerous non-music related articles and yes that I have not violated knowingly any copyvio, I write content in my intermediate knowledge of english. I think you didn't liked my help request mail, it was my mistake I mistakenly thought you were ready to help. [[User:Anoptimistix|Anoptimistix]] ([[User talk:Anoptimistix|talk]]) 14:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

{{u|SpacemanSpiff}} Can you please show which article of mine was deleted at AfD. ? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Anoptimistix|Anoptimistix]] ([[User talk:Anoptimistix#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Anoptimistix|contribs]]) 14:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)</small>
And {{u|SpacemanSpiff}} can you please show which article of mine was deleted at AfD. ? The only one which I can remember was about a song, which was soft-deleted as nobody participated in Afd discussion except nominator. And later was successfully restored at [[WP:REFUND]]. SpacemanSpiff even if you remove autoreviewer rights than still I will keep on creating articles about villages, towns , notable songs as I love creating articles, and yes if you disliked that help request email i really apologize for it, I wrongly assumed you as an always ready to help admin, would better seek help of admin who publicly write that they are ready to help on their userpage, next time if I face harrasment here. As they say better go for a third opinion of an uninvolved admin if you face troublesome here so I asked help from you. Sorry will not ask help from you next time. [[User:Anoptimistix|Anoptimistix]] ([[User talk:Anoptimistix|talk]]) 15:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


:Lol, reporting on me? [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 06:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::Please stop pinging me! As for articles, I said removed, not deleted as there are quite a few that had to be redirected at AfD and don't about your email to me, you did not assume I'm helpful, you said you were contacting me because I'm {{pink|Indian and speak Hindi}}! I'm always ready to help good-faith editors, but that was not your request, simple as that. &mdash;[[User:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#BA181F">Spaceman</font>]]'''[[User_talk:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#2B18BA">Spiff</font>]]''' 15:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:Give me an actual reason why the specific seal in question is not authentic? How about that? Quote me an actual scholar who does? If not, then your words mean jack. [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 06:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


::According to [[critical rationalism]], the claim that such object is authentic is unfalsifiable. Since it is taboo to discuss such object in public. So only biased hacks could affirm it is authentic or inauthentic without losing their jobs. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 06:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
== Emergency Community Ban for 118 alex ==
:::Do you think it’s inauthentic? Or not? Please do not be wasting my time here. [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 06:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It think that claim is utterly unfalsifiable, so it cannot amount to [[science]]. See for details {{YouTube|FYgqnlQXWjA|The Shapira Strips: What Are They and Are They Forgeries?}} by Dr. Robert R. Cargill. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 06:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Ok. Thanks for actually giving me an answer at least. [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::What exactly are you asking admins to do there? This looks to me like a content dispute. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Who, me? I’m not asking anything. I just wanted to show how a seal dated by a scholar to the 8th century is indeed an 8th century BC Israelite seal of Hoshea.
::::::The guy up there has a problem with that and now apparently I’m on the naughty list. [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 07:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|The Bushranger}} I have explained them at length why this is utterly problematic, previously. I had expected that they will behave. Misbehaving is a behavioral problem. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 07:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I think I know how to behave, thank you very much. I’m not a petulant manchild. [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 07:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::See [[User talk:Jahuah#December 2024]] and [[Talk:Uzziah#Uzziah Seals]]. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Lol, I refuted you there. All you did was attack Dr. Mykytiuk and call into question his scholarship. [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 07:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Besides, what does this have to do with the Hoshea seal? [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 07:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't expect any of you to take my word for it, that why I had [[WP:CITED]] https://web.archive.org/web/20241209232716/https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/the-problem-with-unprovenanced-objects/ Suffices to say that unprovenanced objects are ethically and juridically fishy. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::So no comment on my refutation of your petulant behavior? [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 07:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Who’s “any of you” by the way? I’m one guy. [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 07:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You're (only you, not The Bushranger) promoting a claim that is unfalsifiable, unethical, and maybe even juridically problematic. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Ooo, that’s a new one. [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Nope, if you had read carefully what I told you in 2024, there is nothing new about my claim. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 07:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good. You guys represent scholarship only when it suits your ideology. [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 07:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::It's not about my ideology. It is about: bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss such claims in public. So no bona fide archaeologist could affirm that that object is authentic or inauthentic, because the next day they will have to flip burgers at Target. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 07:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Fine whatever, I apologize. [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*Demands to prove a negative are a nonsensical and puerile debating tactic. The editor must cite evidence that the item is considered authentic, or refrain from stating so in WP's voice. Simple as that. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 07:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Is the editor referring to me? [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*:If so, here you go. Lawrence J. Mykytiuk, Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E. (Boston: Brill, 2004), 58., https://www.academia.edu/62900860/Iconography_on_Hebrew_Seals_and_Bullae_Identifying_Biblical_Persons_and_the_Apparent_Paradox_of_Egyptian_Solar_Symbols_ABSTRACT_ [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 07:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Since bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss it, you win by default? [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 07:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Elmidae, were you referring to me? [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 07:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Bona fide archaeologists will lose their jobs for merely mentioning Mykytiuk's claim. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 07:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I was talking to Elmidae. [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 07:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Yes, they were talking to you. Also both of you take a chill pill for a minute, please - this disucssion is already approaching [[WP:TLDR]] levels of length from the back-and-forth above. Tgeorgescu, you don't have to [[WP:BLUDGEON|respond to everything Jahuah says]] esepecially when it's in response to other editors. Jahuah, {{tqq|i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good.}} is not an attitude conducive to cooperative editing. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 08:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Fine, fine, I apologize. I’m just angry that my contributions to Wikipedia get deleted. I just wanna leave some edits and then I’ll leave this site for good. I promise. [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 08:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I also want to make sure my contributions are kept before I leave. [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 08:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*:This editor appears to be edit warring across multiple pages to assert historical uncertainties as fact based on unconfirmed and speculative research from biblical archaeology blogs and the like. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 07:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Oh look, BAR society is no longer reputable because some Wikipedia mod said so. [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::By the way, who am I edit warring with? That’s news to me. [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 07:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::We don't have "mods" on Wikipedia. But you have only been editing for a month so it shouldn't be expected that you would know much about how Wikipedia works. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Hmph. I guess I’ll go then. Sorry for the trouble I caused. [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::[[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]], I wasn't asking you to leave the project, just pointing out that you are a newer editor. Wikipedia is chockful of rules and guidelines and it's not realistic to expect new editors to be familiar with them all. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::No, no. It’s ok. It’s clear that I have caused more problems here than solved. I just hope my contributions will stay, or at least be kept until new data comes. I’ll be out of your hairs soon. [[User:Jahuah|Jahuah]] ([[User talk:Jahuah|talk]]) 10:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
{{blockquote|it's an unprovenanced object and likely a forgery it was not found in a licensed archaeological excavation it does not possess a credible chain of custody this is very much too good to be true but since people of faith want to believe it and since it's not against the law to use your free speech to make false claims like this forgers will make forgeries and antiquities dealers will put them up for sale and try to make as much money as they can but these kind of forgeries pollute legitimate biblical archaeology and it is why so many scholars myself included do not publish critical reviews of unproven objects once you give them credence their value is increased even if you put a little asterisk by them and designate them as unprovenanced and merely teach the controversy you are still giving them scholarly recognition and debate that the forger and the antiquities dealer so desperately crave publishing unprovenanced objects leads to looting and to forgeries it's that simple|Dr. Robert R. Cargill, transcript}}
Quoted by [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 08:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::[[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]], this is becoming a detailed content dispute which means it probably should be closed as off-topic for this noticeboard. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}


== HoraceAndTheSpiders ==
Short background: long term troll/vandal, vandalises Singapore Buses, creates sockpuppets, claims he is a sock of 118 alex.


See the [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/118 alex|SPI page]] and the [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/118 alex/Archive|archives]] for how much time this guy wastes.
Hence I would like to propose a ban and to contact the ISP to block the user.
His ISP is mostly run by Singtel.
[[Special:Contributions/103.27.223.112|103.27.223.112]] ([[User talk:103.27.223.112|talk]]) 06:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
:These requests should be made on [[WP:AN]] I think. Socking since 26 June 2017 is not enough for a community ban. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 06:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


Could someone briefly block [[User:HoraceAndTheSpiders]] to get their attention, or come up with better way to get them to read their talk page/comply with the [[WP:ARBECR]] restrictions. Thanks. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 11:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:You have 2 edits. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 10:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
* {{done}}. I've left a note on their talkpage that they will almost certainly be unblocked if they promise to keep away from ARBPIA until they are extended-confirmed. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 11:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::: {{u|Sean.hoyland}} The editor has submitted a suitable unblock request, so I have unblocked. Please let me know if they stray into ARBPIA again. Thanks, [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 12:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


== TTTEMLPBrony and continued addition of unsourced/crufty material, zero communication ==
== FYI on 77.46.164.179 ==


{{user|TTTEMLPBrony}} has been active since late April 2024. They have a history of adding of unsourced and sometimes controversial material. They have been messaged and warned plenty of times, including by {{u|FlightTime}}, {{u|Doniago}} and {{u|LindsayH}}, but to no avail. Better yet, they haven't responded once on their own talk page.[[WP:COMMUNICATION]] is required and they do not seem to be willing or able to work with others. I've issued them a warning earlier this week, but looking at their talk page, I see they've been issued stern warnings plenty of times. And despite messages about adding sources, in late December 2024 they created [[List of second unit directors]], which is barely referenced. [[User:Soetermans|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">soetermans</span>]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|<sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A <span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''TALK'''</span></sup>]] 12:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Checkuser|77.46.164.179}} is engaging in some minor harassment on other language wikis: [https://ny.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGuy_Macon&type=revision&diff=17464&oldid=15971][https://rw.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGuy_Macon&type=revision&diff=71129&oldid=69172]


== [[User:Jypian|Jypian]] gaming extended confirmed ==
In itself, a couple of edits are nothing to get excited about, but it happened right after I made a series of edits like these;[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_47&diff=prev&oldid=800010030][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonians_(ethnic_group)/Archive_14&diff=prev&oldid=800010179][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia_naming_dispute/Archive_6&diff=prev&oldid=800011180][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonians_(ethnic_group)/Archive_9&diff=prev&oldid=800008738] so I am posting a report here so we can keep an eye on this IP. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 10:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


On [[J.P. (rapper)]], the user is making pointless edits after having been here for exactly thirty days. Clearly gaming extended confirmed. [[Special:Contributions/Chicdat|🐔]]&nbsp;[[User:Chicdat|Chicdat]]&nbsp;&nbsp;''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User talk:Chicdat|Bawk to me!]]</sup>'' 12:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:These are just apparent nonsenses and defamations! <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/93.86.81.205|93.86.81.205]] ([[User talk:93.86.81.205#top|talk]]) 11:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:I been making real edits since I created my account please take your time to check and I’m sorry for purposely pointless edits for extended confirmed on Day 30. I’m a real and genuine user I just wanted early access to work and edit on important stuff[[User:Jypian|Jypian]] ([[User talk:Jypian|talk]]) 13:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::Note: 93.86.81.205 attempted to delete the above report and is currently blocked. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 12:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::For what reason are you doing this? [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:16, 4 January 2025

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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


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

    Wikihounding by Awshort

    [edit]

    user Awshort has been selectively invoking rules on the article for Taylor Lorenz. It has taken me some time to really see how it was happenening, but finally today wrote this post on the talk page with examples of how they have been selectively and hypocritically enforcing rules on me (a new user).

    Additionally, as I mentioned in that post, at one point they accused me of asking another editor for help...which doesn't make any sense? It seems like they were trying to imply to me that I had done something wrong, but I read over some rules first to make sure I was allowed to ask for help. I'm still pretty sure I am! If not...let me know?

    After my post today, Awshort started Wikihoundingme.

    Here are diffs where they follow me around to pages it doesn't appear they have had any interest in prior:

    °1

    ° 2

    °3 Now, I will of course acknowledge that on the third example, I did make a mistake. I thought I had only removed the text of the sentence, but looks as though I accidentally deleted part of the template too. I am unsure how that happened, so I will try to figure that out.

    Either way, Awshort's edit summary was not the language I hope experienced editors would use with newer editors like myself. I have mentioned multiple times in conversations that user Awshort is part of that I am a newer user, so they likely know that. ____

    I'll end by saying that this user's behavior is making me reconsider whether I want to devote any time to improving wikipedia. Truly. I've never made a report like this before, anywhere in my life, just to give you a sense of how frustrating and upsetting its been.

    I hope that this is the right forum for this. If not, my apologies, and please let me know where to redirect this to.

