Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from User:DarwIn

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  • 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)

    @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)

    @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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    Rephrase that as mothers opinions on their 4 year old baby gender expression. Darwin ^Ahoy! 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. GiantSnowman 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. Darwin ^Ahoy! 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. Eduardo G.^msg-contrib 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.Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    I would suggest a topic ban is imposed. GiantSnowman 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    I would support a topic ban from WP:GENSEX. 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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Topic ban from GENSEX and BLP, broadly construed, is fine for me. GiantSnowman 16:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    I do understand this Wikipedia rules on BLP. Isn't that not enough for you? Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Given your comments here and at DYK, you clearly do not. GiantSnowman 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. Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    @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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    it was a collective you. Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    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)

    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)

    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)

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)

I've continued to post where? Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I've already walked away from it yesterday, why you're insisting on that lie? Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You are continuing to post here, ergo you have not "walked away" from it, have you? GiantSnowman 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

Which discussion are you talking about? Now I'm confused. Can't you be more clear? Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@DarwIn This one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

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)

That is not an appropriate statement, it has your bias/agenda throughout it. Very concerning. GiantSnowman 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? Horse Eye'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. Darwin ^Ahoy! 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? Horse Eye'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. Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  And how did you become aware that there was something to disagree with? Horse Eye'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 🤷 Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Please link the diff from portuguese wiki where the DYK for this wiki came up. Horse Eye'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. Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  How is this a related issue then? It sure looks like you followed this particular user around Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back no, I followed the articles, as they were also created here yesterday. Is that so hard to understand? Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Because of edits like this [2]. Horse Eye'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? Darwin ^Ahoy! 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? Horse Eye'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? Darwin ^Ahoy! 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. Horse Eye'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. Darwin ^Ahoy! 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. Horse Eye'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. Darwin ^Ahoy! 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. Horse Eye'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. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Not that I ever interacted with her there AFAIK, anyway. Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

@Isaidnoway yes, that's correct. Darwin ^Ahoy! 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 righting great wrongs in the topic area, I believe the interaction ban would solve most of the issues raised here. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  which "edits"? The 1 or 2 comments in the DYK section? Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  All your edits related to the subject, both here and on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Isabelle Belato You're evaluating my edits on the Portuguese Wikipedia to punish me in the English Wikipedia? Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  When there is cross-wiki harassment, then yes, your activity on other wikis is relevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @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? Darwin ^Ahoy! 23:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Proposed Community Sanctions

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)

• Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I note that Darwin has agreed above to the IBan. -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. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Why should the community accept voluntary TBAN and IBAN which can easily be reneged on when we can impose it as a community sanction and ensure that any violation is actionable? TarnishedPath^talk 01:08, 6 January 2025 (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. GiantSnowman 18:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Just read through the above and good grief. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• I said above I would support this proposal if it was brought forward, and I do. Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2024 (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. Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

That's actually a fair point. -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. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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)

If they weren't before they are now... Horse Eye'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. Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support this seems like a reasonable set of restrictions, I hope they can stick to it Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @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. Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Your edits to DYK were within that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back And those were the only ones, and I 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 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. Darwin ^Ahoy! 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 Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @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? Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  This edit [3] 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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back I can fix those too as I did yesterday, if you think it's important 🤷🏽‍♂️ Darwin ^Ahoy! 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"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @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? Darwin ^Ahoy! 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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back There was not any "lie", please stop 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". Darwin ^Ahoy! 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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Darwin has a long history of editing in WP:GENSEX albeit generally less controversially. an example. Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @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. Darwin ^Ahoy! 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. Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @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. Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Bushranger. charlotte ^👸🎄 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. 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. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Pppery: days ago? I think you might have misread the time stamps. Horse Eye'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. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 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. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @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)

  @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)

  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)

  Holding an opinion ≠ expressing an opinion. Only one of these is causing an issue. 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. Darwin ^Ahoy! 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

  @Liz: Thank you for the wise advice, I'll be doing that. Darwin ^Ahoy! 03:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  @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)

  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)

• Support - Darwin's replies and conduct here indicates that he simply doesn't get it.

MiasmaEternal☎ 02:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per GoodDay and Springee. Ciridae (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN per Bushranger. Darwin has already agreed to the 1-way IBAN — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 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.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. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN/IBAN Weak support TBAN/Strong support IBAN - WP:NQP suggests that queerphobia is inherently disruptive. calling a queer activist a "troglodyte"[4], the previous history of abuse on pt.wikipedia, and the current responses from Darwin indicate WP:NOTHERE behavior. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Oh dear. Do you think I should have a siteban, or would a TBAN suffice?--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. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

"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)

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)

No need to thank me. It's just part of the service. EEng 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

OK boomer. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, you certainly put me in my place with that one. EEng 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.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. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

No. It's stopping a disruptive editor from continuing to edit disruptively. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

(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)

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)

... 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)

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)

• Oppose as unnecessary given the commitments already given. WaggersTALK 11:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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)
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) 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) Thank you for affirming my point. -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? Horse Eye'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. -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... Horse Eye'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. -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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC) (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)

This is affairs of other wikis. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) @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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

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)

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)

@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)

I didn't realize the discussion was closed. Sorry. 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.--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. 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.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. 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.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.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.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The mother may have decided to publicise things, but the child certainly hasn't. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Children cannot consent, their parents can. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 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.--Boynamedsue (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That's incorrect. He's clearly disputing the child's identity. He might feel that's justified but Wikipedia isn't the place for that crap. Whatever the wisdom of whatever the mother did, there's zero reason to think the child is helped in any way by an editor denying their identity. As I've said before, if at any time the child says what the mother said was wrong or otherwise indicates they have a different identity from what's been presented then we'll change our article. But until that happens, we should treat things as they are and not allow editors to question the child's identity. I'd note that DarwIn also kept talking about the child's age in a very misleading way to the extent that I eventually felt complelled point out their bullshit. I did not want to talk about the child's age here on ANI, it shouldn't relate to anything. But what can we do when DarwIn keeps uttering nonsense about the child's age? Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't feel disputing the validity of the process by which the mother came to the conclusion the child was trans is covered by BLP. The description she made of the process is public knowledge, if a person wants to say "she shouldn't have done it like that" then they are not making any claims about the person at all, merely about whether, in their opinion, their actions are correct.--Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Ask yourself whether Wikipedia would even entertain this discourse if the identity was anything other than a trans one. The answer is a flat no. Darwin's interpretation of the mother's interpretation of her daughter's identity is inappropriate for the project, is disruptive and is openly antagonistic toward trans editors. I think nothing more can be gained from endlessly debating whether we should pretend there is a carve-out to BLP requirements for children within oppressed minorities. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN, no comment on IBAN. This is blatant POV harassment. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 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.-- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 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. Dronebogus (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support TBAN, indifferent to IBAN. Having followed this topic for a few days, it's convinced me that a topic ban for both GENSEX and BLP is entirely appropriate in this instance. My initial scepticism passed after reading responses from the editor and realising that the understanding of BLP policy appears to be even more incomplete than I originally thought. The deceleration from the editor to avoid such topics voluntarily is irrelevant, as combined with the lack of understanding over the concept of broadly construed, commitments have already been made and broken within this discussion alone. So respectfully, I believe this WP:NOTHERE type editing, whether it is attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or simply WP:BLUDGEONING discussions, is nonetheless disruptive and uncivil at times. CNC (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dronebogus. I'd say "we're better than this" if I believed it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Skyshifter, if anything, is harassing Darwin in this instance. Darwin has agreed to an IBAN, never mind that he's expressed desires to deëscelate what has become the longest thread on AN or ANI as of writing. JayCubby 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support This is a pretty explicit case of POV harassment. Their replies to the topic likewise do not give me faith they will adhere to a self imposed limitation. Darwin claimed to have agreed to step away before the ANI was created, but the edit history shows that Darwin continued editing the page up until an hour before Skyshifter created the ANI. Thus, there should be an actionable sanction. I fail to understand how it is Skyshifter doing the harassment at all as Cubby suggests. Darwin even called skyshifter a troglydite (here) to boot. Relm (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh my fucking god. This whole thread is nuts. I wish I could pardon my french but this is CRAZY.

Never in a million years would’ve I expected myself to be responding to a thread like this but I mean here I am.

Although Skywing’s concerns of harassment are valid especially if he’s being tracked across Wikipedia’s website, as far as I know, there are no guidelines that state someone can be punished for actions on another Wikipedia.

I support the notion of Darwin being topic banned from gender related articles (especially trans ones), for the simple fact that his conflict of interest with transphobia has clearly caused a disruption to the Wikipedia community.

I oppose with the IP-ban because if anything this SHOULD’VE ended a week ago when Darwin voluntarily said he would not edit those pages as well as avoid any interaction with Skywing.

Reader of Information (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

No one has proposed an IP Ban. The Aforementioned 'IBan' is a one way interaction-ban. Relm (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand, I meant that. Apologies. I misunderstood what it stood for. I would prefer if the IBAN was two way instead of one-way. Seems hardly fair in my honest opinion when both I suppose are equally responsible and to share the blame. This is a messy situation so putting the blame on one when both are equally responsible seems hardly fair. But that's my two cents.

NOTE: I don't condone homophobia or queerphobia or whatever the term is (I'm not really informed enough in this situation to know what Wikipedia calls it so I'm adding both just in case) so please don't take it as me defending either side as that is NOT my intent.

Cheers,
Reader of Information (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This reply reminded me of the essay WP:CLUE. CNC (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Lol. It is accurate. That literally is what it is I suppose lol. Reader of Information (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions against Darwin per Dronebogus. I wish we were better than this, but like TBUA, I don't actually believe that we are. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support both TBAN and IBAN. Their behaviour at DYK might have been mitigated if they had taken responsibility here instead of doubling down. A TBAN and IBAN will reduce disruption. TarnishedPath^talk 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  After I left my comment above and after providing Darwin with a CTOP notice they commented at Special:Diff/1267644460 accusing me of coming to their talk page to "further troll me with this nonsense warning". TarnishedPath^talk 01:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support both. I'm baffled that some people above are saying "well, they agreed to stop voluntarily" - did they not read the massive post Darwin made above? It amounts to an extended "I'm sorry that you were offended." Trusting that someone will avoid the same mistakes in the future on their own requires that they understand and admit to those mistakes, which is obviously not the case here; how can we trust that an editor will abide by a self-imposed restriction when they won't even meaningfully acknowledge the errors that made that restriction necessary? Therefore, sanctions are necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Skyshifter taking matters from another Wikipedia to seek revenge.

100% affairs of other wikis. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 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) @Eduardo Gottert: You need to provide evidence when opening an ANI thread, not on request. Nil Einne (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC) '@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) 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) Honestly, the argument is pretty clear above. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 06:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC) If you agree you're wrong then please withdraw this ANI. 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. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 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. 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. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 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. Nil Einne (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) (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) 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) I added more evidence and context. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 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. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Your statement doesn't even make sense. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 06:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC) We can add WP:CIR to the reasons you are blocked then. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Am I? And where am I in violation of WP:CIR? Eduardo G.msg-contrib 06:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC) I used plain English and you said you couldn't comprehend it. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC) 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) The reason for the AN/I opens is still the same, revenge. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 06:15, 31 December 2024 (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.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2024 (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. Eduardo G.msg-contrib 07:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John40332 reported by CurryTime7-24

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

---

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ToBeFree (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Because your use of that source is pretty clearly intended as promotional. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 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 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc). 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" 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)

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)

You have repeatedly said that CurryTime7-24 is an affiliate of Fidelio. Can you show us your evidence of that? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Here he removed my source to add Fidelio Music diff1

Here again to make sure only Fidelio Music exists diff2

And obviously here, deleting what I added to include Fidelio Music exclusively diff3

Here he completely deleted everything I added about the piece as part of his WP:HOUNDING diff4 John40332 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

That may be evidence of something, good or bad, but it's certainly not evidence that that editor is an affiliate. But, anyway, the action that hould have been taken a few days ago has now been taken, so we can stop talking now. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

Checkuser is not for fishing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

It appears that there is consensus here and at WT:CM against linking to Sheet Music X. Is it possible for an admin to propose a resolution here? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The only consensus is your WP:OWN syndrome, the sources linked are reliable and fit for purpose. People have questioned my use of the source, not the reliability of it.

You created this complaint stating that I'm a spammer, a bot or a compromised account, has that consensus been reached too ? John40332 (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

No, John40332, you are wrong about the lack of consensus, and there is clear consensus against you linking to that commercial sheet music sales site. So, either you agree to stop doing so, or you get subjected to formal sanctions. Which will it be? Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

So CurryTime can throw random accusations until something sticks? John40332 (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, then. John40332 is indefinitely blocked from article space. The editor is free to make well-referenced, formal edit requests on article talk pages. The editor is warned that continuing to attempt to add links to Sheet Music X may lead to a sitewide block. The editor is advised to read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I made well referenced edits directly from a reputable publisher. Enjoy the power trip. John40332 (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks which violate policy. Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Let me quote Wikipedia's page for Power Trip "(...) someone in a position of greater power uses that power unjustifiably against a lower-ranking person, typically just for display of dominance.", since you showed up just to block me when I haven't even edited anything else until this incident was cleared. I didn't spam, I'm not a bot, my account isn't compromised, I referenced a reputable publisher that due to CurryTime's WP:COI and WP:OWN made him start this issue. John40332 (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Put that shovel down before you are indef blocked completely. increase indef block to all namespaces for battleground mentality. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The block is now sitewide. Cullen328 (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Historian5328

• Historian5328 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 [10] 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)

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)

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)

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)

I see you corrected their username in this report after I mentioned the mistake. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 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. 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. Historian5328 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion continued on user's talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 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. 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:C826:BD54:45DF:3286 (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Both done - thanks for the reminder. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• I've removed the pblock on Historian5328 as it appears what was happening was 'new user unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sourcing', but best to keep an eye on their edits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Vofa and removal of sourced information

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

---

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: [11][12][13]

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

Previous examples include: [14][15]. Also see: Talk:Finns#Vandalism_by_user:Vofa Bogazicili (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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" [16], is an ongoing concern with Vofa. 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. Vofa (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: This issue is still continuing [17] Bogazicili (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

And you previously spoke to Vofa about this where...? -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

asilvering, I hadn't talked about removing sourced material without sufficiently explaining the rationale.

I did talk about this however [18]. 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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Vofa, do you see any issues with this edit: [19] Bogazicili (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you implying if I see an issue with this edit of mine or with your removal of said edit? Vofa (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Vofa, the former. I am asking if you see any issues yourself with your own linked edit. Bogazicili (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not see an issue with the linked edit of mine. Vofa (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, really the issue was Bogazicili's, and it has now been solved in the usual way (by restoring only the sourced content). Apologies, @Vofa, for misreading it earlier. -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering, I disagree. I did miss the unsourced paragraph. However, removal of sourced content has been an ongoing issue with Vofa. They should not have removed sourced content to begin with.

There was also a previous discussion in ANI:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1170#User:Vofa

Asilvering, again, is the threshold of communication met if removing sourced content by Vofa persists in the future? Bogazicili (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Basically, I'm not trying to get Vofa blocked, but they should be more careful in future when they remove sources or sourced content. They should have a reasonable rationale based in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and they should explain that rationale properly. Bogazicili (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed they should. And you should not restore unsourced content once it has been removed. -- asilvering (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

asilvering, the difference is I already acknowledged it multiple times. Is that not obvious? Bogazicili (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili, I'm going to close this report. No administrative action is required here at this time. You should make a habit of communicating on the article talk page when you get into a conflict with another editor, but you should always try to communicate with other editors before coming to ANI about their behaviour. This should be your last resort. If you make an earnest effort to communicate and are ignored, by all means report here. If there is edit-warring or obvious vandalism involved, please take that to the relevant noticeboard. -- asilvering (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. 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. Incall ^talk 12:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Incall, vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia; an edit being unsourced does not mean it was vandalism. Do not cast aspersions on other editors in this way. @Vofa, you are edit-warring on Oirats. You need to stop doing that immediately. -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I have not edited Oirats. I have stopped edit warring. Vofa (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Incivility and ABF in contentious topics

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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 ([[20]]) 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. (All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page of the relevant article or user before requesting dispute resolution. [[21]]) Thank you for your time and input.

Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I hope the editors who read this will notice the ABF here: trying to report other editors in bad faith. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Lardlegwarmers: Jay brought something to my attention with a recent version of your user page. It looks like there is large language model (ChatGPT) text about "COVID-19 Natural Immunity" copied and pasted on there. What in the cheeseballs?? What made you think hmm, let's prompt ShatGPT to churn out 700 words about this random out-of-pocket topic, and I'm gonna post this on my Wikipedia user page for no reason! I'm confused. This specific revision also assumes bad faith about IP editors, and here's the rich part: just as you copy-pasted text from ChatGPT about COVID to your user page, you go on to write a section that addresses use of AI. Quoting from an AI chat bot without attribution is plaigiarism. I'm just confused with what you are doing here. So I'd like to ask you, since you are here at ANI now, what in the sam hill is going on here? If there is a reasonable explanation for this goofiness, I suggest you produce one, not from a prompt entered into ChatGPT, in your own words. BarntToust 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It is an old version of their user page, and it is not plagiarism to quote from a chat bot even without attribution, so we must assume that you are attempt to detract from the OP's complaint. The issue at hand is an experienced editor who joins talk page discussions without understanding the topic at hand (which they admit in one instance [22]), and are frequently use derogatory language and tone towards other editors. This behavior does not seem like a new thing for them and they clearly know how to skirt the edge of what would be considered a personal attack by an admin, so this merits a formal warning. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

look, the other guy is acting pissy, and I agree with the formal warning. But @IntrepidContributor, you should familiarise yourself with WP:BOOMERANG. The long short of it if you didn't click on one of the several instances of it being linked above: If an editor attempts to bring someone else to ANI while having dirty laundry themselves, this editor will likely be found out for their dirty laundry. And that's what I'm doing right now. BarntToust 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I know what WP:BOOMERANG is and I telling you that you appears to be here only to detract from the complaint, and the way you are doing it by dragging up something from old user page and making claims of plagirism is highly suspect. If an admin scrolls through Hob's comments on the lab leak topic page, they will see that they are almost all designed to provoke and demean other editors. This highly inappropriate for such a difficult topic area where editors struggle to agree on NPOV. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

So far, there's agreement that this is unbecoming behaviour from Hob, and they need a WP:TROUT slap to wake them the heck up from the bad behaviour. I do not understand why the jester cannot be questioned for his goofy behaviour when he shows himself to be goofy as he tries to alert everyone of the fool's, uh, foolishness. No offence intended from this medieval analogy. BarntToust 18:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

BarntToust You're being bitey and you need to stop. WP:BOOMERANG is for when the reporter is the one causing the problems, not for airing "dirty laundry" as you yourself describe it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

well, I tend to get concerned when someone with LLM text pasted on their userpage comes up from the water. If that's considered bite-y to reiterate my concerns in intentional lighthearted analogy in order to seem less hard-headed, then I guess we're done here. @Thebiguglyalien, I invite you to weigh in on whether you think a formal warning or a trout slap is what needs to happen to Hob. BarntToust 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

That content from ChatGPT was meant to go in my sandbox as experiment or for assisting with research into a future article. The LLM can generate wikitext with links to articles that already exist. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

When you get a bunch of text from a large language model, you get unsourced content. If you ask ChatGPT for info, you run the serious risk of getting false content. So, either way you take it: If you get text, then try to re-write it cohesively, and find sources for it, you are writing an article backwards and that is to be discouraged; if you are asking AI to gain an understanding on an unfamiliar topic, you are likely to run into false information. If you use AI for either of these purposes, @Lardlegwarmers, I suggest you be very judicious about how you go about "leveraging AI". There are more ways that can go wrong than I need to count on the ANI. BarntToust 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Why are you on this administrator page making these spurious claims of plagiarism and giving this unsolicited advices? IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@IntrepidContributor, I'm pointing out questionable content on someone else page. please look at this diff on Lardle's user page for context, in which they copied ChatGPT text without attribution, then said that using ChatGPT without attribution is plagiarism. That contradictory stuff is what I was questioning. please click on the diff for context. BarntToust 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I use it more like a (really good) search engine or a thesaurus. It can give a lot of suggestions for a human writer, but ultimately you use your own mind and RS to formulate the facts and how to present them. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

that's a good moderation mindset to use. I'm satisfied with your answer, it makes enough sense. Carry on! BarntToust 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! *curtsy* Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• The lack of civility in this contentious topic is significantly hindering editing efforts, especially since most issues concern neutrality and tone, which requires a careful and nuanced approach. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't see anything in the original report that does anything other than show that Hob Gadling calls a thicko a thicko. What is wrong with that? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger As someone who was the recipient of one of those attacks in the example, I'm curious, what is a "thicko" and why do you believe that I am one? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

...according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it means "a stupid person" - which would make it a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, in British slang, "thick" = "stupid". GiantSnowman 19:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

There is not enough context for the examples of impatience from Hob Gadling which the OP offers. For example, Lardlegwarmers, do you really expect a warm welcome for your 'attempted contact on user page' here? Or for your puritanical reproaches about HG's use of "profanity" (which normally turns out to mean using the word bullshit, which is by no means banned from Wikipedia, nor is its expressiveness easy to replace with something more flattering). Considering what they're replying to, this supposed "disparag[ement] of another editor's intellect and reasoning skills" seems pretty temperate. And so on. Bishonen | tålk 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC).

