Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
<!-- Adds protection template automatically if page is semi-protected, inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. --><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}</noinclude>__NEWSECTIONLINK____TOC__{{clear}}
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 800K
|counter = 9771173
|algo = old(72h)
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
Line 9 ⟶ 11:
|headerlevel=2
}}
{{stack end}}
<!--
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
|archiveprefix=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive
|format=%%i
|age=72
|index=no
|numberstart=826
|archivenow={{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}sk
|minarchthreads= 1
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 7
|key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505c0c
|headerlevel=2
}} --><!--
-----------------------------------------------------------
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
----------------------------------------------------------
As this page concerns INCIDENTS:
Place the PAGENAME of the incident in the header.
Otherwise, if the notice is about the actions of an individual across several pages, then place the USERNAME of the individual in the header.
----------------------------------------------------------
Do not place links in the section headers.
(Immediately UNDER the header is preferred).
----------------------------------------------------------
Entries may be refactored based on the above.
------------------------------------------------------------>
 
== Multi-user edit war at [[Somalis]] ==
 
== Category:Requests for unblock under sustained attack by MidAtlanticBaby ==
There appears to be a multi-user edit war unfolding at [[Somalis]]. I have tried to help resolve the issue on the article talk page, but I have to admit that I am struggling to fully understand the dispute. Note that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=666004089&oldid=665990943 this discussion] resulted in a verdict that it might be necessary to adopt a 1RR policy on Somalia-related articles. I think the issue would benefit from the eyes of some administrators at this point. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 21:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
*I protected it fully for three days. Yes, the wrong version, of course! [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 21:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
:*Thanks. Should the latest edit be reverted? I've kind of lost track of what the consensus version was! [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 21:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
::*I'm just a little birdie who blocks on instinct... [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 21:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
:::As a [[wp:Rouge admin]] he is obliged to protect wrong version. It's in our membership agreements. -- [[User:Dlohcierekim|Dlohcierekim]] ([[User talk:Dlohcierekim|talk]]) 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
::::Kudos to anyone who can work out what the wrong version is! [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 21:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::I am unsure what to do here, should I explain the situation or wait for admins' contribution? The protected version was not the consensus version (obviously!). --[[User:Kzl55|Kzl55]] ([[User talk:Kzl55|talk]]) 21:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
::{{reply|Kzl55}} Could you link to that version. If it's the last stable, pre-edit war version, an admin could restore. The purpose of PP though is to induce stakeholders to discuss competing versions as consensus can change. -- [[User:Dlohcierekim|Dlohcierekim]] ([[User talk:Dlohcierekim|talk]]) 21:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
:::Could I also request that the editors involved in the dispute try to agree on a brief talk-page summary of the two different versions of the article that are being advocated? [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 22:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
*I reverted the latest edit but only because the user was a sock.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 22:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
{{reply|Dlohcierekim}} If you take into account the agreement we have in the talk page (Cordless Larry, Koodbuur, Sandman25 and myself) that the article and section should be representative of all Somalis, as broadly as possible, as opposed to having two Sultans in the section belonging to the same group and the same sub-group (as supported by Soupforone and Cabuwaaqwanaag a confirmed sock of serial disruptive editor), then it is this version [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=825503115&oldid=825500886] though it is neither stable (due primarily to opposition by editor Soupforone who states that "...there is no actual Wikipedia policy indicating that clan representation must be followed. This is just a courtesy rather than a necessity" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somalis&diff=824968621&oldid=824944654]). It has been restored now due to editor Cabuwaaqwanaag being confirmed as a sock. I would like to add that following a request to take the matter to the talk page by Cordless Larry [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=824805220&oldid=824805042], everyone was discussing the issue exclusively in the talk page until Soupforone's unilateral decision to go back to editing the page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=next&oldid=824805220], which they continued despite requests to continue the discussion in the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=825126664&oldid=825124027], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=825473587&oldid=825473020].
{{reply|Cordless Larry}} I can do that no problem. Best wishes --[[User:Kzl55|Kzl55]] ([[User talk:Kzl55|talk]]) 22:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
:Just to clarify the above: I agreed in principle that the images should be broadly representative, but haven't really been able to grasp exactly what the different proposals are. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 22:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}
I've summarized the file stuff on the talkpage. [[User:Soupforone|Soupforone]] ([[User talk:Soupforone|talk]]) 05:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
*I have also placed (a somewhat long, but necessary) summary in the talk page.
:{{reply|Dlohcierekim|Cordless Larry|Drmies}} May I also add that editor Soupforone has a history of unhelpful edits of the Sultan Abdillahi's file in Commons? They attempted to get the file deleted, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sultan_Abdillahi_Sultan_Deria.jpg]. This was unsuccessful and the a decision of keep was reached. They then employed the same combative style of editing even after a decision of keep was reached, which forced a moderator to protect the file due to ("''continued unsuccessful attempts to get the file deleted by one editor''") [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Sultan_Abdillahi_Sultan_Deria.jpg&diff=244914562&oldid=244913969]. Which started this discussion on their talk page [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Soupforone&oldid=248273992#File:Sultan_Abdillahi_Sultan_Deria.jpg]. On another file I have uploaded they have made a name change request stating that the file source does not specify ethnicity or clan the skull owner belonged to [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ABones_of_a_man.jpg&type=revision&diff=248251902&oldid=247535364]. This is despite the the source clearly stating both [https://www.voahausa.com/a/an-gano-wani-kabari-cike-da-gawarwaki-a-samaliland/3758379.html]. What was particularly problematic about that edit was their removal of relevant categories from file and replacement with 'fossils' [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ABones_of_a_man.jpg&type=revision&diff=248251902&oldid=247535364]. This resulted in this Common's Administrator's Noticeboard discussion [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_64#Editor:_Soupforone] where a number of editors agreed the behaviour was disruptive. They only managed to escape sanctions after acknowledgement of their mistake and promising to cease that behaviour. Yet they are employing the same contentious, pov pushing, style of editing across a number of pages. One example of that being the current discussion at [[Somalis]], another example of current disruptive editing on the [[Mahmoud Ali Shire]] page includes addition of unsourced content and content from self-published and user-generated sources (as well as travel guides) despite multiple requests to only add content from reliable sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohamoud_Ali_Shire&type=revision&diff=824797037&oldid=824788385], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohamoud_Ali_Shire&type=revision&diff=824804322&oldid=824803469], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohamoud_Ali_Shire&type=revision&diff=824808798&oldid=824805540], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohamoud_Ali_Shire&type=revision&diff=824969823&oldid=824931899], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohamoud_Ali_Shire&type=revision&diff=825052426&oldid=824988870], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohamoud_Ali_Shire&type=revision&diff=825314404&oldid=825269628], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohamoud_Ali_Shire&type=revision&diff=825405539&oldid=825357141]. On both occasions they were supported by long term vandal and confirmed sock Cabuwaaqwanaag. Can anything be done about them? --[[User:Kzl55|Kzl55]] ([[User talk:Kzl55|talk]]) 22:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}
{{hat|result=Irrelevant to the matter at hand; discussion is for Commons, at best. Desysoped editor was only the nominator. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 17:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)}}
The Commons situation is unfortunately not nearly as cut and dry as presented above since the administrator who nominated the sultan file for deletion (and later protected the file description page in their preferred version, despite being an involved editor) has since been desysoped and indefinitely blocked for socking [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/Daphne_Lantier_(desysop)]. As for the sultan files on the Wikipedia page, I've summarized the actual situation on the talkpage, as Cordless Larry requested above [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Somalis#Sultan]. [[User:Soupforone|Soupforone]] ([[User talk:Soupforone|talk]]) 06:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
:The subsequent history of the moderator is not relevant to this discussion. Your behaviour was disruptive as deemed by other uninvolved editors on Commons. You have only escaped sanctions after acknowledgement of your mistake and promising to cease that behaviour. Yet you continue the same pattern of disruptive behaviour as seen in the edits above. This in turn is causing issues on multiple pages within the project and is an issue that needs addressing. --[[User:Kzl55|Kzl55]] ([[User talk:Kzl55|talk]]) 14:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
::That administrator was desysoped for general disruption, so of course it's relevant. But I don't expect you to agree. [[User:Soupforone|Soupforone]] ([[User talk:Soupforone|talk]]) 14:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
:::It is not relevant. Their subsequent actions have no relation to the topic at hand. You have not commented on their actions during the incident referenced above, but rather on some unrelated actions that happened after that situation. And they were not the only party to deem your behaviour disruptive. Other uninvolved editors did as well. --[[User:Kzl55|Kzl55]] ([[User talk:Kzl55|talk]]) 15:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
::::Actually, the desysop did not just pertain to their subsequent edits. It pertained to their entire log list. [[User:Soupforone|Soupforone]] ([[User talk:Soupforone|talk]]) 05:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::Still not relevant. Unless you are saying they were desysoped ''because'' of their dealing with you, which we know is not the case. That moderator protected the file due to your disruptive behaviour. Other uninvolved editors also deemed your behaviour disruptive. You only managed to escape sanctions because you accepted that judgment and promised to cease that behaviour. --[[User:Kzl55|Kzl55]] ([[User talk:Kzl55|talk]]) 19:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
{{od|5}}
That desysoped administrator protected the file page in their preferred version, which (at least on Wikipedia) is a clear violation of [[WP:INVOLVED]]. I don't expect you to think this matters, but it does. [[User:Soupforone|Soupforone]] ([[User talk:Soupforone|talk]]) 05:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:Whatever you think about their actions, the desysoping is not relevant to this discussion, unless you are saying they were desysoped because of their actions in that incident. I repeat, other editors ''also'' found your behaviour to be disruptive, and you only managed to avoid sanctions because you have accepted that judgment with an understanding that you will cease that disruptive behaviour.--[[User:Kzl55|Kzl55]] ([[User talk:Kzl55|talk]]) 17:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}
The url above is actually website policy. [[User:Soupforone|Soupforone]] ([[User talk:Soupforone|talk]]) 04:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:You are avoiding the central point: unless you are saying they were desysoped because of their actions in that incident, the desysoping is not at all relevant to this discussion. Furthermore, they were not the only party to find your behaviour problematic, other editors also found your behaviour to be disruptive, and you only managed to avoid sanctions because you have accepted that judgment with an understanding that you will cease that disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour was disruptive, the subsequent actions of that moderator does not change that fact. --[[User:Kzl55|Kzl55]] ([[User talk:Kzl55|talk]]) 18:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}
That former administrator claimed that their 80,000 logs under the Daphne Lantier account were legitimate (not just their subsequent edits). However, this this was rejected and they were desysoped. Their 200+ sock accounts might have had something to do with that. [[User:Soupforone|Soupforone]] ([[User talk:Soupforone|talk]]) 05:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
:You are still avoiding a very clear point, the desysoping and subsequent actions of that admin is not at all relevant to this discussion, it happened after the incident in question here took place, unless you are saying they were desysoped ''because'' of their actions in that incident, which you are not. They were also not the only party to find your behaviour problematic, other editors also found your behaviour to be disruptive, and you only managed to escape sanctions because you have accepted that judgment with an understanding that you will cease that disruptive behaviour. That admin was one of several editors who all came to the same conclusion, i.e. your behaviour was disruptive.--[[User:Kzl55|Kzl55]] ([[User talk:Kzl55|talk]]) 17:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
{{hab}}
 
See [[:Category:Requests for unblock]] and examples at [[User talk:5.167.250.250]], [[User talk:80.85.151.106]], [[User talk:90.5.100.140]], [[User talk:126.15.241.147]], and [[User talk:201.170.89.89]]. This is the [[WP:LTA]] known as {{np|MidAtlanticBaby}}. I've handled about 25 of these in the past hour or so. In general, my approach is to block the IP address (it's always a VPNgate proxy) for a year without TPA, delete the page and salt it. Anything less, '''anything less''', doesn't work. Anyway, it's too much. This has been going on in various forms for months. I give up and will no longer patrol [[:Category:Requests for unblock]] until we figure out a way to better handle MidAtlanticBaby, ideally automatically. This isn't me taking my ball and going home, not at all. I simply can't keep up and can't be productive with this garbage sucking all my time and energy. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 23:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
====War Zone Comment====
Another dispute about the [[Horn of Africa]]!!?! [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 
:I'm sorry you've had so much of your time wasted on that nonsense. You are too valuable an administrator and community member to have to continue with that. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 23:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
The Horn of Africa, including [[Somalia]], is the locus of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground]] editing because it is an area of the world that is a real battleground. The English Wikipedia has dealt with battleground editing of battleground areas, such as [[Israel]] and [[Palestine]] and [[India]] and [[Pakistan]], and areas that have been battlegrounds in the past and where memories are long, such as the [[Balkans]] (where [[World War One]] started) and [[Eastern Europe]] (where [[World War Two]] and the [[Cold War]] started), in the past. The battleground editing of these battleground areas has been dealt with by [[WP:AC/DS|ArbCom discretionary sanctions]], which are sometimes draconian and so work well at suppressing the battles.
 
::Thanks, Bgsu98. Arguably, this discussion should be merged into [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Seeking_opinions:_protection_of_the_help_desk_and_teahouse]]. If anyone thinks that's accurate, feel free to do so. For me, it's time to go cook supper. :) --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 23:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
There have been too many disputes about editing involving [[Somalia]], and [[Ethiopia]] and [[Eritrea]]. It is time either to ask the ArbCom to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions, or to craft some version of Community General Sanctions that works as well as ArbCom discretionary sanctions, for the [[Horn of Africa]]. Otherwise these disputes will keep on coming back here. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
:::We need to get better at dealing with determined bad actors who have the resources or sophistication to keep switching proxies/VPNs like this. And yes, that has include the WMF going after them in meatspace. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 23:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Its incessant. If the Foundation doesn't clamp down on it forthwith, I'll be following suit with Yamla. Maybe they can cook me dinner.-- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">'''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 23:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Has ArbCom raised this with the WMF at all? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 04:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{nacmt}} I'll ask a question to the admins as I truly want to help; do you guys want us to revert the weird edits ''before'' the IP is blocked, where it kind of goes back and fourth in reverts, or just leave it there? Considering MAB will read this, feel free to not answer. [[User:Win8x|win8x]] ([[User talk:Win8x|talk]]) 23:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::As long at it isn't hugely obscene, leave it and report the IP. Mass mutual reversions do nothing but fill the page history. [[User:DatGuy|DatGuy]]<sup>[[User talk:DatGuy|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/DatGuy|Contribs]]</sub> 23:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Got it. This could be useful to tell people, because right now this fills up the edit filter log, and as you said, page histories. [[User:Win8x|win8x]] ([[User talk:Win8x|talk]]) 23:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{nacmt}}: Doesn't ptwiki require a login now? We should see how that's working and seriously consider doing the same. [[User:Sumanuil|<span style="color:Purple">'''''Sumanuil'''''</span>]]<span style="color:Purple">'''. '''</span><sub>[[User_talk:Sumanuil|<span style="color:Purple">(talk to me)</span>]]</sub> 01:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::This is pretty drastic. Besides, MAB as recently as today, used logged-in accounts to do the usual. Clearing your cookies is easy, so I don't think this would even change anything. [[User:Win8x|win8x]] ([[User talk:Win8x|talk]]) 01:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Per HJ Mitchell above, given the particulars here situation it seems clearly preferable for WMF to take them to court if their identity is known. I know WMF has been questioned recently as regards the personal information of users, but there is no reason that seeking legal remedy against one of the most disruptive serial bad-faith actors in site history should be seen as a violation of trust or principles. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 03:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Do you really expect WMF to be able to track down someone using an anonymous peer to peer VPN service designed to evade nation state surveillance and censorship? It's probably better to let {{User|Bbb23}} and other moderators who enjoy routinely blocking people handle it. [[Special:Contributions/2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F|2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F]] ([[User talk:2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F|talk]]) 03:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::No, it's not preferable. I meant exactly what I said: if the WMF has that information, they should pursue legal action. If they don't, then obviously that's not an option. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 03:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::They don't have that information. At most, WMF has a few IP addresses that the providing ISPs can possibly track to a relatively small number out of thousands of innocent third parties. [[Special:Contributions/2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F|2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F]] ([[User talk:2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F|talk]]) 03:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Neither you nor I know what the WMF knows or does not know. When people play with fire for months or years on end, sometimes they make a mistake. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 03:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::They knew exactly who [[User:JarlaxleArtemis|JarlaxleArtemis]] was and ''couldn't do shit'' for decades about him because his ISP and the VPN providers he used refused to play ball. It took him threatening [[Merriam-Webster]] to get rid of him via unrelated legal action. I imagine WMF Legal is similarly constrained with MidAtlanticBaby. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 08:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské Couriano]] didn't he threaten a senator? I thought that was his downfall. Not that I wish prison on these people, we just want them to go away. Anyway, the climate is changing and ISPs, governments, etc ate increasingly willong to act on online abuse that wouldn't be tolerated in meatspace. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 12:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{ping|HJ Mitchell}} It was threatening Merriam-Webster that ultimately did him in, per news reports. (I will not link them per [[WP:OUTING]].) —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 19:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Late, but I know there are some ISPs who respond to abuse reports regarding WP. I managed to stop an LTA by reporting them to their ISP - actually I never got a response from the ISP but the LTA disappeared shortly after and hasn't been seen since. [[:User:Wizzito|<span class="tmpl-colored-link {{#if:|mw-no-invert|}}" style="color: hotpink; text-decoration: inherit;">wizzito</span>]] &#124; [[:User talk:Wizzito|<span class="tmpl-colored-link {{#if:|mw-no-invert|}}" style="color: navyc; text-decoration: inherit;">say hello!</span>]] 00:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Let's hope we should do the same against any other LTA. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 03:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think the WMF could do that. As others said, the LTA is using VPNGate, which has an anti-abuse policy [https://www.vpngate.net/en/about_abuse.aspx here]. VPNGate sounds like they would disclose information, provided the WMF's lawyers do something. [[User:Win8x|win8x]] ([[User talk:Win8x|talk]]) 03:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'm going to start a discussion over on the [[WP:AN]] thread about this. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 03:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::VPNGate doesn't really have that info either. They have the IP address the client connects from. However, if MAB is smart, they are using multiple levels of VPN, anonymous proxies and/or open WiFi access in countries without cooperating legal agreements with the US and other entities where WMF has legal standing. [[Special:Contributions/2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F|2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F]] ([[User talk:2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F|talk]]) 03:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I don't know if MAB is that smart. From what I know, MAB is *probably* from the US. Besides, MAB was blocked by a CheckUser. Yes, it was 5 months ago, but that tells me that he wasn't using a VPN at the time. The WMF themselves could have that information. <small>(Just want to say I have 0 expertise in this and I am maybe saying some bullshit)</small> [[User:Win8x|win8x]] ([[User talk:Win8x|talk]]) 04:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It's clearly worth investigating. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 04:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::CheckUser isn't a magic bullet as CheckUser blocks are often based on behavioral "evidence". It all comes down to luck and how much time and money WMF wants to spend on a fairly benign troll and if they want to repeat that process for each of the minor vandals out there doing something similar. Or WMF could just force people to login with an account tied to a confirmed email address in order to be able to edit which is the more likely outcome of the community pushing them to take action in cases like this. [[Special:Contributions/2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F|2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F]] ([[User talk:2602:FE43:1:46DD:A8D1:430:2300:D52F|talk]]) 04:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I wouldn't calll MAB "benign". They are more than a troll, they are a vandal and actively try to get extended confirmed so that they can harras an editor they think, wrongly, is responsible for them being blocked. They regularly make death threats against editors and admins who revert their vandalism. They suck up a lot of editor time and are incredibly persistent, easily making dozens and dozens of edits over the course of an hour or two. They are one of the worst sockmasters I've come across in my time here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::If that's your concern, I will say I would not be interested in pursuing this if I thought account-only was a remotely possible outcome. It would almost surely be a greater fiasco if you want to think purely cynically about it. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 04:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Yamla|Yamla]], you've checkuser blocked this IP's [[Special:Contribs/2602:FE43:1:46DD::/64|/64]] before, is that still relevant? &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80BF:B801:81DA:8603:6A28:4E68|2804:F1...28:4E68]] ([[Special:Contribs/2804:F14::/32|::/32]]) ([[User talk:2804:F14:80BF:B801:81DA:8603:6A28:4E68|talk]]) 05:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::If you look at the comment that started this discussion, it was Yamla saying that they were done dealing with this persistent pest. Can't say I blame them. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::The IPv6 above is talking about the previous IPv6 commenter. I assume the answer is "not relevant", since the checkuser block on that range predates MAB. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 08:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It probably isn't directly relevant to MAB, but, assuming the range is static, it may be relevant as to whether their comments in this thread should be taken seriously, especially given that the IP was first blocked for a month as a "self-declared troll" before being re-blocked for six months as a CU block. [[User:Aoi|Aoi (青い)]] ([[User talk:Aoi|talk]]) 08:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I don't think they should be taken seriously. See for example, [[Special:Diff/1169582215]]. This is a self-declared WP:ANI troll once again returning to WP:ANI. I suggest my previous [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2602%3AFE43%3A1%3A46DD%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%2F64 6 month block] of the /64 wasn't long enough. I have no reason to believe this is MAB operating from this IP address but haven't looked. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 10:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{nacmt}} Well, banning him is just adding salt into the wounds, and not solving the current problem itself. I'm so late into this but I feel like my input is the only way that can stop and unban him (and you guys too from doing the ongoing work), and I think by looking through his contributions I can see patterns as to what triggered MAB from what "events" he must've seen, and it was clear that his behaviour was affected by what he'd seen afterwards. Had that "event" not happened he would've otherwise edited productively like a normal editor, but what we don't know yet is ''what'' that "event" was, and this is the sort of thing we should ask him about. I think the best way is to follow a similar process I did on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/October_2024/Candidates/Pbritti Pbritti's Admin election] and go through certain links to reverts and comments by other editors (maybe even positive ones too) that may have lead him to doing something unwanted afterwards, and ask him how he felt after he'd seen that "event", and what he'll do differently next time he sees it. Obviously, nobody likes their work being reverted, but a simple undo or something in the comment can be doubly dangerous depending on the person they're reverting or commenting against, as it can lead to undesirable behaviour leading to unwanted sanctions. We just need editors to be more aware of ''who'' they're reverting and try and go easy on these editors, and maybe follow a 0-Revert-Rule philosophy if it's an editor that known to cause issues after seeing their work undone; and I believe MAB's case is no exception. If anybody wants to unblock talk page access and try that idea, be my guest, but to also to be aware that certain words may cause him to get upset. [[User:Abminor|A<sup>♭</sup>m]] <sup>([[User talk:Abminor|Ring!]])</sup> <sub>([[Special:Contributions/Abminor|Notes]])</sub> 09:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Abminor}} This has already been attempted and failed by multiple users and administrators. MAB isn't interested in dialogue anymore, if ever he was. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 09:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::Your conception of this situation is deeply troubling. Anyone who makes a single death threat on here is rightfully gone, in all likelihood for good save the remote possibility of seriously compelling contrition on their part. That you are taking MAB's statements at face value and privileging whatever grievances are contained within as if they actually exist in proportion to the damage they're gleefully causing everyone around them is already either totally uninformed or otherwise naïve to the point of negligence. That you think anyone should ever have to be in a community with them again on top of that is delusional. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 10:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::That's really sad. Maybe it's dependent on what was ''in'' the dialogue that cause him to cancel that out?
:::As for the death threat, he probably did that because he got instantly stressed by something, and didn't mean to in truth. But OK then, if nobody is brave enough to unblock him then expect to see more threads like these in the future, and more unwanted problems. I'm sorry if I caused anybody stress and made things worse, which wasn't my intention. [[User:Abminor|A<sup>♭</sup>m]] <sup>([[User talk:Abminor|Ring!]])</sup> <sub>([[Special:Contributions/Abminor|Notes]])</sub> 10:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::My core point is simply that there is no plausible reading of their behavior as being in good faith or wanting to do anything but damage the project. That they would somehow revert to what we would consider within the bounds of acceptable conduct is inconceivable. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 10:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Unblocking someone because they have caused serious disruption up to the extent of issuing death threats would set an absolutely terrible precedent and would be a green light for other blocked users to cause the same disruption knowing it could get them what they want. We have occasionally unblocked people who have initially thrown a tantrum but later cooled down and shown some contrition but in this case the user is too far beyond the pale and has exhausted users' time and patience so much that there is no good will towards them. [[User:Valenciano|Valenciano]] ([[User talk:Valenciano|talk]]) 11:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Abminor|Abminor]], I assure you that this has been tried and was counterproductive. I don't think there's any way to logic this one, I'm afraid. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 12:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::In their more recent messages they have stated outright that they believe they're entitled to threaten to kill people if they feel like it, and they have left death threats for anyone who has tried to talk to them (at all) for most of this year. So no, trying to understand their point of view is not a workable approach here. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 19:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::His "work" for the better part of a year has been spending multiple hours a day trying to spam literally every part of the site into submission while making lurid death threats towards everyone on the site who had the misfortune of interacting with him. Anybody who does this for a single day is worthless to have around as a contributor, anybody who does this for multiple months is actively dangerous to everyone else trying to contribute. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 19:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::this is an [[WP:LTA|LTA]]. what we absolutely ''should not'' do is give MAB what they want. they have made ''countless'' death threats and spammed dozens and dozens of pages on-wiki, as well as discord, IRC, and UTRS, with their screeds for months upon months now. this is not someone we want on any of our projects, point blank. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 22:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:That sounds very frustrating, @[[User:Yamla|Yamla]], and I'm sorry we don't have better tools available to manage this.
:I am trying to move [[phab:T354599|T354599: Provide IP reputation variables in AbuseFilter]] forward. That would allow for AbuseFilter variables that could target specifically edits from VPNgate. We just recently got approval from Legal for implementing this work. There's another task, [[phab:T360195|T360195: Analyze IP reputation data and how it maps to on-wiki editing and account creation activity]], which would help us craft more relevant IP reputation variables in AbuseFilter, but we could probably get started with some easy ones (like the proxy name) as that analysis work won't get done until early 2025. If you have any input on what types of IP reputation variables would be useful in AbuseFilters for mitigating this type of abuse, please let me know here or in [[phab:T354599|T354599: Provide IP reputation variables in AbuseFilter]] . [[User:KHarlan (WMF)|KHarlan (WMF)]] ([[User talk:KHarlan (WMF)|talk]]) 10:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::KHarlan, a sincere thanks for trying to tackle issues in this area. I'll give it some thought and comment there. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 10:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::It's good to hear that WMF is aware of this general problem and is working on solutions. It's unfortunate that it won't be implemented until next year but, hey, it's better than what we currently have so I wish them luck. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::::In order to combat these recidivist socks, I raised the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#CheckUser for all new users]] but was told it was impossible, so for those of us who write in areas where POV pushing recidivists are active it seems that no relief will ever come. [[User:Mztourist|Mztourist]] ([[User talk:Mztourist|talk]]) 05:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*They've now taken to writing in German: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1260009335 diff] I didn't translate the post when replying to them. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 10:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
*:I feel that the development of new security measures might be hastened and the new measures might be rolled out as early as January. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 12:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
 
:It's always a VPN Gate proxy, right? Just block [https://www.vpngate.net/en/ everything here]? Not like the list is private or something. [[Special:Contributions/222.120.66.185|222.120.66.185]] ([[User talk:222.120.66.185|talk]]) 08:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:I indicated to the moderator [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] on the talkpage that I was okay with the Deria file remaining [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASomalis&type=revision&diff=825743681&oldid=825729012]. He thanked me for that post as well. Ergo, the dispute is essentially over. [[User:Soupforone|Soupforone]] ([[User talk:Soupforone|talk]]) 06:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
::Shh... Tone it down to avoid drawing attention from MAB. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 09:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::Those are the entry points. Blocking them won't do anything. [[Special:Contributions/98.124.205.162|98.124.205.162]] ([[User talk:98.124.205.162|talk]]) 17:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:Update: MAB is SFB'd. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 03:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::Greetings, been following this topic for a while. What does SFB mean? [[User:Supreme Bananas|Supreme_Bananas]] ([[User talk:Supreme Bananas|talk]]) 18:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I assume it has something to do with the WMF global ban he got (I don’t know what it achieves). No clue what the individual letters mean. [[User:Win8x|win8x]] ([[User talk:Win8x|talk]]) 19:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::"Site Full Ban" is what I'd guess. [[User:Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">☩</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: red; font-family: Comic Sans MS;">Babysharkboss2</span>]])</sup> 19:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::That'd be "SanFranBanned", as the WMF is based in San Francisco. See also [[meta:SanFranBan]]. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ&nbsp;Keeper]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Writ Keeper|&#9863;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|&#9812;]] 19:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
 
== [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]]'s disruptive behaviour at the recent [[Talk:Australia]] RfC ==
::I don't see my thanks as relevant to the bigger issue. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 07:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
::: Agreed. The issue is not over, mainly due to Soupforone's refusal to accept input from other editors involved in the discussion, who all agree that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of Somalis as possible, not highlighting any particular group. {{Reply to|Robert McClenon|Doug Weller}} I have addressed a pattern of behavioural issues by editor Soupforone that is contributing to to battleground editing in the project [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=825706836 here], would really appreciate any input on how to take this further. Best wishes --[[User:Kzl55|Kzl55]] ([[User talk:Kzl55|talk]]) 14:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
::::Doug Weller didn't indicate anything about the issue not being over, nor did he write that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of individuals as possible. Nor for that matter did I indicate that the page should not feature as broad a base of individuals as possible. Those are straw man fallacies. [[User:Soupforone|Soupforone]] ([[User talk:Soupforone|talk]]) 14:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::I did not say Doug made comment on inclusivity. You attempted to suggest the issue was over because Doug thanked your post. You were corrected. This is exemplary of the kind of problematic behaviour I described earlier. The issue is not over just because you decided it is over. There is an agreement in the talk page that the article and section should be inclusive of all Somali groups (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman and myself all agree to this, though Cordless Larry did not make a statement on the edits yet). Your edits attempted to highlight two Sultans from the same clan (Darod), the same sub-clan (Kablalah) and same sub-sub-clan (Harti). So far you were only supported by long term disruptive editor of the project and confirmed sock Cabuwaaqwanaag. --[[User:Kzl55|Kzl55]] ([[User talk:Kzl55|talk]]) 15:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
{{od|5}}
Actually, I only restored the original Sultan Shire file. My editing rationale for this was that he "belongs to completely separate sultanate from other rulers" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&type=revision&diff=824628800&oldid=824608680]. I also never claimed that this file choice had anything to do with "clan" since of course it did not. Further, what I actually wrote above is that Doug Weller "thanked me for that post as well", not that "the issue was over because Doug thanked my post". The latter causal phrasing is yours. The point was to show that Doug Weller was aware that I had agreed to the Deria file, which is what the OP is about. Also, Cordless Larry did not indicate that "the article and section should be inclusive of all Somali groups". What he actually wrote is that "the article featuring a diverse range of images intended to represent the population as broadly as possible, I agree that that is a good aim". That "a diverse range of images" automatically means "all Somali groups" is a leap, for that diversity could just as easily apply to gender, vocation, age group or birthplace as to clan/subclan. Also, you wrote above that "all agree that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of Somalis as possible", which would include Doug Weller. However, Doug Weller did not indicate this either. [[User:Soupforone|Soupforone]] ([[User talk:Soupforone|talk]]) 05:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
:Yes. And the argument goes on and on, and will perhaps go on until the [[Great Rift Valley]] splits the [[Horn of Africa]] off from the rest of Africa. We need draconian remedies for dealing with disruptive editing about the [[Horn of Africa]]. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 23:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
::An edit confirmation filter might be useful to better track socks and meatpuppeting and to vet ip and single purpose account edits. [[User:Soupforone|Soupforone]] ([[User talk:Soupforone|talk]]) 05:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind {{u|Robert McClenon}} but when [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#WP:NPA_breech_following_NPOV,_THIRDPARTY_breeches|Middayexpress was topic banned]], {{u|TomStar81}} included in the closing statement that "in order to effect a timely halt to any alleged sock or meat puppets that may be editing the pages, administrators may at their discretion adopt a WP:1RR policy on all Somalia-related topics to enforce this ban". Sockpuppetry isn't the only issue affecting Horn of Africa topics, but perhaps a 1RR policy is necessary. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 19:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::[[User:Cordless Larry]] - Yes. That case is a good example of why special restrictions are needed on the [[Horn of Africa]]. Any sort of editing restriction would probably be a good idea, and is consistent with my view. If the proposed restriction seems draconian, then it is probably a good idea. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
::::Soupforone, you did not just restore the original file, you also removed the addition of Sultan Deria. You also restored the file of Sultan Shire complete with unsourced description [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=824628800&oldid=824608680] despite clear edit summary indicating it was unsourced [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=824606026&oldid=824604132]. You stated that Doug Weller thanked you, and made a comment about the dispute being "essentially over", this comment made little sense as even Doug replied to you saying how he does not see his thanks as relevant to the bigger issue. As for Cordless Larry, you are incorrect. My post specifically stated ''"With regards to your stance on representation, I am in agreement with Koodbuur. The section relates to the history of Somalis, it is important for an encyclopaedic article to be inclusive of all Somalis and not only highlight members of any one group"'' and at the end of that post I asked the opinions of Koodbuur and Cordless Larry on a number of issues including representation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somalis&diff=825268452&oldid=825123821] to which Cordless Larry replied: ''"...but on the point about the article featuring a diverse range of images intended to represent the population as broadly as possible, I agree that that is a good aim"'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somalis&diff=825294334&oldid=825268452]. I have specifically stated inclusivity of all Somalis, and for the section to not be highlighting any one group. Thus it is not a leap. Please stop misrepresenting editors.
::::As for my statement you are quoting, it is clear ''"The issue is not over, mainly due to Soupforone's refusal to accept input from other editors involved in the discussion, who all agree that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of Somalis as possible"'', I do not understand why you are involving Doug when he explicitly stated he'd rather not get involved [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somalis&diff=825636813&oldid=825636603]. All involved editors (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman and myself) agree that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of Somalis as possible.--[[User:Kzl55|Kzl55]] ([[User talk:Kzl55|talk]]) 19:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}
Your comment above specifically pertained to the files of the sultans Shire and Kenadid, not to that of Deria (''"your edits attempted to highlight two Sultans from the same clan (Darod), the same sub-clan (Kablalah) and same sub-sub-clan (Harti)"''). Hence, that is what I addressed. That interpretation of what Cordless Larry wrote is also clearly incorrect since you similarly suggested above that ''"if you take into account the agreement we have in the talk page (Cordless Larry, Koodbuur, Sandman25 and myself) that the article and section should be representative of all Somalis, as broadly as possible, as opposed to having two Sultans in the section belonging to the same group and the same sub-group"'', to which Cordless Larry clarified that he actually wasn't even sure what the file issue was about ("''Just to clarify the above: I agreed in principle that the images should be broadly representative, but haven't really been able to grasp exactly what the different proposals are."''). I also never indicated whether the article should or should not include as broad a base of Somalis as possible (which could mean anything from gender to vocation, age group, clan/subclan, or birthplace), so that was not even the issue. Likewise, by "''ergo, the dispute is essentially over''", I was referring to the prefacing phrase, where I pointed out that I had let Doug Weller know that I was okay with the Deria file (''"I indicated to the moderator Doug Weller on the talkpage that I was okay with the Deria file"''). The following phrase "he thanked me for that post as well" was to show that Doug Weller was aware that I had agreed to the Deria file. Perhaps this could've been worded better, but that is all I indicated. One can only address what is actually written. [[User:Soupforone|Soupforone]] ([[User talk:Soupforone|talk]]) 05:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:I'm replying to the ping, but I've still got a wicked inner ear infection, a very bad cough, and I'm on enough prescriptions medications to knock a bull elephant out for a month. That being said, having looked through this I'm not seeing that Soupforone has been accused or even suspected of being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Middayexpress. Remember, the 1RR condition referenced above applies specifically to Middayexpress's perceived editing interference with the topic, if you want to adopt general sanctions for the page or for articles constantly effected by regional conflict you'll need to open a discussion specifically for that in order to avoid dragging Middayexpress's now dormant account or Soupforone's contributions through the gauntlet of a public trial, otherwise whatever you work out is going to be perceived as applying specifically to the editor(s) for this specific case as opposed to everyone broadly construed as editing the page. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 08:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::Soupforone, the fact remains you have restored Sultan Shire's file complete with unsourced description [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=824628800&oldid=824608680] despite explicit indication of description having no source [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=824606026&oldid=824604132]. Cordless Larry clarified he was not able to grasp exactly what the different proposals are, but stated he agrees with the principle that the images should be broadly representative. As stated above, in my post I specifically stated my agreement with Koodbuur on inclusivity, and I asked Cordless Larry and Koodbuur their opinions on a number of issues including representation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somalis&diff=825268452&oldid=825123821], at which point Cordless Larry made his comment "...but on the point about the article featuring a diverse range of images intended to represent the population as broadly as possible, I agree that that is a good aim" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somalis&diff=825294334&oldid=825268452]. It is clear there is an agreement among editors involved (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman and myself) on the issue of broad representation and inclusivity, even if Cordless Larry did not state an opinion on the proposals yet. You stated above "...for that diversity could just as easily apply to gender, vocation, age group or birthplace as to clan/subclan", which is incorrect given the context explained above of Cordless Larry's reply to the specific point I have raised: "''it is important for an encyclopaedic article to be inclusive of all Somalis and not only highlight members of any one group''", I think that much is clear.--[[User:Kzl55|Kzl55]] ([[User talk:Kzl55|talk]]) 17:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:::Actually, the ''26th Sultan'' title was already sourced at that time mark to the sultanate's official website [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohamoud_Ali_Shire&oldid=817798349#References]. Also, "inclusivity" is a nebulous term. If by that "clan/subclan" specifically was/is meant, this is not clear from foregoing since the word "clan" is not even used. What is certain is that I never indicated whether the page should or should not include as broad a population base as possible. I wrote instead that there is no actual Wikipedia policy indicating that clan representation must be followed, which is a different thing. [[User:Soupforone|Soupforone]] ([[User talk:Soupforone|talk]]) 04:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:The ''26th Sultan'' title was not sourced [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=824628800&oldid=824608680], and you were explicitly alerted to the fact it was not sourced prior to your restoration [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=824606026&oldid=824604132], yet you did so anyway. As it stands, you have restored unsourced content to the page without providing adequate [[WP:RS]] sourcing. The word clan does not need to be explicitly used, I used the word 'group' instead just like I did in other comments like ("''There is also the issue of representation and neutrality, the section already includes a photograph of Ali Kenadid, him and the Warsangali Sultan belong to the same group''") [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somalis&diff=prev&oldid=825061410]. We were discussing the fact that both Sultans you attempted to insert belonged to the same group. My original sentence which Cordless Larry responded to explicitly stated ("''it is important for an encyclopaedic article to be inclusive of all Somalis and not only highlight members of any one group''"), 'group' here is used in referring to a problematic aspect of the section being Kenadid and Shire belonging to the same group, thus the discussion on inclusivity of a broad base of Somalis. I think the point is very clear. As I said above it is clear there is an agreement among editors involved (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman and myself) on the issue of broad representation and inclusivity, even if Cordless Larry did not state an opinion on the proposals yet.--[[User:Kzl55|Kzl55]] ([[User talk:Kzl55|talk]]) 18:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}
[[WP:OI]] stipulates that ''"original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article."'' The ''26th Sultan'' title was not an unpublished idea or argument; it was already sourced on the linked Shire wikibio [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohamoud_Ali_Shire&oldid=817798349#References]. On the other hand, the Deria file's caption was sourced in neither its caption nor in a wikipage link-through, but instead only later on the talkpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=next&oldid=824628909]. That is therefore a moot point. As to "inclusivity", you suggested above that Cordless Larry preferred broad-based population files instead of the two Sultan files, to which he indicated that he wasn't sure what the file choices were. Ergo, what "inclusivity" is understood to mean is not clear at all. [[User:Soupforone|Soupforone]] ([[User talk:Soupforone|talk]]) 05:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
:We are discussing your restoration of unsourced material to an article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=824628800&oldid=824608680], despite clear warning that it was unsourced [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=824606026&oldid=824604132]. That is problematic behaviour, and I do not see how [[WP:OI]] is relevant to your restoration of unsourced content. You're incorrect to confuse Cordless Larry "good aim" comment with the issue of proposals. I have requested their opinion on a number of issues including representation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somalis&diff=825268452&oldid=825123821], to which he replied ("''"...but on the point about the article featuring a diverse range of images intended to represent the population as broadly as possible, I agree that that is a good aim"''") [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somalis&diff=825294334&oldid=825268452], his position on representation, as it pertains to my comment in which I asked for his opinion, is clear. He has not stated an opinion on the proposals yet, but it is clear there is an agreement among editors involved (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman and myself) on the issue of broad representation and inclusivity. --[[User:Kzl55|Kzl55]] ([[User talk:Kzl55|talk]]) 17:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 
[[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] is a generally constructive editor with a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and code of conduct, but they show a lack of restraint when it comes to (perceived or actual) ideological differences and are prone to lashing out against other editors. Brusquedandelion has previously been brought to AN/I for [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149#Talk:Alexei_Navalny|exactly that reason]] and continued to do so briefly on their talk page after the AN/I notice. They have recently engaged in similar conduct at the recent [[Talk:Australia#RFC:_Should_the_article_state_that_Indigenous_Australians_were_victims_of_genocide?|Talk:Australia RfC]], and that behaviour is my reason for creating this.
===Another Middayexpress-related issue===
I've been grinding through [[:Category:Somalia geography stubs]] because I discovered that a lot of them are dumps from a Geonames-derived directory and that accuracy was poor. Most of these were created by [[User:Middayexpress]], who I knew was no longer around. I was not, however, aware of their history.
 
The RfC was started by [[User:OntologicalTree|OntologicalTree]], a confirmed sockpuppet of [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KlayCax|KlayCax]]. OT was blocked one week ago from today, so the RfC was able to run its course. Brusquedandelion was quite disruptive and less than civil throughout the RfC, [[WP:BLUD|bludgeoning]] the process and throwing [[WP:personal attacks|personal attacks]] at every reply to the RfC that supported or discussed anything directly contrary to OT's proposed option (myself included).
I've been nominating these one at a time, but at this rate I may end up with fifty or more AfDs. Is there some way expedite this? I'm not keen on doing a group nom because (a) in practice it's more work anyway, and (b) someone is sure to come in and try to bollox it by insisting that they all have to be considered separately. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] ([[User talk:Mangoe|talk]]) 17:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 
Talk:Australia diffs:<br>
:[non-administrator comment] - The only thing I have seen in the past, is to merge a few; then wait a while and AfD the merged articles, to reduce the number. In most cases I would not like this and oppose such actions, but if they truly are as bad as you say, it would be a blessing in this case. [[User:C. W. Gilmore|C. W. Gilmore]] ([[User talk:C. W. Gilmore|talk]]) 20:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=prev&oldid=1256440449 "Please tell us what your ''actual'' objection is rather than using word count as a shield."]<br>
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=prev&oldid=1256441451 "It would be more honest if you just tell us what your actual objection is... It helps no one to hide your actual beliefs like this."]<br>
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=prev&oldid=1256444387 "The best possible faith interpretation of multiple people not even bothering to mention the g-word in their votes is that they are simply unable to grasp basic reading comprehension."]<br>
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=prev&oldid=1255487670 "Your claim that {{tq|this in an encyclopaedic article, not a political tract}} reveals your true intentions, for your edit is entirely political in nature; you just believe your own politics are neutral, much as fish doubt the existence of water."]<br>
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=prev&oldid=1256502479 "Fortunately, not one of the proposed options states that {{tq|colonialism constituted terrorism, ethnocide, and genocide}}. Please remember that on Wikipedia, WP:COMPETENCY IN reading comprehension is strictly required."]<br>
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=prev&oldid=1256507015 "If you haven't actually done the survey you suggest others do, why do you feel so confident voting on a matter you are have professes your own ignorance own? Remember, WP:COMPETENCE IS REQUIRED."]<br>
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=prev&oldid=1256503763 "And may I remind you, one of the handwringers have straight up admitted to having a conflict of interest on this subject, due to nationalist sentiments and grievance politics. Odd that it is me you are dressing down, and not them, when their comments are against the spirit of letter of at least half a dozen Wikipedia policies."]<br>
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=prev&oldid=1256451290 "I have generally not reiterated my own viewpoints in different places, only made different viewpoints in multiple places. The fact that multiple people tried to bludgeon this discourse by handwringing about word count rather than getting to the crux of the issue merits being pointed out."]
 