    Thanks for taking a look.Delectopierre (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Delectopierre, if you have had any discussions where you actually tried to talk out your differences with this editor, please provide a link to them. They might be on User talk pages or article talk pages or noticeboards. But it's typically advised that you communicate directly with an editor before opening a case on ANI or AN and don't rely on communication like edit summaries. Also, if you haven't, you need to notify any editors you mention about this discussion. They should be invited to participate here. Liz Read! Talk! 09:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't. I don't feel comfortable discussing wikihounding with them. It is, after all, harassment. Delectopierre (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I did link to my post today where I confronted them with their behavior (except the wikihounding, as it hadn't happened yet). So that is an attempt to discuss the other part.
    But after I tried to discuss it, instead of responding to it, they started wikhounding me. Delectopierre (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should spend less energy “confronting” and more energy discussing and trying to learn from more experienced editors. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I try to learn when experienced editors engage with me in a helpful and respectful manner. Your comment does not fit that description.
    As an aside, I wasn't aware that non-admin, IP-only editors, who are not involved with the incidents I've reported would be participating in this discussion. Delectopierre (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've notified Awshort as it still hasn't been done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested for doing so. User:Delectopierre, you should have notified User:Awshort yourself, there are messages instructing editors to do so all over this page including on the edit notice that you see any time you post a comment here. As I said, you are also advised to discuss disputes first with involved editors before posting on a noticeboard. ANI is where you come for urgent, intractable problems, it's the last place you go when other methods of dispute resolution haven't worked. This also looks like a standard content disagreement regarding Taylor Lorenz and the fact that Awshort reverted one of your edits. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Liz as I noted above, I attempted to discuss their behavior on the article here, and their response was to wikihound me.
    As I said here I don't feel comfortable discussing what feels like and seems to be harrasment, directly with them, as it felt like intimidation to stop confronting them about what I see as bad behavior on the article. I was waiting for a reply to that statement before proceeding.
    Is there really no process that allows for an instance when an editor feels uncomfortable? Delectopierre (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will also add that it appears as though this is not the first occurrence of this type of behavior, based on this comment by @Twillisjr. I don't, however, know any of the details. Delectopierre (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-reading your comment, @Liz:
    I think I’ve been unclear. The content dispute is a content dispute. You’re right about that.
    That is NOT why I posted here. I posted here because the content dispute spilled off that article and has now resulted in wikihounding. The wikihounding, specifically, is why I posted here. Delectopierre (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have closed the discussion with the rationale "Nothing more to do here. See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:HOUND." KOLANO12 3 13:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please explain your rationale? I don’t follow. Delectopierre (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, thank you ActivelyDisinterested for the initial ping and Liz for the follow-up ping. The majority of this is over the Taylor Lorenz article as a whole, but there have been some policy issues sprinkled throughout. Delectopierre anyone can participate in noticeboard discussions whether involved or not, the 'IP-only editor' you referenced has more edits than both of us combined, and registration is not a requirement to edit Wikipedia nor participate in community noticeboards.
    they follow me around to pages it doesn't appear they have had any interest in prior - That isn't accurate since I post on the BLPN often, as well as using it to find articles I can help out on since I mainly focus on editing BLP's. I checked out the BLPN, noticed it was missing a discussion of interest from earlier in the day (Maynard James Keenan) and checked the edit history to see if it was removed for a reason. I saw the previous edit by DP had removed it as well as another discussion so I restored it. That wasn't me 'hounding' them, that was me fixing an error so other discussions could continue. I checked DP's edit history later to see if any similar edits had been made recently in case those needed fixed as well, saw the edit history for this edit with the summary critics don't accuse him of anti-semitism. he is an antisemite, and checked the edit which had been changed to calling the person that. The prior edit had the edit summary of adding back david icke qualifier, so I checked that one as well since I assumed it would be similar. When it was confirmed, I reverted since it seemed a BLP violation as well as WP:LIBEL. Since there was a talk page discussion regarding the prior one, I posted that I had removed it from another article as well, in case it went to a noticeboard both could be noted. It is worth noting that the edit I removed was originally added a few months prior by the same user. I think most editors would have acted in the similar manner regarding the edits and I stand behind them.
    I think Awshort's edit summary was not the language I hope experienced editors would use with newer editors like myself. is somewhat disingenuous when on their first full day of editing the Lorenz article after being registered since 2018 and mostly inactive they seemed to know enough policies to quote them in their edit summaries (WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE), their post that to BLPN referenced NPOV,  as well as learning other policies that were left on their talk page (CTOP by TheSandDoctor, NPOV by Little Professor).
    And it's hard to reply to the linked conversation above where it's implied I'm hounding in the closing comments with only one side of the story presented.
    Awshort (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I checked DP's edit history later to see if any similar edits had been made recently in case those needed fixed as well,"
    That is the definition of hounding:
    "Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is 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."
    I don't understand how this isn't open and shut. Delectopierre (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The same section that you're quoting also says Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. (bold added) Schazjmd (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing related about the other articles they followed me to, and I fail to see how the problems are related. The only common denominator is me. They will, I'm sure, say they're all BLP. Doesn't matter, tons of this encyclopedia is BLP and if Awshort feels I shouldn't be editing any BLP, there are methods of addressing that belief that don't include following me around wikipedia to make sure I don't do anything they disagree with. Delectopierre (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only hounding if they act on it. You need to show at least a few diffs that they are editing on a page you are editing, and they would not have been interested in it otherwise. If they are stalking your history, but do nothing, its technically non-actionable. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those diffs are in my original post. Delectopierre (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also going "this editor made problmatic edits, I should check their history to make sure they haven't made more, and fix any others they've made" is most assuredly not hounding. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After a long winded disagreement on a talk page that included them starting multiple edit wars, my view is there are much better ways of addressing this. For example, they could have started a conversation on my talk page.
    Additionally, who is to say which edits are problematic? I view a number of edits Awshort made as problematic, so I disengaged from the conversation rather than continuing to go in circles.
    Lastly, could you help me understand how a non-admin editor checking another editor's history and reverting their edits is not hounding? It seems to fit the definition of hounding.
    Delectopierre (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy. Someone sees you made an edit they consider problematic. They go and check your other edits to see if you made other problematic edits. They revert any problematic edits they find. Being an admin or not has nothing to do with it. If they continually do this over a period of time, then it may be hounding. If they go through it once because they noticed something, it's not. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Thanks. Delectopierre (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After a long winded disagreement on a talk page that included them starting multiple edit wars - Ignoring the dig about 'long winded disagreement' and just pointing out the following since I was accused yet again of something else
      ## 'Attempts to discredit her work'
      1. Inclusion of RollingStone reference and 'attempts to discredit her work' text by DP on Aug 17, 24
      2. FMSky removes on Dec 11 with WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS as reason.
      3. Reverted by DP Dec 13, empty edit summary.
      4. Removed again by FMSky with same edit summary
      5. Reverted by DP with no edit summary, again
      6. FMSky moves text further down based on what the included reference says.
      7. Reverted by DP
      ## 'Doxxing standard part of the reporting process'
      1. Insertion of text about doxxing, 'standard part of the reporting process' by DP Aug 17, 24
      2. Removed in Nov 27 by myself, as it was already included with the same reference earlier in the paragraph.
      3. Reverted shortly after by DP
      4. Removed on Nov 28 with a quote on what the text of the included reference actually stated, which was not what was included.
      ## Podcast
      1. Podcast section added Aug 17 by DP
      2. Removed some of the podcast text that seemed promotional and wasn't supported by the included reference Nov 27
      3. Reverted by DP Nov 27
      4. Removed both the Podcast reinsertion, and the previous reporting texts on Nov 28 with the same reasoning and asked to take it to TP and try to obtain consensus before insertion again.
      ## 'Assaulted'
      1. Harassment section which included 'assaulted' added Aug 17 by DP
      2. Removed the word assaulted from the harassment section on Nov 28 since it was covered in her career section.
      3. Reverted by DP on Dec 3 as WP:OR
      4. Removed per talk, undue, and covered in Career Dec 14
      ## 'Coordinated'
      1. Vegan416 removed the word coordinated under BLP grounds (accusing Tucker Carlson of coordinating attacks) Dec 14
      2. Re-insertion by DP on Dec 24
      3. Removed per WP:SYNTH since the word wasn't in the included reference on Dec 24
    It isn't limited to just this article, though.
      ## 'Anti-Semitic'
      1. Anti-Semitic label of David Icke added on April 9
      2. removed by Zane362 Nov 11
      3. Re-added by DP Dec 26
      4. Removal by myself on Dec 27
    It seems like the very definition of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not. This isn't entirely an "I don't like Awshort messing with my edits" issue; this is a "I don't like anyone messing with my edits" issue.
    Coincidentally, its also covered in WP:HOUND at WP:HA#NOT: It is also not harassment to track a user's contributions for policy violations (see above); that is part of what editor contribution histories are for. Editors do not own article content, or their own edits, and any other editor has the right to revert edits as appropriate. Unwarranted resistance to such efforts may be a sign of ownership behavior and lead to sanctions.
    On almost every attempt to edit text inserted by DP, be it by other editors or myself, editors are met with resistance. That includes when their text that was inserted is changed in any manner, including being reworded or moved.
    Awshort (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing and pushing of his own "point of view" by User:Michael Bednarek

    [edit]

    A few months ago, I began to create some new pages about German folk songs, with my own translation under CC-license (that's still quite normal for a bachelor in history (ethnography), I guess). The above-mentioned user started to push his own remarks, reverting my edits (in spite of my authorship and my notices about my VRTS permission and CC), and ended here. At least, we (together with other participants) clearly established that I had had such a right and labelled some of my talk pages with my VRTS-ticket. Nevertheless, already the following page I'd started drew the attention of the aforementioned person. And that what he answers me (a poet-translator of folk songs and historian/ ethnographer):

    "I replaced (or omitted) archaic 'inwit', 'wont'; mark parts of the translation as dubious.", it was a substantial improvement of that article. My remarks on the shortcomings of its translation, which you subsequently labelled "poetic", still stand"

    . The first case that he marked as "dubious" was the gender of the German "Winter". In German, that word is masculine; however, I translated "Winter" as a feminine, and there are a plenty of samples from history when the Germans depicted "Winter" in their beliefs as a female deity or spirit (one might begin from here).

    I have neither wish, nor time to consider all such current and future "improvements" (a lot of time we've spent solving the question with the VRTS-ticket itself). I only hope to avoid such "waste" of time and strength in the future — either he isn't allowed to undo or change my poetic translations without my own consent and our consideration, or I stop my further like work. --Tamtam90 (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tamtam90 I have posted an ANI notice on Michael's talk page. Please leave the notice on users' talk page when starting a discussion on ANI next time. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥(ContainThisEmber?) 15:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamtam90:, anything on Wikipedia can be changed at any time by any editor. If it is not acceptable for you to have your translations modified by others, I suggest you not use them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I translated and published my translations in Wikisource, as professional ethnographer. You don't explain the situation, nor the edits of your "protégé": merely reverted my (author's) edits without any consideration. Why not to "change" or "revert" all my edits in Wikisource as well? Please, try it. Or your admin flag doesn't admit such a trick?--Tamtam90 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a needlessly hostile attitude to take.
    Of note, your status as a professional ethnographer does not mean your edits are above reproach. Other people may disagree with your translation, that's normal. You do not own edits here, so changes to your edits may happen. If that means you "stop <your> further work," then so be it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please try to stick to WP:CIVILITY and avoid casting ASPERSIONS, like baselessly implying that one user is an admin's "protégé". NewBorders (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Willing to give some grace to potential second language and things not coming through as intended @Tamtam90 but either he isn't allowed to undo or change my poetic translations without my own consent and our consideration, or I stop my further like work. falls afoul of edit warring, ownership. WP:EXPERT will be a helpful read, but right now you're closer to a block from mainspace than @Michael Bednarek is if you don't re-assess your conduct. Star Mississippi 17:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear friends, I published all my translations before on an "outer" site, not here, though I granted with VRTS all rights to use them — without changing — to the community. That's, to say — publish and reproduce them, not to change in any possible manner and without any consideration. Maybe, I missed, but I haven't found such "conditions" (to change one's works in any possible manner) in these rules. --Tamtam90 (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. Now, if you want to remove your translations, probably nobody will replace them. But you have no more say in edits going forward than anyone else does. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you publish anything on Wikipedia, anyone can edit it, in anyway. Full stop. You explicitly cannot license contributions to be unalterable. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Original work is original work. Once accepted from an outer source, it cannot be changed and posed as original by anyone. The third column seems to be a healthy solution (for each acceptable derivative, as well) — it's a pity that the opponent doesn't follow his own decision and way anymore. --Tamtam90 (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't publish anything on Wikipedia, I republish here the texts added to Wikisource. That rule doesn't apply to any authentic translations previously published outside (one may create some derivatives, but not change with them the original). --Tamtam90 (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The button you hit was "Publish changes", so yes, you published it here under cc-by-sa 4.0. I really think you're setting yourself up for a minor disaster by not understanding what the license you're using means. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you post anything on Wikipedia, you have, in fact, published it. And once you have posted/published it here, anyone can change it in any way for any reason at any time. It can be changed, and saying it "cannot be changed" is a violation of Wikipedia's licensing. If you don't want your content edited by others, don't post it here. It's as simple as that. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to your claim, one may change here any text loaded on Wikisource, still labelling that as original (from the Bible or some historical chronicles, from a traveller's notes and so on). However, holding the authorship (demanded by any CC licence), such an editor would violate the very bases of Creative Commons' spirit: who would share freely their works knowing that the latter might be changed at any time and by anyone and still published under their own names? (Under the authors, I mean here not only writers, but scientists, artists, and other professionals as well). There's a clear border between the original and its derivatives. --Tamtam90 (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the issue has been poorly explained. The articles in question contain translations that are cited at Wikisource. Changing the translation then results in a false citation. I think it is important to separate the Wikipedia article and the translation document on Wikisource. The wikipedia article can be edited, the wikisource translation should stay intact. The policy question, is how can Wikipedia editors use the Wikisource translation and how do they cite it? Wikisource surely has their own policies. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An additional column might be a healthy solution. That's not "a one-hit wonder": such approach does work in some pages on the folk songs: The Song of the Volga Boatmen, Kalinka (1860 song), Arirang, and other related articles. --Tamtam90 (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    About "minor disasters": the above-mentioned user undid or "cleant" my changes in three of the last four articles: Das Todaustreiben, Wiegenlied (Des Knaben Wunderhorn), Es kam ein Herr zum Schlößli, Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär. How many new contributors, in your opinion, would withstand such "attention"? I'm not a "newb" in Wikipedia, though I have a sense of some prejudice (maybe, implicit). --Tamtam90 (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An inspection of the edit history of 3 of these 4 articles shows that my edits were substantial improvements; I never touched the 4th, "Wiegenlied" (Des Knaben Wunderhorn). All my edits are intended to collegially improve Wikipedia; I don't think I've ever been accused of prejudice or harassment, and I reject that characterisation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, three. Yes, and certain your improvements made some admins from Wikipedia and Wikisource to intervene, to solve the previous conflict (1, 2) --Tamtam90 (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place to settle the underlying content disputes, and I was going to confine my comments to the relevant article talk pages, but I have looked at the articles in question, and I want to weigh in briefly in support of Michael Bednarek, who was right to point out the problems with the "translations" that the OP added to these articles. Some of them are pretty dreadful, to be honest, and they reveal a shaky understanding of both German and English. In the OP's version of Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär, to give just one example, the third stanza bears no relationship to the meaning of the German original and is only barely intelligible in English, and putting it into a different column and labeling it "poetic" doesn't change that. There are two questions here: (1) Should the poems written by the OP and self-published on Wikisource be reproduced as written if they are quoted on Wikipedia; and (2) Should these poems, given their inaccuracies and other shortcomings, be cited or reproduced in Wikipedia articles as reliable translations of the original texts? The answer to the first question is yes, I think: if they are treated as "published" versions and provided with Wikisource citations, they should be probably be used unchanged (as pointed out above by Tinynanorobots). But the answer to the second question is, in my opinion, a firm no: if the OP will not allow the errors to be corrected, then his versions should not be used at all. The author is free to publish and promote his own poems wherever he likes, but he should not be inserting them into Wikipedia articles and fighting to retain them when other editors have pointed out that they misrepresent the original texts, and he should certainly not be dragging those editors to ANI on spurious charges of vandalism and disruptive editing. Crawdad Blues (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly agreed on both points. The translation of Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär turns a poem about someone who wishes they were a bird so that they could fly to their love but cannot, into a poem about someone who once was a bird and is now unable to vomit. Furius (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The last comment doesn't need any reply: I only hope its author had no chance to translate anything from medieval poetry. About the second question posed by Crawdad Blues: 1) What do you mean under the "errors"? If you mean the so-called "anachronisms" — that's quite normal, to translate them in a proper way. Note, that all (or almost all) songs of that collection have been recorded before 19-th century, and many of them belong to the folklore of the Middle Ages. If you mean "word for word" translation — that's impossible for "poetical translation" (you might ask any poet-translator). That's why one may add the third column, for "word for word" translation.--Tamtam90 (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To Michael Bednarek. You began publicly blame me for my "inaccuracies" and "anachronisms". But what about your own mistakes (assuming that your goal was "word-to-word" translation, not rhyme and metre)? In Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär, you translated:

    Bin ich gleich weit von dir, bin ich doch im Schlaf bei dir

    as

    Though I am far from you, I'm with you as I sleep

    instead of

    Whether I am far from you, Or I am near you while asleep

    ?

    viel tausendmal

    as

    a thousand times

    instead of

    many thousand times

    ?
    And once again about some possible "harassment": if your wish is only "to collegially improve Wikipedia", why, right after the first our conflict, you again started to hunt after some "mistakes" and "shortages" in the next article created by me, though other songs from the collection still wait their translators (I mean only existing articles and only from the German Wikipedia, compare with those from the sister project).--Tamtam90 (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since these translations are cited to Wikisource under the author's name, altering them without the use of [square brackets] is misquoting (violates WP:V) and might be a copyright issue.
    However, I also share Crawdad's and Furius's concerns about the accuracy of these translations. Of the two examples listed directly above as erroneous corrections, in the first case "Though I am far from you, I'm with you as I sleep" is in fact a more accurate translation, while in the second case I agree that "many thousand times" is more accurate.
    I've rewritten the first sample, trying to make it more exact. Compare with entweder... oder.... --Tamtam90 (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also a limit to how much leeway a poetic translation gets; translating "bleib ich allhier" as "I cannot heave"(?!) when the metrically and rhyme-wise equivalent "I cannot leave" is available is way outside those limits. But that's a content issue, not a conduct issue. Toadspike [Talk] 20:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the two salient points have been made clear: 1) if we are directly quoting a translation from Wikisource, then that quotation cannot be "improved" through editing here; 2) if that translation is perceived as being substandard, then there is no reason why we should be forced to use it - this is not a cite from the Authoritative Translations of German Poetry, but Some Random Dude's Private Effort (no offense).
    Hence, in the cases noted, if there is consensus that it does not do a good job, either remove the translation; provide a literal but more accurate new translation; or provide an altered version that is clearly labeled as being based on the Wikisource text. - In my opinion, parts of the translation are fine (e.g. the female rendering of winter is actually not an unsuitable touch, even if decidedly "poetical"), some rather less so (although "heave" is a typo for "leave" - right? right?). Fixing up those bits with the help of other contributors might provide good results. I hope Tamtam90 would be sensible enough to not fight tooth and claw against such an effort. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Elmidae, thanks for some support. Without an additional pronoun ('myself'), 'leave' would be a better choice. As for the gender, I already mentioned — that's not a "poetical whimsy": so depicted the Winter the Germans and their neighbours (the Slavs): 1, 2.--Tamtam90 (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The text itself uses masculine gender, so very clearly at the time the poem was written, they didn't, or at the very least the author did not intend that depiction. Whatever - this stuff is for discussion on the article talk page. What needs to be cleared up here is whether you are going to continue to obstruct all attempts to alter the translations according to consensus, because that is going to be a problem. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there is general agreement that decisions about the use of these translations should be discussed on the article talk pages, I will note here that I have removed the disputed translation from Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär, leaving in place the more literal version, which seems to me a better choice for an encyclopedia article. I've explained my reasoning on the talk page; other comments are welcome there. Crawdad Blues (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm already pointed at two wrong translations of my opponent. Instead, without any further discussion, you removed my "poetic" version and left his "text" (without proper rhyme and metre, though still with some mistakes). Is that a way of how-to-use talk pages in en-wikipedia? --Tamtam90 (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one here is your opponent. Though you are doing a good job demonstrating that you cannot work collaboratively with others. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the two "wrong translations" you point out above, the first is not wrong at all. (The adverb doch in the second clause shows that the construction is "although X, nevertheless Y"; your "whether ... or" translation is impossible.) Your second suggestion, however, has already been accepted and added to the article. Another editor saw your comment, agreed with it, and made the change. This is how collaborative editing works: sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you don't. I explained my reasons for removing your translation from Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär on the article talk page. If you can come up with a compelling argument why it should remain in the article, someone else will probably restore it. The place to do that is the talk page. Crawdad Blues (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from User:DarwIn