I'm not suggesting we should wash anybody's mouth out with soap. The editor's consistent uncivil behavior is more than just the occasional salty diction here and there. I mean, look at this user page discussion where an editor is asking for a discussion on why Hob Gadling reverted his edit. It seems as if the person was trying to do it on the talk page and was ignored. Hob Gadling gruffly tells the other editor to get lost. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

My experience is that this kind of aggression is standard operating procedure for the defendant. I'd basically given up on them seeing any consequences for it - it's been going on for a long time, so I assumed this is one of the cases where editors with enough "social capital" get an exemption from CIVIL. I doubt a trout will have lasting effect. - Palpable (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

My experience with and attitude toward Hob is 100% the same as described here by Palpable. It goes back a while ... [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hob Gadling failing to yield to WP:BLPRESTORE, apparently missing both the discussion and RSN link from the talk page. Asserting an unreliable source as reliable in order to describe the subject as having a ‘victim complex’. [35] SmolBrane (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that Hob edited the talk page after re-adding this content; he should have self reverted if he missed this discussion prior. SmolBrane (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Propose serving of trout to both. Hob likely may have acted a hair too strongly to a source of exasperation; but not enough for any warning. Lardlegwarmers provides a large helping of such and I would suggest a boom if not for BITE. Albeit, Lardlegwarmers’ knowledge of WP is beyond the average for an editor with 5x the posts. I would suggest a non-logged warning to Lardlegwarmers on the concept of collaboration for their own good. Otherwise, we are likely to see them back here given their attitude at both this filing and at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. (Disclaimer, I have been involved.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  For context, O3000, Ret. is on the other "side" from me in a content dispute along with Hob Gadling ([[36]])Lardlegwarmers (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  I am on the "side" of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and am not arguing any content issues here. But I did state I was involved. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Best not to imply that your opposition is not on the side of the rules. Given this comment and your involvement, I think you should recuse. SmolBrane (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Recuse Appears that you have over 500 edits to Covid related article pages including their TPs. That's approaching 50% of your lifetime edits and 250 times the percentage of my edits in that area. Consider that in your short time here, you were blocked for egregious and repeated bad-faith assumptions. Probably should avoid that in future as this appears to be the same. Meanwhile, I stand by my post here and involved editors add value; so I will not suggest that you recuse. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, I was suggesting recusing from proposals, not from discussion. Regards. SmolBrane (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you click through the diffs, you’ll notice that many other editors have received the rude comments, so this is more than a 1-on-1 scuffle with me and Hob Gadling. I stopped compiling examples after finding 9 examples of visible hostility out of their most recent dozen diffs, but like I mentioned to BarntToust above, I can go back further if you need me to, to illustrate the chronic pattern. And the handful of other editors who have spoken up here who have been aggrieved speak for themselves. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• As a note, Hob Gadling removed the ANI notice without comment and has not responded here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hob Gadling is allowed to do whatever they want to their user talk page including removing notifications of discussions. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Never said they weren't. Just noting that they clearly received the notice and chose not to respond here, which is a response in and of itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Wish Hob Gadling would not act like a profane teenager on talk page discussions and that they'd treat people without the smartass-y-ness and contempt. If they are so committed to being pissy towards other users while being shut-off in their own la-la-land, maybe they need a block until they're willing to face the music. BarntToust 01:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It should be noted that Lardlegwarmers, after only truly starting editing two months ago, has been actively pushing WP:FRINGE misinformation, particularly on Covid related pages. They have actively been making claims that the scientific community is trying to cover things up, such as here, and has been using poor quality sources to try and claim that major published scientific papers on the topic are false, such as here. This entire thread just sounds like an attempt to silence another editor who has been actively dealing with fringe POV-pushers across numerous articles, such as those linked by Lardlegwarmers above. Silverseren^C 02:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning. And it seems that's the case here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• I haven't seen any evidence presented that would put Hob Gadling in the wrong; after reviewing the diffs I'm scratching my head and can only conclude that some of the people above have been commenting without reading them. Most of them are not even mildly uncivil. Going over them, the majority are clearly criticizing someone's argument (or the specific reasoning they presented), which is not a personal attack; and others aren't violations at all. Wikipedia editors are not forbidden from using profanity; the fact that Lardlegwarmers' unconvincing throw-every-unconnected-thing-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach here extended to the fact that their target used the word (gasp!) bullshit to describe an argument that did, in fact, turn out to be bullshit shows how weak it is. What's more alarming is that that was what led Lardlewarmers to try and their target on their talk page, a hamhanded effort whose sheer inappropriateness they remain sufficiently tone-deaf to that they made the mistake of bragging about it here as part of their "report". This is a straightforward WP:BOOMERANG situation. --Aquillion (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  There's only so much we can handle when someone has had five years to fulfill their promise and "turn over a new leaf" in situations like this one. Wikipedia would be better off if people were more willing to tell people to stop before it's too late and stop treating aggressive or uncivil behavior as a "lesser" crime. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  The reason I cited numerous diffs was to substantiate, as I said in my post, that this is a chronic and ongoing habit of rude and uncivil behavior. I posted the diff of Hob Gadling's user page not to "brag" (and I don't understand how you inferred that), but rather to show that I followed ANI procedure to address conduct disputes first on the user page and that my attempt was dismissed without Hob Gadling addressing it except to blank the comment with the explantion that I wasn't welcome on his page.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not trying to silence anyone. See above, I recommend a stern warning about consistent uncivil comments and that’s it. If Hob Gadling has something substantive to say, they can say it without demeaning the editors as if this is a combat sport instead of a discussion about articles of text. I encourage y'all to check out the discussions linked to by Silverseren. I have been careful to use sources, present my suggestions in good faith, and stay neutral in personal interactions. I am genuinely trying to find consensus. I'll mention that Silverseren is also involved in the content dispute, providing sources that myself and several other editors believe do not verify an extraordinary claim in the article. (Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#c-Silver_seren-20241231185800-Slatersteven-20241230182700) It's getting to the point where we should do a content moderation over that, since I am sure that the sources do not verify the claim but Silverseren apparently is sure that they do. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it was probably a poor choice for you to reference Silverseren's discussion as proof of one-sided UNCIVIL behavior. There is precious little in your first response to Hob in this specific LL section that makes your point that that you're trying to find consensus, but rather demonstrates a heavy handed I'm right because I can cite more WP policies in bolded type. As the Alien above said, you Both parties can be wrong and in need of a final warning. now WP:DROPTHESTICK. TiggerJay (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No, TiggerJay, that is false. Except for one link to Wikipedia:Civility, the links you mentioned are all main-space articles to describe the fallacies contained in Hob Gadling's arguments, including the use of ad hominem, as part of my intention to focus on and steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person (Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250103194100-Hob Gadling-20250102085800). This is the second comment you have posted in this discussion that mischaracterizes my actions and falsely accuses me of bad faith.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

For the record I do agree with you that Hob's position was absolutely a fallacy; I might assume they might have even been bating you. I also agree that you also have references to main space article, beyond the single reference to policy. I even agree that there is an probably conflict of interest with those virologists you named, but unless their editing Wikipedia that is irrelevant unless you're performing WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, rather we depend on WP:RS and WP:UNDUE to help navigate such things. You claimed that you intented to steer the conversation towards a discussion of the content, not attacking the person. However, that is not what I read in that reply. Out of the gate you're calling Hob uncivil, their arguments are false, and then lobbing further accusations. You get the discussion wrapped up arguing over who said what, and what they meant by it, and why your positions are valid and theirs are not. As for bad faith, I'll invite to other editors to comment below if they agree that I'm the one presuming bad faith towards you. Cheers! TiggerJay (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Your point about RS is well-taken. However, per WP:RS, concerns about the reliability of a particular source ought to be discussed on the article talk page (Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2#c-Lardlegwarmers-20250105151700-Credibility_of_major_scientific_journals_on_Covid) first when it is only germane to the particular topic and not the publication as a whole.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're referring to about RS. Yes, there are times when a source is otherwise considered reliable (or even un-reliable) but consensus can be found with regards to a specific narrow aspect of it that might warrant it's inclusion or exclusions, or some variation on how it is presented or the weight afforded to it in the article. And that comes through talk page consensus as you mentioned and does not necessarily need to be unanimous. TiggerJay (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Being entirely blunt, if we have two visions of Wikipedia: one in which people are occasionally rude or incivil to people who tout pseudoscience concerning major diseases and one in which pseudoscience concerning major diseases makes its way into article space then I'll gladly sign up for the rude / incivil Wikipedia over the pseudoscience one. This is to say that being rude is most certainly a lesser offense. Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Please check out the article and discussion. The lab leak theory is not pseudoscience, but rather a scientific hypothesis which important scientists have suggested is worthy of serious investigation ([[37]]). Although the evidence strongly favors a zoonotic origin, the investigation is inconclusive. In any case, I would favor a Wikipedia where civil discussion leads to a balanced representation of what is published in reliable sources. If your position is supported by the sources, there is no need to resort to name calling. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It's pseudoscience and a pseudoscientific hypotheses burdened with quite a few racist and conspiracist adherents who want to propose China intentionally spread a plague just to weaken the United States. Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic. Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

What you are describing is a different idea: the COVID-19 bioweapon conspiracy theory. The lab leak hypothesis would be that the pandemic started due to researchers being accidentally infected with the virus. the World Health Organization is recommending in its strongest terms yet that a deeper probe is required into whether a lab accident may be to blame. [[38]] The fact that the virus is not human-made does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the virus escaped the lab by accident (Field 2020; Guterl et al. 2020). This remains an open question; without independent and transparent investigations, it may never be either proven or disproven. The leakage of dangerous pathogens had already occurred more than once in other labs.([[39]]) Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not what the article is about. It is about a "conspiracy theory". But this is entirely irrelevant to this noticeboard. This noticeboard is about behavior, not content. It can be extraordinarily frustrating to those who have been building this encyclopedia for ages (20 years in the case of Hob Gadling) to deal with large numbers of brandy new editors trying to push new conspiracy theories, often politically motivated. If you wish respect, try supplying some yourself. Believe me, it will aide you in your work here. I stand by my proposal of trouting you both and an unlogged warning to you that is for your own good if you wish to continue contributing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Beyond what @Objective3000 said, for all parties, it doesn't matter who is "right" (when it comes to the article or talk pages), that is not sufficient to be uncivil WP:BRINE. TiggerJay (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

If Hob Gadling wants to "deal with" new editors who threaten Wikipedia, it should not be through aggression and insulting them openly, but through quality sources and discussion. Editors who sympathize with "fringe" ideas might be more cooperative if they didn't have to defend themselves against offensive comments in response to their suggestions. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

If this "old grievance" about the FTN exemption to CIVIL really has been thoroughly hashed out, could someone link the discussion from WP:FTNCIVIL or something? Being up front about it would save time here at ANI, plus it's always heartbreaking to watch as earnest new editors learn about this the hard way. - Palpable (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Palpable, were you canvassed to this conversation? You seem to be a very inactive editor. I've made more IP edits in a month than you have edits in two decades. I'm curious how such a new editor found this. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I am in the diffs.

I would still like a pointer to the discussion of why FTN regulars get an exemption from CIVIL, I honestly think that should be better understood. - Palpable (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

They don't have an exemption, and I challenge you to provide a diff proving they do. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think he was referring to the comment by Simonm223 above: Preventing the promulgation of this specific pseudoscientific hypothesis is certainly more important to the integrity of this encyclopedia than the very old grievance that the regulars at the Fringe Theory noticeboard are insufficiently diplomatic.[[40]] Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

That diff certainly doesn't prove anyone is exempt from policy. I think it's interesting Palpable said he was following diffs instead of saying he was involved in the content dispute underlying this complaint. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

No, they're one of the pro-fringe editors in the linked discussion. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended discussion

How ironic that you would call out canvass, when you haven't contributed to this discussion previously, nor have you contributed to any prior notice board. See WP:POTKETTLE, also please see WP:SOCK if you logged out just to make problematic edits here.... TiggerJay (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times, what are you talking about? IPs are only assigned for a few hours to weeks at a time usually. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC) @166.205.97.61: Okay let me say it another way... never in this history of this subject has an IP editor contributed. since January 1, ALL of the IP's who have contributed to ANI aside from your are blocked or had their contribution reverted. in the last 50,000 edits to this notice board, not a single anon has commented more than 34 times and that user was in Romania, whereas your IP shows US/Mobile, and they are currently blocked. Followed up an IPv6 with 30 edits, last participated in ANI back in May. Followed by a handful from the UK and other countries. The first one who is US based that was mobile has less than 12 edits, not hundreds. when you choose to edit anonymously (which is your privilege) you accept the reality that people will question your constructiveness because of a lack of established history. But beyond all of that, aren't you simply deflecting from the question brought up? Perhaps @Palpable has been lurking anonymously. As they have logged at least 31 edits to ANI alone [41]. TiggerJay (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) There's a lot of strawmen there to knock down if I cared to derail this conversation, but I'm curious what question you think I'm deflecting? Your assumptions of bad faith are expected, but disappointing. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC) What I claim you are deflecting KETTLE: Somehow you feel like you can call out someone who hasn’t contributed previously as canvassed, which is a serious allegation, yet that is exactly what your user account history appears reflect. When challenged, you claimed to have edited hundreds of time, which was rebutted with facts, you resorted to allegations. Interestingly they very closely mirror only one other person who liberally throws around terms like strawman and bad faith. And really only one person at ANI has ever held this view so strongly they would plainly say bad faith was “expected” from me . If your not that person, then my query is how did you get involved in this conversation, and when exactly do you proffer that you last edited on here as an IP constructively? However, if you are indeed that person, let me warn you, such activity is considered sock puppetry. (Of course editing while accidentally logged out is a human mistake. But persisting and pretending otherwise, is not.) TiggerJay (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Don't know what this thread is about, but point 2 and 3 seem wrong - none of my IPs have been blocked, and I am an anon that has, in the last 5 thousand edits to this board I made 38 of them (all edits by IPs starting with 2804:F14), let alone in the last 50 thousand edits. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your claims. – 2804:F1...42:FDB7 (::/32) (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC) I think my detail for you was accidentally edited out. You would be an IPv6 from a different country, so unless this IP user is claiming they have rotating IPs hourly because they’re using an international VPN connecting via various countries, I find their claim that they just stumbled upon this conversation dubious at best. TiggerJay (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Also in case you were not aware, while mobile IP addresses can and do change, they still remain with that mobile carrier. So while your ip address will change, who all of those addresses are registered to will not. What I mean is that will your current IP goes back to a US based cell network, you’re not going to get a new IP address that is registered in Japan or even one in the US that is through a completely different network (a few technical exceptions exist, but they’re nevertheless evident). Same with home internet as well. And of course, most work addresses are persistent. All that to say, a claim of “my ip address changes” does not mean that a persona cannot reasonably determine if you’ve contributed to ANI from the a network. TiggerJay (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) When did I say I stumbled upon this thread? Provide the diff. You are putting words in my mouth and casting aspersions. I said my IP changes as a response to you saying I was a new editor. You are creating an elaborate narrative and getting strangely defensive. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) I will gladly provide the answe after you answer the two questions I have previously asked to you. First was about KETTLE, and the second asked you to substantiate your claim of I've contributed to this notice board hundreds of times by providing your last contrustive ip edit to this notice board. TiggerJay (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Please read WP:SATISFY. I'm not going to link all of my comments across IPs here for you. If you really believe I was canvassed, you need some diffs, or maybe you should strike your aspersions. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC) All I can do is laugh at your replies. More KETTLE behavior. You claim don’t have to proof anything per SATISFY, yet in the same breath you demand such of others. More ad hominem, deflection. Zero actual replies. TiggerJay (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC) What are you talking about? I asked one question, got one answer and it was done. It was you who started a long thread full of bad faith assumptions and no diffs. Provide diffs, or kindly stop bludgeoning. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Given how long this has gone on for, may I make a suggestion? Send this to WP:AE since ANI seems incapable of resolving this, and it falls solidly into the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Another claim that civility complaints are treated differently in "the realm of pseudoscience and fringe theories".

That matches my experience and I'm grateful to the people willing to say it out loud, but surely it would save a lot of drama and forum shopping if someone just wrote it down? - Palpable (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

---

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)

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)

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" ([42]). Funny how a spotlight on ANI can change an editor's tune. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thaf didnt change my tune at all! I mentioned that I personally liked that book before you posted this KanyeWestDropout (talk) 14:04, 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.

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 (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As I have said before, I am not used to conflict on the site and naively did that. If you look back at that whole debate, I did reply saying I was not aware that it was bad. If you look at my history of edits, I rarely (if ever) participate in conflict. I prefer to edit like everyone else on here in a constructive and beneficial manner, so all those accusations strike a nerve with me as they are both untrue and slander. As I have said previously, bloodoffox has a history of provoking conflict by aggressive behavior towards other editors, even when those editors are in the wrong they should not be treated with the level of disdain and contempt. Slandering myself or others either based on an isolated and admitted mistake, then constantly bringing it up as "proof" of his claims that I am an instigator of any sort of conflict he has with others is behavior that only inspires destructive conflicts or edits. I have, in the past, reached out to bloodoffox to apologize and also offer assistance with other projects thinking that would mend any sort of anger and hate. This recent incident has proved me wrong and I am sad to see that it has come to this. I never wanted any conflict, just a healthy way of moving forwards to tackle fascinating and notable topics.