This report is already getting quite long, so I'll leave it at this for now. [[User:Sirocco745|Sirocco745]] ([[User talk:Sirocco745|talk]]) 01:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
: The above post by Mangoe is a great example of the fanatic and almost religious deletionism that is prevalent on wikipedia. Editors such as him are also one of the reasons Africa-related articles are under-represented on Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/92.9.152.17|92.9.152.17]] ([[User talk:92.9.152.17|talk]]) 20:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:I agree that @[[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] has engaged in [[WP:battleground|battleground]] behavior and engaged in [[WP:PA|personal attacks]]. Because they are otherwise a constructive editor, I propose a three-month [[WP:TBAN|topic ban]] from all edits related to colonialism and genocide, broadly construed. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 02:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::I support this proposal. While Brusquedandelion is a capable, competent, and generally constructive editor, they have demonstrated their inability to remain civil while discussing topics of colonialism and genocide, and I believe their efforts would be best focused outside of these topics for a while. Having strong feelings on a topic is not necessarily bad in of itself, but it's how those feelings manifest themselves through the person's actions that can cause problems. [[User:Sirocco745|Sirocco745]] ([[User talk:Sirocco745|talk]]) 02:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::In the thread, you stated that you are {{tq|sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity.}} It's pretty clear from this comment that you are unable to maintain a position of objectivity on topics relating to "colonialism and genocide." Or perhaps only ones relating to Australia, I don't know. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 09:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::If a comment like {{tq|Option 1 has a clear agenda to push, and I am sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity}} is not indicative of a battleground mentality by someone who is quite possibly [[WP:NOTHERE]], what is? This comment was made by @[[User:Sirocco745|Sirocco745]] who filed this report. They are clearly motivated by some sort of grievance politics (of a racial nature) by their own admission. They followed this up by admitting that I could, if I wanted, {{tq|call me out on a WP:COI if you really wanted to, and you may be justified in doing so.}} Their words!
::You might feel my response was heavy-handed. Ok. But note that per the usual rules and conventions of an ANI post, a reporter's own conduct is also subject to scrutiny. Did you not read the thread, or did you not think this was worthy of taking into account? [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 09:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:It looks to me that all of their edits happening on [[Talk:Australia]] by Brusquedandelion occurred on Nov. 9th and haven't continued since. Have there been any personal attacks since that date or that have spilled over to other articles or talk pages? Of course, personal attacks are not acceptable but before imposing a wide-ranging topic ban, I'd like to see if this is an isolated incident on this one day in this one discussion on this one talk page or are occurring more broadly. I also would like to hear from Brusquedandelion on this matter for their point of view. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::No, nothing since then. They made four more replies on the RfC after being politely but firmly asked to reign it in by @[[User:Moxy|Moxy]] and @[[User:Aemilius Adolphin|Aemilius Adolphin]] at this reply [[Talk:Australia#c-Moxy-20241110000800-Aemilius_Adolphin-20241108100100|here]]. The discourse hasn't bled out of the RfC/talk page, and they've been relatively quiet for the past two weeks. <br>
::Only thing I can think of that could count would be Brusque replying to my original attempt at settling this without needing to bring it to a noticeboard. They previously said I sounded like I was [[Talk:Australia#c-Brusquedandelion-20241109235300-Sirocco745-20241108073000|"channeling the spirit of Cecil Rhodes"]] on the RfC, and when I mentioned this in my original notification, their only response was to link Cecil Rhodes's article. Reply found [[User_talk:Brusquedandelion#c-Brusquedandelion-20241125084200-Sirocco745-20241110032300|here]]. Passive-aggressive? Maybe. Worth counting as further discourse outside of the RfC? Not really. [[User:Sirocco745|Sirocco745]] ([[User talk:Sirocco745|talk]]) 03:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Thinking a stern warning and explanation of the community norms..... unless there's some sort of pattern of behavior here? It's a contentious topic.... that many people feel has a tone of racism involved. Just need to explain they need to tone it down. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 03:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::I would also like to raise an issue of possible canvassing. I was going to leave a message on @[[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]]'s talk page about their behaviour when the ruckus started when I found this odd message. It looks like someone was alerting them to the discussion on the Australia talk page and feeding them with talking points.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brusquedandelion&diff=prev&oldid=1255261107 [[User:Aemilius Adolphin|Aemilius Adolphin]] ([[User talk:Aemilius Adolphin|talk]]) 04:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::That was also KlayCax. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 05:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::It looks like the sockpuppet [[User:DerApfelZeit]] went around to a lot of articles in contentious areas and then to user talk pages, trying to stir things up. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::To be clear, I did not asked to be canvassed. I don't know this person, and given they're banned already I am unsure what the relevance is here. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 09:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::The relevance, Brusquedandelion, was the consideration that maybe their comments provoked your response on the article talk page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::This is correct, for better or for worse. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 05:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
 
:OP has posted a bunch of comments above, but the actual reason they are reporting me is because of my comment comparing their views to those of Cecil Rhodes. They didn't feel the need to file this report until they posted on my page, including a comment about how they don't know who Rhodes was. I replied only with a link to his Wikipedia page. In a sense, this is probably their strongest case against me, so I am not sure why they didn't mention it in the original post. Perhaps it has to do with the ''reason'' I invoked this comparison: OP made a vile series of remarks about aboriginal Australians in which they referred to them and their culture as uncivilized, that one can't trust a treaty signed with non-English speaking indigenous peoples, and that hunter gatherer peoples are not worthy of political or moral consideration. These are all sentiments Cecil Rhodes would have affirmed. Perhaps this qualifies as a personal attack by the letter of the law here at Wikipedia, but talking about Aboriginal Australians this way is against upwards of half a dozen Wikipedia policies. OP will claim, as they did at my page, that I am casting aspersions, but they have actually explicitly admitted they are motivated by racial grievance politics; more on this point later. First, OP's comment that resulted in the comparison, for the record:
::Look, the point isn't article count, not that I haven't created plenty, every one of them typed in and checked against sources beyond dumping lists in from websites or who knows where else. But people sitting back in London have already created too many spurious places over the years by misreading texts and taking traveller's reports and maps for granted. My standards aren't that high, but Geonames is far from error-free, and when you start actually checking these things against aerial photography, it becomes apparent how bad the information an get. And yes, transliteration is an issue, which I've already tried to take into account. Look, find me a census, news reports, anything that is better than just lists out of Geonames, and we'll be on a much better footing. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] ([[User talk:Mangoe|talk]]) 22:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:{{quote|the problem is that prior to settlement, the Indigenous peoples of Australia had zero form of officially Th government or judicial system amongst themselves because of the nomadic and kinship-centric nature of their tribes. Additionally, the Indigenous peoples didn't speak English and operated on a significantly different culture to the rest of the civilised world at the time. No centralized governing body means the British had no legal entity to formalize an agreement with, and the cultural differences and physical distance between the various groups and territories of Indigenous peoples meant that even if the British were to create a blanket legal structure for them, they had no guarantee that the terms of such would be satisfactory or even followed by the various groups.}}
:: Alternative hypothesis: it's a great example of some poor bugger sweeping up the mess left by people who didn't think something through. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 15:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
:Anyone familiar with the official justifications for colonial policies, past and present, will hear their echo here. The fairly explicit claim that the aboriginals are uncivilized is the most egregious remark here, but the entire comment is rooted in a view of indigenous peoples that belongs to 19th century British imperialists, not on Wikipedia. These ideas about native peoples (in Australia and elsewhere) have been summarily refuted in the scholarly literature on this subject, but regrettably despite their repugnance they persist in popular culture in many nations. If any admin feels I need to back up this claim with sources, I will oblige, as fundamentally grim as it is that such views even need to be debunked.
:Some further comments from OP:
:{{quote|The entire paragraph is thick with the negative connotations so common in degradation of foreign colonization and this era of historical hindsight apologetics. Easily fails [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:WEIGHT]].}}
:Apparently, it is NPOV to take a dim view of colonization. Does OP have a favorable view of colonialism, in particular in the Australian context? A question left for the reader.
:Finally, OP is manifestly, by their own admission in the thread, motivated by a politics of racial grievance. First, they tell us that {{tq|As a fourth generation Australian, I am personally sick of the rhetoric that OntologicalTree is trying to have accepted.}} Make no mistake, this issue is personal, and OP has found their [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. Then they inform us:
:{{quote|Option 1 has a clear agenda to push, and I am sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity. Yeah, you could call me out on a [[WP:COI]] if you really wanted to, and you may be justified in doing so.}}
:These comments speak for themselves, since OP is themself admitting their prejudices. Even if OP were right ("Australian whites and their colonization of the country have been unjustly vilified" etc. etc.), this just isn't the website for it; see ''inter alia'' [[WP:RGW]] and [[WP:NOTAFORUM]].
:Returning to what OP has quoted above, the vast majority of my alleged bludgeoning consists of reminding people what the ''substantive'' issue at stake is: whether to classify these events as genocide. The RFC was somewhat poorly worded, unfortunately, but there's not much to do about that now. The effect was that a number of replies did not explicitly admit a stance on the core issue, but nevertheless voted against the use of the "genocide" label.
:I would prefer a straightforward discussion of the merits, or lack thereof, of the use of this word. It would have made the RFC much more productive. A number of people essentially dodged the core issue on their vote altogether, and I thought this merited being pointed out. I admit I was strident, but I don't think any of my comments about this issue were especially uncivil. I also removed myself from the discussion as soon as people said I was commenting too much. I didn't feel need the need to continue this on anyone's talk page nor over here at ANI.
:OP did, however, likely expecting an apology when they posted to my talk page, and reporting me when none was forthcoming. So:
:I apologize for my stridency to the community at large. I will make an effort to regulate my tone in future discussions. I do not feel this thread is representative of my general conduct here, and I will certainly make an effort to not let it be the standard I set for my comments in future discussions. I was frustrated by an apparent refusal by certain folks to actually discuss the core issue, but there are more skillful ways I could have gone about this. And I was especially frustrated by certain comments, in particular those of OP, that affirm colonial stereotypes and ideologies.
:I do not feel an apology is owed to OP until such time as they own up to the racism of their remarks. With regards to possible sanctions, I don't see how you can argue my criticizing OP's racism, even if I had been ten thousand times ruder about it, would be less civil or worse for Wikipedia's project as a whole than OP's remarks about aboriginal Australians, motivated as they are by racial grievance politics, per their own confession. Said confession also seems like a much stronger argument for a topic ban in particular, compared to anything I have said, since they have admitted an inability to retain neutrality in such discussions, as well as a particularly noxious reason for that inability—though I am only bringing this up since OP themself has asked for this sanction against me. Personally I only hope that OP realizes why such comments are unacceptable, that no one is witch-hunting him or his people, and that such ideologies have no place here anyways. It seems they are otherwise a constructive editor, and if they are able to make a good faith acknowledgement of this lapse, I wouldn't see any need for sanctions against them personally. Of course, all of this is up to the admins. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 10:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::{{replyto|Brusquedandelion}} you've accused someone of racism. Please provide diffs or quickly withdraw your claim, or expect to be blocked for a serious personal attack. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 15:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Did you not read my comment? It has verbatim quotes that can be found in the linked discussion ([[Talk:Australia]]); as far as I can tell, nothing has been edited or archived. Are you an admin and if so is this a formal request for a diff specifically? Because if not please do not go around threatening people with blocks for not providing information they already provided. I am really quite busy today, but if an administrator is formally making this request, I will oblige. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 15:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::You always need to provide diffs when you make such allegations, whether asked to or not. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 16:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::This is why diffs are important, as they provide context. The first two quotes come from [[Special:Diff/1256110239|Diff 1]], and the last quote comes from [[Special:Diff/1256447331|Diff 2]]. I'm no expert, but statements like {{tq|q=y|I certainly don't approve of what happened back then, and I will openly admit that I am not proud of the racism that Australia was built on. I agree that they committed a large number of atrocities and that there is much work to be done to repair the damage done.}} (Diff 2) do not sound to me like racism. In context, I get the impression of trying to preserve historical context, not proving the {{tq|q=y|OP's racism}} alleged by BD above.
:::::Diff 1 provides an explaination for why the British did not negotiate with the natives and, even there, their words very much acknowledged that the actions were unjust. (See {{tq|q=y|The British did falsely claim ''terra nullius''...}} in Diff 1). I also was unable to find any mention of the statement BD put in quotes as "Australian whites and their colonization of the country have been unjustly vilified" on the talk page; I presume these were scare quotes.
:::::If there is missing context or background, BD would be well-advised to provide it. Most of us are laypersons and will likely miss more subtle types of racism, if that is what is alleged. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 17:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{quote|This is why diffs are important, as they provide context.}}
::::::The discussion as it stands provides all the context the diffs do, as nothing has been deleted.
::::::{{quote|(Diff 2) do not sound to me like racism.}}
::::::Providing an example of a not-racist comment is not a refutation of any racist comments that were also made. Given you were just enjoining us to value the context of the interaction: it is a common strategy for people to preemptively hedge before making an unsavory statement, but the very fact of this statement ''in the context of'' the subsequent unsavory statement only reinforces, and does not mitigate, the nature of the statement that follows, since it implies at least some awareness that the commenter understood their subsequent comments could be seen in a certain light and thus felt the need to clarify. "I'm not racist but..." has never been followed by a not-racist statement in the history of the English language.
::::::That said their hedge is not exactly the same as "I'm not racist but...". In principle it could have been followed by a relevant, reasoned, evidence-based, and non-prejudicial explanation for why the proposed RFC should resolve one way or another. Instead the commenter chose to grandstand about perceived slights against white Australians and uncritically regurgitate certain views and dogmas of the British Empire.
::::::{{quote|Diff 1 provides an explaination for why the British did not negotiate with the natives and, even there, their words very much acknowledged that the actions were unjust. (See The British did falsely claim terra nullius... in Diff 1).}}
::::::The portion of the "explanation" that comes after {{tq|The British did falsely claim ''terra nullius''...}} is an uncritical parroting of the British imperial view of native Australians. The very fact that they ''do'' reject the ''terra nullius'' argument, but not the subsequent ones, indicates these are views they actually hold or at least held in that particular moment in the context of an RFC that they felt challenged their national pride. I understand such feelings may be fluid and encourage Sirocco to reflect on them.
::::::{{quote|I presume these were scare quotes}}
::::::It is a brief summary of their multiple comments that make that point in more words, which I already quoted and did not want to copy again, for reasons of length and redudancy. Given the context of the RFC, do you feel this is an ''inaccurate'' summary of those comments, copied again below for your convenience?
::::::{{quote|The entire paragraph is thick with the negative connotations so common in degradation of foreign colonization and this era of historical hindsight apologetics. Easily fails WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.}}
::::::{{quote|Option 1 has a clear agenda to push, and I am sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity. Yeah, you could call me out on a WP:COI if you really wanted to, and you may be justified in doing so.}} [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 05:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I have already admitted that I conducted myself poorly in the RfC and that my comments/suggestions were driven by my own feelings on the topic in combination with what I already knew about the topic (or at least, what I thought to be true).
:::::::<br>
:::::::{{tq|Instead the commenter chose to grandstand about perceived slights against white Australians and uncritically regurgitate certain views and dogmas of the British Empire.}} First off, when writing or talking in a conversational tone, I generally don't criticize or exalt the subject until after I have explained what I know. I later stated my opinion on the subject in the RfC, being that the British's acts against the Indigenous Australians were undeniably racist and wrong in every definition of the word. I do not feel the need to apologize for the acts perpetrated by those settlers; I am not descended from them, only tangentially associated by merit of nationality. I am more annoyed that our government focuses on saying sorry all the time instead of proving sorry by taking actual action to support Indigenous families and communities, and it is this political apologetic rhetoric that I am tired of seeing and hearing on a weekly basis.
:::::::<br>
:::::::The "white" part of "perceived slights against white Australians" definitely isn't correct either. Australia is a country where you could walk past the entire skin colour spectrum on your way to work every day and not think twice about it, and this peaceful co-existence of cultures is something I am very grateful for here. The "perceived slights" part though? Personally, being told on a weekly basis by the government that "the land you live, work and study on doesn't belong to you and it's our fault as a nation that it doesn't belong to the Aboriginal people anymore" doesn't make me feel very welcome in the country I was born and live in.
:::::::<br>
:::::::Regardless, let's get back to the subject at hand, that being <b>your</b> behaviour. You can create a separate AN/I thread if you wish to discuss my personal conduct, but I started this one because, as shown in the diffs of my original post here, you were consistently not assuming good faith and bludgeoning the RfC by replying to almost every comment left by other users that didn't align with what you deemed to be the correct manner, not to mention the personal attacks. The point of an RfC is to draw the attention of uninvolved editors to a discussion with the hope that they will contribute constructively by providing new voices and second opinions to the conversation. Whether you see it this way or not, the general consensus of this thread so far is that you disrupted the RfC and have demonstrated a pattern of using personal attacks when disagreeing with other editors. Please try to stick to the topic of this thread, which is your behaviour. [[User:Sirocco745|Sirocco745]] ([[User talk:Sirocco745|talk]]) 04:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You seem to be fixated on an uncharitable interpretation of Sirocco's comments. You've pointed out that one not-racist comment doesn't mean the person isn't racist, but in my view, you've failed to demonstrate racism in the first place. I do not believe your scare-quoted passage is an accurate summary, no. Similarly, I do not feel that, just because colonizers used something as an excuse, means it is inherently racist or untrue. I can see where you're coming from that it could be, but I also don't believe it's the only interpretation, and we're supposed to [[WP:AGF]]. Since this is a matter of judgement, I hope other editors will chime in to give a broader representation of the community either way, not just me saying, "Meh, I don't see it". [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 14:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::I may have come off as confrontational with my comments in the RfC, and I apologize for that. I have always accepted that Wikipedia is not the place to air personal or political grievances and have done my best to keep to that policy, but I slipped when replying to the RfC. My motto is "don't let your motive be your message", but I forgot to keep my personal feelings out of the discussion this time.
::<br>
::First up though, the reason why some of my comments were {{tq| rooted in a view of indigenous peoples that belongs to 19th century British imperialists}} is because I was '''presenting''' the views of 19th century British imperialists. These views are horribly outdated and illogical based in emotional fallacy, but because I was (probably over)explaining the racist reasonings the British justified their actions with, many of my comments in the RfC could be used to support BD's claim of racism when taken out of context.
::<br>
::In hindsight, {{tq|"The entire paragraph is thick with the negative connotations so common in degradation of foreign colonization and this era of historical hindsight apologetics. Easily fails [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:WEIGHT]]"}} wasn't the best way to word my disproval of Option 1. In relation to the RfC, Option 1's rhetoric is that the wounds are still fresh. The problem is that while the damage is still felt, the wounds themselves aren't really fresh at all; Option 1 covers almost 200 years worth of events in a single paragraph and insinuates that they all happened at/around the same time. This is why I pushed against Option 1 and explained British actions and motives.
::<br>
::@[[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]], I would also like to deny your claim that I started this AN/I thread because of your actions against me specifically. I assume that you've read the opening sentences of [[WP:ASPERSIONS]], since I included it in my initial attempt at reaching out.
::{{tq|"On Wikipedia, casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe. Because a persistent pattern of false or unsupported allegations can be highly damaging to a collaborative editing environment, such accusations will be collectively considered a personal attack."}}
::The large number of diffs that show you being uncivil towards multiple editors in the RfC were always going to be the reason this came to AN/I, not your comments against me. [[User:Sirocco745|Sirocco745]] ([[User talk:Sirocco745|talk]]) 23:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I will respond to this in the next few days, not later than Tuesday 00:00 UTC; it is a holiday weekend here in my country and my time is very limited. '''If at all possible I ask the administrators not to resolve this thread until that time''' (''unless'' this is going to be a nothingburger of zero sanctions all round, in which case, please resolve posthaste''').
:::One preliminary comment about the most relevant portion of your comment: if you were simply explaining what the views of the British were, and not agreeing with them, you would have told us so, as you did ''literally in the prior sentence'': {{tq|The British did falsely claim ''terra nullius'' by legally declaring the Indigenous peoples as "fauna" so they could invalidate Britain's first requirement for occupation, which was that if there was an existing population, Indigenous or otherwise, land should only be obtained through negotiation.}} No such claims are made in any of your other comments. In fact, those comments are themselves placed after a {{tq|However}} separating that last sentence from the rest of the claims you assert in authorial voice, implying the ''function'' of the subsequent comments is to provide objective, evidence-based, non-prejudicial reasons why negotiation would have been impossible anyways, so the whole ''terra nullius'' dogma was merely the British doing their best under unfortunate circumstances. Indeed this is exactly what the concluding remark of the paragraph all but states, to leave no room for confusion as to OP's point: {{tq|No centralized governing body means the British had no legal entity to formalize an agreement with, and the cultural differences and physical distance between the various groups and territories of Indigenous peoples meant that even if the British were to create a blanket legal structure for them, they had no guarantee that the terms of such would be satisfactory or even followed by the various groups.}} In summary, treaties would have been impossible, so why bother?
:::Importantly, the stated justifications are not objective, evidence-based, or non-prejudicial: e.g. the first comment {{tq|However, the problem is that prior to settlement, the Indigenous peoples of Australia had zero form of officially recognized government or judicial system amongst themselves}} has been debunked in the anthropological, sociological, and historical literature extensively. As far as we can tell, ''all'' human societies (that existed for any real amount of time) have had, minimally, some form of customary law. They have norms governing what is and isn't ethical or acceptable, means for restitution or punishment in the event of the transgression of these norms, and, most importantly for this discussion, a general understanding of informal and formal agreement between two or more parties that granted each a set of obligations and/or privileges. These are, as far back as we can reasonably verify, human universals. Believing they didn't, which, regrettably, literally millions of non-indegenous Australians, Americans, Canadians etc. still do about their respective Indigenous peoples, is a legacy of colonial thinking, and in effect places these people outside the category "human"—turns them into fauna—by denying them what we know to be a fundamental feature of our social life as a species. In this sense, (not so) ironically, OP's comments reproduce the specific British imperial dogma they rejected in the prior sentence. (Mind you, this is not even the most egregious remark here. ''Again in authorial voice'', a little later on, Sirocco informs us the aboriginals are not to be considered civilized.)
:::Finally, '''I propose a litmus test''': would such comments, if copy-pasted into a Wikipedia article, be considered [[WP:WIKIVOICE]], or attributed text, per the relevant policies? If so, then they are also in authorial voice when written by a single editor outside a mainspace. To me, it is obvious how this litmus test resolves here, but I'll leave it to administrators to confirm this. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 00:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Oh for goodness's sake, I do not believe that Aboriginal Australians are sub-human! I have admitted so many times that I didn't conduct myself properly in the RfC and that the wording of many of my comments could easily be interpreted as racist because I talked <b>about</b> racist acts and the reasonings behind them without condemning them immediately after. What more do I need to say, how much more do I need to apologize, and what will it take to prove myself non-racist to you? This is definitely [[WP:Wikilawyering|Wikilawyering]], but now it's starting to feel like borderline harassment. [[User:Sirocco745|Sirocco745]] ([[User talk:Sirocco745|talk]]) 04:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:Theres a lot of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground]] behaviour here, which compounded with the personal attacks made in this thread (that they apparantly stand by) leads me to support the proposal above by [[User:Voorts|Voorts]]. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 09:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::If you're against battleground behavior, do you not see the comments I copied above from Sirocco as examples of it? If you think my assessment of their comments is a "personal attack" are you stating, for the record, that you think there is nothing racist about those comments? [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 05:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
If any neutral editors have the time, could you please take a look at this thread and give your input? I understand that Wikipedia has no deadlines and that no one is obliged to interact with the various discussions, disputes, etc. that occur daily, but there hasn't really been any significant development since I started this AN/I thread eight days ago. I guess I'm just nervous. [[User:Sirocco745|Sirocco745]] ([[User talk:Sirocco745|talk]]) 02:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
 
== United States Man's WP:BOLD edits and redirects ==
=== Proposal to adopt general sanctions for all articles on or related to the Horn of Africa (broadly construed) ===
{{ping|Dlohcierekim|Kzl55|Bbb23|Soupforone|Robert McClenon|Doug Weller|Mangoe|C. W. Gilmore|Cordless Larry|Drmies}}
In lew of the above discussion, and in light of the allegations leveled at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress]], I would propose that at this point it may be in the community's best interest to adopt general sanctions for all articles on or related to the Horn of Africa (broadly construed). In putting forth this proposal I note for the record the contentious editing history of several pages in the area, the accusations of sockpuppetry, and McClenon's outsanding summary above:
{{quote|The Horn of Africa, including Somalia, is the locus of battleground editing because it is an area of the world that is a real battleground. The English Wikipedia has dealt with battleground editing of battleground areas, such as Israel and Palestine and India and Pakistan, and areas that have been battlegrounds in the past and where memories are long, such as the Balkans (where World War One started) and Eastern Europe (where World War Two and the Cold War started), in the past. The battleground editing of these battleground areas has been dealt with by ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which are sometimes draconian and so work well at suppressing the battles.
 
So this has been happening for a while now, with a long track record of reverted bold edits which peaked today. {{user links|United States Man}} has constantly been doing WP:BOLD things and reverting others when challenged:
There have been too many disputes about editing involving Somalia, and Ethiopia and Eritrea. It is time either to ask the ArbCom to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions, or to craft some version of Community General Sanctions that works as well as ArbCom discretionary sanctions, for the Horn of Africa. Otherwise these disputes will keep on coming back here.}}
<br>
1. November 2023: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=155626943 Was blocked] for edit warring.
<br>
2. May 2024: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado]]: User said in the nomination {{tq|The author also recently started 2024 Sulphur tornado, which was overwhelming merged}}; violation of [[WP:READFIRST]]. Reason for nomination was “article is a CFORK”, and the article ended up being kept. Funny enough, this user would literally say {{tq|"You should focus on the content and not the editor"}} to someone else [[Talk:List of F5, EF5, and IF5 tornadoes/Archive 4#2024 Greenfield, Iowa EF3+|just twelve days later]] when someone pointed out their controversial moves.
<br>
3. May 2024: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Dylan620-20241126201900-EF5-20241126201000 Edit warring] on [[December 2021 Midwest derecho and tornado outbreak]]; the article had to end up being [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=December_2021_Midwest_derecho_and_tornado_outbreak&oldid=1225218969 protected] as a result.
<br>
4. October 2024: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Lake_Martin_tornado&oldid=1251850784 Bold redirected] [[2011 Lake Martin tornado]] without consensus before [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Super_Outbreak&oldid=1251850421 merging it without attribution or consensus].
<br>
5. Today: Redirected a 20,000-byte article with the edsum "revert CFORK", and when I challenged this they called it "disruptive edit warring". See [[2011 Cullman-Arab tornado]].
<br>
6. Today: Again redirected a 20,000-byte article with the edsum "revert CFORK", and when I challenged this they called it "disruptive edit warring". See [[2011 Central Alabama tornado]].
<br>
7.Today: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Super_Outbreak&oldid=1259739024 Was reverted] after boldly removing material, where they then proceeded to revert the challenge.
<br>
This behavior clearly won't be stopping soon, so bringing it here. Also see their recent edit summaries, I’m now on mobile so I can’t fetch the diffs. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 20:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{ec}} As far as I can tell, United States Man's reverts look far more like "disruptive edit warring" than the OP's challenges to find consensus, which strike me as reasonable. Noting for the record that I reviewed and approved a DYK nomination for one of the articles ([[Template:Did you know nominations/2011 Cullman–Arab tornado]], which is currently in [[T:DYK/P7|a prep area]]). [[User:Dylan620|<span style="color:blue">Dylan</span><span style="color:purple">620</span>]] (he/him • [[User talk:Dylan620|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|edits]]) 20:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
 
*Editing behavior: Myself and United States Man have "butt heads" several times over the last few years, even with both of us earning edit warring blocks during our edit wars in the past. However, this is a very much editing behavior that is very clearly not good. United States Man has a habit of taking a Wikibreak and upon returning from the Wikibreak, immediately reverts edits without any consensus or discussions. Here is a list of these specific instances:
Accordingly then, in order to effect a timely halt to deteriorating conditions, I propose the following be indefinitely adopted for all Horn of Africa related articles until such time as community consensus or ARBCOM rule otherwise:
::#Wikibreak [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Super_Outbreak&diff=prev&oldid=1252073970 October 19, 2024] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Cullman%E2%80%93Arab_tornado&diff=prev&oldid=1259737985 November 26, 2024] &ndash; First six edits on November 26 were all edit warring/reversions: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Cullman%E2%80%93Arab_tornado&diff=prev&oldid=1259737985][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Cordova%E2%80%93Blountsville_tornado&diff=prev&oldid=1259738273][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Super_Outbreak&diff=prev&oldid=1259739024][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Cullman%E2%80%93Arab_tornado&diff=prev&oldid=1259739134][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Cordova%E2%80%93Blountsville_tornado&diff=prev&oldid=1259739189][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Super_Outbreak&diff=prev&oldid=1259739868]
::#Wikibreak [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bad_Blood_(2024)&diff=prev&oldid=1246498550 September 19, 2024] to October 10, 2024 &ndash; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research_on_tornadoes_in_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1250399925 First edit] was to start an AFD.
::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edgar_Evins_State_Park&diff=prev&oldid=1224363632 May 17, 2024] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tornado_outbreak_sequence_of_May_19%E2%80%9327,_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1225214356 May 23, 2024] &ndash; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_F5,_EF5,_and_IF5_tornadoes&diff=prev&oldid=1225214574 Commented in an ongoing discussion] "Oppose" to something being included in an article and then proceeded to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_F5,_EF5,_and_IF5_tornadoes&diff=prev&oldid=1225214695 remove it 1 minute later]. This day also included several reverts from page moves to edit warring reverts. The edit warring reverts were discussed (mid-edit warring) on the talk page.
::#May 8, 2024 to May 15, 2024 &ndash; Several reversions with no talk page discussions, including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1997_Jarrell_tornado&diff=prev&oldid=1223907008 this edit] entirely deleting a 45,000 byte article with "redirect recently created content fork" with no discussion and deleting a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_Sulphur_tornado&diff=prev&oldid=1223905954 23,000 byte article], with no discussion, only a few minutes earlier.
::#February 29, 2024 to March 11, 2024 &ndash; Came back to editing by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_tornadoes_from_January_to_March_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1213197476 immediately reverting]. March 11 included 3 article-content reversions, with no article talk page discussions occurring, along with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Pilger_tornado_family&diff=prev&oldid=1213205345 the merge] of an 11,000 byte article.
::#February 25, 2024 to February 28, 2024 &ndash; First edit back on Feb 28 was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_tornadoes_from_January_to_March_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1210737368 a reversion].
::#December 19, 2023 to February 10, 2024 &ndash; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_tornadoes_from_January_to_March_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1205617158 First edit back] was an editing-reversion (not revert button click), with the editing summary of "the first tornado was obviously the EF1…". The day included several button reverts including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_tornadoes_from_January_to_March_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1205625548][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tornado_outbreak_of_March_31_%E2%80%93_April_1,_2023&diff=prev&oldid=1205643530] before any talk page discussion edits occurred.
::#November 3, 2023 to November 21/22, 2023 &ndash; Came back to editing with several reversions and within about 36 hours of coming back to editing, got into an edit war with myself, which earned both of us edit warring blocks over [[2002 Van Wert–Roselms tornado]].
:I can continue going down the list, but this is a clear behavior going back at a minimum of a year. United States Man reverts before talk page discussions, and it seems to be right as they come back from a break from editing. As stated, I have a history with United States Man, but it honestly is annoying and frustrating. Going back a year, articles and content has been created and when United States Man returns to editing, without any discussion or consensus occurring, they proceed to try to single handedly revert/remove it all, and then, like today, proceeds to edit war over it without going to discussions. This is not constructive behavior and should not be the behavior of editors on Wikipedia. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::It also appears that they (somehow) have rollback permissions, despite being blocked for edit warring and being consistently reverted for these behaviors. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 00:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
 
:As much as I hate dogpiling, I did kind of promise myself that I would bring this up if USM got taken to ANI over a matter like this. I will preface by saying that I really do appreciate a lot of the work he's put in over the years, and I've even agreed with him in a number of content disputes. But I think most editors who have put in a lot of time on tornado articles have butted heads with him at some point. He has had a sort of "my way or the highway" attitude for quite some time. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_tornadoes_from_January_to_February_2012&action=history&offset=20130728204954%7C566195027 this bit of page history] for an edit war from 2013. Maybe it was just me returning to regular editing at the time, but I seem to have noticed a number of notable clashes with him starting around 2021. He has also expressed an attitude that his edits don't count as edit warring (as in [[Talk:List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2021#March 12 tornado| this instance]]). Some commentary I've seen from him suggests and attitude that his experience exempts him from policy, as in [[Talk:List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2022#Page protected|this discussion]]. As much as I am grateful for the constructive edits he's made, there are some longstanding issues with his behavior in content disputes that should be addressed. [[User:TornadoLGS|TornadoLGS]] ([[User talk:TornadoLGS|talk]]) 02:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
;All Horn of Africa related pages shall be indefinitely [[WP:ECP|extend-confirmed protected]]: In order to edit any page on or related to the Horn of Africa an editor must register an account so that the community can see whose been editing the articles and to prevent troublesome editors from sneaking content into or out of the articles. Additionally, this will allow editors and administrators to more accurately assemble names for the purpose of opening Sockpuppet investigations or for imposing topic bans, should either of those options become necessary.
::I also highly appreciate their work, but comments like {{tq|I don't allow people to preach to me on "content disputes" when I tirelessly edit week in and week out and have never blatantly added false information}} and {{tq|You should know from my years of content editing that I don't add and leave things unsourced for long}} at [[Talk:List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2022]] are highly inappropriate, no matter the context. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 02:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*
:::{{Peanut}} Speaking of tornado list articles, might yall tornado editors maybe agree on a way to do your citations a bit more concisely? At [[List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2022]], {{code|National Centers for Environmental Information}} produces '''347 matches''', and {{code|National Weather Service}} 266 matches, across 330 citations. Do we really need the full, unlinked acronym expansions (and retrieval dates) in every case for all of these database records? And not, for example, the database record id, or date more specific than year (universally implied by the article scope)? The whole References section is visually nightmarish, and [[WP:ProseSize|ProseSize]] reports 59kb in references; 421kb if html is included.{{pb}}And I know this has been discussed elsewhere before, but is genuinely encyclopaedically relevant to include trivia like {{tq|A chicken house sustained roof damage}}? I suppose at this juncture I'm probably tilting at rapidly circulating windmills. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 15:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Folly Mox}} If {{tq|A chicken house sustained roof damage}} is the only damage indicator that the tornado left behind, then yes, it is relevant. I'll try to condense this, since this isn't what the thread it about but albeit is a good findinng:{{pb}}Tornadoes usually produce DIs, or Damage Indicators. These can range from corn pulled out of fields to houses being swept away and pavement being ripped off of roads (which is rarely seen). Any information about a tornado's DP, or damage path, is better than none. Unfortunately, government agencies like to adopt horrendously-long names, so many references look like that. I try to abbreviate them, but others don't. A list of these DIs can be found [https://www.spc.noaa.gov/efscale/ef-scale.html here] (it's actually really interesting how they rate tornadoes, I'm probably just a nerd though. :) [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 16:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|If A chicken house sustained roof damage is the only damage indicator that the tornado left behind, then yes, it is relevant.}}{{snd}}Yes it's relevant, assuming you decide to include this trivial tornado-ette in the list in the first place. That's the question. What purpose is served by listing trivial, nonnotable, momentary twisters that damaged a chicken coop and uprooted someone's prize azaleas -- if they did anything at all? Answer: no purpose at all. It's busywork for storm fans -- busywork which leads to conflicts which historically have soaked up a lot of admin time to referee them. {{pb}}These lists should restrict themselves to events which, at a bare minimum, were reported in the local news i.e. ''not'' [[List_of_United_States_tornadoes_from_January_to_March_2022|{{tq|A storm chaser documented a [60-second] tornado on video. No known damage occurred}} ]]. NWS collects every bit of data -- every report, no matter how trivial -- for statistical and scientific purposes, but our readers aren't served by our uncritically vomiting all of it out here at Wikipedia. It should stop. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 17:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::(ec) No, that isn't relevant information to have in an encyclopedia ''at all''. In these lists, most tornadoes should be summarized as a group (e.g. simply mentioning the number of EF0s and EF1s), not described with "This weak tornado had an intermittent path and caused no known damage." and "This brief tornado was caught on video. No damage was found." and so on. Just try to imagine that we had a list of "car accidents in the US in March 2022", where not only the major accidents with deaths and so on were noted, but every single accident with minor damage as long as some official police bulletin notes it. Why would every single minor tornado in the history of the US need to be noted in detail on enwiki? "A tornado was caught on video. An NWS damage survey found a leaning power pole.", really? "A brief tornado captured by doorbell security video caused sporadic minor damage."? This needs severe pruning. We have [[Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023]], fine, but do we really need a detailed list of all 146 tornadoes in that outbreak, [[List of tornadoes in the tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023]]? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 17:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Okay, fine, I’ll start a discussion on the WPW talk page. Can we please stay on topic and address the issues that I’ve brought up, though? Discussing tornadoes on ANI doesn’t seem very… productive. I don’t mean to be rude. :) [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 17:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You're right, it's just that there have been so many discussions already about issues related to either tornadoes or tropical storms, comparable to other more or less problematic projects like wrestling or (in the past) roads. When uninvolved or unaware readers come across the articles involved in this report, they are bound to shake their heads in disbelief. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 17:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Or (worse) they may be inspired to initiate similar efforts in some other topic area. Bus fleets (e.g. [[MBTA_bus#Current]]) are ripe for a Cambrian explosion along these lines. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 03:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Well… it’s complicated, particularly with ratings which tend to be in heavy dispute for months at a time. I could go more in-depth on the issue, but again, that isn’t the point of this report. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 14:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::{{replyto|Folly Mox}} Unfortunately NCEI has a rather clunky way of dealing with records where each county segment of a tornado's path gets its own page (or each tornado if it doesn't cross county lines). Local NWS offices do sometimes have aggregate pages for tornado outbreaks, but those are considered preliminary while NCEI is the "finalized" data. [[User:TornadoLGS|TornadoLGS]] ([[User talk:TornadoLGS|talk]]) 21:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:Back on topic, but I will also note that USM has had a “grudge” against me, starting in March of this year. I won’t try to drag inactive users into this, but back when I was first creating articles, USM and another user ([[User:TornadoInformation12|TornadoInformation12]]) would sort of stalk whatever I did and try to revert it. Again, I’m on mobile, so I can’t fetch the diff, but things like the Jarrell AfD, Cullman redirect, Pilger redirect, Lake Martin redirect, recent edit warring involving me and a message from TI12 on his talk page are pretty good proof of this claim. TI12 has been inactive for over a month, and likely won’t respond here. Also see my talk page archives from April and May, which contain messages from him, and are relatively tame. The below comment, sent by TI12 at [[Talk:Tornado outbreak and derecho of April 1-3, 2024/Archive 1]] pretty much sums what I just said up:
<br>
* {{tq| Yeah, so the weird tense is because some kid made this article BEFORE the event even happened, based entirely on SPC outlooks and hype. He apparently had no idea that this isn't allowed. Gave him a real serious talking to and I can assure you he won't try anything like that again. The derecho element and sheer number of this event makes it notable though, even if underperformed in terms of intense, long-tracked tornadoes.}}
<br>
The “kid” is directly referring to me; I had made the article. This is an issue that has been happening with several editors in the WPW community, so I’ll just bring up the other editor for consistency’s sake. Both editors have shown unacceptable levels of hostility towards new editors, with TI12 and USM having this hostile behavior that has gone unaddressed for far too long. When the next tornado season rolls around, I’m sure we’ll continue to see this hostility thrusted at new editors if it’s not addressed. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 23:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:Repeatedly infantilizing fellow editors is uncivil, you should not have been subjected to that. I apologize on TornadoInformation12's behalf (it is unclear if they will ever be active again to apologize for themselves). [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 23:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::The talk page (of TI12) does indicate that it is a temporary (albeit long-term) absence; because they did say that their job left them with no free time. [[User:Hurricane Clyde|<span style="color: Green;">'''Hurricane Clyde''' 🌀</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Hurricane Clyde|<span style="color: Blue;">''my talk page!''</span>]]</sup> 05:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Forgot to ping @[[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]]. Doing that now. [[User:Hurricane Clyde|<span style="color: Green;">'''Hurricane Clyde''' 🌀</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Hurricane Clyde|<span style="color: Blue;">''my talk page!''</span>]]</sup> 05:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
 
=== More instances of incivility from TI12 ===
;A 1RR sanction is unilaterally applied to all articles on or related to the Horn of Africa: All editors must not make more than 1 revert in a period of 24&nbsp;hours to any Horn of Africa article save but for reverting clear and obvious vandalism. Per the precedent set forth at [[Talk:Donald Trump]], in the event a list of consensus approved material should appear on the talk page of an article within the Horn of Africa region then reverts to consensus as listed on the talk page of that article will not count against the 1RR limit, however all editors will be required to link to the list in their edit summaries when reverting in order to infer protection for their revert.
So now that I have a PC again (thanksgiving, am I right?), I will make a list of incivility incidents involving the latter user, TI12:
*
* April 2024: {{tq|I desperately need backup. Look what’s happening with the April 2 article. A bunch of kids are running this page into the ground with unsourced Twitter and YouTube junk and are making outbreak articles before events have event starter. The quality of work and content is PLUNGING! PLEASE help me out and back me up. I’ve never seen it this bad.}} by TI12 at [[User talk:ChessEric/Archives/2024/April|this talk page]]. Again, the "kid" is directly referring to me and it is '''never''' appropriate to talk behind people's backs, especially when they're new.
<br>
* April 2024: {{tq|For April 2nd. Why?? You know better, and know that other users have established that we have to wait until significant, damaging tornadoes, usually EF3 or higher or causing death have been confirmed. You cannot let the rules slide based on SPC hype and model output, and it’s not debatable. Today underperformed and now I have to mark an article for speedy deletion. We haven’t even had a confirmed EF2. Please, do not do this again and wait until the outbreak over to asses for article eligibility. You know better.}} by TI12 at [[User talk:Mjeims|this user's talk page]], who had 2,000 edits at the time. While unrelated to me, this is a prime example of incivility targeting newer users who may not understand our guidelines, and is unnecessarily harsh.
<br>
* April 2024: {{tq|This needs to be deleted asap. Someone has once again completely jumped the gun and broke the rules we established years ago by making an article before we even had a significant event underway. And guess what?? Today underperformed. No devastating damage, no long trackers, no deaths, no tornado emergencies, but someone had to “let it slide” because you all got excited over a moderate risk and strong wording, again. We have been over this SO MANY TIMES and I am beyond exasperated. How many times have we said to not make an article until it is abundantly clear we’ve had a major event??? We jump the gun with articles year after year and it’s like you guys never learn. You CANNOT publish article unless numerous strong tornadoes or multiple deaths have been confirmed. We have neither here, and it’s not up for debate. Mark this for deletion immediately. Btw, the reason nobody was helping you with this article is because one wasn’t needed at all. You pushed it into existence with zero consensus or collaboration with other users.}} by TI12 at [[Talk:Tornadoes of 2024/Archive 2|this talk page archive]]. Highly uncivil, I had less than 1,000 edits at the time, and funny enough, [[Tornado outbreak and derecho of April 1-3, 2024|the article he's referring to]] is now a GA. The "We jump the gun with articles year after year and it’s like you guys never learn" stands out to me.
<br>
* April 2024: {{tq|We didn’t get a significant outbreak today, and you broke the rules by steamrolling this pointless article into existence. You COMPLETELY jumped the gun and ignored the rules established by editors much more experienced than you. You CANNOT just start an article based on hype, well before we have confirmed EF3+ tornadoes, major damage, or deaths. We have NONE of those things, and you made one anyway, ignoring all the guidelines in the process. You also based it all on early, usually inaccurate information prior to the event even being over. Someone warned you and you ignored them. I am going to mark this for deletion.}} by TI12 at [[Talk:Tornadoes of 2024/Archive 2|this talk page archive]], again directed at me.
<br>
* May 2024: {{tq|You can't can't publish this without DAT damage points, and that isn't up for debate. I'm not harrasing you, I am holding you accountable, and you are getting upset over it. I will continue to revert whatever doesn't meet wiki quality standards. Not backing down this time.}} by TI12 at [[Talk:2024 Sulphur tornado|this talk page]]. Extremely hostile behavior, I tried to find common ground and they basically just yelled at me instead of having a normal conversation.
<br>
* May 2024: {{tq|This has to do with sourcing and quality, not notability. Don't twist the narrative. Also, again I am not harassing you, I am holding you accountable for work that does not meet quality standards. You just think you are getting harassed because you are getting upset at the situation.}} at the same talk page archive; when I brung up their harshness they just played it off, which someone here should never do, period.
<br>
* May 2024: {{tq|I am trying to teach a young new editor how to put out quality articles, and he keeps putting out stuff like this. I know we haven't always gotten along UnitedStatesMan, but I know you have zero tolerance for nonsense and care about sourced, quality work. I have started a talk page about Quality Control on the Tornadoes of 2024 page. I need support from experienced users so I'm not just arguing back and forth with this guy. Can you please give some input to the discussion? I am exhausted from dealing with this and your input in the discussion would be greatly appreciated..}} at [[User talk:United States Man|USM's talk page]]. Not only is this [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]], it's also a show of how these users are connected and hence why I'm bringing both up.
<br>
* May 2024: {{tq|No such option exists. If you want me to not revert your work, then source it properly and make sure it is of good quality. I went through the same thing you are going through when I joined here in 2010. I had no idea what i was doing, and viewed every correction as harassment. I now know it wasn't. You don't have to like me, and you are allowed to be frustrated, but you cannot stop other users from reverting info that doesn't meet standards for sourcing and quality. I DO know how you feel though, because I have been in your shoes.}} by TI12 at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Sulphur_tornado&diff=prev&oldid=1221894825 this diff], was immediately reverted by the user and probably violates our [[WP:HOUND|hounding]] policy.
<br>
* May 2024: And the most damning comment of all: {{tq|Sorry, but there's nothing you can do about it. I don't "need" to do anything, and can discuss what I want, with whom I want as along there is an objective to it. Want me to stop? Improve, learn, and do better work. Until that happens, I will do what I need to do to keep things on track and up to par. You are going to have to either improve your work, or deal with me having these conversations and held accountable on a regular basis.}} by TI12 at [[User talk:HamiltonthesixXmusic|this user's talk page]]. This is gross incivility that I don't want to see come next year, and is completely unacceptable. While I get that I am half the reason these comments were said, they shouldn't have been typed up in the first place. Mind you that I was a new editor at the time of this incident, and was immediately hounded by this user. All of these are from two months alone, and I haven't even looked further than that. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 20:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:These examples are unsavory, and I'm sorry [[User:EF5|you]] had to go through that sort of treatment, but... TI12 has made only one edit since May, and that one edit was in August. I would suggest revisiting if this behavior recurs when/if TI12 returns, but as of now, I don't think there's much that can be done :/ [[User:Dylan620|<span style="color:blue">Dylan</span><span style="color:purple">620</span>]] [[User:Dylan620 public or mobile|in public/on mobile]] (he/him • [[User talk:Dylan620|talk]]) 23:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::I’m aware, the main reason I brought this up was because the two users are connected, and this user expressed intent to return to the project in the future. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 00:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I distinctly remember the April comments because I (as an IP) ended up getting a NOTAFORUM revert from {{noping|Ks0stm}} for making somewhat similar (albeit a little less harsh) comments regarding “gun jumpers”. [[User:Hurricane Clyde|<span style="color: Green;">'''Hurricane Clyde''' 🌀</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Hurricane Clyde|<span style="color: Blue;">''my talk page!''</span>]]</sup> 05:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Clearly you can tell that I didn’t notice the harshness of those threads until this ANI discussion; had almost forgotten about them until this evening. [[User:Hurricane Clyde|<span style="color: Green;">'''Hurricane Clyde''' 🌀</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Hurricane Clyde|<span style="color: Blue;">''my talk page!''</span>]]</sup> 05:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
 
== Risto hot sir ==
;Any material removed from an article in good faith may not be re-added without community consensus: If any editor removed any content in good faith then the material may not be re-added to the article body in question without community consensus to do so. Consensus must be obtained on the talk page of the article in question, and all relevant wikiprojects must be informed of the discussion to obtain consensus for the questioned material. Material that has been removed as a result of consensus may not be re-added to the article without first obtaining consensus to do so, and editors whose material has been removed or reinserted may not reopen any discussion on the matter for a minimum of six months. Editors who repeatedly abuse this privilege (ie: attempt to circumvent consensus by filing notices to ANI, editors re-adding the material to the body before consensus has been reached on the talk page, or editors who supported or opposed the consensus reopening the discussion so the original opener won't have to wait 6 six months, etc) may be topic banned at the community's request or blocked for disruptive editing at any administrator's discretion.
*
 
{{user|Risto hot sir}} has been using their puppets for years on several projects and I'm thinking about requesting a global ban against them. They have been active on this project and English Wikiquote several days again. Since they started here and got blocked on 2019, I'd like to ask if there was some more unacceptable behaviours except for only socking, and if yes, is there any evidence for that?<br>
;Editors to all Horn of Africa related articles are expected to adhere to Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Conduct|Conduct Policies]]: Editors to Horn of Africa related articles are reminded to remain civil, honor current consensus in Horn of Africa related articles, and to follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes when editing Horn of Africa related articles. Editors who repeatedly ignore these conduct policies when editing Horn of Africa related articles may be topic banned from the subject at the community's request or blocked for disruptive editing at any administrator's discretion.
Or, any advice or opinion for such request? [[user:Lemonaka|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka</span>]] 08:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
*
:Hard for us to say anything since we don't know who the other users you suspect of being socks are. If you think Risto hot sir is socking then open a report at [[WP:SPI]]. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 09:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:Ah, I see you did at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Risto_hot_sir/Archive#28_November_2024]] and the user has already been indef'ed. What else do you want? Risto hot sir is already globally locked. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 09:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::I'd like to request a global ban against this user on meta instead of just global lock. But normally, a global locked user, unless with serious problem, is unlikely to be banned. I'm not quite sure if it will be possible to pass. So I'm asking is there anything more than socking of this user? [[user:Lemonaka|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka</span>]] 09:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Personally, I wouldn't bother, but if you do want to pursue this it wouldn't it be up to you to present the evidence and make the case? [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 09:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I saw there's some dialogue about their editing controversial topic regarding IPA, then they got blocked. Nothing more serious I could found and their edits on different projects seemed not vandalism or disruptive. They this started socking, is this summary right? [[user:Lemonaka|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka</span>]] 09:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::[[user:Lemonaka|Lemonaka]], this is just my gut reaction here but this discussion is not a good subject for a general noticeboard like ANI. It would be very unusual for the editors who check in here to know anything about the circumstances of this particular editor's block. You might have some success if you contacted the admins who originally blocked this editor or worked on an SPI involving them but I'm guessing 99.9% of the editors who visit ANI will know nothing that can help you with your case. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 10:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::You also search the ANI archives and see if something pops up. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 10:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I've searched ANI archives before putting up this, and there's no any information about them, in fact once in [[Special:PermanentLink/1088091180#Politically-motivated and defamatory pages at Wikiquote being auto-linked here?]] but this is not related to them. As your advice, I will try to contact @[[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] for more information. [[user:Lemonaka|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka</span>]] 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::My experience with Risto hot sir started with [[Palindromes]] and related pages. A problematic editor from the start, Risto was initially an SPA on palindromes, and turned out to be a COI editor using his own book on palindromes as a reference, quoting himself, and attempting to write an article about his book's editor. They were self-described as "for sure the most notable palindromist in the world" and jumped through all sorts of hoops to avoid admitting that they were the author of the book, before finally doing so: "You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to find out my name. In Finland it's well known". I remember personal attacks, bludgeoning, edit warring, and so on, and I banned them from my talk page. All of this is still on their talk page so I'm not going to diff anything. I have no [[WP:AGF]] in this editor, so socking would not surprise me. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 11:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risto Rekola]] for extensive edits by this user in an AFD on an article about himself, without mentioning his COI. I don't know who wrote the article. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 11:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
 