    [edit]

    User:DarwIn, a known transphobic editor from pt.wiki, is harassing me here after his actions led me to leave that wiki permanently. He has also harassed me on Wikimedia Commons. I don't know what to do anymore. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace. This is severely impacting my mental health. Skyshiftertalk 13:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't seem to have notified the other editor. This is mandatory and this section may be closed if you fail to do so. Use {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~ on that user's talk page. Additionally, you don't seem to have provided specific diffs demonstrating harassment. Please do so. --Yamla (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On pt.wiki, DarwIn proposed the deletion of articles I created about transgender topics (Thamirys Nunes and Minha Criança Trans), using transphobic arguments, including misgendering and questioning the validity of transgender children. After translating these articles to en.wiki, he is targeting the DYK nomination, again focusing on his personal transphobic beliefs - as it shows, he doesn't even know how DYK works. He insisted multiple times trying to include his transphobic comment on that page and has just edited it again. On Commons, for extra context, DarwIn unilaterally deleted images related to these articles, despite being clearly involved in the dispute.
    Again, I just want to collaborate with trans topics in peace. Skyshiftertalk 13:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't help you with pt.wikipedia.org or with commons, only with en.wikipedia.org. Please provide specific diffs for en.wikipedia.org. --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. However, context is important. This is harassment that began on pt.wiki, has spread to Commons, and is now here. The history has been provided, but, sure, I can provide the diffs instead. He has unilaterally edited the DYK page and put a "disagree", despite this being not how DYK works. This is because he really doesn't know, as he only sporadically edits here and only came back to harass me. His comment is explicitly transphobic and doesn't focus on the article itself at all. After his comment was reverted by me, he insisted saying that I shouldn't call it transphobia, despite it being transphobia. After being reverted again, he reincluded the comment. I asked him to stop harassing me, but he has edited the page again.
    I just don't want to be targeted by that editor here. I've left pt.wiki in great part for that reason. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace here. Skyshiftertalk 13:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like yet another cross-wiki troll by this user. Already blocked at the Portuguese Wikipédia and Wikimedia Commons, the account is now promoting their POV here, including spreading lies, hideous slurs and baseless accusations against me like "known transphobic", after two of their creations were taken to community evaluation at the Portuguese Wikipedia for lacking notability. The user is also a known sockpuppeter, with an open case for sockpuppetry at the Portuguese Wikipédia. In any case, I'm not interested in pursuing this case in yet another project apart from the strictly needed, so do as you please. Darwin Ahoy! 13:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been blocked on the Portuguese Wikipedia for contesting that transphobia was called "valid criticism" on ANI and on Commons for literally nothing. Skyshiftertalk 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Questioning a women that declared her 4 year old son as trangender after he refused to play with cars and Marvel puppets and preferred what his mother calls "girl stuff" doesn't fit in any reasonable definition of transphobia, a word which you are well known for abusing whenever anyone criticizes you at the Portuguese Wikipedia and elsewhere. In any case, I don't think this is the place for this discussion, so this will be my last direct answer to you you'll see in this board. Darwin Ahoy! 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And here's explicit transphobia. It's her daughter, no matter how much you hate the idea of trans children existing. The story you've told is also completely distorted. Skyshiftertalk 13:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I simply don't want this editor targeting me with transphobic stuff here after he target me on pt.wiki (and left it permanently in great part for that reason) and Commons. I am considering taking medication because of these events. Skyshiftertalk 13:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I would suggest Darwin review MOS:GENDERID. If the child uses she/her pronouns we should not be referring to her with he/him pronouns. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Simonm223 I would suggest you to recall we ate talking about a 4 year child whose social gender was chosen by their mother after the child refused to play with what she calls "boy toys", such as toy cars and Marvel puppets. If that's not enough that this kind of gender prejudice was already abhorrent and condemned even in the generation of my babyboomer parents, one of the first things we teached as LGBT activists in the 1990s was that our parents don't own us nor our sexuality or our gender. So please let's refrain from doing that kind of suggestions when what is in question is the gender identity of a 4 year old attributed by their mother. Ok? Darwin Ahoy! 15:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @DarwIn, the bottom line is that you don't get to question that. As a complete stranger to that child you have no right to do so, plus this is not the place to even enter into that discussion. How does complete strangers on the internet talking about a child's gender do them any good? This isn't the place anyway so please just follow guidelines, which have been put in place for a good reason. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I questioned the mother, not the child. I've no idea why we are discussing this here, anyway. Darwin Ahoy! 15:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        We're here because this "questioning" appears to be bleeding into transphobic harassment. I would support an indef based on edits like this [1] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The story told above is completely distorted to fit the transphobic's narrative. Simon223, if you want to get the full story, read Thamirys Nunes' page or read its sources (with the help of a translator if needed). Skyshiftertalk 15:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I would like to suggest we follow MOS regardless of people's personal opinion of early childhood gender expression. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Rephrase that as mothers opinions on their 4 year old baby gender expression. Darwin Ahoy! 15:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Darwin - I suggest you drop whatever agenda you have, treat other editors with respect, and comply with our MOS (including MOS:GENDERID) - otherwise you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 15:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, if in this Wikipedia the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Wikipedia community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so. Darwin Ahoy! 16:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Just so everyone knows, the facts are being quite distorted here. It wasn't really an imposition — her daughter, did not want to play with "boy toys", even when being forced by her mom. That's why the mom said she plays with "girl toys" and everything else. The references on said articles weren't thoroughly read, apparently by everybody here.
        Adding to this too: DarwIn, in some edits to the article in the Portuguese Wikipedia, added "quotes" on the word trans and some other parts of the articly, as if was his duty to judge if the girl is trans or not. Anyways, I think what happened in ptwiki stays there.
        And I want to make clear that I'm only stating the things that happened so everyone knows. I do not support blocking him. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Four year olds are generally not considered babies. You really need to drop this - and probably to avoid editing in the WP:GENSEX area.Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I would suggest a topic ban is imposed. GiantSnowman 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I would support a topic ban from WP:GENSEX. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Given that much of what they've been saying is about living people I think we would need to expand this to at least cover all other BLPs until such a time as they have demonstrated that they actually understand that the BLP policy applies to non-article spaces on wiki as well as articles. Overall this seems more like NOTHERE than something which a topic ban can remedy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Topic ban from GENSEX and BLP, broadly construed, is fine for me. GiantSnowman 16:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I do understand this Wikipedia rules on BLP. Isn't that not enough for you? Darwin Ahoy! 16:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Given your comments here and at DYK, you clearly do not. GiantSnowman 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to have missed the part when I very clearly stated there that I retired myself from that DYN debate. Darwin Ahoy! 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @GiantSnowman nice try, but I don't edit on that topic, anyway. Let's calm down and enjoy the Christmas season. Darwin Ahoy! 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        This is the opposite of the attitude you need to adopt if you want to remain an editor in good standing. Remeber if you didn't edit on that topic we wouldn't be having this discussion, we're here because of edits you made in that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Then get your facts right, as I never edited any biography on that topic here, at least that I can recall. Darwin Ahoy! 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        You fundementally misunderstand the scope of WP:BLP and the concept of topic area as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Look, I'm at a family gathering and I really have nor time nor patience for this kind of endless debates, specially on culture wars topics. I've already retired from DYN yesterday but you seem to insist on pursuing this kind of Salem witch hunting here, but really, I'll not be anymore part of that. Roger and over, happy new year. Darwin Ahoy! 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you may be getting different editors confused, I was not a participant at DYN. I did not pursue you to here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        it was a collective you. Darwin Ahoy! 16:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The collective you did not pursue you here either. Only the OP appears to cross over. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I noticed this yesterday but intentionally didn't mention it since I felt there had already been enough nonsense. But since DarwIn is still defending their offensive comments below, I'd note that the child was 4 years old in 2019. It's now 2024 and they've evidentally seen a medical professional. If at any time they express a desire for a different gender identity we will of course respect that whatever her mother says; but at this time BLP full supports respecting a 8-9 year old and not treating her as a baby. Nil Einne (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        None of this is relevant. We follow sources and MOS:GENDERID. There is obviously no Wikipedia position on when someone is or is not a "baby" and should have their self-identification reproduced in their biography. Zanahary 12:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They cannot be trusted. Above they said "I'm retiring myself from this topic" and yet has continued to post. GiantSnowman 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've continued to post where? Darwin Ahoy! 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already walked away from it yesterday, why you're insisting on that lie? Darwin Ahoy! 16:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are continuing to post here, ergo you have not "walked away" from it, have you? GiantSnowman 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DarwIn The issue here is not whether you are right or wrong. The issue here is that you are violating a community guideline. That's it. Either you stop or you will end up getting blocked. I have my own disagreements with that guideline, and as a consequence I simply stay far away from those articles or discussions. You should too. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How can I get out of this endless cycle, if each time you ask me to stop and I say I already stopped yesterday, you came back chastising me for having answered again? That's not fair. Darwin Ahoy! 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply post a note at the bottom of the discussion stating that given your respectful disagreement with parts of MOS:GENDERID that you will voluntarily avoid any articles or discussions where that is, or may become, an issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which discussion are you talking about? Now I'm confused. Can't you be more clear? Darwin Ahoy! 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DarwIn This one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem I've already done it, but you keep writing below it, so it's not in the bottom anymore. Darwin Ahoy! 17:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DarwIn Easiest way to defuse this is to post a bolded and outdented statement at the very bottom of the this discussion stating you understand MOSGENDERID and will avoid pages or discussions where it may become an issue, and that you will avoid as far as possible, interacting with Skyshifter. If there are other issues here, I have no comment on those. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, here it goes again: "if in this Wikipedia the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Wikipedia community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so" Darwin Ahoy! 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not an appropriate statement, it has your bias/agenda throughout it. Very concerning. GiantSnowman 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe it may help too, if Darwin will promise to avoid interacting on main space with Skyshifter. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Not that I ever interacted with her there AFAIK, anyway. Darwin Ahoy! 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Darwin should avoid interacting with Skyshifter on all spaces on en.wikipedia.org. It's clear Darwin has made Skyshifter feel uncomfortable, and I don't appreciate it. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isaidnoway I absolutely agree with that, I'm not doing any sort of interaction with that account anymore. I'm still answering here because you keep mentioning me. Darwin Ahoy! 17:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you "absolutely agree", then I will take your comment here as acknowledging a voluntary one-way interaction ban, broadly construed, as in effect. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isaidnoway yes, that's correct. Darwin Ahoy! 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Would recommend that Darwin walk away from the general topic. This would avoid any need for topic bans. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarification
    • Hello @Nil Einne - and others. Please recall that my opinion was specifically over the declaration of the child gender by her mother at or before her 4th birthday, by her mother own account based on classical gender stereotypes. It's specifically about that. I've no way to know what gender the child is or will eventually be in the future, and gladly accept whatever she chooses - as I would if she was my own child. I've eventually been harsher than needed in the DYK comment because that specific situation where a minor is extensively exposed with full name, photographs, etc. by her parents on social networks, newspapers and whatelse is generally condemned in my country, to the point of eventually configuring a crime here. Obviously Wikipedia has nothing to do with that when it comes to the spread of information, but in my view - obviously wrong, from the general reaction here - exposing the child in yet another place, let alone wiki.en main page, was a bit too much.
    • As for misgendering, I am one of the founders and former board member of ILGA Portugal, which after 30 years still is the main LGBT association in Portugal, though not an active member for many years for moving away from Lisbon, where it's headquartered. For more than 30 years I've been on the fight against homophobia and transphobia, not specially in Wikipedia, but on the streets, where it was needed in the 1990s here in Portugal, when the whole LGBT thing was just starting and most people couldn't even tell the difference between a drag queen and a trangender woman. I was beaten up, lost my 2 front teeth on homo/transphobic street fights (the first one at 18 years old, for publicly defending from booers in the audience a trangender girl which was acting at a local bar )- and whatelse. I never had even the least impulse to misgender any of the many trangender people that always have been around me, and the few situations where that may have happened were online with people that I knew for years as being one gender, and took a while to sink they are another, because online there's not the ever helping visual clue. So it's kind of disheartening to be treated like this in a strange place by people I don't know just because I expressed an (harsh, agreed) opinion defending the age of consent for children, and condemning their parents interference on that.
    • The TBan is not very relevant for me, as I seldom edit here and despite the activism of my past days LGBT is not my primary interest on Wikipedia, but I'm considerably saddened by the misunderstandings, bad faith assumptions, false accusations that have been told here about me, though eventually the flaw is not in the whole group that has their own rules and culture, but in the newcomer which don't understand it well in all its nuances, as was my case here.
    • Finally, as the misunderstandings continue, I never came here after Skyshifter, which as is public and she knows, I've always considered a good editor and helped several times with articles and what else (which is also why I felt confident to answer with a 😘 when she called me a dictator in another project, though it was obviously not the most appropriate way to answer it, and for which I apologize to Skyshifter). In this last row I wasn't even directly involved in her indefinite block in wiki.pt, despite being mentioned there. I didn't even touched the articles she created here on Thamirys Nunes and Minha Criança Trans or addressed she here in any way. I came here because of the DYK note, which, as said above, I thought was an exaggerated exposition for that case here on the English Wikipedia. As you extensively demonstrated here, it is not, and I defer to your appreciation. Despite that, after this whole situation I've not the least interest on interacting in any possible way with Skyshifter, with or without IBan.
    • And that's it. Hopefully you'll excuse my verbosity, specially in such a festive day, but I felt this last clarification was needed. I also present my apologies to all those who may have felt offended by an eventual appearance of cockiness or defiance which I inadvertently sometimes transmit in my speech. I'll return here if specifically asked to, otherwise I'll leave the debate for this community. Again, stay well, and have an happy new year. Darwin Ahoy! 17:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed Community Sanctions

    [edit]

    I offered DarwIn an off ramp above and their response was to reiterate their views on a highly controversial subject and their responses to concerns about their interactions with Skyshifter have been entirely unsatisfactory. This looks a like a pretty clear case of IDHT revolving around their strong disagreement with one of our guidelines. Frankly, I came very close to just blocking them after their response to my suggestion. This discussion has already dragged on long enough. For purposes of clarity, nobody is required to agree with all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And yes, gender is a highly controversial subject. I have my own disagreements with parts of MOS:GENDERID. But as the old saying goes, themz the rules until they aint. Editors are free to disagree with community P&G, but are not free to ignore or flout them. It's time to settle this.