I will admit that it is frustratingly difficult to make edits on fringe topics, I am one of those people that tried to edit some but got frustrated by the overly tight restrictions on the subject (not that I was leaning to one side as some claim I do), which is why I rarely edit on the topic and only do so when I see that there is reliable information benefiting and fitting of the standards set by Wikipedia. I love information, and even fringe topics have enough within Wikipedia's confines to exist on the site and be a fascinating read for people. I truly hope you read this bloodoffox and realize I never meant you ill or advocate for people harassing you, I want this platform to explore information correctly and efficiently, even if we do not agree with the topic. That is pretty much all that should be said on this matter and hopefully it gets resolved. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Taboo of archaeologists

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

---

This is about [43] 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)

Lol, reporting on me? Jahuah (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2025 (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. 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you think it’s inauthentic? Or not? Please do not be wasting my time here. Jahuah (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

Ok. Thanks for actually giving me an answer at least. 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. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 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. Jahuah (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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)

See User talk:Jahuah#December 2024 and Talk:Uzziah#Uzziah Seals. 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. Jahuah (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Besides, what does this have to do with the Hoshea seal? 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

So no comment on my refutation of your petulant behavior? Jahuah (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Who’s “any of you” by the way? I’m one guy. 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Ooo, that’s a new one. 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. 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. 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Fine whatever, I apologize. 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. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Is the editor referring to me? 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_ Jahuah (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Since bona fide archaeologists are not allowed to discuss it, you win by default? tgeorgescu (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Elmidae, were you referring to me? Jahuah (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Bona fide archaeologists will lose their jobs for merely mentioning Mykytiuk's claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  I was talking to Elmidae. 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 respond to everything Jahuah says esepecially when it's in response to other editors. Jahuah, i can tell you’re clearly upset with me. >:). Good. is not an attitude conducive to cooperative editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 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. Jahuah (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  I also want to make sure my contributions are kept before I leave. 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. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oh look, BAR society is no longer reputable because some Wikipedia mod said so. Jahuah (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  By the way, who am I edit warring with? That’s news to me. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hmph. I guess I’ll go then. Sorry for the trouble I caused. Jahuah (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 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. Jahuah (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

• For the record, tg's hysterical talk about disgraced archeologists flipping burgers at Target is nonsense. There is vigorous controversy about unprovenanced objects, but no one's losing their job for breaking some alleged taboo. EEng 06:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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

HoraceAndTheSpiders

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

---

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

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)

•  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. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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

---

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)

They may be unaware of their talkpage, even though 8 months seems a long time for that. I have blocked indefinitely, with an informative message and a link to their talkpage in the log. Unfortunately that's sometimes the only way to get the attention of a non-responsive user. Bishonen | tålk 15:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC).

They know about talk pages, Bishonen, because they have used one at least once; i checked when i first tried to communicate with them to no avail. That being said, i think this is a good use of a block, showing we are serious when we say communication is necessary ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked after only 5-hours, without the user even editing during that period? For a first offence? After only warnings of the lowest level? I'm no sure why User:Soetermans even created this request, as there'd been zero editing of the page in question since his talk-page warning 3 days earlier! Much of the edits seem to be merely content disputes. I don't see much repition after notification. And we don't even have rules about providing sources. There was no imminent risk of damage here, and I don't think the conditions laid out in WP:INDEF have been met. And WP:BLOCKDURATION most certainly hasn't been met. This is an appallingly awful block User:Bishonen. Can I that you reduce it to a week or less just to get attention. I'd suggest a day, but the editor is so infrequent, that they may not not notice. Though given they are moderating their behaviour based on what is posted in their talk page, even a block is barely justified. Nfitz (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree. When an editor refuses to communicate, it's not uncommon for an admin to block until the editor responds. Even the block notice tells them Please respond below this post and start communicating, and you may be unblocked. Sometimes it's a case where inexperienced editors simply don't realize that they have a talk page or that people are leaving them messages. This block gently brings it to their attention. Schazjmd (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  I see nothing in policy for an indefinite. And an indefinite block is absolutely not "gently". It's the kind of heavy-handed authoritarianism that drives the people we need away. There seemed to be edits that were a real attempt to improve Wikipedia. And there seemed to be changes in behaviour that were guided by the comments on the talk page. And there hadn't even been any further edits of concern since the previous warning - days ago. Sure, for Wikipedia warriors who frequent ANI, a block is just something you deal with; but I don't think that's how many people would see it. Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Indef is "until you address the issue", not forever. Schazjmd (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  I believe we are all aware of that. The issue is that doing so, at this stage, is completely outside of our policy, and that doing so for a minor case like this is completely outside of policy. We can't just make start doing things a different way because the admin feels like it. Our policy says that "Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy". The threat was neither significant (or even very recent) or a major breach of policy. I note that the user in question was only given 5 hours to respond, but after 4 hours, we'd still had no response from User:Bishonen, perhaps she should also have been blocked for not noticing the discussion (yeah, that's irony, not a proposal). Nfitz (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• TTTEMLPBrony has now responded, stating that "I have not realized that accounts have talkpages", so apparently my block worked as intended. Unfortunately, they go on to say that their little brother did it, and also that they allowed the brother to use the account. Blithely they claim that "I have already dealt with him" - uh, "already"? Anyway, whether or not I believe them about the brother (I can't say I do), the account is clearly compromised, and must stay blocked. With some hesitation, I've turned the block into a softblock, so that they may create a new account, and have explained that they must absolutely not share it with anybody. I have notified the stewards in case they want to globally lock. Bishonen | tålk 03:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
  • Just because, User:Bishonen, it worked, doesn't mean that you are allowed to just make up your own rules. (but yeah, sounds fishy ... on the other hand, it's probably a child). Please follow protocol, or hand over your keys. Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Nfitz, please be more polite on these noticeboards. The block Bishonen placed was perfectly fine and it's the kind of thing admins have been doing for years. Nothing in policy forbids it, and I believe The Bushranger's response is along the same lines. Besides, the editor's edit were, and I'm trying to stay polite myself, not good, as their talk page full of warnings indicates: no edit summaries, no responses, no communication, no knowledge of sourcing and sourcing requirements. Finally, I don't know how young that editor might be, but I do know that they are four years older than when Ponyo blocked them. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Jypian gaming extended confirmed

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

---

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

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)

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)

For what reason are you doing this? 331dot (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, articles that only extended confirmed users can edit are like that for a reason. What kinds of important stuff were you planning on working on? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Donald Trump Hotel Accident Jypian (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Considering you've admitted you've gaming the system you need to voluntary agree to refrain from editing anything that requires EC until you've made 500 real edits. The permission will be removed if you don't follow this. I'd also suggest stay away from the Donald Trump hotel article until you've gotten at least a few thousand edits under your belt since being so desperate to edit an article is usually a sign once you do start editing you'll get into trouble. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I have revoked their extended-confirmed permission. They may re-request it from WP:PERM after making 500 legitimate edits. —Ingenuity (t • c) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Im going to edit Donald Trump hotel accident, whatever you want it or not😡 JupianCircles (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

If you create alternative accounts to try and bypass your primary account's restrictions, you will end up being banned. GiantSnowman 14:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It's unnecessary to threaten or to evade restrictions; you can propose edits via the edit request wizard. If they are nonsense, though, expect to be blocked as well. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked. Blocked as a sock by NinjaRobotPirate. Bishonen | tålk 15:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC).

  That makes sense. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the action NinjaRobotPirate. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 15:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• As an aside, is it possible to take away the EC permission before it is achieved or otherwise prevent it being automatically gained? I said what I said above because I incorrectly thought they hadn't yet achieved EC. Given this I thought either an admin would need to watch out for them (unless there's an admin bot which can do this) or they could voluntary refrain from using their EC and this wouldn't be necessary. But I checked after and realised I was wrong about them not gaining EC and I'm wondering if I could be wrong about the removal of EC before it's automatically gained. Nil Einne (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think it's possible to prevent an account from obtaining EC by granting and immediately revoking it. That apparently stops the account from getting it automatically because it has obtained EC before. QwertyForest (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Interesting, thanks. Useful to know for the future. Nil Einne (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Footballnerd2007

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

---

I need a second pair of eyes on Footballnerd2007 (talk · contribs) please - apparently a new editor, but they have been closing RM discussions - including one where they introduced a typo, see Dory (special) which I have fixed - and they have also been messing around moving my user space pages (see User:GiantSnowman/Mbunya Alemanji) and they have also created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberdog958. None of this is the action of a new editor and my Spidey senses are tingling. GiantSnowman 19:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see an urgent or intractable issue here. Unless/until stronger evidence comes up, I'm going to assume that they're trying to help and suggest we respond accordingly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify a point in your message. The statement "and they have also been messing around moving my user space pages (see User:GiantSnowman/Mbunya Alemanji)" should be corrected. I have only moved one page, not multiple pages. Please adjust the wording to reflect this accurately. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

A response like that is not helping with my suspicions and concerns. GiantSnowman 20:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

What exactly am I being accused of? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 20:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

You are either an extremely over enthusiastic new editor making mistakes - in which case you need to slow down a lot, and listen ASAP - or you are a sock trying to be clever. GiantSnowman 20:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The former is rather accurate. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 20:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, if you have evidence, then the appropriate forum is WP:SPI. If you don't, then you're liable to get hit with a boomerang for WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS, even if you end up happening to be correct. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

And what would my boomerang punishment be? GiantSnowman 21:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

How do I go about making a complaint against him for violating WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Response

Hello GiantSnowman,

Thank you for raising these concerns. I'd like to address the points you mentioned:

1. Botched Page Moves: Regarding the page moves, I made an attempt to improve the accuracy and consistency of article titles based on my understanding of the situation. I acknowledge that there was a typo introduced, which I appreciate being pointed out, and I have since corrected it. I’ll be more careful in the future to ensure that such errors do not occur.

2. Messing with User Space Draft: I apologise for any disruption caused to your user space draft. My intention was never to interfere with your content. I recognise that user space is personal, and I will be mindful to avoid making any uninvited changes moving forward.

3. Creation of an RFA for Cyberdog958: As for the RFA for Cyberdog958, I stand by my decision to create it. I believed that Cyberdog958 hads demonstrated the necessary qualities for adminship and could be a positive asset to the community. There was no ill intent behind my actions. The RFA was made based on a genuine belief that they were qualified, and I will continue to support nominations that I feel are appropriate based on the contributions and behavior I observe.

I hope this clears up any misunderstandings. I strive to make constructive contributions and act in good faith, and I appreciate your understanding.

Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 20:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

RFA - why didn't you discuss with the editor first? GiantSnowman 20:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was a requirement to do so. I did notify them! Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 20:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Before you made the RFA??? No. GiantSnowman 20:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I wasn’t pinged about this ANI, but I found it through the RFA message on my talk page. I guess I appreciate the thought, if it was coming from a sincere place, but I would have declined the nomination if I was asked. I’ve never come across this user or interacted with them in any way until now so I’m not sure why they picked me. cyberdog958^Talk 20:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Footballnerd2007, given that Cyberdog958 has confirmed that they have never interacted with you, please confirm how you found them to nominate them for RFA?

Similarly, how did you find me this afternoon, as I similarly have never heard of or interacted with you before today? GiantSnowman 21:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Footballnerd2007 thank you for trying to help out, and I'm sorry that GiantSnowman has chosen to escalate this in the way that he has. Page moves can be tricky, and you might want to sit back and watch the process for a while before participating in it yourself. Regarding RFA, it's a serious decision that people usually mull over for years before they finally agree to submit their names, so it's going to be more than a little jarring to have someone else do it on one's behalf. With the user space, it seems you understand the issue so there's no need to retread that. Going forward, I suggest taking things slow and asking for help whenever you think about entering a new area. I've been doing this for a few years now, and I still reach out to someone with experience in the area if I think I want to try something new! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Footballnerd2007, the response that you made at 20:08 has formatting that I have only seen before from AI, never from a human editor. Was it made with an LLM? If so please talk to us in your own words. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have the feeling that a lot of this editor's comments are AI produced. GiantSnowman 21:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous answer. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that link - I see therefore that other users have raised concerns with you only yesterday about your RM/discussion closes, and yet you have continued to make poor closes today. Why is that? Why therefore should we trust you when you say you won't do it again, given you have done it again? GiantSnowman 21:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Yesterday I didn't say I wouldn't do it again, today I have, albeit reluctantly, changed my position for the sake of keeping the peace. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Why did you continue to make the same questionable edits that other editors have previously queried with you? Unless you are deliberately trying to be disruptive? GiantSnowman 21:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Transparently LLM output. Folly Mox (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Yet here they deny using Chat GPT. So either it's not LLM (and multiple users have raised these suspicions, which I share) and just very odd language, or they are a liar. Which is it? GiantSnowman 21:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

What unsubjctive hard evidence do you have to support that allegation? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I pulled 11 random AI detectors from Google. Of them, seven give a 100% AI rating. One gives 50% and the 3 others give 0%. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The final 3 are 100% accurate. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

And the 7 others? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no explanation. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Because there is none - it's absolutely AI generated, you don't need a detector for that. While not against policy, it's heavily frowned upon, as it's not your words but the LLM's. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

And given that you have repeatedly denied use LLM, you are a liar and cannot be trusted. GiantSnowman 21:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I have repeatedly denied using ChatGPT because I didn't, that's not a lie and you have no evidence to suggest to the contrary. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

But you have been using a LLM of some kind, yes? GiantSnowman 21:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

No comment. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

We'll take that as a 'yes' then - and that you therefore have not been truthful. The tiny modicum of AGF I had has now fully disappeared. GiantSnowman 22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

So you're accusing me of lying now? As I have said before, I didn't use ChatGPT. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am accusing you of lying. GiantSnowman 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a serious allegation, what evidence do you have that I use ChatGPT? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The blatantly AI generated response is Exhibit A. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm pretty sure there's LLMs that aren't ChatGPT. But if you're saying "I didn't use a LLM/AI generator at all", then that is demonstratably false. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

And if you're trying to be clever by saying "I use LLM but not ChatGPT", your comments here have been disingenuous and misleading. You are digging yourself a hole. GiantSnowman 21:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I never made any comment about LLMs in general. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 21:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Please answer this direct question - have you used LLM? If so, why didn't you own up to that when asked? GiantSnowman 21:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The definition of LLM is somewhat ambiguous so I wouldn't want to mislead you by answering definitively. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

🤦‍♂️ Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So that's "yes" then, got it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:LLMDISCLOSE applies (even if only an essay). GiantSnowman 22:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

You're not helping your case right now. Even if you're getting dogpiled (especially if you're getting dogpiled) you need to speak clearly and directly. You'll gain far more goodwill by saying you're using an LLM and agreeing to stop. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien, do you now understand why my red flags were flagging earlier? There is something off about this editor. GiantSnowman 22:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your analysis. I disagree with the way you approached it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

A fair criticism. GiantSnowman 22:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure you've had to deal with this sort of thing far more than I have, so I get that. My philosophy is just that I'd rather give dozens of "cases" that extra chance if it means salvaging one well-meaning productive editor. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Which is what I usually try and do, but the alarm bells just really rang here, and I simply wanted a second pair of eyes on the contribs to tell me "yes it's fishy" or "no you're thinking too much". I did not envision this discussion! GiantSnowman 22:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, that's conjecture. I just choose my words very carefully. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 22:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Stop choosing your words carefully. I'm trying to give you a chance that isn't often afforded to new editors here, and you're trying to WP:Wikilawyer, which is also against the rules. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Here's the deal - either you used AI, or you [chose] my words very carefully in a way that is how AI distinctively chooses them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's 4 more AI detectors. Two give 100%, one says 11% (literally the last two sentences), and the other gives 50%. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Which AI detectors are you using? Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

possible hoaxes

• Emilioveh (talk · contribs)
• Emnoé (talk · contribs)
• Larissæ (talk · contribs)
• Miguelinor (talk · contribs)
• Nose236 (talk · contribs)

The above accounts are sockpuppets that have been blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia for creating articles with unverifiable references or with scarce references taken out of context. I recommend reviewing all the articles that these accounts have created here as they may be hoaxes.--Fontaine347 (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

As a note, you don't appear to have notified any of these editors about this section, which is something you need to do when you open a section on this noticeboard. - Purplewowies (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I've notified all the users about this possible hoax issue already. Suggest any action from administrators if possible. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, that's a valid notion, Fontaine347. Feel free to do so! Ravenswing 12:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring to prevent an RFC

@Axad12 has removed an RFC tag from Talk:Breyers#Request for comment on propylene glycol now twice within an hour.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Reasons and ways to end RfCs provides a list of circumstances under which you can stop an RFC started by someone else, and disagreeing with the question or wishing that it contained additional information is not in the list.

We have to be pretty strict about this, because an RFC is one of the few ways to attract the broader community's attention when there's an Wikipedia:Ownership of content problem or a Wikipedia:Walled garden that needs outside attention. The fact that an editor doesn't welcome outside attention sometimes indicates that there is a problem. I'm not saying that these things are happening in this case, but the rules have to be the rules for all RFCs, not just for the ones we agree with, because these things do happen in some cases. We can't really have opponents of an RFC question/proposal, no matter how well intentioned or how justified they think it is in this one case, unilaterally deciding that the rest of the community doesn't get to find out about the dispute.

I wouldn't bother with this here, except that it's already past my bedtime, so I need someone else to handle this. The proper way forward is to run the RFC, and for the loyal opposition to take the advice about how to respond that they'll find in the first two questions of the Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FAQ. See you tomorrow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

As previously explained elsewhere, I removed the tag because my understanding is that the serious COI issues invalidate the RfC.

I am perfectly happy to take instruction on that point if I am incorrect but the removals were undertaken in good faith.

The idea that I should be reported to ANI for this just because it is past someone's bedtime (and they don't have time for talk page discussion) seems to me rather an over-reaction. Axad12 (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, I am perfectly happy to volunteer to replace the tag if an administrator indicates that that is the appropriate course of action. Axad12 (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Axad12, please do not tamper with the RFC. I have already commented there again based on my previous assessment five weeks ago, and I have absolutely no conflict of interest in this matter. In my opinion, you are taking too aggressive a stance on this issue. I happen to be an administrator but I am also involved with the dispute as an ordinary editor. Cullen328 (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Axad12, I'd strongly suggest you return the tag. WhatamIdoing, a {{trout}} for WP:GRENADEing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for both of your advice. I will shortly replace the template.

The COI issue does not relate to Cullen, it relates to another user entirely. I would be grateful for input on the underlying COI issue, which seems to me to have been an exceptionally serious abuse. Axad12 (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

What? A company quite reasonably does not want to be falsely accused of adulterating their edible product with antifreeze, based on what a fringe source wrote, and you consider that exceptionally serious abuse? Cullen328 (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm referring to the series of events outlined here [44] where a paid COI editor has a COI edit request turned down and then starts cultivating a co-operative project member to implement non-contentious COI edit requests before reintroducing the contentious COI edit request and immediately tipping off their repeatedly canvassed project member to implement that contentious request.

I feel that that is an exceptionally serious abuse - clearly it is an attempt to distort the COI editing process by attempting to make sure that a previously co-operative project member deals with a resubmitted request rather than waiting for a random volunteer working out of the relevant queue (one of whom had previously declined the request).

As I said above, I am quite happy to take instruction on this point - but personally I feel that what happened there was highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

In other words, you want highly misleading content to remain in the article, just to make a point? Cullen328 (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Cullen, my post directly above is clearly about a point of process rather than a point of content.

Even if the original COI edit request was incorrectly declined that would not justify the paid COI editor attempting to game the system to get the request through at the second time of asking. Axad12 (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

"Asking a second time" is not WP:Gaming the system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, but for a COI user to attempt to influence which user will deal with the second request does constitute gaming the system. Axad12 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Read the guideline instead of guessing about its contents from the WP:UPPERCASE. See, e.g., An editor gaming the system is seeking to use policy in bad faith, by finding within its wording some apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support. Asking an individual to help has nothing to do with finding wording in a policy to justifying disruptive actions or stances that are not intended in that policy.

I also direct your attention to the item that says Gaming the system may include...Filibustering the consensus-building process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I was using the phrase 'gaming the system' in it's natural application (not specifically referring to WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM, which I didn't know existed until you linked to it above). Clearly the COI user was attempting to distort the COI edit request process in some way - whether one refers to what they were doing as 'gaming the system' or some other similar phrase is neither here nor there. Axad12 (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Also worth noting that ever since the original COI edit request back in August the clear talk page consensus has been that the material should remain within the article and is not highly misleading.