== Disruption at contentious topic ==
;If adopted, all actions must be logged at [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Horn of Africa]]: Per [[Wikipedia:General Sanctions]], Administrators employing these sanctions must issue appropriate notifications, and log all sanctions imposed, as specified in each case. The issuing of notifications is an informal process whereby an editor that edits a topic area that is subject to general sanctions is made aware that the general sanctions exist. Administrators may not impose sanctions unless an editor has previously been made aware of the existence of these sanctions. Any editor may make another editor aware of the sanctions, and then log the notification, as specified in each case. This notification is not a warning about editor behaviour, and may not be revoked. It is purely informational. Full procedures for issuing notifications mirror those of Arbitration Committee sanctions, as described [[Wikipedia:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts|here]]. Editors or administrators that wish to overturn an action carried out under the auspices of community-established sanctions must either appeal to the imposing administrator, or gain consensus for an overturning at the [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. If general sanctions are no longer needed in a topic area, they may be revoked through discussion at the [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Likewise, editors wishing to report possible violations of community sanctions should do so at the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard|administrators' noticeboard]]. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TomStar81|contribs]]) 14:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)</small>
::Just to note that I didn't get a notification of your mention above, {{u|TomStar81}}, as you forgot to sign your post. I am re-pinging the others. {{ping|Dlohcierekim|Kzl55|Bbb23|Soupforone|Robert McClenon|Doug Weller|Mangoe|C. W. Gilmore|Drmies}} see above. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 15:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' This is quite draconian, especially the extended confirmed protection and content removal. I would think the starting point should be [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant| the Syrian GS]]. Why do you think this area needs significantly more restrictions than the Syrian conflict? Also, 'broadly construed' is, from what I have seen, a can of drama in its own right. Is there a specific, core, group of articles where sanctions would cut significant drama? [[User:Jbhunley|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:14pt;color:#886600">Jbh</span>]][[User_talk:Jbhunley|<span style="color: #00888F"><sup> Talk</sup></span>]] 15:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 
{{user|Montblamc1}} has now received pushback from two editors on how not to edit on Wikipedia per [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|NPOV]], [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch|Words to watch]] and [[Wikipedia:RS]] at [[Iraqi Kurdistan]] (an article considered [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Kurds and Kurdistan|contentious]] and noted as such at the talkpage). Discussions have taking place at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sems%C3%BBr%C3%AE&oldid=1260387094#Iraqi_Kurdistan][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraqi_Kurdistan&oldid=1260379735]. Montblamc1, without presenting any reliable references argues that the terms "Iraqi Kurdistan" and Southern Kurdistan" are used in a Kurdish nationalist context (and that it is "particularly" used by Kurdish nationalists) which a simple Google search contradict ("''iraqi kurdistan jstor''" and ''"southern kurdistan jstor"'' clearly indicate that these are terms that are common in academia). [[User:Semsûrî|Semsûrî]] ([[User talk:Semsûrî|talk]]) 14:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'm not sure what I will support and am awaiting comments, but I won't support consensus required and I'd have to see a lot of support for ECP before I'd agree to it here. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 16:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
**{{Ping|Doug Weller}} As an observation, you may have noticed that each section above has a star in the editing window below the paragraph so folks can support just what they want to for exactly this reason; I wanted to get a feel as to what sanctions if any people were in favor of and which ones they disliked. On that note, if you want to lead by example you are certainly welcome to, most folks will only follow what others have done so if they see individuals supporting/opposing/abstaining on the individual sections its likely to inspire them to do the same, which over the coming days should clear up what people do and don't want here. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 17:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the proposed general sanctions. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
* {{tq|All Horn of Africa related pages shall be indefinitely extend-confirmed protected}} No. No. Also ''God no''. No opinion on any of the rest of it. But WikiProject Africa has more than a hundred thousand articles within it's scope, presumably at least a few tens of thousands of which would somehow fall under this. Just because ArbCom may have once made a wildly dumb decision to authorize ECP for dozens of thousands of articles related to Israel/Palestine doesn't mean it wasn't terrible, and should ever be emulated. [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]] 18:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' anything more than "standard discretionary sanctions" and the ability for admins to place pages under 1RR is too much based on what is presented here. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 06:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 
:To be clear, as Semsuri clearly did not present my position fairly, I will do it myself.
== Sander.v.Ginkel ==
:I have argued the following:
:1. The aforementioned two terms “Iraqi Kurdistan” and “Southern Kurdistan” are unofficial as they are not used by any international authority, such as the UNGEGN.
:2. The context in which they are used needs to specified, and that is, the context of Kurdish nationalism.
:Also, the issue about the wording that implied that the terms are “particularly used” by nationalists has already been resolved here[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sems%C3%BBr%C3%AE?markasread=332436310&markasreadwiki=enwiki] in the section titled “Iraqi Kurdistan” and I changed the wording following the short discussion. I asked Semsuri about the alternative wording but received no answer back, and he rather replied arguing against the wording I had already changed.
:Furthermore, instead of removing the parts in questions that are disputed, Semsuri opted to revert the whole page to a previous state. That means that parts that I’ve added that are not disputed were removed. [[User:Montblamc1|Montblamc1]] ([[User talk:Montblamc1|talk]]) 14:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::You keep claiming that ''"The context in which they are used needs to specified, and that is, the context of Kurdish nationalism."'' without any back up so I'm going to keep pushing back on it. Secondly, where does it state that because no international authority recognizes the term, it cannot be used on Wikipedia (when its a commonly used word?) which, again, a simple Google Search would show you. This is POV-push territory for me. [[User:Semsûrî|Semsûrî]] ([[User talk:Semsûrî|talk]]) 14:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I never claimed it cannot be used in Wikipedia. Where exactly did you get that from? That’s very different from saying it is not an official designation (toponym) for any area officially. That is what I’m saying.
:::Also, what do you mean “without any backup”? What is information without context? Why is it so wrong to want to expand on the context wherein these terms are used?
:::It is becoming increasingly more apparent to me that your reluctance to accept any change to the article is an example of [[Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling]]. [[User:Montblamc1|Montblamc1]] ([[User talk:Montblamc1|talk]]) 22:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::You are editing the page based on what RS? [[User:Semsûrî|Semsûrî]] ([[User talk:Semsûrî|talk]]) 22:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::You can see all sources I have used in the article. If you have any problem with any source go ahead and mention it. Also, notice how you keep changing the reason for your objection. First you claim my addition of the word “unofficial” is “frankly irrelevant” (without explaining why you think it is irrelevant) then you claim my adding the context that Southern Kurdistan is used to refer to an area in the context of Kurdish nationalism as a claim “without backup”, now you’re claiming I’m not using proper sources at all (I assume you mean in all edits Ive made to the article). Again, if you have an issue with any source, go ahead and mention it and let’s discuss it. My source for the fact that Iraqi Kurdistan or Southern Kurdistan is not used by any international authority such as UNGEGN is the absence of evidence of the contrary. If you have proof that it is official and used by the aforementioned authority or other authority then please by all means, provide your “RS”. [[User:Montblamc1|Montblamc1]] ([[User talk:Montblamc1|talk]]) 22:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::I am not and have never mentioned that I have an issue with the word "unofficial". Once again, I have to ask you, please give me reliable reference(s) that '''backs your claim that the words stem from and are particularly used by Kurdish nationalists. ''' The reference you use (Bengio) only states that the word "Bashur" is used by Kurdish nationalists not "Iraqi Kurdistan" or "Southern Kurdistan" (which I argue are common in English-language academic literature). Hope I'm concise and clear now. [[User:Semsûrî|Semsûrî]] ([[User talk:Semsûrî|talk]]) 22:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Speaking of the UNGEGN note you added, and I'm sorry I have to repeat myself, it's unsourced. Please add a reference to it. [[User:Semsûrî|Semsûrî]] ([[User talk:Semsûrî|talk]]) 23:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::As to your first reply,
:::::::Yes you have had a problem with the word “unofficial” you mentioned that you think it is “frankly irrelevant” it is all in your talk page, go read it again. Now you’re backtracking and claiming to have never objected to this. Also, why do you keep repeating the same objection on the wording related to the use of the terms even after I’ve already told you that I have changed the wording already following the previous discussion we had… do you not remember me asking you to comment on the alternative wording? You have to pay more attention. If you have a problem with the present wording (that I added immediately after the short discussion in your talk page) of the article then go ahead and mention it.
:::::::As to your second reply,
:::::::I have expanded on the reason why I have added the word “unofficial” using a [[Template:Efn]]. Certainly you know how those work. If you have proof that they are used by the aforementioned authority or any international authority, then by all means, mention it and I would gladly personally go remove the edit. Furthermore, you still have not offered any reason for your decision to revert the whole page back to the previous state. What proper reason do you have to do that? You haven't once mentioned a single objection on any other edit that I have made in the article, but still you have felt the need to revert the whole page back. Again, you still have not explained why you think it is necessary to revert the page other than stating “the present page cannot stand since it is misleading”. You have not explained how any of the other edits I have made are misleading. [[User:Montblamc1|Montblamc1]] ([[User talk:Montblamc1|talk]]) 10:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I need admin intervention now as this conversation is going nowhere. Montblamc1 has no intention of being constructive here. I will repeat myself: Please, '''back your unsourced claim that the words "Iraqi Kurdistan" and "South Kurdistan" stem from and are particularly used by Kurdish nationalists'''. The Bengio reference does not claim that. [[User:Semsûrî|Semsûrî]] ([[User talk:Semsûrî|talk]]) 10:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::So be it. You are either deliberately ignoring my comments or are dyslexic and unable to understand the content of my comments. You are the one who is not being constructive by refusing to take part in a proper discussion. I’m sure an admin will be able to read everything properly and make a fair judgement. [[User:Montblamc1|Montblamc1]] ([[User talk:Montblamc1|talk]]) 22:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|You are either deliberately ignoring my comments or are dyslexic}}{{snd}}Batten down the hatches -- storm clouds on the horizon. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]]
:::::And I’m glad my memory still serves me well. I knew I recognised your name from before. This is not the first time you’ve failed your attempt to stonewall an article. You’ve done it here[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraqi%E2%80%93Kurdish_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1208943921] and here[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraqi%E2%80%93Kurdish_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1208948199] as well. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not yours to gatekeep. Just because an edit does not conform to your liking does not make it an “unproductive edit”. Again, I stand ready to and will gladly remove or accept the removal of any edit I have made that you can convince me is inaccurate or against the rules in any way. But as of now you have not made any convincing argument. 1. In stating that these terms are unofficial in the sense that I have explained, your only argument was “it is frankly irrelevant”, and 2. You have not explained why it is wrong to add context to the use of the terms, 3. You have not explained why you deem it necessary to revert the whole article back to a previous state. [[User:Montblamc1|Montblamc1]] ([[User talk:Montblamc1|talk]]) 22:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
*{{u|Montblamc1}} does appear to have failed to identify any RS to support their position, and their edits are thus a violation of [[WP:DUE]]. There is no general requirement that terms without UN recognition be described as such in the lead (e.g. [[Turkestan]], [[Hindustan]], [[Bible Belt]], or basically anything else in [[:Category:Cultural regions]] or [[:Category:Historical regions]]). If you cannot find adequate sources you should self-revert, otherwise I am prepared to levy sanctions to prevent further disruption. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 22:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I'll also note that the comments accusing Semsuri of having dyslexia are a personal attack, if a mild one. Editors should not be diagnosing each other with learning disabilities or any other kind of medical condition. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 22:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I will gladly revert the part in question. I assume, however, that any other edit should stay? [[User:Montblamc1|Montblamc1]] ([[User talk:Montblamc1|talk]]) 22:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I have not evaluated the other changes and don't see any prior discussion of them on the talk page. Other editors are still allowed to object to those changes, at which point editors should work towards consensus on the talk page. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 22:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Sure. [[User:Montblamc1|Montblamc1]] ([[User talk:Montblamc1|talk]]) 22:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::My main issue is still the sentence ''"The latter term is used to refer to a sub-division of a larger area in the context of Kurdish nationalism."'' which references Bengio misleadingly. She does not claim that and a simple Google Search proves it. This is the third time that I am adressing this here and you have so far completely ignored it. [[User:Semsûrî|Semsûrî]] ([[User talk:Semsûrî|talk]]) 22:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Refer to the talk page. This page is not for this type of discussion. I will gladly discuss with you over there. [[User:Montblamc1|Montblamc1]] ([[User talk:Montblamc1|talk]]) 23:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::There is currently no adequate explanation of your edits at that talk page; you have thus far failed to establish your claims vis a vis Bengio. Although I do see now that you have made further edits to essentially remove the claim regarding "the context of Kurdish nationalism", so the issue is perhaps moot.<sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 01:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::The new sentence is very disingenuous as Montblamc1 now pushes for the idea that the term "Iraqi Kurdistan" is merely a Kurdish nationalist term to promote "Kurdish territoriality", when its just the name of the region in Iraq where Kurds live. Montblamc1's edits scream NPOV and NOTHERE. I am going to revert the page back to the "stable" version and I expect Montblamc to refrain from the POV-push that is very apparent now. [[User:Semsûrî|Semsûrî]] ([[User talk:Semsûrî|talk]]) 15:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::@[[User:Rosguill|Rosguill]] what do you say to this strange accusation. I do not understand how this is not a case of stonewalling. He accuses me of being disingenuous and reverts the whole article back without explaining how any other edits I have made are problematic. [[User:Montblamc1|Montblamc1]] ([[User talk:Montblamc1|talk]]) 16:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Montblamc1, you'd maybe have a case if you hadn't misused Bengio and generally failed to engage with editors' disagreements when challenged. At this point, other editors are right to be skeptical of your use of sources in relation to Kurdish topics, and you should expect to have to justify your edits on the talk page. While these issues remain unresolved, you should not be opening new points of contention, you should be working to resolve them. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 00:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Explain to me how it is correct practice to revert the whole page instead of only the parts that are disputed. [[User:Montblamc1|Montblamc1]] ([[User talk:Montblamc1|talk]]) 11:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
 
== Persistent disruptive editing by IP 180.74.218.13 ==
In the past, [[user:Sander.v.Ginkel]] was the subject to many discussions on this page due to his substandard work. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Fram here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive286#SvG_cleanup_and_deletions here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive285#Request_for_a_closer here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive943#Fram/Sander.v.Ginkel_follow-up here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive288#SvG_articles_%E2%80%93_mass_deletion here].
{{atop|1=Sent packing for a week. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)}}
The IP [[Special:Contributions/180.74.218.13|180.74.218.13]] has made several disruptive edits on Formula One and general motorsport articles: altering date ranges, changing hidden comments to undermine WikiProject convention, and moving sections of the article to a non-constructive format. This has been done repeatedly, against multiple users' reversions; they have done so at [[Kevin Magnussen]], [[Valtteri Bottas]], [[Daniel Ricciardo]], [[Logan Sargeant]] and [[Zhou Guanyu]], to name a few, and have violated 3RR at Zhou, Magnussen and Bottas. [[User:Mb2437|Mb2437]] ([[User talk:Mb2437|talk]]) 16:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
 
:have blocked as disruptive for 1 week first. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 17:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Sander.v.Ginkel got an offer from a [[user:MFriedman]] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive_7#Articles protect/improve articles] something that made people unhappy. See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MFriedman#I'll_move_your_articles_back_to_draft_now here]. Still, MFriedman went on with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MFriedman moving articles back to main space from draft space], effectively circumventing/ignoring the clean up operation. So far, so good. And the name stuck in my memory.
{{abottom}}
 
== User:RangersRus conduct ==
Recently, Sander.v.Ginkel placed an article on the Dutch Wikipedia [[:nl:Ilse Kamps]]. And out of the blue, after a 4.5 year hiatus, MFriedman showed up [https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATe_beoordelen_pagina%27s%2FToegevoegd_20180131&type=revision&diff=50920296&oldid=50916292 to vote for keeping the article] due to the article being properly sourced. But MFriedman [https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ilse_Kamps&type=revision&diff=50921232&oldid=50879326 added these sources], after his vote. At that moment my alarm bells went off!<br/>
*{{userlinks|RangersRus}}
I requested a sockpuppet investigation and it came back [https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verzoekpagina_voor_moderatoren/Sokpoppen#Sander.v.Ginkel positive]. The Checkuser confirmed that Sander.v.Ginkel and MFriedman were identical.
Hello,
 
I created [[Draft:Muslim Sisters of Éire]] and [[Draft:Brian Teeling]] and submitted them to AfC. Both were reviewed by [[User:RangersRus]], who declined them due to notability concerns. When I engaged this user to point out that both submissions had more than surpassed [[WP:GNG]], with over half a dozen dedicated articles in mainstream newspapers each, the editor characterised my posts as vandalism and harrassment, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RangersRu repeatedly removed efforts to engage with them from their talk page]. This leaves me with limited option to progress the situation.
So now we are confronted with a lot of articles that were never checked for the substandard editing of Sander.v.Ginkel moved back into main space by what turned out to be a sockpuppet of Sander.v.Ginkel, MFriedman. This is clearly misusing a sockpuppet to protect articles against thorough scrutiny.
 
I would appreciate if experienced editors could intervene to assess this editor's claims of vandalism and harrassment, and encourage them to engage substantively with the problems I have raised in good faith with their reviews.
What to do next? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 15:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
:{{Checkuser needed|done=yes}} I don't know what's the community consensus regarding accepting CU results on another wiki. If one of our checkusers confirms then I'm looking at indeffing both accounts. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 16:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
::Neil, the CU is stale as MFriedman has not edited on the English Wikipedia since February 2017. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 16:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
:::Exactly. At the moment, I wouldn't support a block for it would be against policy. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
::::(moved from AN) No need for an investigation. You can just ask me, and yes I'm using both accounts Sander.v.Ginkel and MFriedman. When the account Sander.v.Ginkel was blocked I used MFriedman, including review my own articles I created with. See that there are no main issues in the articles I reviewed and added references where needed. See as example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Coppolino&diff=prev&oldid=767068909 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%89ric_Casimir&diff=prev&oldid=767068677 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florent_Mar%C3%A9e&diff=prev&oldid=767068264 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johan_Mounard&diff=prev&oldid=767068066 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruslan_Myezyentsev&diff=prev&oldid=767067544 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aleksey_Sinkevich&diff=prev&oldid=767066568 here] etc.. [[User:Sander.v.Ginkel|Sander.v.Ginkel]] <sup>([[User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel|Talk]])</sup> 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::I've blocked [[User:Sander.v.Ginkel|Sander.v.Ginkel]] for six months and the puppet account indefinitely. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 16:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::And how is [[User:Sander.v.Ginkel|Sander.v.Ginkel]]'s block preventative in any way? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Salvio giuliano}} It prevents them from quite flagrantly violating basic policies whenever they feel like it. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 16:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::::The thing is, the latest violation was one year ago. I agree that the sock could be blocked, but Sander's block to me seems punitive since it is so long after the fact. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 16:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::A year ago was when SvG also stopped editing before resuming this <s>week</s>month. I do not believe he would have stopped socking had he not been caught ''last week'' on the Dutch Wikipedia. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 16:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 
I hope this is an instance of a trigger-happy inexperienced editor unable to handle criticism who can be formed into a positive contributor, but I am at a loss to help this along myself.
Scores of his pages moved to Draft are coming up for [[WP:G13]] after being tagged as promising drafts 6 months ago which lead to this discussion [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Pierre_Le_Roux]] [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 16:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
*Back when this issue first came up there was pretty clear consensus to [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#Proposal_3:_community_indef_block|indef block]] this user. Unfortunately, that consensus was overruled in a pretty blatant [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive285#Request_for_a_closer|supervote]]. If the views of the participants in that discussion had not been discarded and ignored on a whim, this ongoing disruption could have been avoided- as I said at the time. [[User:Reyk|<b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|<b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b>]]</sub> 16:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
:*No issue with me if editors want to change my six month block into an indef. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 
Many thanks, [[Special:Contributions/51.37.79.136|51.37.79.136]] ([[User talk:51.37.79.136|talk]]) 17:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Already requested a [[User_talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#February_2018]] block review. My review is to indef. There are a lot of page moves that need to be checked again [[Special:Contributions/MFriedman]] [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 17:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
:Some Wikipedians have already misjudged the likelihood that SvG would continue to be a problem editor. I think some editors have, in their misguided mercy, forgotten that [[WP:BLOCKDETERRENT]] is supposed to have deterrent value. If en-wiki is unwilling to halt the editing of problem editors, then it only encourages this sort of activity where crocodile-tears promises and the forgiveness of long-undetected misbehavior becomes the norm. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">[[User:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">Chris Troutman</span>]] ([[User talk:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">talk</span>]])</span> 18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
*I've just noticed that MFriedman commented in the thread linked by {{u|Reyk}} above that somewhat swayed a few following comments! SvG claims he "wasn't aware how bad it is to use another account." It should be obvious that you shouldn't use an alternative account to support yourself. With this in mind, I'd support upgrading the block to indefinite. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 18:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
MFriedman discussed SvG as another person here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MFriedman#Alexandros_Gounas] which is deceitful and suggestive we can't believe the statements in the unblock request either. It is pretty clear that their promotions of SvG pages back to mainspace were problematic from the talkpage. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support indef'''- obviously. [[User:Reyk|<b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|<b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b>]]</sub> 19:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 
:'''Note:''' Anon has left the standard notification ([[Special:Permalink/1260414596]]) at @[[User:RangerRus|RangerRus]]'s talk page, but the latter had reverted the notification ([[Special:Diff/1260415060]]), therefore we can take it as them being notified. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 17:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Having read through [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#Proposal_3:_community_indef_block|this past thread]] and noting SvG's assertion that he wasn't "aware how bad it is to use another account" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sander.v.Ginkel&diff=825654421&oldid=825651749] I believe more than ever that my six month block was justified. This isn't tripping over some Wikipedia policy, this is an indication of a lack of basic common sense and ethics. We cannot have an editor deficient in both areas editing freely here. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 19:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
* Is {{userlinks|Beatley}} likely to be another sock? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 20:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
*: I though Beatley is a confirmed sock of Slowking4.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 20:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
::: Yeah, I just don't know Slowking4, I don't know if this could be one sockfarm. I guess not, though. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
:As I said in that original ANI thread, I'm shocked that someone who is meant to be submitting a Master's thesis has such a poor grasp of copyright. The debacle is further evidence that they do not belong here. Using another account to mark their own work as "no problem", despite the extensive issues found, is akin to submitting an exam paper and giving it full marks themselves. '''Support indefinite ban''' [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 11:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
* '''Permaban'''. Now. I checked the stats: Pages created 37,054 of which 22,482 since deleted, I don't think I have ever seen an editor with that many deleted creations before - and then add the blatantly deceptive sockpuppetry. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 23:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
* I think the consensus is clear; given the deceptive sockpuppetry after they were very lucky to get away without an indef ban last time, I have changed the block to an indefinite one. This is required in order to prevent further damage to the project by an individual who clearly does not see the need to follow our rules, and who cannot be trusted to conform to the expectations of the wider editing community. I haven't had time to consider the question of this user's articles yet, but I think that is a discussion that needs to be had separate to this block. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 00:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC).
*'''Indef block''' - I am not impressed in the least by the Wikilawyering/[[WP:BURO]]ish arguments presented above. [[WP:IAR]] is clear: when a rule is preventing you from improving Wikipedia, ignore the rule. Well, the rules cited above which supposedly prevent the indeffing of SvG are standing in the way of the project being improving by removing from its midst a blatantly problematic editor, problematic both in their behavior and in their content output. Wikipedia will be improved by not having SvG around, so let's stop gnashing our teeth and worrying about technicalities and get rid of him. Let [[WP:COMMONSENSE]] reign. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
:*Are we considering [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil's]] block a community imposed sanction? That will affect the nature of any future appeals. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 23:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::*That is my view of it, although others may have alternative perspectives. Given that nobody has objected or done anything in the past few days since I made the block I think we could also consider it a de facto ban. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 03:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC).
*'''Cross-wiki activity''' - This user has been blocked on Commons per the above CU results, the user has uploaded on both accounts mentioned in an act of sockpuppetry, uploading dozens to hundreds of files as "own work" while attributing real Olympic photographers names as the author. His crosswiki activity supports the indef block as discussed above. These files are now being nuked. '''~[[User:~riley|<span style="color:#232323;">''riley''</span>]]''' ''(<span style="color:#4F4F4F;">[[User talk:~riley|<span style="color:#4F4F4F;">talk</span>]]</span>)'' 07:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
===The articles===
I started G5ing the article, but looking at it again, that may not be what's needed. Many were moved back while SvG was not actually blocked, though he undoubtedly would have been if this had been spotted. If they ''had'' remained in Draft, most would long ago have qualified for G13 as very few had any substantive edits at all other than the SvG sock (a few bots and formatting edits, and almost none with any edits in the last 6 months). The issues that led tot he move to Draft have undoubtedly not been fixed in more than a tiny proportion of cases, since there have been few if any edits to any of them.
 
* IPs AFC drafts were reviewed that did not meet the notability guidelines. IP clearly unhappy started harassing on my talk page one after the other [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RangersRus&diff=prev&oldid=1260414596] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:51.37.79.136&diff=prev&oldid=1260412482] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RangersRus&diff=prev&oldid=1260412464] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RangersRus&diff=prev&oldid=1260410709] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:51.37.79.136&diff=prev&oldid=1260410494] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RangersRus&diff=prev&oldid=1260409622] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RangersRus&diff=prev&oldid=1260400051] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RangersRus&diff=prev&oldid=1260399578]. IP also reverted the AFC reviews. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Muslim_Sisters_of_%C3%89ire&diff=prev&oldid=1260399760 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Brian_Teeling&diff=prev&oldid=1260400315 here]. Discussion took place on [[User_talk:51.37.79.136#November_2024]] where I gave explanation but IP decided to file this ANI anyhow. [[User:RangersRus|RangersRus]] ([[User talk:RangersRus|talk]]) 17:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Should I leave them nuked, or restore and move them back to Draft? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 20:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
: I somehow thought that at some point I nuked all the articles which were left in the draft, there were around 5K of them. I am surprised that there are still any left. Is it clear what the origin of these drafts is? Were they moved out of the draft and then moved back? On an unrelated note, I do not see anything controversial with the deletions, but delinking the pages from Olympic-related pages might be not necessarily the best idea - all Olympians are notable, and redlinks are way more visible than black unlinked text. Also, if an article is created by a good faith user, it takes a bit of time to figure out where it should be linked from.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
:: Created by SvG, moved to draft during cleanup, moved back by MFriedman with comments like "checked" or "no SvG issues". <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
::: I see. I would say then indefblock and mass deletion. This is clearly evasion of sanctions imposed by community on SvG.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 21:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
: They shouldn't be unlinked. There are several prolific creators of Olympian biographies, and this adds a time-consuming additional step if/when they create these ones. &mdash;[[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] ([[User talk:Xezbeth|talk]]) 22:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
:: OK. will bear that in mind. Thanks. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
:Suck's that a nuke had to happen and olympic medal winner's like [[Alec Potts]] end up deleted but i guess it had too happen, feel sorry for the poor soul who has to clean up the nuke's results. [[User:GuzzyG|GuzzyG]] ([[User talk:GuzzyG|talk]]) 23:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
::{{ping|GuzzyG}} - I'm happy to (re)create a stub for any nuked Olympians. If you (or anyone else) wants any doing, drop me a note on my talkpage, or list them at [[WT:OLY]]. I'll do this one later at some point. '''[[User:Lugnuts|<font color="002bb8">Lugnuts</font>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Lugnuts|Fire Walk with Me]]</sup> 09:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
* '''All to drafts''' I am absolutely '''not''' convinced, because I have dealt with a bunch of SvG articles and have not found a problem that cannot be corrected easily. SvG did a lot of gnomic legwork that helps the wikipedia project, mostly by creating stubs and basic information about subjects that are less exciting to most editors but notable enough to achieve [[WP:N]]. Below, I have gotten harangued by all number editors with generalized complaints, while when I deal with the specifics, I seem to be regarded as the problem. I was criticized for approving SvG articles (and subsequently improving upon his start up), '''because''' I have NOT deleted any SvG articles. That is backward logic, '''assuming''' there is a problem. You have a predetermined verdict and will not tolerate hearing opposition. If I can, and I have done so, make the article a viable subject for mainspace, what is the crime here? Admittedly, I've only dealt with a couple hundred SvG articles in my area of expertise. '''All useable.''' The above editors complain about the number of SvG articles that have been deleted. Those ARE THE SAME EDITORS WHO DELETED MANY OF THEM. They created their own excuse. At this point, I don't trust them. Bring all the previously deleted content to draft status. Let real editors, with knowledge in those subject areas, look at those articles and decide if it is useful or not. This will take time a lot of time. We do not need an artificial deadline. While in draft form, the public does not see this content. There are tens of thousands of articles. Each one needs attention from someone with a brain. Bulk deletion is mindless and destructive. Maybe, eventually, you will see the cumulative merit to SvG's work. Maybe I will eventually see something he did that was worthy of deletion. We aren't there yet. [[User:Trackinfo|Trackinfo]] ([[User talk:Trackinfo|talk]]) 18:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 
:* {{u|RangersRus}} Well, no, you didn't ''really'' explain that at all. [[Draft:Muslim Sisters of Éire]], for example, has a full article ''about'' the charity in two of Ireland's biggest newspapers, as well as a solid mention in the ''Guardian'' and a number of other refs. You declined the Draft with a boilerplate that references must be ''"in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements), reliable, secondary, and strictly independent of the subject"''. I can't see how those references ''don't'' meet those criteria, can you explain why you think that? [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::I looked at this article. The version SvG moved into article space had four sentences, one of which was an obvious BLP violation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Alec+Potts&timestamp=20170203111439&diff=prev] (admins only). How can they have missed this? --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 23:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
:*:I'd say it passes the GNG but NCORP is very strict and you could certainly argue it doesn't pass it. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 19:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::: Between you and me, I don't think the sports fans necessarily look very hard - they are generally looking to have as many articles as possible, and any article that has superficial referenciness gets pretty much a free pass. Hence the massive problem with SvG. They mean well, but their inclusion standards are, IMO, well below the norm for Wikipedia. "Competed in X" suffices even if nobody wrote about the person in any way at all other than in the results table. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 13:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
:*:Many sources that I went through were not independent of the organization with interviews from its members and after reviewing sources I did not find the organization to pass [[WP:NCORP]]. If only IP could have read the criteria needed to pass notable organization. Another reviewer accepted the article [[Draft:Muslim Sisters of Éire]] after I told the IP to resubmit again. [[User:RangersRus|RangersRus]] ([[User talk:RangersRus|talk]]) 20:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Pageant fans have the same or bigger issues. High school students blessed with classicly attractive genes get articles - often with zero references - while we regularly reject pages on business people that spend years building up companies, employing thousands, creating new innovative products and driving the economy forward. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 17:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
:::* I think sometimes you just have to admit you're wrong - every single reference in that article was a reliable British or Irish newspaper. This was a mistake, it should have been promoted, and it's very difficult - as you've found out - to give reasons for rejecting a draft when it should have been accepted. Even NCORP says "''A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject''" - which it clearly had (a quick Google would have found many, many more references that weren't in the article). [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 22:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::*:I do not want to say I am right or wrong, just human who can make mistakes. Yes sources are reliable but per NCORP the sources did not meet one of the criteria ''Be completely independent of the article subject.'' When I saw the interviews and claims in all the reliable sources, it failed this criteria because ''Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.'' There are 4 criteria that an individual source should meet and the sources did not meet criteria no 2 above. [[User:RangersRus|RangersRus]] ([[User talk:RangersRus|talk]]) 22:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::*:For [[Draft:Brian Teeling]]
:::*:another reviewer declined the draft after review and now IP is saying to the reviewer to "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheTechie&diff=prev&oldid=1260467591 amend your review accordingly and move the article to mainspace]". [[User:RangersRus|RangersRus]] ([[User talk:RangersRus|talk]]) 23:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::* Yes, I deliberately didn't mention the Teeling article, because I thought that was far more borderline. But going back to MSOE, the ''Irish Times'' article alone hits all of those criteria, let alone the other 7 citations in the article. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 23:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::*:That piece still fails the NCORP criteria of being ''completely independent of the article subject''. It's stricter than GNG. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 23:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::*:Thank you {{u|PARAKANYAA}}. {{ping|Black Kite}} I will take IrishTimes to show you why it is not independent because I do not want to create a wall of source analysis for all. In the article IrishTimes, you can read claims by employees, volunteers and members of MSOE like these: "‘We’re Muslim and we’re just like you’, "I’m kind of like the mother hen watching". "No matter where you go in Dublin you’ll find someone in a tent, someone wrapped in a sleeping bag,” “But the one thing they won’t do is starve. There’s someone doing a soup run every night of the week at least.” "I became Muslim for myself, not for any man. But I also became an immigrant within my own country." "They thought we were nuns and asked what order we came from. They were surprised but they just wanted to know who we were. There was no hostility." Then this large claim by the coordinator at MSOE "In the beginning there were lots of people who were not sure about women in hijabs. But when I told them I was Lorraine from Coolock, I'm a northside girl, it opened a dialogue. It gained trust and understanding. This didn't happen overnight but the trust there is now amazing. “Homeless people are stereotyped, so are Muslim women. They’re stereotyped because they have addictions, because they don’t have a home. They are the forgotten people in our own society.” When the pandemic hit last year, the group put the weekly Friday runs temporarily on hold. "Everybody was terrified at that stage but then I got the call from Tesco saying they still had food for us. If I said no, all that food would get binned. We put a call out on our Facebook and ended up sending 60 hampers a week out my front door, most went to non-Muslim families." And "I was surprised by the hostile mindset people had towards Muslim women. I wondered should I strip off this hijab, go back to being Catholic. Or should I move forward with the faith I firmly believed in.” "The whole point of Muslim Sisters of Éire was to break that stereotype and show people Muslim women are not oppressed, they’re very much a part of Irish society." "We've seen a lot more acceptance and trust from people in recent years. Our biggest donations are from the Irish public, they're amazing. Visibility of Muslim women in Ireland is much better than 15 years ago. There will always be racial issues with all ethnicities but things are becoming easier." "Apart from it being a charity, my main concern was giving my girls the understanding that they can do whatever they want while wearing a hijab" "Before, when I was growing up, we were told to do something and didn’t ask questions. But now we have to explain the logic behind the scarf. Her friends ask questions and she brings those questions back to me. Now she’s in a school where she’s the only Muslim girl but the staff are very nice and she understands the logic behind the scarf." "There was a time when I was scared to wear my hijab in the city centre, that people would say things to me. But since we started going out to the GPO we’re quite well recognised, people smile at us. We have shown that Muslim women can have a positive impact on this society. We are doctors, engineers, teachers. We can do anything we want with our hijab on, it’s just a piece of cloth on our head." "They’re not used to seeing me in it but eventually I’ll get to the stage where I’ll wear it." "“I reminded her that nuns wore them and that her grandmother probably wore a scarf everywhere she went. It’s to do with modesty, it’s nothing to do with oppression. And for me, it’s an identity thing. You can see my face, you don’t have to see my hair and body.” "“We’ve all faced so many obstacles. It’s only in the past three years that it really feels like a game changer in Irish society. We’ve seen a lot more acceptance. That’s the sheer determination of the women and the love they have for the work they do. It’s their determination to make people accept them for who they are. What we do is a gesture of goodwill but it’s also letting people know we’re Muslim and we’re just like you.” "I wasn’t going home and wanted to do something with my time. I live here on my own, I don’t socialise much but then I met some of the sisters through this and they became like family. All week you’re overworked, when Friday comes I find this new energy." "There were some people who would pass by and say ‘Go back to your country.’ That can break your heart because you’re just trying to do something good. But I know at the end of the day I’ll be rewarded for my efforts." “I hadn’t really done charity work before, it blew my mind. It’s amazing the different types of hidden homelessness – people may have a roof over their head but not enough money to eat.”
:::::*:Some more claims I did not add and I am sorry for this wall. These quotes coming from MSOE alone sum up the whole article on IrishTimes. So this is not independent and fails the criteria. Source is reliable but it is not independent. [[User:RangersRus|RangersRus]] ([[User talk:RangersRus|talk]]) 01:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::* Are you actually serious? This is an article in probably the most prestigious Irish newspaper ''about'' the MSOE, which also includes interviews with members of the MSOE. That's a ''completely standard newspaper article format''. How anyone can think the ''Irish Times'' is "not independent from the subject" because it actually interviewed the ''people it was writing about'' is completely incomprehensible to me. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::*:[[Wikipedia:Independent sources]] says "Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views." I will point you to a discussion and please read comment at the end of discussion by {{ping|Aoidh}} at [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_380#Interviews]]. [[User:RangersRus|RangersRus]] ([[User talk:RangersRus|talk]]) 13:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::* That discussion is about pure interviews with subjects (incidentally, you'll note I actually commented in it myself, warning about using articles that are paid advertorials, which obviously isn't relevant here). The point is that the ''Times'' article (and most of the others) are ''not interviews''. They are articles (in the ''Times'' case, an in-depth one) about an organisation where the content is made clearer by including snippets and quotes from people who work for that organisation. This does in no way make them "not independent". If you cannot understand the distinction between these two things, we have an issue here. For example, [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ygn31ypdlo here] is a BBC News article, currently on their front page, about pensions for sex workers in Belgium. It includes interviews with sex workers and human rights activists. The following (all currently on the BBC front page) do the same thing [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c888jnvq4x4o] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c704pv1jz5ro] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgzkp79npgo]. Do they make those articles non-independent? No, of course they don't. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 13:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::*:Yes the BBC article you shared makes it non-independent and such discussion has taken place on many platforms with same opinions but I would still like to get more opinions and maybe many others like PARAKANYAA who do not think that interviews (whether pure or not) and claims coming from the subject the topic is on is not independent. This is not about what I understand but what majority others do who partake in AFDs and AFCs. Maybe this is best left for discussion on [[WP:RSN]] but I would like to hear from {{ping|Aoidh}}. [[User:RangersRus|RangersRus]] ([[User talk:RangersRus|talk]]) 13:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::* If you think that any reliable-source news article that even contains a ''sentence'' of an interview makes it non-independent, you are basically saying that most reliable sources run a high percentage of articles that cannot be used in Wikipedia. And I think we both know that isn't the case. Please do not reject any more articles at AFC on this spurious basis. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 13:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::*:I am not saying that. Every claim coming from the subject the topic is on should be backed by secondary independent source or just be "completely" independent of the subject. [[User:RangersRus|RangersRus]] ([[User talk:RangersRus|talk]]) 13:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::* Not the case - as long as any "claims" aren't stated as fact in Wikivoice and it is made clear they are the subject's words, that's fine (as long as the rest of the article passes GNG, which this does). However I can't really see anything contentious in the article that isn't secondary-sourced anyway. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::*:I'll note that seeking and publishing comment from one's subjects is standard journalistic practice, and an article on this organization that included no words from its members or staff would be pretty strange. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 15:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::*See [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] and [[WP:INTEXT]] for examples of policy and guideline counter to your impression. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 17:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:*:IP still continues to post on my talk page and continuing to harass now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RangersRus&diff=prev&oldid=1260442315]. I do think this is one of the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AbdulRahim2002&redlink=1 editors who did the same behavior before on my talk page]. [[User:RangersRus|RangersRus]] ([[User talk:RangersRus|talk]]) 20:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
 
:To the anon editor: please do not remove previous AfC templates under any circumstances (unless they are worked on by non-reviewers) as these give other reviewers some indication of what basis the previous reviewer(s) had declined/commented on. The appropriate venue to request for other reviewers to look at the drafts is at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk]]. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 17:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
I posted a list of SvG drafts tagged as "Promising Drafts" on [[User_talk:Legacypac#SvG]]. They have the same issues that the others do, and should be deleted. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 20:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC) (now resolved). [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 17:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
:Note that there's a discussion at [[User talk:TheTechie#Your AfC review of Draft:Brian Teeling]] where RangersRus asserts that any quote from a subject in an article makes it fail the independent criterion. This is obviously a minority position and I think the matter needs to be settled, because we cannot have someone declining AfCs because they cite articles that include statements from their subjects. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 17:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
[[File:Simon_%26_Garfunkel_919-3036.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|Sander v. Garfinkel{{right|-[[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]]}}]]
::It is by no means a minority position and has been widely stated by many editors during many discussions and AFD reviews where such sources were clearly declared not independent. This is all coming from experience learning from experienced editors and understanding the guidelines. If you have time, please do begin a discussion on [[WP:RSN]] with Brian Teeling sources as example and whatever the consensus be, we can then guide other editors to it. [[User:RangersRus|RangersRus]] ([[User talk:RangersRus|talk]]) 17:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
*Are we done now? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 07:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
::: There is no need to start a discussion at RSN or anywhere else because your understanding of this notability guideline is incorrect. Though I would be interested in seeing any of these {{tq|many discussions and AFD reviews where such sources were clearly declared not independent}}. I ''suspect'' that many of these discussions may have referred to advertorial-type articles, which masquearade as serious articles but are basically advertising for the subject, and are very common in some countries' media (India and other Asian countries especially). This does ''not'' apply to articles such as the ones you have chosen to mistakenly describe as non-independent on the MSOE article. The Brian Teeling article is a ''completely separate issue'' and I have not opined on that one at all so far because I agreed that it was more borderline than MSOE. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 18:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I am ok to know if I am incorrect but a consensus is better where opinions from multiple experienced editors will help to solve this matter. Even per [[WP:ORGCRIT]], "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." An RSN will help to reach a consensus if not here. [[User:RangersRus|RangersRus]] ([[User talk:RangersRus|talk]]) 18:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: Yes, I know what ORGCRIT says, I've been here for 17 years. The problem is not any of our notability guidelines, it is that you are having problems with the definition of "independent". But, whatever, start a discussion - though it should be based on MSOE, not Teeling, as that article is the focus of the discussion here. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::The fact that NCORP is written this way is extremely stupid, and it is why it is my least favorite notability guideline, but sanctioning RangersRus for it when it is routinely interpreted this way at AfD is bad. Sure you could interpret it the way you do, but most people at AfD interpret that ORGCRIT aspect to be pretty much any quote from the subject = non-independent. AfC reviewers are supposed to accept or decline based on survivability at AfD, and articles with sourcing equivalent to this are routinely deleted. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 20:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::: I agree with you about NCORP (its main problem is that it tries to cover so many different types of organisation), but that isn't the problem here; it is the fact that RangersRus is taking the view that if an article includes quotes from the subject, that ''whole article'' is non-independent of the subject, which is simply wrong. I'd be interested to see an AfD where ''that'' interpretation is taken. No-one is suggesting sanctioning RangersRus here, by the way. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have seen several AfDs play out with that exact argument resulting in a deletion. I can't recall any specific examples, because all the corporation AfDs tend to blend together in my head, but scrolling back through the Companies deletion sorting I think illustrates that this is generally the interpretation most put forward at AfD. I personally think it is extremely stupid. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 21:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: I'm wondering if in those AfDs, the sources being discussed contained advertising, advertorials or press releases for commercial companies, which of course would not count towards notability. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 21:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
* There have been other problems with RangerRus at [[WP:AFC]]. He declined [[Battle_of_Jammu_(1774)]] because he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jammu_(1774)&oldid=1260452818 couldn't verify the sources easily online]. Despite that [[WP:V]] says that verification needs to be possible, but not easy. He also declined [[Shuah_Khan]] because he felt [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shuah_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=1252906502 she wasn't notable enough] despite being the 3rd fellow and 1st woman fellow of the Linux Foundation. When the author of [[Shuah Khan]] reacted with anger, RangerRus get an admin to block them instead of trying to understand why they reacted the way they did. I think RangerRus needs more mentorship before they review AFCs.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 16:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:The issue that TParis is talking (that TParis also got involved in) about has been addressed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1253164905#Uncivilized_language_by_User:AbdulRahim2002 here] that shows why the author of that page was blocked. The author of the page created a new sock account after and was [[User_talk:Floralfuryxx#November_2024|blocked again]]. For TParis concern with [[Battle of Jammu (1774)]], the article was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jammu_(1774)&diff=prev&oldid=1260685101 accepted by me] after the author improved the sources with urls to help with verification of the content on the page. I do prefer to be able to search and read through all sources and verify the content because I have seen some pages with fake references that do not back the content. I was being due diligent and with author's improvement to references, verification turned out well. I thought about it later that I should have just added comment for the author to improve sources but that is the approach I am going to take moving forward if I come across any such drafts. [[User:RangersRus|RangersRus]] ([[User talk:RangersRus|talk]]) 17:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Me getting involved isn't relevant. And you're showing that you still don't get it in both cases.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 20:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:The problem here seems to be that [[User:RangersRus|RangersRus]] seems unwilling or unable to follow advice given by more experienced editors. Why not stop reviewing articles at AfC for a few months while you get a bit more experience with the way Wikipedia works. It is certainly not by rejecting articles without online sources. If we did that we would become redundant to your favourite search engine. If you can't verify the sources then just leave the article to someone else. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::I am willing to follow any advice and do think over any that come my way and that is when I rethink over changing my approach. That is why I said in last comment about draft with verification issues that I will just be adding comment going foward when I review any such similar drafts. [[User:RangersRus|RangersRus]] ([[User talk:RangersRus|talk]]) 19:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::That's progress, but I'm a little concerned with your comment that you would ask the author to improve sources. The best sources are often books that are not available online. Rather than asking for sources to be improved you might like to be honest with the author and say that AfC reviewers' lives would be easier if online sources could be provided. There is no need to "improve" sources. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 19:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::You said it better and advice taken :) [[User:RangersRus|RangersRus]] ([[User talk:RangersRus|talk]]) 19:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
 
== Suspected [[WP:MEATPUPPETRY]] in [[WP:GENSEX]] ==
== User:Sipos111 for WP:NOTHERE and WP:OUTING myself and Niteshift36 ==
{{atop|I agree with {{u|Liz}}'s comment. The evidence presented is entirely circumstantial, and pretty thin at that. Like most admins, I have seen my share of cases where even though I had a high degree of confidence of either socking or meatpuppetry, I still had to pass over the matter for lack of evidence. In this situation, I don't have that level of confidence. Absent evidence that likely can only come from check users, IMO this report is not actionable. I am therefor closing the discussion w/o prejudice to opening a report at [[WP:SPI]]. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 17:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Over the past several months, it appears that some kind of off-wiki coordination is bringing a slew of editors to Wikipedia who all share very similar patterns and sudden interests in a narrow set of topics, indicative of potential [[WP:MEATPUPPET]]ry.
 
Many of them appear to be editing in totally unrelated areas for a while, presumably to gain permissions to editor on some of the articles with higher page protections due to repeat vandalism that is common in the [[WP:GENSEX]] CTOP area, and after that many of them exclusively focus on the contentious area, specifically editing articles on Transgender topics, seemingly suddenly switching their interest. Another point of note is that some seem to be very familiar with inner workings of Wikipedia, despite being very new or having not previously shown any interest in it, citing policies to fit their arguments, so it could actually even be straight up SPI. They commonly will upvote each other's points in talk page discussions or make similar edits in articles to try to create false consensus.
{{user|Sipos111}} recently joined to push content related to the recent shooting in Florida. While I understand the wish to add recent content that doesn't excuse outing Wiki editors, myself and {{ping|Niteshift36}} on an external website. [[https://lightbreather.com/wikipedia-pro-gun-eds-niteshift36-and-springee-c2accb697911]]
Here is where Sipos111 tells another editor that he is involved in the external posting. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:7%266%3Dthirteen&diff=826027764&oldid=826025253]] [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 22:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
: That article is from April 2017 (10 months ago), doesn't appear to engage in [[WP:OUTING]], and doesn't appear to be by Sipos111. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 22:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 
Some of the accounts that have shown this similar behavior:
:No [[WP:OUTING|outing]] here, and the majority of {{noping|Sipos111}}'s contributions have been constructive. - [[User:There'sNoTime|TNT]]<sup>[[User talk:There'sNoTime|❤]]</sup> 22:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
* [[User:Sean Waltz O'Connell]] - registered 6 months ago, very consistent editing in other areas until hitting > 500 edits (ECP), then suddenly switched to GENSEX Transgender topics and has focused almost exclusively there since then, creating contentious edits and many hours of [[WP:TENDENTIOUS|tendentious]] arguing
::I missed the date. The new editor posted The link today and based on the accompanying statements I assumed it was recent. I would still be suspicious that a new editor would post such an article their first day here. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 22:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
* [[User:JonJ937]] - registered 5 months ago, edited exclusively on video games until suddenly switching into GENSEX and promoting anti-trans organizations, removing criticism thereof and upvoting contentious issues
:::Perhaps - best if we just let them get on with contributing and see where that leads, at least for now? {{p}} - [[User:There'sNoTime|TNT]]<sup>[[User talk:There'sNoTime|❤]]</sup> 22:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
* [[User:BlueBellTree]] - registered 8 months ago, same pattern, making mostly minor changes such as adding a wikilink or cats and then suddenly switched into GENSEX and upvoting contentious issues
::::I have no opinion on the outing, I didn't read the full article in the external link. However, based on Sipos111's behavior, I have to agree they are WP:NOT HERE to build an encyclopaedia. Rather, their only goal here seems to be pushing an anti-gun agenda. I've tried to advise them that WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX, but there may also be a WP:CIR competency issue. They don't appear interested (by their own comments) in learning WP P&G or contributing effectively. If all they want to do push an agenda and disrupt articles of sporting good manufacturers in pursuit of that agenda, then that makes them an SPA and we really consider the value of keeping their account active against the stability of the project. (my 0.02¢) - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 23:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
* [[User:Parker.Josh]] - registered 5 months ago, similar pattern, mostly adding links and refs in bulk to other topics and then suddenly switching into GENSEX arguing with very similar wordings to some of the others
*It's not outing. However, it is a personal attack. I also wonder how the user found the article.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 23:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
:*I suppose you were not able to answer your own question, Bbb. FYI, one of the things that the Lightbreather case taught me is that there is a TON of off-wiki collusion (NO COLLUSION NO COLLUSION HERE FOLKS NOTHING TO SEE), so I'm not surprised to see LB's musings pop up here. Also, well, a whole bunch of people got killed, and some are upset, including me. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 00:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
::Agreed (mostly). [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 00:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
:::I must be missing the personal attack then - could someone point me to it? - [[User:There'sNoTime|TNT]]<sup>[[User talk:There'sNoTime|❤]]</sup> 00:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
::::I call it more "uncivil" in my opinion. Their messages [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Outdoor_Brands_Corporation&diff=prev&oldid=826035914 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sipos111&diff=prev&oldid=826032623 here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:7%266%3Dthirteen&diff=prev&oldid=826027764 here] make unfounded accusations of one's "agenda" and are indeed absolutely unnecessary and un-collaborative in nature. [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 00:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::Agree with ''that'' - [[User:There'sNoTime|TNT]]<sup>[[User talk:There'sNoTime|❤]]</sup> 00:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
*Sipos, make up your mind. If you want to get blocked and brag about it, just continue to do what you're doing. If you want to edit Wikipedia, get serious. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 00:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
::[[User:Drmies|Drmies]] - Regardless, I'm pretty much prepared to impose an indefinite topic ban on [[User:Sipos111|Sipos111]] from anything related to ''firearm ownership'' on this project. This user's edits on this topic clearly show personal bias and POV-pushing, and it would benefit this topic area if this user were prohibited from participating there. This user has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sipos111&diff=826074402&oldid=826072841 alerted], and as far as I'm concerned - he's fair game to have editing restrictions imposed. [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 12:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
*I believe that an indefinite block is warranted. It's clear that he was recruited by Lightbreather, to come to Wiki for the soul purpose of causing disruption and adding a political agenda. Please see https://twitter.com/Lightbreather?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor for more information.--[[User:RAF910|RAF910]] ([[User talk:RAF910|talk]]) 19:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
**I see Lighbreather retweeted Feinstein--good, Feinstein deserves a medal. I don't take the "recruiting" part very seriously, not until we have proof of collusion (I know how that sounds, haha). It's entirely possible that Sipos came here because of that, but that doesn't invalidate Sipos as an editor; we all came here one way or another. This is not leading to a block right now, but let's see how they continue. If they're fine, fine. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 20:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
:::These responses left by the user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Outdoor_Brands_Corporation&diff=prev&oldid=826160025 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Outdoor_Brands_Corporation&diff=prev&oldid=826179580 here] might be a sign that this user is reading the concerns expressed (either here or expressed to them directly) and might be taking it to heart and wising up. While this is nice to see, I would very much like to see {{noping|Sipos111}} respond here as well... [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 21:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 
This area is [[WP:NQP|already contentious enough]] as it is, so this sudden popping up of new accounts who all rehash each others points, sometimes with strangely similar wordings seems to pass the [[duck test]] as it seems like more than just coincidence. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 19:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi all - this has been an education. I honestly learned a lot about how this whole wikipedia thing works, which is fascinating. And ugly. I now understand a bit about why things areset up the way they are, and I can't say I could design better conventions, internal politics and power trips and ways to game the system included.
 