    Proposed DarwIn is topic banned from all pages and discussions relating to WP:GENSEX broadly construed and is subject to a one way IBan with user Skyshifter, also broadly construed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why it should be a one-way iban? Skyshifter started this topic with the characterization of their opponent as "a known transphobic editor". A normal editor would be blocked just for writing this. I am not sure a iban is needed, but if it is needed it must be mutual. Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's actually a fair point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be more compelling if DarwIn weren't so committed to misgendering a child out of some apparent WP:RGW impulse. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223 You have been misjudging me - It was quite the opposite, actually, if it's worth anything. Darwin Ahoy! 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The child, according to the reliable sources I have seen, uses she/her pronouns. Your changing your comments from he/him to they/them does not bring even that one comment in line with our MOS. I am not interested in whether you, in your heart of hearts, are a transphobe. I am concerned that your editing in the WP:GENSEX area is disruptive in a way that will likely make trans editors less comfortable working in the en.wiki project. As a result I think you should avoid editing in that topic area. Furthermore I think you should leave Skyshifter alone as you have not provided a satisfactory explanation for your participation in the DYK thread. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223 OK, I didn't knew the child used those pronouns when she was 4 years old, I commit to use them here if I would ever talk about that issue again (which I definitely will not, anyway). Darwin Ahoy! 20:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If they weren't before they are now... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, to be clear, I oppose a one-way IB. I do not find this argument convincing. Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Zanahary 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: days ago? I think you might have misread the time stamps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the TBAN; personally I'd have indeffed several outdents sooner, but here we are. No opinion on the IBAN. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Given what's happened, I think an enforceable topic ban is better than Darwin stepping away. IMO the BLP issues is far more concerning than gensex one so I'd support a BLP topic ban as well, but it seems likely a gensex one would be enough to stop Darwin feeling the continued need to express their opinions on a living person. Since Darwin is going to step away anyway and barely edits en, it should be a moot point and if it's not that's why it's enforceable. As for the iban, while I don't think Skyshifter should have described Darwin in that way when opening this thread, I think we can accept it as a one time mistake under the stress of apparently being followed and given questionable way Darwin ended up in a dispute here with someone they'd had problems with elsewhere I think a one-way iban is justified. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nil Einne What " continued need to express their opinions on a living person"? My single-1-single comment in the DYK? Darwin Ahoy! 23:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @DarwIn: Demonstrating the problem. You claim you only did it once elsewhere but anyone reading this thread can see you did it here so many times #c-DarwIn-20241229133200-Skyshifter-20241229132800, #c-DarwIn-20241229152900-Simonm223-20241229150600, #c-DarwIn-20241229154200-Blue-Sonnet-20241229154000, #c-DarwIn-20241229154100-Simonm223-20241229153800, #c-DarwIn-20241229160700-GiantSnowman-20241229154400, #c-DarwIn-20241229172200-Ad_Orientem-20241229171800. I think it represents maybe 1/3 of your comments here (whether counting comments or text). There is absolutely no reason for you to go around expressing your opinions on two different living persons to say you're going to walk away. And if you need to express your opinion on living persons to defend your actions, you clearly have no defence. Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So let's get this straight. You are proposing a topic ban on me because of the personal opinions on (the eventual lack of) selfdetermination of 4 year old children that I expressed here in this board, despite that my editions related to it were limited to a 1-single-1 comment on that issue on the DYK page? This is really looking like thought police. I tell you, my personal positions are my personal positions, and I'll not change them to please you, even if if costs me a Topic Ban for barely mentioned them on this project a single time before this topic was opened here. Darwin Ahoy! 00:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Holding an opinion ≠ expressing an opinion. Only one of these is causing an issue. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I expressed it only 1-one-1 time here almost 1 day before being recalled here to explain it, and after voluntarily saying in the same page that I would not express it again there. Now I'm being punished for explaining it here too, after being requested to do that? This is insufferable. Darwin Ahoy! 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      User:DarwIn, I think at this point, further comments from you will not be helping your case. If this is insufferable (and being summoned to ANI generally is), it might help to step back from this discussion and only respond if editors ask you specific questions. When discussions get this long, often the small benefit from continuing to comment does not outweigh the cost of continued misunderstanding among editors. Liz Read! Talk!
      @Liz: Thank you for the wise advice, I'll be doing that. Darwin Ahoy! 03:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @DarwIn: you can think whatever you like about living persons. I have a lot of views on living persons which I would never, ever express on wiki for various reasons including BLP. Also you defence is bullshit. No one ever asked you to make accusations around living persons to defend your actions. And yes it is fairly normal that editors may be sanctioned if they feel they need to do such things about living persons on ANI as part of some silly argument or defence. I recall an editor who was temporarily blocked after they felt the need to say two very very famous extremely public figure living persons (and some non living) were sex predators to prove some point at ANI. And I'm fairly sure a lot of people have said and feel those people are sex predators including some Wikipedians I'd even probably agree in at least one case, they just understand it's not something they should be expressing here. Nil Einne (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For clarity, what I mean by my last sentence is that I'm sure quite a few people would agree with the statements. I'm sure such statements have been made elsewhere probably even in opinions printed in reliable sources (I think the editor did link to some such opinions). I'm sure even quite a few Wikipedians would agree that one or more of these people are sex predators, I think I'd even agree with it in at least one case. However most of us understand that our personal views of living persons, especially highly negatives views are generally not something to be expressed on wiki except when for some reason it's important enough to the discussion that it's reasonable to say it. When you keep saying something and in the same paragraph acknowledge the English wikipedia doesn't consider your opinion relevant, then it's clear there was no reason for you to say it. You're still free to believe it just as I'm still free to believe all those things about living persons that I would never express on wiki. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Darwin's replies and conduct here indicates that he simply doesn't get it.
    MiasmaEternal 02:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This reasoning looks like a case of punishing somebody for political and cultural views rather than behaviour.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Followung editors from wiki to wiki because of transphobic beliefs is disruptive, and creepy. A boy named sue is a transphobic song by the way. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear. Do you think I should have a siteban, or would a TBAN suffice?--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I was named after a joke about misgendering people, I'd avoid defending crosswiki culture warriors worried about misgendering people. You may just really be into Shel Silverstein. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "A Boy Named Sue", made famous by Johnny Cash sixty years ago [5], is a transphobic "joke about misgendering people"??? Oh my god, some people need to get out in the real world more. EEng 23:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your valuable input. As always, you have advanced the conversation in a helpful way EEng. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to thank me. It's just part of the service. EEng 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK boomer. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you certainly put me in my place with that one. EEng 21:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. Speaking up for the witch is a sign I too might be a witch. I'll try to be more careful in future.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Misgendering BLPs is disruptive. A Johnny Cash related username is not. Suggest the IP WP:DROPTHESTICK - while we may disagree with Boynamedsue regarding their interpretation here they have done nothing wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It's stopping a disruptive editor from continuing to edit disruptively. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) NQP is an essay. Essentially it's an op-ed piece. It does not carry any force in the realm of WP:PG, and the views expressed there are controversial. (See the essay's talk page.). IMO words with some variation on "phobe/phobic" &c. are being routinely weaponized by people on one side of hot button cultural/political debates as part of an effort to demonize those on the other side of these debates. As such, I am inclined to view the use of such terms as a specie of WP:NPA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    fair enough, i'll remove my vote for TBAN.
    sidenote, I have no qualms with labeling a behavior as queerphobia. I don't think calling out discrimination or disruptive attitudes is inherently a vio of NPA. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ... I am indecisive.. I'll add weak support for TBAN, I still think the topic area should not have folks who are disruptive like this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pervasively misgendering a child based on the belief that a child cannot express a desire to transition is a form of transphobic behavior. If it was a similar comment made about a BLP on the basis of religion or skin colour there would be no mention of WP:NPA. Wikipedia is generally good about handling racism. It is a perpetual stain upon the reputation of Wikipedia that it's culture continues to worry more about the feelings of people who take transphobic actions than of the victims of the same. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC). Edited to include edit conflict comment. CNC (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    I am assuming you haven't spent much time in places WP:FTN where religious belief and persons of faith are not infrequently and quite openly subject to ridicule. Racism is a subject upon which society has happily come to more or less full agreement. Gender remains an extremely controversial subject with one side regularly resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other. I shall refrain from further comment out of deference to WP:FORUM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fringe ideas get ridiculed at FTN regardless of whether or not they are religious... That so many fringe views are also religious is more a result of the supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual being inherently fringe than any problem with FTN. Religion which is rational and explainable isn't religion any more after all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for affirming my point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point was that "Gender remains an extremely controversial subject with one side regularly resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other." Right? Like for example the LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory or is that not the side you were thinking of? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I was thinking of people who regularly insult and ridicule religious belief and those who hold to it. Something which based on your comment, does not seem to be a source of concern to you. That said, this discussion is veering deep into WP:FORUM territory and I am going to move on. Have a good day. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I've ever seen any of those people suggest that trans people are demons, or did you mean demonize in a way other than literally saying that the other side is demonic/satan's minions? Becuase that would be highly ironic... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am reaching the uncomfortable conclusion that you are attempting to be deliberately offensive. And for the record, you are succeeding. Good day. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You weren't aware that a cornerstone of the gender controversy was religious conservatives resorting to argumentum ad hominem in efforts to demonize and de-legitimize the views of the other? Because that is well documented in reliable sources. I don't think you're the one who is supposed to be offended here, you're the one saying what appear to be extremely offensive things and are being asked to clarify what you meant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I think a significant point here is that while we may tolerate some degree of forumish and offensive comment about gender or race or religions from editors when they are restricted to largely abstract comment or even when they reference other editors, it's far more of a problem when the editors make offensive accusations about living persons especially when these are completely unrelated to any discussion about how to cover something (noting that the editor continued to make the comment even after they had noted how the English wikipedia treats issues). So for example, if someone says a specific religious figure is delusion or lying in relation to how we treat their testimony that might barely be acceptable. When someone just comes out and says it repeatedly for no reason, that's far more of a problem. Especially if the figure is someone barely notable and not notable (as was the case here for one of the individuals each). Nil Einne (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is affairs of other wikis. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Comment This is definitely not the ideal place to discuss the subject since the whole problem originated with pt.wiki, but since the editor came here asking for help (for the right reasons or not), I will draw attention to the case of the admin accused of transphobia. This is not the first time that DarwIn has been singled out due to his comments on the subject (he has already given several examples of this here), but there is an official pt.wiki community on Telegram where the editor has already been criticized for making such comments. There, they were also celebrating Skyshifter's ban (DarwIn commented something like "as a man he was 100%, after transitioning he became unbearable" to refer to her). As much as they try not to link the group to the project, to use this chat you need to associate your Wikipedia credentials, so I am concerned that pt.wiki admins could be seen spreading speeches against minorities in an official space of the project, since Wikipedia is the target of attacks for investing in equity and diversity. In addition to this comment, the admin was also extremely rude and crude towards a Wikipedia research group that discusses gender, sexuality and race.
    Again, this is not the ideal place to comment on these issues, but I suggest that the case be submitted to Wikimedia if any intervention or something more incisive is necessary. The local community can accuse me of anything for writing these words, but I am concerned about the escalation of editorial harassment within that space.
    PS: The editor was mocking this discussion in the Telegram group while I was writing this. Jardel (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Came back after a month with no edits for this? It's quite clear Jardel is taking something personal with DarwIn here. Or he doesn't have anything to do at the moment. And he didn't have such great writing and narrative in his mother tongue, now is writing perfect, well written English. That gets stranger considering he's partially blocked in ptwiki for some beefing with other editors (block discussion in portuguese)... Quite strange, to say the least. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 03:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes, by "quite strange" I am talking about maybe meatpuppetry. Nobody comes after a month without edits (that was preeceded by some other months before some 5-ish edits), to make an "accusation" based on unfounded arguments, especially after being blocked precisely for beefing and attacking other members of the community in his homewiki. Such a hypocrisy, a user banned for beefing accusating another user of attacks and using the word "transphobia" so vaguely. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 03:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I expected, the group participants started making accusations against me (that's why Eduardo G. appeared in this discussion) and wanted to insinuate that Skyshifter is writing this text, perhaps wanting to provoke some kind of retaliation later. First, I appreciate the compliments on my writing, which was 100% done by Google Translate; I think Google's engineering is to be congratulated. Second, I'm only here on this page because I noticed the links to this discussion in the Telegram group itself and decided to contribute with what I've been reading for a long time with great disgust. I didn't need to bring much, Darwin himself made a point of making abject comments in this discussion, but if you want, I can bring some screenshots of what they were talking about in the group. Third, I did go 1 month without editing here because my focus is not on en.wiki but on pt.wiki, where I make regular edits. I find it strange that you entered this discussion without refuting any of the arguments above, thinking that bringing up my tarnished "reputation" changes everything that was written by me or in the group. I believe it must be embarrassing to participate in a group where they are celebrating the sanctions that Skyshifter will suffer (thinking that place is a "private club") while at the same time you send cordial greetings from the "public side" to the same editor, simulating virtue. In any case, my goal here is only to reinforce that there is indeed materiality in what Skyshifter said with more evidence and once again I recommend that the discussion be evaluated by the Wikimedia team knowing that attitudes that demonstrate prejudice against minorities go against the project's investments in equity, diversity and equality. Jardel (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not pursue any retaliation. I'm just stating what I know of this case, and I even supported Sky when the edits were being made. People are celebrating because all of this discussion was brought to even another wiki by her. But I understand you might've written this text, and will not take the subject further. If anybody needs anything, please read the message below. Cheers. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 03:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I don't disagree with your argument about the sanctions she's passing on the other project, unfortunately. As for "not pursue any retaliation", I don't think that's what you mean by the phrase "4 successful DBs [user blocking discussions] in a row is not for everyone." directed at me. Jardel (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jardel You're wrong, twice. First, it wasn't me saying that. It was NCC-1701, and my user in TG is Edu. And at no point did I agree with NCC's messages. And secondly, the "four DBs in a row" wasn't in anyway directed at you. It was directed to Bageense, who opened 4 block discussions in the last 2 or 3 days and all of them were successfull. You are distorting the messages to condone your erroneous narrative. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 04:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if I am "distorting messages" to "tolerate" my narrative, anyone who wants to evaluate can join the group and read the messages posted there or see the pt.wiki discussion against the Projeto Mais Teoria da História na Wiki and talk to its members to see what their opinion is on the matter. I may not be a perfect person, but what I see with great displeasure (coming from those who are "in charge of the gears") is not positive for the project. Jardel (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Joining the group the community would then have no doubts about your intents and distortion of facts. You didn't deny the two things I said above — you know I'm right, you can't bend the facts this much. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 04:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As a ptwiki user that know what's happening but talked to both sides of the discussion throughout it: This whole discussion started as a beef between Skyshifter and DarwIn. Skyshifter didn't accept some changes DarwIn made to an article "of her" (quotes because articles doesn't have owners. I respect her pronouns), and when discussing with DarwIn, called the whole Portuguese Wikipedia project a sewage (here)/in her UP, thus being banned and the ban being endorsed on the block discussion (in portuguese). The discussion was based on the references for the article, was solved in the ptwiki with an outburst from Sky, and that was it.

    This whole problem was brought here for a single reason only: Beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn. A single change or a single opinion on a DYK shouldn't be reason for a TB or IBAN anywhere in the world, especially considering that it was a difference interpreting the references. I know that my statement won't change anything, as there is an apparent "consensus" on TBanning and IBANning him, though I wanted to make things clear for everyone.

    I am totally open for questioning regarding any of my statements above, and I will supply you with any proof I have and you need. Just ping me here and if the inquiry/proofs are extremely important, please leave me a message on my portuguese talk page (direct url). It can be in English, just for me to see you need me here. Cheers. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 03:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    JardelW is a user who was banned from the Portuguese Wikipedia due to his detestable behavior. This individual used the same Telegram group that he is now criticizing. The editor was banned from this group due to his behavior, in which he called respected users of the community "worms, scoundrels, trash and deniers". And DarwIn is one of the administrators of the group where he is banned, so you can already imagine why he is here. Now, once again he is trying to destabilize the community by defending an editor who called the entire project a sewer and made unproven accusations against an administrator. At this point, the account is practically banned and the article that caused the discord has its deletion or merge defended by several editors. By coming here, JardelW and Skyshifter are, in a way, stating that the entire community is prejudiced. Yet another offense enters the list as proof of Jardel's destabilizing behavior. Furthermore, this user already tried to carry out the same destabilization by contesting on meta the banning of IPs, a consensual decision among hundreds of editors. And when he was still blocked, went to Meta-Wiki in an attempt to intervene in the Wikipedia domain, where he is banned, simply because he did not agree with the deletion of an article. And this without presenting any evidence. It is clear that Jardel's objective here is to take revenge on the community, and he will be punished for it. InvictumAlways (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It is pretty clear thay the intents of Jardel here are disruptive. Your comment hopefully leaves no doubt to the community. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 04:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, I am not a perfect person. I may have used foul language to address some editors in a moment of anger, but I felt vulnerable and hurt by editors I held in high regard, and I apologize for what I wrote in the past. Likewise, I do not think it is right that a social channel that is reported as "linked to Wikipedia" is being used as a bar where people can say whatever they want, especially when it comes to prejudiced comments against minorities. At no time did I label all of them, only one of them demonstrated that she was doing so. If I happen to receive any sanction for this discussion, and knowing that bringing issues from pt.wiki here is not ideal, I will receive it for doing the right thing, because I want something to change for the better in a project that I have dedicated so much time to contributing to. I may be prevented from editing on Wikipedia, but if what I bring here helps to change something, I will be happy. Jardel (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    InvictumAlways - this is your second edit ever, and your account was just created today - how did you get to this ANI post? jellyfish  05:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw a discussion in the group and created the account to not appear as an IP. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jardel The objective of the channel is to be a more relaxed place. And it's not official, as you said yourself previously. Angry moment? Are you sorry? After your block, you attacked editors on a social network, as attested by a CheckUser: [6]. And there are no prejudiced comments. That's a lie. Where are the links? And how much time have you devoted to the project when all you do is attack others? Enough of this nonsense. I ask that an administrator evaluate the conduct of this account. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realize the discussion was closed. Sorry. InvictumAlways (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Supporting both IBAN and TBAN. Someone who actively believes in misgendering should not be allowed into this area when they have already demonstrably made another editor uncomfortable. The snarky reply to GiantSnowman does not convince me they would respond well if another editor brought up a similar concern in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't we give this child and her mother some privacy? What is it about gender issues, as opposed to other medical or developmental issues, that seems to give everyone a right to comment? Let's just report what reliable sources say and leave it at that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the mother had wanted privacy for her child, writing a book which makes it possible to identify her and know intimate details of her biology for the rest of her life, while documenting her transition step by step for hundreds of thousands of instagram followers, seem strange choices. I don't feel there are any privacy concerns here, that horse has long bolted, and we had nothing to do with opening the door.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP requires we take great care what we say about living persons regardless of the wisdom of their decisions. This is hardly the first time it's come up where both in articles and in discussions we've required editors obey BLP even if there is a lot of nonsense out there which arises in part from decisions subjects have made. Editors can do that stuff on Reddit or 4chan or wherever they want without such requirements. If editors cannot follow our BLP requirements, they need to stop editing either voluntarily or involuntarily. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think BLP covers things that the subject puts into the public domain about themselves or, when we are talking about talkpages, personal opinions on the morality of things they reveal about themselves.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    talkpages def are covered by BLP as per the policy page.and the policy gives wide latitude about what the subject may have redacted if they object to info, even if they had previously or somehow otherwise placed that info in public domain.
    concerns about privacy have to weigh against dueness but arguing the book gives dueness to try to be internet sleuths and discover and identify a child is probs not gonna pass the smell test.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The woman's book names the child, and photos of her are regularly published by the mother on instagram. There is an interview with the mother in Brazilian Marie Claire giving the child's full name and photos. I would suggest not much "internet sleuthing" is required here. Wikipedia, and I include Darwin in this, has (rightly) much more concern for her daughter's privacy than she does.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The mother may have decided to publicise things, but the child certainly hasn't. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Children cannot consent, their parents can. (CC) Tbhotch 21:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would totally agree, but that is irrelevant here, nothing Darwin did was related to revealing the child's identity. He criticised the mother in strong terms on talkpages and this is what the BLP argument comes down to.--Boynamedsue (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN, no comment on IBAN. This is blatant POV harassment. (CC) Tbhotch 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Editors in this topic area can and often do disagree on the underlying issues, which often helpfully ensures that all such material on Wikipedia follows our policies and guidelines. However, the responses to Ad Orientem's request and various replies above shows that the proposed remedies would be appropriate given the BLP issues in play here.-- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sanctions I’m sorry if I’m interfering in something I’m not involved with, but I’ve been watching this discussion and I think it’s needlessly toxic. What I’m seeing is a misunderstanding of some inappropriate WP:OR on a hot-button issue sparking a dispute that turned into “DarwIn is a transphobic bully” which I don’t think is true. I think the two main parties should simply avoid each other voluntarily and the situation will quickly de-escalate. Dronebogus (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Skyshifter taking matters from another Wikipedia to seek revenge.