I've been part of that consensus position since approx October/November. Since that time the user who opened the RfC has repeatedly been opening new threads, continually trying to re-address a subject where they are repeatedly in the minority and presumably hoping that those who previously opposed them do not turn up to oppose them again. Axad12 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we should hold an RFC on whether the RFC tag should be there? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Right, I've had breakfast now so am in a position to make a more serious reply. This is a content issue (on which I hold, as yet, no opinion). On this page we often tell editors that the way to settle a content issue that hasn't been settled by more informal methods is by holding an RFC. Axad12, you should express your opinion as part of the RFC, not oppose holding it. By your behaviour you are turning people against you who might have supported you. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I've already said that I'd be happy to replace the tag if instructed to do so, and upon being instructed to do so I immediately replaced it. As far as I can see that issue is now resolved.

I've asked for comment on the underlying COI issue, which is not a content issue. Axad12 (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

RFCs can handle COI issues. In fact, when WP:COIN can't resolve a dispute, they sometimes host an RFC to settle it. The nice thing about an RFC in such situations is that if it closes with an outcome like "The consensus is stick it to these fully policy-compliant, completely disclosed paid editors by making sure that this article implies the company's product was adulterated with a poisonous industrial chemical, just because we found one fad diet book that used this language, because it's really unreasonable of them to not want sensationalist and derogatory information in our article about their product" then you can generally be sure that the result will stick for at least 6 months and usually longer.

But you've got to get that consensus first, and I'm not sure you will. For one thing, it's been my not-inconsiderable experience that when someone objects to holding an RFC because the question is biased, that's a fairly reliable sign that they expect the RFC result to not match their preference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

My concern (rightly or wrongly) was simply that there was a COI element to the request which had not been disclosed. I swiftly requested clarification on that point and upon receiving that clarification I immediately reverted myself.

It isn't really relevant here but actually I didn't expect the RfC to develop contrary to my preference. That was because the previous 4 months had indicated a consistent consensus opposing what the instigator of the RfC was proposing. In fact, to be perfectly honest, I don't actually have a particularly strong preference one way or the other on the issue at stake - I've simply consistently observed during November and December that the consensus was against Zefr, which seemed to me to be a simple matter of fact based on the various talk page threads from August to December. Axad12 (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• On matters concerning the Breyers article, Axad12 has been an uncollaborative, disruptive, and hostile editor tag-teamed with Graywalls, who is the main proponent over months of using the slur, "antifreeze", to describe a minor GRAS ingredient that is the subject of the current RfC. Both users have ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate for a factual, well-sourced article. Both users refused collaboration on the Breyers article content at DRN.

Having never contributed a sentence or source to the Breyers article, Axad12 has blatantly reverted simple, sourced edits claiming a false consensus which has no good source to support the propylene glycol/"antifreeze" claim and no evidence of consensus input by other editors over the last many weeks. An evolving consensus on the RfC is to exclude mention of propylene glycol as undue.

Scientific and legal literature concerning propylene glycol (article link) placed on the talk page have been ignored by both users, without attempts to discuss or apply what any objective editor reading the sources would agree are authoritative.

Proposal: Because of Axad12's hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC, tag-team behavior with Graywalls on the Breyers article edits, canvassing each other on its talk page, and here, as another example, Axad12 and Graywalls should be A-banned from the Breyers article and its talk page.

• Support. Zefr (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • You need to notify Graywalls of this discussion. I have done so for you. In the future, remember to do so yourself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oppose: I have reverted Zefr on 3 occasions on the Breyers article over the last few months. That was because the edits they had made were, at that time, contrary to talk page consensus. The fact that I had not contributed to the article is neither here nor there in that regard.

  I have not ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate, I have simply objected to Zefr's repeated attempts over a 3 month period to re-open a discussion where the consensus has always been against them.

  Six different users have previously objected to the changes Zefr has been trying to make and that was clearly a majority of those who commented between August and December 2024.

  I accept that the current RfC is going Zefr's way, however that fact should not be used to reinterpret events over the last 4 months where Zefr has historically been in a small minority insufficient to claim a consensus in favour of the changes they wished to make.

  Also, the idea that I made a hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC is untrue. As I have pointed out above, my actions were in good faith and it can be seen that I immediately volunteered to revert my removal of the template if I received instruction from an admin to that effect.

  I cannot see that I was ever canvassed to appear at the Breyers talk page, I arrived there entirely independently back in November having been aware of the ongoing situation re: the various COI edit requests because the COI edit request queue is the volunteer queue that I spend most of my time here working from. I've probably read pretty much every COI edit request that has been made on Wikipedia over the last 6 to 12 months and there are a small number of talk pages that I look at from time to time.

  Graywalls and I work on similar cases and sometimes we find ourselves working alongside each other, especially if material has been discussed at WP:COIN, but occasionally ending up in the same place and on the same side of an argument does not entail tagteaming. Axad12 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I was the one who suggested RfC in the first place. here, because I felt it was not a productive disagreement anymore. Leading up to the RfC, there was rough talk page consensus to include a mention pf propylene glycol, but if consensus in RfC determines that it should be left out, I have no intention of fighting it. Someone raised a concern there was only one source, so I added another source. Other than this, I've not really touched contentious parts of this article recently. I'm not sure why Axad12 removed the RfC and I can't speak for their actions, but the accusation of Tagteam is unwarranted. I've taken deferent steps to not continue to engage in back and forth edit warring and I'd like to believe that I'm approaching this the correct way. I do want to bring up concerns about Zefr's civility though. Please see User_talk:DMacks#Breyers_disruptive_editing for some concerns I raised. I also find leaving snarky comment about being a PhD student who disagreed on contents troubling Special:Diff/1261441062. @Aoidh: also felt Zefr was "weaponing" claims of edit warring to restore their "preferred version" earlier on in the dispute. Please see Special:Diff/1257252695 Graywalls (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Graywalls, I think you were correct to recommend an RFC. Hopefully the RFC will reach a consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'd just like to echo that sentiment. I'm all in favour of consensus.

  My position on this article hasn't been motivated by a partisan view on Propylene Glycol but has simply been in relation to serving the consensus position as it stood at the time. That is the approach I hope I adopt on all Wikipedia articles. If the consensus alters on this article (as seems likely) then I'll adopt the same approach in relation to serving the new consensus.

  My primary area of interest on this website is COI issues. I'm simply not interested in content disputes or in pushing any kind of POV on Wikipedia. I'm not the sort of user who flagrantly disregards a newly emerging consensus by editing contrary to the outcome of an RfC.

  I'd welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that going forwards (i.e. without an article ban). Axad12 (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  • The mention by Graywalls for an RfC on 27 Dec had no influence on the one existing. As an uncomplicated process, an editor truly sincere in having community input would have posed a simple objective question. Graywalls, why didn't you take 5 minutes and create the RfC question you wanted? What would have been your RfC question?

  Specifically for propylene glycol (you are still defending its use in the article by adding another garbage source yesterday - see comments about this book in the RfC): what do you believe propylene glycol does in a frozen dessert and what would you prefer the article to say about propylene glycol? I have asked for this clarification on the talk page many times and in the DRN, but you ignored the opportunity to collaborate and clarify.

  Have you read the sources in this talk page topic?

  Your reverts in article history and combative talk page behavior over months revealed a persistent intent to disparage the Breyers article, focus on the "antifreeze" slur (mainly promoting this source), and restore a skeletal version having no sources more recent than 2018 here, after tag-teaming with Axad12 to do your bidding on 17 Nov. That version also has misinformation under the section 'Ice cream', falsely stating that Breyers changed their ice cream ingredients by using other additives, which in fact, were used to evolve a new category of frozen desserts not intended to be ice cream. I believe you know this, but you and Axad12 persisted to favor misinformation for the article.

  The RfC I provided came from steps in the lead of WP:RFC: 1) generally poor talk page progress, where one editor seeking facts verified by current sources was opposed by Graywalls, Adax12, and NutmegCoffeeTea, all defending a version including "antifreeze"; 2) an RSN post here where Graywalls argued that a web link by the Seattle PI made the Motley Fool article an RS; 3) initiate DRN for which Graywalls, Axad12, and NutmegCoffeeTea abstained from collaboration to improve the article; 4) providing a science- and law-based talk page topic on 19 Dec, which appears to be willfully ignored by Axad12 and Graywalls, who responded only with hostility and defiance against the facts; 5) seeking third opinions from admins, first by BD2412 (talk page on 29-30 Nov) and by DMacks on 27 Dec, resulting in verbose trolling by these two users. Axad12's response on 27 Dec was to revert constructive edits and tag-team with Graywalls.

  Axad12 and Graywalls should be ABANNED from the Breyers article for exhibiting 1) hostility on the talk page to good faith proposals for making the article better, and 2) persistence to perpetuate misinformation on propylene glycol. Simply, what history shows that either editor has tried to improve the Breyers article? Both users meet most of the definitions of WP:NOTHERE for the article, its talk page, and the RfC. Zefr (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Zefr, I've already indicated on several occasions that I welcome and support the developing new consensus. Graywalls has made a similar comment below. That being the case, I don't really see what purpose an article ban would be intended to serve.

  Admittedly there has been some quite heated disagreement over recent months, but it seems that we all now have the robust talkpage consensus that we were hoping for in one way or another and that all three of us are happy to move forward in support of that consensus.

  You were clearly in the minority for quite a long time and I can appreciate that you found that experience frustrating. However, to continue to make allegations above of bad faith, trolling, tagteaming, etc. about those who constituted the valid majority for several months is just an attempt to perpetuate strife on an issue which is now, as far as I can see, satisfactorily resolved. Axad12 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Filed under: sometimes you hurt articles by treating COI editors as the enemy. The problem here is two users who should really know better edit-warring over the course of months to reinstate TikTok diet influencer silliness into a Wikipedia article, repeatedly reinstating WP:PROFRINGE content (implicitly, if not explicitly). We currently treat a little "avoid antifreeze" bubble in a diet book (which includes Breyers in a list of brands) and a book published by one of RFK Jr's antivax publishers as WP:DUE for including the insinuation that an FDA-approved and much-conspiratorialized additive is harmful. They've been repeatedly removed, but two editors keep putting them back, whether because of a misunderstanding of WP:MEDRS/WP:FRINGE or in pursuit of COI purification. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I take your point but I think you're misjudging the situation somewhat. Prior to the opening of the current RfC it was approximately 6 or 7 users in favour of inclusion vs 3 or 4 favouring exclusion. I only reverted the attempts at exclusion because those attempts were contrary to the talk page consensus.

  I'm perfectly open to the suggestion that that consensus position was wrong but the simple fact of the matter was that there was at that time no consensus in favour of exclusion.

  It has only been in the last couple of days that the requesting editor has been able to demonstrate a consensus in favour of exclusion. And that's great, I have no problem with that at all. In fact I welcome it.

  My understanding is that editors wishing to make changes to article text should not do so if there is a consensus against what they are trying to do, and that under such circumstances an edit can be (indeed should be) reverted. If I'm mistaken on that score then I'm perfectly happy to take instruction. However, I really want to stress that my actions were based primarily upon that reasoning and were made in good faith. Axad12 (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Axad12, you should not revert something because other editors want it to be reverted. You should only make content changes that you personally support. This is necessary for BRD to work. See WP:BRDREVERT for an explanation of why. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites:, the antifreeze matter is WP:DEADHORSE since I believe everyone's pretty much agreed it doesn't need to be in there. Zefr has taken issues with me, Axad12, NutMegCoffee and possibly some others. They've tried to get the article "set in place" to their preferred version, but that was declined admin Daniel Case who determined it to be content dispute Special:Diff/1260192461. Zefr inferring alleging I was "uncooperative" not collaborating/cooperating in the way that he was hoping in DR, but I don't believe that to be so. There was nothing intentional on my part to not cooperate. I'll see if @Robert McClenon: would like to share their observation on that since they closed the dispute.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breyers/Archive_2#c-Rusalkii-20240814014600-Inkian_Jason-20240801145900 here's another uninvolved editoring erring on the side of inclusion. A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus. Reading through the current plus the archived discussions, up until the RfC, the general consensus is in support of having PG mention and Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus. As I mentioned, if consensus changes with the RfC, I'm not opposed to going with that. Graywalls (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (adjusted Graywalls (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC))

  For the record, I never stated the word "uncooperative" at DRN or the Breyers talk page, but rather "non-collaborative", as discussed in the thread with Robert McClenon below.

  "Set in place to their preferred version" and "Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus" should be translated to using "facts verified by reliable sources", which is the simple goal for the Breyers article that Graywalls has obstructed over months.

  It's incredible that Graywalls says even today above, knowing the comments on the RfC and months of being presented with facts and sources about why propylene glycol is safely used in thousands of manufactured foods: "A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus."

  Here's your chance to tell everyone:

  Why do you feel propylene glycol was used in Breyers frozen desserts (in 2013, not since)? What concern do you have about it, and what government or scientific source says it's unsafe in the amounts regulated by federal laws? Give a sentence here that you think meets consensus and uses a reliable source. Zefr (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  You're right, you did not use that specific word. I've corrected my response due to wording. Graywalls (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

A Non-Mediator's Statement

I am not entirely sure why User:Graywalls has pinged me about this dispute, saying that I "closed this dispute". The accuracy of the statement that I "closed this dispute" depends on what is meant by "this dispute".

I closed the DRN thread, Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_252#Breyers, on 12 December. I obviously didn't resolve a dispute that has been continuing for another three weeks, and the claim that I closed the dispute looks to me like an attempt to confuse the jury. User:Zefr had opened the DRN thread on 3 December, complaining about the insertion of the word antifreeze and of the mention of propylene glycol. I was not entirely sure beyond the mention of antifreeze what the issues were. There were questions about what the procedure was for handling a one-against-many dispute; I think that Zefr was said to be the one. There was a long question that may have been about whether DRN is voluntary; DRN is voluntary. Then Zefr said that the case could be withdrawn because no one else was commenting. The disputants other than Zefr never did say exactly what the article content issues were, perhaps because they didn't want to discuss article content, and were not required to discuss article content. If anyone is implying that I resolved or settled anything, I have no idea what it was.

I see that the dispute either was continuing in other forums for three weeks, or has reopened. I see that User:Axad12 edit-warred to prevent an RFC from running, making vague but noisy statements about conflict of interest. I don't know who is said to be working for Unilever or for anyone else. It is clear that this dispute is longer on antagonism than on clarity. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, I pinged you, because I felt you'd be a good commentator to evaluate whether you also felt I was "not cooperative" in the process as Zefr says. I tried to participate, but it got closed shortly after I posted a comment in it. Graywalls (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Was that purposely mis-stated to be provocative and mislead the discussion here?

I said you were non-collaborative, which describes your behavior throughout your editing history on the Breyers article, its talk page, and the DRN. You refused collaboration at DRN, which is the whole point of the process. DRN FAQ: "refusing participation can be perceived as a refusal to collaborate, and is not conducive to consensus-building."

You were notified about the DRN on your talk page on 3 Dec, and you posted a general notice about it on the Breyers talk page on 6 Dec, so you were aware of the process, but ignored it. Meanwhile, your editing history over 6-12 Dec shows dozens of edits, including many on the Breyers talk page.

You made no attempt to collaborate at DRN, posting only one off-topic comment on 12 Dec.

I requested closure of the DRN on 12 Dec due to non-participation by you and the others. On 13 Dec, I notified the Breyers talk page of the DRN closure. cc: Robert McClenon. Zefr (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

A Possibly Requested Detail

Okay. If the question is specifically whether User:Graywalls was uncooperative at DRN, then I can state that they were not uncooperative and did not obstruct or disrupt DRN. Graywalls took very little part in the DRN proceeding before I closed it. They were not required to take part, although they say that they would have made a statement if the case had stayed open a little longer. The antagonism that I saw was between User:Zefr and User:Axad12, and I collapsed an exchange between them. I did not read what I am told were long previous discussions, because I expect the disputants at DRN to begin by telling me concisely what each of them wants to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Graywalls was not uncooperative at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay. User:Zefr is making a slightly different statement, that User:Graywalls did not collaborate at DRN. That is correct. And I noted above that their mention that I had closed the dispute depended on what was meant by the "dispute". and looked like an attempt to confuse the jury. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Zefr did not use the word uncooperative although did say uncollaborative and I used the two interchangeably in my ping. I did participate in it Special:Diff/1262763079. I haven't participated in DRN until that point, so I wasn't really sure how it worked. Graywalls (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The actual content that led to this dispute

Two month ago, Breyers included this shockingly bad content: As of 2014, some flavors of Breyer's ice cream contains propylene glycol as an additive. Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze and it is clear fluid made by "treating propylene with chlorinated water to form the chlorohydrin, which is then converted to the glycol, an alcohol, by treating it with a sodium carbonate solution." Propylene glycol is formulated into Breyer's fat-free and Carb Smart ice cream to make it easier to scoop. The notion that an article about an ice cream company should include a detailed description of how a Generally recognized as safe food additive is manufactured is bizarre enough, as is the cherrypicked and glaringly misleading assertion about "antifreeze", but the reference used to support the Breyers claim was a book called Eat It to Beat It!: Banish Belly Fat-and Take Back Your Health-While Eating the Brand-Name Foods You Love! written by a quack/crank diet profiteer named David Zinczenko. I invite any editor to take a search engine look at Zinczenko's body of work, and come away with the conclusion that his writings are anything other than fringe and unreliable. Despite the glaringly obviously non-neutral and tendentious problems with this shockingly bad content, editors including most prominently Graywalls and Axad12 dug in their heels, fighting a reargard action for nearly two months, determined to make this mundane routine ice cream company look as bad as possible. Their self-justification seems to be that big bad corporations have no right whatsover to try to remove atrociously bad content about their products from Wikipedia, and that any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association. I am not an advocate for corporations per se, but I am an advocate for corporations being treated neutrally like all other topics, rather with disdain and contempt, which was the case here, as I see it. I do not know what the best outcome is here, but I certainly encourage these two editors to refrain from any other unjustified and poorly referenced anti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

A striking and shocking aspect of this sordid situation is that two editors, Graywalls and Axad12 were able to concoct a false "consensus" supporting various versions of this garbage content. And then when another editor tried to start a RFC about the appallingly bad content, Axad12 tried over and over and over again to stop the RFC and defend the atrocious content rather than correcting it, aided and abetted by Graywalls. When the RFC actually went live, it soon became clear that many editors agreed that the content these two editors advocated for was utterly inappropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Cullen,

As per my comments above, my motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time. I did not concoct that consensus, at least 5 users other than me were against excluding the material.

I have never had any particularly strong opinion one way or the other on the content issue and I try as best as I can not to get involved in content disputes. I have not dug in [my] heels or attempted to promote any kind of fringe opinion and nor have I engaged in anti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end.

Similarly I do not hold the view that any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association, or any opinion even vaguely resembling that view. On the contrary, I have often implemented COI edit requests on behalf of corporations or have pointed out to corporate employees how such requests would need to be amended to conform with sourcing or other requirements. Repeatedly engaging in that activity would presumably make me very evil indeed, in my own eyes, if I held the view that you attribute to me.

I reverted the Breyer edits in good faith because there was no consensus in favour of them. If I was incorrect on a point of policy in that regard then fair enough, however please do not attempt to attribute to me sentiments which I do not harbour.