:{{yo|Raladic}} Can you provide diffs that support the above? The [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Sean+Waltz+O%27Connell&users=JonJ937&users=BlueBellTree&users=Parker.Josh&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki editor interactions] don't really show broad overlap over the whole area (the only page they've all posted on is [[Talk:World Professional Association for Transgender Health]]), and it's a bit hard to assess SOCK/MEAT without more specific evidence. It's not unheard of, after all, that there might be independent individuals with interests both in video games and gender-related topics. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 19:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
I'll freely admit I came here pissed off. I have two young kids, and when they start school they'll soon be going through active shooter drills. I can only hope that's the most my family ever feels as a result of this epidemic of mass shootings. And imagining what kids all over this country go through is a nightmare. This is going to happen again soon. Maybe today. Maybe next week. Nothing is happening to stop it. Gun manufacturers have an incredible amount of power in this situation. They could help. Instead, they give huge sums to the NRA, which is very effective at preventing any sensible gun legislation from getting through. And why would they help when gun sales jump after every mass shooting? I'd argue that if you're not pissed then something is wrong with you. It isn't right, and I don't think it has to be this way.
::That overlap is pretty much their only foray into this space. It appears bizarre that having had no interest in this topic area, that all of them suddenly pivoted to it and all emphatically reusing each others words is one of the most glaring one, some of the wording between [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Professional_Association_for_Transgender_Health&diff=prev&oldid=1254943514 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Professional_Association_for_Transgender_Health&diff=prev&oldid=1255533005 this], such as emphatic repeating on how well-regarded/well-respected sources and ignoring what other editors have explained on the use of primary sources.
::I don't think that it's coincidence that these users have not participated in any talk page prior, no less outside of [[WP:GENSEX]] to this and them suddenly stumbling across this topic and emphatically repeating each others words - [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Sean%20Waltz%20O%27Connell/1 SW OC], [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Parker.Josh/1 PJ], [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/JonJ937/1 Jon]. [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/BlueBellTree/1 BBT] is the only one who's shown some amount of talk participation outside of this.
::It seems to fit very much the definition of potential meat-based [[WP:DUCK]]ing.
::Also I'd like to point out that it appears to be another example of @[[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] following me around Wikipedia at every opportunity as I have previously called out in the AE report and several other discussions since that he appeared in out of thin air. Please stop [[WP:HOUNDING]] me. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 21:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::This is the fourth time you've falsely accused me of hounding.
:::If you're going to raise spurious reports about pages I'm active on, I will notice.
:::From my POV, like the AE you raised against me, this feels like trying to "win" content disputes via ANI. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 22:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::You may want to read the policy definition of [[WP:hounding]], particularly {{tq|...joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work.}} and {{tq|Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight.}}
::::This user conduct report here at ANI of potential SPI/MPI user activity did not mention you, nor was it about content, it was based on observation of editing behavior of potentially suspicious activity. I have been fighting vandalism across Wikipedia (as RC patrol and other means) for quite a while and have made several SPI reports of confirmed socks before, so I think I have a reasonable grasp of when I am spotting behaviour that appears a bit out of the ordinary. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 22:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Raladic, by that metric, you have been hounding me for months.
:::::And I raise the content issue, because it is suspicious to me that after 3 months of you bludgeoning discussions about specific content, you bring every editor that opposes you to ANI (except me, who you already brought to AE). [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 23:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Again, let me re-iterate, I spotted potentially suspicious activity that is indicative of potential socking. My track record at [[WP:SPI]] is 100% of cases I reported came out as confirmed.
::::::This case here is a bit more complex as it smells more [[WP:MEAT|meaty]], but nonetheless, there's enough signs here that something is [[WP:DUCK|ducky]] based on the similarities of the reported accounts editing behavior. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 23:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::That similarity of editing behaviour seems to be largely just getting drawn into a disagreement with you. You accuse other editors of tendentious editing for not simply capitulating. Discussion with you about one specific well sourced change has dragged on for 3 months, with some inexplicable objections at times, and the diffs you offer up here of textual "similarity" amount to saying the BMJ is a good source. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 00:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Stop exaggerating, there have been 2 separate ~2 week discussions 3 months apart. The sourcing changes between those 2 discussions because sources were published between them. [[User:LunaHasArrived|LunaHasArrived]] ([[User talk:LunaHasArrived|talk]]) 00:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::That there have been intermittent quiet periods in this ongoing debate does not change that what happened is an editor made a sourced edit, Raladic reverted it, the editor came to the talk page to discuss it, more than 3 months have passed in which two further, better sources have appeared, and the debate still goes on, and now Raladic is attempting to call the fact that the editor has spent a lot of time on this talk page instead of just giving up "suspicious".
:::::::::I think this is specious, especially given some of Raladic's recent [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Professional_Association_for_Transgender_Health&diff=next&oldid=1258968252 edits] as part of this disagreement, which are bordering on provocative in their editorialising of the sources.
:::::::::This whole report smacks of intimidation over a content dispute. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 09:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::The first discussion based just off of the economist went to npov and found that the economist alone did not provide due weight for mention on the wpath page. Your description of the events does not match the reality that this discussion with these sources (and a description of well sourced) has lasted a month not 3. An intermittent quiet period would be a week or 2, not 2 months.
::::::::::That edit shown is a massive improvement, it takes what's secondary from the economist and the BMJ investigative journalism peices considers what both peices mention (Wpath retaining publishing rights, sending an email to that effect and Robinson saying that she had hoped to publish more) and removes primary claims about the evidence base from the journalists that have not been reported on elsewhere. What you see as editorilising is what's needed to be done on these sort of articles, the entry for the economist at rsp directly says that editors should discern factual content from analytical content and that analytical content is RSopinion. That Raledic has been willing to improve a peice of content that she believes shouldn't be in the article at all shows a good willingness to compromise. [[User:LunaHasArrived|LunaHasArrived]] ([[User talk:LunaHasArrived|talk]]) 12:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::How can editors show interest in a CTOP before achieving ECR? I don't find it unusual that people who want to edit in this area wait to gain the user rights that allow them to do so. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 15:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I was slightly confused by this myself. The accusation here appears to be that editors did exactly what is requested of them before editing in the topic area. If the have gamed ECR or are acting in a disruptive manner that should be dealt with, but waiting 30 days and 500 edits before editing certain contentious topics area is exactly what ECR asks for. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 16:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::No, only few articles that are subject to regular vandalism or the likes are actually ECR protected. The majority of articles is not, so there is absolutely no need to wait for ECR to edit or participate in discussions if such a topic is interesting to an editor. That being said, SPI's or the likes are more aware that they can yield more results sometimes, which is why we have the [[WP:PGAME]] guideline.
:::::Refer to [[Template:Contentious_topics/alert/first]] and [[Template:Contentious_topics/talk_notice]].
:::::CTOP != ECR. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 16:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:Raladic’s claims of meatpuppetry and off-wiki coordination are completely unfounded. I don’t have any connection to the other users mentioned, nor am I engaging in any coordinated effort. It’s not unusual for editors to raise certain similar points on the WPATH talk page since we’re all working with the same sources and applying Wikipedia’s policies. This is how consensus-building works—shared sourcing can naturally lead to some overlapping arguments. Although, after considering this strange allegation, if this reporting user would take a look at the threads I and the other cited users have engaged in - there really isn't much direct overlap. Which begs the question "What basis is there, here?"
 
:Relevantly speaking, I also have had a prior issue with the user who filed this report. I’ve already brought this up with the admin Firefangledfeathers, asking for advice on how to handle the situation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFirefangledfeathers&diff=1259480070&oldid=1258564761] . The same user has been actively stone-walling the discussions, edit warring, and reverting consensus wording agreed upon by multiple editors. Examples of their reverts can be found here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Professional_Association_for_Transgender_Health&diff=1258970914&oldid=1258968252] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Professional_Association_for_Transgender_Health&diff=1259137264&oldid=1259097640]
Personally, I think the standard set by the firearms group sets the bar for mention on the corporation's page way too high. If a corporation's product is used (to kill 17 human beings) in an event that is a national news story, then that seems worth mentioning on the corporation's page. If the event warrants its own wikipedia page, then connecting the corporation to the event seems appropriate. Mass shootings and other prominent usage (illegal or otherwise) of a coporation's products clearly have an impact on that corporation (e.g., negative publicity around illegal usage played a role in S&W rebranding itself), and understanding this can help wikipedia readers to understand the corporation and it's place in history. And mass shootings are an important fact of our modern history. As I've said, I don't have the time or the mental energy to be active on wikipedia. I'll leave it to you all to debate this, if anyone here cares to.
 
:Regarding my contributions, I’ve always aimed to follow Wikipedia’s rules and focus on consensus. If you look at the talk page discussions, you’ll see that I and the other editors mentioned haven’t been aligning on every point or acting in any way that could be considered coordinated. The supposed “pattern” really doesn't have a nexus, these things arise naturally when people independently engage with the same issues and consider similar pools of sources.
As most or all have figured out, I didn't write that lightbringer article, nor did anyone send me. I just googled the user who undid my changes, and I saw laid out in that article what appeared to be a clear pattern of biased edits in favor of gun manufacturers. I think there may very well be good faith intentions behind that activity (who knows? or maybe half of you are paid shills for corporations. Or maybe we're all just Russian trolls.) But I saw in this thread the suggestion that someone with a strong bias shouldn't be allowed to edit within a topic. Well, if the community actually cares about that, then I think the lightbringer article warrants more attention. Personally, I think you'll have a hard time finding anyone who doesn't have strong feelings about many of the articles they choose to edit, especially if the articles have any overlap with a political topic.
 
:Raladic’s argument about editors being familiar with Wikipedia policies is bizarre, to say the least. Learning the policies is a basic expectation of anyone taking Wikipedia seriously. Suggesting that knowing the rules is suspicious would imply that understanding the guidelines is somehow wrong, which doesn’t make sense.
Thanks to all who offered me advice. And thank you all for your work on this project that is wikipedia.
:It’s also worth pointing out that Raladic often aligns with a group of editors on these pages, which could just as easily be called “coordination” by their own logic. But I wouldn't suggest coordination—it’s just how contentious discussions evolve.
 
:Frankly, this feels more like retaliation than a genuine report. Raladic’s accusations seem to follow controversy on the page regarding their undermining of consensus wording, and some of those who have been addressing this issue on the talk page are now being conveniently accused of meat-puppetry. It looks like they’re grasping at straws to shift attention away from their own actions.
Take care! [[User:Sipos111|Sipos111]] ([[User talk:Sipos111|talk]]) 16:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
*Based on Bbb's comments, the diffs above, and Sipos111's own comments, it's very clear that Sipos has a strong agenda. Clearly not NPOV and should be no where near these articles. Regardless of whether they are truly leaving, or disbanding this account for a sock, a ban should be established.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 01:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::[[User:TParis|TParis]] - Well, since this topic is currently under [[WP:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]], applying an article or topic ban only requires the action of an uninvolved administrator... [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 18:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
:::Although I am not involved in this matter or the participants - many people would describe me as having a point of view that is incompatible with acting as an uninvolved administrator. While I disagree and believe that I have the objectivity to act fairly, there are plenty of available admins that it isn't justified for me to cause the drama that it would if I were to act.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 20:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
:Since no one seems to have mentioned just a reminder that if the external link really did contain outing, you should not have been publicly linking to it here without asking Niteshift36 first. (It's generally suggested you don't link pages which out you either since that effectively means discussing any info contained there here on wikipedia is no longer outing, but that's ultimately your choice.) Also as said the blog appears to belong to another editor, currently banned as result of an arbcom case. Note that you also need to take care not to out other editors, regardless of whether they may have outed you or others, by linking to their work elsewhere. It often doesn't matter even if they disclose who they are here on the other site or it's fairly obvious due to the same name, what matters is what they disclose here. However in this case it seems the blog is linked on meta [[:Meta:User:Lightbreather]] (not sure about here), so that's probably not really a concern. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 13:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
*I'll say little here except that I wouldn't exactly call this outing, although LB has a history of that with others. I've been aware of it since last year. While it may target me, it falls short of outing. As for the collusion, who recruited whom or how editors feel about the topic.... I'll leave that up to the rest of you. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 14:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 
:I’ve always made a genuine effort to collaborate with other editors, including Raladic (as can be seen in the admin - FFF's talk page), and to keep things productive and policy-compliant. However, the constant disruption on this article shows that outside intervention might be needed to resolve things. Let’s focus on improving the article rather than throwing around baseless accusations. [[User:Sean Waltz O&#39;Connell|Sean Waltz O&#39;Connell]] ([[User talk:Sean Waltz O&#39;Connell|talk]]) 20:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
== Pigsonthewing and COI tags ==
::Your account is the most suspicious one out of those listed above, as waiting until reaching ECP requirements before switching to a contentious topic area almost exclusively is a long-standing tactic. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 20:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Raladic|Raladic]] Friendly FYI; you are required to notify any involved parties of ANI discussions. Mentioning them as a ping in the discussion is not adequate. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 20:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::Apologies about that, my doorbell rang literally as I hit send and I got called away and only just got back to my computer now. Thanks for notifying the involved parties on my behalf. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 21:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:I presume an SPI should be carried out, for sock puppets. Not quite certain how to determine meat puppets. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:Speaking from experience, that is simply how GENSEX goes, ie, what seems like a simple contribution, becomes a tarpit.
:Eg. Raladic has spent [[Talk:World Professional Association for Transgender Health#c-Void if removed-20241121150600-Sean Waltz O'Connell-20241121132700|3 months]] arguing against including well sourced material here. The complaint here seems to be that other editors get sucked into spending a lot of time making the best possible case for inclusion rather than just giving up. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 20:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::The complaint is that a large number of anti-trans SPAs have been badgering that page for months, arguing against a number of long-term editors who have been repeatedly having to explain to them basic, policy-based material, such as that investigative reports are primary sources. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 20:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I suggest you strike that personal attack and [[WP:AGF]].
:::And you are wrong about that report. Stop misrepresenting a report which is a secondary source for the cited information, as primary. It is not. This has been explained at length. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 21:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::[[Talk:World Professional Association for Transgender Health#Reversion of objective edit|This dispute began in August]] with Raladic reverting content on [[WPATH]] from a [[WP:RS]].
::The crux is: it emerged in discovery in a legal case in the US that after commissioning systematic reviews from Johns Hopkins university to inform the 8th edition of its standards of care, WPATH emailed Johns Hopkins researchers to say they required final approval before they could be published, prompting objections from Johns Hopkins via email, after which point no commissioned reviews seem to have been published. Some - including the father of evidence-based medicine [[Gordon Guyatt]] - have questioned why these reviews have still never been published and the transparency of this process. This story has over the last few months been covered in The Economist, later in the British Medical Journal in a peer-reviewed report, and most recently in a peer-reviewed article with 20 co-authors.
::In the more than three months since it broke, inclusion of well-sourced information has been prevented on (IMO) spurious grounds, and now here Raladic complains about the editors that have engaged in good faith, while Raladic eg. argues material should be excluded by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Professional_Association_for_Transgender_Health&diff=prev&oldid=1259159027 citing Andrea James' personal website to cast aspersions on a BMJ journalist.] [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 21:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::How is it an aspersion to note that said journalist is a part of known anti-trans hate group organizations and thus is not a reliable source on the topic? [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 21:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::What on earth are you talking about? [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 22:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Is the link you gave not about the BMJ journalist being connected to anti-trans hate groups [[SEGM]] and [[Genspect]]? [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 22:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Generally complaints about "casting aspersions" are either about something said about another editor or are a reference to a BLP violation. The fact that the diff is up at AN/I and hasn't been rev-delled suggests it may not be a bright-line BLP violation. So it's nothing. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
*This report seems heavy on speculation and suspicions and very weak in terms of evidence proving a connection. In my opinion, it should be closed and the OP directed to [[WP:SPI]] but I think those editors who have had aspersions cast against them should have an opportunity to respond. It's not a good look for an editor to assume all editors with a different POV are conspiring. There could be some off-wiki site that is publicizing some articles on the project but proving some kind of coordination is almost impossible and is usually brought to arbitration if you have enough evidence to sustain a case. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Yes, I knew it was on the edge, but the fact that all of the in a similar timeframe appeared out of nowhere and centered in on the single same topic definitely is on the suspicious side, which is why I at least wanted to bring it here. Suspicious enough that it is not unfounded.
*:This has nothing to do with their POV inherently, just that their editing behavior fits a pattern and that's what I observed, just as I have in previous SPI investigations. In this topic space we (luckily) don't get too many new faces, so when all of a sudden, a bunch pop up at once, it definitely raises an eyebrow. But appears some editors are not as convinced yet, so I'll let it rest unless more concrete evidence manifests. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 16:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I was notified about this discussion and wanted to address my involvement. While researching a different topic, I came across a BMJ article related to WPATH. I noticed that the controversy mentioned in the article was absent from the Wikipedia entry, so I thought it might be useful to include. I checked the talk page to see if there were any relevant discussions and shared the source there. Beyond that, I only made two additional comments on the talk page and did not edit the article itself. I don’t see how this could be considered a violation of any rules. [[User:Parker.Josh|Parker.Josh]] ([[User talk:Parker.Josh|talk]])
{{abot}}
 
== Massive disruption across election articles, likely [[WP:CIR]] issue ==
I hate to do this, but {{userlinks|Pigsonthewing}} (Andy) has got another bee in his bonnet. He has decided that COI tags on articles are a BLP problem, and is removing them based on a legalistic interpretation of the tag documentation. Specifically, he removes the tag if there is no ''active talk page section'' discussing the COI - even if there is a rather obvious identification of the COI on Talk, or if the discussion was initiated but has archived out.
{{atop|[[Towson Tigers football|Goh Tigers.]] [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 14:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)}}
 
{{u|Dr. Islington}} has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dr._Islington massively editing election articles across Wikipedia] by replacing "pp" to "%" in the swing field of election infoboxes, which is mathematically incorrect. They have been noted (and ultimately warned) about it in both the edit summaries and their talk page. Their response to all of it has been to systematically re-revert without giving any reason nor justification. When inquired about it, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr._Islington&diff=prev&oldid=1260463302 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr._Islington&diff=prev&oldid=1260463964 this] were their responses. Evidencing a clear [[WP:CIR|lack of competence to edit Wikipedia]], they are basically unable to engage collaboratively and are engaged in a massively disruptive behaviour, which needs to be stopped. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 22:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Example:
:Blocked. There is a lot of edits that need rolling back, I don't have the time right now. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 00:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{la|Harvey Newquist II}}
::Thank you very much. If anyone is able to do them, please do; all affected articles are shown in the user's contribution history. I can do it myself later tomorrow if it's not done already (I'm having some issues at doing so effectively these days as I only have mobile access now). [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 00:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
* [Article] 00:01, February 16, 2018‎ Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (5,216 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (nothing on talk;) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harvey_Newquist_II&type=revision&diff=825883165&oldid=825881318]
:::I think I've taken care of all that; feel free to revert any edits that I've missed! ~ [[User:Tails Wx|<span style="background:#FFDF00;color:#0000FF">'''Tails'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tails Wx|<span style="color: orange">'''Wx'''</span>]] 01:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
* [Talk] 03:53, February 16, 2018‎ Bri (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (378 bytes) (+170)‎ . . (paid-editor relationship disclosed here) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHarvey_Newquist_II&type=revision&diff=825915688&oldid=825187516]
::::[[User:Impru20]], [[User:Tails Wx]], [[User:Canterbury Tail]], I have an idea for you, in case you're bored watching Texas - Texas A&M: go see if you think that Islington is the same as [[User:McCainMc]] (CT, you can drop the block if you like). In the meantime, I CU-blocked [[User:Dr. Campbelln]]. Roll Tide, [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 01:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
* [Talk] 03:54, February 16, 2018‎ Bri (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (428 bytes) (+50)‎ . . (Hnewquist connected? possibly.) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harvey_Newquist_II&diff=next&oldid=825915688]
::::::I have no idea what that is. Is that some strange American thing, watching Texas? Does it move or do tricks? [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 04:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
* 11:54, February 16, 2018‎ Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (4,776 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (still nothing on talk page) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harvey_Newquist_II&type=revision&diff=825962274&oldid=825921170]
:::::::<small>Think of it as like [[The Boat Race]], but with a ball instead of water, and in Texas rather then London. There are some other minor technical differences not worth mentioning hrere. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 12:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
* 16:06, February 16, 2018‎ Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (4,396 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (→‎top: Still nothing on talk) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harvey_Newquist_II&type=revision&diff=825992565&oldid=825992479]
:::::Both accounts with an interest in elections and politics in general (especially ones in Connecticut)...I can't say for sure if they're connected, so I'll leave it up to Canterbury Tail or Impru20 to possibly make the final call.
:::::While looking at that, I noticed [[Jaydon Blue]]'s unbelievable TD catch for the Longhorns, @[[User:Drmies|Drmies]] &ndash; SEC I don't pay attention to, though! At the same time, IU's blowout of Purdue is also going on, so go us! ~ [[User:Tails Wx|<span style="background:#FFDF00;color:#0000FF">'''Tails'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tails Wx|<span style="color: orange">'''Wx'''</span>]] 02:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::[[User:Tails Wx]], you KNOW that the Ryan Williams catch last week outdid every single one since Prothro! Should've counted! As for Texas, I dislike A&M more but obviously I need them to win, those jerks that won't even sit down to watch a football game. Indiana is having a magical season, aren't they: congrats. Yes, thanks--well, any block would have to be behavioral: there is no technical evidence or they'd have been blocked already, haha. I dropped a note on [[User:Muboshgu]]'s page too, because I think I've seen this user before. Thanks, [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 02:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Oh, that's right! It's been a while since I've handled sockpuppets -- thanks for the friendly reminder. And I did root for Oklahoma against Alabama in that game. Sorry! ~ [[User:Tails Wx|<span style="background:#FFDF00;color:#0000FF">'''Tails'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tails Wx|<span style="color: orange">'''Wx'''</span>]] 02:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I was too busy watching Washington vs. Oregon. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}Why are no administrators commenting on the stunning fact that the [[Detroit Lions]] are 11-1 for the first time in their 95 year history? Well, I guess that I just did. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 03:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
 
== Persistent unsourced additions and changes by IP 71.178.147.105 ==
So, this is an article that had a COI tag due to an admitted paid connection and a username that is very obviously a family member, but there was no identification of this on Talk. The first removal was, IMO, fair. However, the second and third removals occurred after templates had been added tot he Talk page identifying not only a paid editor but also an obvious family member and that is into [[WP:POINT]] territory.
 
This is not the first time. Examples:
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Interval&diff=prev&oldid=824987981] was valid, and a tag was added to talk shortly afterwards
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernard_C._Parks&diff=prev&oldid=824987920] had a Talk template identifying an obviously conflicted editor for over two years before Andy removed the COI tag.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Vai&diff=prev&oldid=824287948] had a paid editor tag on Talk since January ''and'' a discussion on Talk but it was auto-archived out on Jan 9 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Vai&diff=next&oldid=819341108].
 
So we have an absolutely standard Andy situation, where he is 100% sincere, completely committed, has the very best of intentions, is sometimes undoubtedly right, but, equally, sometimes unequivocally wrong, and prepared to edit-war over it. We have been here before, many times, over many years.
 
The IP [[Special:Contributions/71.178.147.105|71.178.147.105]] has been making repeated additions of unsourced content or changes to infoboxes of entertainment-related content. This has gone past warnings, and I have decided to bring them to ANI. This is not their first rodeo if you check the first warning message given out in October. [[User:Kline|Kline]] • [[User talk:Kline|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kline|contribs]] 03:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Backstory (Warning: may contain TL;DR)}}
:[[User:Kline]] can you offer some diffs here of the conduct you are complaining about? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
This is not a case of giving a dog a bad name. Words like "fixated" have been a stable part of discourse about Andy since forever (e.g. {{section link|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community_sanction/Archive6|Pete Townshend - "soft-ban" on fixated editors 2}}), and a search for his username on the archives will readily show that the examples are not cherry-picked. After a year-long ban ([[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing]]) for most of 2006, Andy was back to edit-warring over meta content within a few months ({{section link|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive256|Geni warring again}}), he was blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and revert warring in 2007, sanctioned at {{section link|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive6|User:Pigsonthewing}} and eventually subject to another 12-month ban under [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2]]. That ban was from August 19 2007 to the same date 2008, and less than a month later he was blocked again. He is capable of sustaining a dispute for years (e.g. {{section link|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive688|Jim Hawkins}}/{{section link|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233|Off-wiki solicitation of vandalism}}/{{section link|Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive234|Proposed topic ban of Pigsonthewing}}). In 2013 ArbCom indefintiely banned him from adding infoboxes, due to edit-warring ({{section link|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes|Pigsonthewing and infoboxes}}). Edit-warring is a stable feature of Andy's contributions to Wikipedia. Once he has decided that he is right, it seems to be nigh on impossible to persuade him otherwise (e.g. {{lt|Article section}}, edit-warring a CSD tag, {{section link|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941|Beetstra and Twitter/ Facebook}}). The objective significance of the issue doesn't seem to matter (e.g. {{section link|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive182|Urgent editprotected request}}).
::@[[User:Liz|Liz]] Here are some diffs I found, there's probably more if you need some more: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Shrinks&diff=1257908014&oldid=1254742693] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Go_Away%2C_Unicorn%21&diff=1260499366&oldid=1259956862] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alien_Nation_%28TV_series%29&diff=1260089209&oldid=1250461295] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Willy_Wonka_%26_the_Chocolate_Factory&diff=prev&oldid=1260301489] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wayside_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1260500148] [[User:Kline|Kline]] • [[User talk:Kline|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kline|contribs]] 16:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
 
== User:Skets33 continual disruptive editing ==
The current problem is IMO relatively easily solved: a topic ban on removing COI templates, either entirely or where there is a {{tl|connected contributor}} or similar template on Talk, with full permission to alert on [[WP:COIN]] or [[WP:BLPN]] if he does identify an issue. I also think that Andy should be under a 1RR restriction, given his very extensive history of edit warring. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 14:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Skets33}}
 
This user has been disruptively editing couple of articles including [[Tikar people]], and have been warned multiple times just in the last months but continued with the same behaviour without engaging with the warning on his talk.[[User:FuzzyMagma|FuzzyMagma]] ([[User talk:FuzzyMagma|talk]]) 11:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Od}}
As you know, the requirement for {{Tl|COI}} is (formatting in original, the tempalte's /Doc page):
 
:Could you provide diffs to support your accusations, so others can more easily follow your argumentation? [[User:Synonimany|Synonimany]] ([[User talk:Synonimany|talk]]) 15:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
{{talk quote|1=Like the other neutrality-related tags, <mark>if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article</mark>. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning.}}
::@[[User:Synonimany|Synonimany]] [[Special:Diff/1260575829|1]], [[Special:Diff/1260545362|2]], [[Special:Diff/1259848983|3]], [[Special:Diff/1259483815|4]], [[Special:Diff/1259482455|5]], [[Special:Diff/1259481961|6]], and [[Special:Diff/1259480306|7]] edits. With the same edit over and over again being reverted by three different editors with multiple warning on [[User talk:Skets33|their talk]] [[User:FuzzyMagma|FuzzyMagma]] ([[User talk:FuzzyMagma|talk]]) 18:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::here more reverted edit on the same page [[Special:Diff/1255514229|8]], [[Special:Diff/1254726162|9]], [[Special:Diff/1253528600|10]], [[Special:Diff/1238279745|11]], [[Special:Diff/1238232387|12]], [[Special:Diff/1238070941|13]], [[Special:Diff/1238071804|14]], and [[Special:Diff/1237693228|15]]. [[User:FuzzyMagma|FuzzyMagma]] ([[User talk:FuzzyMagma|talk]]) 18:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
 
== anti-anti-semitism ==
To emphasise, that's '''''what is non-neutral about the article'''''.
 
As you also know, a [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive975#Pigsonthewing and COI guidelines and templates|recent ANI case on the removal of the tag]] was closed with this finding:
 
This recently cropped up over at [[Talk:Zionism]] [[https://aish.com/weaponizing-wikipedia-against-israel/]] A call to action, and off wiki canvassing, what can be done? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Quote|Removing tags is fine, re-adding them is also fine but, per template's instructions and long-standing practice, only if... there is genuine evidence to underpin the tag, in the form of a specific post on Talk describing the issue at hand}}
 
:This is only one article amongst many, and not just in this topic area. This one's "what to do about it" conclusion doesn't even call for people to edit Wikipedia. Does Rabbi Shraga Simmons have a Wikipedia account? If not then this is just third party commentary on Wikipedia. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 13:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I find it odd that you fail to mention this, given that ''you'' closed that ANI case. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 14:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
::We are urging all of our members in Israel to join the session to learn how to edit Wikipedia. We are going to work to plan a session for our American base as well.' 'Only last night I attended Wikipedia 101 Zoom meeting where the editing structure was explained, and how to also ascend the ranks of Wikipedia editors to trusted user.' Seems to be it very much is about recruiting and training new editors. And I agree, this is not just an issue with one page, but with the whole topic area. So to at least try and prevent disruption (which is what ANI is supposed to be, preventative) PP might be a good idea for the I-P topic area. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::There's already so much disruption in the area, I'm not convinced these plans are likely to lead to that much noticeable worsening of the problems. I mean most articles which almost exclusively come under the I-P topic area should already be ECP per [[WP:ARBECR]] of [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict|Arab-Israeli conflict]]. (This includes Zionism BTW.) Or do you mean full protection of I-P articles? Seems a little extreme to me. Talk pages will often be unprotected or might be only semi because such editors can still make non-disruptive edit requests. These can be protected if need be but we should do this as needed rather than pre-emptively. IMO only thing is to remind editors to be vigilant in removing or at least stopping anything that isn't a non disruptive edit-requests on talk pages by non EC editors; and in giving alerts if new editors crop up in the area (EC or not) so they can be dealt with more easily if need be. Likewise if problems crop up in articles which are adjacent enough to not be ECP but where editors are doing stuff which is covered by ARBECR for the Arab-Israeli conflict. And report anyone gaming EC. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 14:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Do you think this is the only group, even with PIA, that has setup meetings to help teach how to edit Wikipedia or that such groups may have commonly held views? The WMF funds such things to recruit new editors. If they game ECR, edit disruptively, or don't follow the other WP:ARBECR restrictions then that should be dealt with as normal. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 16:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:I must be missing the call to action/owc. The "what to do about it" section is all just advice on basic information hygiene and doesn't discuss editing Wikipedia. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 15:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::The calls to action people are referring to seem to be stuff in the comments. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 18:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
== Ethiopian Epic Continued Problems ==
*{{userlinks|Ethiopian Epic}}
Ethiopian Epic continues to revert edits, removing cited material, and engages in gaslighting and sealioning. EE always insists that I explain why my edits should be restored, and his edit summaries sound even more like IDONTLIKEIT than before.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1260355439] I offered sources and explained my reasoning for exclusion of an uncited claim and EE just claimed that it didn't matter if the source didn't mention it, and then claimed(falsly) the sources mentioned it. I am not sure EE has read any source.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1259624475] Epic stopped reverting the previous edit after @[[User:City of Silver|City of Silver]] reverted EE. Epic also continues to revert on [[List of foreign-born samurai in Japan]] even though I explained the problem with the reverts multiple times.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_foreign-born_samurai_in_Japan&diff=prev&oldid=1260355783] Epic has now started reverting on the Yasuke page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1260286269]. I feel like I have to put in a lot of effort just to get Epic to discuss on the Talk Page, that Epic keeps repeating what I say, back to me. I don't know if it is a lack of competence, harassment, or just prefers the previous versions of the articles that I have edited. I think a topic ban and a one-sided interaction ban is due. [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 18:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
 
:I noticed yesterday they'd now started editing Yasuke and planned to give a CTOP alert but then forgot although in any case they only made two talk page comments since I noticed. I've given one now. Besides Yasuke article, the List of foreign-born samurai in Japan edits also seem to be clear covered by the Yasuke CTOP. So if nothing happens and they keep causing problems, you could try [[WP:A/R/E]]. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 18:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:There is also ongoing discussion, initiated by Guy, at [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#The mess that is COI tagging]]. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 14:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
:: See above: "legalistic". See also: discussion archived out. You did not check for that. But all you've done here is prove my point, sadly. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 14:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
:::{{TQ|"discussion archived out"}} [[Talk:Harvey Newquist II]] was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harvey_Newquist_II&oldid=825187516 created] on the eleventh of ''this'' month (six days ago); as I checked, before removing the tag; I'm curious as to how you think you would know otherwise. It has no archives. Or perhaps you refer to the Steve Vai article. Again, I checked (and again, how would you know otherwise?), saw the old discussion and noted that it discussed ''who'' had edited, but not ''what is non-neutral about the article''. I also noted the {{diff|Steve Vai|823498990|698926580|vast amount of editing}}, by very many editors, in the article, between when the tag was placed, in January 2016, and when I viewed it, over two years later. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 15:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
:::: Andy, you're doing it again. You behave as if your viewpoint has unambiguous consensus, even when it plainly doesn't, even when you have numerous times been sanctioned for doing exactly the same thing. Your legalistic interpretation of the tag instructions is that a talk page discussion must have been initiated. You didn't even check to see if it ever had been, and you removed a tag despite (a) clear evidence of COI and (b) a talk page discusison actually having been initiated. You were wrong. You were also wrong about Newquist because not only is there a family member editing, there's also a paid account. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 16:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
:[Ec] ...and see also [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Please unclose close at ANI]]. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 14:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
* Good grief. You've been thumping on Andy for two weeks straight. Give it a rest already. "hate to do this" my ass - one thread after another. SMH — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<span style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> — 14:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
:: No, I have not I have been looking at a long-running fight sustained on one side largely ''by'' Andy, and his history, including two twelve-month sitebans indicates that his is hardly new. If I was thumping on Andy I'd have asked for rather more than a narrow restriction to control obvious [[WP:POINT]]. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 16:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
*The required talk page discussion would have sorted this muddle. That's what talk pages are for. Note the time stamps. Andy's first edit is at 00:01. COI disclosure is almost 4 hours later at 3:53. All Guy had to do was post on the talk page and this would have been dealt with. Given the last two weeks and the ongoing discussions on COI, a simple comment could have dissipated this confusion. As well, much of the discord and discussion of the last weeks has been around the template which asks for discussion on the talk page; it is a known source of contention.([[User:Littleolive oil|Littleolive oil]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 15:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC))
** The "required talk page discussion" that was initiated and archived out, you mean? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 16:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
***Diff, please. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 16:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
****'''Note:''' No such diff has been provided. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 09:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
***** '''Note''': It's in the original report. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 13:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
***You entered a discussion on the 17th; this began on the 16th? Is that right or am I missing something which is possible? Why not just deal with this confusion on the talk page. I'm not going to engage in snipes with you, Guy. I am suggesting that you might have been able too deal with this on a talk page rather than posting this long notice. There's lots of confusion here given the time stamps. I assume good faith and hope you did this with the best of intentions; I just don't think this is the best way to deal with this given the last two weeks.([[User:Littleolive oil|Littleolive oil]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 16:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC))
****While Wikipedia has long seemed to creep towards an "exhaustion of remedies"-like doctrine when it comes to filing complaints on noticeboards, that doctrine comes with an escape valve for actions that would be futile. That is, if we're going to start importing legal doctrines, we aren't gonna do it by halves. As Andy has proved (see the prior discussion links Guy provided above), there is no "discussion" with Andy unless you agree with him. So, yes, coming to ANI is proper. If anything, it's a conservative move: This nonsense should go straight to the Arbitration Committee given the community has proved to be completely impotent when it comes to dealing with Andy's disruption. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 22:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
*Editors who edit for pay or offer commercial services related to Wikipedia have an inherent conflict regarding the COI policies, guidelines, tagging of articles etc. Its in their personal financial interest to weaken the enforcement in general of our rules regarding paid and COI editing, so they should not be removing any COI tags, not just ones related to their own editing. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 21:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
::This might well be true, but it is also irrelevant to the discussion. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 10:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
*Shame templates are indeed a WP:BLP concern, in that respect I agree with Andy, they state nothing about the quality of the published content. [[User:Govindaharihari|Govindaharihari]] ([[User talk:Govindaharihari|talk]]) 00:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' ban on removing COI templates and 1 RR. Templates should not be removed without fixing the issues in question. Andy is being pointy and has already been edit warring with respect to this. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 03:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
**Where your position falls down Doc James, re your comment, ''Templates should not be removed without fixing the issues in question'' is that in regards to COI templates the fact that there is an accusation, mostly added without any actual ''proof'', usually a connected username that could be anyone, or someone connected to the subject having edited it or just been accused of editing it does not comfirm that there is any problem with the content and as such there is no clear content issue to correct. The primary problem here is not with Pigs but with the fact that users who dislike involved editing are adding the COI template as a mark of shame, I fully support its removal and any content concerns being identified and corrected, '''if no actual and specific content concerns have been identified''' then on a [[WP:BLP]] the template should be removed on sight, immediately. [[User:Govindaharihari|Govindaharihari]] ([[User talk:Govindaharihari|talk]]) 21:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
***It is not a BLP violation to have a maintenence template on an article notifying that it has been the subject of COI editing. Nor is it a 'mark of shame'. Its a neccessary warning that the content of the article may not be neutral and impartially written. For reference, the relevant part of the policy is [[WP:BLPCAT]] which applies to templates. The COI template/s do not violate that in any fashion being neutrally written. If your argument is that merely having a COI template indicates that "a person has a poor reputation" then you are going to have a hard time arguing that one without running into a wall of 'Yes, we dont like COI editing, that is why we have to identify it'. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 23:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}I am concerned that the issue here is that a precedent could be set that anyone who is a Wikipedian in Residence could somehow be called a "paid editor" and slapped with a COI accusation. {{u|Govindaharihari}} makes a good point too. The effect of a COI "scarlet letter" is chilling, particularly when it interferes with the GLAM work being done by the foundation and many editathon efforts to improve content of Wikipedia. I am unclear what other "COI" that Andy has here, and rather than going after one person, I think the bigger issue needs to be addressed. [[User:Montanabw|<span style="color: #006600;">Montanabw</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]]</sup> 02:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:COI accusations are frequently used for their chilling effect. It's the Wikipedia equivalent of McCarthyism. '''If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning.''' On a BLP then the template should be removed on sight, immediately. This applies to any drive-by template, which can be removed if there is no discussion on the talk page, but [[WP:BLP]] requires immediate removal. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#9933ff">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 02:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentsAndy's is removing these templates from articles written by paid editors (who are NOT WiR). These issues are separate from his work as a WiR. IMO these templates should not typically be used on articles by WiR. He is also removing them from articles were there is a talk page discussion regarding the concerns. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 05:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:::If they are better removed, have been placed without good reason, especially on [[WP:BLP]] articles, that is a good thing. Adding a COI template on a living persons life story is an attack and should be removed on sight, correct the content if there is a concern, don't add a shame tag that is nothing to do with them.[[User:Govindaharihari|Govindaharihari]] ([[User talk:Govindaharihari|talk]]) 05:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:::{{Tq|"He is also removing them from articles were there is a talk page discussion regarding the concerns."}} The last time you made that false allegation, {{diff|Template talk:COI|825132250|825101697|I asked you}} to provide a diff of me removing the tag, when there was already a discussion on the talk page that met the requirement to "explain what is non-neutral about the article". This you failed to do, offering only {{diff|Template talk:COI|825769527|825766626|a single case where}} all that had happened was an editor had been alleged to have a COI. Even before that, {{diff|Template talk:COI|824610268|824595089|I said}} to you {{tq|"Feel free to point out any cases where I removed the tag, despite there being a post meeting that requirement on the talk page, and I'll accept that it was disruptive, and revert myself. Otherwise, your [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|continued disregard]] of this point is what is disruptive"}} and you provided no such examples. Can you provide them now? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 09:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::Hawkeye, [[WP:BLPCAT]] is the only part of the BLP policy that applies to maintenence templates. It does not require 'immediate' removal any more than any other article requires it for templates as the template is not overly negative. You would need to make a credible argument that a COI template reflects negatively on the living person. And that's a non-starter since (leaving aside WIR/GLAM etc) articles that have been paid for or have been identified as having been written by someone with a close connection are required to be identified. RE WIR/GLAM, anyone involved in any sort of editing with a COI have little weight in a discussion as to the appropriateness of COI tags in general, as they would of course prefer to not have their articles be marked as being written by someone with a potential conflict. You might as well allow paid editors to dictate what is classed as paid editing. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 12:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::::[[WP:BLPCAT]] does not apply to maintenance templates, it only applies to navigation templates. But ''BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, persondata, article titles and drafts'' and ''Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.'' If there is no discussion on the talk page, then the COI template is unsourced. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#9933ff">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 19:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::That is frankly a ridiculous argument and essentially would prevent any COI/connected contributor template being applied to a living person's biography. As none of them have 'sources' as required by our policies. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 21:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::And frankly, if anyone thinks Andy is doing this out of some concern for living people who have biographies, pull the other one. His history includes harrassing someone through their biography, he is and has been for quite a while, heavily involved in making sure Wikidata badly sourced BLP infringing material is shoehorned into wikipedia articles, while simultaneously on wikidata contributing to it not having any sort of policy regarding living people. So no, I find it highly suspicious he suddenly has a concern for living people. As opposed to just wanting to be able to edit articles with a COI under the radar. (To be fair, its not just BLP issues with wikidata that he wants wedged into wikipedia articles, its that entire database clusterfuck of unverified unsourced factoids) [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 12:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:It seems to me one of the problems here is people are assuming that the COI tag means the subject of the article has done something wrong. But it doesn't or at least shouldn't. If someone hires people to edit an article on a rival or someone they don't like, there will likely be COI problems on that article. It doesn't mean that the subject did anything wrong. I mean even if a spouse or adult family member on their own volition edits an article on someone or pays someone to do, it's highly questionable if the subject shares any responsibility for it. Heck even in cases of a PR agent or lawyer, it may not always make much sense to place much 'blame' on the subject for it, if they had no idea this person was going to do this, had no desire for them to do it and put a stop on it as soon as they found out. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 23:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 
::Whether or not EE complies with the CTOP restriction, they've more than earned a block because the problematic behavior from the last ANI discussion hasn't changed. See [[Special:Diff/1260618790|my edit summary here]] for more. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">''[[User:City of Silver|<span style="color:#BC49A6">City</span>]][[User talk:City of Silver|<span style="color:Green"> o</span><span style="color:Red">f </span>]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|<span style="color:#708090">Silver</span>]]''</b> 19:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
== Born2cycle ==
::@[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] Are you saying that ANI is not the right place for this, and I should take this to AE? I don't want to get in trouble for forum shopping. Also, the evidence is already here. Also, EE responded to your CTOP alert by giving me a CTOP alert. This doesn't show understanding to me. I am confused why Admins aren't taking action here. [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 07:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|Tinynanorobots}} there's no reason to take this to AE at this time. CTOP sanctions cannot be issued unless an editor is aware CTOP applies to that topic area. I don't think it's likely an admin will consider Ethiopian Epic was aware CTOP applied to Yasuke until I alert them, even if it did come up in previous ANI threads concerning them. So edits after my alert will be the main thing that need to be considered under CTOP and there are very few of those. More generally, it's not that this is the wrong place but that so far no admin has taken action and I expected and it does look like I'll be proven right that there would be no action this time either. While I cannot say for sure why this is the case, my assessment from when I've briefly looked at it is it's one of those cases where behaviour is imperfect but not clearly enough over the line that sanctions are likely. Ethiopian Epic hasn't made that many edits so in so much as they may be edit warring, it's only at a very low level and I think most of the time it's been you they're edit warring with meaning any sanction is likely to apply to you both. Importantly, even if perhaps belatedly they have contributed to the talk pages. Perhaps they haven't explained their concerns well enough but that's very hard to judge since we don't deal with content disputes. Most of the discussions have primarily involved you and Ethiopian Epic, so it's not like there has been a clear consensus against Ethiopian Epic and they're reverting against that. Ultimately it's often very hard to clearly say one editor is in the wrong when two editors have differing preferred versions of a page and both of them are taking part in discussion. If you were able to get clear consensus for your preferred version and Ethiopian Epic kept reverting that is much more of a clear problem. And since it doesn't seem like the two of can reach consensus, it'd likely you'd need to try [[WP:dispute resolution]]. Although since everything is voluntary there is always a chance no one else will be interested enough in the dispute to help reach consensus, unfortunately we have no real way of dealing with it when that happens. If they were following you around just to revert you this would be a concern but that also is very difficult to conclude. They aren't going to unrelated articles and reverting you instead they're gone to articles which are highly related and indeed even their reverts have often been on highly related disputes. The comments some others have made sort of mirror my thoughts. In a case like this ARE IMO has an advantage that discussions are more structured. Perhaps more importantly, admins are likely to be automatically approaching things from a CTOP view so will tolerate fewer problems than they might for a general dispute. However I can't say if action is likely even if Ethiopian Epic continues as they are doing and you report them in a few weeks to A/R/E nor can I rule out your actions won't be considered a problem. Ultimately as I said a big issue is that neither of you have consensus for your preferred versions. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you, this is a clear answer. It is hard to figure out what to do based on all the mixed signals that the admins send. I think that edit warring is unlikely to continue for now, which will allow me to continue to with productive edits while discussing the content issues with EE. I have already responded to his posts and rephrased what I said in the hopes he will understand. Regarding consensus, I believe that regarding the edits on [[List of foreign-born samurai in Japan]] that I have consensus, if not for the specific formulation, but for the general direction. I discussed the issue on the talk page before making the change, all those that responded were in favour, and the quote was incorrectly sourced. Is an RfC needed to make the consensus official? [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 14:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:Making a bunch of allegations without diffs to substantiate them counts as both a [[WP:PA]] and a failure to assume good faith, which is a disruptive editing pattern that it seems you repeatedly engage in. I haven't actually done anything Tinynanorobots is claiming and none of the diffs substantiate his claims.
:I'm not sure why Tinynanorobots insists on feuding or trying to start a conflict because I don't have any problems with him. I think he thinks this board will allow him to avoid satisfying onus for his tenacious edits. This user seems interested in pushing some kind of feud with me and I think it's not the first time he's been disruptive. I checked his history and multiple people have suggested that he should be topic banned. [[User:Ethiopian Epic|Ethiopian Epic]] ([[User talk:Ethiopian Epic|talk]]) 00:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Ethiopian Epic}} You keep reverting Tinynanorobots without going to the talk page to discuss. Going forward, I'm going to revert you whenever I see you do that. Since you don't seem comfortable addressing me or reacting to me, this means that every time you use unhelpful and/or lying edit summaries like {{tq|"''I don't see any consensus for these changes. Please follow WP:ONUS and discuss on the talk page,''", "''Don't see this as an improvement,''"}} and {{tq|"''It was in my edit summary''"}} and you don't go to the talk page to explain, your change will be undone and the version of the article preferred by Tinynanorobots will be restored. Thoughts? <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">''[[User:City of Silver|<span style="color:#BC49A6">City</span>]][[User talk:City of Silver|<span style="color:Green"> o</span><span style="color:Red">f </span>]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|<span style="color:#708090">Silver</span>]]''</b> 02:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::That isn't true. The summary "I don't see any consensus for these changes. Please follow WP:ONUS and discuss on the talk page"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1260473933] was in regard to changes that were contested that Tinynanorobots never got consensus for, so the burden would be on him to explain his changes which he hasn't done.
:::Tinynanorobots is not engaging in discussion. He hasn't replied to the samurai talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1259624475] or the List of Samurai talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_foreign-born_samurai_in_Japan#c-Ethiopian_Epic-20241201033800-Tinynanorobots-20241130110800] in 4 days and 2 days respectively even though I let him have his preferred version. I don't mind that, there's no rush, but then out of nowhere he makes these uncivil accusations and false claims here still without responding, and doesn't assume any good faith. I do wish he would be less battleground-y. [[User:Ethiopian Epic|Ethiopian Epic]] ([[User talk:Ethiopian Epic|talk]]) 04:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have already made my case on all those talk pages. I haven't responded again because there is no need to repeat myself. [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 08:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:There are numerous tools for dispute resolution, it puzzles the mind why you '''''both''''' aren't attempting to use any of them to resolve this content dispute. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 18:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|BrocadeRiverPoems]] It is because of the behavioural problems, content has hardly been discussed, and new disputes keep popping up. I first reverted EE and asked him to use the talk page on 14 Nov[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1257354445], he finally posted on the talk page on 23 Nov.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1259149033] And that required a lot of effort on my part and an ANI thread. A similar situation occurred regarding [[List of foreign-born samurai in Japan]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_foreign-born_samurai_in_Japan&diff=prev&oldid=1259147166</][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_foreign-born_samurai_in_Japan&diff=prev&oldid=1260355611] and as I added new changes to the Samurai article, those too were reverted.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1260355439] and some of my edits on Yasuke were reverted too.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1260286269]
::I have thought about a third opinion for the Samurai page dispute, but I don't think it has been discussed enough to qualify. Supposedly the sources don't support the text, but EE won't specify the sources or the claims he thinks are OR. Also, on the [[List of foreign-born samurai in Japan]] article, he kept trying to insert a quote attached to a source that doesn't contain that quote. It seems that his trust of inline citations is selective.
::Since one of the contested sources for the Samurai article is in Japanese, maybe you could find a relevant quote: {{tq|After power struggles, the [[Taira clan]] defeated the [[Minamoto clan]] in [[Heiji rebellion|1160]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai#cite_note-nhkgenpei-3]}} Personally, I don't think that needs a citation, but it is disputed now. [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 07:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::A lot of this could easily be resolved by you participating in talk discussions, and when necessary using the proper dispute resolution methods instead of going from 0 to 100 which I think is disruptive. I would also like if you would follow [[WP:BRD]], as I have followed it. Maybe it's not intentional, but it seems like you are assuming bad faith and trying to game the system by turning content disputes into repeat threads here. [[User:Ethiopian Epic|Ethiopian Epic]] ([[User talk:Ethiopian Epic|talk]]) 07:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The claim that you are following BRD is the type of thing I am referring to when I talk about gaslighting. It is also why I find it hard to trust you. I have participated in discussions and have in fact posted more than you, both in number of posts and in number of characters, and in useful information.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samurai&action=history] [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 09:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::You have not responded to two talk pages[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1259624475][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_foreign-born_samurai_in_Japan#c-Ethiopian_Epic-20241201033800-Tinynanorobots-20241130110800] in 6 days and 3 days respectively, and only posted once or twice in them. Additionally, even in cases where onus is on your side to seek consensus for challenged edits you do not do that and just continue to revert without discussion[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1260391988]. You aren't following BRD. [[User:Ethiopian Epic|Ethiopian Epic]] ([[User talk:Ethiopian Epic|talk]]) 01:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I do not find the cliam that you followed [[WP:BRD]] to really be genuine. TNR made an edit, you reverted, and the closest you came to engaging in discussion was days later posting an edit warring notice on their talkpage. Notably, BRD is optional and the moment that someone makes more than one reversion, BRD has already failed. Furthermore, I point your attention to the section of BRD that reads BRD Fails if {{tq| ...'''''individuals revert bold changes but aren't willing to discuss improvements to the page'''''}} emphasis added. This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tinynanorobots&diff=prev&oldid=1257856026] does not constitute discussing improvements. You were even invited by TNR here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ethiopian_Epic&diff=prev&oldid=1257991339] to participate in the Samurai talk-page article and did not do so until after the second ANI case. I would also suggest you read [[WP:BRD-NOT]], {{tq|BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.}}, which is exactly what [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1260355439] this is. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 23:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I let them have their preferred versions and have been discussing it on talk pages[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1259624475][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_foreign-born_samurai_in_Japan#c-Ethiopian_Epic-20241201033800-Tinynanorobots-20241130110800]. Prior to discussing it on the article talk pages I was discussing it with him on his own talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tinynanorobots&diff=prev&oldid=1258714014]. [[User:Ethiopian Epic|Ethiopian Epic]] ([[User talk:Ethiopian Epic|talk]]) 01:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes, like I said, ''after the second ANI case''. All of those diffs you linked to are after you were taken to ANI a second time. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#c-Tinynanorobots-20241120095500-Ethiopian_Epic_Refusal_to_Discuss_Edits] It's sort of hard to [[WP:AGF]] on your argument that you were following BRD when it took being dragged to ANI to get you to participate in discussion. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 03:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The first time was for "auto-confirmed gaming" and unrelated, so the second time was effectively the first time. I wasn't sure what to do because he made a thread when I only edited once. One of my complaints toward Tinynanorobots is that he made threads without waiting for discussion to happen and seemed like he was trying to feud and not assume any good faith. [[User:Ethiopian Epic|Ethiopian Epic]] ([[User talk:Ethiopian Epic|talk]]) 04:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::This isn't the place for resolving content disputes, so no, I'm not going to post the relevant quote here. You both gave each other edit warring notices imploring the other to use dispute resolution, and then neither of you did so, which is sort of my point. Also, this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=next&oldid=1257855121] is an entirely needless reversion on your side of things, TNR. Their edit that you reverted here was constructive per [[MOS:NON-ENG]]. Articles that mention the Chinese Warring States Period, for instance, do not refer to it as the Zhànguó Shídài. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 08:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I had already posted on the talk page, because I already had a content dispute about bushi being retainers serving lords, as you know. I pointed EE to that discussion,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ethiopian_Epic&diff=prev&oldid=1257991339] and added posted new information there.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1258907458] also I had no idea what to post, because EE hadn't given a reason for the edit. It is like being asked to defend oneself without knowing the crime. The lead was well cited, but there is room to debate which facts belong in the lead and which ones don't. Maybe EE had a good reason for preferring the older version? I already had a bad experience on that page, where I spent a lot of time researching, just to have the other editor ignore the sources and arguments that I posted.
::::I don't remember why I reverted that formatting change. It was restored, and remains part of the current version. I switched to more fine-tuned edits after that. The fact that EE tended to make big edits, and that I switched to partial reverts, conceals the fact that EE has been able to make changes that were kept. [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 09:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::While it can be helpful to specifically address concerns an editor has with your edit, ultimately if your are changing an article, there must be a reason why you feel your version is better. So you should always be able to explain this regardless of what anyone else has said. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
 