    [edit]
    100% affairs of other wikis. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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


    On the 29th of December, User:Skyshifter started an AN/I based on a claim that User:DarwIn, a sysop at ptwiki, was cross-wiki harrassing her. To make up those claims, she used as a single proof, of him editing on a DYK nomination here. AFAIK, DYK nominations are open for debate.

    She accused him of transphobia, a very harsh word, over some 5 edits on the same page, and all the other arguments in her accusation were from the ptwiki with absolutely no relation to the English Wikipedia, and she tried to "force" that it was a cross-wiki harrassment, when it wasn't. The sole reason for that AN/I is a beef from Skyshifter with DarwIn.

    But all of this happened only, and just because of her banishment for the portuguese wiki. She is the cross-wiki harrasser in this situation, as she came to a project where DarwIn hasn't got nearly as many edits as his home-wiki and most of his edits are on discussions or category/commons related, to try blocking him and thus tarnish his block log.

    This is all for revenge of some articles that are being debated and will be either deleted or merged with other articles, and especially over her permanent block on the Portuguese Wikipedia, after calling the whole platform a sewage (here and in her UP), casting aspersions over other users and using ducks and meatpuppets to revert back the articles (one of her meats is currently being blocked from ptwiki too, see it here, with all the proofs). The block discussion taking place at the moment has 10 administrator votes in favour of the block, and absolutely no contrary opinion whatsoever.

    Despite some not-so-good arguments from DarwIn in the AN/I above, it is more than clear that the reason for the opening of the said AN/I was personal and for revenge. I'm open to any questions regarding this topic, as there is plenty of evidence to sustain my claims. All of this that she's doing would clearly fall under pt:WP:NDD, here called WP:ASPERSIONS I think, and disruptive editing/WP:POINT, and in the AN/I above she's commiting WP:BLUDGEON, repeating the eye-catching word "transphobia" over and over, without sustaining her argument accordingly, seeking to block a sysop at other 3 projects and rollbacker here, with the sole objective of tarnishing his block log, just for revenge and self-fullfillment.

    Eduardo G.msg-contrib 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Eduardo Gottert: You need to provide evidence when opening an ANI thread, not on request. Nil Einne (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    '@Nil Einne The evidences are above. I said if you need any further evidence, you may ask. All of the necessary evidence are on the request. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 06:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where's the evidence? What we know is that DarwIn came here despite little involvement and made a highly offensive statement that can reasonably be characterised as transphobic. While I don't feel Sky Shifter should have described it so, better to let others decide, it was entirely reasonable for Sky Shifter to call for action against DarwIn for it. What is your evidence that they did it for revenge instead of for the fact that after a disagreement with DarwIn in a different wiki, DarwIn suddenly appeared in this wiki, one they themselves agree they barely edit, to make a highly offensive statement that Sky Shifter reasonably felt was transphobic. After doing so, they then appeared on ANI to make similar highly offensive statements were they made offensive accusations against living based on their own opinion. Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, the argument is pretty clear above. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 06:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you agree you're wrong then please withdraw this ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not agree in any place that I am wrong. I just stated that the evidence is pretty clear above, with all the block discussions and diffs needed for understanding the problem. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 06:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your statement was very unclear. You said "the argument" which I interpreted to mean my argument. If you're still claiming your argument is clear, then please explain how it can be when part of your argument is it was unfair for Sky Shifter to go around saying "transphobia" when many of us agree that even if it was unnecessary, it was not unsupported given the comments DarwIn was making do seem to be transphobic. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As we were talking about my evidence, I think saying "the argument" clearly refer to me. And as to the reason for the opening of this ANI, it's because the revenge seeking of Skyshifter. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 06:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say it doesn't considering as I said, one of the reasons your argument was flawed, but you didn't address that in any way. Nothing you've said above or since has explained why you're claiming Sky Shifter using the word "transphobic" is evidence for "revenge" when it's a reasonable characterisation of what DarwIn said. Nil Einne (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I would add it's very unclear what you thinking you're adding that wasn't already considered above. In the above thread a 1 way iban on DarwIn seems to be getting serious consideration. A two way iban seems to have been rejected based on the assessment that whatever the wrongs with Sky Shifter's approach, it wasn't serious enough to warrant an iban. The fact that Sky Shifter was in a dispute with DarwIn on other wikis, and DarwIn was involved in their blocked is likewise not a secret, part of it was stated by Sky Shifter when opening the thread and the rest was stated by DarwIn. The sock allegation likewise. So what do you think you're adding to the discussion that wasn't already considered and seemingly rejected by the community above? Nil Einne (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is time for a WP:BOOMERANG. You already said all of that above. You seem to have been canvassed here from a discussion outside of this wiki. Go back there and let them know cross wiki harassment will get you blocked here. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added more evidence and context. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 06:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You simply cast aspersions as part of a cross wiki harassment campaign against someone over transgender related issues. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your statement doesn't even make sense. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 06:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can add WP:CIR to the reasons you are blocked then. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I? And where am I in violation of WP:CIR? Eduardo G.msg-contrib 06:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I used plain English and you said you couldn't comprehend it. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was pretty well determined in that prior ANI thread that DarwIn's edits and statements absolutely were transphobic and bigoted. SilverserenC 06:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason for the AN/I opens is still the same, revenge. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 06:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read many of the posts on the Portuguese wiki, and it is pretty clear that the Skyshifter's complaint above is a deliberate expansion of drama from there. The Portugese wiki is not Uganda, people do not get banned there for being Trans, and former admins don't get banned without causing a lot of disruption. It is clear these two users really strongly dislike each other and need to stop interacting in any way.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      People obviously doesn't get banned for being trans. She was sysop there, commited some errors, but stayed there even after 5 months of being on estrogen. And the community knew it. What caused her block there was calling the project a sewage and then outbreaking and attacking other users. I suggest they get a two-way IBAN, at least, not the one-way as proposed on the other AN/I. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 07:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add that unless I'm missing something, the block discussion on the Portugese Wikipedia [7] seems to have been started about 30 minutes before the ANI thread [8]. It has no contributions by DarwIn [9]. It is theoretically possible I guess it somehow factored into the motivation of Skyshifter opening the ANI thread, but this seems extremely unlikely. There's a good chance Skyshifter wasn't even aware of it when opening the thread. In other words, there's no reason to think Skyshifter was even aware they were likely going to be permanently blocked from pt at the time of opening the thread although they did say they weren't going to return. Nil Einne (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She opened an NI, ptwiki equivalent of AN/I against DarwIn with crazy arguments. You can see it here. It was prompty closed, and she was very well aware of the consequences she would face, and of the opening of the block discussion, and clearly opened the AN/I because of that reason. The block discussion started at 1130 UTC, and the AN/I was posted at 1300, at a time that Skyshifter had already taken notice of the discussion, as you can see here. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 07:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is very blatantly a tit-for-tat. As mentioned above there is the distinct smell of fishiness about it, and as she came to a project where DarwIn hasn't got nearly as many edits as his home-wiki and most of his edits are on discussions or category/commons related, to try blocking him and thus tarnish his block log - yes, the editor who has three FAs on en.wiki "came to this project" to do this. Suggest this be promptly closed as I hear a WP:BOOMERANG inbound. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not saying she isn't an avid used of English wiki. I just stated that she took ptwiki matters here for revenge and self-fullfillment. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 07:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If you aren't asking for any sanctions against Skyshifter, then why did you open this sub-section, just to sling some mud at her? Give it a rest already, you're just creating more drama than is necessary. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the background of this dispute is very relevant. Obviously, neither Skyshifter or Darwin should face any repercussions here for behaviour on pt.wiki, but it isn't possible to understand what is happening here without discussing what happened there. For me, having read what happened over there is the main reason I wouldn't yet TBAN Darwin, and would call for a two-way rather than one way interaction ban.--Boynamedsue (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Incivility in Jeju Air

    [edit]

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


    Westwind273 (talk · contribs) was gently told off in Talk:Jeju Air Flight 2216#Unneeded airports built in dangerous locations about not making WP:FORUM statements. Instead they WP:BATTLEGROUNDed with editors whom they engaged with in an extremely uncivil manner while making false accusations and engaging in WP:IDNHT. Amazingly following a warning by another user that they would be taken to ANI they started removing their comments without explanation and since then reverted. Regardless, I am posting this to ensure that they take the hint and to demand action, seeing that it is not the first air incident] they have been caught for such WP:NOTHERE behavior. Borgenland (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs: [10] [11] [12] Borgenland (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Update, user had been reverting their comments in talk without consent of other editors involved. Borgenland (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And left this uncivil note [13] on another Seefooddiet (talk · contribs)’s TP. Borgenland (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my user page even, not my talk page. Strange seefooddiet (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon my reflex. Borgenland (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I had the same reaction lol. I instinctually checked my tp and was surprised it was on my user page instead seefooddiet (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems they’re pretending you didn’t tell them off personally [14]. Borgenland (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And more WP:IDNHT after yet another warning on their own TP [15]. Borgenland (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the editor has been removing other peoples' comments' forom Talk:Jeju Air Flight 2216, and has been edit-warring four times to attempt to do so. I've given them an only warning. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A parting aspersion [16]. Borgenland (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And more [17]. Borgenland (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For more context, they've engaged in open insults to other people previously.
    [18][19] seefooddiet (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They deleted both these insults after making them to hide evidence. Consistent pattern. seefooddiet (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For context, there's a discussion on their conduct ongoing on User talk:Westwind273#December 2024. In it, they keep leveling an accusation at me, and deleting my response to the accusation. seefooddiet (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They made another WP:NPA. See [20]. Borgenland (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And doubled down with WP:IDNHT after being warned again: [21] [22] [23] [24]. Borgenland (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor has a significant problem with WP:GAME as well, specifically in regards to WP:NOTAFORUM. They profess to know of that, and are likely genuinely aware of it, but the following pattern of talk page comments gives me the impression that they are mostly interested in venting an opinion, with no article improvements suggested: [25] [26] (the one in question here) [27] [28]. These aren't the majority of their talk page comments but are a significant minority. It's only due to WP:AGF that we can assume they are related to improving the articles in question but had this user not had any other edits, these would be promptly removed per NOTAFORUM. This pattern of conduct is problematic because it hinders others' abilities to engage in the threads, especially combined with their unwarranted blaming of others for not magically discerning their intentions, as happened in this incident.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Westwind273 does show a consistent pattern of WP:ABF. I asked them to clarify how these were relevant to the discussion and they demanded to know why I was attacking them. I don't know if administrator action is fully warranted but a 24 hour touch-grass break is probably a good idea in my opinion. guninvalid (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In all honesty, I am surprised that an 18-year old account shows WP:NOTHERE behavior I'd expect to encounter otherwise in newbie accounts. Borgenland (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They've effectively said they're ok with being banned. [29][30]. Honestly given the lack of remorse over the behavior and continual lack of understanding of why it was poor, despite numerous people all explaining it over and over, I'd argue some kind of block would be helpful. I'd argue it's a WP:NOTHERE situation; despite their claims of just trying to be a good editor, they keep disruptively engaging with others to the point that it's needlessly distracting, and refuse to modify their behavior when asked to. seefooddiet (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I nearly forgot but could this be a Tyhaliburton sock? I am starting to recall both of them making uncivil and condescending statements. Borgenland (talk) 09:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Block this account indef as NOTHERE 2603:8080:D03:89D4:90C8:7FFC:E377:47B8 (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reported User:Westwind273 to AIV as NOTHERE 2603:8080:D03:89D4:90C8:7FFC:E377:47B8 (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Borgenland: Doubtful, as the user's history stems all the way back to 2006. --MuZemike 17:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've issued a WP:PBLOCK from the accident article and its talk page. This is without prejudice to any other admin taking further action against this editor. Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it’s a sock, bring in a CU clerk 2603:8080:D03:89D4:90C8:7FFC:E377:47B8 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A block from a single talk page seems lukewarm to me. They openly insult other people, there's no sign they'll stop doing so in future because they've never acknowledged wrongdoing or expressed regret, and nothing is done. [31][32] seefooddiet (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editorialising

    [edit]

    On the pages Uluru Statement from the Heart and Indigenous Voice to Parliament, User:State Regulatory Authority has made numerous edits editorialising content since 19 December and has not engaged with talk discussions about the need to keep a NPOV. e.g. [33], [34], [35], [36] and [37]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safes007 (talkcontribs) 01:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This and this aren't great on the face of it. Daniel (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given them a "stop edit-warring" (because that's what it is, among the other issues) final warning. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn’t the username itself a violation for pretending to be some agency? Borgenland (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to say, at a minimum it should be a soft block with a note to pick something else. spryde | talk 17:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that this edit takes the article-space statement from the Indigenous Voice to Parliament article describing a body intended to recognise Indigenous Australians as "the first people of Australia" (quotes in original) and adds a wikilink from 'first people' to the article master race. Surely equating Australia's Indigenous / first people, a historically disempowered and disenfranchised group, with the Nazi concept of Aryan supremacy in article space and within a quotation (thereby assigning this Nazi implication to the Referendum Council being quoted) calls for more than a warning over edit warring? 1.141.198.161 (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC) Adding that this edit adds wikilinks that characterise the failure of the referendum to patriotism an opposition to racism, but highly questionable characterisations. This user appears WP:NOTHERE to me. 1.141.198.161 (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Similar edits by IP address 120.18.129.151 which has a block on other pages have also been made. Safes007 (talk) 07:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That smells somewhat of WP:LOUTSOCK, doesn't it? Anyway, given a very stern warning to the user in question here. We'll see how they respond. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The block on other pages is due to a range block, not that particular IP. - Bilby (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    John40332 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Psycho (1960 film) (diff): account is being used only for promotional purposes; account is evidently a spambot or a compromised account. User's recent edits have been dedicated almost invariably to inserting links in classical music-related articles to an obscure sheet music site. Behavior appeared to be WP:REFSPAM and WP:SPA. Personal attempts to curb this behavior or reach a compromise were rejected by user. Further attempts to engage with them at WT:CM resulted in WP:ICANTHEARYOU, despite three other editors informing user that their edits appeared to be spam or some kind of advocacy. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a bot and not spamming, you just keep WP:HOUNDING me repeatedly, I cited sources to the publisher of the books in question. You appear to suffer from WP:OWN and act like I need your consent to edit the articles you feel that belong to you. You also know I'm not a compromised account, you spam Assume_good_faith on your reverts but you're mostly bullying other editors into submission.
    You've been asked to stop disrupting editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CurryTime7-24#January_2025 , and continue to harass any edits that touch "your" articles.
    You also keep saying I add citation to obscure music sites, just because you don't know something doesn't make it obscure. Additionally, you are the only person raising this as an issue because you're extremely controlling of the articles, you don't own Wikipedia and hopefully some other editor or admin can remind you of that. John40332 (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you claiming that SheetMusicX is a reliable source for these articles? If so then someone (it may be me but I don't guarantee it) should take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. I note that several editors have queried this, not just CurryTime7-24. John40332 is clearly not a spambot or compromised account, so please avoid over-egging the pudding. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is reliable and listed with other respectable publishers, it's the homepage of the Canadian music publishing house Edition Zeza, their books are part of the National Library Collections, WorldCat.org shows their books in libraries around the world etc, I shouldn't even have to dig this far because 1 editor decided he WP:OWN Wikipedia. The links I had included provided relevant information about the articles I was editing (orchestration, dates, duration etc). Cited information from a publisher of said work, which is exactly what WP:SOURCEDEF suggests doing. John40332 (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor's history does seem suspicious. From 2014 to 2023 they made a total of 24 edits to article space, almost all of which were to Charlie Siem and Sasha Siem. Then after more than a year of no edits, in the last 5 weeks they have made 38 edits to article space, of which all except three added a reference to sheetmusicx.com. This is a commercial site that sells sheet music. As far as I can see, every reference added was a link to a page that sells a particular piece of sheet music. This certainly seems like WP:REFSPAM. CodeTalker (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So is the problem that I'm actively contributing now, or that the cited sources aren't good enough? You guys are grasping at straws at this point.user:CurryTime7-24 added links to commercial sites diff1 , such as to Fidelio Music (to which he appears to be an affiliate) and yet no one raises a flag. Even when I added a source without removing his, he removed mine diff2 to keep only his link to Fidelio Music. John40332 (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no "you guys" here. You have exactly the same status, as a volunteer editor, as I do. I have no idea who CurryTime7-24 is, or whether that editor is an affiliate. I just know about reliable sources and that we should not be linking to any commercial site, except possibly to the original publisher of a work. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:COIBot has compiled a page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Local/sheetmusicx.com of edits with links to this website. This list was not created by CurryTime7-24 but by a bot looking for instances of conflict-of-interests. All of the problems you are concerned about, John40332, would not exist if you would just stop posting links to this website. If you would agree to stop referring to sheetmusicx.com, you wouldn't be "hounded" or be defending yourself and we could close this complaint. Can you agree to that editing restriction? And, if you can't, then why are you insisting on linking to this particular website? Liz Read! Talk! 02:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Because it's a valid source according to:
      WP:REPUTABLE - "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources"
      WP:SOURCEDEF - The publisher of the work (and not only the first ever publisher, any reputable publisher of a work)
      WP:PUBLISHED - "Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form."