Also, I did not attempt to stop the RfC over and over and over again. I removed the tag twice, then requested guidance from administrators and immediately replaced the tag when requested to do so. The tag was removed, in all, for a matter of minutes and had no meaningful impact on the progress of the RfC. I have accepted elsewhere that I now appreciate that the basis on which I removed the tag was inappropriate. I have also stated that From my standpoint [RfC] wasn't a process that I was familiar with - but I can see from the many excellent contributions here that this is the best way of resolving content disputes. I have also stated that I welcome and support the new consensus. Axad12 (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Try as you will to justify your participation in this debacle , Axad12, but any uninvolved editor can review the edit histories and see that you fought very hard, over and over again for months, to keep garbage content in the encyclopedia just to stick it to a corporation that you obviously dislike because they tried to correct egregious errors about their products. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff there to indicate that I obviously dislike Breyers or (their parent company) Unilever, or indeed that I consider either to be evil?

To the best of my recollection, I've only ever made 3 mainspace edits to the Breyers article - each time on the stated basis in the edit summary that the edit I was reverting was contrary to consensus.

I've re-read the extensive talk page discussions in recent days and I can only see that I ever commented on the COI angle and the nature of the consensus. Those comments were based on my understanding of policy at the time. I do not see anti-corporate diatribes or evidence that I obviously dislike Breyers or Unilever.

Indeed, I do not hold any particularly strong views on Breyers, Unilever or any other corporations. Axad12 (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

As I said, Axad12, all any uninvolved editor needs to do is review your 37 edits to Talk: Breyers to see how determined you have been over the last two months to maintain various versions of this biased non-neutral content, and how enthusiastic you have been in denouncing the various editors who have been calling for neutrality. Your consistent theme has been that a corporation does not deserve neutrality, because a bogus consensus has been conjured up. Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

My activity on that talk page has solely been in relation to pointing out what I felt (rightly or wrongly) was a valid COI concern and observing that from Aug to Dec there has never been a consensus in favour of exclusion.

Anything beyond that is simply you attributing motives that do not exist.

I have never stated or implied that a corporation does not deserve neutrality and nor do I hold such a view.

I happily admit that I'm quite animated and enthusiastic about COI issues and reverting edits which appear to be contrary to consensus. With the benefit of hindsight probably I should have let go of those issues at an earlier stage and vacated the field for those who actually had an appetite to argue on content grounds.

I'd also point out that for a significant part of the last 2 months I had actually unsubscribed from the relevant talkpage threads and only ended up getting involved again due to being summoned to the Dispute Resolution thread. If I had been determined [...] over the last two months to maintain various versions of [...] biased non-neutral content then hopefully it stands to reason that I would not have unsubscribed in that way - thus resulting in a situation where I was actually completely unaware of much of the talkpage and mainspace activity over the period that you refer to. Axad12 (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I find the defense of your actions very weak. You've said several times that your motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time. You are also obligated to actually look at the disputed content and the sources supporting it. Why didn't you do that? Why were you unable to see what multiple editors in the RfC are commenting about? You shouldn't just blindly revert content like that, without taking a look for yourself to see if the complaint about the disputed content has any merit, like it being reliably sourced and due for inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a very fair question.

The answer is that I was inclined to believe the opinions of editors much more experienced than myself who were against exclusion, particularly the editor who turned down the original COI edit request (whose work on COI edit requests I have the greatest of respect for).

User Whatamidoing has already pointed out above that my error lay in accepting those users' opinions. I agree with Whatamidoing's observation there.

I can only say that what I did was done in good faith based on my understanding of policy at the time. I now know where I erred (in several different ways) and I am glad to have received instruction in that regard.

However, I really cannot accept the repeated suggestion that I vindictively masterminded a long anti-corporate campaign to keep bad material in an article. That suggestion is fundamentally not true. Axad12 (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Policy at the time, and the policy now, as it always has been, when you make an edit, you are responsible for that edit. So by reverting the content back into the article, you were then responsible for that edit, and also partly to blame for this garbage content being kept in the article when it clearly shouldn't have been. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I entirely accept that.

For clarity, when I said my understanding of policy at the time I meant my understanding of policy at the time - I wasn't trying to suggest that the policy has changed since I made those edits.

What I am saying is that those edits were not made with malice, they were made because I accepted the opinions of other users more experienced than myself, opinions which I now know that I ought to have questioned. Axad12 (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You demonstrated poor judgement. Will you stay away from that article? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

As I said earlier in this thread, I am 100% supportive of the new consensus in favour of excluding the previously disputed material.

Virtually all of my time on Wikipedia is spent at COIN and dealing with COI edit requests. I'm not the sort of user who spends their time edit warring over POV fringe material and generally being disruptive.

So, the last thing I would ever do is attempt to reinstall material where a very robust consensus at RfC has indicated that it should be excluded.

I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that I can be trusted in that regard. Axad12 (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Judgement isn't about following consensus, it’s about making considered decisions. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, quite so. I have acknowledged my error in that regard in my first response to Isaidnoway, above, re: the very useful input I received from Whatamidoing. Axad12 (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Axad, if I read what you wrote correctly, and please correct me if I misunderstand: I will stay away from that article because I support the current consensus. My concern is what if consensus was to shift on that article? TiggerJay (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies if my earlier response was unclear. My point was that I have absolutely no intention of edit warring over the previously disputed material (or any other material) so I don't see what purpose it would serve to ban me from the article.

I have only ever made (to the best of my knowledge) 3 previous edits to the article (1 in November and 2 in December?). These were all on the basis of a misunderstanding on a point of policy which has been pointed out to me above and which I have happily acknowledged and accepted. The issue at stake was not that I harbour any partisan view in relation to the content dispute, it was that I edited to reflect the views of other editors whose opinions I respected on the matter in question.

I do not see any reason for the community to anticipate that I would made a similar misunderstanding of policy going forwards.

Hopefully this clarifies... Axad12 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I've been expecting something to happen around User:Axad12, whom I ran into several months ago during a dispute at COIN. What I noticed back in October was that Axad12 seemed to be clerking the noticeboard, making prosecutorial noises, and sometimes unsupported accusations (ex: ...the existence of COI seems quite clear... 1, ...in relation to your undeclared conflict of interest... 2, As I said, the fact that there was a significant undeclared conflict of interest in relation to editing on Paralympic Australia-related articles was demonstrated some years ago. 3) towards what they thought of as COI editors (this was about whether User:Hawkeye7 had failed to adequately announce their conflict with Paralympic Australia, where they've been openly helping as a volunteer on our community's behalf for many years, and after they had just made an almost invisible contribution on the Signpost). I often find such clerking of noticeboards by relatively unseasoned users to be troublesome; Axad12 has 490 edits at COIN, about 12% of their total 3801 edits (but about a third of the roughly 1500 edits total on COIN since September). If you use a hammer all day, you might begin to think that all objects are potentially nails. BusterD (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Rereading the discussion this morning 90 days later, it reads worse than I made it sound above. An uninvolved admin tried to close the thread and chastised Axad12 in that close. The OP asked the thread closure be reversed, so the close comments were moved down to the end of the thread. BusterD (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for Axad12 to take a break from WP:COIN and associated matters and concentrate on other areas of Wikipedia for a few months. I was going to use a cliché here, but I see BusterD's already used it in the last sentence of the post before last, so won't. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Only so many ways to screw in a lightbulb. BusterD (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

In fairness, the overwhelming majority of my posts at COIN over the last year or so have been simple helpful contributions. The two matters discussed above were atypical and in both cases I've taken on board the advice I was given.

If (per the figures above) I've been making about a third of all the contributions at COIN over that period then my behaviour would have been reported here long ago if I was either disruptive or incompetent.

That said, I won't deny that I've been seriously considering retiring from Wikipedia over the last two months. The only reason I've not done so is because other users have specifically encouraged me to carry on because they value my work at COIN and on COI issues generally.

All I can say is that what I have done, I have done in good faith and when I have occasionally erred I have learned lessons. I have acknowledged above that I've made mistakes and I'm grateful to those who have given me advice. Axad12 (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You've been reported here now. Over stuff that's current, and applicable. In that matter, you seemed to believe your expertise in COI matters allows you to decide what constitutes a valid RFC. That seems like a problem to me. I'm providing evidence on related behavioral matters. Having made one third of all recent edits on a noticeboard is not the high achievement you might think it is. Stay or retire, but learn to better assume good faith here, even when dealing with COI contributors. Most accounts are fine. You've been working in a narrow area where you deal with many bad faith users. I can understand why that might wear on any editor. The proof will be if you can incorporate these valid complaints into your future action. BusterD (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Buster, I know that we've had crossed words in the past so I'm grateful for your understanding and your measured response above. Yes, I deal with many bad faith users and yes it does wear on me sometimes.

I don't claim any great expertise in COI matters but I do have the time to dedicate to the project and I've picked up a decent awareness of the methods that can be used to detect and prevent UPE/PROMO etc activity.

I believe that in the past when I've been given advice on points of policy I've taken that advice on board and would hope to continue to do so in the future. Axad12 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This comment is not about you, but you might be interested in it: I've been thinking for years that a rotating duty system might be helpful. Of course we're all WP:VOLUNTEERS, but we might be less stressed, and get more representative results, if we each spent a week at ANI and a month at RSN and a week at CCI each year than if one editor spends all year at ANI and another spends all year at RSN (and nobody is at CCI – anyone who is looking for an opportunity to deal with really serious problems should please consider spending some time at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. The few regulars there will be so grateful, and who knows? You might find that you like it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• I do think that it's worth zooming out and looking at the article as a whole. Comparing the version from before the current rewrites started to the current version makes it obvious that the tone of the article has become vastly more promotional, with much more focus on glowy feel-good aspects that are only mentioned in lower-quality sources (the story about the original creator hand-churning it?) And the context of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources) to the weird In 2013, Breyers introduced frozen desserts made with food additives (section above) that were intended to create smooth, low-calorie products.[4][14] However, the new desserts evoked complaints by some consumers who were accustomed to the traditional "all-natural" Breyers ice cream., which 100% reads like marketing-speak (downplaying the reaction by making it sound like it's just that people loved the old version so much. In fact, the current version doesn't mention Breyer's cost-cutting measures at all, even though it's a massive aspect of coverage.) That doesn't necessarily justify the version above, but it's important to remember that this was originally a one-word mention in a larger list - Following similar practices by several of their competitors,[5] Breyers' list of ingredients has expanded to include thickeners, low-cost sweeteners, food coloring and low-cost additives — including natural additives such as tara gum[6] and carob bean gum;[7] artificial additives such as maltodextrin and propylene glycol;[8] and common artificially separated and extracted ingredients such as corn syrup, whey, and others, the longstanding wording, is not unreasonable and doesn't really imply that there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol, just that it's an additive. I think the context of that larger shift to a much more promotional tone to the article is significant (and looking over talk, most of the actual dispute has focused on that.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that the longstanding wording doesn't really imply there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol. But the source being used [8] doesn't even mention "maltodextrin and propylene glycol", that I can find, so those two particular additives were not even verifiable at the time. And then propylene glycol was removed, and when it was added back here as "a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze", was really when this dispute seem to take a turn for the worse to keep this content in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Aquillion, about this And the context of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources) – I don't know what other sources say, but the cited sources don't say that at all. The cited sources are both from Canadian dairy farmers' marketing associations, saying that their product is good and costs more than imported oils, but doesn't actually WP:Directly support a claim that Breyers uses imported oils, or that Breyers has done anything to cut their costs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  (As this is strictly a question of content, please consider replying at Talk:Breyers instead of here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, and a Diddly Question

I would like to thank User:Cullen328 for providing the background and content information. I also have a possibly minor question for User:Axad12. They edit-warred to try to stop the RFC on the content, and said that there was an exceptionally serious abuse of the conflict of interest process. I may not have done enough background research, but I don't see where they have identified who has been the paid editor or undisclosed paid editor, or what the conflict of interest content is. If there has been paid editing, who has done it, and have they been dealt with? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Robert, probably the best single overview of the COI issue is given in this post [45].

My impression at the time of the events, and subsequently, was that the activity was designed to distort the COI edit request process. I still feel that what happened re: the COI edit requests was irregular but I note that no other user seems to have supported me in that regard so I've not taken the matter any further. Similarly, while I felt that those events had a bearing on the RfC I now accept that the RfC relates solely to the content matter specifically under discussion. Axad12 (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Complaint against User:GiantSnowman

Good Morning,

I am writing to formally lodge a complaint against User:GiantSnowman for repeated violations of Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks (WP:NPA) and casting aspersions (WP:ASPERSIONS) during a recent discussion.

Throughout the interaction, GiantSnowman has engaged in behavior that appears to contravene Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, including but not limited to:

Casting aspersions without evidence:

• GiantSnowman repeatedly accused me of engaging in disruptive behavior, suggesting ulterior motives without providing any verifiable evidence.
• For instance, accusations of using ChatGPT to generate responses without concrete proof.
• Statements like “You are a liar and cannot be trusted” and other similar assertions lack civility and violate the principle of Assume Good Faith.

Aggressive tone and unwarranted accusations:

• The user's tone throughout the discussion has been hostile, escalating to direct personal attacks:
• Referring to me as a “liar” multiple times.
• Suggesting that I have been “deliberately disruptive” without presenting any factual basis.

Violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:ENCOURAGE:

• Wikipedia encourages editors to respond constructively to newcomers' efforts. However, GiantSnowman’s behavior has been dismissive and accusatory, discouraging participation and creating a hostile editing environment.

As an administrator, GiantSnowman is expected to set an example by adhering to Wikipedia's behavioral policies and fostering a collaborative environment. However, their actions in this instance fall far short of the standards expected of administrators, which further exacerbates the seriousness of this issue.

I understand that discussions can sometimes be contentious, but I believe there is no justification for violating WP:NPA or WP:ASPERSIONS. I respectfully request that administrators review the linked discussion and take appropriate action to address this behavior.

If any additional information or clarification is needed, I am happy to provide it. My intent is to ensure a respectful and collaborative editing environment for all Wikipedia contributors.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion I raised was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Footballnerd2007, now closed. I raised concerns about this editor, who has (in brief) - undertake botched and inappropriate RM closures; re-factored other editor's talk page posts; randomly nominated another user with whom they have never interacted before for RFA; and messing with my user space draft. None of that was the conduct of a new editor here to learn the ropes, and I wanted a second pair of eyes.

In the course of that discussion, it became highly suspect to multiple users that this user has been editing with LLM. They denied using Chat GPT and, when questioned further, refused to answer. That is why I said this user is a liar and cannot be trusted, and I stand by that assertion. GiantSnowman 12:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging other editors who were involved in that ANI discussion or have posted concerns/advice on this user's talk page - @Liz, Voorts, Folly Mox, Tiggerjay, Extraordinary Writ, Tarlby, The Bushranger, Thebiguglyalien, and Cyberdog958: - think that is everyone, apologies if not. GiantSnowman 12:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy response. Now let other admins add their point of view. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Given the closed section above - which was closed for a very good reason - I'd suggest that coming back to this page to complain and using an LLM to do it is a spectacularly bad idea. The community only has limited patience when dealing with editors who are causing timesinks for other edits, and I suspect that the section above was your limit. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  FTR a fellow administrator encouraged me to launch a complaint if I felt I was treated unfairly and told me what grounds I have to complain. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  WP:BOOMERANG is worth reviewing. It may already be too late for you to withdraw your complaint, but it's probably worth an attempt. --Yamla (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please, any passing uninvolved admin, block the OP now. Not least for using an LLM to generate a complaint that someone accused them of using ChatGPT to generate responses. Enough of our time has been wasted. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, this is mere conjecture. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Continuing to deny the obvious - especially when Tarlby ran your posts through multiple LLM checkers - is really not helping your case. For me, it shows you are not here in good faith and that you absolutely cannot be trusted. GiantSnowman 12:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it's called people have eyes. Using LLMs this way is highly disrespectful and frankly disruptive. Boomerang block for WP:NOTHERE seems appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

(Responding to the ping, invovled) My perspective regarding LLM has been it really doesn't matter (to me) if you're using various technology tools constructively, such as a spell checker or grammar checker might have been viewed two decades ago. However, what really matter is how those tools are used and being responsible for how they're used. This editor has been evasive in their conversations and generally disruptive demonstrating WP:NOTHERE behavior by very peculiar / suspicious WP:Wikilawyering I've only seen in clear LLM cases. Yet, there is no point in bludgeoning to what degree, if any, an LLM is playing here, but because this is a clear example of WP:NOTHERE and failure to follow WP:PG despite many attempts to bring them to this users attention. TiggerJay (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

+1 to Phil Bridger. What struck me in the prior thread, over and over again, was how repeatedly evasive he was. "I have repeatedly denied using ChatGPT..." "I never made any comment about LLMs in general." "I have no explanation." "Again, that's conjecture. I just choose my words very carefully." "Which AI detectors are you using?" "The definition of LLM is somewhat ambiguous so I wouldn't want to mislead you by answering definitively." And so on, and so on, and so on. Footballnerd2007 has been given chance after chance to answer plainly, without Wikilawyering or weasel-wording, and has instead stuck to the tactic of deflect, deflect, deflect. I don't know where Footballnerd2007 got the notion that the Fifth Amendment was the law of the land on Wikipedia, and that no boomerang can touch him as long as he admits to nothing. Let's just disabuse him of the notion. Ravenswing 12:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Retaliatory BS; this should be closed immediately. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

CBAN proposal

• I propose a community ban for Footballnerd2007, appealable no sooner than six months from now (and then once per year thereafter), alongside a ban on using LLM's which would remain in effect until specifically contested. At the time of writing, Footballnerd2007 has only 142 edits, a significant number of which are right here at WP:ANI. They are clearly a massive WP:NOTHERE time sink. I urged Footballnerd2007 to withdraw this complaint and warned about WP:BOOMERANG and that clearly didn't land. I think it's time for everyone else to get back to regular editing. --Yamla (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Support, obviously. The more they have responded, the stronger my concerns have grown. GiantSnowman 12:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    I have decided to withdraw my complaint with immediate effect in order to avoid the loss of my editing privileges. I'm going to write a long piece (without using LLM) explaining my actions later when I have time. I'm sorry for any disruption caused, I have always acted in good faith. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Demonstrably not, when you've been dodging all along the question of whether you've been using LLMs, and only now -- when the tide is running against you -- stating that at last you'll respond at length without? Ravenswing 13:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    FN2007 claims to be a new editor, and to have spent a significant amount of time reading Wikipedia policies/guidelines etc. If so, they will have known not to re-factor other user's talk page posts, but they did that anyway. That cannot be good faith editing. GiantSnowman 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    I'll respond to this in depth later today. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    I concede that I've been backed into a corner and now I need to do the right thing, stop with the defensive act and own up to my mistakes which I'll do in my statement later this afternoon. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    So you only need to so the right thing after being backed into a corner? I think we can do without such editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    I had my legal head on with the philosophy "defend until you can no more" - I now concede on reflection this is not appropriate for Wikipedia and that my actions were not the right way to go and for that I will take full responsibility in my statement. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    It's too late to withdraw now. You have to take responsibility for your behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)Support - on top of what's been posted on this thread, FN2007 has wiped their talk page by archiving without a link to the archive on the fresh talk page, without responding to Liz's advice. They also edited other people's comments to add things they didn't say when closing a RM discussion, and haven't responded when I pointed this out. These things alongside their LLM use (and subsequent wikilawyering "technically I only said I didn't use ChatGPT" responses), refusal to listen to good advice, and everything else in this topic, I think a community ban would be a good idea. BugGhost 🦗👻 13:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Update - striking support for cban, I think footballnerd's recent responses and CNC's offer of mentorship indicate that we may be able to avoid it. BugGhost 🦗👻 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    The archiving of talk page was an attempt to "wipe the slate clean" and move on, I didn't see how I could reply to the advice constructively. As for the wikilawyering, again I concede that I was out of order and that I did use AI assistance to write my complaint which was unwise. I do however, maintain that I did not lie as my comments about using ChatGPT were accurate, however this was using technicalities and involved me being rather economical with the truth. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    You could have simply said "thank you Liz for the advice". And if you 'wanted to wipe the slate clean', why did you start this new thread? GiantSnowman 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    I will go back and thank her for that. Because I had been advised that your actions could have violated WP policy and thought it would be a good way to deflect the blame, in heinsight it was absolutely the wrong course of action. I would like to draw a line under this whole sorry situation and move on with the reason that I joined once my statement has been published and the subsequent discussion has concluded. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    (another (edit conflict) To clarify, I don't think Footballnerd is doing anything malicious or deliberately trying to time-waste. I think they are a misguided new bold editor who unfortunately doesn't listen to advice and is stubborn to self-reflect. If this cban goes ahead I urge them to appeal in 6 months with a better understanding of how wikipedia works, with a more cautious editing style and more acceptance of community opinions. BugGhost 🦗👻 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    I am not being malicious, there was only one motivation for my actions - wanting to help.