=== User:Tinynanorobots Disruptive Editing and Continuous Feuding ===
{{userlinks|Born2cycle}} (B2C) clearly feels very passionately that the title of the article [[Sarah Jane Brown]] is incorrect, but I think he needs to be removed from the RM debate.
*{{userlinks|Tinynanorobots}}
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Jane_Brown&type=revision&diff=825751876&oldid=825746377] edit summary "Why is this so hard to understand?" is one of several asserting with varying degrees of stridency that Sarah Jane Brown is "NOT HER NAME" ([https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/VLW7Kq51iG_JiUT2uXaFbnrBr-I/appointments it literally is])
Tinynanorobots has an apparent history of disruptive editing such as removing material against consensus and edit warring[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=1248891516][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=1250469223]. He continues to revert sourced material without following onus when his edits are challenged[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_foreign-born_samurai_in_Japan&diff=prev&oldid=1260368252][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1260391988]. I checked his history and three experienced people [[User:LokiTheLiar|LokiTheLiar]], [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz6666]], [[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] have all previously suggested that he should be topic banned[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_52#c-LokiTheLiar-20241121003000-Compassionate727-20241113233500].
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Jane_Brown&type=revision&diff=825674719&oldid=825659527] edit summary "There is ''zero'' basis for using '''Sarah Jane Brown''' as the title of this article" hypothesises "''Sarah ''Jane'' Brown''' is ''not'' obviously her name. The reference from {{U|SnowFire}} shows that her name ''prior to marrying GB'' was '''Sarah Jane Macaulay''' - ''that'' is what is not in dispute, but this does not mean her name ''after'' marrying GB became '''Sarah ''Jane'' Brown'''. By ALL accounts, ''without exception'', her name since her marriage has been and remains, simply '''Sarah Brown'''." This is a bizarre attempt to assert that, without any reliable source noting it, she dropped her middle name on marriage, which is not I believe permitted by Scottish law (or as B2C puts it, "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Jane_Brown&type=revision&diff=825686323&oldid=825685263 British law]", which of course does not exist as such).
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Jane_Brown&type=revision&diff=826077069&oldid=826074070] edit summary "And the opinion expressed by reliable sources is the only one that matters here, not yours or mine." asserts that because most sources discussing Ms. Brown do nto feel the need to use her full name, thus it is ''misleading'' (explicitly and repeatedly stated as a theory by B2C throughout the debate) for us to do so, on the admittedly novel premise that it somehow falsely implies that this is how she is usually known. As if ''anybody'' is usually known by the disambiguated title we give them on Wikipedia. A newspaper can use a name that is unambiguous in context, even if globally ambiguous, we clearly can't, which is literally the entire point of the entire never-ending farrago.
Anyway, I think B2C is by now on a path to burnout and undoubtedly shedding way more heat than light on this.Others on the page are equally passionate without the same recourse to hyperbole, and the same need to reply to huge numbers of people. His point is made by now I'd say (including at least one point which is objectively false despite repetition and failure to strike) and does not require further reinforcement. This is very close to [[WP:CIR]] territory. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 23:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
:Normally, an article is titled by the best known name of an individual. That's why we have an article on Jack Benny rather than on Benny Kubelsky. Still, it seems a strange thing for an editor to get so worked up about. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 01:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:: Yeah. {{la|Sarah Brown}} is taken. So this is about disambiguation, and has been going on for years. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 17:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 
I let him have his preferred version in all of the articles and am engaging in discussion with him. The discussions are productive but for whatever reason he keeps failing to assume good faith and making uncivil claims through different avenues like his suggestion that I am gaslighting. I don't understand why. The articles need a lot of work so it would be helpful if he wasn't starting these feuds. He also seems to think that BRD doesn't apply to him. [[User:Ethiopian Epic|Ethiopian Epic]] ([[User talk:Ethiopian Epic|talk]]) 01:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*I see his sig "В²C" 79 times on that talk page (not counting hats). I see yours 47 times, although yours is in a lot of different places, for different reasons. Lots of talking "at" going on. If memory serves me right, renaming this article is a perennial topic. He does seem to be [[WP:Bludgeon]]ing the discussion a bit, and catching some grief for it from all sides. I don't see enough that a single admin can block him and the article isn't under WP:DS so anything that went down would have to be a community decision. My preferred solution is for В²C to agree to avoid the RFC altogether until someone closes it. Seriously, by now, I think everyone already knows how he feels so continuing to beat the same horse seems pointless and begs for the community to topic ban him for a few months. One thing we WON'T do is discuss which name is best here at ANI... [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 01:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:: Most of my comments on that talk page are !votes in the RfC. No fewer than 22 titles have been listed, most of which have been soundly rejected in multiple prior RMs. That's half of all my comments there. About half the others are responses to direct or indirect questions (e.g. clarifying that, yes, [[Companies House]] is a reliable source, and the fact that there are two potential legal frameworks, which have subtly different methods for changing a name. And only one of us is asserting falsely that someone's legal name is not their name, or engaging in bizarre speculation about possible changes of name, with absolutely no actual evidence. That's the issue. There are plenty of argumentative types on that page, as expected given years of failed RMs, but one of them, B2C, is inserting bizarre conterfactuals. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 17:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
*<small>I suppose that, after this showed up at [[WP:CENT]] and [[User talk:Jimbo Wales]], it was inevitable it would show up here as well. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 01:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)</small>
::Yes, I'm hearing the whirring of boomerangs. It seems to me that both of them could back away and let someone else fight this battle rather than bringing it here. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] ([[User talk:Mangoe|talk]]) 14:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:::That's strange: are you used to cheap knock-off boomerangs, the kind that fly in a straight line? Because, really, that's the only way your analogy really makes much sense. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 17:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
*Holy shit, this again? I swear, the Sarah Jane Brown RM debate is like the zombie apocalypse of all RM debates. You cannot kill it; it just keeps coming back. 14 move discussions in 11 years; it's getting silly. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 17:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::''Getting'' silly? I'd say we're well past ''getting''. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 17:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:::Let's just change her name to Zarajanovic Braunislav and be done with it. Seriously, though, has anyone thought to contact the subject and ask what '''''her''''' preference is? Her response (if any) would need to be certified by OTRS, but maybe it would break the logjam. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 23:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::::So do your duty! Grit your teeth, go to the [[Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move 8 February 2018|current requested move]] and sprinkle brief support/oppose comments to taste. Uninvolved people are needed. (BMK: See "I wrote to Sarah, care of Gordon Brown, in June 2013. I received no response" at the link.) [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 23:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::Thanks. I'm not current on this person - is she still a principal in a PR firm? [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 23:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
* Frankly, B2C's comments there are approaching [[WP:CIR]] status. Are you ready for this? "''Sarah Jane Brown is not obviously her name. The reference from SnowFire shows that her name prior to marrying GB was Sarah Jane Macaulay - that is what is not in dispute, but this does not mean her name after marrying GB became Sarah Jane Brown''". Yes, that's seriously what he wrote. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 23:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:* Ha - I see that's been quoted above, but frankly it bears repeating as so utterly fucking ludicrous that a topic ban is the ''least'' of what we should be considering. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 23:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::*I'm not seeing what's ludicrous about it. Many women when they marry, keep their maiden names (as both of my wives did). Many women, when they marry, drop their middle name, but keep their maiden name as their middle name. Many women take their husband's name but also keep their maiden name becaause they are known by it professionally. My mother, when she married, dropped her '''''first name''''' (which she hated), and started using her middle name as her first name, and her Roman Catholic confirmation name as her middle name. There are many options available, at least here in the US, so unless there is something in English law that requires that a woman keep her middle name and drop her maiden name when she marries, I don't see where B2C's statement is incorrect. Would someone care to educate me? [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 00:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:::*{{replyto|Beyond My Ken}} It's actually Scottish law (not English) that is relevant, and while I'm not very familiar with the latter I'm not aware of any prohibition on changing names in any of the ways you describe. However, culturally in the whole of Great Britain it is very unusual for anyone to change anything other than their surname at marriage so the burden of proof is on the person who is claiming that she did something other than that. This is also far, far from the first time that Born to Cycle has exhibited obsessive behaviour about page titles - see the history of [[Yogurt]] for just one example. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::::: Actually as far as I can see Scottish Law ''only'' allows for a change of surname on marriage. To change given names requires a separate process. Regardless, B2C's theory was pretty bizarre. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 09:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::While you're at that, see [[User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle]]. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 13:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
:::*{{ping|Beyond My Ken}} from beta.companieshouse.gov.uk: [https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/VLW7Kq51iG_JiUT2uXaFbnrBr-I/appointments Sarah Jane Brown]. That is her name. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 01:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::::*Then why do the three charities the article says she's intimately connected with all use "Sarah Brown"? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Jane_Brown&type=revision&diff=826590455&oldid=826475519]. (Honest question.) You'd think they would know what she wants to be called. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 02:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::* Because that's her name. Her full name is Sarah Jane Brown. B2C is trying, ridiculously, to claim that when she married Brown her middle name mysteriously vanished. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 08:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::**To be clear, it did disappear, ''in reliable secondary sources''. Until the last few days, nobody in ten years of discussion on that talk page even produced a single primary source that used her middle name. In any case, her middle name is not widely (if at all) used in reliable secondary sources. Isn't that what our titles are supposed to reflect? In any case, is that such an unreasonable position for many (not just me) to take? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 21:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::::: No, her middle name rarely, if ever, appeared in sources at all. That i the nature of middle names in the UK. They are used only in official records or where it is necessary to publicly disambiguate. In the same way, sources don't parenthetically reference the souse's name, the father's name, the year of birth or whatever, unless it is necessary in order to disambiguate. Exactly the same reason you use for rejecting her full legal name, applies to all the suggested alternatives. This has been pointed out to you, and yet you carry on. Which is why we are here: you are obsessive and you don't seem to care overmuch how you get the result you want. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I've not seen it mentioned above (apologies if I've missed it) but B2C was a party to the 2012 [[WP:ARBATC|Article titles and capitalisation arbitration case]], where he was the subject of a finding of fact "Born2cycle's editing on the disputed pages and related subjects has hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses and not following the spirit of WP:BRD." and a remedy "Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors." If there really has been no significant improvement in the intervening 6 years then I think it's time for a topic ban from the request moves process (indeed I have a feeling this has been proposed on more than one previous occasion but I can't immediately find where). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:I'm aware of B2C's background, and, believe me, I'm not taking a position on this based on B2C - if anything, I'd be inclined to '''''disagree''''' with anything he says. As I said on the talk page, I don't know Sarah Brown from Adam's Off Ox, and I have no dog in this race, but I'm getting at least a whiff of an impression that some people are fighting "Sarah Brown" not because of any particular evidence, but because B2C supports it. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 02:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::It occurs to me that I really don't want to get any deeper into a dispute that has lasted over a decade, which I really don't care about, and in which there are obviously extremely entrenched positions, so I'm bowing out. Have fun! [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 02:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
*It's all explained. Preferring [[Sarah Jane Brown]] (the subject's full name) for the article title instead of [[Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)]] is "{{tq|political correctness overriding usage in reliable sources}}"—see [[WT:Article titles#WP:COMMONNAME vs Political correctness]]. The conflict is due to the fact that several notable people are named [[Sarah Brown]] so that title is a DAB page. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 09:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
*{{replyto|Johnuniq|Beyond My Ken}} I really don't care what the article is called, and this is not the venue to discuss it. What matters is whether B2C's ''behaviour'' is such that sanctions are required. The more I look at the behaviour and previous instances of the less justification I'm seeing for ''not'' topic banning him from all discussions about page titles. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
*I've long felt that B2C's way of approaching article naming issues (doggedly insistent, dogmatic about his interpretation of guidelines, bordering on fanatic) often does more harm than good, and I'm sure I've said I'd support a topic ban on earlier occasions. And I'm saying this as somebody who has probably agreed with B2C as often as I've disagreed with him on on any particular issue we've crossed paths on, and as somebody who generally respects B2C's knowledge and command of policy in these questions. Unfortunately, a topic ban from naming discussions would pretty much mean a complete ban for this editor, since that seems to be the only thing he's interested in. Have we tried a quantitative restriction before? Like for instance: being restricted to one or two comments (of a given maximum length) per naming issue; banned from re-initiating new move requests on articles that have had RMs before...? [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 11:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
* '''Oppose sanctions'''. B2C has put a lot of effort into a complex issue, and deserves credit for it. It's a tough question (disambiguation of the article title from "Sarah Brown" is necessary; the obvious one used by reliable sources seems sexist, while the other ones are rarely used) so some discussion is needed. While B2C may be getting a little heated, they haven't reached the level of needing to be sanctioned for it; they have made no personal attacks on the page, or even close to it, and neither are they monopolizing discussion, all voices are being heard. Note the original poster is the only to bold '''Vehemently''' in their opinions on the page, 8 times, and yet is complaining about B2Cs passionate feelings. <small>I personally still think the best option is to write to the article subject and ask her politely to change her first name to Seraphina, to settle the issue ... once and for all!</small> --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 15:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:*{{tq|disambiguation of the article title from "Sarah Brown" is necessary}} - I would think that absolute statements like this are the heart of the problem, particularly as many have opined that the current name, being her actual name, is just fine. [[User:ValarianB|ValarianB]] ([[User talk:ValarianB|talk]]) 16:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::* Er ... yes. You'll notice the current name is not "Sarah Brown"? --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 21:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:::Yes. Did you have something resembling a point? --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 06:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
*I don't really know the background of this ''particular'' naming issue, although I'm aware of having seen it on this page before. I squared off with B2C a couple years back at [[Kim Davis]] (see all the RMs and MRs noted on that talk page) in which I described his approach as "drag[ging] it through as many venues as possible until enough people get tired of it that it ''looks like'' support for [his] position." At the time he maintained a list in his userspace of past move discussions where the right (in his opinion) thing was done only after discussions were re-hashed over and over again, essentially frustrating all of the opposition into conceding just so he would go away. While I do respect B2C's familiarity with the naming guidelines and have sought his opinion on unrelated matters even since the Kim Davis discussions (which I still describe as a clusterfuck) his approach to controversial discussions is quite poor. I also wouldn't want to see him banned from those discussions entirely, so if I were going to suggest a restriction it would be on posting move requests which have already been discussed say in the past two years, i.e. if there has been a move discussion on [[Sarah Jane Brown]] in the past two years, B2C may not start a new discussion. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 16:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
*:I'd go with a topic ban that says he may not:
*:*Start a requested move for any page that has had any move discussion in the past two years; and
*:*Comment on a requested move discussion initiated within 3 months of a requested move discussion for the same page (at any title) in which he commented. This excludes relisted discussions and discussions reopened or restarted after a move review discussion.
*:*Make more than three short comments in any single requested move discussion; after these they may make a maximum of 1 short reply per ''direct'' request for clarification or similar ''direct'' request.
*:"Short" means not longer than ''approximately'' 150 words (excluding links that directly support the comment). Comments made on other pages and transcluded or linked to in a requested move discussion count towards this word limit.
*:Relisting or reopening a discussion does not change the comment or word limits (i.e. it's 3 comments of up to ~150 words per discussion, not per listing).
*:Violations would result in a complete topic ban from all requested move discussions, starting at say two weeks with a say 5th violation being indefinite. Violations of a complete topic ban will result in a block of up to the same duration as the ban violated (e.g. a violation of 3-week topic ban would mean a block of up to 3 weeks).
:I don't claim these to be perfect, only a starter for discussion. An obvious question is should these limits also apply to move review discussions? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:: Good question. I just took a read of his userpage based on comments above. He had noted the expiry date of the RM moratorium for this article: clearly it was a case of keep asking until you get the answer you want. He is proud of persisting for years with requests until they are "correct". His examples of great RM closes include moving Chelsea Manning back to Bradley Manning, and moving Westminster clock tower to Big Ben, which is categorically incorrect, as not ony has Big Ben has only ever been the bell, it's now officially the Elizabeth Tower. I think the fixation on moves, the America-centred worldview of some of his hit list, and absolutely never accepting the "wrong" answer, is a defining characteristic. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 23:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:::If anyone feels I'm in violation of any policies or guidelines in anything I do, please bring them up on my talk page. If we can't work them out, then we come here. Right? Isn't that how it's supposed to work? I don't understand why you're starting here. It doesn't feel nice, civil or welcoming to me. Yes, I have opinions. Yes, I'm open about how I think WP can be improved, especially in the area of titles. I explain in great length why I hold the opinions I do. I understand not everyone agrees. Of course. I'm also very open to criticism and suggestions for improvement. But I find this approach to go straight to AN/I to be very confrontational and feels like you're seeing and treating WP, or at least your approach with dealing with me, as a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. I suggest that you review [[WP:DR]] for ideas on how better to deal with this situation, however you perceive it. Thanks. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 00:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
::::I'm not in favour of word limits, unless we're about to nominate a team of clerks to follow him around. I prefer that he may make one unrestricted comment in any requested move (including the nomination if he is the nominator) or move review, and reply to any question directly asked of him. And while he may not start a new move discussion within two years, he is free to comment if someone else does (under the same one-comment restriction). This allows B2C to give his input (which I think we all more or less agree is valuable) without bludgeoning the process (which is ''not'' valuable), and allows for cases where other editors besides B2C perceive a titling issue needing discussion, rather than discussions being repeated over and over again just because B2C didn't get the answer he liked the last time. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 14:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::The reason I stressed that the word limits were approximate was that I had no intention of them being applied strictly. The aim is to encourage concsision, with the requirement that they be "short", with 150 words being a very rough guide to what that means. There would be penalty for 153 words nor for 190 words but 300 would attract one. If others prefer 1 longer comment though then OK, but I don't support unrestricted without some way of avoiding gaming that by continually adding material to the single comment. 14:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thryduulf|contribs]]) </small>
::::::By "one unrestricted comment" I meant for that to be whatever he could say in a single edit, maybe excepting very basic copyediting or repairing obvious errors in his single comment or reply. Adding material to that single comment would violate the restriction. At any rate there doesn't seem to be any overwhelming desire for any action here. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 18:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Folks, short of notification about this discussion on AN/I, my user talk page is devoid of anyone approaching me about any issues with my behavior on [[Sarah Jane Brown]], and I've been trying to help get a community consensus solution there for weeks. I started with a simple RM, was convinced by others that a multi-choice approach would work better, so I closed the first RM (per obvious consensus) and started the current multi-choice one, the format of which was altered by another editor, and which looked promising in terms of finally identify a consensus-supported title there. That said, I recognized I was no longer helping and backed off days ago, before this AN/I was even filed, as the history on that page shows. My specialty is title policy and especially resolving controversial RMs, all of which is explained on my user page and linked FAQ, which unfortunately leads to me being involved in many disagreements. I see a lot of familiar user names above - people who have disagreed with me in the past - not sure how fair it is to have them judge my behavior here, especially with nobody first trying to reach out to me on my user talk page. I understand people are frustrated about this, but the fact remains that there are large numbers of editors who are strongly opposed to the current title - it's clearly not a stable title supported by community consensus. If 10 years of controversy doesn't make that clear, I don't know what can. But right now what we need is ideally a panel of three unininvolved editors to review the lengthy discussion there and decide what title would work best. Thank you. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 20:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
*[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]], for starters, you could read [[WP:BLUDGEON]]. Next, you could make a pledge to avoid that talk page completely until the RFC has completed. I think it is safe to say that everyone already knows your opinion on, well, everything, so a lack of participation on your part is not likely to prevent your opinions from being noted. If you made that pledge and lived up to it, sanctions would be moot. I've been debating stepping in unilaterally, so now is a good time to make that pledge. Finally, [[User:JzG|Guy]], I wasn't trying to pick on you, just saying it was hard to tell by count of edits alone. You have been busy, but even I noticed it was all over the place. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 00:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
**Again, I had already chosen to stay away days before this AN/I was initiated, and have done so. That said, I still feel there is room for me to clarify my (updated) position about the dearth of reliable sources using her middle name since her marriage to GB (it turns out it's not ''zero'' after all but the first (AFAIK) source was brought to that talk page after 10 years of controversy just in the last few days), which is key to the opposition of the current title. Some people feel there is a big difference between zero vs one or two primary sources (still no usage of this name in reliable secondary sources as far as I know). However, if a pledge to avoid the talk page is really felt necessary I'm fine with it. It's not that important. So pledged. And I'll review BLUDGEON; thanks. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 01:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
***From the 2012 [[WP:ARBATC|Article titles and capitalisation arbitration case]]: ''Born2cycle's editing on the disputed pages and related subjects has hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses and not following the spirit of WP:BRD.'' You mean that wasn't a clue? --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 06:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
*I would support the kind of limited ban suggested by User:Thryduulf. If nothing else it's easier and less disruptive than having to repeatedly slog through pages of discussion and periodically place RM moratoriums on the affected pages. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] <small>([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])</small></span> 04:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Question: '''Is there even such a thing as a "middle name" in Scottish law?''' Or English law, for that matter? Aren't we simply dealing with the rather common case of somebody making false assumption because of American cultural bias? As far as I can see, "Sarah" and "Jane" are both ''given names''. Neither is a "middle name", a concept the Americans seem to have invented as late as the 19th century. --[[User:Hegvald|Hegvald]] ([[User talk:Hegvald|talk]]) 16:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
: In the UK, most people have more than one given name, but they usually (tough by no means always) go by only the first of them. Full names are used on official documents, sometimes on bank cards, and rarely in informal speech. There are notable exceptions, such as [[John Mark Ainsley]] (top bloke), but for the most part only one given name is in everyday use. And, needless to say, parenthetical references to careers, years of birth, maiden names or spouses, not at all. B2C is demanding that because the real world does not solve Wikipedia's problem the exact way Wikipedia does, so Wikipedia ''must'' fix it in a different way that the real world doesn't. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
*I am [[WP:INVOLVED]] in the debate over at that page, and there has been rather a lot said, but I don't think B2C has been at all unreasonable. They have made a case that the current name is not optimal, and been open to structuring the debate along lines most likely to see a good compromise. If anything, it's {{u|JzG}} who's come piling in with "vehement opposes" to reasonable positions, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=825793143 shouting on Jimbo's talk page] about how exasperated they are about it all, and generally [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=825791812 telling everyone around] that we shouldn't be having the discussion. Now they've filed an ANI against B2C for having the temerity to start a move request on a subject which clearly divides opinion, to see if a broad consensus can be reached on a better title. I oppose any restriction, and [[WP:TROUT]] JzG for filing this, because it is a content dispute, not a behaviour issue. Thanks &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 17:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
:: B2C does very little on Wikipedia other than obsessively pursue article renaming often over numerous requests spanning a decade or more. That's the issue. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
::: So what? What you call "obsessively pursue article renaming" I see as "bravely pursue consensus-supported titles". As my user page declares, we all choose our roles on WP and I choose as my primary task the area of title stability. So I'm drawn to long-unresolved cases, and I try to figure how best to resolve them. In this case I started a few weeks ago by proposing what I thought was a neutral title that I thought had a good chance of being approved. Within a few days it was clear I was wrong, so I withdrew the RM, but the responses indicated that that "wife of" had more support than I had expected it would have, and support for the current title was limited to only one or two participants. So then I started the new multi-choice RM based on a table, another user proposed another format, and so it went. Regardless of the outcome, please be assured my only goal is to facilitate finding a title that is most agreeable to the community. If that turns out to be SJB, so be it. All I seek is a clear finding of consensus, or as much as is reasonably possible, for some title. Anyway, because of my focus I tend to get into content disputes, and a considerable numbers that disagree with me. You know, if you take a stand on an issue that initially has about half the community support and half the community opposing, you're likely to piss off a few. Hence the bravely part of what I do. Almost everyone commenting here is involved and in disagreement with me on this title, and really should recuse themselves for this AN/I. Anyway, regardless of whether Sarah and Jane are first and middle names, or two given names, she's virtually never referred to as Sarah Jane in reliable secondary sources. Perhaps never. She's essentially ''unknown'' and ''unrecognizable'' as "Sarah Jane". Using this in the title makes no sense and is misleading. This is why there is such strong opposition to the current title; surely this is understandable. As to the "wife of" disambiguation, this is how almost all reliable sources refer to her. It is a violation of [[WP:NPOV]], a [[WP:PILLAR]] last I checked, to ''judge'' the title inappropriate without objective basis found in policy, guidelines or usage in sources. And I don't see any such basis in any of the objections to this title - I hope the closer takes this into account. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 01:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
::::I think this makes sense. This is a volunteer project, and everyone is entitle to spend as much or as little time in any one area as they like. Some people do nothing but vandal fighting, others are WikiGnomes, and evidently B2C likes to spend his time in the [[WP:AT]] space. So do I, as it happens, alongside content creation and a few other things. Consistency and stability of titles is a worthwhile thing to pursue, and although B2C is much mocked for his "Yogurt principle", the actual thing it says about [[yogurt]] is totally true. After repeated move requests over many years, the article hit a stable title and nobody has ever proposed moving it again since. As a Brit, I would probably spell it yoghurt myself, but I can see the vailidity of its current place. We had the same thing over at [[New York (state)]], I don't see that ever going back to the primary topic again, even though it was there for 15+ years before the move. I think a stable title probably does exist for Sarah Brown too. I don't think it's the current one, which is why it comes up again and again, so its legitimate to work hard to try to find one that works for everyone. Something like [[Sarah Brown (born 1963)]] or [[Sarah Brown (nee Macaulay)]] may be such a stable title. If/when the current discussion closes as no consensus, it just means we'll all be back again in a year or two to resume the argument once again, as happened so often with yogurt and New York. Anyway, all that aside, I still do'nt see anything out of line in B2C's behaviour... we get that you don't want the RM at Sarah Brown to take place, but please do that by discussing the issue, not the person. Thanks &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 15:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 
:With all due respect here, the fact that ArbCom in fact did not do anything about that stuff makes it very unlikely that Tinynanorobots will be sanctioned for anything he's done prior to the case. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 07:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
== KarimKoueider and his unconstructive edit ==
 
:[[User:Ethiopian Epic|Ethiopian Epic]], you have made 90 edits on the project in your brief time here. 29 of those edits have been to this ANI noticeboard. That's a high percentage of your contributions. Why do you think you are getting into so many disputes with other editors here? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{user|KarimKoueider }}
::It has been just one dispute, every Notice regarding Ethiopian Epic has failed to lead to a resolution, but results in Ethiopian Epic making a small bit of progress. After the discussion is archived, he makes another disruptive edit. Also, a lot of his responses are in the vain of "I know you are, but what am I?" As opposed to actually addressing the substance of the dispute. [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 11:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{user|matthew_hk}}
:::@[[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]], you need to provide diffs for each and every claim that you make or this will go nowhere. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 11:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{user|MatthewS.}} (not related to matthew_hk)
::::@[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]] I thought it was covered by my previous post, but I will present the evidence clearly.
*{{user|David J Johnson}}
::::I posted a Edit warring template on EE's talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ethiopian_Epic&diff=prev&oldid=1257778569], as did Hemiauchenia [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ethiopian_Epic&diff=prev&oldid=1257855144] EE responded by posted one on mine.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tinynanorobots&diff=prev&oldid=1257856026]. Despite this, he didn't explain his objections on the Samurai talk page. He even called the section Samurai Reverts like I did on his talk page. When I asked him to explain his edits, he accused me of dodging the question and being vague. Exactly what he was doing.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tinynanorobots&diff=prev&oldid=1259401646] I pointed out that I had already discussed one of the sentences that he wanted to restore on the talk page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ethiopian_Epic&diff=prev&oldid=1257991339] He eventually posted there [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1259149033], but just to express disagreement and to shift the burden of proof. Not engaging with my arguments or the sources. He has also added ANI notices and a CTOP alert.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tinynanorobots&diff=prev&oldid=1260682447][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tinynanorobots&diff=prev&oldid=1260681828][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tinynanorobots&diff=prev&oldid=1259417016] Every time after someone added a template to his talk page.
*{{user|Jytdog}}
::::At the same time, his discussion never goes into detail. He removed information from the samurai page that was sourced to 3 different sources, describing it as {{tq|reduce original research}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1257654469] and claiming the information was unsourced[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tinynanorobots&diff=prev&oldid=1259447337] When his responses were generic and vague. He asks me about the sources, but doesn't say which one, and claims {{tq|So the sources above don't actually back up your position which you haven't supported. As for the other edit I requested quotes because I looked at the sources and didn't see the text. Could you provide the quote?}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1259445642] There are three different sources supporting 3 different claims in the text that he removed, but about 13 mentioned in the discussion regarding samurai being retainers. There is no indication which sources he is talking about. [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 14:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{user|Lordtobi}}
:::::These diffs don't substantiate your claims at all. You keep accusing me of being vague, but if that's the case why aren't you engaging in the talk page discussions?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1259624475][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_foreign-born_samurai_in_Japan#c-Ethiopian_Epic-20241201033800-Tinynanorobots-20241130110800] You keep making uncivil claims like gaslighting without any evidence and keep assuming bad faith. [[User:Ethiopian Epic|Ethiopian Epic]] ([[User talk:Ethiopian Epic|talk]]) 18:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{La|UBI Banca}}
:::::Here is Tinynanorobots removing sourced material[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1260010340]. He was challenged for this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1260355439]. He then reverts again without discussing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1260391988].
* {{La|Crédit Agricole}}
:::::On a related article he did the same thing where he avoids onus and doesn't engage in discussion. Here is Tinynanorobots editing against consensus[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1257321546]. Here is him getting reverted by a different editor[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1257602496]. Here is him adding it back without engaging on talk[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1259085370][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1260000123]. He thinks BRD doesn't apply to him.
* {{la|Midea Group}}
:::::I don't know what happened with Tinynanorobot's previous disruptive editing and edit-warring, but it can at least be said that his behavior is continuing in multiple spots. I don't know why, and I don't have any issues with him. [[User:Ethiopian Epic|Ethiopian Epic]] ([[User talk:Ethiopian Epic|talk]]) 18:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{la|Orange Egypt}}
:@[[User:Ethiopian Epic|Ethiopian Epic]], your comment above crosses a bright red line as far as [[WP:CANVASSING]] goes. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 08:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{La|Vodafone Egypt}}
::I haven't reviewed this complaint, nor will I, because I don't have the time at the moment and because I agree with TarnishedPath that my notification may border on WP:CANVASS. However, I note that Ethiopian Epic's edits to ANI - the {{tq|many disputes}} Liz mentions - are all related to their quarrel with Tinynanorobots, so they are not necessarily indicative of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour: they may need someone to look into the matter on its merits and in terms of behaviour, but as I said, that person won't be me. [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Gitz6666|contribs]]) 09:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{La|Telecom Egypt}}
::Ah I assumed I was required to notify them if I was directly mentioning edits they made. I got the impression from the reminder above that this place is strict about notifications. [[User:Ethiopian Epic|Ethiopian Epic]] ([[User talk:Ethiopian Epic|talk]]) 17:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{La|Egyptian Exchange}}
:::You weren't required to mention them in your comment above and when you did you pinged those specific editors from a ArbCom case who you clearly thought would agree with your position, rather than pinging every involved editor. That is clearly [[WP:CANVASSING]]. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 00:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{La|Visa Inc.}}
:I just want to note as someone who has gone through a similar dredging up of past activity that trying to drag someone to ANI over complaints that ARBCOM felt didn't even warrant a Finding of Facts against the user seems [[WP:HOUNDING]] at worst and ill-advised at best, especially when you were told about as much the last time you brought this up at ANI.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#c-Simonm223-20241125203400-HandThatFeeds-20241125201500] <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 17:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{La|Ubisoft}}
::I think EE and Tinynanorobots need to learn to work together collaboratively or they need to both look for other areas to edit. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{La|Vivendi}}
:::I agree. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 18:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{La|HTC}}
:::I am open to any suggestions on how to make that work. I thought that asking EE to give specific criticisms of my edits was reasonable. EE won't even name a specific source he wants a quote from. EE has also reverted every edit that I have made to the Samurai article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1257042453][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1260355439] and then followed me around reverting me and others on the two other articles that I recently worked on. It also isn't true that I have my preferred version on every article. EE's edits have purged all uncited parts from the samurai lead, except the uncited sentence that EE prefers. Additionally, I have picked my battles on List of foreign-born samurai, and have not fully restored my preferred version. On the Yasuke article, part of the material that EE removed, will probably be permanently removed, but that is more due to the involvement of other users.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#Recent_Edit_by_KeiTakahashi999]
* [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 125#KarimKoueider]]
:::It is strange, but it is the new user who is always wanting to undo changes, and the "established" user who is trying to change the article. [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 07:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
The user keep on ignoring the use of infobox parameter, changing Public / private/ listed to legal form, Arabic word (on Orange Egypt), self-revert with wrong foreign grammar foreign word (French S.A.E. in Orange Egypt). I believed that he failed to properly communicate and understand MoS and infobox/doc and make constructive edit, and the edit war on [[Orange Egypt]] must be stopped. [[User:Matthew_hk|<span style="color:yellow; background-color:black;">Matthew_hk</span>]] [[User talk:Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: Blue;">t</span>'']][[Special:Contributions/Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: red;">c</span>'']] 03:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure why Tinynanorobots is saying things that are demonstrably false. Tinynanorobots has reverted every edit I've made to Samurai, List of Samurai, and one other article.
:: No edit war on [[Orange Egypt]], {{user|MatthewS.}} and I reached a conclusion on my talk page about correct type formatting. This user is abusing power to try and put himself above others when it comes to knowledge [[User:KarimKoueider|KarimKoueider]] ([[User talk:KarimKoueider|talk]]) 03:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::::Despite this I let him have his preferred versions, I'm participating in discussions, and I'm following [[WP:BRD]]. Tinynanorobots is not participating in discussions[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1259624475][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_foreign-born_samurai_in_Japan#c-Ethiopian_Epic-20241201033800-Tinynanorobots-20241130110800], is not following BRD, has only commented once or twice in discussions, and here says {{tq|I have already made my case on all those talk pages. I haven't responded again because there is no need to repeat myself}} which I think demonstrates that he doesn't want to collaborate. I don't have an issue with him so I'm not sure why he doesn't. I hope he will start following BRD, collaborate, and be less disruptive with uncivil claims like gaslighting. I've made [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Ethiopian_Epic-20241203074400-Tinynanorobots-20241203071000 some suggestions] that hopefully help. [[User:Ethiopian Epic|Ethiopian Epic]] ([[User talk:Ethiopian Epic|talk]]) 08:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::: There's no edit war, just a misunderstanding and difference of opinions about capitalization but it was resolved. French "Société anonyme égyptienne" isn't capitalized in French but should be treated as a business term in the English language and thus be capitalized in the English context. [[User:MatthewS.|MatthewS.]] ([[User talk:MatthewS.|talk]]) 03:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
*OK it looks like this is going to pop up until a third party does something. Frankly I don't see anything actionable about Tinynanorobots' editing or article talk comportment. On the other hand, Ethiopian Epic seems to have engaged in a slow-motion edit war: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=1257042453&oldid=1255368882] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=1257419520&oldid=1257354445] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=1257854452&oldid=1257819247] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=1258390999&oldid=1258160666] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=1259150751&oldid=1259149957] - while none of these violate the [[WP:3RR]] brightline, this is something that might be relevant in an arbcom sanctions affected topic area. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::There is no way the edit on infobox on [[Crédit Agricole]] (Crédit Agricole Group) to Crédit Agricole S.A. (which the whole foundation of Crédit Agricole Group, and its reverse corporate structure that regional bank of Crédit Agricole Group owns Crédit Agricole S.A. was clearly written on the article) or removing [[UBI Banca]] (legal name Unione di Banche Italiane) from trading name parameter in the infobox is constructive, and the consequential "communication" on my talk page. [[User:Matthew_hk|<span style="color:yellow; background-color:black;">Matthew_hk</span>]] [[User talk:Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: Blue;">t</span>'']][[Special:Contributions/Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: red;">c</span>'']] 03:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
*:By this definition of slow motion edit war Tinynanorobots has engaged in one: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1257354445][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1257574514][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1258160666][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1258908414][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1257779344].
::: Why would you put another legal name if the company only has one name for trading, legality and nativity ? [[User:KarimKoueider|KarimKoueider]] ([[User talk:KarimKoueider|talk]]) 03:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
*:And the last edit you've linked is unrelated. Those are older though and there is no issue currently. I let Tinynanorobots have his preferred versions even in cases where onus is on his side to seek consensus for challenged edits (removal of sourced material) which he does not do and just continues to revert[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1260391988], but I don't mind waiting. I don't think there will be an issue if he agrees to follow [[WP:BRD]] and agrees to use proper dispute resolution. I will continue to do so too. I would also like him to not always assume bad faith. [[User:Ethiopian Epic|Ethiopian Epic]] ([[User talk:Ethiopian Epic|talk]]) 01:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::: I would also like to remind you that you started with the unproductive communication on your talk page even though I started my question in a very civil manner [[User:KarimKoueider|KarimKoueider]] ([[User talk:KarimKoueider|talk]]) 03:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:::: "Give an answer to my response you coward" doesn't seem very civil to me. [[User:Jdcomix|Jdcomix]] ([[User talk:Jdcomix|talk]]) 03:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::::: If you read my statement I stated that "I started my question in a very civil manner" on his talk page concerning [[Credit Agricole]] but was met with a very defensive response. I am sorry that I replied in a cruel manner [[User:KarimKoueider|KarimKoueider]] ([[User talk:KarimKoueider|talk]]) 14:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::::it is not the case for [[UBI Banca]] for your alleged " Why would you put another legal name if the company only has one name for trading", the logo only contain "UBI Banca" not the legal name Unione di Banche Italiane . Trading name does not mean the name appear in the stock market, but the name that the company do business as. ([http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/resources/whats-the-difference-between-a-business-name-a-trading-name-and-a-legal-name-20140522-38s6g.html See this article]). your limited understanding in English and personal attack in your talk page, please explain to admin that they are constructive to wikipedia. [[User:Matthew_hk|<span style="color:yellow; background-color:black;">Matthew_hk</span>]] [[User talk:Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: Blue;">t</span>'']][[Special:Contributions/Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: red;">c</span>'']] 03:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::::: My "limited understanding in English" got me a spot at one of America's finest educational institutions (I got an 8 on the IELTS with a perfect reading and speaking score), the correct trading name for the bank is UBI Banca Group [[User:KarimKoueider|KarimKoueider]] ([[User talk:KarimKoueider|talk]]) 14:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:{{nao}} This all looks like a rather [[WP:LAME|LAME]] edit war with article talk pages not being used and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matthew_hk&diff=prev&oldid=826442708 unconstructive user talk page discussions] happening instead. --[[User:Jprg1966|<b style="color: #be0032;">Jprg1966</b>]] [[User talk:Jprg1966|<sup style="color: #003366;">(talk)</sup>]] 03:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 
== User:Washweans ==
::add [[Midea Group]], told to him [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKarimKoueider&type=revision&diff=820394032&oldid=819904976 in these messages] which was blanked, but still remove the maintenance template from the article without dealing the problem that was specified in the tag nor leaving any word in edit summary again; he was warned again and again by other person on similar issues([[User talk:KarimKoueider#Removing maintenance tags]] on 17 January, [[User talk:KarimKoueider#January 2018]] regarding infobox) [[User:Matthew_hk|<span style="color:yellow; background-color:black;">Matthew_hk</span>]] [[User talk:Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: Blue;">t</span>'']][[Special:Contributions/Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: red;">c</span>'']] 05:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::: I dont usually check my messages, please post on my talk page so we can discuss it [[User:KarimKoueider|KarimKoueider]] ([[User talk:KarimKoueider|talk]]) 14:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 
{{user|Washweans}} has [[Special:PermanentLink/1260654072#If you will post here concerning my edits, I've stopped.|claimed]] to stop editing, but have continued been making <small>(rather weak)</small> personal attacks at other editors, such as: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Knitsey&diff=prev&oldid=1260650753][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Knitsey&diff=prev&oldid=1260603515][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CanonNi&diff=prev&oldid=1260596001][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gonnym&diff=prev&oldid=1260595585][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Remsense&diff=prev&oldid=1260601797]. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>[[User:CanonNi]]<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]])</span> 23:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:fix the list of user in this multi-article, 1 to multi-user "conflicts". [[User:Matthew_hk|<span style="color:yellow; background-color:black;">Matthew_hk</span>]] [[User talk:Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: Blue;">t</span>'']][[Special:Contributions/Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: red;">c</span>'']] 20:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 
:It's also important to note that they have recently vandalized the page mojibake as seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mojibake&diff=prev&oldid=1260651892 here]. <span style="font-family: Arial; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">[[User:Gaismagorm|<span style="color: teal">Gaismagorm</span>]] [[User talk:Gaismagorm|<span style="color: teal">(talk)</span>]]</span> 00:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::Whilst not involved in the current dispute, I have had problems with [[User:KarimKoueider|KarinKoueider]] especially on the [[Visa Inc]] page with unexplained deletion of pic and logo size, also on other various articles concerning unnecessary changes to logo sizes. It does seem that this user is making a mass of minor, not required, changes to numerous company pages. It really is time for juvenile "edits" to stop. [[User:David J Johnson|David J Johnson]] ([[User talk:David J Johnson|talk]]) 21:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
*Indefinitely blocked.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 00:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::: As per your request, I did state reasons for changes and you shut it down by saying something along the lines of "it doesnt look good". That's just your opinion [[User:KarimKoueider|KarimKoueider]] ([[User talk:KarimKoueider|talk]]) 21:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::::And why did you remove my warning comments from your Talk page? A further glance at this page does confirm that many editors are concerned by your actions. Your various logo changes have been not constructive and do not contribute to page design. Nor did I say "it doesn't look good", that is your invention. It does seem that you are on a mission to change many company/business pages to your own version, which is frequently incorrect. [[User:David J Johnson|David J Johnson]] ([[User talk:David J Johnson|talk]]) 21:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::::: Have you even checked my talk page?, all our discussions and your warnings are still there, you are not being truthful. You said and I quote "There is no standard for logos on wikipedia, whatever fits the layout" What if my definition of fitting the "Layout" is different than yours ? [[User:KarimKoueider|KarimKoueider]] ([[User talk:KarimKoueider|talk]]) 00:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::Note that per [[WP:OWNTALK]], even if it did happen there's generally no point asking someone why they removed messages from their own talk page. Since they are allowed to do so, just take it as a sign the message was received and move on. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 02:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::::{{reply|Nil Einne}}, for the case of KarimKoueider's own talk page, the problem is, he removed the message and did the same thing again that was specified in the message, and was warned again by another person for the same issue in another article, which keep on loop back to the cycle, especially on unnecessary change in infobox (image size parameter, wikilink (overlink) and sometimes even boldly wrong). I have no comment on other people on not replying the conversation and let the archive bot achieve the thread . [[User:Matthew_hk|<span style="color:yellow; background-color:black;">Matthew_hk</span>]] [[User talk:Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: Blue;">t</span>'']][[Special:Contributions/Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: red;">c</span>'']] 14:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::::{{reply|Matthew_hk}}, stop spreading wrong information and lies. I havent gone about adjusting images and logos ever since David J Johnson warned me about them and we had a discussion on it. You seem to be lying your way to try to make me seem like some sort of troll. Nobody has had a problem with me concerning logos and images after the warnings I received. You started this section claiming I was edit warring on [[Orange Egypt]] while the other party acknowledged it was a misunderstanding and a discussion took place. You are completely clueless at this point regarding my activity with other users. [[User:KarimKoueider|KarimKoueider]] ([[User talk:KarimKoueider|talk]]) 20:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::::<p>{{reply|Matthew_hk}} You're missing my point. It does no matter whether the editor removed warnings from their talk page. If they continued behaviour that they were warned about, that may be a problem, depending in whether or not the behaviour is really wrong etc. But them removing the warning is still not a problem. If the editor denies they received a warning or says they didn't read it or states they stopped as soon as they were warned; the removed warning could easily be relevant evidence. Especially since as I said, the removal is generally a sign that they did read it. But the removal itself is still not a problem. </p><p><strike>Incidently, having looked into the details I don't understand what removals are even being referred to. From what I can tell, the only content KarimKoueider removed from their talk page was this [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KarimKoueider&diff=822182545&oldid=822181802]. One is a note on indenting and signing. KarimKoueider indenting and signing is not what is being discussed here and seems fine anyway. The other is notification of an orphaned NFCC image. KarimKoueider uploading NFCC images inappropriately is also not a point of contention in this discussion. </strike></p><p>{{ping|David J Johnson}}'s warnings are still there and never seem to have been removed [[User talk:KarimKoueider#January 2018]] & [[User talk:KarimKoueider#February 2018]]. Note there are two sections with the title February 2018, [[User talk:KarimKoueider#February 2018 2]] so you need to make sure you look at the right one. </p><p>[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 23:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)</p><p>Struck out part of my reply, see below for explanation. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 03:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)</p>
:::::::::<p>{{reply|Nil Einne}} Thank you very much for your honesty, I am happy that there are some good editors out there in the community [[User:KarimKoueider|KarimKoueider]] ([[User talk:KarimKoueider|talk]]) 02:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I would like to say that this discussion has led to the "discovery" of minor mistakes and not a single light was shun on any of the constructive edits I have done. e.g. [[EFG-Hermes]] (I was not involved in the copyright copying), [[Commercial International Bank]], [[Finansbank]], [[Telecom Egypt]] and so much more. Have I made mistakes in the past ? Yes and when [[User:David J Johnson|David J Johnson]] instructed me on the incorrect edits I was doing, I stopped. [[User:Matthew_hk]] could have started the conversation with a sense of peace and understanding like user [[User:MatthewS.]] where we reached a conclusion with a logical discussion. [[User:KarimKoueider|KarimKoueider]] ([[User talk:KarimKoueider|talk]]) 21:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 
=== Homoglyph vandalism ===
* I was pinged here. I found KarimKoueider's editing to be problematic - it is generally commercial and is generally unsourced or badly sourced. As you can see on their talk page, I asked about COI and when they didn't reply, I asked the more direct question about paid editing, which they said they do not do. I then opened a COIN thread that got little traction.
:It is still not clear to me if this user has some actual financial COI or if they are just very interested in business.
:They have not acknowledged or addressed the fairly obvious COI at [[Melouky]] as far as I can see.
:Per their [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/KarimKoueider edit count], they rarely use Talk pages and when they do it tends to be along the lines of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matthew_hk&diff=prev&oldid=825030947 this]: {{tq|...Your replies have a disgusting tone of superiority and narcissism...}} and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADavid_J_Johnson&type=revision&diff=824218437&oldid=824184375 this] {{tq|You are wrong about (X)...Stop reverting everything I do thinking you're some sort of know it all...}}
:If they are here in good faith to improve our articles about businesses especially in the mediterranean basin (which would be great), this is not a promising approach. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 23:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::{{reply|Jytdog}} We have discussed this on the COIN page before, I truly am wanting to improve business articles and have not been paid by anyone or entity for any edit I do on this page. I have learned a lot from you and truly thank you. Sometimes I just get annoyed when editors who have some superiority decisions revert my edits without contacting me about it first. [[User:KarimKoueider|KarimKoueider]] ([[User talk:KarimKoueider|talk]]) 02:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
::::No one owes you or me or anybody the obligation to discuss reverts with them first. You have not addressed the fairly obvious COI at [[Melouky]] yet. I am not sure why you are here yet. I do know that you are alienating everyone. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 02:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
::::: I already have addressed it if you even bothered to go to the Melouky deletion page. This just shows how toxic this community is. I probably wont edit again [[User:KarimKoueider|KarimKoueider]] ([[User talk:KarimKoueider|talk]]) 03:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::so you did, a few minutes before you wrote that note. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Melouky&diff=next&oldid=826801681 diff]) Yes I did miss it as I don't track WP by the minute. That is the definition of bad faith responding.[[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::: {{reply|Jytdog}} I replied on the [[Melouky]] article at 02:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC), you posted your comment at 02:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC), 10 minutes before your comment I had replied. If you would have checked before your comment, you wouldnt have been rude with the "fairly obvious COI" statement. [[User:KarimKoueider|KarimKoueider]] ([[User talk:KarimKoueider|talk]]) 03:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::::If you maintain this combative behavior your time here is going to continue to be unpleasant for you and everyone else. That is the bed you are making. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 15:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
{{od}} {{ping|Nil Einne}} Here is part of the timeline of the problem, using removal of maintenance tag as example, i have no problem people remove talk page message as a sign of read, but i am concerned on read and ignore warning and keep doing the same thing:
 