    Interestingly, "someone" (and I'm not saying it's CurryTime7-24) came to my talk page yesterday to write "kill yourself", I can only think of 1 person who is hounding me this much though, but that doesn't seem to be taken seriously. John40332 (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not "interesting", that's despicable; as is your insinuation. As for sheetmusicx as as source: for what? That they published some work? Why is that noteworthy? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As a source for information about the work. Yes it's despicable, and as I said, no one takes it seriously, I'm not insinuating anything, admins can look into the IP themselves. John40332 (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you would prefer that this dispute continue on, which could lead to sanctions for you, rather than simply stop using this website as a reference? To me, when I see that kind of behavior, it's typically a sign of a paid editor. Liz Read! Talk! 09:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no dispute, it's a reliable source and user:CurryTime7-24 makes a fuss about it because of his WP:OWN syndrome and potential WP:COI with his affiliation with Fidelio Music.
    Why are you against a source that complies with WP:RELIABILITY ? John40332 (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because your use of that source is pretty clearly intended as promotional. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to understand how you can say "there's no dispute" when there is quite obviously a dispute; six editors in this thread alone have questioned your use of that source. You have invoked WP:RS to claim that the website is an acceptable source, but I'm not sure you have understood what that guideline says about commercial sites; they are allowed as references only to verify simple facts such as titles and running times. You have not used sheetmusicx.com for such purposes; you have used it to tell the reader where they can purchase sheet music (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc). CodeTalker (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I used it to add relevant information that didn't exist on Wikipedia.
    When I added "Psycho A Narrative for String Orchestra" diff that exists since 1968 and never mentioned on Wikipedia, but CurryTime decided to harass me there too.
    When I added the orchestration for Tambourin Chinois diff, which CurryTime decided to remove too.
    I used information by the publisher to confirm facts, as per WP:RS, if commercial sources are not allowed to verify contributions, then why is everyone so quiet about CurryTime's affiliation to Fidelio Music links ? So far these comments are a good example of WP:HUNT, first I was accused of spamming, then of being a bot, then that my account was compromised, then that the source used wasn't reliable, if you run out of ideas try my religion or ethnicity. John40332 (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you added the bit about Psycho - which included the link with the same phrasing as on the other edits where it was obvious "buy this music here". Your edits are either promotional or are indistinguishable from being promotional. That is why they are being removed. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice if an admin would compare the IP address 181.215.89.116 that told me to kill myself on my Talk Page, to existing users, now that would be fun to find out who is so against my edits, because so far the only action was a suspension. John40332 (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser is not for fishing. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case the most obvious guess is: some unrelated troll who saw your name on this board. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent addition of unsourced content by 86.21.135.95

    [edit]

    86.21.135.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning & hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given them a second warning. Galaxybeing (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor may lack a mechanism to communicative effectively

    [edit]

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


    Basaatw generates all of their prolific Talk comments at Talk:2024 United States drone sightings with an LLM. They've indicated [38] this is the only way they are able to communicate and, when probed, seem to have committed [39] to exclusively using the LLM to respond to other editors' questions and comments.

    The issue is that the AI-generated Talk comments are so contorted and unnatural that they have the effect -- and I don't think this is Basaatw's intent -- of diverting all discussion to the unusual writing style of the comments as opposed to the actual content of what Basaatw is trying to express (e.g. [40], [41], etc.).

    As I hinted to Basaatw here [42], if they are unable to communicate using unaided cognition, and the technical adjunct they're using to assist them is also ineffective at communicating in a way in which our OI editors can interact, their contributions are having the effect of being disruptive (and, again, I don't think that's purposeful). We've generally accepted that editors must possess some method "to communicate effectively" as a condition of editing.

    I am WP:INVOLVED in this article so am not a good evaluator of the situation or potential remedies. Chetsford (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy pinging @Anne drew: and @BusterD: whose edits I linked. Chetsford (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What I find a little frustrating is not knowing whether these are Basaatw's original thoughts rendered through a large language model (e.g. ChatGPT), or if I'm really just wasting my time conversing with a software program. I'm not against the careful use of LLMs to edit articles or even to contribute to discussions, but if your comments are long and numerous, of questionable quality, and are clearly AI generated, responding to them becomes a waste of editors' time. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a number of good thoughts were used when you posted over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Humans sharing accounts with machines. I haven’t looked at this accused users posts yet, but I think distributive or unproductive editing or correspondence should be handled the same regardless if a LLM was used to assist the user or not. There might be a room for an ounce of extra AGF (but not much) similar to what we might extend to a user who is using a translator because their English isn’t very good. But at the end of the day, using a standard translator or an advanced LLM is not an excuse for being disruptive and this should be treaded as such. TiggerJay(talk) 19:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my goodness, I just took a look --- boy does that ever QUACK like LLM! Such that the responses seem to generally sound apologetic in tone, but but their further edits do not actually correlate to their apology. Looking at this apology they still continued to break references, abit in a different way. At the time of that apology all of the references were good [43] but then after a series of edit, the page was left with 4 broken references. Regardless of the LLM aspects, this is still a disruptive editor. TiggerJay(talk) 22:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If this editor really cannot communicate without an LLM then their English is not good enough to write anything in Wikipedia articles, so they should be blocked per WP:CIR. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Using LLMs is just the user's problem now. The user's account was created in 2006 but the first edits appear in 2016. The second contribution was used to create Scott Binsack, summarily deleted as promotional by User:DGG; the warning from User:Kudpung is still the top entry on the current User talk:Basaatw. The user's deleted contribs show three deleted drafts. The second of those was Draft:Franklin Boggs, which was deleted by User:JJMC89 for clear copyright violations. The third was Draft:Parsec Incorporated, an admitted COI draft which was speedy deleted as G11 by User:Jimfbleak. These contributions were over four years ago. Seven years ago Basaatw created Sidney Simon (which may also be a COI case) but looks quite notable on my first pass. It's hard to ignore the many revdelled versions (diff) which were apparent copyright violations as well. After a three year inactive period, in October the account came back to make User:Basaatw/sandbox/Jamie Lackey. This last Sunday, the user shows up with their shiny new ChatGPT and since then, that's the only sort of edit they've made. BusterD (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My popup shows this account has made 157 edits since 2006, and my narrative above discounts ~75% of those. BusterD (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what should be done here but I just wanted to mention that the use of LLM is not always be due to poor language skills, there can be physical disabilities that would prompt the use of this technology to communicate. I gather that the editor has not been specific on why they rely on LLM but I wouldn't jump to any conclusions yet. Regardless of the reason though, if this use of a AI assistance is becoming disruptive, I can see that action might need to be taken. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "there can be physical disabilities that would prompt the use of this technology to communicate" Yes, that's an important reminder. I'm inclined to believe whatever the ultimate resolution is, it impose the lightest impediment on the editor's participation that's possible. Chetsford (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just adding that if their original user page is accurate then they are almost certainly a native English speaker in their 70s. Photos of Japan (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've requested on their User talk page that they come and participate in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      they Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi;
      Thank you for inviting me to this discussion. When Chetsford and Liz Read reached out, I came here to engage because I believe in Wikipedia's collaborative spirit.
      I want to clarify my use of tools in contributing to Wikipedia. I use LLM technology to draft, under WP:TOOLS, which encourages editors to use resources to improve their work. I take the time to review and edit the content myself, ensuring it reflects my understanding and complies with community standards.
      Editors have raised concerns about my handling of references. While I acknowledge this as an area for improvement, WP:COLLAB reminds us that none of us is perfect. To improve my referencing, I'm reviewing feedback and welcome specific examples of where I can do better.
      I value being part of Wikipedia and contributing to its mission. Being included in this discussion shows how open communication helps us all work better together. I welcome specific feedback about my contributions and am committed to meeting community expectations while fostering a collaborative spirit.
      Best always Randall N. Brock (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Please stop using LLMs for your responses. Honestly, it's annoying, to say the least. --MuZemike 15:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I use LLM technology to draft, under WP:TOOLS, which encourages editors to use resources to improve their work. I take the time to review and edit the content myself, ensuring it reflects my understanding and complies with community standards. Could you explain how you reviewed WP:TOOLS and how it encourages llm use? CMD (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed CBAN on use of certain technological adjuncts by editor

    [edit]

    Noting, as I previously have, that I am INVOLVED, I propose Basaatw be subject to a WP:CBAN on adding content to Wikipedia created by LLMs, NLP pipelines, procedural generators, rule-based chatbots, or similar technological adjuncts, and that this ban extend to include both mainspace articles and Talk pages. Chetsford (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm at NOTHERE with this person. They are trolling multiple admins. We commonly indef for less than that. BusterD (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree somewhere between NOTHERE and CIR. It doesn't matter how you use the tools, if you're being unconstructive, the LLM is at best just an excuse, which we don't really care much about after multiple attempts have been made to bring correction. It is right up there with bad edits using a mobile device, it can be the reason for the mistake, but that doesn't mean we just let people continue to use that excuse, instead they need to step up with their use of preview/etc., and be responsible for their own actions. TiggerJay(talk) 23:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PBan - WP:NOTHERE behavior, and would also like to call the WP:CIR, if you need LLM to be able to respond, we can't have meaningful positive criticism and learning of community norms. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. The problem with LLMs is that they don't understand the rules of Wikipedia. A user who is copy/pasting LLM responses is unlikely to learn the rules of Wikipedia, precisely because the user trusts the LLM to provide adequate answers. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    LLMs don't sound like aware intellectuals, they sound like marketing bullshiters. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef WP:NOTHERE at all really. They just have a chatbot putting word-slurry onto our encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocking indef as NOTHERE, given their two new GPT-created threads on Talk:2025 New Orleans truck attack (1, 2). Looking at their entire edit history, they clearly not here to create the best online encyclopedia. They were here to create articles about connected subjects; now they're here apparently to calibrate LLMs for talk pages on high visibility articles. They've upgraded to proposing pagespace wordings and giving deadlines. We don't feed trolls; we shouldn't enable trolls using LLMs when the evidence is clear. BusterD (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User: 2600:1004:B253:C3D5:0:F:EA83:6701 - POV pushing?

    [edit]

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


    2600:1004:(continued) has been putting Islamophobic/bigoted comments on multiple talk pages [44] [45], then when confronted, responded with an NPA violation.[46] Was just gonna go home to my computer and give some warnings from Twinkle, but was suggested to bring this up here. First time bringing something up at ANI so sorry if I screwed up. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion, the aforementioned IP is clearly NOTHERE and should be dealt as such. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP range User:2600:1004:B253:C3D5:0:0:0:0/64 has been blocked for 31 hours. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Historian5328

    [edit]

    I have been dealing with persistent additions of unreferenced numbers to Somali Armed Forces, Somali Navy, etc for some time. Rolling them back - they're never supported by sources that validate the data, or the sources are distorted.

    In the last couple of days a new user, User:Historian5328 has also started showing this behaviour. But in [47] this edit he's entering fantasy territory, saying the Somali Armed Forces are equipped with the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, which has never been exported beyond the United States Air Force. I would request that any interested administrator consider this account for blocking. Kind regards and Happy New Year, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor clearly has some serious WP:CIR issues, given this WP:MADEUP stuff, and using...let's say non-reliable sources elsewhere, without responding to any of the notices on their talk page. I've pblocked them from articlespace so they can come here and explain themselves. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that the editor's username is User:Historian5328, not User:Historian 5328 and they were informed of this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the same regard, I would kindly request that any interested administrators review User_talk:YZ357980, who has been warned over and over and over again about adding unsourced and completely made up material (Somali Navy for example, consisting of 3,500 personnel..) Buckshot06 (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you corrected their username in this report after I mentioned the mistake. Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, the original vandal and very problematic editor, who should be blocked immediately, was YZ357980. With all due regard to Historian5328, they display very similar behaviour, which immediately created a warning flag in my mind. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m relatively new to Wikipedia editing and only recently discovered that there is even a talk page. Regarding the active personnel for the Somali Armed Forces, I listed approx 20,000–30,000 (2024) and included a citation, which I believe does not warrant being blocked. I’m a beginner in Wikipedia editing, have no malicious intent, and do not believe I should be blocked. Moreover, I read from a Somalia media source that the Somali government had acquired A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft, believing the source to be authentic up until I discovered I was blocked. This was a mistake on my part, as I am new and inexperienced (2 days.) The individual who requested me to blocked must have had bad experiences which I’m not responsible for. I am requesting to be unblocked. Historian5328 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion continued on user's talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A reminder that the arbitration committee has designated the Horn of Africa a contentious topic, so don’t be afraid to lay down a CT advisory template for either user. 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:C826:BD54:45DF:3286 (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Both done - thanks for the reminder. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Threats of off-wiki action and WP:PA

    [edit]

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


    Users have traded personal attacks and thinly-veiled legal threats on an (unrelated?) users talk page here and here. Both users appear to be WP:NOTHERE. cyberdog958Talk 01:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding these issues, my thinly veiled legal threats are mainly a scare tactic. This user is impersonating the creator of the game War Brokers, and is threating to ban a player. We have discovered the identity of the impersonator on the offical War Brokers discord, and request that this account (Joja15) be somehow restricted so that they cannot make false claims and impersonate the real, and legitimate Joja15. Thank you Automelon (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem. WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:NLT apply to ALL users, including those who fancy that Wikipedia is a proper venue for furthering off-wiki feuds. I strongly recommend you review those policies and comply with them in the future. Ravenswing 02:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Issue has been resolved, with the impersonator revealing himself. Sorry for this strange issue Automelon (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    JoJa15 has been blocked for impersonating someone else's online username (while not another Wikpedian, impersonating someone known primarily by an online handle is still not on). Automelon has been warned not to make legal threats. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Walls of text

    [edit]

    Please block Special:Contributions/2601:647:6510:25D9:D426:7245:BE4D:A179/64 for ad nauseam WP:WALLS at Talk:Jehovah. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As a first measure, I blocked the /64 for 31 hours for disruptive editing. That covers most of the disrupting IPs. Maybe wait a bit before seeing if further measures needed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not comfortable at my level of experience blocking a /48. Other admins are welcome to increase the range if they feel it is necessary. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP promised to never repent at [48]. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The talkpage will likely need semi-protection, as the individual is changing IPs. GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup, it seems they are upon a /48 lease. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    tgeorgescu, I don't see that you alerted them to this discussion at ANI. I looked at the talk page for the IP they primarily used and there were warnings but no ANI notice. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Liz, I did inform the IP of this ANI thread, but only once, not in three places. See User talk:2601:647:6510:25D9:D426:7245:BE4D:A179. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thanks for trying. It is admittedly hard to communicate with IP editors whose accounts jump around. Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, my two cents were that only the last used IP could be the correct one for issuing such a notification. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing any recent edits from the /48 other than from the /64, except a single edit from 2601:647:6510:4ceb:ed9a:4797:9b0a:bd70 about 4.5 days ago. I have no qualms with blocking a /48 if necessary and/or semiprotecting the targetted talkpage where they are being disruptive/evading. But I'd want to see stronger evidence that the /64 block isn't sufficient. DMacks (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A partial block from that single page for the /48 would work, it is vanishingly unlikely that anyone else on that range would want to edit that one talkpage out of 7 million. Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism, sockpuppetry and bad redirects from User:NamayandeBidokht / User:12shahriyari

    [edit]

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


    Despite warnings, this editor is removing sections from village articles and creating a string of redirects (to WP namespace) and continued same behaviour with a different account. I'm reporting here because as well as bans being in order someone will need to fix those redirects. ---- D'n'B-📞 -- 11:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    And while we are here, can someone also help move back Wikipedia:Bahmanabad-e Jadid back into mainspace. It's blocking me from making that move. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Vofa and removal of sourced information

    [edit]

    This seems to be an ongoing issue.