    My comments on this and the above thread have been ill judged.

    As for the ban, I'd like to ask that I be spared at this moment in time in view of my above comments and the concession statement that I will be posting when I return home. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    You seem to be spending a lot of time/making a lot of posts saying "full statement to come!", rather than actually making that statement... GiantSnowman 14:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Because I'm posting from my phone and I'm not at home. When I return to my PC later today I'll make the statement. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Support CBAN. Using a chatbot to generate discussion then denying it when called out is already deeply contemptuous. Turning around and filing a chatbot generated revenge report for people not believing your lies about not using a chatbot? Words fail. Folly Mox (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) edited 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC); see below.

    FTR I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT but I admit that I was somewhat economical with the truth and am guilty of wikilawyering - overlap of my professional life. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    You are still not clearly and unequivocally admitting what you did. GiantSnowman 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    What you want me to admit? I admitted using AI but not ChatGPT and tried to use wikilawyering to get away from this. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Unless I missed something, that was your first clear admission of using AI. Your earlier comment of "I didn't use a chatbot form of AI assistance and never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT" is not the same. GiantSnowman 14:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sorry I should have been clearer. I didn't use a Chatbot form of AI nor did I use ChatGPT but I did use AI assistance (which I didn't deny). So to be unequivocally clear - I never lied but was economical with the truth, I am guilty of 'wikilawyering' and I did deploy the assistance of Artificial Intelligence on a handful of occasion. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Thank you - but you repeatedly failed to own up to using AI when questioned on it, and your latter responses here do nothing to deal with my personal concerns. GiantSnowman 14:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    I admit that I did, I just saw the line of "I didn't use ChatGPT" as an easy 'get out of jail card'. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    While that might be technically accurate when you answered that you did not use Chat-GPT, you were intentionally being deceptive in your answers multiple times. It might be slightly different if you were asked specifically about Chat-GPT, however multiple times you were specifically asked about the broad term of LLM. Your current claim of, never made any comment about any LLM other than ChatGPT, falls on deaf ears because it is clear that you were dodging the questions, and indeed intentionally addressed only Chat-GPT for the purpose of deception instead of honesty. TiggerJay (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Soft-struck prior comment because now I see you have admitted to such activity prior to my comment above. TiggerJay (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

     Note: for Folly Mox, just to inform you there is a #MENTOR proposal that you may not have seen. I was about to send generic pings to !voters of this section, but it appears all other editors are aware of this proposal already (or voted afterwards at least). This isn't intended to influence your decision, only to provide you updated information. CNC (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    (responding to ping) Withdrawing support for CBAN in light of candid owning up to misbehaviour combined with acceptance of mentorship by CommunityNotesContributor (thanks for the ping: I've been offwiki).

    @Footballnerd2007: I'm sure the point has got across, but please respect your colleagues here. Using an LLM (of any brand) in discussions is disrespectful of our time; assuming we won't notice is disrespectful of our competence. Please engage with the spirit of other people's communications, rather than with the precise words chosen. Wikipedia is very much unlike a courtroom: we're here to work together on a shared project, not to win arguments against each other. I look forward to your earnest acculturation. Folly Mox (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support as this behavior is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN as this editor has caused a monumental waste of the volunteer time of other editors, which is our most precious commodity. This is an encyclopedia, not a robot debating society. Cullen328 (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. First choice would be an indefinite block. Despite the user's sudden acts of contrition, I don't trust them. I don't see them as an asset to the project. As for their recent statement that some think is AI-generated, my guess is it's a mixture, maybe we should call it AI-assisted. However, I wouldn't support an indefinite block if it were just that. What preceded the complaint by GS and their conduct at ANI was egregiously disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - I say give them some rope. There is good discussion going on below, and I don't think anything is gained by blocking an editor who does at times add value. We can always revisit this later - and presumably the action would then be quick and obvious. BTW, I thought we all used AI to some extent - certainly when I misspell words like "certainyl" I then accept the AI in chrome changing the spelling. Or even improving the grammar if I turn on those options. Also User:GiantSnowman's numerous draft articles in his userspace always confounds me. I've asked them before to write these articles in draft-space where there can be a collaborative effort, rather than their userspace where they won't let anyone else edit. Nfitz (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Haven't voted in this proposal yet, am abstaining for now per trying to avoid advocacy as potential mentor. The two points I will however question is: would a CBAN solve these issues or postpone them until a later date? Would a 1–2 month mentorship more likely bring about the results of reform or failure much sooner? If we want to talk about WP:WASTEOFTIME as we have do so, it might be worth considering the time wasted in not mentoring a newish editor into the folds of the encyclopedia. CNC (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Nfitz - that is a nonsense, editors can and do edit my user drafts whenever they want. My issue was with them moving one into mainspace. GiantSnowman 16:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: CommunityNotesContributor has offered to mentor him, and the mentoring conditions have been accepted. Let's see what comes of that, and we can always revisit the subject of a ban after CNC reports back. Ravenswing 04:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - A mentor has been provided. E_F⁵ 18:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support mentorship offered below by CNC, but I still have significant concerns, which I expressed after FBN's response below. TiggerJay (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as too soon. An alternative for mentoring was proffered instead. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

MENTOR proposal

Mentorship commitments to uphold by Footballnerd2007 for a suggested one–two month period. Mentor: CommunityNotesContributor.

1. Abide by all policies and guidelines and listen to advise given to you by other editors.
2. No page moves (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval from mentor.
3. No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it.
4. No more dishonesty, being evasive, or using AI of any kind in discussions due to laziness.
5. Avoid commenting on all admin noticeboards (unless summoned). If there is a problem, seek advise from mentor.
6. Avoid reverting other editors (either manually, part or in full), unless obvious vandalism.

This goes a bit beyond original requirements, and the last two are effectively preventative measures to try and avoid problems arising. An editor involved exclusively on footy articles has limited to no need for involvement in admin noticeboards. CNC (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree to those principles and am grateful for the mentorship opportunity! Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on the statement below, I'm happy to support a mentoring process rather than a CBAN. GiantSnowman 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you could edit your !vote above to avoid any confusion for other editors. CNC (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I won't, because I'm also still not 'off' the CBAN. GiantSnowman 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

My bad, misunderstood your original phrasing. CNC (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

No bad - let me rephrase if that helps. I am not opposed to mentoring in place of the current CBAN proposal. GiantSnowman 18:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• Going to chime in here as someone involved in footy related articles. I've reviewed some of the editors contributions, and despite all the issues raised in this topic that are very problematic, the user has seemingly made good contributions to football related articles. I otherwise don't doubt that the user previously edited with an IP (I'm pretty sure which IP this is based on edit histories, but assuming good faith it's not part of this topic and not relevant either so won't bother referencing). I only state this to deflect from suggestions that this editor could be a sockpuppet, as I strongly don't believe to be the case, instead I suspect about 18 months of low-key editing experience up until now. It's therefore a great shame FN2007 went down this road, even if appears to have now retracted the original complaint. Hopefully they can take on board the requests to avoid controversial edits, especially at other user talkpages and such. I'd like to think this is a case of a user trying to run before they can walk, and if they now pace themselves it could work out in the long-term, but alas the damage has also already been done here it seems. Also as a personal suggestion to the editor, if you're here for football articles, then you should be aiming to stay well away from admin noticeboards as they will rarely ever concern you. Generally there should be relatively low controversy editing football articles, even if most remain contentious topics as BLP. So if football is your editing remit here, you're doing it very badly by ending up at a noticeboard, equally so by opening this topic, even with your good contributions. I am therefore reluctantly offering to act as a WP:MENTOR, if the user can commit to the general policy and guidelines of Wikipedia, in the hope of not losing a participant in the under edited area of women's football articles. CNC (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the olive branch. I can confirm that the IP that you've alluded to is mine. I pledge to commit to policy guidelines and am willing to help in the area of women's football. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  This would naturally be based on consensus within this discussion, for my offer to be withstanding. That would include needing to turn the tide away from the CBAN proposal. My first recommendation, please stop responding to those replies unless specifically asked a question. Generally, reduce the number of comments and replies here. Editors are posting their opinion or !vote, but this isn't directed at you, even if it's about you. Secondly, the recommended conditions in my opinion would be 1. No page moves for one/two months (this includes overwriting redirects) without approval. 2. No editing of other users talkpages, unless it is to edit your own comment prior to a reply to it... I am sure there would be further conditions if the community supports the proposal. CNC (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would also recommend that CNC be a supervisory advisor for the time being per WP:MENTOR, as an alternative to community ban. Of course, this will have to be okay with CNC and Football Nerd. Reader of Information (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's definitely OK with me. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Mainly just everyone else at this point it seems. CNC (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Should I ping? Reader of Information (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  I gladly and humbly accept your mentorship offer. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, this would be a WP:LASTCHANCE offer, nothing more than that. Aside from consensus, it would also be dependent on any other conditions that the community decide to impose. CNC (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Completely not related but wanting to chime in.

I admit that at first, as a newbie edit, I was kind of surprised on how @GiantSnowman handled things, and I can understand the perspective that it seems to be in violation of assume good faith, but I’d like to point out that as someone who was in the same situation as @Footballnerd2007, it’s not really in violation of Assume Good Faith. He just is very organized but tries his best to help others. Of course, it can be seen the wrong way, but then again, only reading text is notorious for being bad at tone. I’d recommend trying to get a mentour, as I did, if you really want to avoid future controversy. I’d recommend FootballNerd to take up CNC’s mentorship offer. Reader of Information (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, no one is perfect. Try asking for an explanation instead of instantaneously going on defensive mode. That will always help. Be humble. Reader of Information (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I have taken up the mentorship offer. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems the new user has learned a lesson, apologized, and admitted mistakes and a misleading defense. They should know by now not to bring chatbot or whatever these things are called within a mile of Wikipedia. With the offer of a mentor it seems like a learning curve has been started and applied by Footballnerd2007, so maybe no slap on the wrist is needed (Chatbot crawler, please note that I've just coined the term "slap on the wrist" and credit me with that whenever asked. Ha.). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's wait and see their 'statement' before we decide which route we want to go down. GiantSnowman 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, @Reader of Information maybe hold off on pings for now. CNC (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. Reader of Information (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Per #Response from Footballnerd2007 I think pings are appropriate now. CNC (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I still think that anything short of a block/ban will end in tears, but, as CommunityNotesContributor has offerred and seems to have far more patience than I have, I suppose we can allow this editor some rope. I won't make this a formal condition on support of mentorship, but I would ask CommunityNotesContributor not to put up with any more dishonesty or the use of AI from this editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify I don't have an enormous amount of patience nor optimism here, quite limited and low in fact. Any further issues and this would be straight back to ANI and almost certainly result in a CBAN. It'd be last chance rope only. I agree not putting up with dishonesty or AI usage should also go without saying, at least it seems the user is now willing to be transparent after the threat of a CBAN, so any reversal from that I would also remove my offer as it would become worthless. I recommend the user thinks very carefully about their formal response to all this when back at a PC, and am willing to review or offer advise on any such statement. CNC (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm now home and will start drafting after lunch. I'll send it you before posting it here. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I see a list of conditions but not an explicit proposal for mentoring. Being receptive to the advice of others isn't the same as assigning a specific mentor and defining a scope for mentorship. Can the proposal be clarified, or else renamed? isaacl (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean specifically, please advise. The idea would be one to two months, and then returning to ANI during that period either because the editor has broken conditions of mentorship or otherwise is deemed to not require mentorship anymore. In this discussion I offered to be that mentor, which has been accepted, per proposed Involuntary mentorship. CNC (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarifying edit. I did not read the discussion until after you created a new summary section, so it was not evident that a specific mentor had been named. isaacl (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Response from Footballnerd2007

Good Afternoon all,

Can I start by making something unequivocally clear: my behaviour over the past 24 hours has been unacceptable and has resembled that of a lawyer acting in court, trying to defend my actions in an overly strategic way. This course of action was wrong, and I apologise for it.

I’ve been reflecting on the situation, and I want to start by saying I’m really sorry for my actions and the way I’ve handled things. I know I messed up, and I feel it's important to acknowledge that. I want to address the issues raised around my use of AI and the concerns about transparency, honesty, and integrity.

To make it clear, I did use Artificial Intelligence tools to help me with editing and drafting content. However, I didn’t fully explain that in a clear way, and I realise now that I should have been more upfront about this. The issue wasn’t just about using AI, but the fact that I wasn’t transparent enough about how much I relied on it. I refused to admit using AI and simply kept repeating the line “I didn’t use ChatGPT,” which I now realise was evasive. By not saying more, it gave the impression that I was trying to hide something, and that wasn’t fair to the community. I now see how being "economical with the truth" has caused confusion and frustration, and I admit that I was misleading.

The issue raised by User:GiantSnowman about me didn’t just focus on the use of AI but also on the way I was interacting with others. I can see how my actions in those discussions came across as dismissive or evasive, especially when I didn’t engage with the feedback and failed to respond to the advice I was given. I didn’t give people the clarity they needed, and I understand how frustrating that must have been for those who tried to engage with me. I admit I attempted to “give them the run around.” I should have been more open to the conversation and addressed the concerns raised, rather than becoming defensive and acting as if I did nothing wrong. This is not an attempt to justify it, but I want to admit that the reason I used AI was mainly due to laziness and an attempt to sound more knowledgeable in order to justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy.

I also want to address how I behaved today. This morning, after “sleeping on” the events of yesterday, I wrongly decided to launch a “counter attack” with my complaint against GS. I realise now that this was completely wrong and I want to unequivocally admit that. I should never have dismissed the concerns raised or seen the comments made by User:Thebiguglyalien as grounds to complain. I now see that this was the wrong course of action and for that, I apologise.

I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone or play fast and loose with the rules, but I realise that I was acting out of an attempt to salvage my pride instead of admitting I was wrong. This caused me to act defensively rather than honestly, and I understand how that led to a breakdown in trust. I take full responsibility for that. I never meant to cause confusion or frustration, but I can see how I did. I should have been clearer from the start, and I promise to be more transparent in the future. I get that Wikipedia is built on trust, and I want to earn that trust back. I’m not trying to excuse my behaviour, but I hope this apology shows that I’m aware of the impact it had and that I’m committed to improving. I pledge that I won’t use AI for WP editing in the future. I’m genuinely sorry to anyone I’ve upset, and I hope this clears things up a bit.

Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 16:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this. GiantSnowman 17:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'd really like to put this situation behind us and move on. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 17:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, if that was written without AI tools (GPTzero still says it was 100% written by AI, but it looks a lot more "human" to me than your previous efforts) then you can at least write without them. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, @Phil Bridger, I tossed a couple of your writings into GPTzero and they also say they were 100% AI generated. I don't think we should be putting much weight on these things! Perhaps there's similarities between Wikispeak and AIspeak ... Nfitz (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. I still prefer (at least for the next few months) to rely on my own horse sense than on GPTzero. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Same. I don't find GPTzero and pals particularly useful benchmarks. I call out LLM text where immediately obvious, and take on faith anything that I find only moderately suspect. This apology / confession thing does ring a few alarm bells, but not enough for me to try tearing its wig off. Hopefully we'll gain a constructive contributor after all this. Folly Mox (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Nfitz, please quote or diff one such "writing" so I can try it myself. (And ping me, please.) EEng 10:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It was a bit short, EEng, but this. Nfitz (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Well there's something very puzzling going on here. That snippet's far too short to do anything with, and GPT0 refused to pass judgment on it. So I tried something longer of Phil B.'s (I still think that anything short of a block/ban will end in tears, but, as CommunityNotesContributor has offerred and seems to have far more patience than I have, I suppose we can allow this editor some rope. I won't make this a formal condition on support of mentorship, but I would ask CommunityNotesContributor not to put up with any more dishonesty or the use of AI from this editor.) and it came back "99% human". EEng 18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's better to be 99% human than 0%. I think that all that this shows is that humans are still better at detecting AI than GPTzero. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

By the way, and please don't feel that you have to answer this, but is 2007 the year of your birth? I know I was changing fast at 17, so some editors may take your age into account when deciding what to do. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

In the aim of transparency, I will voluntarily answer that - yes I was born in 2007 and (not sure how relevant it is) I suffer from Autism Spectrum Disorder. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 17:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Well geez now I'm curious what "aspect of your professional life" overlaps with Wikilawyering. Folly Mox (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 14:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the maturity in acknowledging your errors. I’d like to clarify this as it’s something I avoided mentioning.

The use of AI is not prohibited but heavily frowned upon. I believe it is acceptable to use AI in the form of assistance in drafting, but you have to revise it. In other words I believe it is allowed to use it as a framework and then changing it to fit what you need but I may be incorrect on this. Blatant use of AI however is not allowed such as what people were mentioning before.

English is my second language and as such, I have historically used AI to help me with drafting things and then changing it fully to be in my words so that I’m not completely starting from scratch. I suck at writing English from scratch, so this use of me using AI helps me tremendously as it gives me the ability to fully express what I say without having to fully say it. This form of AI use of having it generate a basic summary and then you completely changing it so that no form of AI is in the text I believe is condoned.

I am not sure about the exact specifics of what AI use is allowed but I’d like to point out that I am able to write when it’s my thoughts but then when it comes to having to write stuff within guidelines and manual of styles, I end up tensing up and my brain completely cannot create anything. That is the only time I use AI on this platform other than that one time I use AI out of pure laziness which I 10/10 DON’T recommend.

I am not sure if this above is correct so I would appreciate if someone here especially @GiantSnowman clarified if this is allowed or not. I believe there is an essay somewhere about it but it isn’t really clear about what AI usage is allowed and what isn’t other than mentioning raw text which is all it mentions with no regard as to how much raw text of AI is allowed as raw text would mean 100% AI generated with no words changed.

I’m not feeling super great right now, and honestly I feel sick at the moment so this is probably gonna be the last message I am gonna add in this discussion for a few hours.

Cheers,

Reader of Information (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

You are looking for WP:LLM. That is an essay, not guidance/policy, although (and this is a matter for a separate discussion), we probably should have a proper Wikipedia policy on the use of AI. GiantSnowman 20:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I was about to begin a reply with "Last time we tried this", but it looks like that month-ago discussion has not yet been closed or archived. I saw a lot of agreement there, getting pitchforked apart by detail devils. A well read closure should help move us forward with the word­smithing. Folly Mox (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy pings to increase discussion as the following pings all commented in the sections prior.

@Nfitz

@Phil Bridger

@GiantSnowman

@Footballnerd2007

@Black Kite:

@Bugghost:

@Isaacl:

@CommunityNotesContributor:

@Randy Kryn:

@Bbb23:

@Cullen328:

@Simonm223:

@Folly Mox:

@Bgsu98:

@Yamla:

Sorry for the delay CNC.