Although they are already indeffed, I wanted to call attention to the [[Mojibake]] edit linked by {{u|Gaismagorm}}. Τhis is a particularly pernicious form of vandalism that I call '''homoglyph vandalism''' (but I'd appreciate hearing the expression used at Wikipedia, if there is one). It involves replacing one character, say, a Latin capital T (Unicode U+0054) with another one, say a Greek capital letter [[Tau]] (U+03A4), or a Cyrillic Capital letter [[Te (Cyrillic)|Te]] (U+0422) which has the identical, or almost identical appearance as the original latin T. You can see this in operation at Washeans's edit, where the first letter of the first word in the expression "{{xt|The result is a systematic replacement of symbols...}}" in the original is Latin letter capital T ([[UTF-8]]: {{pval|54}}) but was replaced with homoglyph Greek capital letter Tau ([[UTF-8]] {{pval|CE A4}}) in the wikicode.
*Posted warning by me regarding removal of maintenance tag in [[Midea Group]] ([[Special:Diff/820393531]])
*Message got removed ([[Special:Diff/820401634]])
*Did the same thing on removal of tag in [[Midea Group]] ([[Special:Diff/820680421]])
*Did the same thing on removal of tag in [[Egyptian Exchange]] ([[Special:Diff/820995021]])
*Got reverted by {{u|Jytdog}} and was told in edit summary "do not remove maintenance tags" ([[Special:Diff/820995186]])
*Did again ([[Special:Diff/820997413]])
*Received warning from {{u|Jytdog}} on talk ([[Special:Diff/820998027]])
 
It is not by coincidence that they vandalized this article and not some other one, because the topic of the article is related to the type of vandalism they performed; they probably felt pretty clever about themselves doing it, right up to the point were they got indeffed. I am not aware of useful tools for detecting homoglyph vandalism at Wikipedia, but if there is anything at Toolforge, I'd like to know about it. We need a tool to help vandalism fighters detect and correct vandalism of this sort. Not sure if the AWB flavor of regex is powerful enough to write a pattern that would highlight script characters that appear to be embedded in characters belonging to a different [[Unicode block|unicode script block]], but if it is, that might be one way. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 00:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
For the issues in infobox (image parameter, type of company, trading name, name) need time to isolate one by one and present in a timeline view, and more or less some are controversial but constructive edit that did go to the process of talk page discussion. [[User:Matthew_hk|<span style="color:yellow; background-color:black;">Matthew_hk</span>]] [[User talk:Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: Blue;">t</span>'']][[Special:Contributions/Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: red;">c</span>'']] 02:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 
:As the editor who had to revert it, and as someone who is probably in the 99th percentile of editors for potential awareness of this issue, it took me a solid 20 seconds staring at the diff to realize what was actually changed. An ability to check for this seems technically difficult—surely it would end up being a "notice one diff by a user and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down" thing? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 01:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:For the {{para|type}} alone. On top of my message that [[società per azioni]] as part of the proper noun should be capped as S.p.A./Società per Azioni, in Italian language (may be in English also, as "per" just equal to the grammar of not capping "of/by/the" in English ), but no need to cap it as type of company, i already told him the usage of the {{para|type}}:
::presumably so. Sometimes I just search up common words in the search but replace l's with capital I's or the other way around, and use that to find vandalism. <span style="font-family: Arial; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">[[User:Gaismagorm|<span style="color: teal">Gaismagorm</span>]] [[User talk:Gaismagorm|<span style="color: teal">(talk)</span>]]</span> 01:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:* My message ([[Special:Diff/820353751]])
:* Message got removed (see also above on [[Special:Diff/820401634]])
:* Edit war or revert undo back and forth with other user for S.A.E. in [[Orange Egypt]], [[Vodafone Egypt]] and [[Telecom Egypt]], with good sign of talk page discussion
:* Seem realize the use of {{para|type}}, some article got the right Public/private/listed (or similar type by ownership) treatment ([[Special:Diff/825151800]]), but some controversially replaced {{para|type}} with legal form of company ([[Special:Diff/824801731]] [[Special:Diff/824801194]], or in good faith adding legal form to the parameter [[Special:Diff/821817396]]) and finally some with hybrid ([[Special:Diff/825907169]]). It looks likes he just want to make some minor unnecessary edit in order to spread out his edit pattern that only majority adding unsourced promotional content in Egyptian company, as stated in [[WP:COIN]] thread listed above. <small>Personally hybrid is more practical, as Publicly traded coop, or Listed state-controlled enterprise, Publicly traded [[trust company]] existed, as well as Public/Listed S.A., private S.A., subsidiary S.A..</small>
 
{{U|Mathglot}}, please see [[User:Radarhump]]. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 04:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:—[[User:Matthew_hk|<span style="color:yellow; background-color:black;">Matthew_hk</span>]] [[User talk:Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: Blue;">t</span>'']][[Special:Contributions/Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: red;">c</span>'']] 02:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 
{{ec}} Diffs highlighting words that look identical, and unexpected differences in the byte length are two of the tells of homoglyph vandalism. I did a test edit to this section to demonstrate this. If you look at rev. [[Special:Diff/1260701025|1260701025]] of 04:02, 2 December 2024 by Mathglot, you will see that that edit replaced the 'T' in the first letter of the word 'This' in rev. [[Special:Diff/1260672475|1260672475]] of 00:59, 2 December 2024 with Greek letter capital Tau (U+0422). Note the diff ([[Special:Diff/1260699524/1260701025]]) highlighting the word 'This' with no visible change to the word 'This', and then look at the History, and note that the difference in byte length: rev. 1260701025 is one byte longer (363,186 bytes) than rev. 1260699524, because UTF-8 requires only one byte to render a Latin T, but two bytes to render a Tau.
:: Again with the fantasy edit war on [[Orange Egypt]], [[Vodafone Egypt]] and [[Telecom Egypt]]. If you and other editors of higher ranking come to a serious conclusion on the type field of company inboxes, I will be more than happy to fully oblige with the decision [[User:KarimKoueider|KarimKoueider]] ([[User talk:KarimKoueider|talk]]) 02:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
::<p>First I must apologise to {{ping|Matthew_hk}} as I didn't look far back enough. (I got confused and thought I was seeing all contribs to the talk page.) This edit [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KarimKoueider&diff=820401634&oldid=820394032] does show removal of a bunch of warnings I missed including from Matthew_hk. Although having looked again this time definitely seeing all edits, I still don't see the removal of any comments from David J Johnson. </p><p>Anyway I'm not really that interested in getting into the wider issue of the rights and wrongs of this dispute. I only really entered into it to point out there is rarely any reason to ask someone why they removed a warning from their talk page. Since it's allowed per OWNTALK, it's not likely to be a fruitful thing to discuss and instead risks distracting from the issue at hand. In other words, concentrate on any alleged poor behaviour, especially if that behaviour came after the editor was asked to cut it out. (And removing warnings is not normally poor behaviour.) </p><p>I would strongly suggest that each party consider their behaviour. As someone mentioned above, while quickly notifying someone on their talk page is often useful, wider discussion about any disputed edit should take place on article talk pages and it's the responsibility of everyone involved in the dispute to make that discussion happen. (If you were able to resolve the dispute on someone's talk page, that's fine but if there is still a dispute an empty talk page is never a good sign.) Also I'm seeing accusations of vandalism. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this dispute, none of it seems to fall under our definition [[WP:vandalism]], so such accusations should not be made. </p><p>[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 03:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)</p>
 
These are two of the clues that help find this type of vandalism, the first being a word that is highlighted with no visible change; and the second is the byte count. The latter is easiest to use when only one word is changed, or multiple words but without additional text being added. But careful character counting may reveal it, if one of the encodings requires more UTF-8 bytes than the other, which is normally the case if one of the characters was Latin and the other was not. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 04:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|KarimKoueider}}, {{para|type}} was already specified in [[Template:Infobox company/doc]], and you have three contradict versions (by ownership, by incorporation form/legal form, and lastly hybrid) [[User:Matthew_hk|<span style="color:yellow; background-color:black;">Matthew_hk</span>]] [[User talk:Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: Blue;">t</span>'']][[Special:Contributions/Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: red;">c</span>'']] 02:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
:I remember a case of this from a few years ago. The tell was a redlink which I knew should have gone to a DAB page, and the corrupting alphabet was Cyrillic. It was a real head-scratcher until I worked out what was going on. Fortunately, the editor had never been very active, and had given up. I cleaned them out by copying suspect characters in their edits into the searchbar; but that requires familiarity with the corrupting alphabet, and it might have been simpler to link every word and see what turned red on preview. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 08:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: You are the one who introduced the hybrid on [[Eni]], I just followed what you did because it made sense [[User:KarimKoueider|KarimKoueider]] ([[User talk:KarimKoueider|talk]]) 03:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}
{{u|KarimKoueider}}, The concern was you had been told in talk page and you have contradict versions on the value that put in {{para|type}} at the same time (or within one week), which especially yet your edit on Ubisoft and [[Vivendi]] ([[Special:Diff/823001093]]) was reverted by {{u|Lordtobi}}, and you just blatantly ignoring the message in edit summary "Company type is private, Société Anon. is law type" and [[User talk:Lordtobi]] and yet re-done your edit twice ([[Special:Diff/824801194]], [[Special:Diff/825154083]]) without resolve the dispute (or solved partially), quoting David J Johnson " It does seem that you are on a mission to change many company/business pages to your own version, which is frequently incorrect. ". [[User:Matthew_hk|<span style="color:yellow; background-color:black;">Matthew_hk</span>]] [[User talk:Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: Blue;">t</span>'']][[Special:Contributions/Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: red;">c</span>'']] 03:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC) <small>minor edit on by adding diff and wording, add quote [[User:Matthew_hk|<span style="color:yellow; background-color:black;">Matthew_hk</span>]] [[User talk:Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: Blue;">t</span>'']][[Special:Contributions/Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: red;">c</span>'']] 03:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)</small>
:And the contradict versions on the value that put in {{para|type}}, was last observed in [[Special:Diff/826393888]] on 18 February 2018 (despite it rather an edit that pipe [[Anonim Şirket]] (a redirect with potential since A.S. in [[:tr:Anonim_%C5%9Eirket|Turkish wiki]] was interwiki linked by wikidata to [[joint stock company]] instead of S.A., but the redirect was not tagged by redirect maintenance template at that time) to [[S.A. (corporation)]]. However, if he really resolved with other user that {{para|type}} with primarily meant for type of company by ownership, entire edit was not really necessary except the removal of depreciated logo caption.) [[User:Matthew_hk|<span style="color:yellow; background-color:black;">Matthew_hk</span>]] [[User talk:Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: Blue;">t</span>'']][[Special:Contributions/Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: red;">c</span>'']] 04:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
:: Any admin looking at this discussion should also check [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melouky]] where [[User:KarimKoueider|KarimKoueider]] is now advocating the deletion of a blatant advertising article which they originated! In this respect the concerns on this user's Talk page seem relevant. Regarding [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]]'s comment on Talk page warnings, it has long been considered that warnings should not be deleted. I also concede that my statement on "warnings" wrongly gave the impression that I was referring to my own to this user.[[User:David J Johnson|David J Johnson]] ([[User talk:David J Johnson|talk]]) 10:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
:::regarding vandalism warning that i gave , may be selecting disruptive editing in Twinkle is a better option, but if a user just for infobox parameters, had been messaged and was try to resolve the unnecessary {{para|type}} and {{para|image}} changes, giving vandalism warning after these unsuccessful conversation, seem not in a level of misused of template canned message. [[User:Matthew_hk|<span style="color:yellow; background-color:black;">Matthew_hk</span>]] [[User talk:Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: Blue;">t</span>'']][[Special:Contributions/Matthew_hk|''<span style="color: red;">c</span>'']] 12:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 
Discussion in this subsection moved to AIV to get a more focused airing. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 19:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
* I have been pinged here, so I will add my own two cents. Please keep in mind that this annotation are my personal opinion and feelings, to be taken into consideration by the closing administrator. I don't want it to branch out into a discussion of any kind, and will avoid replying to comments regarding it, unless utterly necessary.
{{discussion moved to|Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism#Homoglyph vandalism}}
:I've only come in contact with the user in question due to them changing the |type= parameter and the styles of their legal appendixes on [[Ubisoft]] and [[Vivendi]] to have them fit what they felt is correct. This is not a terrible crime, just a misunderstanding which had quickly been reverted. The issue, however, then stemmed from the user insisting that their versions were correct, or at least correcter than the previous ones (in these cases, mine), and as such purposelessly forging an edit war. My talk page was consulted, wherefore I attempted to explain why they were wrong, given guidelines and the template documentation. However, the issue presisted through further edits (as outlined by Matthew_hk above) and across various pages; I had also tracked down some pages they edited to post-fix what they had incorrectly inserted or changed, given the reasoning I presented, some of which were also (partially) reverted by said user.
:To me, this shows a clear lack of understanding: Despite spoon-feeding reasons and guidelines not to pursue such edits, the same edits continued, and I was told to be presenting myself as superior to them, a claim obviously taken from thin air. Not that this was the only case either, it can be observed on talk pages of other users they have interacted with, even the dicussion above shows that they believe that they have to be more intelligent due to a test they had apparently passed quite well. What if I told you I'm currently attending one of the best univiersities in Europe? Correct, I wouldn't care either. You could have a doctorate in Wikipediaing, yet you can still not place yourself over basic rules of a community as Wikipedia.
:As such, I will need to say that a block or punishment of sort is not warranted for this user as long as they learn to accept that [[WP:BRD]], [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] and other guidelines simply exist, and are to be followed unless consensus agrees to change them, and comes to terms with the inferiority complexes he seems to claim people to have. If, however, the behavior does not change and does not show signs that it ever will, a block will ultimately be the only plausible solution, at least in a temporary sense. [[User:Lordtobi|<span style="font-family: Impact;">Lordtobi</span>]] ([[User talk:Lordtobi|<span style="color: #B0B0B0;">&#9993;</span>]]) 18:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
:: Quick reply and probably my final reply on this discussion.
::# Ill take warnings more seriously.
::# Ill discuss any possible errors or opinions on the wiki pages' talk section.
::# I will only adjust company "Logo" or "Images" on pages that are obviously disrupting the layout.
::# I will open a discussion specifically on the "troubled" type field and opinions for and against the incorporation tag (as there are a lot of other wiki users who put the type of incorporation instead of ownership type).
::# I am sorry if I personally attacked any user, that was not my intent. It was also not my intent to display a "superiority complex" but that was the sense I got from a lot of editors who I reached out to.
::# As for users Matthew_hk and David J Johnson, this isn't a witch-hunt to try and prove me wrong on every edit I do. I hope we can have a peaceful end to this discussion.
::# I was hoping the [[Melouky]] page would gain traction with other users to insert more reliable and independent information but the Egyptian Wiki community seems very small.
::# I never did, never will, ever accept any form of payment from any person or entity to edit. I do this as a hobby and to improve other readers wiki experience of a free encyclopedia.
 
== User:Marginataen ==
::And a small reply to Lordtobi, I only brought up my university standing as Mattew_hk mentions a 7 on his IELTS score yet insults my understanding of english by stating that I have a "Limited Understanding" of the language. Nobody has the right to question my understanding of a language that I primarily edit for. I did not talk about my university standing to "show off".
*{{userlinks|Marginataen}}
I had to revert dozens of unilateral [[WP:DATEVAR]] violations by {{User|Marginataen}} bundled in with other changes over the past several days. Now, after I've explained why their reasoning for changes is not valid and told them to reread the actual guideline, they're ignoring that and undoing some of my reversions, like on [[List of Holocaust survivors]] and [[Presidency of Itamar Franco]]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 00:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:I've blocked the user for one week. Jumping into bulk dmy conversion after coming off a block does not show good faith. [[User:Brandon|Brandon]] ([[User talk:Brandon|talk]]) 01:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
 
== GigachadGigachad, US election statistics, and "flipped" voting regions ==
::Thank You for your time [[User:KarimKoueider|KarimKoueider]] ([[User talk:KarimKoueider|talk]]) 19:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 
:::Thanks you for your response. The points you want to resolve resemble well what has come up as significant elements for the discussion ending up here. If you stick to these points, I think you are on a good way of integrating yourself into the Wikipedia community, so it is definetly a step in the right direction. I will opt-out of the discussion at this point, as I don't think I have any more to say. If the discussion is ruled in your favor, know that I am always open for questions that might come up regarding guidelines. [[User:Lordtobi|<span style="font-family: Impact;">Lordtobi</span>]] ([[User talk:Lordtobi|<span style="color: #B0B0B0;">&#9993;</span>]]) 19:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 
*{{checkuser|GigachadGigachad}}
== Historical vindictiveness against SvG ==
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by GigachadGigachad]] (2023){{hairspace}}<sup>&#91;[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1116#Disruptive editing by GigachadGigachad|archive 1116]]&#93;</sup>
 
GigachadGigachad has been warned repeated against violating the policy of [[WP:No original research]] with regard to election results in the US. GigachadGigachad argues that they are within the parameters of [[WP:CALC]] when they compare various election years and various election regions to arrive at a complex narrative of how a voting region has changed over time. The only sourcing they have been using are webpages with simple statistics, not independent observers making the analysis in the media. An example is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1984_United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa&diff=prev&oldid=1260672989 this edit] adding a comparison between Iowa and Washington DC voting results, saying, "DC and Iowa were the only two jurisdictions that swung more Democratic in 1984." The cited sources are two pages offering election statistics, one page from 1980, and the other from 1984. A major problem with this edit is that comparisons from Iowa to any other state or district should be performed by [[WP:SECONDARY]] sources.
{{ping|User:JzG}} used G5 to delete at least 4 articles:
*{{revisions|Aisha Praught-Leer}}
*{{revisions|Alejandra Ortega}}
*{{revisions|Alex Rose (athlete)}}
*{{revisions|Cisiane Lopes}}
These were created by [[User:Sander.v.Ginkel]]. I don't know how many others have suffered the same fate. Over a year ago, [[User talk:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines]] thousands of articles were slated for destruction. We were given only a few months to check and restore articles. I was one of several users involved in the checking process. In my specialty area, Athletics, our checklist was 100% checked or so we thought. That was a year ago. Obviously I am an involved editor, but there have been additional revelations to which I have not been a party of. With no notice, articles were deleted. From the story, truthful or not, a couple of the editors checking the articles were socks. But rather than turning the problem over to legitimate involved editors like {{ping|SFB}} and myself, the content just disappeared. I've been trying to get it back for a week. JzG has evaded and hidden and done just about everything possible to avoid solving the problem he caused. No other administrator has been willing to step in to fix the problem. This is the [[WP:CABAL|oligarchy run amok]]. You will notice, two of these articles have been restored, by me. Those articles had been archived by the Wayback machine. You will notice that with the core starting information, those are now '''better''' than they started. In the process of restoring Cisiane Lopes, I discovered that in addition to the destruction of her article, almost all of her internal wikilinks had been manually deleted by JzG.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Athletics_at_the_2007_Pan_American_Games_–_Women%27s_20_kilometres_walk&diff=825686749&oldid=745418707] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Athletics_at_the_2011_Pan_American_Games_–_Women%27s_20_kilometres_walk&diff=825686751&oldid=800549946] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Athletics_at_the_2015_Pan_American_Games_–_Women%27s_20_kilometres_walk&diff=825686759&oldid=746385493] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_Pan_American_Race_Walking_Cup&diff=825686757&oldid=766244971] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009_Pan_American_Race_Walking_Cup&diff=825686758&oldid=766430254] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_World_Championships_in_Athletics_–_Women%27s_20_kilometres_walk&diff=825686760&oldid=796302995] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2004_South_American_Under-23_Championships_in_Athletics&diff=825686768&oldid=786118863] This goes beyond deleting the article, this is deliberate sabotage to expunge this subject. It took a lot of work on JzG's part to do this sabotage. It made it considerably more difficult to relink this subject back into the wiki mainstream. In the process, it had to be apparent to any wiki editor with the intelligence of a rock that this subject would pass [[WP:NSPORTS]] whether it was created by SvG or another editor in the future. What was the goal here? Nothing JzG did was positive or helpful. Instead, it was deliberately harmful.
 
GigachadGigachad has also been adding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1972_United_States_presidential_election_in_Virginia&diff=1258348526&oldid=1257063185 unreferenced lists of regions that "flipped" from one party to another] in the election. Such lists presume that flips are typically listed in the media, which is not true. After being warned repeatedly, GigachadGigachad [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1972_United_States_presidential_election_in_Virginia&diff=next&oldid=1258363447 re-adds the lists] but this time with a webpage source showing simple statistics. The source does not describe flips as important, and it does not track flips for the reader. Rather, anyone interested in flipped cities or flipped counties must cross-reference at least two webpages and compare at least two different years of election results. Nobody but GigachadGigachad is interested in making lists of these "flips"; the media are conspicuously absent in doing so.
The two articles that have not been restored do not have an archive available. The only source for a jumping off point for those subjects exists in the content that JzG and all other administrators who work the [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Residual SvG articles|Undeletion board]] are overtly refusing to take action on. I've been away for two days, nobody has lifted a finger in that time. Userfy. I will take it from there.
 
Basically, GigachadGigachad is using Wikipedia as a personal election analysis publishing platform, introducing novel conclusions. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 04:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
So I know I am fighting a losing battle by opposing one of the untouchable leadership, but I am doing what is right here. G5 should not have been used. JzG should not have done the sabotage. JzG should have responded to the requests to usurfy this content long ago. Whatever '''minor''' offense SvG committed, I have seen no evidence of it and I have looked at hundreds of his articles. But the decision to ban him has taken on a life of its own. JzG and other users should be prevented from using G5 or any other speedy functions to delete the content. Any content they deleted should be restored, at least to draft. If there is a problem with the content, we have a process to fix it, AfD. And even though you disagree with an idea, stop doing things in secrecy. You can see who are legitimate involved editors on a subject. Try notifying us. It takes a lot less work to find users like us than it does to find a coherent list of what has actually been deleted. I don't know how many other editors are involved in this content removal. Speaking for myself, if I know about a problem in my area of expertise, I will fix it. I don't really appreciate being used like a trained monkey to fix things, but my goal is to have good content. This secrecy, backroom conversations and speedy deletions are used strategically to evade people like me. The goal is to vindictively remove SvG content and the public be damned. Those users need to take a time out. Take a chill pill or whatever is a good retort. You have to remember what wikipedia is about. All this backroom crap is not it. We have a public face. Look there. [[User:Trackinfo|Trackinfo]] ([[User talk:Trackinfo|talk]]) 03:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:As the result of a '''''community''''' discussion, SvG was indeffed, so you're claiming that the '''''community''''' is vindicative concerning SvG? I'd rather say that its patience had been depleted. And what's with "cabal", "sabotage", "untouchable leadership", the <u>demand</u> for userfication, and so on? When you use language like that, I'm almost automatically inclined to reject your complaint as being extremely biased. I'm not sure if you haven't crossed the boundary of [[WP:NPA]] concerning JzG. Admins are answerable for their actions, but they are not required to put up with abuse such as you've just laid on him. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 03:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::No comment on the G5's but your statement "Whatever minor offense SvG committed, I have seen no evidence of it and I have looked at hundreds of his articles" makes me question your thoroughness. I looked at '''one''' SvG article (another editor brought up the deletion) and found an obvious BLP violation in the four sentence version SvG put into article space. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 03:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:::Not done in secret but in a discussion further up the page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Sander.v.Ginkel] [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 03:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::::I reviewed a bunch of SvG pages left in Draft and found them sourced extremely poorly and containing exactly the types of errors that lead to draftifying en mass. Better to start over - or for those obscure country handball players from 30 years ago no one knows anything meaningful about - don't recreate even if they were in some Olympic event. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 04:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::"{{tq|'''Whatever minor offense SvG committed'''}}" Uh oh, check [[#Sander.v.Ginkel]] above and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ASander.v.Ginkel block log]. Is the OP suggesting that the indefinite block was for some minor offense, and now JzG is being vindictive? That is absurd so please reword to account for reality. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::The "minor offense" is in fact getting caught for sockpuppetry at two different Wikipedias. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 11:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
*I don't think I've ever heard of [[WP:ANI]] as being a backroom before. [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 04:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:*<small>Just think how much smoke would be generated by 7,328 people puffing on cigars as they make their deals! [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 05:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)</small>
::<small>Quite the speakeasy! [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 08:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)</small>
Simply put, Delete is the LAST answer to a problem, not the first. All of SvG's athletics articles were checked by other editors, including SFB and myself. Some of those other editors turned out to be socks. Turn the articles back to draft and let legitimate editors have another shot at fixing a problem. I'm not hard to find. Delete, G5 without allowing usurfy, is effectively salting THE SUBJECT. SvG's work was sloppy, but it was the starting legwork to give other editors a place to hang additional information. I know Aisha Praught-Leer has been updated since SvG went away, so erasing that subject because SvG made the first edit is justified how? I believe I added to Alex Rose as well. So why is SvG's originating the article relevant now? Why punish us? Why punish the subject? Why punish the public by censoring legitimate content? The only explanation is your cumulative vindictiveness against what should be a historical wiki account who hasn't made a legitimate edit in well over a year. [[User:Trackinfo|Trackinfo]] ([[User talk:Trackinfo|talk]]) 06:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
−
*We've had the mass deletions before, whether for sockpuppettry, suspected copyvio, or inaccurate translations. In each case a large number of articles were deleted which should not have been, despite efforts to save them. Certainly in such cases if an editor without involvement in the original situation and with a good record here has been willing to speak for or work on the articles, we have at least tried not to delete them, or at the very least have undeleted them on request. To insist on keeping them deleted by using speedy deletion over the objections of a respected editor is in my opinion not correct. (I have lists of a few dozen myself from such sweeps to restore that I have never been able to get to). Using G5 in a disputed situation is incorrect just as using any speedy in a disputed situation is incorrect.
:The view that some of these articles are trivial and should therefore not be restored is an opinion--indeed, I personally would not work on restoring Olympic athletes with no other information. Preventing someone who does want to do the work from doing it , when the articles pass the currently accepted notability standard for athlete is an overuse of authority. (I personally think there's a good argument for changing our guideline here, but any admin action must follow the accepted guideline in place, whether or not we individually like it). In fact, looking at the examples of Aisha Praught-Leer and Rose listed above, they are not in the least in this category, and would I think pass any reasonable notability standard.
:Nobody can think I am in favor of tolerating editing such as that by SVG, but there is still in dealing with them a certain necessary level of respect for each other, and no one admin should be permitted to act unilaterally in this situation. This is not a matter for joking about. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 06:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:: {{u|DGG}}: what we have here is a very specific set of circumstances. The articles were moved to Draft, by consensus. Most of these were deleted under CSD#G13 (SvG has something like 22,000 deleted article starts in his log). Some - not a few, either - were moved back into mainspace by one of two sockpuppets. The more egregious was {{userlinks|MFriedman}}, a sock of SvG himself, which used edit summaries like "no SvG issues" or "checked", playing the role of an independent editor reviewing articles that had been deemed not to meed standards. The less egregious (and simpler) was {{userlinks|Beatley}}, a ban-evading sock of {{userlinks|Slowking4}}. So after discussion I deleted those articles meeting the following criteria:
::* Created by SvG and passed through the process of rejection and move to Draft
::* Moved out of Draft by one of the two socks
::* No substantive edits, so that if they had remained in draft they would have been eligible for G13 - by no substantive edits I mean nothing other than removing deprecated infobox parameters and adding cats, the kind of semi-automated or automated edit that is only done by virtue of being in mainspace.
:: I don't think Trackinfo was happy with the original removal of these articles to Draft, and he's sure as hell not happy with this cleanup, but I feel I shuold point out that at no point did he actually fix the issues of poor sourcing and [[WP:NOTDIR]] that led to the original move to Draft. There may be a few errors, for which I would of course apologise and correct, but I do not recall seeing Trackinfo's name against a single edit after the move back from Draft to mainspace by socks.
:: Trackinfo has now taken this to multiple venues including Facebook. He does not seem to like the answer he gets, each time. I'm not surprised: he's a victim of SvG's deceit, probably more than the rest of us. But this is abusive editing and a cleanup activity discussed in the relevant venues. Many of these articles had sources that did not even contain the information they were purported to contain, there is a reason they were rejected from mainspace. I don't think there's much resistance to providing the deleted text for a clean-start for any article Trackinfo identifies, unfortunately his reaction tot hat has been to demand wholesale restoration of the entire bunch because cabal, which doesn't really help anyone who wants to help him.&nbsp;<b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 08:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:::Watch the accusations, JzG. I do not have a Facebook account. I'm an obstinate old man, I do not do social media. My entire discussion of this issue has been here, escalating as your administrator buddies continue to back your egregious deletions through their lack of action. During the period of checking SvG articles I did not roll back a single one and found no cause to. Rather than assuming and accusing, show me one where I was wrong. In my contact, SvG created stub articles about lesser known Olympic athletes. When I found they matched the source, usually sports-reference, for the presentation of the basic facts, there was no reason to delete or send them back. I added to most of them as I checked them, a slow, laborious process. On Project Athletics, we have a pretty good layout of blue links in all of our recent Olympic and World Championship results. Those SvG stubs are a big part of that, positive contributions, but there are a bunch of good people following up on those start up stubs, adding little links or entire subjects that help lead others to follow up information. Each deletion wipes out all that cumulative information from a lot of minds. Knowledge. Idiot deletionists do not seem to understand, when you destroy content, you are erasing knowledge. It might be able to be found again, but the communal information is lost, possibly never to return, because a roaming contributor thinks their addition is already saved on the article. Praught was such a stub article at first, except she was involved in a heroic act with a fallen athlete and made the final in the Olympics with a lot of coverage. Since then she was also in the final of the World Championships, has the Jamaican and probably Caribbean records and got married to a notable athlete causing her hyphenated name. And I almost forgot, she found her dad. Her article went from SvG's stub to at least three paragraphs. I'm doing this off the top of my head, so she's not exactly off the radar as was a lot of SvG's work. Rose I believe qualified for the World Championships legitimately, rather than being his domestic token, also multiple paragraphs now. Your blind destruction is inappropriate to the current state of those articles, or what they were before this week. With YOUR record of blind destruction, YOUR obvious irresponsibility, how can we mere mortal editors check the damage YOU have done to other articles, without the ability to see them? If you think you are doing such a good job, try a little daylight and prove it. I'll bet I'll find other articles that could and should be saved. I don't think you'll find any, but certainly a whole lot more than any bad piece of SvG information I let onto mainspace. [[User:Trackinfo|Trackinfo]] ([[User talk:Trackinfo|talk]]) 09:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::::Again and again. I see this tactic [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_February_19&diff=prev&oldid=826478919 again and again]. [[User:Reyk|<b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|<b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b>]]</sub> 10:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::::{{u|Trackinfo}}, I apologise for misidentifying you as the person complaining in the Wikipedia Weekly facebook group. Anyone here who looks at that group may understand the reason for the mistake, but I accept your assurance. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 11:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
*I don't think it would be controversial if these articles were restored on an individual basis. [[Lada Kozlíková]] was created in ''2013'' for example, and has plenty of edits from other users; it shouldn't ever be retroactively deleted as G5. &mdash;[[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] ([[User talk:Xezbeth|talk]]) 07:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:: Well, most of those are bot and semi-automated edits. I moved it back to [[Draft:Lada Kozlíková]]. yes, it was created in 2013, but it was created by SvG, and apart from maintenance edits it is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ALada_Kozl%C3%ADkov%C3%A1&type=revision&diff=826652924&oldid=637296119 unchanged since he left it]. Neither source is a [[WP:RS]], both are directories and both look user-edited. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 08:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::: I'm not criticising the decision to delete them, I just don't think it would be controversial if I decide to fish an article out of SvG's deleted contributions. Provided I check it myself for unsourced statements. &mdash;[[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] ([[User talk:Xezbeth|talk]]) 09:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:::: I agree. Especially if they go back to Draft for cleanup or if you fix them yourself. If I deleted them, please feel free, or if you're uncomfortable due to [[WP:WHEEL]] concerns, leave a list on my Talk and I'll do it. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 09:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Guy, the path is simple, if you choose to be cooperative instead of resistive. MFriedman, the sock, moved a bunch of articles from draft to mainspace. As a sock he didn't have the right to do that. So put the stuff back in draft. Its like hitting the undo button. Us mere mortal editors can see what is there and deal with it, AS WE DID OTHER SIMILAR ARTICLES. G5 deletion destroys the content from our perspective. Did you notice how quickly the above article was restored to mainspace? [[User:Trackinfo|Trackinfo]] ([[User talk:Trackinfo|talk]]) 21:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
: Except that they have mainly been G13d. As in: deleted. Over 20,000 of them. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::I'm with DGG and don't really understand what the problem is. If editors have expressed a willingness to work on the articles, I don't see why we can't give them resonable time, e.g. 6 months or 1 year to do so. If these articles were only re-draftified a few days ago, I don't see how they can already be classified as abandoned. The fact that they were draftified longer ago, then incorrectly moved back by socks is largely irrelevant to whether or not they are abandoned. You can't fault others for not working on articles which were not drafts at the time. Or to put it a different way how can a draft have been abandoned if it was not actually a draft for most of that time? For any articles which were still drafts after last time and never moved back, it's probably fair if these are deleted since 4? years or more suggests no one is going to get to these. To be fair, I don't think Trackinfo has helped their case by downplaying what SvG did or by suggesting that these articles were largely fine, but the fact that Trackinfo hasn't approached this well is no excuse for classifying stuff as abandoned drafts when we have no evidence they have been abandoned since they were only re-draftified a few days ago and editors have expressed a willingness to work on them. If evidence emerges that editors are not properly checking these articles, e.g. leaving in BLPvios or copyright problems, then this should be dealt with when it happens. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 02:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
:::There isnt a problem, Trackinfo knows where DRV is. We are not going to re-litigate the SvG articles being deleted for the nth time. If Trackinfo wants a copy of any of the deleted articles, it has been offered to them. If they want to contest the deletion, they know where DRV is. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 02:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
::::{{tq|If Trackinfo wants a copy of any of the deleted articles, it has been offered to them}} I don't seen an offer. I don't have access to even the two specified articles at the top of this "incident" report. '''Offer accepted.''' Where are they? There are about 2,000 athletics articles I cannot determine their fate en masse because the linkage was, to steal the phraseology from above "nuked." I have been criticized recently for calling deletion with terms related to destruction. Obviously the perpetrators of this destruction understand what they are doing. {{tq|They shouldn't be unlinked}} was said above. The list I gave JzG on his talk page over a week ago, the only organized list of these problem articles related to athletics, showed all red links. They '''were''' unlinked. {{ping|sillyfolkboy}} showed a later, partial list where the majority those were in fact in mainspace. My goal is to have all legitimate articles in mainspace. I don't care who created them, I care about providing content for the public. We have the World Championships starting in a week, I care about future editors having a place to hang additional content without having to go through the additional research and effort to create each article anew. With the randomization of the attack done by JzG, I have no idea what articles got "nuked" and which were left. Frankly, I don't know which of these articles were checked by the sock MFriedman and which were checked by legitimate editors including myself. If MFriedman was bad, revert his actions, take the stuff back to draft and let the rest of us legitimate editors check the work. That does not equate with "nuke."
::::The reason I brought this forward as an incident is because JzG went beyond any mandate by 1) failing to restore an article he deleted on the request of a legitimate editor and 2) he consciously took his time to deliberately remove any linkage to these articles he "nuked." That is sabotage against the subject of these articles. The reason I charged Cabal is because I have made this issue quite present before administrators on several different pages. JzG is a self admitted rogue administrator but the other administrators are backing one of their own through their inaction. That is the "good old boys network" at play. [[User:Trackinfo|Trackinfo]] ([[User talk:Trackinfo|talk]]) 18:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Trackinfo}} Please read [[Wikipedia:Rouge admin]]. [[User:Tide rolls|'''<span style="color:White;background:darkRed">Tide</span>''']][[User talk:Tide rolls|'''<span style="color:darkRed">rolls'''</span>]] 19:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::As of the time I wrote that, JzG has a user box announcing that fact on his user page. I just went with it.[[User:Trackinfo|Trackinfo]] ([[User talk:Trackinfo|talk]]) 20:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::::I'm simply attempting to illustrate the complex relationship between perception and understanding. [[User:Tide rolls|'''<span style="color:White;background:darkRed">Tide</span>''']][[User talk:Tide rolls|'''<span style="color:darkRed">rolls'''</span>]] 20:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::::::Some incorrect assumptions underpin this complaint. The pages removed were not something future editors could handlg their hat on. They were poorly sourced guesswork. The most recent numing were creations of an admitted sock puppet in violation of his block. We can't encourage that behavior by saying "oh well" There was plenty of time before thousands of pages were G13'd. [[WP:TNT]] applies. Any editor is free to just start the topics they think need covering. We are talking about stuff like East German handball players after all, not some incredibly highly searched topic that really needs a page on Wikipedia. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 20:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::::Certainly some incorrect assumptions are being made, by you. You are talking about the articles as they have been presented by SvG and his sock MFriedman. They might be in such condition. They have not been checked by legitimate editors. The ones which were checked should not have been tampered with. The first two, I mentioned at the top of this section, have definitely been improved upon since SvG left. They were on my watch list. They have no business being deleted, but all of you have been preventing them from getting restored since my initial request a week ago. And the ones that were checked by MFriedman should be made into drafts so they can be checked. If I check them, they will get improved. I assume the same will be done by other members of Project Athletics. Of course, you've heard it; when you assume you make an ass out of you and me. There are a lot of asses right now. [[User:Trackinfo|Trackinfo]] ([[User talk:Trackinfo|talk]]) 21:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::I got sidetracked by restoring thousands of redirects. Upon looking at the two articles in question, the bulk of the content has indeed been added by other editors, so I had no issue with restoring them to the main space as they are. &mdash;[[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] ([[User talk:Xezbeth|talk]]) 22:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
===Reaction===
Thank you Xezbeth for finally, rightfully restoring those two articles.
 
:Added courtesy link to to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1116#Disruptive editing by GigachadGigachad|Archive 1116]] above. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 06:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
What this also provides is evidence. Over this entire week, not one of you administrators have considered my argument. Any one of you could have looked at the article to see the legitimacy of my claims, that the articles had been previously checked and improved by other editors. Any one of you, who commented above or who just passed by, could have verified that fact and restored this content. But none of you did. For a week, not one of you did. '''This screams "good old boys."''' You need to look at your behavior as a group, as individuals. Why didn't you respect the word of a non-administrator enough to even look? This goes to the credibility of you as a group. No wonder so many editors act and feel like you don't give them any respect. You certainly didn't give me any respect and I have been right on every count. Cabal does exist. My claim is justified.
 
*Given [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections]], this might be a case to bring to AE. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I suggest you create some new procedures to ensure you don't behave this way toward non-administrators in the future. Now we have an open question. Will you do anything? Or will you attempt to cover this up? Or will you just ignore it again, because a "good old boy" can't be wrong.
 
:The county flips infomation is included on most presidential, sentorial, and gubernatorial elections across all 50 states, many of which were not introduced by myself. It is merely simple election analysis (that I do not have a monopoly on) related to the county results infomation also inlcuded on those pages. The county flips do not require complex sourcing, as one can compare two lists of county results to see which ones flipped. It is not some complicated analysis. It merely offers users the oppritunity to see how election outcomes have changed over time. [[User:GigachadGigachad|GigachadGigachad]] ([[User talk:GigachadGigachad|talk]]) 16:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
At the forefront of this is the accused administrative editor, JzG. How vehemently has he argued. {{tq|I do not recall seeing Trackinfo's name against a single edit after the move back from Draft to mainspace by socks.}} These articles clearly show how superficially and thoughtlessly he deleted content. I believe you would phrase that "misused tools." {{tq|Many of these articles had sources that did not even contain the information they were purported to contain, there is a reason they were rejected from mainspace.}} Maybe for other articles. Clearly not these. He argued, with the support of others for a week, and didn't even look at the damage he caused. And the sabotage? The sabotage had nothing to do with SvG. That was just an act of vengeance against the subject of a stub article created by SvG. Additional salt against any editor who might try to revive that subject. And the clearly false accusations of my taking to Facebook. None of this is behavior becoming of an administrator. If administrators were behaving in an admirable fashion, they would have taken disciplinary action. Instead, you just supported his claims.
::Comparing two lists of county results in order to form a narrative of long-term change is still [[WP:SYNTH]]; it doesn't seem trivial to me at all. But the more glaring thing to me is that you're giving the narrative you read into those numbers extremely outsized weight. US national elections have huge amounts of stuff written about them; if a flip is ''significant'', it will have secondary sources (ie. not just tables of numbers) discussing it directly. Without that, putting it in the ''lead'', the way you did in the diff above, is obviously ridiculous. And the more serious issue is that you continue to try and force this lens for understanding elections through on multiple articles after someone has objected, which violates [[WP:FAIT]]; you need to slow down, discuss it with people who object, and try to reach a consensus on it before continuing to edit the same thing into so many articles at scale. And, ideally, like I said, this would consist of finding secondary sources and dropping the issue for cases where they can't be found - with the endless amounts of data on elections that exist, you could form almost any narrative you wanted by pulling out the right pairs of datapoints and comparing them; that's why, in situations like that, we need secondary sources actually discussing an aspect rather than just an editor going over the numbers and performing [[WP:OR]]. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 20:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I am confused how this is an issue only when I do it. Take a look at the version history of this [[2024 United States presidential election in Texas|page]]. [[User:Binksternet]] removed county flip info, as well as the map showing the county flips and county trends that created by another user. This was later readded to the page, with no further protests. Or we can look to this [[1928 United States presidential election in Wyoming|page]] where [[User:D&RG Railfan]] added in the county flips text and map in November of 2023. So I am operating under the assumtpion that this kind of info is acceptable. The fact is other users continue to add this infomation on the most recent election, as well as older ones, so I fail to see how this is me creating my own narratives on this site, when as far as I can tell, it is seen as the acceptable infomation to include.
:::I am happy to address sourcing issues that fellow users, like [[User:Alansohn]] have, but it is weird to single me out for adding in basic county info that other users are concurrently adding. [[User:GigachadGigachad|GigachadGigachad]] ([[User talk:GigachadGigachad|talk]]) 20:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
 
I bring into question the quality of this entire mass deletion, nuclear option. I call it thoughtless and have suggested for over a year that "thought" is what is needed. We had the articles temporarily identified in draft space. For the articles related to my area of expertise, our Project Athletics checked the 2,000 plus articles first. Unfortunately, MFriedman was one of the editors. The logical reaction would be to undo the bad work of the sock, take it back to draft space. Instead it got wholesale "nuked." You have wholesale prevented them from getting rescued. With a little bit of credibility wind in my sail, I will repeat my claim more specifically; I have not seen any fraudulent content or misrepresentation by SvG. Sloppy, yes. Wrong, no. His massive labor provided the necessary starting point for thousands of subjects. I have not seen an article he created that cannot be salvaged. Why are you so forcefully going out of your way to deny us the chance? Back to the original claim. It only looks like irrational vindictiveness against any article SvG created. I want that content back where responsible editors can see it, rescue it, source it and move it to mainspace where it belongs. What does it hurt to put it back to draft?
 
The issues with {{U|GigachadGigachad}} are far more systemic in the pattern of violations of rules, especially about sourcing. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ocean_County,_New_Jersey&diff=prev&oldid=1260659001 This edit] to the article for [[Ocean County, New Jersey]] is a perfect example. In addition to the unsourced claim about when the district last voted Republican is the change to elected officials. Arace and Bacchione were elected in November 2024, but will not take office until January 2025, but no sources are provided to indicate that they were elected; old sources for the individuals they will replace have been left in the article. GigachadGigachad knows that they have been elected, knows that they have not taken office but refuses to provide sources. This same set of problems about sourcing and timing exists for all 21 of the New Jersey county articles he has updated.{{pb}}GigachadGigachad has been notified about these issues on multiple occasions on their talk page and has refused to address the problems. The editor appears to be fully aware of the fundamental principle of [[wP:V]], but refuses to comply with these requirements or to engage in meaningful discussion on their talk page to address these issues.{{pb}}The editor was "blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content" in January 2023 and is doing the same things all over again. A block appears necessary at this point. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 16:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I can't speak for other projects, perhaps with less forceful voices. Does that make 20,000 articles disappearing justifiable? I certainly don't think so. I think the first thing that needs to be deleted is the concept of "delete" from your list of options. We delete incorrect information; fraud, deceit. We add sources and improve legitimate content. Let editors do what we do. What is the damage caused by leaving all of this in draft space? All I have seen is artificial impatience. Like the first four articles, do you fear we prove this stuff is legit? [[User:Trackinfo|Trackinfo]] ([[User talk:Trackinfo|talk]]) 06:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 
== Spammer — Vesan99 / ZooEscaper ==
*"I have not seen any fraudulent content or misrepresentation by SvG. Sloppy, yes. Wrong, no. " Plenty of evidence of such content was given at the original discussion that led to the draftifying of all these articles in the first place. If you haven't seen it, I suggest you look again. This included very serious BLP violations, but also using one source for a BLP where that source (not the actual link, but the complete website it pointed at) didn't include the person involved. We now know that he also uploaded photographs as "own work" which weren't his own work, which I would call "fraudulent work" and "misrepresentation". Of course, using a sock to approve your own work could also be seen as "misrepresentation" and "fraudulent work"... Instead of instantly deleting is work, people were given many months to check the work. While some people did this conscientiously, the majority of these checks were done by himself as a sock, by a sock of banned user Slowking4 who also didn't care about the problems, and by a series of other editors who simply moved all problems back into the mainspace. That your complaints here were not acted upon to your liking has a lot to do with your head-in-the-sand attitude in your opening statement, like "Whatever '''minor''' offense SvG committed, I have seen no evidence of it", which indicates that you totally ignored looking at the origin of this whole sorry episode.
*I just took a look at one of his creations during his brief return, and these should be moved to draft space as well. [[Rianne de Vries]]: "She won the gold medal in the 1500m event at the 2016 World Junior Championships in Sofia". This seems highly unlikely on the fae of it, as she was 25 years old at the time, a bit old for a junior world champiosnhips. Sure enough, none of the sources nor the [[2016 World Junior Short Track Speed Skating Championships]] article mention her. It's not as if the article is massively long and one error sneaked in. It is a typical short article, with some very close paraphrasing in the few real sentences, and even so he couldn't get it right. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
:::My sample size is small relative to the number of articles, maybe a couple hundred athletics articles. Every one I looked at could be and was cleaned. Maybe he was better at athletics. Speaking of small sample size, what percentage of active editors were involved in your great decision to nuke all the content? We have a problem with socks. Maybe we need to validate the users who are checking the content in draft space. I've only been editing wikipedia for just short of 11 years. You think I'd qualify? [[User:Trackinfo|Trackinfo]] ([[User talk:Trackinfo|talk]]) 09:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
::::If you have any non-rhetorical questions, feel free to pose them. Any article (as long as the subject exists and is notable) can be cleaned, that doesn't mean that this is the best solution. The consensus then was that in many, many cases, the articles contained so little information and so relatively many errors (for stubs) that starting over was easier and safer than cleaning them up. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 10:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 
* {{userlinks|Vesan99}}
**Ugh. So apparently flooding the mainspace with tens of thousands of inaccurate articles on living people, lying about the source of uploaded photographs, and using a sock account to stuff the crap articles back in mainspace without being checked or corrected are all just "minor offenses". I'd ask what Trackinfo would consider to be a major offense, but in this case we already know: cleaning up the mess. Hence all the ranting and shrieking about secret cabals and "deliberate sabotage". The reason Trackinfo is being opposed on this is not because there's a sinister "untouchable leadership"- a cabal of evil scary kitten-eating deletionists- but because his views are not grounded in reality. [[User:Reyk|<b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|<b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b>]]</sub> 11:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|ZooEscaper}} (no contribs here)
:::::You missed the point entirely. You are making me re-detail this and are lengthening my replies as a consequence. I started this incident around four articles deleted by JzG, isolated by SFB on [[User talk:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines#Sockpuppets]]. JzG had the ability to look at what he was deleting at the time, in person, and as an administrator he continued to have the ability to actually look at the deleted articles in question. Other admins who commented; NeilN, DGG, Tiderolls had the same ability. I don't know how many other admins passed by. You all '''assumed''' Jzg was right and I was venting about something insignificant; SvG garbage. Discussion continued for a full week about two articles [[Aisha Praught-Leer]] and [[Alex Rose (athlete)]]. While I could not see the deleted articles, I was certain that these articles were significantly improved upon since SvG. Now restored, the history of those articles proves ME right, and that I was part of that history. Beyond My Ken said {{tq|Admins are answerable for their actions, but they are not required to put up with abuse such as you've just laid on him.}} So who was abusing who? I was being abused by the Administrator and all of you articulately backed him and had through each of the earlier escalations of this case. THAT IS THE CABAL. You take the word from an Admin who is not telling the truth. You pile on with evidence that is not the truth. I could wait for apologies but that is not the real point. I just want to change your pattern of behavior for the future. Stop assuming non-administrators are crackpots. Stop assuming administrators are always right. Stop protecting the "good old boys" when they are wrong. You have the ability to fix problems. Open your eyes and do some fixing.
 