    Vofa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has lots of warnings about disruptive editing in their user page and a block.

    Most recent example of removal of sourced information: [49][50][51]

    I checked the source and the information is there on page 7.

    Previous examples include: [52][53]. Also see: Talk:Finns#Vandalism_by_user:Vofa Bogazicili (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify, I just noticed that there is indeed an unsourced paragraph.
    The reason for removal of sourced information would then be "removed text not relevant to Chagatai Khanate and Golden Horde in introduction". However the source does mention The first of the changes leading to the formation of the Turco-Mongolian tradition ... and then gives Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate as examples. I don't see any WP:V or WP:DUE issues.
    I am concerned about removal of sourced information that does not seem to have a rationale based on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines Bogazicili (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there. The matter seems to be resolved. I did remove an unsourced paragraph and general claims not relevant to the introduction. I do not see a problem with it. You seem to have linked three edits I made. In the first edit, I had to revert because I accidentally chose the minor edit option. In the second edit, I have restored the previous version, but without a minor sign. I did not remove any sources (based on what I remember) I hope to see through my edits and understand what I did or did not do wrong. Please, avoid making an ANI in bad faith. Vofa (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You removed source information. The part that starts with The ruling Mongol elites ...
    @Asilvering: from the editor's talk page, you seem to be a mentor. Removing sources or sourced material without explanation, or with insufficient explanation or rationale, such as "Polished language" [54], is an ongoing concern with Vofa. Bogazicili (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Im not sure why I’m being stalked, but the edits you’re showing as examples of myself removing sources are more than two months old. I’ve stopped removing sources. Vofa (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering: This issue is still continuing [55] Bogazicili (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And you previously spoke to Vofa about this where...? -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    asilvering, I hadn't talked about removing sourced material without sufficiently explaining the rationale.
    I did talk about this however [56]. See: User_talk:Vofa#December_2024
    I don't seek or expect a permanent block over this. But as a mentor and an administrator, maybe you can comment on removing sourced material without sufficiently explaining the rationale. Bogazicili (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bogazicili, that's a threat, not an explanation. If you have a content dispute with an editor, which is what this appears to be, you need to be able to talk it out with them on the article's Talk page. @Vofa, please be careful to make sure your edit summaries explain what you're doing. I see that there was an unsourced statement in the link Bogazicili just supplied, so I presume that's what you meant by "unsourced". But the other statement you removed did have a source. It's ok to split your edits up into multiple edits if you need to do that to explain them properly, but you could also just give an edit summary like "removed unsourced; also, removed statement [for these reasons]" that addresses both changes. -- asilvering (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Asilvering, I would not characterize this as a "content dispute". I was not involved in most of those articles. I got concerned after seeing edits market as minor removing sources or sourced material without any or proper explanation. That is not a content dispute, that is an editor conduct dispute. Bogazicili (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What Vofa does at articles related to Turko-Mongolian history is not a content dispute but vandalism. It took me a lot of time to manually revert the hoax years and figures he added in Turkmens article to decrease their population and he also removed sourced basic info from the lede of the Merkit tribe which I had to restore. These are just some of few sneaky vandalism examples that I caught among the pages I patrol by Vofa. If you see his talk page, he has been warned a lot of times by many other editors for such mischief. Theofunny (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Theofunny, Vofa hasn't edited the Turkmens article since before they were blocked. That is obviously not an ongoing issue. As for Merkit, I also see no discussion of those edits. If you have a problem with how someone is editing, you need to communicate with them. -- asilvering (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Asilvering, my concerns were removal of sourced information or sources without proper rationale or explanation. Do you think that was communicated enough to Vofa in this topic, or do we need further communication? I'm asking in case Vofa continues this type of behavior. Hopefully that won't be the case. Bogazicili (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Im going to repeat this again;
    I have not removed any sources since I was warned about it.
    I do not see an issue with my recent editing.
    You should communicate with me on any issues that you have with me. Vofa (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Vofa, do you see any issues with this edit: [57] Bogazicili (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Vofa (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This member often vandalises, in an article about Oirats he wrote huge numbers without backing them up with sources and tried to prove it was true. This is rabid vandalism. Incall talk 12:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential range block

    [edit]

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


    Hi, I am following up on an archived discussion from last month. At the time I suggested that that a single user was seemingly making disruptive edits from a range of similar IPs. A range block (Special:Contributions/222.153.0.0/16) was identified as a possibility, though with the potential for some collateral damage. The discussion was then ended without follow up. The behavior in question has since continued so I wanted to get an indication one way or the other whether this would be feasible. One of the pages they have started to vandalize will likely have high traffic over the next few months. Noahp2 (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Link? 50.224.79.68 (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To the archived discussion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1173 under "Cycling through IPs" Noahp2 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having perused the archived ANI I agree that a rangeblock of 222.153.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) might be considered. The block could be limited to one week and might be applied only to article space and template space. Collateral damage should be minor. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be possible to do a longer block, either preemptively or later if the 1 week is ineffective? Several of the IPs have been blocked for a week or more and it hasn't changed behavior so far. Noahp2 (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    /16 is a very large range, a smaller range would be preferable. Which articles are being edited? I do see a lot of Drag Race articles in the contributions, if so, then 222.153.0.0/17 may be what’s needed, still large but half the size of the /16. The other 222.153.128.0/17 doesn’t seem to have any Drag Race edits. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah those are the ones that I'm concerned with so the smaller range seems fine. Noahp2 (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, after hearing the other suggestions I have blocked 222.153.0.0/17 for a month for disruptive editing. Let me know if this is not enough to address the problem. It seems there is a history of blocks of this /17 range, both partial and full, going back to 2007. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Noahp2 (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Andydor07 seems to be a promotional account connected to James Acho

    [edit]

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


    From the first mainspace edit this account made through today, the only article this account has edited is James Acho (aside from 2 edits to Alan Trammell), and the edits are consistently promotional in nature or disruptive. A few examples:

    The rest of their changes are similar and there are many of them. They've ignored several warnings given today. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I undid their edits using Twinkle. We’ll see how long that lasts. DACartman (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that didn't last very long. DACartman (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Handled. Canterbury Tail talk 20:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Revoke TPA for Itallo Alessandro

    [edit]

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


    Itallo Alessandro (talk · contribs) is indeffed for sockpuppetry and now seems to be copying random articles to their talk page. Seems TPA should be revoked.The sockmaster has also had their TPA revoked. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Canterbury Tail talk 20:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This one is pretty straightforward. An editor (@Last1in:) has deemed it OK to refer to me as a "wikifascist" on their talk page (User_talk:Last1in#My_ill-considered_comment). A clear case of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, I find this to be extremely offensive. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    So apparently the editor has "retired" but is continuing editing using IPs? Anyway placed a warning for personal attacks on Last1in's user talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that seems to be the case. Sorry, I should have mentioned that — it's all around weird. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing, Edit war, Block evasion, Personal attack

    [edit]

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


    76.68.24.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly violating WP:POLICY, including disruptive editing contrary to WP:DE and WP:NPOV, engaging in WP:EDITWAR, evading a block of user:COLTashrif1499 in violation of WP:EVADE, and making personal attacks violating WP:NPA. This IP User was also blocked few months ago for these activities and again doing after block expiration.
    I urge an immediate block of this IP along with an investigation into related accounts or IPs to prevent further misconduct.

    Some examples:

    1. Attacks: HERE and HERE (edit summary)
    2. Disruptive editings & Edit war: contributions (Adding inappropriate words, continuously adding poor images of political and religious places Revision as of 16:02, 3 January 2025) (Here is the version I had updated [58])
    3. User also uses these IPs to support their edits:
      1. 2607:fea8:571e:ce00:d81a:9c9d:4833:65a4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      2. 2607:fea8:571e:ce00:d8c:6de5:ff66:5c6c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      3. 2605:8d80:6433:5419:acb6:e682:2454:6031 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
        After block expiration
      4. 2607:fea8:571b:8000:91c9:e741:c1ee:5aa2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      5. 2607:fea8:571b:8000:9979:b44e:bfc2:f9e9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      6. 2607:fea8:571b:8000:b072:749e:a671:e7ad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    — Cerium4B—Talk? • 11:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I restored this to your revision Cerium4B. This user keeps making noncconstructive edits such as the edit in Khulna Division. Also this IP address keeps doing edit warring. This article needs to be protected against disruptive editing and edit warring. Migfab008 (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Migfab008,
    Now check this — Cerium4B—Talk? • 13:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Diddy is based (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user joined 15 minutes ago and reverted an edit on the above topic and commented hate speech.
    (check edit summary)
    I think this is the same user I’ve reported here.
    Please check this report as soon as possible. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s confirmed that Diddy is based (talk · contribs) is 76.68.24.171 (talk · contribs)
    They cleared reports involving them — Cerium4B—Talk? • 13:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:76.68.24.171 reported by User:Migfab008 (Result: ). Migfab008 (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Liverpoolynwa24 and WP:CIR issues

    [edit]

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


    Liverpoolynwa24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added plaudits such as "widely regarded as one of the best [position] in the world" to multiple articles about Liverpool F.C. players, copying and pasting sources from the body to make it seem like this is well sourced - the issue is that none of the sources ever say any of these things. Per their talk page, they have repeatedly received warnings (and a previous block) for this, but have continued regardless. They have also removed well sourced categorisations of same on the pages of non-Liverpool players without any edit summary or explanation (which they never leave anyway). They received a block of 1 week from HJ Mitchell in July, but continued immediately (1) after the block.

    Me and several others have left them messages asking them not to do this and explaining the issues with their edits, but have been continually ignored, and the editor has continued (1, 2) to do this in spite of this. Enough is enough at this stage, and WP:CIR applies. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Fistagon sock/vandal back again

    [edit]

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


    The Fistagon sock has returned again, this time under the name Diddy is based (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As usual, they have been vandalising numerous articles and leaving their uncivil edit summaries. Could action be taken please and the summaries revdeled? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    On Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, he even reverts my first ever report. This makes me angry as well. Block this user indefinitely ASAP. Migfab008 (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They're already banned, this is a sock. Revision deletion  Done. Black Kite (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks, Black Kite; I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Migfab008: Take it as a mark that you accurately assessed the situation:) DMacks (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    SplinterCell556 is WP:NOTHERE

    [edit]

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


    Perhaps I'm slightly jumping the gun here but I feel this user coming to ANI is already inevitable.

    SplinterCell556 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Out of this user's four edits, all have been reverted (full disclosure, two by me). Two of them are bad-faith talk page requests calling the Democrats Marxists and Hilary Clinton a communist, while their mainspace edits involve promoting a ludicrous conspiracy theory and something incomprehensible. In short I have no doubt this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. — Czello (music) 13:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've issued a CTOP notice. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concerns regarding my opinion. It's important for us to maintain a constructive environment and ensure that all contributions adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. I appreciate your vigilance in upholding the integrity of the content. If there are specific points or edits you believe need further discussion, I’m open to dialogue and would like to work together to improve Wikipedia! Thank you. SplinterCell556 (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    SplinterCell556 Please read the notice on your user talk page and be aware that rules are enforced more strictly in this topic area. Be aware that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. If you have sources that say Hillary Clinton advocates for abolishing private property ownership(what communism actually is), you can offer them on the article talk page. I know you don't- because she doesn't. Universal health care is not communism(unless the UK, France, and most of the western world is communist) and doesn't even have to involve government provided health care. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. SplinterCell556 (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just put this into several AI-generated detectors (GPTZero, Grammarly, Copyleaks). All three suggested it was AI-generated, with GPTZero giving it a 100% chance. — Czello (music) 14:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for bringing this to my attention, fellow human. I take concerns about AI generated very seriously. It is important to us to ensure that our messages reflect genuine and kind thoughts without AI interference. I will take a closer look at my replies in question and verify their legitimacy. If they are indeed AI-generated, I will work on correcting them and ensuring that any content added aligns with Wikipedia's standards. I appreciate your diligence in maintaining the quality of our articles!
    AI-generated content may lack the nuanced understanding and contextual awareness that human editors bring. This can lead to the propagation of inaccuracies or misinformation, which undermines Wikipedia’s reliability as a source of information. AI models operate as 'black boxes,' making it difficult to trace how a specific output was derived. This lack of transparency can be problematic in collaborative environments that rely on verifiable and attributable contributions. AI systems can inadvertently perpetuate societal biases present in their training data, leading to skewed or unfair representations of topics. This is particularly concerning in an encyclopedia that aims for neutrality and comprehensiveness. The use of AI-generated content raises questions about copyright, authorship, and accountability. These factors need careful consideration to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
    In light of these issues, it's essential for every wikipedia user to critically assess the impact of AI on their contributions and prioritize human input to maintain the integrity and quality of Wikipedia. Thank you, fellow human. SplinterCell556 (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot: don't think the CTOP notice will be enough. — Czello (music) 15:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that you don't know if you used an AI? That's concerning(and you appeared to use an AI to tell us that) 331dot (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe he doesn't know whether he himself is AI. EEng 15:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've NOTHERE blocked for trolling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse this. 331dot (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 An AI detector isn't necessary to know that's AI. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent unsourced/unexplained date changes by 2A02:8070:A283:1C00:0:0:0:0/64

    [edit]

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


    2A02:8070:A283:1C00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps making unsourced/unexplained date changes, continued after a 1 week block for "date vandalism" on December 24. Examples of unsourced date changes: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    They'd already been blocked for a week for the date vandalism, so I just gave them another month. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hate Speeches in edit summaries

    [edit]

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


    User is using hate speeches in edit summaries. (In Bengali Language) 2607:FEA8:571B:8000:21F7:A044:CB68:F9D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User is related to this case. A range block is needed as soon as possible. (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing, Edit war, Block evasion, Personal attack)

    — Cerium4B—Talk? • 17:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Another Alon9393 puppet

    [edit]

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


    Greetings. I put two editors on notice a few hours ago to alert you to a puppet of the already blocked user Alon9393, exactly this account alerted by (Redacted), who has created an article and is basing his comment edits on deletion requests. At the moment he only exists in the English edition, but he may make the jump to other editions at any time, specially Spanish edition. Pichu VI (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pichu VI, as stated in multiple places on this page, you must notify a user when starting a discussion about them. I have done this for you. Please note that here on enwiki, sockpuppet accusations belong at WP:SPI, and linking to a user's supposed Twitter account that they haven't linked to on-wiki may be considered a form of WP:OUTING. Additionally, you are going to have to make your case more clear. I do not understand why a user contributing constructivily to various AfDs (a totally normal thing, and they found AfD naturally after one of their articles was nom'ed) and posting a page they made on twitter = sockpuppetry. 2001:8003:4A10:601:C9CA:A5E5:5DD9:2208 (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see now that the accused sockmaster was blocked for making disruptive AfD votes, but they clearly wanted to leave forever, and the accused sock didn't immediately go to AfD, they only found it because one of their articles was nominated. It's normal for new AfD voters to not know the exact P/G to backup their votes (but thank you to them for trying in good faith). Accused user, see Wikipedia:WikiProject AfD Engagement/HowTo if you'd like to learn about some key notability guidelines to use. In fact, them not using guidelines actually shows that they may be a real new user still learning about everything, not a sock of someone who used to (incorrectly so) reference guidelines. 2001:8003:4A10:601:C9CA:A5E5:5DD9:2208 (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:YZ357980

    [edit]

    I have just rolled back this edit ([65]) which (1) inaccurately introduces an incorrect Somali name into Somali Armed Forces; (2) installed a poor homemade copy of the Armed Forces crest dubious copyright and authenticity into the article, when a PD photo is visible in the infobox image; and (3) violated MOS:INFOBOXFLAG with the infobox.