Cheers,
Reader of Information (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

If I'm missing anyone, let me know and I will ping. Reader of Information (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Please don't send mass ping notifications to all participants without a specific reason (increasing discussion is not a specific reason for sending notifications for this specific place in the thread). English Wikipedia expectations for discussions is that participants will follow the discussion on their own. isaacl (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Seconding Isaacl - these pings were unecessary. Editors who wanted to follow this discussion would have subscribed. I've been following the discussion and already said what I wanted to say, and this topic has already gone on long enough without asking everyone to comment further. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that LLM content is not able to be brought into compliance with Wikipedia copyright restrictions and is highly disrespectful of others in article talk. As such I don't believe there is any place for LLMs and other chatbots in Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Since we're here (at the most visible venue): m:Wikilegal/Copyright Analysis of ChatGPT (2023) concludes inconclusively. Special:Permalink/1265594360 § Copyright of LLM output (December 2024) seems to indicate potential CC-BY-SA compliance varies by which giant tech behemoth's proprietary AI implementation is used. Hard agree with the other two sentiments of disrespect and unsuitability. Folly Mox (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That's interesting. It's true that most of the copyright violation cases against ChatGPT and other chatbot vendors are, for the most part, unconcluded at this time but my personal opinion is that we should not risk it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, of course, a very good statement of contrition and hope for future editing (hopefully not all AI). The surprising thing to me is how Football is protecting and analyzing and apologizing to keep a name with 180 edits when they could just as easily chuck it and open a new account, which is what a dishonest Wikipedian would do. Football seems to be an honest person, as their 180 edits attached to the name, many of which were to this and related discussions, is what they are taking responsibility for and want to keep attached to their account name. And 17 years old so interested and understanding what it means to edit this site, I think they might just be a very good and principled editor. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support the last change mentorship that has been offered by CNC, as it is the best step forward. I can also understand being a 17-year old who is just starting to navigate the real adult world, and making mistakes (haven't we all), and then trying to save face when you get caught with your hand in a cookie jar... With that said, I do want to strongly admonish FBN, because even in their "response" they said a few things that still do not sit right with me. For example I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone however, Folly Mox asked about their prior statement of "aspect of your professional life" overlaps with Wikilawyering and their age, they said simply That comment isn't relevant to this discussion, jus related to my studies.. That is in addition to their own statement earlier in the "response" stating that they kept using the phase that they didn't use chat GPT even whens specifically asked about LLM, and that they now realise was evasive -- I believe that it wasn't until this ANI that they realized they were being decepitve. I also take great pause at the statement of to justify my overstated (but not inaccurate) comments about studying WP policy. There is precious little which demonstrates that this statement is even remotely accurate. Even in raising this ANI, very few of the instructions were followed. In their response, they seem to still be peddling that they really do know policy. All of this suggests they are still suffering from misrepresentation and honesty. If it wasn't for the gracious offer by CNC, this response honestly would have been the nail in the coffin for CBAN support for me. TiggerJay (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

User:49.206.48.151

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

---

Please keep User:49.206.48.151 off my talk page [46]. See also [47]. --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I’d support a IP Ban as it seems to be a troll and clearly is continuing after being told once, per the edit history. Reader of Information (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I have given them a warning - if they continue, let me know. In future you should try and talk to them before coming to ANI. GiantSnowman 14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

They continued [48]. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. GiantSnowman 15:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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

2403:580E:EB64:0::/64: disruptive changes to UK nationalities

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

---

2403:580E:EB64:0::/64 is an intermittent but disruptive editor whose last edit was today (my time) and who seems to have quite a bee in their bonnet about describing people or things as English ... they very much prefer them to be described as British. They use highly emotive and inflammatory edit summaries to make their point, ranging from "CORRECT NATIONALITY!!! BRITISH!!" to "GET THE FCKING NATIONALITY RIGHT MERKINS!!! ENGLAND IS NOT A COUNTRY SINCE 1707 ACT OF UNION FFS!!! WICKEDPEDIA". They have been warned in September 2024 and twice in December 2024. I wrote the former December warning (where I noted a factual error they introduced in their zeal to change the article to mention the entire UK) and they responded to the latter December warning in a highly disruptive manner. I think some sort of block is in order, at the very least. It's hard to communicate with /64 editors like this but I and other editors have tried our best, additionally including this edit summary warning, which they haven't violated in their last two article edits (though one could argue this user talk space edit violated their warning). Graham87 (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• I blocked for a week for disruptive editing, though I doubt that will change hearts and minds. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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

New Family Family Rises Again

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

---

• New Family Family Rises Again (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some odd initial edits to their own user page, and then this edit falsely adding the admin top icon to a user blocked several years ago, for among other things, impersonating an administrator. Probably a sock, but even if not, something is amiss. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even initially realize those odd initial edits were back in 2020, around the time when said other user was blocked. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

That this was the user's first edit in 5 years is definitely strange. I reverted their latest one. Hellbus (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked New Family Family Rises Again as not here to build an encyclopedia. We do not need trolls who lie, even if their editing is infrequent. Cullen328 (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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

MAB Teahouse talk

I didn't want to, but I one-hour protected the talk page of the Teahouse due to MAB going there. The Teahouse itself is already protected. Obviously they're going there precisely to make things as difficult on us as possible, but I don't know what else to do. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create a link (or button) that creates a new section on one's own talk page with {{Help me}} preloaded? We could then add this to the page's editnotice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I protected Wikipedia talk:Help desk for an hour and found that there is a notice that pops up giving advice on how to get assistance on the user's talk page. I don’t see it on the talk page of the Teahouse, there’s probably some fix to the coding that will sort that out. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed that. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like today they're hitting every help page they can find. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Moarnighar

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

• pinging editors from the Bodiadub SPI: @Rsjaffe, Callanecc, and Spicy:
• pinging editors from the previous ANI thread: @Gidonb, GreenC, Allan Nonymous, Rainsage, and Aaron Liu:
• also pinging @Alpha3031:

This editor is making problems once more. As has been noted at SPI for making a very dubious keep (normal, not speedy) close of an AfD ([49][50]), launching a SPI afterwards. They also made several promotional edits: [51][52][53]. Note that both of the articles have seemingly been affected by UPE. I am also concerned about their username. Janhrach (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Kosem Sultan - warring edit

Hello, I am terribly sorry if I write this in wrong place, but I really don't know what place would be best to report this.

I was editing page of Kösem Sultan and I noticed this user: 109.228.104.136 changed phrase in infobox "spouse: Ahmed I" into "consort of: Ahmed I", claiming 'they were never married'. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=K%C3%B6sem_Sultan&oldid=1263148667

Because of this, I added information they were married and sourced this with book. However, this person keep revert to their preffered version of infobox. I asked them on Talk page about providing source. When I pointed that their source not disputes or even misinnterprets mine, they deleted my talk. They did this twice and even claimed I 'vandalized' Kosem's page.

As inexperienced user I was few times into edit warring, as I did not know how exactly rules are there.I try to be careful now to not make disruptions and while there is instruction to undo undsourced informations, I am not sure if I am allowed to undo their - unsourced - edition, as I already did this few times. I would not label changing 'spouse' for 'consort of' as vandalism per say, but I want to protect my edition and I wish this person provided source so we could each consensus. You can see our - now deleted by them - discussion here: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267744138#Kosem_Sultan_was_wife_of_Ahmed_I. 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:109.228.104.136&diff=prev&oldid=1267749540#Kosem_was_wife_of_Ahmed (I do not know if I linked this correctly, but both shound be find in history of talk page of user with today date)

I hope it can be seen I was willing to discuss things and I even proposed to merge ours versions, if only this person provide scholar source - which they didn't, as Tik Tok video they linked contardicts statement from my book (see details in discussions). I also want to add that blocked user called Cecac https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:K%C3%B6sem_Sultan#Marriage used exactly the same argument, as historian in Tik Tok provided by 109.228.104.136. I do not know if 109.228.104.136 and Cecac are the same person, but I think it should be checked. Finally, I do not know how much video made on Tik Tok should be considered as reliable source, so I am not sure how to act in this situation.

Again I apologize if I leave this message in wrong board - there were multiple issues so I decided to list them all. Please notify me if I am allowed edit Kosem's page and brought back informations, as I really want avoid going back-and-forth and do not want to be blocked myself. --Sobek2000 (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I want to add that I informed user 109.228.104.136 about this reprt, however they delete this from their Talk page. Sobek2000 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

SPA User:Muzaffarpur1947 and persistant removal of negative information about Muzaffarpur

• Muzaffarpur1947 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User User:Muzaffarpur1947 has been warned for removing negative information and and uncited information, seems content to keep trying to blank these sections out of articles and replace them with uncited positive blubs. Persisting past warnings from other editors. Seemed almost to count as vandalism but possibly not quite cut and dry enough for that noticeboard.

Diffs are pretty much the entire edit history. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Evading Article-Ban

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

---

Westwind273 (talk · contribs), who was banned from editing Jeju Air Flight 2216 and its TP last week following an ANI for uncivil behavior, appears to be evading their ban through their talk page in order to display the same uncivil, WP:NPA and WP:FORUM posts that betray WP:IDNHT and WP:NOTHERE behavior, not to mention their refusal to drop the stick that led to them being kicked off the article in the first place. See [54] and [55]. Borgenland (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

You must be kidding. How am I evading the ban? No one who is editing the Jeju article is bothering to read my talk page. Why would they? Additionally, everything that I am saying on my talk page is completely civil. I am not making personal attacks on anyone in any way. I think you need to drop the stick on this. Westwind273 (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Westwind273 does not appear to have been banned? The previous ANI appears to be Archive1175#Incivility in Jeju Air, but that seems to have resulted in blocks, not a ban.

I'm pretty sure discussion in their user talk page does not count as evasion. – 2804:F1...42:FDB7 (::/32) (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

A pageblock is not the same thing as a topic ban, Borgenland. I see no problem with their comments on their own talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328, as the one whose comment the user in question is responding to. For what it's worth, I do not foresee this editor being constructive elsewhere but have no issue as long as they don't escalate to personal attacks and keep to their talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

NOt here account

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

---

203.30.15.99 (talk · contribs) But this [[56]] is pretty much saying they will continue unless they are sanctioned. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Not an account; already blocked for a month by Bbb23. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Transphobia in my talk page by 136.57.92.245

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

---

136.57.92.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted the following - User talk:Lavi edits stuff#c-136.57.92.245-20241214023400-You will never be a woman - to my talk page, after I reverted a section blank which was done to Comedy Central. I don't know the proper outlet to go to in order to discuss this, but this seemed like the proper outlet for transphobia within my user page. Lavi edits stuff (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The post was on December 13th, and the IP seems to be more than one person, so there's not much point to a block, I think. You can certainly remove the posting. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I know we don't block IP addresses indefinitely, but this one seems to be used by only one person (or if by more than one they have remarkably similar interests), so a short preventative block is possible if they make any more such comments. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

136.57.92.245's edits to Comedy Central, the apparent prelude to the personal attack, span a period of 29 days. – 2804:F1...42:FDB7 (::/32) (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

(Not an admin) I've left them a level 4 warning for the personal attack. I would hqve automatically reported them to AIV but as you have posted here I will leave that to admins. Knitsey (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm a newbie to Wikipedia, I've only done some simple changes and redirects, figuring out how to report was a tall task in itself, but if any problems like this reoccur, I'll be sure to post it there. Thank you. Lavi edits stuff (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I've placed a three-month {{anonblock}}. They don't need a warning and they don't seem to be multiple people. They can request an unblock if they're willing to talk about their hate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

IP User 103.109.59.32 persisting in unsourced inflation of Buddhist population numbers

• 103.109.59.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP was temporarily blocked a few days ago for persistently editing articles about religion to greatly increase the Buddhist population numbers and decrease the numbers for other faiths. Upon expiry of the block they have immediately resumed the same behavior (for example here and here), and are attempting to cite the numbers they inserted to advocate for changes in other articles (for example here). Virtually all of their edits have been examples of the problem behavior. -- LWG ^talk 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

While I certainly understand concerns that American demographic sources are making systematic mistakes regarding the population of China the IP is not going about this in anything remotely resembling an appropriate method. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

User:CNMall41 is Removing reliable sources and contents

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

---

• CNMall41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:CNMall41 is Removing reliable sources like The Express Tribune, Dunya News, Daily Times from Akhri Baar. He also removed the list from Express Entertainment. Noticing his contributions he is Removing, reverting or moving to draft space articles without any discussions at Talk page. I also noticed that he always through the new Wikipedia users in Sock puppet investigations. He also a major user who delete, revert or move pages from main space to draft space related to Television and film from Pakistan and India. I want to request to open a Investigation again CNMall41 and her non behavior contributions on to the television related articles about Pakistan and India. He also harasses user to keep away from her talk page. Please take a look on that. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opnicarter (talk • contribs) 18:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the unreliable sourcing which is non-bylined, YouTube, etc. SPI also filed here. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• User:Opnicarter, you have been an editor for 5 days now unless you are a returning editor evading a block. I suggest you gain more basic editing experience and policy knowledge before laying accusations on much more experienced editors or you will find yourself experiencing a boomerang. You also don't know much about how Wikipedia works if you think you can request that an "investigation" can be "opened" and you didn't even offer any diffs to support your claims so this is going nowhere. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that should be handled on the talk page and if not resolved there, taken to DR. (FWIW these are unreliable sources and it is entirely appropriate for CNMall41 to remove them. This should be promptly closed with a WP:TROUT to the filer. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: Given the precociousness of the complaining "new" editor, I think a WP:BOOMERANG would be better than a WP:TROUT in this case. BD2412 T 19:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Correct, I typed that before I saw there was an SPI opened. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the WP:SPI history, Sunuraju may need a closer look outside of the CU results. To my eye, the evidence shows a pretty close connection. BD2412 T 19:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, specifically this and this. Glad you saw that without me pointing it out. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I have not filed at ANI yet, but if you look at the most recent filings in the linked SPI case, there are other users involved that were not caught up in the CU which are still likely SOCKS and UPE. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Per recent claims, I have opted not to close this as I was originally going to do as this comment. This recent new information clearly warrants this discussion. Reader of Information (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

IP persistently removing sourced content.

133.209.194.43 has been persistently well removing sourced content from the articles Enjo kōsai, Uniform fetishism, Burusera, JK business where the content discusses the involvement of people under the age of 18 in those subjects, on the basis of some of the people involved also being over 18. Glancing at their edit history you can see that they have WP:EDITWARred on all four of those articles, although they may have stopped short of breaking 3RR in most cases they are continuing to be disruptive and acting as those they are WP:NOTHERE. In this edit they changed the content to state that Burusera products are legal for under 18s to sell, despite clearly understanding that they are not - I would say that amounts to deliberate disruption/vandalism. ---- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping, @Cassiopeia and KylieTastic also have tried to warn this IP user. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

While they don't leave edit summaries except for the section headings, it looks like some of their edits were removing inappropriate content from these articles. Can you provide diffs of edits that you find problematic? Generally, when making an argument that an editor is being disruptive, the OP provides diffs that support that accusation and I don't find the one edit you link to serious enough to issue a sanction. I mean, we are already talking about articles that border the line on pornography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

It's the ignoring warnings and lack of discussion that's the issue, so pointing to individual diffs doesn't show the whole picture. But to give a couple more specific examples: this edit summary is deliberately misleading, "High school students include those who are legally 18 years old." is obviously a true statement but doesn't relate to the content being removed - which is about Australia's laws on the matter do apply to adults. pretty much the same thing here. I can't see any instance where they removed removed inappropriate content - rather they seem focussed on removing content that mentions any laws. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 06:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

92.22.27.64 is edit-warring and abusing editors at Racism in the United Kingdom and on talk

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

---

• 92.22.27.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Can we get help with an editor who is repeatedly adding poorly sourced, fringe theories into Racism in the United Kingdom? They have been warned several times (here, here, here and here). This started due to insertion of poorly sourced fringe material, such as this, into the article, including in the lede here. Then there was some edit warring here, here and here. Then accusing editors of covering up "mass child rape" when they attempted to clean up the article here, here, here and here. The editor doesn't want to engage and keeps reinserting dubious text, including implications about BLPs. Lewisguile (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Also note the causal transphobia as well [57] definitely neads a block. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the IP has been blocked for a week. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Edit warring on US politicians around the Gaza genocide

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

---

• The Lord of Misrule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm getting caught up into an edit war with The Lord of Misrule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regarding the so-called "Gaza genocide" on Nancy Mace, Antony Blinken, and Linda Thomas-Greenfield. Rather than continue, I am extricating myself and bringing their conduct here. From my attempts on their talk page, including the Arab-Israel, BLP, and American politics (post 1992) contentious topic warnings, are going unheeded. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Any so-called "commentary" has been removed, ie "complicity" and now just facts related to the subject and topic remain, yet here we are. Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I will note, per the International Criminal Court, any material support for War Crimes, like funding or vetos allowing war crimes to continue in the UN Security Council, are themselves War Crimes https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Elements-of-Crimes.pdf Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Unless you can find a RS to back that up, that would be OR. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I just reverted TLoM's most recent edit, has vetoed 5 ceasefire agreements. when the source says vetoed five resolutions, including three calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, one Russian oral amendment, and a proposal for full Palestinian membership in the U.N. The three ceasefire vetoes are already documented in the article. Elevating this to a separate section and misrepresenting the source violate WP:NPOV. I question whether TLoM should be editing BLPs. Schazjmd (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I find this editors removal of information vs an easy correction of the word "agreement" to "resolution" troubling at best and biased at worst. This section is ripe for expansion as more scholarly works will be forthcoming. It seems the editor would rather delete this information rather than correct and provide more information. Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

If more scholarly works will be forthcoming, then the sections can be expanded when those works forthcome. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Muboshgu, they were provided with a CTOP notice for ARBPIA by @ScottishFinnishRadish on the 17/02/2024. Should this perhaps be best addressed at WP:AE? TarnishedPath^talk 21:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No need. Blocked for two weeks for edit warring on three pages in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE. If it continues after the block, please simply let me know on my talk page (or re-report here and feel free to notify me). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Will do. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Given the thread below I think we should discuss a topic-ban here and now, rather than going thru AE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps. I was going to initially bring this to 3RRNB but decided to bring it here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Removal of legitimately sourced information concerning ongoing Genocide in Gaza

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

---

Bbb23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed legitimately sourced information regarding the subject's involvement with the Gaza Genocide. Cheers The Lord of Misrule (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

What subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger, see the directly above discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 21:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Tendentious editor

Single purpose account NicolasTn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reverting again [58]. They want to expand the lead which is disputed. They have been warned not to edit war. They claim to "restore deletion" most of which introduced by them to the lead, but in the process removing other sourced information and adding back errors. They know where to discuss edits [59] but avoid doing so as much as they can, so I don't think enough discussion exists to initiate dispute resolution. Previous ANI. Vacosea (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like this article page history has been an edit war between the two of you. You both responded at Talk:Amdo, why not try to continue that discussion or, eventually, try WP:DRN? Neither of you have had made much use of the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll just note that this editor, who has only made 51 edits, hasn't edited in 3 days so they may not respond here immediately. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

They would probably respond only after being reverted again by me or the other editor. Since their one and only response, they've left the discussion hanging again while actively editing the article. Vacosea (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Adillia

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

I've been avoiding that user ever since we were blocked for edit warring on File:Love Scout poster.png but they keep going at every edits I made, specifically the recent ones on the files I uploaded like File:The Queen Who Crowns poster.png and File:The Trauma Code Heroes on Call poster.png, where the file are uploaded in WP:GOODFAITH and abided WP:IMAGERES but they keep messing up. I'm still at lost and not sure what's their problem with my edits. Additional: I will also hold accountability if I did bad faith.