Vesan99 is spammer (former experienced member, curator of a network of "black" paid accounts), rarely appears in en.wiki, but he and the accounts associated with him managed to have some contribution here. See [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_215#Vesan99]] for details.
:::::I rescued two of the simpler articles from Wayback. I didn't change a word of SvG's original content, I simply supplemented. That demonstrated the condition I have found the SvG content I have dealt with. [[User talk:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines#Sockpuppets|On that page]], SFB volunteered to check and thus rescue any SvG created content related to athletics, which I have continually volunteered to do as well. This is a job the two of us thought had already been done a year ago, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Aymatth2/SvG_clean-up/Competitors_in_athletics&offset=&limit=500&action=history] a status we wish to return to.
 
It happens that {{u|Vesan99}} is {{userlinks|ZooEscaper}}. [https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project:%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2/PeshehodNogami&diff=141504860&oldid=141369203 CU comment in russian]. ZooEscaper is under global lock as a [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/ZooEscaper spambot].
:::::So our stated goal got confused by disingenuous contributions by socks. We simply want that content back. I produced lists created at the time of the articles I wanted back. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Aymatth2/SvG_clean-up/Race_walkers&diff=prev&oldid=764016607] for example. And notice, the draft of articles I recreated [[Alejandra Ortega]] and [[Cisiane Lopes]] are not linked to the existing articles by the same name. This deliberate unlinking prevents us from producing a coherent list of exactly what needs to be made available for our project. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Aymatth2/SvG_clean-up/Competitors_in_athletics&oldid=759888923] shows a lot that have been rescued. How many have been rescued, how many have not. I can't tell you because the linkage is missing. A little over 200 out of over 2,000 for certain [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmed_Ali_(sprinter)&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anjelina_Lohalith&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Ståhl&action=history] some by me, subsequently improved upon by others. Exactly what I keep saying has happened and should happen. I use that process as evidence of what could become of the other 20,000, given the kind of input we get at Project Athletics. I can't guarantee other projects have that kind of support. It does take support to bring the initial contribution of SvG into clearer focus. He provided the starting point. But certainly all this stuff related to athletics is not junk. The assumptions are '''proven wrong.'''
 
To prevent Wikipedia from being used for undeclared paid edits, please block Vesan99 account, as we done in ru.wiki. ·[[User:Carn|Carn]]·[[User talk:Carn|<small>!?</small>]] 10:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::And since this incident was focused on the four articles, lets go back to [[Cisiane Lopes]]. I identified seven locations where her name was deliberately unlinked by JzG. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Athletics_at_the_2007_Pan_American_Games_–_Women%27s_20_kilometres_walk&diff=825686749&oldid=745418707] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Athletics_at_the_2011_Pan_American_Games_–_Women%27s_20_kilometres_walk&diff=825686751&oldid=800549946] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Athletics_at_the_2015_Pan_American_Games_–_Women%27s_20_kilometres_walk&diff=825686759&oldid=746385493] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_Pan_American_Race_Walking_Cup&diff=825686757&oldid=766244971] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009_Pan_American_Race_Walking_Cup&diff=825686758&oldid=766430254] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_World_Championships_in_Athletics_–_Women%27s_20_kilometres_walk&diff=825686760&oldid=796302995] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2004_South_American_Under-23_Championships_in_Athletics&diff=825686768&oldid=786118863] In most cases, out of lists of results with many red links, her's was the ONLY name that did not have a link. All of that removal was the deliberate, meticulous work of JzG. What possible use could all that have, except to sabotage? How could someone go through that much work and not notice the significance of this subject? The only answer is vindictiveness. [[User:Trackinfo|Trackinfo]] ([[User talk:Trackinfo|talk]]) 16:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:ZooEscaper]] never edited the English Wikipedia and had a total of 11 edits on the Russian Wikipedia and Vesan99 hasn't edited since May. I see you filed a long report at [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 215#Vesan99]] but there was no responses from other editors or administrators.
:::::: The tool most admins use to delete articles is Twinkle. When you delete an article, you get the option to also remove backlinks. I did that on the first few articles but others said that the athletics fans would be happier leaving redlinks, so I switched to leaving backlinks intact. So the "seven locations" where I "deliberately unlinked" the article are actually a single standard action. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 17:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
:If you are concerned about Vesan99, I'd file a report at [[WP:SPI]] but I don't think there would be any valid results as this account is stale. This definitely doesn't seem like an urgent, intractable problem that needs to be addressed on ANI right now. And I have no idea what you mean by {{tq|"black" paid accounts}}, that could use some explaining if this editor ever becomes active again. Right now, it looks like this is mainly an issue for the Russian Wikipedia, not this project. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 22:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
* Having just read through this whole thread, it occurs to me that [[User:Trackinfo|Trackinfo]] needs to smarten up. His contribution here seems to consist primarily of massive TLDR walls of text filled with [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] and [[WP:IDHT|IDHT]] rants. If this continues, I suspect a boomerang might be in order. - [[User:Nick Thorne|<b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b>]] [[User talk:Nick Thorne|<sup style="color: darkblue">''talk''</sup>]] 02:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
::Yes, it is not urgent. The text highlighted in green, which requires clarification, is my unsuccessful translation of internal ru.wiki slang, and means a user who not only does not declare a paid edits, but hides his real intentions and denies that there was one. ·[[User:Carn|Carn]]·[[User talk:Carn|<small>!?</small>]] 13:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:*But I hope you didn't miss that the walls of text are Reyk's fault, not Trackinfo's. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 10:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
::*Well, '''I''' certainly missed the part where Reyk was holding Trackinfo at gunpoint and forcing him to type. Could you point that out? --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 10:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
:::*I'm puzzled by that claim too, since only one of Trackinfo's rambling walls of text is in response to my comment. [[User:Reyk|<b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|<b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b>]]</sub> 11:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
::::*...wait, I think I missed some sarcasm there. [[User:Reyk|<b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|<b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b>]]</sub> 11:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::*<small>{{re|Calton|Reyk}} Sorry, yes, communication fail on my part there. {{tq|You are making me re-detail this and are lengthening my replies as a consequence.}} [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 12:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)</small>
 
== [[User:Zhenghecaris]] ==
'''Kill the messenger.''' Threaten [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. When I started this at [[User talk:JzG/Archive 152#Alex Rose (athlete)]] it was about a single article that had been thoughtlessly deleted. The history: SvG created it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Rose_(athlete)&diff=678725220&oldid=678613989 here], during the "Clean up" a year ago, it was sent to draft. The sock MFriedman checked it off [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Rose_(athlete)&diff=763621761&oldid=763459721 here], left with three sources. 19 hours later, after I had edited the article, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Rose_(athlete)&diff=763624317&oldid=763624276 here] it had 6 sources. Why is MFriedman or SvG's content relevant any more? That was more than a year ago. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Rose_(athlete)&diff=819324271&oldid=807243497 Here] is what the article looked like when JzG (otherwise known as Guy) deleted it. Show of hands, does anybody think I am not justified in asking for it to be restored? (break for votes) [[User:Trackinfo|Trackinfo]] ([[User talk:Trackinfo|talk]]) 19:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Zhenghecaris}}
I said mostly what the problem of the user is in [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#User:Zhenghecaris]] so see here for detail, this user recently added references by fringe researcher [[Mark McMenamin]] again after I warned in previous discussion,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kimberellomorpha&diff=prev&oldid=1260575375][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamisiocaris&diff=prev&oldid=1260584393] and apparently this user seems used ChatGPT to write the article,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kimberellomorpha&diff=prev&oldid=1260480686] and current state of article [[Kimberellomorpha]] this uses created is terrible. This user recently uploaded [[:File:Solza_margarita_fossil.jpg]] to Wikimedia Commons, this is non-free image apparently uploaded from Fandom Wiki, and seems it is non-free image (it is uploaded as fair use image in Russian Wikipedia[https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B7%D0%B0.jpg]). So this user contributed another copyright violation after [[c:User_talk:Zhenghecaris#Copyright_violations|warned in Commons]]. This user seems does not learn, continuing to add fringe theories and do copyright violations, what is needed is block at least in Paleontology topic. [[User:Ta-tea-two-te-to|Ta-tea-two-te-to]] ([[User talk:Ta-tea-two-te-to|talk]]) 11:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
 
:Also strange behavior is that this user tried to move user page to nonexistent user page called Paranomalocaris.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zhenghecaris&diff=prev&oldid=1260272299][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zhenghecaris&diff=prev&oldid=1260272302] Maybe this user wanted to change name without knowing how Wikipedia works, or tried to make sockpuppet. Either way, I don't think user who do this kind of behavior should have editing privileges. This user also had some problematic behaviors such as edit someone's image roughly to make it like what they claim ([[:File:Zhenghecaris_with_setal_blades.jpg]]), and complain user's art style. (see [[c:User_talk:Junnn11#Eyes|here]]) in Commons. [[User:Ta-tea-two-te-to|Ta-tea-two-te-to]] ([[User talk:Ta-tea-two-te-to|talk]]) 11:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Instead of restoring the content as a responsible administrator should do, [[WP:UND]] {{tq|If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly.}}, JzG resisted. And resisted.
::(FWIW, I've tagged [[Commons:Solza_margarita_fossil.jpg]] as having to either provide evidence of free license or be deleted in 7 days.) <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 11:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I just left that as evidence for ANI in Commons ([[c:Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Zhenghecaris]]), but after that I will simply put copyvio template for that. (P.S. this user is blocked from Commons for a week.) [[User:Ta-tea-two-te-to|Ta-tea-two-te-to]] ([[User talk:Ta-tea-two-te-to|talk]]) 11:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
: I find the admittance of using AI in some capacity [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kimberellomorpha#c-Zhenghecaris-20241201002400-Subdivision here] concerning. I think Zhenghecaris has some [[WP:CIR]] issues that have caused them to be disruptive in this topic area. Not sure what the best solution is here. I think some kind of warning to avoid relying on AI at mininum, and to avoid relying so heavily on the research of Mark McMenamin, and avoid writing articles about topics where McMenamin is the only source. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 23:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
 
== User:Remsense ==
Further research revealed this was part of a mass deletion by JzG. At [[User talk:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines#Sockpuppets]] SFB helped isolate these four named articles. Two were tiny stubs I was able to rescue from Wayback and improve; [[Alejandra Ortega]] and [[Cisiane Lopes]]. Those were articles started by SvG. Look at them now. Were they worthy of being deleted?
 
This user is way out of line, bulk reverting a number of my edits on article dates. The subjects of the articles are all European, and therefore DMY dates should be used, per [[MOS:DATETIES]]. This user needs a stern warning. [[User:Marbe166|Marbe166]] ([[User talk:Marbe166|talk]]) 11:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
A more important athlete [[Aisha Praught-Leer]] had just been updated to include her marriage and name change days earlier. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aisha_Praught-Leer&diff=696138618&oldid=695849055 This] is what it looked like after SvG started it, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aisha_Praught-Leer&diff=825408980&oldid=823912698 this] is what it looked like when it was deleted. Was SvG's start of the article meritorious of trashing all the subsequent content? Again. Show of hands, does anybody think I am not justified in asking for it to be restored? (break for votes) [[User:Trackinfo|Trackinfo]] ([[User talk:Trackinfo|talk]]) 19:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 
:This is a surprise addendum to [[#User:Marginataen|the thread directly above]]. Now, we've discovered another meatbotting user who refuses to read [[WP:DATEVAR]] after being implored to multiple times—and they've likewise done a huge amount of damage across dozens of articles over the past few months because of it that I've now had to go ahead and start fixing. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 11:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
They are also a symptom of a much broader deletion effort, the size and scope of which I cannot identify. Failing to get a positive response from the administrator, two days later, I brought the request to [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Residual SvG articles]], where other administrators could review the decision and fix the problem. No action. In the meantime, I discovered what I regarded as sabotage, apparently something an administrator can cause at the click of a mouse. My apology for the accusation, though I question making such thoughtless, destructive tools readily available. After four days of this, I thought this was a disciplinary problem. Clearly the administrator was not restoring the content as they should, no other administrator would restore the content as they would if they were being responsible (meaning they were taking the word of the administrator, not me thus [[WP:CABAL]]), and the administrator was heaping all sorts of unrelated accusations against the content and then myself, based on '''assumptions''' rather than taking 5 seconds to see what he had actually deleted. And it languished for two more days until Xezbeth restored them.
::[[MOS:DATETIES]] outweighs [[WP:DATEVAR]], and please stop the personal attacks. [[User:Marbe166|Marbe166]] ([[User talk:Marbe166|talk]]) 11:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Mind linking me to the RFC that decided this, that must've slipped under my radar in the previous two weeks since the last discussion in the series of likely dozens over the years that make it perfectly clear that non-English-speaking countries' date formats do not themselves decide the date format used in articles? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 12:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:Diffs? I suppose [[Special:Diff/1260745731|one]] ''is'' {{tqq|a number of... edits}}, but I feel like I must be missing something for this to show up on the dramaboards already. The diff linked in this comment is a content dispute belonging at [[Talk:List of Holocaust survivors]] (most recent non-bot edit: March 2023). [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 12:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::I mean, it's bordering on a conduct issue if @[[User:Marbe166|Marbe166]] is unwilling to go back themselves and undo whatever historical [[WP:DATEVAR]] violations have been quietly committed according to this interpretation. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 12:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm open to the possibility of conduct issues, but the only diff submitted thus far is the one I linked. The misalign&shy;ment here seems to be conflicting interpretation of [[MOS:TIES]], which underlies both shortcuts linked in the initial comments above. As far as I've been able to determine, the operational definition of {{xt|strong national ties}} has never been explicated. There are too many {{code|MOS talk:}} subheadings in too many archives for me to search the whole space right now, but [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 156#Strong national ties question|this 2017 thread]] with participation from multiple MOS regulars seems to indicate there was never an original consensus definition. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 13:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' I'd like to see this content dispute resolved so I'm starting a topic at [[Talk:List of Holocaust survivors]] [[User:Orange sticker|Orange sticker]] ([[User talk:Orange sticker|talk]]) 12:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::There's no content dispute: [[WP:DATEVAR]] says exactly what it says, and that page abides by it perfectly. If we're going to start an RFC about the date format on that page, I see no reason to change it and no reason for anyone else to want to either. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 12:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I dispute the content of the article, and so there is a content dispute. And while it may turn out that your edits are acceptable, your pattern of choosing to revert changes to articles on a German composer, an Estonian arena, a Croatian terrorist attack and a Turkish singer so they have a date format unique to the United States could easily be regarded as uncivil behaviour. I think both Remsense and Marbe166 are engaging in [[WP:TE|tendentious editing]]. [[User:Orange sticker|Orange sticker]] ([[User talk:Orange sticker|talk]]) 13:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Your personal taste (and again, your incorrect factual interpretation—the US is not the only country that uses MDY!) of what site policy plainly says should factor very little into whether you can recognize actions as abiding straightforwardly by what it says. I'm not sure what else I'm really meant to do rather than "fix it"—being really annoyed at this cropping up twice in one day is not tendentious. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 13:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::But you're not even adhering to [[MOS:DATEVAR]] when you've changed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1971_Yugoslav_Embassy_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1260747803] an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1971_Yugoslav_Embassy_shooting&oldid=888650993 article that was created in dmy format] to mdy? That's why, to answer your question below, I think your editing as been tendenatious, as you reverted about 17 edits by the same user in 10 minutes, without first waiting for them to engage with your [[User_talk:Marbe166#WP:DATEVAR|message on their talk page]] [[User:Orange sticker|Orange sticker]] ([[User talk:Orange sticker|talk]]) 13:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I made a couple mistakes while reverting a couple dozen. A mistake is not tendentious, unless you're just throwing that word around while wringing an extremely specific reading out of that page too. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 13:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Actually, @[[User:Orange sticker|Orange sticker]], while understanding the page is not an exhaustive exercise, can you identify <em>one</em> thing I've done here that's listed or gestured towards on [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing]]? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 13:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{u|Marbe166}} - generally I'd suggest that a discussion about this be had on an article talk page, but since you say this affects multiple articles, and it looks like we're past the point of collaborative discussion, I guess we can touch on it here quickly. If I interpret your complaint correctly, you seem to be saying that you have been editing lots of articles about European subjects to make their date format DMY. What is it about the wording of [[MOS:DATETIES]] that makes you think it encourages this? It seems to me that the guidance in that part of the MOS only covers subjects with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country - most of Europe does not seem unambiguously to be covered by that. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 13:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I'll dispel any case-law ambiguity and post [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 162#Discussion on other talk page and project|the most recent MOS discussion on this very point, very clearly reinforcing the status quo]]—wherein you will find yours truly initially entering on the exact wrong side of history and realize halfway through how wrong I am—but that's mostly beside the point <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 13:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I will say this Remsense - I just looked at the history of [[List of Holocaust survivors]], and it looks like you've made 4 reverts there in the last 24 hours. I'm not sure which other articles this covers, but it needs sorting out on a talk page somewhere - being right about the MOS isn't an exemption listed at [[WP:3RRNO]]. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 14:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Again, see the case directly above. That represents two completely separate incidents, in which one had already been completely resolved. If I still need to be hammered for crossing a bright line then I accept that, but in practical terms I would not really understand why refraining would've been more ethical/less disruptive to do given the circumstances—it was like being hit with two asteroids from different directions in the same spot. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 14:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Two completely separate incidents, which have taken place on the same article, resulting in you making four reverts within a 24-hour window. That looks like a 3RR violation to me, and the fact you were in disagreement with two different people about it doesn't fix that. Stuff like this needs to be thrashed out on talk pages, not by repeated reverting. I don't particularly want to block anyone over this, but again, being right does not give you a free pass on 3RR. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 14:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I get why it's a bright line, and I'm not trying to lawyer my way out of having crossing it—but I will admit I can't quite square how this is pragmatically equivalent to the vast majority of situations where 3RR is clearly meant to throw cold water on edit warring. But I won't push it any further. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 14:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Think about it like this: if someone plastered anti-semitic vandalism over that article, we have an urgent need to remove it - that's a 3RR exemption. Date formats, not so much. If there is a MOS violation for a few days while a discussion takes place, it's not a big deal. The point of 3RR is to stop back and forth bickering, and encourage editors to go to the talk page. 3RR is indeed meant to throw cold water on edit warring - I think that's exactly what you were doing, even if you were in the right about the MOS issue.
*::::::Marbe166 seems to be suggesting that you have been bulk reverting a bunch of their edits to date formats - is that true, and is there any place you discussed it with them before doing so? I'm not saying that's a strict requirement, but if I was going to bulk revert a load of edits made by an experienced editor in good standing, I would have gone to their talk page before doing so and explained what I was going to do, and why. That might have avoided them feeling harassed (as appears to have happened here, resulting in this report), and hopefully would have meant that they didn't feel the need to revert your reverts. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 15:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Deep sigh. I do wish I didn't keep finding these edge cases that are definitionally not for opening loopholes with: I've gotten a bit better about this but ultimately I think something I need to do is cut my watchlist in half, because I feel the need to play whack-a-mole with so many pages that I feel pressured in some moments to settle everything so that it doesn't get away, making me handle situations like this. It's not a good mindset: an "under siege" variant of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] I guess. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 16:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{tq|This user is way out of line, bulk reverting a number of my edits on article dates}} - but your edits ''themselves'' were (undiscussed) bulk edits, right? Obviously when someone makes an undiscussed bulk edit it is almost always acceptable for someone who objects to it revert it in bulk, unless the change is so glaringly necessary as to make reversion actively disruptive. That isn't the case here - the relevant policies seem at least reasonably debatable, and more likely Remsense has the right of them. [[WP:BRD]] not only applies to bulk edits, it applies ''in particular'' to bulk edits; it has to, otherwise any undiscussed bulk edit becomes a [[WP:FAIT]] situation due to being difficult to reverse. When someone does start reverting your bulk edits, you need to stop and discuss it, rather than rushing straight to ANI with almost no meaningful interaction. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 20:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
 
== User Pavanreddy211 code snippets on user & user talk ==
Now you all can see what was done and the resistance. When I articulate that, when I suggest you correct for your pattern of behavior and fix the problem, suddenly I am the problem? I don't get it. Is it that you don't want to hear the truth?
 
*{{userlinks|Pavanreddy211}}
And this happens on the same day an article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_W._Overton&offset=&limit=500&action=history I helped] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John W. Overton|rescue from the dead at AfD]] shows up on the [[Wikipedia:Recent additions#25 February 2018|WP homepage]]. [[User:Trackinfo|Trackinfo]] ([[User talk:Trackinfo|talk]]) 19:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
*{{pagelinks|User:Pavanreddy211}}
*{{pagelinks|User talk:Pavanreddy211}}
 
This user's talk page pops up in my recent changes from time to time with IPs posting large blocks of code (not wiki-code; sometimes it's Python, other times I don't know what it is) which the user rapidly reverts. I just blocked the two /24 ranges that have been dropping the code blocks since roughly August and not doing anything else. Then I noticed that between creating their account in July and the IPs taking over, Pavanreddy211 dropped the same code blocks on their own user page and rapidly reverted them, and they haven't done anything else on Wikipedia, ever, except play with these code blocks. I was going to block per [[WP:NOTHERE]], but maybe someone who recognizes what these code segments are wants to try to talk to them first? [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 14:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:Trackinfo - any "high-value" pages (medal winners, etc) can easily be restored, if needed. If you know of any of these that have been deleted, then just ask (I think [[WP:REFUND]] is the place) and make the necessary changes to make it BLP sound. Alternatively, I'm happy to recreate any articles for Olympians (and some other sports) that have been nuked. Drop me a note if you want them re-stubbed. Thanks. '''[[User:Lugnuts|<font color="002bb8">Lugnuts</font>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Lugnuts|Fire Walk with Me]]</sup> 18:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
::Lugnuts, thank you. I will certainly request restoration of any article I detect is missing, as I did above. I hope your offer will shortcut needing to spend a week through the obviously failed, conventional process. And you have made many valuable additions to the content on SvG articles yourself, made easier because it already existed for you to hang your contributions onto. Since my words are not getting through to the crowd, perhaps you could help explain it to them. I expect you have had your content wiped out too. The problem will come in identifying the damage done by mass deletion. We have to click on, for example, a results page and then on each red link to determine if it was deleted or just has been omitted from our efforts. It will be one article at a time, slowly restoring damage nuked by the thousands in just a few thoughtless clicks. I may not live long enough. [[User:Trackinfo|Trackinfo]] ([[User talk:Trackinfo|talk]]) 20:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 
:Consider blocking per NOTHERE. Wikipedia is not a Git repo. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 15:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
== The Wallace Collection ==
:Judging loosely on the code, it appears to be some sort of screen mirror/tracking script that sends the data to a JSON file. I'm not sure if they wanted to implement their code here or they used Wiki as a temp host like Git (just use Notepad), but clearly they're [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[User:Conyo14|Conyo14]] ([[User talk:Conyo14|talk]]) 16:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::I would request RD because it may be a malware code. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 16:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Blocked indef per [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Up to others if revdel is needed. Also best to keep an eye on them in case TPA might need to be revoked, given how much they've been doing this on that page. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 20:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:Some of it is ruby. It all seems benign, but probably still qualifies for U5. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 00:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
 
== TheNavigatrr ==
The editor, Diannaa, has unilaterally decided to remove all the edits that I have recently performed on The Wallace Collection wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Collection), citing copyright violations for all of them. The editor has failed to consider that my content does not wholly match, in very many places, the content that is mentioned on a website they have also cited. In fact, they have applied a cursory look and choose to discriminate based on a glance.
 
[[Special:Contributions/TheNavigatrr|TheNavigatrr]] has consistently failed to stop using [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]] for the Syria war map modules [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_overview_map&diff=prev&oldid=1260232545][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=prev&oldid=1260620264][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_overview_map&diff=prev&oldid=1260665898] (just a few examples) despite being told many times [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=prev&oldid=1260483002][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_overview_map&diff=prev&oldid=1260211326][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1258284698&diff=1260257899]. It would be nice if something could be done about this. Thank you all for your time. [[User:Firestar464|Firestar464]] ([[User talk:Firestar464|talk]]) 14:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
There are two issues:-
1) Copyright Violations
2) General article layout improvements
 
:Just clarifying, is the ''only'' time the map can be edited when a well-known reliable source states "party X has taken control of villages A, B, C, D...", and not if the reliable source claims "party X claims to have taken control of villages A, B, C, D and most of blue province. Party Y launched a counterattack"? Because if the latter is allowed to be used to change control of villages in a province, I will happily revert all edits I made. If a widley respected source says "Party X took control over large parts of Aleppo and the surrounding towns", how is that supposed to be used to change control of villages? Can it be used to "confirm" Party X's claims? This needs to be clarified. [[User:TheNavigatrr|TheNavigatrr]] ([[User talk:TheNavigatrr|talk]]) 00:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Moreover, I did not take content from that website, but as I mentioned in my e-mail to them that it is based on Gallery Labels and museum publications. Alas, in some places there is clear overlap where I have not edited the content yet.
::If an independent, reliable, source authoritatively states that "x has taken control of settlement A," then yes, that is obviously allowed. However, from what I understand it's unclear when it comes to the latter. It could mean that there's fighting in the town, nothing more; obviously you'd have to read the actual article to decide what to do. Obviously [[WP:SYNTH]] should be avoided.
::Regardless, that's not the point of this discussion. You can't go on using random folks on X as sources for the map. [[User:Firestar464|Firestar464]] ([[User talk:Firestar464|talk]]) 01:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::Beyond Firestar464's comments, there's this: [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance]], nor are we up-to-the-moment headline news. If we cannot find the aforementioned independent, reliable sources to corroborate some assertion on X, then we cannot put the information in until we do, full stop. We are none of us in a race, and no one gives out barnstars to the first editor who "scoops" the rest. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 06:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
 
== User Conduct ==
Many of the edits were nothing to do with the content that they are disputing but to improve the articles layout following examples set in featured articles, and neither have I introduced further pictures other than a single image, the remaining are those already within the article.
 
Dear Administrator,
They, Diannaa, have removed all my edits citing copyright violations, which is incorrect as it doesn't apply to all my edits and separately, they have stated they 'won't be restoring the removed images, as the English Wikipedia is not intended as an image repository.', again they didn't bother to even look at my edits closely when most of them where improvements.
 
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the behavior of a user who has been consistently adding biased and historically inaccurate information to the [[Shahi Jama Masjid]] article, as well as other articles. This user has been identified as engaging in a pattern of disinformation that affects the reliability of Wikipedia content.
Looking at the layout they have decided to revert too, verses the improvements, this is a clear backward step that hardly is in keeping with one of wikipedia's aims for the community, at large, to provide continual improvement. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:M.chohan|M.chohan]] ([[User talk:M.chohan#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/M.chohan|contribs]]) </small>
: The deleted edits included infringing content. The tools available to us as admins don't allow us to pick things apart like you seem to think we should, all we can do is remove all revisions that contain infringing content. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::{{u|M.chohan}}, our normal practice when an editor has added copyvio material in a series of edits is to presumptively revert to the last revision before that series of edits began (an editor who adds one copyvio often adds others too, which may not immediately be so easy to identify). That's not quite what happened in this particular case: {{u|Diannaa}} did not remove the content you added with {{diff|Wallace Collection|795083990|795065534|this edit}}, which to me has every appearance of having been copied from somewhere (or do you say stuff like "This exuberant, animated style explores asymmetrical natural shapes with fountain imagery, foliage and flowers, swirling scrolls and sea animals" while you're eating your corn-flakes?). So forgive me if I ask: did you write that stuff yourself? [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 01:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
::{{reply to|JzG}} We do have some options. You can edit out the offending content during a restore and add attribution for the remaining content, with deleted history, in the edit comment.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 01:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
:::Isn't that something the original poster should do? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 02:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
::::Could be. There's no reason to have a "rule" about who should do it.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 02:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::Sure. On the other hand, can a copyright violator be trusted to get it right? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 03:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::So, I'm feeling like we're in agreement?--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 03:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
::: Not really, no. The revisions that contain the infringing text still have to be deleted. That's the only admin action that's taken place here. If the OP then wants to replay the non-copyvio edits, nobody's stopping that, but the admin tools don't allow us to selectively delete sections, say. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 10:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
::I am committed to revising, substantially, the text that is infringing, I do not seek to violate wikipedia rules. Can I suggest that if you can revert the edits back and permit me ten days to make the necessary amendments, I will remove the text that may be infringing as well as re-write the remaining text to as original research. Should thereafter editors feel that substantive revision has occurred then the article can be accepted as revised, if not, then the editors can make their decision without dispute. Thanks ←[[User:M.chohan|M.chohan]]
:::Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot host such content for legal reasons. That is the reason it was not only removed, but deleted from the history. If you asked for an hour or two with the content so that you could completely rewrite it, then ''maybe'' we'd consider it, but 10 days is out of the question. [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'><big>'''S'''</big><small>'''''warm'''''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'>♠</span>]] 02:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
*What is left out in this discussion is how amazing, knowledgeable and professional the [[User:Diannaa]] is about copyright issues. Is she ever wrong? Not very often. Is she awesome? Yes. I'd be willing to say that she is one of the top ten most level-headed, professional and and rational Wikipedians.[[Special:Contributions/104.163.148.25|104.163.148.25]] ([[User talk:104.163.148.25|talk]]) 10:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
::What on earth is that got to do with this discussion? So far the comments made on this discussion by knowledgeable professionals has been nothing short of exemplary moreover its been informative and I appreciate the diligence attached, but I am sure the good wikipedians on here aren't so tied up with providing each other with platitudes and superlatives!
:::Please read [[WP:SIGN]] and also [[WP:AGF]]. It's perfectly fair commentary to point out that an editor accused of improper editing is actually one of the best editors out there. Maybe read [[WP:boomerang]] too. [[Special:Contributions/104.163.148.25|104.163.148.25]] ([[User talk:104.163.148.25|talk]]) 23:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 
Even users on twitter have pointed out the disinformation {{redacted}}
== Disruptive editing on ACSH page by DrFleischman ==
 
Notably, I have reason to believe that this user has been contributing from multiple accounts, which is against Wikipedia's policies. The primary account, which has been flagged for problematic edits, is <bdi>[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Upd_Edit&redlink=1 Upd Edit]</bdi> , and I suspect this account is fake account of @[[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] This behavior appears to be an attempt to bypass oversight and maintain influence over the content of articles.
There have been multiple attempts to update the Wikipedia entry on the American Council on Science and Health. The page is extremely outdated and does not reflect the current activities of the organization.
 
I also noticed that this user had made an alarming edit to the ''Kashmiri Muslim'' article in 2019, claiming that Kashmiri Muslims were "forcefully converted" to islam and later adapted to it. This edit was presented with a dubious source [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=904237179&oldid=904198734&title=Kashmiri_Muslims&diffonly=1 Edit] and this was added when kashmir was in the news similarly he is doing to shahi jama masjid page which is currently in news and i suspect he is part of bigger disinformation network run by india hinduvta nationalist group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health
 
Given the nature of these edits and the fact that this user has a history of making biased and misleading contributions, I request that you review these changes and take the necessary action to ensure that the content of Wikipedia remains accurate and neutral.
Despite good faith efforts (and what appears to be hours of work), everything has been reverted by editor DrFleischman in one fell swoop. He has been engaging in disruptive editing on this page for years, this most recent example being the most egregious. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.172.111.178|75.172.111.178]] ([[User talk:75.172.111.178#top|talk]]) 03:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Something very odd is going on on this page. I stopped editing Wikipedia 7 years ago precisely because hours of work could vanish within seconds. I logged in to revert what was clearly a disruptive edit, and within seconds, the reversion was reverted. Ridiculous. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Biovirus04|Biovirus04]] ([[User talk:Biovirus04#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Biovirus04|contribs]]) 03:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::What alerted you to log in again, after 7 years? In any case, this is a content dispute, or perhaps more accurately a "reliable sources" dispute. You might not like ''Mother Jones'' but calling them "fake news" is not appropriate. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 04:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
::Biovirus, I note that 75.172.111.178 geolocates to Seattle, the other IP active on this article ([[User:76.104.199.83]]) geolocates to Seattle, and your 34 edits in the last 10 years were exclusively to Seattle-related articles. The three of you should grab a coffee! [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 04:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
::::And similarly, early edits alleging media bias. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 04:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
:::Why do I keep thinking of the first line of "[[I Am the Walrus]]"? [[User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris|Shock Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 04:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
::::Boris: WP:ANI is not the place to ask about [[Qualia|thoughts that just popped into your mind]] nor for a medical opinion about those thoughts. See the [[Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer|standard disclaimer]]. If you are having intrusive thoughts about songs by the Beatles - or for that matter any other mid 1960's [[British Invasion]] bands - that is a matter for you and your health professionals. --[[User:Shirt58|Shirt58]] ([[User talk:Shirt58|talk]]) 12:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
:::Yeah, there are only 3 million people in Seattle. We all drink coffee and watch Frasier together on Thursdays. I wonder what brings Chetsford around, since he's never edited the ACSH article before. Maybe we should ask DrFleischman? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Biovirus04|Biovirus04]] ([[User talk:Biovirus04#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Biovirus04|contribs]]) 04:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::Relax. This will all be over soon. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 04:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::Yep. Socking is against the rules, and the Biovirus is being caught in that webfoot. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 04:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
:This seems to be mostly a content. I suggest you take a read of [[WP:RS]], [[WP:Verifiability]] and [[WP:Primary sources]] and then try and resolve this on the talk page, as the people who reverted suggested you do. If you can't, try some method of [[WP:Dispute resolution]] none of which involve ANI. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 04:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
::But do make sure to confer with each other before you take any further steps. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
* So, the IP and Biovirus04 are clearly one and the same, but Biovirus04 has some past edits (albeit from years ago) that seem uncontentious. Also he ''may'' have a point. So I have directed him to FTN, where he will find people experienced with anti-vax and the like. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 14:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 
Thank you for your attention to this matter. [[User:Aliyiya5903|Aliyiya5903]] ([[User talk:Aliyiya5903|talk]]) 16:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
== Block length review requested ==
{{archive top|Block extended to one year with strong consensus against considering an unblock. [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'><big>'''S'''</big><small>'''''warm'''''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'>♠</span>]] 20:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)}}
I've blocked {{User links|24.190.40.112}} for harassment and posting threats of harm. I've already Revdel'd the really bad post and requested suppression. There are enough harassing messages left in their contributions to get a feel for the problem. The thing is, I think a week block is not going to help in the long run but indef is contraindicated for IPs. The address seems fairly static and this user has had problems in the past. Input requested. Thanks [[User:Tide rolls|'''<span style="color:White;background:darkRed">Tide</span>''']][[User talk:Tide rolls|'''<span style="color:darkRed">rolls'''</span>]] 14:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 
:# Never post tweets at us, because we don't care.
Considering that they are a sock of [[User:Dylan Cerbone 2018]], which is ''also'' blocked, and seeing how static the IP is, I would block it for one year. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
:# [[User:Upd Edit]] is either one of the worst [[joe job]] attempts I've ever seen, or one of the most confusing genuine cases of mistaken identity. They and [[User:Kautilya3]] post <em>nothing</em> alike! Plus, why would they [[Special:Permalink/1260548282#Introduction to contentious topics|warn themselves about edit warring]]?
: Block-evasion, possibly even ban evasion from [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity]] (nt sure if the sockmaster was tested against parties). Focus is on agecruft, which is well-known as a source of friction over quality of sourcing and people ignoring GNG, and as you say, the IP is stable - I would make it a year, if the IP is reallocated we can handle the unlock request as and when. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 14:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
:<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 16:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Comment}} The IP 24.190.40.112 has a long history of vandalism , harrassment and create sockpuppets.
::Thank you for your response. I understand your point about not relying on tweets for these discussions. However, I would like to emphasize the importance of upholding Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and reliability. The user in question has shown a consistent pattern of edits that appear questionable and biased, which raises concerns.
::It is crucial to review any edits that address controversial and sensitive historical topics, especially when they are supported by sources that do not meet academic or historical reliability standards. For example, the edit to the Kashmiri Muslim article included unsupported and potentially misleading claims about forced conversions, which could contribute to misinformation.
::I am simply bringing this to the attention of the administrators as part of my responsibility to maintain the integrity of the content on Wikipedia. Thank you for your understanding. [[User:Aliyiya5903|Aliyiya5903]] ([[User talk:Aliyiya5903|talk]]) 16:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Administrators don't like it when you generate responses to them using ChatGPT. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 16:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Plus, why would they warn themselves about edit warring?}} I believe this is a tactic to mislead administrators. I apologize if this comes across as problematic; as a user of the Kashmiri language who is still learning how to navigate Wikipedia and English, I hope using ChatGPT for replies isn’t an issue. [[User:Aliyiya5903|Aliyiya5903]] ([[User talk:Aliyiya5903|talk]]) 16:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Anything is evidence of deception if you're desperate enough. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 16:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I also caught this user engaging in problematic edits back in 2020, which may still be recorded on my talk page. At that time, I was mature enough and warned the user that I would Mass delete all wikipedia pages I apologize for my inappropriate tone in that communication .More recently, I have found that other users on twitter have also pointed out this individual's edits, which have contributed to controversial situations, including potential communal tension and violence in Manipur, India, particularly against Christians. I believe it’s important to consider this user's history when evaluating their contributions. [[User:Aliyiya5903|Aliyiya5903]] ([[User talk:Aliyiya5903|talk]]) 16:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:[[User:Aliyiya5903|Aliyiya5903]], you say that you "have reason to believe that this user [Kautilya3] has been contributing from multiple accounts". Please present your evidence at [[WP:SPI]] rather than cast [[WP:aspersions|aspersions]]. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 16:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you for your attention to this matter. I will step back from pursuing this case as I find it challenging given my current experience level on Wikipedia. [[User:Aliyiya5903|Aliyiya5903]] ([[User talk:Aliyiya5903|talk]]) 17:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::I don't know about Kautilya3, but Upd Edit is a very new account (created 21 days ago) and in this time it's the second time that they are being suspected of sockpuppetry: [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#Upd_Edit_-_project_sock?]]. [[User:Nakonana|Nakonana]] ([[User talk:Nakonana|talk]]) 17:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:[[User:Aliyiya5903|Aliyiya5903]], you should have notified both editors you are accusing of misconduct about this discussion. There are notices stating this in several places on this page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 23:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have notified the editors for you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 23:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you {{U|Liz}}. I had a good laugh. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 00:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Any other comments, [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]]? Have you been targeted in the past? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 00:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, I have been targeted plenty of times, but this is the first time I was targeted purely using "I have reason to believe that..." kind of lines.
:::::I don't think this user is going to last, given [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kautilya3&diff=prev&oldid=953033883 their pomposity at the get go], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shahi_Jama_Masjid&diff=prev&oldid=1260418010 equally pompous reverts] continuing, they are going to piss enough people off in short order.
:::::More concerning is that they are trying to add their pompous wisdom to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shahi_Jama_Masjid&diff=prev&oldid=1260745878 the main space as well], which I found shocking when told this morning. That is quite concerning because it means that we have to carefully look at every bit of content they add to the mainspace to make sure that it is free of their [[WP:OR]]. I was ready to take it to [[WP:AE]] (they have received a CTOP alert already), but I thought I would wait for at least one more instance of such misbehaviour before crying foul.
:::::That is where things stand. Then I saw this complaint, which is so incompetent that I can't even believe my eyes. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 03:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I appreciate the explanation, [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]]. I thought there might be a backstory. I didn't look at their contribution history where I now see their very first edit in 2020 was directed at you. I guess you have a reputation somewhere? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, we are getting squeezed by intolerant fundamentalisms from all sides. Anybody that tries to bring out the facts is in peril. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 11:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
* I have no other account and I am not Kautilya3. [[User:Upd Edit|Upd Edit]] ([[User talk:Upd Edit|talk]]) 10:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*I have [[Special:Diff/1261091748|warned]] filer {{checkuser|Aliyiya5903}} for posting links to purported personal information about an editor in violation of [[WP:PRIVACY]], as they did in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=1260779738 this edit]. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 06:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
 
== ip edit warring ==
I have witnessed cruel vandalism by him. I strongly recommend that '''blocking him over 2 years'''. As he invades not only en-wikipedia, but also other languages of wikipedia, if possible, please globallly blocking. I don't want to see anyone who is sorrowfulled due to 24.190.40.112 any more. [[User:Ayuta Tonomura|Ayuta Tonomura]] ([[User talk:Ayuta Tonomura|talk]]) 16:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
:Second/third upping to one year. Unblocking or reblocking if need be are simple enough. ~ <span style="color:#F09">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 17:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
*Now the user is requesting unblock on the IP talk page. Shouldn't that request be made from the original registered account's user talk? [[User:Tide rolls|'''<span style="color:White;background:darkRed">Tide</span>''']][[User talk:Tide rolls|'''<span style="color:darkRed">rolls'''</span>]] 18:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
:* Blocked for a year. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 18:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
*I'm reopening as this was archived before I could finish writing my message. A year block seems a little unusual. This is just a child who's still very immature, but from what I can tell did not actually have any ill-intent until their user page was nominated for deletion, presumably for being a self-bio about a minor, and in the ensuing drama, he vandalized two user pages and was blocked indefinitely. Seems a little harsh as AFAIK he was not actually a vandal. Anyways, being a literal child, he's frustrated now and is trying to evade the block and is "being mean" to users he feels are doing the same to him. Nothing I'm seeing rises to the level of blocking the IP for a year, and that includes the indef block itself. Here's an alternate approach. Rather than enforcing the indef with a year long IP block, which would result in further whack-a-mole socking for us to deal with, ''let him resume editing'', either from his IP or from the original account, where we can keep an eye on him and enforce standard incremental blocks without having to worry about him socking. I think we were too hasty and impatient in dealing with this user at his original account, and as a result we're now dealing with a mess. I'm unconvinced that a year IP block would solve the problem. Regarding the inquiry here, I'd say leave it or even consider unblocking, but whatever we do, we should try talking to the user in good faith, because they've been interpreting the endless templates as bullying. [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'><big>'''S'''</big><small>'''''warm'''''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'>♠</span>]] 19:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
:*In the event there's any doubt, I disagree with unblocking under any circumstances. I'm not taking issue with Swarm's interpretation of events and possible outcomes; I'm just saying that to allow this individual to edit would be too great a drain on volunteer time and effort. [[User:Tide rolls|'''<span style="color:White;background:darkRed">Tide</span>''']][[User talk:Tide rolls|'''<span style="color:darkRed">rolls'''</span>]] 19:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
::*In any case, I've asked them to agree to a set of conditions for an unblock regarding civility, NPA, RS, BRD, socking and consensus, which I thought covered all the fundamentals. Just to see where this user is at in regards to ''trying'' to edit constructively. I understand your position and will obviously not be unblocking if no one's open to my idea, but my concern is exactly that drain on volunteer time. I'm worried that continuing to try to strong-arm an immature but well-intentioned editor off the project may actually result in ''more'' socking, vandalism, harassment, disruption, than it already has. Better to try to wrangle one account than to wage war with an LTA. [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'><big>'''S'''</big><small>'''''warm'''''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'>♠</span>]] 19:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
:*{{tq|Seems a little harsh as AFAIK he was not actually a vandal}} Revealing personal information of and making (poorly veiled) threats against children? I'm not saying the user wasn't acting out, but that activity alone is enough to justify swift action here. Surprised it isn't oversighted. ~ <span style="color:#F09">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 19:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
::*This user is literally a child. And besides, it's not like there ''hasn't'' been swift action. But a swift decision to block an IP for a year due to petty trolling is not something I've ever seen before. [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'><big>'''S'''</big><small>'''''warm'''''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'>♠</span>]] 19:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
:::* It'll be the ''fifth'' block in less than five months, though (in fact, the ''seventh'' if you count the two registered accounts). I can't see why volunteers should continue to receive messages like the recent ones that had to be revdelled because he thinks this is a playground. There comes a point where utility vs timesink shifts too far to the right. However, ''if'' you can get him to agree and edit from a single account, then perhaps it's worth a try. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
:::*I'd like not to draw further attention to the edits, and I admire your willingness to offer an open hand, but just because the IP is only cursing at editors doesn't mean the original behavior of the account is just "petty trolling." A year is a long time, but the IP appears static at least five months back. ~ <span style="color:#F09">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 20:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
:::: This has gone too far already. Anything else than a continuation of the block of the IP and the user accounts for at least a year should not come into question. Hopefully he will be a bit more mature by then. --[[User:Marbe166|Marbe166]] ([[User talk:Marbe166|talk]]) 20:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::The year-long IP block was not proposed as being "necessary". It was proposed due to it being an indef-blocked editor who was evading the block. The case for an indef to begin with was questionable, and by extension so was the proposal for a year block of the IP. So I utterly reject your bizarre claim that it "should not be questioned". I'm questioning it because it's not particularly normal to block an IP for a year. And I'm still not sure where these severe offenses that are being raised are. Everything to me looks like petty disruption. Not sure what's so exceptionally disturbing to merit an ex post facto justification for what was an unrelated year block. [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'><big>'''S'''</big><small>'''''warm'''''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'>♠</span>]] 21:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Swarm}} Did you read the revdel'd post? [[User:Tide rolls|'''<span style="color:White;background:darkRed">Tide</span>''']][[User talk:Tide rolls|'''<span style="color:darkRed">rolls'''</span>]] 21:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::: I'd like to have {{u|TonyBallioni}}'s opinion on the matter, he was the one who initiated the block of [[User:Dylan Cerbone 2018]]. As much of the editing has been done on longevity articles, I think that {{u|DerbyCountyinNZ}} might have an opinion on the matter as well. --[[User:Marbe166|Marbe166]] ([[User talk:Marbe166|talk]]) 21:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}He was posting oversightable and revdelable information to his own user page and vandalizing the user pages of other editors with information that also had to be hidden: that's vandalism plus harassment. To be blunt, he was being a crazy person, and there was no indication he was going to stop doing either, which is why I indef'd: all the factors suggested he might start again after a shorter blocked expired, so he would need to convince us to unblock him before it happened. Yes, he is a child, but that is all the more reason to ''have'' that discussion with him, which could only happen via an unblock request.{{pb}}In terms of the unblock request he did make, as I said then, I'm not really sympathetic as he continued socking, but I also was concerned because it wasn't written in comprehensible English. If we were to unblock this user, he would be indef'd again simply for not having the language ability to work on a collaborative project, which would lead to more outbursts, more oversight, and more blocks. I'm normally the first to dismiss petty vandalism and the vandal fighters who think high schoolers making jokes are the greatest threat to the encyclopedia, but in this case, I don't see a reason to unblock: all the indicators are that he'd just end up indef'd again. Maybe a better block summary would have been "disrputive editing", but I think it was a needed block. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 22:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
*I thank everyone for their comments and will consider them. Lest this discussion become derailed by unproductive debate over what has already occurred (an unintended waste of time unrelated to my point about avoiding potential LTA going forward), this thread can be re-closed. We can further discuss whether to conditionally unblock iff the user replies, and I will notify the relevant parties if that happens, but short of that the point is moot anyway. [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'><big>'''S'''</big><small>'''''warm'''''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'>♠</span>]] 22:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Is Dylan block evading? He certainly is rude on his IP talk page. He seems to be saying "I'm a minor, so treat me different from any other user." Some children act responsibly and maturely enough to (in the past) be admins and 'crats. Others, such as this user, do not demonstrate enough maturity to edit here. I see no reason to unblock. I see no reason to reduce the block duration. I see no reason to not expect him to edit by the same rules as everyone else. The only reason to avoid lenghty IP blockes is to avoid collateral damage. -- [[User:Dlohcierekim|Dlohcierekim]] ([[User talk:Dlohcierekim|talk]]) 09:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
 
== Continued [[Wikipedia:PERSONAL|personal attacks]] by new member ==
 
{{User|Harshrathod50}} seems to have multiple issues with making personal comments about editors — both in reference to myself, and to administrators on this Wikipedia. Despite [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Harshrathod50&diff=next&oldid=826254619 this message] — just days ago by {{Userlink| Let There Be Sunshine}}, user has continued to make personal comments — including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Livelikemusic&diff=827068060&oldid=827067267 this] (stating that they "hate me") and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Livelikemusic&diff=827072699&oldid=827070545 this]. While this user may be new, it is becoming quite clear that they [[Wikipedia:NOTHERE|might not be here to edit constructively]] at the encyclopedia, and their continued use of first-person uses (a.k.a. "my text," "my words," etc.) shows signs of potential issues for future consideration. '''<span style="font-size:85%;">[[User:livelikemusic|<span style="color:#ab83ab">livelikemusic</span>]]</span>''' <span style="font-size:85%;">[[User talk:livelikemusic|<span style="color:CadetBlue">talk!</span>]]</span> 16:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 
{{user|2600:1007:b03b:65b3:18ff:46c9:5477:b7ce}} first added the edit here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICarly_season_3&diff=prev&oldid=1258344909] firsts starts adding in the edit that was reverted. Proceeds to revert from the other user and me. {{user|2601:40d:8202:eca0:c9ab:d58e:e5d3:5691}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICarly_season_3&diff=prev&oldid=1260752205], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICarly_season_3&diff=prev&oldid=1260697849], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICarly_season_3&diff=prev&oldid=1260666954], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICarly_season_3&diff=prev&oldid=1260659853] {{user|2600:1007:B033:23C4:1849:4CFD:7FD6:5332}} reverts third users edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICarly_season_3&diff=prev&oldid=1260810957] and again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICarly_season_3&curid=27657925&diff=1260819269&oldid=1260811448] {{user|2601:40d:8202:eca0:f876:a69b:e135:ee80}} appears to have just messaged me about the under another ip. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magical_Golden_Whip&diff=prev&oldid=1260708273]. Reverting mainly as this does not any value to the summary. Edits appear to be from the same person and are being a bit disruptive as I did mention to the user that he should take this to the iCarly Season 3 talk page on my talk page. [[User:Magical Golden Whip|Magical Golden Whip]] ([[User talk:Magical Golden Whip|talk]]) 20:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:I wrote the alt text for the visually impaired readers keeping in mind that how they would make an image of it in their minds. But user [[User:livelikemusic]] modified entire text to his likelyhood. Using slang words of no classic English use like 'photoshopped', etc. But when I questioned him, he just deleted the section on his talk page, which too is not good for future of Wikipedia. I need explanation from him. I wasn't attacking him but just asking my queries. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Harshrathod50|Harshrathod50]] ([[User talk:Harshrathod50#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Harshrathod50|contribs]]) 17:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Photoshopped is considered to be a word in common English usage by [https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/photoshop the folks at Oxford].[[Special:Contributions/104.163.148.25|104.163.148.25]] ([[User talk:104.163.148.25|talk]]) 10:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
:: {{nacmt}} Hey {{U|Harshrathod50}}: I sincerely appreciate your efforts to improve Wikipedia's accessibility; Alt text is often forgotten by a lot of editors, myself included! However, I think your attitude does need some adjustment: Comments like {{tq|I hat eyou for reformatting}} <sup>([[Sic]])</sup> ''are'' incivil, and will not lead to people wanting to work with you. In the case of this specific disagreement, I think "photoshop" is term understood to mean "digitally altered in some way" (see [[wikt:photoshop|the dictionary definition]]), but I also agree a description of the alterations is important for an accessible caption. In short, '''Work with people, not against them.''' We're all here to build an Encyclopaedia, after all.
 