    I would kindly request any interested administrator to review the very dubious insertions of inflated personnel numbers introduced by this user into various Somali military articles, plus the error ridden and biased edits warned about at the top of the editor's talk page, with a view to a WP:TOPICBAN from African & Middle East military articles, widely construed. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:YZ357980 doesn't have a history of communicating with other editors. I have posted to their talk page, encouraging them to come to this discussion but I'm not optimistic that they are even aware that they have a User talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have given them a final warning and also a chance for them to participate here. If they don't, let's see what they get. Galaxybeing (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivility and ABF in contentious topics

    [edit]

    Hob Gadling's uncivil comments and assuming bad faith on multiple contentious talk pages is not necessarily egregious but I suppose it is problematic and chronic, consistent and ongoing. I would appreciate some assistance. Here are some diffs from the past few days:

    Disparaging another editor's intellect and reasoning skills.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephanie_Seneff&diff=prev&oldid=1266584883

    WP:NPA

    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harald_Walach&diff=prev&oldid=1266713324

    Profanity

    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1267046966

    Assuming "malicious" intent; profanity; deprecating the editor

    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1267154877

    Unicivil

    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mick_West&diff=prev&oldid=1267158027

    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267160441

    Contact on user page attempted

    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&diff=prev&oldid=1267160795

    Assuming bad faith, accusing editor of being incompetent

    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&diff=prev&oldid=1267163557Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Think this calls for a fierce trout slapping and some direct words. I cannot really endorse a forced wikibreak according to WP:COOLDOWN, as this is just an angry user and frankly, I don't see direct personal attacks, I just see unfriendly behavior and prick-ish attitude, no outward disruption of the project either. Also, I have to ask for further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions, as some diffs from the past few days are not indicative of chronic issue. The holiday times, like Christmas, Hanukkah, and New Years' can be some of the most stressful times for people during the year. Not saying I like seeing this, but I can understand the feeling. BarntToust 04:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would I be the person to provide you with that further review of, to start with, this editor's December contributions? I did think that it would be more than a WP:FISHSLAP, since that's for one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior and this is more like a perpetual bad habit that needs something a bit stronger, like a stern warning. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lardlegwarmers: I don't see anything violating policy with regard to direct personal attacks or even profanity directed at a person, but rather directed to the topic in the discussion. Hob should know better, and as per BarntToust, Hob really deserves a trout to be a bit more civil and how to WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. But I would caution you about WP:BOOMERANG and the new attention to your activity and involvement this has drawn to your own edits. For example your inappropriate recently deleted user page, removing sections from other people's talk page, and it seems like you're having a problem handling a WP:DISPUTE and assuming bath faith of editors. You are not going to win a battle to get your material included by trying to report other editors in bad faith.
    Furthermore it does appear that you might be WP:FORUMSHOPPING because your attempts at WP:POVPUSH for your specific perspectives regarding Covid are meeting resistance at every turn. passively accusing editor behavior, directly accusing a specific editor bad behavior, claiming WP is political, RSN Report #1, RSN Report #2 to push for an article edit request, bringing the Covid discussion over to the teahouse, and now this ANI report. Without evaluating everything you've discussed in the past few weeks, at quick glance it appears that you're having problems understanding Wikipedia's policy and guidelines and are having contentious discussions with far more experienced editors. That isn't to say that we assume that they're correct and you're wrong, but when you're receiving pushback from multiple very experienced editors, I would encourage you to slow down a bit and try to fully understand the policy, and isntead of arguing to "win", you need to read about how you need to work towards WP:CONSENSUS. Because at the end of the day, without consensus, you will continue to have a lot of problems. TiggerJay(talk) 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration and try to refine my approach to disputes. My intention has been to address unique issues as they arise, versus shopping around the same old dispute. For example, the current ANI topic pertains specifically to some rude behavior that has been going on for quite some time and doesn't show any sign of stopping despite my attempts to resolve it directly. The editor in question actually seems pretty reasonable in their interpretation of the sources but I speculate that there might be a perception in the rank-and-file that it's OK to be pretty uncivil to editors who advocate for moving the NPOV because they're naturally afraid of putting their own head on the chopping block, so to speak. I suppose raising these issues in relevant venues is in line with guidelines. Both of those RSN discussions were related to distinct sourcing problems and resulted in useful resolutions that aligned with my concerns. The Teahouse posts about the Covid content disputes and a question regarding the politics of Wikipedia was in response to an administrator’s suggestion[1] that I drop by there for a discussion, and I found the feedback from experienced users there helpful. My talk page comments about user behavior were meant to discuss issues first on talk pages, per the ANI guidelines.[2] Thank you for your time and input. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lardlegwarmers#c-Liz-20241210000200-Editors_getting_banned_for_being_a_%22dick%22,_editing_Covid-19_articles
    2. ^ "All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests/ANI

    Thread on List of Crypids talk page has devolved into an unproductive flame war

    [edit]

    Talk:List of cryptids - Wikipedia

    The thread, List rapidly further degrading initially started out as another attempt to delete the list and similar Cryptozoology pages but has now devolved into toxicity with insults and personal attacks directed at users engaging with the thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edelgardvonhresvelg (talkcontribs) 05:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that this account, an WP:SPA created in August of 2024 and focused on cryptozoology subjects, is likely one of the cryptozoology-aligned accounts discussed below (for example, the account's first edit is a cryptozoology edit). :bloodofox: (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not entirely focused on cryptozoology, as I have edited topics related to film, music, literature, zoology, video games, extinction, and technology. How is asking for an article to be cited on a zoology article related to cryptozoology? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Edelgardvonhresvelg, what action are you seeking here? If you are making a complaint about personal attacks, you must provide evidence/"diffs" of examples of the conduct you are complaining about. Just mentioning a talk page without identifying the editors or edits that are problematic will likely result in no action being taken. You need to present a full case here and if you mention any editor by name, you need to post a notification of this discussion on their User talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 08:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User lobbying fringe subculture off-site for fringe subculture and suspicions of WP:MEATPUPPETry

    [edit]

    Over at cryptozoology and the very questionable list of cryptids, both extremely WP:FRINGE topics strongly linked to for example Young Earth creationism, myself and a few other users find ourselves having to respond to a lot of accounts that either openly or less than openly state that they're members of the article's subject subculture and that, like the subculture's founders, have a strong distaste for experts (here's an example anti-RS/anti-expert comment from today from one such fairly new account, @KanyeWestDropout:).

    One of these editors, Paleface Jack (talk · contribs), has been caught lobbying off site (right here). The user has also likely done so elsewhere that hasn't come to light. This user's efforts appear to have led to a variety of WP:MEATPUPPETs popping up to WP:Wikilawyer any and all changes they disagree with, an effort to shape the articles to the subculture's preference.

    Again, it's important to emphasize that not only has Paleface Jack been caught red-handed here but he has likely also lobbied elsewhere, leading to long-term problems for these and associated articles.

    As some users here know, I edit a lot on fringe topics and have all but single-handedly written our coverage on topics like cryptozoology, utilizing nothing but the highest quality possible sources. Along the way, I've endured relentless insults and less-than-pleasant anonymous messages. I've been a personal target for users like Paleface Jack and co for years.

    As is far too typical in our WP:FRINGE spaces, any action by myself and others introducing WP:RS on these articles is responded to with endless talk page lawyering and complaints from these cryptozoology-associated or -aligned editors, who fill talk pages with page after page of insult-ladden chatter about anything that doesn't fit their preferred messaging. This not infrequently includes insults toward non-adherents abiding by WP:RS and WP:NPOV (as an example, recently one of the users decided to refer to me as a "wikifascist", for example). This pattern has been going on for years and is a clear indication of long-term Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and I've frankly put up wth it for far too long.

    This is an all too common pattern that many editors who edit in new religious movement, pseudoscience, or fringe spaces will recognize as an unfortunate reality of editing in these spaces on the site.

    I recommend that Paleface Jack be topic banned for off-site lobbying for meatpuppets, if nothing else, as well as likely associated accounts per WP:MEATPUPPET. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you're misinterpreting what I said. I don't have any disdain for Loxton and Prothero, all I said was that cryptozoologists have historically discussed a large number of "cryptids" which is something you could see from reading cryptozoologist papers ans books. I've previously cited Loxton/Prothero on cryptozoological wikipedia pages KanyeWestDropout (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This user's actual comment in response to my mention of Prothero & Loxton, a dreaded WP:RS: "Learning about cryptozoologists by reading secondhand sources is a poor way to find out what cryptozoologists have actually done historically" ([66]). Funny how a spotlight on ANI can change an editor's tune. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The incident Bloodoffox is referring to happened years ago when I did not know that was even a rule. It was a mistake I have not repeated, nor have I violated any rules since that incident.
    That being said, Bloodoffox has a history of antagonizing other users associated with the topic. I am not aware of any of the other occasions where he has been harassed by users, so I sympathize. There are bad editors on this site that do that behavior or make edits that are, in kinder words, sloppy. Fringe topics are constrained as they are to avoid pandering or making it a massive advocation for them and should remain within the neutral guidelines that are enforced on fringe topics.
    Yes, the topics do need a lot of work, and its hard to find the few good editors that know what they are doing with fringe topics. I myself follow the topic out of interest, not advocacy, and I rarely edit on it mainly cause of a backlog of other projects. I don't pop on to cause trouble as Bloodoffox loves to accuse me of, among the many personal attacks he has made against me. I have had no such incidents since my mistake way back in the day and I have not made any since then. The sole reason I commented in the discussion was because I could see it was rapidly devolving into an antagonistic nature, and though my words could have been put differently, I always wrote that we "needed to find common ground". It has become a point of frustration with this, because of personal attacks on my character and what I have contributed to this site. I am not a disruptor by any means and Bloodoffox has keep making accusations or belittling comments in regards to me and other users who disagree with him. His aggressive and belittling behavior has a huge role in antagonizing other users and it does need to stop. I might be frustrated, but I cannot see how this does any good with moving projects and topics forwards. Banning me from the topic is unnecessary and overkill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleface Jack (talkcontribs)
    If the only example of off-wiki canvasing is a single blog post from seven years ago, I'm not seeing any case for sanctions. - Bilby (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the only clear incident I've encountered. However, there's good reason to suspect that there's more. Note also that although the user is happy to apologize about it when called on it here, the user also never deleted the off-site lobbying on the cryptozoology wiki. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see a case for a {{trout}} for the OP, at the very least. (Trout-erang?) - The Bushranger One ping only 07:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, Bloodofox, if this has been a contentious area to edit in (there are many such areas on the project) but we can't sanction editors based on suspicions, we require evidence of misconduct and if it is off-wiki behavior, it might be more appropriate to send it to ARBCOM. You have provided a narrative statement of how difficult it is to edit in this field but with few diffs illustrating conflict and other editors have providing competing narratives. This isn't your first trip to ANI so you know what is required here for an admin to take action. And if you do provide some more evidence, I encourage you to provide RECENT evidence (like from the past 3 years), not diffs or statements from when an editor was new and unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and practices. Liz Read! Talk! 08:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While the editor has been been editing since 2013 and his off-site post was from 2018 (yet somehow claims to not know it was not OK to canvas for meatpuppets off-site), I figured this might be the case and hoped more would come to light about what's going on off-site (I expect more will, in which case I'll return). :bloodofox: (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Rangeblock request to stop ban evasion by Dealer07

    [edit]

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


    The Greek vandal User:Dealer07 was blocked for edit-warring over nationality and ethnicity. In the past few hours, five new Greek IPs have been rapidly restoring preferred edits: Special:Contributions/62.74.24.244, Special:Contributions/62.74.24.229, Special:Contributions/62.74.24.251, Special:Contributions/62.74.24.220 and Special:Contributions/62.74.24.207. I propose we engage a rangeblock rather than play whackamole on a series of single IPs. Can we block the range Special:Contributions/62.74.24.0/21? Thanks in advance.

    Note that the range Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F070:E175:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked very recently for the same reasons. Binksternet (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Taboo of archaeologists

    [edit]

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


    This is about [67] by Jahuah. They claim that an unprovenanced archaeological object is authentic. Bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss unprovenanced objects in public. It's a taboo of their profession. So, no bona fide archaeologist can give the lie to the authenticity of that object without losing their job. Since if they mention that object in public they get sacked. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Lol, reporting on me? Jahuah (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Give me an actual reason why the specific seal in question is not authentic? How about that? Quote me an actual scholar who does? If not, then your words mean jack. Jahuah (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    According to critical rationalism, the claim that such object is authentic is unfalsifiable. Since it is taboo to discuss such object in public. So only biased hacks could affirm it is authentic or inauthentic without losing their jobs. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think it’s inauthentic? Or not? Please do not be wasting my time here. Jahuah (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It think that claim is utterly unfalsifiable, so it cannot amount to science. See for details The Shapira Strips: What Are They and Are They Forgeries? on YouTube by Dr. Robert R. Cargill. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Thanks for actually giving me an answer at least. Jahuah (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly are you asking admins to do there? This looks to me like a content dispute. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Who, me? I’m not asking anything. I just wanted to show how a seal dated by a scholar to the 8th century is indeed an 8th century BC Israelite seal of Hoshea.
    The guy up there has a problem with that and now apparently I’m on the naughty list. Jahuah (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Bushranger: I have explained them at length why this is utterly problematic, previously. I had expected that they will behave. Misbehaving is a behavioral problem. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I know how to behave, thank you very much. I’m not a petulant manchild. Jahuah (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See User talk:Jahuah#December 2024 and Talk:Uzziah#Uzziah Seals. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, I refuted you there. All you did was attack Dr. Mykytiuk and call into question his scholarship. Jahuah (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, what does this have to do with the Hoshea seal? Jahuah (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't expect any of you to take my word for it, that why I had WP:CITED https://web.archive.org/web/20241209232716/https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/the-problem-with-unprovenanced-objects/ Suffices to say that unprovenanced objects are ethically and juridically fishy. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So no comment on my refutation of your petulant behavior? Jahuah (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Who’s “any of you” by the way? I’m one guy. Jahuah (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're (only you, not The Bushranger) promoting a claim that is unfalsifiable, unethical, and maybe even juridically problematic. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooo, that’s a new one. Jahuah (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, if you had read carefully what I told you in 2024, there is nothing new about my claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good. You guys represent scholarship only when it suits your ideology. Jahuah (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about my ideology. It is about: bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss such claims in public. So no bona fide archaeologist could affirm that that object is authentic or inauthentic, because the next day they will have to flip burgers at Target. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine whatever, I apologize. Jahuah (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    it's an unprovenanced object and likely a forgery it was not found in a licensed archaeological excavation it does not possess a credible chain of custody this is very much too good to be true but since people of faith want to believe it and since it's not against the law to use your free speech to make false claims like this forgers will make forgeries and antiquities dealers will put them up for sale and try to make as much money as they can but these kind of forgeries pollute legitimate biblical archaeology and it is why so many scholars myself included do not publish critical reviews of unproven objects once you give them credence their value is increased even if you put a little asterisk by them and designate them as unprovenanced and merely teach the controversy you are still giving them scholarly recognition and debate that the forger and the antiquities dealer so desperately crave publishing unprovenanced objects leads to looting and to forgeries it's that simple

    — Dr. Robert R. Cargill, transcript

    Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    tgeorgescu, this is becoming a detailed content dispute which means it probably should be closed as off-topic for this noticeboard. Liz Read! Talk! 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    HoraceAndTheSpiders

    [edit]

    Could someone briefly block User:HoraceAndTheSpiders to get their attention, or come up with better way to get them to read their talk page/comply with the WP:ARBECR restrictions. Thanks. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sean.hoyland The editor has submitted a suitable unblock request, so I have unblocked. Please let me know if they stray into ARBPIA again. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    TTTEMLPBrony and continued addition of unsourced/crufty material, zero communication

    [edit]

    TTTEMLPBrony (talk · contribs) has been active since late April 2024. They have a history of adding of unsourced and sometimes controversial material. They have been messaged and warned plenty of times, including by FlightTime, Doniago and LindsayH, but to no avail. Better yet, they haven't responded once on their own talk page.WP:COMMUNICATION is required and they do not seem to be willing or able to work with others. I've issued them a warning earlier this week, but looking at their talk page, I see they've been issued stern warnings plenty of times. And despite messages about adding sources, in late December 2024 they created List of second unit directors, which is barely referenced. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Jypian gaming extended confirmed

    [edit]

    On J.P. (rapper), the user is making pointless edits after having been here for exactly thirty days. Clearly gaming extended confirmed. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I been making real edits since I created my account please take your time to check and I’m sorry for purposely pointless edits for extended confirmed on Day 30. I’m a real and genuine user I just wanted early access to work and edit on important stuffJypian (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For what reason are you doing this? 331dot (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]