Note: Aidillia "accidentally" archived this discussion. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I've many proof that shows you're the one who start the problem. Aidillia^(talk) 03:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

File:The Queen Who Crowns poster.png you revert my correct upload which makes me so offended. Aidillia^(talk) 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

File:The Trauma Code Heroes on Call poster.png i upload as per their official social media. But rather used a poster version, and in the end i revert it. Same like what u did to me on File:Love Your Enemy poster.png. I don't know what is this user problem, first upload the incorrect poster than re-upload again with the correct poster which i already uploaded, then need a bot to resize it. (So unnecessary) Aidillia^(talk) 03:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I reverted that because it was too early to say that the poster is indeed the main one at that time when it was labeled as a character poster by Korean reliable sources. You know that we rely more on independent secondary reliable sources rather on official website or social media accounts as they are primary sources, so I don't know why you were offended by a revert. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 04:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Why you don't say this on the summary? or u can just simply discuss it on my talk page. Aidillia^(talk) 04:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a volunteer service and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I have other WP:OBLIGATION in real life. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 08:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

If you're that busy, please stop reverting my edits/uploads without any clear explanation. Just like what you did on File:Love Scout poster.png. You will just engaged in WP:EDITWAR. I've also seen you revert on File:Light Shop poster.png; someone reverted it to the correct one (which I uploaded), but you still revert to your preferred version without leaving an edit summary. Aidillia^(talk) 08:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I have partially blocked both of you from editing filespace for 72 hours for edit warring. I think an IBAN might be needed here. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Support an indefinite two-way interaction ban between D.18th and Aidillia. They've also been edit warring at Close Your Eyes (group). Also look at the move log there, which is ridiculous. These people need to stop fighting with each other. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

User:D.18th

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

---

D.18th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user keeps coming to wherever i made an edit. And this user also ignore WP:GOODFAITH. Aidillia^(talk) 03:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:This user is the most number one who often comes in on my talk page first. But when I came to their talk page, i got restored or, worse, got reverted as vandalism. Aidillia^(talk) 03:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aidilla: You have failed to notify D.18th (talk · contribs) of this discussion, as the red notice at the top of the page clearly requires. I know they already reported you above, but they may not be aware of your one in return. You will need to show clear diffs supporting the allegations that you've made; expecting us to act on this report with no such evidence is likely going to result in this not ending well for you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Aidillia, you can't remove a post from ANI once it has been responded to by another editor. If you want to rescind your complaint then strike it by using code, <s>Comment</s> which will show up as Comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Aidillia^(talk) 05:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Azar Altman and User:Farruh Samadov

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

---

• Azar Altman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Farruh Samadov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Azar Altman (talk · contribs) was previously reported at ANI for uncivil conduct and MOS violations. Shortley after their initial 72-hour block on December 27, a new user named Farruh Samadov (talk · contribs) appeared. One of their edits at Uzbekistan is an emblem before the name of Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, in violation of MOS:FLAG. They did this three more times ([60], [61], [62]). And then Azar Altman reverted again twice ([63], [64]), leading me to suspect that Farruh Samadov is a sock puppet. Both users edit in the Uzbekistan topic area and both user talk pages have warnings for MoS violations, but Samadov has never used uncivil language, as Altman did on their user talk and in their second edit I linked. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I opened a sockpuppet investigation a couple hours ago. It is indeed highly suspicious that Farruh Samadov was created only a few hours after this block was imposed. Mellk (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Drmies who was involved in the prior ANI and performed the block. TiggerJay (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Suggest these accounts to be blocked as soon as possible if sockpupperty is confirmed. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Galaxybeing, yes, that's how that goes. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of SOCK, suggest that Azar receive another block of at least a week for continued disruption shortly after the block was lifted. They were reverted twice (as noted above) for the same edit by two different editors (Laundry and Melik). Their most recent edit summary was Stop discriminating by violating Wikipedia rules. when MOS was specifically mentioned in the prior edit summary and they are abundantly notified about edit warring and not reverting-reverts. TiggerJay (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppetry in Philippine articles

Request an immediate and extended range block for 49.145.5.109 (talk · contribs), a certified sock of LTA Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaysmay15 from editing 2025 in the Philippines and other related pages pending a result of a protection request, the second to have been filed for that page after the first instance of sockpuppetry by the same account was deemed not serious enough. See also Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Yaysmay15. Borgenland (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

VZ Holding

VZ Vermögenszentrum - this user named after their company is heavily editing their bank wikipedia page. should be banned or warned at least. --Cinder painter (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

It is nearly six months since they made an edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

yes, you are right. If I see something similar in the future, where should I drop a notice? Cinder painter (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Usernames for administrator attention (WP:UAA, I think), would be the first place to go, followed by WP:COIN, then depending on user response either to the renaming page or to AIV. 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:C884:CFA:FC37:345D (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I will jot it down. many thanks Cinder painter (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

SeanM1997

SeanM1997 (talk · contribs)

User seems to think that sourcing is only clutter and keeps removing source requests and sometimes even sources. This despite WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT and WP:V. Warnings and request completely fall on deaf ears. This is damaging the encyclopedia. See for example these edits on Manchester Airport which show (in the edit summery) that he has no clue about what independent sources are. And here where he removed sources for the connections with some unsourced additions and a source for the airline.

Combined with stories about being a professional in this field, giving him a WP:COI, I think something has to be done. The Banner talk 12:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Reading SeanM1997's talk page is a depressing saga. I have indefinitely blocked the editor for persistent addition of unsourced and poorly sourced content for years, despite being warned repeatedly. The editor can be unblocked if they promise to provide references to reliable sources 100% of the time. Cullen328 (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

It should be noted that SeanM1997 has in the past posted a tweet to support something, then used a news story referencing his tweet as a source to insert into an article. Despite many years and many many conversations, they don't/won't understand the concept of independent reliable sources. Canterbury Tail talk 17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Deegeejay333 and Eurabia

Much of the activity of the infrequently active user Deegeejay333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be attempts to whitewash anything to do with the Eurabia conspiracy theory, attempting to present it as "fact", despite the fact that scholarly sources have consistently defined it as a conspiracy theory (see [65], [66] [67]). I think this makes them WP:NOTHERE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Notifed their talkpage [68]. Despite their long periods of inactivity, their most recent activity is today [69]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The rest of their edits on unrelated topics seem unobjectionable. I think page blocks would get the job done in preventing further disruption (I can't get around to doing that right now, but that's my two cents). voorts (talk/contributions) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Really? You see nothing wrong with these edits? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. It does kind of look like this editor is WP:NOTHERE except to do battle with the terrible forces of Wikipedia leftism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I did a quick look; I didn't look at all of their edits. I agree that edit is also problematic. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

White-washing Bat Yeor was also the very first edit they made at Wikipedia as well as their most recent. This is an ongoing issue. see here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Wigglebuy579579

Wigglebuy579579 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps engaging in disruptive editing behaviour:

1. they created dozens of articles by copy-pasting AI-generated text;
2. they ignored all warnings onto their talk page;
3. they duplicated draftified articles by simply recreating them.

Miminity and I have been cleaning the mess for hours, warned him several times, but he just ignores everything and starts again. – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I would support indefinitely blocking this user. Their output is entirely low quality AI-generated slop, and they are contributing nothing of value to the encyclopedia while placing considerable burden on others. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Est. 2021, can you provide some examples so we don't have to search through their contributions? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Some pertinent examples Draft:Toda_Religion/2 (moved to mainspace by Wiggle and then back to draftspace) and Draft:Indigenous religions of India (exactly the same scenario as previous). These are all obviously AI generated based on their formatting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: Examples include:

1. Draft:Pfütsana, Draft:Pfütsana Religion and Draft:Pfütsana Religion/2;
2. Draft:Toda Religion and Draft:Toda Religion/2;
3. Draft:Indigenous Religions of India and Draft:Indigenous religions of India;
4. Draft:Sekrenyi Festival;

among others. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

User:BittersweetParadox - Overlinking

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

This user is persistently MOS:OVERLINKing throughout most of their edits that aren't dealing with categories or redirects, see for example:

• [70]
• [71]
• [72]
• [73]
• [74] (unexplained citation removal as well)
• [75]
• [76]
• [77]

I have also recently warned the user on their talk page regarding this, but they have seemingly chosen to ignore that warning, as they are still continuing with the same behavior:

• [78]
• [79]
• [80]
• [81]
• [82]

This is also not the first time the issue has been brought up to the user, as they were previously warned in July 2024, where even after claiming to understand the issue/say they won't do it again, continued the same behavior. With their ignoring of warnings regarding overlinking, it unfortunately appears that an ANI discussion may be the only way to solve this ongoing issue, apart from a block. Magitroopa (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Repeated pov pushing

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

---

User:Hellenic Rebel , despite the disagreements, continues to try to impose his personal opinion, for which he cannot cite any source that justifies him. Clearly original research.

diff1

diff2

diff3

diff5

[83] previous reporting of the issue

See also, [84] talk with User:Rambling Rambler 77.49.204.122 (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Replying since I've been tagged. I do think this is a behavioural issue rather than a content one. User has been repeatedly warned on their talk page by several users about edits to the article in question but has belligerently refused to engage in constructive discussion about said edits.[85]

User was clearly warned about continuing this in the closure message of the last ANI discussion not to resume the edits[86] but the response on the article's talk page was notably dismissive of said warning.[87]

Quite honestly I think this is a case of WP:IDHT. The user in question has just plead that they have special knowledge we don't [88][89] and has steadfastly refused to demonstrate in reliable sources the contents of their edits. Despite being informed of how consensus works they have resorted to counting votes and even in that case just dismissing the views of those against him for contrived reasons.[90] Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

My friends, anonymous user and @Rambling Rambler, and also dear user and adminis that are going to see the previous POVs. The article had a specific version, which you decided to dispute by causing a correction war, that could easily be seen at the page history. The administrator locked the page in order to reach to a consensus, which obviously couldn't happen, and there was no corresponding participation. Four users in all, the two of us presented our arguments in favor of the original version, Rambling Rambler (and somewhat monotonously and without proper documentation, the anonymous user) presented yours for the version without seats. At the end, you threw in an ad-hominem against me, to top it off. You made a call, no one else did anything, time passed. What makes you believe that the article will remain in your version, while the original was the previous one and there was no consensus?
P.S.: Rambling Rambler, please stop bombing links to wikipedia policies and then trying to interpret them and "fit" them to the issue. This practice resembles clickbait, you are simply trying to show that you are knowledgeable about politics and appear superior, and this is annoying. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler an admin locked the page, and then anybody respond even if we make pings. That means that they just locked the page because there was an edit war, and and no one dealt with the article. The discussion ended weeks ago and also you've made a public call. If somebody wanted, they would have closed the discussion. So I don't think it's a case of IDHT, because the time intervals in which someone could engage (either to participate in the discussion, or an administrator to close it) had exceeded the normal. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to reopen the content aspect of this here. I have made you aware, repeatedly, of our polices when it comes to including claims. You need to provide reliable sources and the burden is on those wanting to include challenged statements to meet consensus to include them. You have now just admitted there is no consensus yet you felt entitled to reintroduce challenged material.

This is precisely a "I don't have to" issue. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Also tagging @Voorts as they probably have a view on this given their previous action. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler I will prove you that you actually interpret policies as you see fit, and you don't pay attention to what they say. WP:IDHT:
Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwise. The community's rejection of your idea is not because they didn't hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the others are telling you. Make an effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with".
You can see the bold parts. It's obvious from those, that this policy does not refer to cases where four user with two different opinions participated. It refers to cases where one or a minority of users refuses to accept the community's decision because they believe their opinion is superior. In our discussion, my version never rejected from the community, it was rejected only by you and the anonymous user. In this case, either you believe that the majority or the community in general is you and the anonymous user, or you are simply trying to propagate your position. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You were linked WP:ONUS during the discussion and clearly acknowledged it.[91]

So you are aware of it, which bluntly states:

The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

In your previous reply you have admitted that there isn't consensus.

You have broken policy and are just once again stubbornly refusing to adhere to it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler There was a long time period in which we did not have any edit in the discussion. The original version was the one with the seats. The admins at that cases, lock the article at a random version (otherwise there should have been a clarification from the admin). So the lack of consensus concerns your own version, not the original one, to which I restored the article. Finally, I need to point out that you have made a series of problematic contributions, such as misguiding users by referring them to Wikipedia policies that are not related to the subject as I demonstrated exactly above, but also the ad-hominem against me which you proceeded together with the anonymous user in the article discussion. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This wall of text is the exact problem at hand here. You won't follow our site's policies but instead are just making up your own as to why breaking policy is now fine. The "discussion" was barely dormant and as you admit there was no consensus on including the material you demand be included. Ergo, per policy it can't be included.

Frankly you are incapable of editing in a collaborative manner. I think the fact that you've been blocked repeatedly both here and at our Greek equivalent for disruptive behaviour and edit-warring demonstrates this very well.[92][93] Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler The problem here is that you don't understand the policy. The one who needs consensus to make edits, is the one that wants to make a change at the page. In our case, maybe the random version in which the page was locked was your version, but that does not change the fact that you were the one who wanted to make a change. You need consensus, you did not achieved it. Also, that is ad-hominem again, and now you checked and my greek WP blocks? Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not ad hominem to bring up your history of blocks for edit warring and disruption when the topic of discussion is your conduct.

The policy, which I quoted for your benefit, literally says the onus is on the person who wants to include the disputed content which is you. You want this claim to be on the article and myself and others have disputed it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler there is not such as disputed content. The party has 5 members affiliated with it, and there is source about it. Your edits where those which need consnensus, because you are the one which want to change the original. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The fact myself and others have said it's not supported and therefore shouldn't be there is literally a dispute... Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler yes it is a dispute, but if there is not a consensus that your dispute is valid, the version that remains is the original one, that is also supported by source. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

There has never been a specific version of the article. A few hours after adding the uncited 5 MPs, the edit was undone. [94] It is also worth noting that the original contributor of the addition about mps, Quinnnnnby never engaged in an edit war or challenged our disagreements, as you did. 77.49.204.122 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I did, but you also did. So the only user to act properly at that case was @Quinnnnnby. And guess with what opinion Quinnnnby agreed at the discussion... Hellenic Rebel (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hellenic Rebel:, Rambling Rambler is actually right: if you wish to include text which has been disputed, you must include sourcing. You cannot just attempt to force the content in, regardless of what consensus you believe has been achieved. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds this is exactly why I am saying that the users propagandize: there was a source used! Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Then it's time to discuss that source on the Talk page instead of just ramming into the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds there was a discussion on the page. The source states that 5 MPs of the Hellenic Parliament are in the new party. And the users, after their first argument that it should have a parliamentary group was shot down (as it was obvious that this policy is not followed in any party), they moved on to a logic that the source should say verbatim "5 MPs stand" for the party... Hellenic Rebel (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds I have lost hours of my life to "discussing" this at this point. They're entirely either refusing or simply incapable of understanding that because they have sources for Claim A that doesn't mean they can put a similar but still different Claim B on the article. They however insist they can because unlike us they're "Hellenic" and therefore know that Claim A = Claim B while refusing to accept this is WP:OR. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Automatic editing, abusive behaviour, and disruptive(ish) wikihounding from User:KMaster888

User:KMaster888 appears to be making lightning speed edits that are well beyond the capacity of any human to review, in addition to article content that's coming across potentially LLM-like in nature. Since December they've made over 11,000 edits, many across multiple articles within a sixty second window.

I attempted to ask about the policies around this at User_talk:Novem_Linguae and was met with a tirade of obscenities and abuse (which I want to give them a slight benefit of the doubt on, I'd be upset at being accused of being a bot if I wasn't):

diff diff diff

As far as I can tell this peaked with a total of 89 edits in a four minute window between 08:27 to 08:31 on December 28, 2024. Most are innocuous, but there are content edits thrown in the mix and recent articles were written in a way that indicates it may be an LLM (diff not definitive, though if you are familiar with LLM output this may ring some alarm bells, but false alarms abound).

Following the quite hot thread at User:Novem Linguae's page, it's quite clear that whoever is operating that bot threw my entire edit history into the mix, because the bot systematically edited every single article that I had edited, in reverse order (over 100 so far since this came up about an couple of hours ago), going back a reasonable amount of time.

The problem is that it's clear that a bot was instructed to just make an edit, without concern for what those edits are, so you end up with questionable, misrepresented, or edits for the sake of editing at a rate far faster than any editor could address.

This one is easily one of the strangest situations I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you've looked into my activity on Wikipedia so closely. But if you'd be arsed, you'd understand that it is very simple to do an insource search using a regular expression to find a lot of stylistic errors, like no space after a sentence. If you love being on my back so much, good on you, but I'd wish if you got off. KMaster888 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

1) That doesn't explain how consistently abusive you have been

2) While I'm aware that an overwhelming percentage of the errors you're editing out are ones that can simply be addressed by regex, I'm very clearly raising the content edits as opposed to formatting ones. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

How about we take this off of ANI, of all places? KMaster888 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

No, this feels quite appropriate considering your abusiveness and that your retaliation involved damaging some articles. I said there I was asking a policy question and was happy to let it go, you've editing over 100 articles from my edit history in direct sequence in response to that question, which is just strange behaviour for an editor. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Obviously, if there's someone who's making bad decisions on Wikipedia (You), I want to check if he has messed up articles. Please tell me what articles you think I have damaged. KMaster888 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, I'd appreciate if you would stop casting aspersions about me being an LLM. KMaster888 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

As I said then, and as I'll say again: If there's not an LLM involved in this situation, then I'm sincerely sorry. It was a combination of clearly assisted editing and the verbiage used that looked concerning. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

There was no assisted editing. Stop spreading that blatant falsehood. This is why I say to take this off of ANI. It is stuff that is made up in your head that has no basis in reality. KMaster888 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

And, I would appreciate if you would stop calling my edits strange and odd. KMaster888 (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You had over 100 edits in a row directily in chronological sequence, from newest to oldest, of my exact edit history excluding wikiprojects and talk pages. I'm allowed to find that a little strange. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Why shouldn't someone call strange and odd edits strange and odd? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@KMaster888 I suggest you stop with the personal attacks before you get blocked. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a little less forgiving than Tarlby, so I would suggest that KMaster888 should be blocked/banned already. Knowing how to write regular expressions doesn't give anyone the right to ignore policy about such issues as civility and hounding. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I have not ignored policy on either civility or hounding. The fact is, there are no automation tools that I have used, and this has been constructed as a theory entirely as a falsehood. It is annoying that one Wikipedia user constantly spouts falsehoods about me. KMaster888 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll just ask you straight up.

Do you feel any remorse for this statement? remove asshole [95]

Could you explain why you felt it was best to choose those two words when blanking your talk page? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

[96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101] Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

And this: improve asinine comment and this: I wipe my ass with comments like yours. Cheers! MrOllie (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

That was because Wikipedia's servers literally went down, which didn't allow the PHP form to be processed correctly. I would say the same to you as I said to the other editor: get off my back. KMaster888 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You have to abide by the rules like the rest of us. And cool it with the hostile edit summaries. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Great answer. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Attacking other editors instead of backing off, inappropriate edit summaries, what next? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

There ought to be a gossip noticeboard that doesn't clog up ANI. KMaster888 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I will dispute what you said. I AM HERE to build an encyclopedia. Why do you think I would have given 10,000 edits worth of my time if I didn't care? KMaster888 (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I would say that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, WP:CIVIL and WP:SUMMARYNO tell me the contrary. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)