:{{non-administrator comment}} [[WP:AN3]] might be a better place for this. [[User:AlphaBetaGamma|ABG]] <small> ([[User talk:AlphaBetaGamma|Talk/Report any mistakes here]]) </small> 22:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:: {{U|livelikemusic}}: I don't agree that the user is [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Whilst I agree their attitude is abrasive, and they need to reconsider the way they approach the project, the underlying spirit of their edits is good, and I geninely, sincerely appreciate users who care about an oft-neglected accessibility tool. I don't think bringing this to ANI was the right decision: Perhaps you should both swing by the [[WP:DRN|Dispute resolution noticeboard]], which is more suited to this sort of dispute? -- Thanks, [[User:Alfie|Alfie]]. <sup><span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User talk:Alfie|talk to me]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Alfie|contribs]]</span></sup> 17:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 
== Persistent troublemaker ==
::(1) Users are allowed to delete stuff from their talk pages. (2) "Likelyhood"? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
:::(3) Is {{tq|I hat eyou}} anything like {{tq|I {{heart}} Huckabees}}? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 22:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
::::{{small|Or huckleberries. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 01:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)}}
*As a general aside @[[User:Harshrathod50|Harshrathod50]], alt-text like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Man_of_the_Woods&diff=prev&oldid=827066544 this] is spectacularly non-compliant with [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Alternative_text_for_images#Basics|Wikipedia's rules for alt-text]]. As a general rule, if the alt-text for any given image is more than eight words it's inappropriately long, and if it's more than fifteen words it's actively disruptive; remember, someone using a screen reader has to listen to all this guff being read out word-for-word. The purpose of alt-text is to say what the image is, not to describe the image; "album cover" would be quite sufficient in the case of this specific example.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 19:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 
[[Special:Contributions/197.244.252.199/16]] is a persistent troublemaker. I guess that none of their edits are good. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 21:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*As another general aside, a great idea for a Wikiproject would be Wikiproject Alt Text, which would just be people going around adding alt text where it's missing (which is almost everywhere). Now ''there's'' an unfilled need! [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 22:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]], you have filed a lot of reports on ANI over the past week so you should know the drill: Please share some diffs of problematic editing, don't just point to a large IP range and ask editors here to search for the problems if you want a response. And if this involves vandalism, please report accounts to [[WP:AIV]]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 22:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:: I've been looking for something productive to do around WP recently whilst I drum up the motivation to stretch my content muscles: Something like this would be perfect to scratch that itch! 22:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Alfie|Alfie]] ([[User talk:Alfie#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alfie|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::{{re|Liz}} Sometimes I am tired, and this is kind of a slam dunk: {{diff2|1260797825}} (removal of "anti-capitalism"), {{diff2|1260823624}} (historically wrong king who conquered that country), {{diff2|1256499181}} (block no. 1), {{diff2|1256830731}} (block no. 2), you get the idea...
::You will recognize their weird capitalization across several IPs from that range. E.g. at {{diff2|1256806331}} and {{diff2|1256326657}} (see especially edit summaries). [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 02:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No one has responded here yet so I'll give it a stab. I don't like to do long-term range-blocks and this looks like an editor who is editing sporadically. I'd rather handle this editor by page protection so if they return, I'd go to [[WP:RFPP]]. Of course, another admin might look this over and release the ban hammer. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::If you're tired to the degree you can't properly cite problematic diffs, then you shouldn't be filing ANI cases until you get some sleep. An IP range managing less than an edit a day is not so dire an emergency as to require jumping on it without the loss of a minute. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 06:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::On that note, [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]], I think over the past week or two, I've seen 4 or 5 cases you have brought to ANI. Maybe you need to change your judgment on what disputes are "ANI-worthy". This case isn't even an active dispute, they are just suspicions about these IP accounts. You don't want editors associating your name with a noticeboard, it sure came back to bite me during my RFA oh, so many years ago. Maybe just open cases that need the attention of the editorial community next time. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|tgeorgescu}}, I agree with {{u|Liz}} and {{u|Ravenswing}}. You frequently identify problematic editors and I thank you for that. But do not expect administrators to do your research for you. There are no "slam dunks" without diffs or direct quotes to specific edits, and you cannot expect busy administrators to do the work for you. This is a 24/7/365 project and any editor can take a meal break, a nap, an eight hour sleep, or a vacation of any length as they see fit. But do not expect other people to do your basic work while you are sleeping.
 
:::::As for {{u|Liz}}'s comment, she is a highly respected and highly efficient adminstrator. She can get more done when I am cooking a cheese [[quesadilla]] than I accomplish all day long. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 08:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:Bringing it here wasn't the right choice made by [[USER:livelikemusic]]. All he did was just get other editors into this trivial matter.
::::::One other thing, [[User:Tgeorgescu]]? I don't count myself in the same category as highly busy and motivated admins like Liz and Cullen328; I'm a gadfly whose output on Wikipedia's declined a good bit in recent years. But they're volunteers like the rest of us. Admins need to eat, and rest, and sleep; they need to work, pay the bills, do the taxes, handle the vicissitudes of life, just like the rest of us. People like you and me, we're just as capable of doing the legwork, going through contribution histories, checking sources, presenting the evidence ... and making sure we overburden the system as little as possible. While I've been periodically active at ANI for some years now, I've filed no more ANI cases in twenty years than you have in a week. This is a venue that can (and periodically does) hand out community bans. It is ''incumbent'' on us to use this process '''only''' for the "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems" cited above. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 10:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
@{{U|Alfie}}: I obediently accept everything you said. Henceforth, i will keep my personal feelings aside before writing anything here.
:::::::So, what do you suggest that I should do? I thought that reporting mischief is the thing to do, per [[Wikipedia:Request directory]]. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 13:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
@{{U|EEng#s}} and {{U|Baseball Bugs}}: Please don't turn this into a hoax. Is not this behaviour incivil? Your idea for '''Wikiproject Alt Text''' is awesome. I'm gonna join it too.
::::::::I don't know, maybe try the ''exact thing that they told you to do'' and provide diffs next time?--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 17:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
@{{U|Iridescent}}: All your statements are contradicting with the example given in [[Template:Infobox film|infobox film]] page. The alt text for the movie poster "PLAN 9" described there is long and disruptive. Please make corrections on this page. It is from here that I learnt how to write alt text. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:80%;color:white;background-color:black;;CSS">Harsh Rathod</span> 03:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::::Well, I think that's the problem. There's a huge gulf of difference between "mischief" and {{tq|urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems}} as mentioned by Ravenswing. The first step would be talking with the editor in question at least if the account is registered. That's more challenging with an IP account but not always impossible. Use discussion in a suitable location, on an article talk page, user talk page, a dispute resolution forum. Basically, ANI is the court of last resort after other efforts have failed, not the first place to go with a suspicion that an editor might be causing mischief. And you can also try bringing your concerns to an individual admin on their user talk page before trying ANI though I'd argue to not become an overly frequent visitor to any one admin. But ANI is like a community theater and the whole community doesn't need to weigh in and participate on every suspicion or dispute you are involved in. You don't want to be labeled a "dramamonger". <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::<span style="color: #690; font-size: 1.8em;">&#x2713;</span>&nbsp;'''Done'''<!--template:done-t-->. The idea that alt-text is supposed to describe the image is a common misconception.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 08:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
:::What did you do? [[Template:infobox film|This]] page is still as it is? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:80%;color:white;background-color:black;;CSS">Harsh Rathod</span> 09:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Harshrathod50|Harshrathod50]] ([[User talk:Harshrathod50#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Harshrathod50|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::<span style="color: #690; font-size: 1.8em;">&#x2713;</span>&nbsp;'''Done'''<!--template:done-t--> he only fixed the alt-text in the example, not the displayed markup of the example. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 08:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
{{xt|But when I questioned him, he just deleted the section on his talk page, which too is not good for future of Wikipedia. I need explanation from him. I wasn't attacking him but just asking my queries.}} Unfortunately, this is '''not''' true. I did respond, twice, on my talk page — as evident [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Livelikemusic&diff=827066036&oldid=827065848 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Livelikemusic&diff=next&oldid=827067131 here] — and the conversation was removed because they wanted it removed, as per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Livelikemusic&diff=827070130&oldid=827069759 their edit summary], so while I don't normally delete discussions like that, I did so. And, unfortunately, this user is still making this a personal environment at other pages, including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Venom_(2018_film)&diff=prev&oldid=827332007 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anubhav_(1986_film)&diff=prev&oldid=827438734 here], despite being told not to make things personal multiple times. '''<span style="font-size:85%;">[[User:livelikemusic|<span style="color:#ab83ab">livelikemusic</span>]]</span>''' <span style="font-size:85%;">[[User talk:livelikemusic|<span style="color:CadetBlue">talk!</span>]]</span> 19:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 
== Alejandroinmensidad engaged in [[WP:BLP|BLP]] and [[WP:3RR|3RR]] violations as a [[WP:SPA|SPA]] (possible [[WP:SOCK|SOCK]] as well) ==
== Possible attempt to compromise an account ==
 
{{user|Alejandroinmensidad}} is a [[WP:SPA|single-purpose account]] engaged in a disruptive behaviour involving [[Pedro Sánchez]]-related edits (with them adding contentious material to a number of articles, namely Pedro Sánchez, [[Álvaro García Ortiz]] and [[Begoña Gómez]]) in a heavily POV-ish way, in breach of [[WP:BLP]]). The last straw has been their breaking of [[WP:3RR]] at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81lvaro_Garc%C3%ADa_Ortiz&diff=1260837926&oldid=1260538921 Álvaro García Ortiz] after reverting {{u|TheRichic}} for attempting to reword some of the text to comply with BLP. I had previously attempted to warn them in [[User talk:Alejandroinmensidad|their talk page]], but they responded with indiscriminate accusations of [[WP:VANDAL|vandalism]] (which by themselves constitute a [[WP:PA|personal attack]] and a violation of [[WP:AVOIDVANDAL]]). They were also noted by another user about [[WP:AC/CT]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlejandroinmensidad&diff=1260209510&oldid=1260193483 diff]), but the user keeps on with their behaviour. Further, I have also detected evidence pointing to likely [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppetry]], which I denounced through [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Napoleonbuenoenparte|this SPI]] (where the situation is more throughly explained). [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 22:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Please see [[User talk:Darrencdm1988]]. When I checked the account they say is inaccessible User: Darren1988cdm, that account had edited as recently as February 1, 2018. Might not be important, but just in case ... [[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 20:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 
:[[WP:BLPN]] might be a better forum for discussing these edits. It does seem like a lot of edit-warring going on on [[Pedro Sánchez]]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 00:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
: {{nacmt}} This warrants the attention of a Checkuser, who can check if they're accessing from the same IP. I've opened a [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Darrencdm1988/Darren1988cdm|"quick" CU case]] over at [[WP:SPI]], we'll see how that turns out. -- Thanks, [[User:Alfie|Alfie]]. <sup><span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User talk:Alfie|talk to me]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Alfie|contribs]]</span></sup> 22:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
::This was already brought there a few days ago at [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez]], but the disruption has continued as the issue has been left unaddressed (and anyway, the BLPN thread does not address neither the behavioural issues nor the sock suspicions, which have evolved ever since). It's now basically impossible to do anything sort of keeping reverting this user if no admin steps in. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 07:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:: A CU has confirmed - Looks like Darrencdm198 is Darren1988cdm! -- Thanks, [[User:Alfie|Alfie]]. <sup><span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User talk:Alfie|talk to me]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Alfie|contribs]]</span></sup> 22:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
::Also, I already pointed it out at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Napoleonbuenoenparte|the SPI case]] (see Update 1), but ever since the SPI was opened the user has been conducting a number of random edits through several articles in addition to their focus in the usual ones (while avoiding engaging in any discussion related to the ongoing issues), probably to attempt avoiding being singled out as a SPA. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 07:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:Can't the user just redirect their old talk page to their new one and just start using the new one from there? [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 07:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
:::One problem I see, [[User:Impru20|Impru20]], is that it looks like this has been a solo effort by you to get attention on this editor's contributions, in the SPI, on BLPN, on the editor's user talk page and now here in ANI without receiving much response from other editors. If there is contentious material being posted on this BLP (which gets over 1,000 views/day), we should get more eyes on this article and others where there might be questionable edits. Is there anyone here who is comfortable assessing Spanish language sources that could provide a second (or third) opinion? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=1260192326&oldid=1260187967 this] a solo effort by me, {{u|Liz}}? And [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81lvaro_Garc%C3%ADa_Ortiz&diff=1260259519&oldid=1260254403 this]? Maybe [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81lvaro_Garc%C3%ADa_Ortiz&diff=1260538921&oldid=1260461911 this]? I am getting attention on this editor's contributions because they are being disruptive; they are reverting anyone who dares to restore a less POVish (and more BLP-compliant) version of the articles, and when they are confronted about that it's just personal attacks from them. The only solutions left are to: 1) keep reverting them (surely not what we are expected to do as per [[WP:EW]]); 2) discuss with them (this was done, and failed), and 3) bring the issue to venues where it can be properly addressed if points 1 and 2 are not possible (which was done: firstly to BLPN, then as SPI when I noticed they could be a sock, then here when that was left without solution yet the user kept engaging in disruptive behaviour). There are personal attacks, there is a 3RR violation, there is even behavioural evidence of sockpuppetry (with two users, one logged in editor and one IP, being ''confirmed'' socks). What else is required for ''any'' action to even be considered? Seriously, I ask you with all honestly, because it's fairly frustrating that they are basically left to do what they please without anyone actually caring. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 20:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Impru20}}, with regards to [[Álvaro García Ortiz]], it looks to me like {{u|Alejandroinmensidad}}'s edits are more accurate <s>than yours</s>, if Google Translate is accurate in translating the cited source. So, <s>why are you trying to keep less accurate content</s>, and why have you not discussed this at [[Talk: Álvaro García Ortiz]]? [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 21:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have not edited [[Álvaro García Ortiz]], {{u|Cullen328}}, so it's difficult any edit there could be more accurate than ''mine''. Now maybe you could focus on Alejandro's 3RR violation there, any of the behavioural issues that have been denounced... I don't know, something that has actually ''happened''. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 22:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Impru20}}, I apologize for mixing you up with {{u|TheRichic}}. However, Alejandroinmensidad reverted false content three times over several days. That is not a violation of [[WP:3RR]]. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 22:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Excuse me, {{u|Cullen328}}, but:
:::::::#How is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81lvaro_Garc%C3%ADa_Ortiz&diff=1260538921&oldid=1260461911 this content] false? You may agree or disagree with the wording, but it is not false. One of {{u|TheRichic}}'s denounces against {{u|Alejandroinmensidad}} (which I share) is that they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=1260192326&oldid=1260187967 treat (unproven) statements of certain people as absolute truths], typically resorting to the sources that fit their view the most (often without any [[WP:BALANCE]] or sense of impartiality). Again, I ask you: how is that content "false"? Specially considering your response here is limiting yourself to ''decry'' TheRichic's behaviour.
:::::::#As per [[WP:3RR]], reverts conducted just outside the 24-hour period {{tq|will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior}}.
:::::::#You could maybe skip point 2... if it wasn't because '''all''' reverts done by Alejandroinmensidad at [[Álvaro García Ortiz]] came ''after'' being explicitly warned in their talk page about [[WP:AC/CT]] on articles about living people ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlejandroinmensidad&diff=1260209510&oldid=1260193483 diff]).
:::::::#ANI is about behavioural problems (which have been denounced and evidence provided); the explicit BLP issue was addressed (or attempted to) elsewhere: here it is being brought because of it showing a behavioural pattern and a SPA-theme focus on Pedro Sánchez-related edits (which I said). Aside of 3RR, there have been explicit personal attacks (repeated accusations of vandalism without any evidence nor justification), edit warring and behavioural evidence of SOCK which is not even being addressed. So, what are people intended to do against it? To keep edit warring Alejandroinmensidad to death? [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 22:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Hello [[User:Cullen328|'''Cullen328''']] and [[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]], this user [[User:Impru20|'''Impru20''']] has been continuously deleting text and references from many users in everything related to the government of Spain for many years ago: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Third_government_of_Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=1260962125&oldid=1259122383%20this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Spanish_general_election&diff=1260419245&oldid=1260348468this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=November_2019_Spanish_general_election&action=history], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=November_2019_Spanish_general_election&action=history], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_PSOE_crisis&diff=1252297834&oldid=842893751], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mariano_Rajoy&diff=1260432482&oldid=1260164945this]. He has deleted on multiple occasions, without any explanation, my contributions, which I consider to be treated from a neutral point of view. That is why I have reverted its vandalism, I have not deleted the text of any user. [[User:Alejandroinmensidad|Alejandroinmensidad]] ([[User talk:Alejandroinmensidad|talk]]) 22:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Impru20}}, the ''[[El Mundo (Spain)|El Mundo]]'' headline translates as {{tpq|The Supreme Court indicts Attorney General García Ortiz for the leak of confidential data from Ayuso's boyfriend: The Second Chamber unanimously opens a case against Álvaro García Ortiz for the crime of revealing secrets}}. TheRichic's preferred wording was "García Ortiz has been investigated" and Alejandroinmensidad's preferred wording was "García Ortiz was charged by the Supreme Court". Everyone can see that Alejandroinmensidad's summary of the source was accurate and that TheRichic's summary was incorrect. You simply do not understand [[WP:3RR]], which requires ''more than three'' reversions in a 24 hour period. Alejandroinmensidad reverted only three times, and they were at 19:14, November 29, 2024, and then roughly 27 hours later at 22:10, November 30, 2024, and then roughly 48 hours later at at 22:04, December 2, 2024. Three reverts in three days is not more than three reverts in 24 hours. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 22:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{u|Cullen328}}, Alejandroinmensidad has literally breached [[WP:AVOIDVANDAL]] in front of your face in this very same discussion and you still have nothing to say about their behaviour? Also, they are linking literally random, occasional and entirely unrelated edits to the discussion to blame me of "vandalism"... and you still have ''nothing'' to say to it? On another note: {{u|Alejandroinmensidad}}, [[WP:NOTVAND|bold edits are '''not''' vandalism]], the edits of mine you link have nothing wrong in them. Heck, half of the edits you link are not even mine (one is '''yours'''), for God's sake! [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 23:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Also, {{u|Cullen328}}, I am not understanding what your reasoning is here. You have now edited part of your previous comment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=1261049901&oldid=1261049679]), when all of it is essentially off-topic. This is not an issue of edits at [[Álvaro García Ortiz]] (an article which I have not even edited), but an issue of general behavioural concerns, which Alejandroinmensidad is exhibiting with impunity in this very same thread. I have provided detailed diffs, links and evidence yet still none of it is being addressed and I am now being singled out {{underline|for edits I did not even made}}. I understand that every editor who opens a thread here is equally subject to BOOMERANG, but it's the first time I see it being applied to someone for edits done by other people, including the denounced editor's! [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 23:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::You have hundreds of text changes from other users in articles related to the government of Spain for years, just looking at your history to realize that most of the edits are vandalism. [[User:Alejandroinmensidad|Alejandroinmensidad]] ([[User talk:Alejandroinmensidad|talk]]) 00:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I want to clarify a couple of things:
:::::::::1. A headline by itself is not information, it can be biased and you have to read the rest of the article.
:::::::::2. If we read the El Mundo's article, at no point does it say that the attorney general has committed any crime, but rather that a criminal procedure has been opened and he and his surroundings are being investigated for an ALLEGED crime.
:::::::::3. In Spain, the term "imputar", translated in the article as "charge", is synonymous with "investigar" (to investigate). In fact, the term was modified a decade ago because it led to the erroneous conclusion that the person who was "imputado" was being accused. The accusation phase comes later, when the judge issues the "auto de acusación" (indictment), and then the person is "accused of" or "charged with" a crime. At this point, it can be said that the person is accused.
:::::::::4. "[...] García Ortiz was charged by the Supreme Court for having revealed the emails of the boyfriend of the president of the Community of Madrid" (what the article says) is just saying that he did it when we do not know what happened and a court of justice is investigating if anything happened.
:::::::::Having said all this, yes, I rewrote the article because the person is not accused of anything (yet), has not committed any crime (yet), and we cannot interpret the information in the article as it suits us. Greetings. [[User:TheRichic|TheRichic]] [[File:Escudo de España (mazonado).svg|12px]] ''<small>([[User talk:TheRichic|Messages here]])</small>'' 06:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::In Spanish and English, the terms charge (imputar) and investigate (investigar) are not synonymous. In the article in "Mundo" it is clearly explained that Álvaro García Ortiz is charged of leaking the emails. [[User:Alejandroinmensidad|Alejandroinmensidad]] ([[User talk:Alejandroinmensidad|talk]]) 08:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::To "charge" someone means that person gets investigated by the judicial authorities. It is the same. The issue is that you want to use "charge" as a synonymous to "accuse" (this has not happened, at least not yet). However, I am not going to discuss semantics with an editor who clearly doesn't understand what "vandalism" is. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 18:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}{{u|Impru20}}, I made an error in confusing you with TheRichic. I immediately apologized and then struck out the portions of my original comment that were inaccurate. That is what editors are supposed to do when they make a mistake. ''You'' are the editor who accused Alejandroinmensidad of BLP violations at [[Álvaro García Ortiz]] and you also accused that editor of violating 3RR. I decided to investigate one of the three articles you listed in your original post, and picked the middle of the three. I learned that there was no BLP violation, that Alejandroinmensidad's edits were more accurate than TheRichic's, and that the editor did not violate 3RR, at least in recent months. That is the full story. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 00:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*I closed [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Napoleonbuenoenparte]] with no action and an explanation.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 00:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Alejandroinmensidad}}, please be aware that {{u|Impru20}} has made nearly 200,000 edits to the English Wikipedia and has never been blocked for vandalism. The term "vandalism" has a very specific meaning and can only be applied to editing with the ''deliberate'' intention of damaging the encyclopedia. Impru20 is ''not a vandal'' and false accusations of vandalism are disruptive. So, please stop. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 00:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::Cullen328, I am not referring to him, I am referring to his editions. It removes content from many users without giving any motivation. In addition, he always does it in articles referring to the government of Spain. In any case, I will not answer his provocations again. [[User:Alejandroinmensidad|Alejandroinmensidad]] ([[User talk:Alejandroinmensidad|talk]]) 00:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Calling a user's edits vandalism is the same as calling the user a vandal. Just don't do it.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 01:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Alejandroinmensidad is obsessed with calling another editor a vandal ''even in an ANI thread'' and against repeated warnings, but somehow they are still assumed to be able to work collaboratively? You cannot discuss anything with this guy (and this is not an assumption, this was tried and failed). At the very least, there is an obvious [[WP:CIR]] issue here, and they will only keep edit warring everyone as they see any edits undoing their own (or those contents they prefer) as "vandalism". [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 06:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It is exactly what TheRichic has stated above. Further, it's telling that, so far, the BLP violations at [[Pedro Sánchez]] (which are what started the whole ordeal) have not even been addressed; Alejandroinmensidad added false statements, and others they added were done without BALANCE (as I pointed it out to them several times: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=1260179863&oldid=1260170850 diff] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=1260184320&oldid=1260183449 diff]); these were reverted by Alejandro exhibiting the exact same behaviour as here (i.e. falsely accusing others of vandalism). They also accused me of "removing links" when they removed references themselves under accusations of "vandalism" just to attempt to re-assert a version of the articles that depicted Sánchez and his government in the worst way possible of the several available ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=1260187634&oldid=1260186187 diff]). You cannot [[WP:CHERRYPICK|cherrypick]] sources and information to present a biased view of the person without contradictory information (which exists in this case) being presented as well. There is a BLPN case opened on [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez]] yet, somehow, almost everything is being ignored to attempt to present Alejandroinmensidad's behaviour as legit, when it is one of the most egregious SPAs I have seen as of lately, being here only for the purpose of these Pedro Sánchez-related edits (also, as commented on the SPI case, they only resorted to making random edits to other articles when the SPI case was opened and they were noticed about it, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FNapoleonbuenoenparte&diff=1260825850&oldid=1260823273 diff]). [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 07:32, 4 December 20Im24 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Impru20}}, if your concern is about [[Pedro Sánchez]], then why the heck did you make false claims of BLP problems and false claims of 3RR violations at [[Álvaro García Ortiz]]? Administrator time is limited. Throwing false claims in with possibly legitimate claims is a waste of time that makes administrators reluctant to look further. I would rather get some sleep. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 08:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Cullen328}}, I ''explicitly'' mentioned and linked [[Pedro Sánchez]] in my first post and [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez]] in subsequent ones; spoke about Pedro Sánchez-related edits; linked to other venues where the situation was also thoroughly explained; and only mentioned [[Álvaro García Ortiz]] as part of the articles in which Alejandroinmensidad had a focus on. {{u|Liz}} understood it perfectly in their first reply. It is ''you'' who then became focused with Álvaro García Ortiz for no reason even when I told you that it was not the main cause of concern (only as part of the larger SPA effort). With all due respect (and maybe I cannot stress the issue of respect enough, but I have to say this), but you cannot just say what you said here when you already had an error (rather major, as it redirected the focus of the discussion into me having to refute a false claim) by confusing edits of other users with my own edits and now accuse me of doing what I did not do. The presented evidence was there for reading. The 3RR claim was not false: reverting just outside the 24-hour window is explictly acknowledged as EW; [[WP:GAME]] exists; and the reverts were conducted right after a warning about living people's biographies being contentious topics was added to the user's talk page. Administrator time may be limited, but so is that of other editors (such as mine), and frankly: it's frustrating that I have had to provide a detailed (while summarized, because too lengthy ANI cases are typically accused of [[WP:TLDR]]) description of the situation so for it to be also systematically ignored. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 08:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Impru20}}, you are still incorrect about 3RR. A violation requires a minimum of '''four''' reverts within '''24 hours''' though some administrators might act at 25 hours. In this case, there were three reverts (not four) to ''clearly more accurate content'' over a three day period of about 75 hours. There is no possible interpretation of the policy that allows that to be called a 3RR violation. The notion that I looked into Álvaro García Ortiz "for no reason" is ludicrous. I looked into that article for a very real reason, namely that ''you'' mentioned that article in the first sentence of your report. If you did not want an administrator to look into that article, then why on earth did you mention it? [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 17:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::And then in your second sentence, you wrote {{tpq|The last straw has been their breaking of [[WP:3RR]] at Álvaro García Ortiz}}. So, I look into your "last straw" and you get angry with me. It makes no sense. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 17:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{u|Cullen328}}, 3RR clearly states that {{tq|The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times}}. They made three consecutive reverts to the same content without any justification and just after receiving a warning on contentious topics because of their edits and reverts in BLP-related articles, and they just got away with it. I also mentioned other articles and you did not look at them. On Álvaro García Ortiz, I said it was the "last straw" (this is, cumulatively after a lot of other issues), yet ''you'' interpreted it as the main focus of the issue. I can understand that you analyze that article (that's why I mention it), not that you focus ''solely'' on it. I don't get angry with you, I just don't understand why you have taken it with that article and ''insist in ignoring everything else'', In the course of all of it, you have casted two wrong facts about me (one about my (non)edits in that article, another one on what I said in this ANI thread). You have forced me to defend myself on issues that were not related to what I did or said while a disruptor is getting away with their disruption. This is my issue with you. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 18:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
 
== Requesting reversal of premature closure of talk page section by TheRazgriz ==
== [[Chloe Boreham]] ==
 
The edits by [[user:PlayPonyoForMe|PlayPonyoForMe]] should probably be redacted as a gross [[WP:BLP]] violation. He is on a final warning. [[User:Lard Almighty|Lard Almighty]] ([[User talk:Lard Almighty|talk]]) 08:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
:The user just added this person to a category - and one I'd say makes a controversial implication, yes. But I don't think this is serious enough to qualify the edits for [[WP:RD2|RD2]]. [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 08:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
::<small>Also, requests for revision deletion (especially for edits you believe to be serious BLP violations) shouldn't be requested in public like this - you should instead contact an admin or follow the instructions [[WP:REVDELREQUEST|here]] ;-) [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 09:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC) </small>
::: {{nacc}} That user added links to articles about mental disorders/negative things to articles about people, and then removed them. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chloe_Boreham&diff=prev&oldid=827190239&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gareth_Penn&diff=prev&oldid=827190070&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rubin_Carter&diff=prev&oldid=827189674&diffmode=source This is a BLB issue][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iain_Banks&diff=prev&oldid=823974264&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rubin_Carter&diff=prev&oldid=823578926&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rubin_Carter&diff=prev&oldid=820937281&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rubin_Carter&diff=prev&oldid=817576751&diffmode=source]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_Swiss_International_School&diff=prev&oldid=817284623&diffmode=source No source] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chloe_Boreham&diff=prev&oldid=817284127&diffmode=source] to name some. <span style="background-color:green;display:inline-block;text-align:center;line-height:18px;border-radius: 9px 9px 9px 9px;color:#ffffff">'''&nbsp;[[User:Anchorvale|{{white|Anchorvale}}]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Anchorvale|{{white|T@lk}}]] {{white|&#124;}} [[Special:Contributions/Anchorvale|{{white|Contributions}}]]</sup></small>'''&nbsp;</span> 09:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
::::I'll err on the side of caution and redact (at least for now), but I want to keep this discussion open so that other administrators can review and comment. [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 09:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
*Hard to tell if this is willful vandalism, but it appears more likely than not. We should probably wait and see if it continues because it looks like a potentially good faith user. [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'><big>'''S'''</big><small>'''''warm'''''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'>♠</span>]] 20:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
* Systematic BLP violations by a user whose name is strongly suggestive of a grudge against a named admin. I have blocked at this point, mainly due to the violations, which I think defy a good-faith explanation. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 
I have recently engaged in lengthy [[Talk:2024 United States elections|talk page discussions]] with [[User:TheRazgriz|TheRazgriz]] regarding his edits on the [[2024 United States elections]] page. Upon informing him today that I was escalating to the dispute resolution process, TheRazgriz prematurely [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1260830624 closed] a talk page section that dealt with the nature of our disagreement at hand, labeling it as "resolved" when it was not. There was no snowball as claimed in the closure message, and the subject matter that was absorbed into another section in the body was still in dispute. While the issue of the content in the lead was in fact resolved, the greater context of the claims that were made and were discussed in the section were not. The last comments in that section were made only 10 days prior, and the most recent comments involving this dispute were made today. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 02:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
==Refusal to add sources to article==
[[User:ItsTime1995]] has shown a repeated refusal to add sources to multiple articles, including [[McLaren MCL33]], [[Red Bull Racing RB14]], [[Williams FW41]] and [[Mercedes AMG F1 W09 EQ Power+]]: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/827051860], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/827150181], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/827189507], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/826518158], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/826834510], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/827057695], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/827189573], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/826834000], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/827049681], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/827150647].
 
:{{nacc}} I've undone the closure and fixed the formatting issues that were broken by the user in accident that resulted in broken indentations of the existing discussion. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 02:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
This is despite multiple messages informing him of the need for [[WP:RS|reliable]] and [[WP:VER|verifiable]] sources, including [[User talk:ItsTime1995#Your recent edits|on his talk page]] and in [[Talk:McLaren MCL33#Sources|article talk pages]]. [[User:Prisonermonkeys|Prisonermonkeys]] ([[User talk:Prisonermonkeys|talk]]) 09:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
::Thank you for your assistance! [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 02:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:I left this user an ANI notice for you ;-) [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 09:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
:For transparency and clarification: The dispute had migrated away from that topic and into a different topic on the page well over a week ago, and as noted by @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] here the resolution finding was accurately portrayed. Disputed content was not removed via closure. As point of that specific topic had been addressed and is no longer an issue, therefore unlikely to require further contribution, I fail to see the point in un-closing it. But it is what it is. Just want it clear this isn't a conspiracy of nefariousness. [[User:TheRazgriz|TheRazgriz]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 02:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:No edits have been made by the user since this ANI discussion has started - I'm going to wait and see what the editor does before I decide what we should do. [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 10:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
::Well, here's the point: it's poor practice to close a discussion in which you're heavily involved, certainly so in any issue that lacks a very strong consensus, and doubly so in a [[WP:CT|contentious topic]] such as the 2024 United States elections page. (Heck, I wouldn't dare to close a CT discussion I was involved in even for a [[WP:SNOW|snowball]].) That's the point. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 06:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::@{{U|Oshwah}} &mdash; that's fine by me. I've done everything within my power to impress upon him the importance of RS and VER and he has ignored me at every turn. There's nothing more that I can do. [[User:Prisonermonkeys|Prisonermonkeys]] ([[User talk:Prisonermonkeys|talk]]) 10:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
:::I also think you should have more than 224 edits before engaging in closing discussions. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 08:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm hoping that this ANI is enough to turn his head and get him to respond. Either way, we'll see. [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 10:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
::::It's always worth considering if a discussion even needs a close. In this case, it seems unlikely that the resulting close was something which would be useful to link to in the future. If editors have moved on, it also seems unlikely that a close is needed to stop editors adding to a discussion where it's moved past the point of being useful. And in fact, if editors do feel they have something useful to add, I'm not convinced it would definitely be useless. It's possible that the close will stop editors wasting their time reading a discussion where there's no need but IMO in a case like this the benefits of that are definitely outweighed by the disadvantages of making an involved close, and probably outweighed even by just the negatives of closing. As for collapsing, well the page isn't that long. And frankly, it would seem better to just reduce time before automatic archiving rather than collapse that specific discussion. Or even just manually archive some of the older threads. Noting there are bunch of older threads which seem to be way more unlikely to be revived or that anyone needs to see. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 11:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Ravenswing|Ravenswing]] & @[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]], I agree with both of your valid points, and they will be considered in the future. No arguement from me against either of those good points.
:::::@[[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]], I expect you have mistakenly assumed I have only ever edited WP from this (somewhat new-ish) account in making that comment. That is incorrect. I have left uncounted thousands of edits as an IP User since 2007, though I only have begun to edit CTOP and political content since creation of this account.
:::::To all of you, thank you and have a good day. [[User:TheRazgriz|TheRazgriz]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 13:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Point taken. But remember a lot of people won't know that. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 13:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::And that is a perfectly valid point, which is why I spent so much time tinkering with my userpage to help those who may make that mistake. :) Thank you. [[User:TheRazgriz|TheRazgriz]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 13:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*Pinging [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]], who earlier today [[Special:Diff/1260894544|stated on TheRazgriz's talkpage]] that {{tq|"I noticed you do a lot of closing".}} I'd like to know more about that, please, Pbritti, as this ANI thread has so far only been about ''one'' instance of inappropriate closing. Is there a wider problem that we need to address here? [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 13:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC).
*:That line is a surprise to me as well. If memory serves, I believe I have only closed 2 topics in total. I believe maybe 3 or 4 if including manual archiving within that categorization. The topic which @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] brought to attention here is the only one which I can imagine would be contentious in any way. It is certainly the most recent I have performed. [[User:TheRazgriz|TheRazgriz]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 13:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I stumbled on a closure of [[Talk:Bryson City, North Carolina]], where TheRazgriz [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bryson_City,_North_Carolina&diff=prev&oldid=1259996425 closed] a discussion to {{tq|to conserve space}}. I don't think this is intentionally disruptive behavior (even if it were, it's not exactly amy sort of serious offense). TheRazgriz has evidently been productively engaging on that article since before they registered. I only mentioned it because I figured that TheRazgriz might think such closures are standard. They're not, but they're also not worth starting an ANI over. A good first step to preventing this sort of escalation from repeating is removing the notice at the top of [[User talk:TheRazgriz]], as that might give the impression that they are an editor unwilling to respond directly to constructive criticism. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 15:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Just an aside, we can't tie a registered account to an IP editor and I don't think we should make any assumptions here about anyone's previous identities if they edited unregistered. Unless they choose to disclose, exceptions only for trolls and vandals. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::No no, @[[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] is correct, and my userpage makes that public info.
*::::Thank you for that, it would otherwise be a perfectly valid point to make. But in this case, it is both true and public knowledge by me to all of WP.
*::::(Additional edit to clarify, it is public that I edited for years as an IP user, and one of the first contributions on this named account was in reference to one of the IP edits I had made. What is not public is what my current IP is, which changes every so often for security reasons) [[User:TheRazgriz|TheRazgriz]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 20:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::{{re|TheRazgriz}} We're glad you registered, by the way. You've been pushing hard for some useful overhauls on CTs. Glad to see someone make the leap from IP to registered and bring that experience with them. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 20:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
 
== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2A01:CB10:830C:5200:0:0:0:0/64 ==
:I could be way-off, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is a sock of User:Jvm21. Jvm21 was blocked in September 2017. ItsTime1995 became more active shortly afterwards. Both accounts edit motorsport and film articles (check the earlier contributions from IT1995). IT1995 is not adding sources and refuses to discuss this. This was the initital issue with Jvm21, which among with other factors, lead to them being blocked. '''[[User:Lugnuts|<font color="002bb8">Lugnuts</font>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Lugnuts|Fire Walk with Me]]</sup> 12:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
::@{{U|Oshwah}}, @{{U|Lugnuts}} &mdash; whoever he is, it looks like he has backed off completely. I'll keep an eye out just in case but it's a little tricky to juggle ten articles at once. I was mostly concerned that this would be another GeoJoe1000 sock; I've had a lot of problems with abuse from him in the past to the point where I had to have additional restrictions as to who can edit placed on my talk page. Those restrictions have nearly expired, so I'm anticipating more trouble from him soon. [[User:Prisonermonkeys|Prisonermonkeys]] ([[User talk:Prisonermonkeys|talk]]) 10:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 
{{userlinks|2A01:CB10:830C:5200:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, and hasn't responded to warnings. /64 has previously been blocked in April 2024 for a month, then most recently in June 2024 for disruptive editing for 6 months, with the block noting that behaviour "continued right off block", which also seems to be the case here. Examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|Bret Iwan|prev|1260627287|1}}, {{diff|A Girl & Her Guard Dog|prev|1260624523|2}} (not in cited source), {{diff|Pon no Michi|prev|1260623681|3}} (not in cited source), {{diff|Kate Higgins|prev|1260612745|4}}, {{diff|List of Beastars characters|prev|1260821652|5}} (not in cited source). [[User:Waxworker|Waxworker]] ([[User talk:Waxworker|talk]]) 15:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
== Political agenda editor ==
 
== [[User:BrandtM113]] [[WP:LAME]] edit war, no attempts at discussion, frequent warnings ==
[[User:INDICATOR2018]] is another user who is only here to push the viewpoint of the Chinese government, contrary to [[WP:NOT]]. Edit warring over Japanese, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao stuff; censorship of content referenced to reliable sources simply because it might not reflect well on China, THE USUAL. [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/INDICATOR2018|Admitted to being the same person as a slew of IPs that had been edit warring over the exact same content for weeks previously]]. Yet never any action against this sort of disruptive editing. The intent of these kinds of "patriotic editors", who are becoming an increasing problem, is [[WP:NOTHERE|completely incompatible]] with the spirit of a free encyclopedia created through consensus. '''[[User:Citobun|Citobun]]''' ([[User_talk:Citobun|talk]]) 11:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
:I support this accusation <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/47.156.233.252|47.156.233.252]] ([[User talk:47.156.233.252#top|talk]]) 21:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Regardless of your continuous accusations, I am only curious about how "the spirit of a free encyclopedia" is "created through consensus". --[[User:INDICATOR2018|INDICATOR2018]] ([[User talk:INDICATOR2018|talk]]) 12:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
::Just out of interest, how would it ''not'' be? [[User:Britmax|Britmax]] ([[User talk:Britmax|talk]]) 12:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
:::As far as I know, the "free" here refers to [[free content]], a technical term which is unlikely to be related to "a spirit".--[[User:INDICATOR2018|INDICATOR2018]] ([[User talk:INDICATOR2018|talk]]) 13:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
:::: for "spirit" read "aims" or "philosophy behind", nothing to do with things that go bump in the night. [[User:IdreamofJeanie|IdreamofJeanie]] ([[User talk:IdreamofJeanie|talk]]) 13:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 
:It would assist the admins greatly if you could provide some unambiguous examples of pushing PRC propaganda onto articles in a manner that is disruptive. Otherwise this just looks like a content dispute. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 02:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC).
 
:: A few examples... IPs that follow are owned by the above user (already admitted by him/her). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Letter_asking_Xi_Jinping_to_Resign&diff=prev&oldid=825719502 Here, this user removes the word "prominent" from a description of a jailed Chinese columnist, then edit wars over it for a few days]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gedhun_Choekyi_Nyima&type=revision&diff=825605283&oldid=816963205 Here is an example of several edits where the user seeks to downplay Tibetan autonomy]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WeChat&diff=prev&oldid=825768956 Here, there is a long-term edit war where the same user keeps moving the "Censorship" section lower down the WeChat page. WeChat is a censored chat app in China, similar to WhatsApp – but WhatsApp is blocked because it's not censored]. After this user got an account, he/she [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WeChat&type=revision&diff=826307071&oldid=825971395 kept edit warring over the same thing]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_geoscheme_for_Asia&diff=prev&oldid=825769537 One of many edits where this user seeks to downplay any autonomy of Hong Kong, Macao, Tibet, or Taiwan – instead going around underlining PRC sovereignty]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Toungoo&diff=prev&oldid=825971738 Here he/she has been edit warring for ages at "Battle of Toungoo", changing the result from "Japanese victory" to "Japanese tactical victory/Successful Chinese retreat"]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan&diff=prev&oldid=827023797 Downplaying ROC sovreignty]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Hong_Kong&diff=prev&oldid=825585244 Stamping out any scent of HK autonomy]. Going about advocating that the viewpoint of the Chinese government ought to be expanded, like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baren_Township_riot&diff=prev&oldid=825962542 here]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Languages_of_Hong_Kong&diff=prev&oldid=825961876 Pushing pinyin, the Chinese government-approved system of romanisation, even on Hong Kong articles. Pinyin is not used in Hong Kong]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Me_Too_movement&diff=prev&oldid=825769833 Adding POV tag to coverage of sexual harassment in China with no explanation, and edit warring over it.]
 
On [[David Madden (executive)]], there is a red link for [[Michael Thorn]], a president of Fox, and [[Sarah Barnett]], a president of [[AMC Networks]]. [[User:BrandtM113]] has, five times in the last 3 years, come to the page to remove the red links. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Madden_(executive)&action=history] He has never left an edit summary, so I have no explanation for this unusual fixation.
:: Etc etc... the usual low-level political agenda editing and a clear case of [[WP:NOTHERE]]. And the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=827216719&oldid=827215722 above comment by INDICATOR2018] lacks understanding of key Wikipedia policies, like [[WP:CENSOR]]. '''[[User:Citobun|Citobun]]''' ([[User_talk:Citobun|talk]]) 06:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 
In March 2022 I sent a message to BrandtM113 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BrandtM113#David_Madden_(executive)] telling him about [[WP:REDLINK]] and how red links are useful in helping editors find gaps in knowledge, and stopping new pages from being orphaned from birth. With the complete lack of edit summaries, I don't know if he thinks Thorn and Barnett should never have a Wikipedia article, which is quite the claim.
:::
# Resorting to ''[[ad hominem]]'' simply doesn't justify your politically-motivated accusations. (''the '''usual low-level''' political agenda editing'', ''lacks understanding of key Wikipedia policies'')
# In terms of the word "prominent", prior to the editing war([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Letter_asking_Xi_Jinping_to_Resign&oldid=771178027 this version]), there is no source cited to verify the rather assertive word "Prominent ". So I boldly removed it based on what [[MOS:PUFF]] states. Currently, due to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Letter_asking_Xi_Jinping_to_Resign&type=revision&diff=825924467&oldid=825774409 this edit] made by "Rolf h nelson", this word has been verified. Therefore, I wouldn't argue over it.
# For your second accusation, it simply baffles me. Please elaborate to me how I ″downplay(ed) Tibetan autonomy″. I made this edit to both make this article in correspondence with [[Gyaincain Norbu]] which states ''Chökyi Gyalpo, also referred to by secular name Gyaincain Norbu, is the 11th Panchen Lama '''selected by the government of People's Republic of China''''' and state necessary facts. Is that wrong?
# As for Wechat, please check out my explanation at [[Talk:WeChat#Edit_explanation]] before making your accusation.
# For the ″downplay any autonomy″, I was making these edits to do necessary corrections that Tibet, Macao, Hong Kong are all provincial-level administrations of China.(see [[Administrative divisions of China]]) which clearly don't have the same status as China, a sovereign state.
# Concerning [[Battle of Toungoo]], I would like you to reassess my edits where I restored the deleted content. Plus, the result of this battle also cannot be verified. So both versions are arguably acceptable.
# For the Downplaying ROC sovreignty{{sic}}, please tell me if I am wrong to say that ROC is a partially recognised state as what [[List of states with limited recognition]] states. How could a simple edit of stating facts become dowplaying sovereignty. I cannot understand.
# In terms of what happens in [[:Category:Hong Kong]], please see a third opinion made by {{user|Zanhe}}: {{quote|"city state" generally refers to sovereign states, see http://www.dictionary.com/browse/city-state and other dictionaries.}} Based on your logic, isn't Zanhe also a political agenda editor?
# Regarding the [[Talk:Baren Township riot]], my rationales have been quite clear. Also, please check out what "Sassmouth" conveys {{quote|I agree with with INDICATOR2018 At first glance i think paragraph 3 and 4 of of the uygher pov section should be deleted i would like to hear other editors opinions on the matter??? Thanks }} in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABaren_Township_riot&type=revision&diff=826244859&oldid=825962542 this edit].
# For my Pinyin edit, I totally know Pinyin is not used in Hong Kong. Yet we should know that this is '''English Wikipedia''', not HKpedia. At present, Pinyin Guangdong is more prevalent Canton in English.
::Finally, I strongly suggest that you verify these edits both personally and thoroughly before making extremely MISLEADING accusations. --[[User:INDICATOR2018|INDICATOR2018]] ([[User talk:INDICATOR2018|talk]]) 10:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 
Repeating the same edit with no summaries, no talk page discussion, is disruption even if it is over several years. I think a [[WP:CIR]] block may be useful. His talk page has more notices than I care to count for removing content without a summary, adding content without a source, repeated disruptive edits (doing the same edit, again) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BrandtM113#Disambiguation_link_notification_for_April_22], outright vandalism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BrandtM113#October_2022]. This user has had more than enough warnings and it's literally like talking to a brick wall with the lack of edit summaries or discussions. [[User:Unknown Temptation|Unknown Temptation]] ([[User talk:Unknown Temptation|talk]]) 17:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
== [[User:Hitesh Kapil]] ==
 
:Blocked for 6 months. Let's see if that is long enough time to get their attention. <b>[[User:Inter|Oz]]</b>\<sup>[[User_talk:Inter|<span style="color:green;">InterAct</span>]]</sup> 19:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Since December, I have sent seven messages to this editor about creating unreferenced articles and failing to communicate. All have been ignored, although the editor continues to edit.
 
::Well, 99.7% of this editor's 6,297 edits are to main space, they have made few edits to Talk space and fewer to User talk space. They don't often have an edit summary but they are very active and all of the talk page warnings are more than a year old so perhaps they have taken the advice on board. I was hoping that they would resond here but now they are blocked as I was writing this. I hope they file an unblock request and start communicating. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Other editors have also raised concerns, and HK has ignored all messages from editors in the eight months they have been editing. Articles which have been tagged with concerns include: [[Oakover]], [[Jubbal-Kotkhai]], [[Bagsiad]], [[Thunag]] and [[Chachiot]]. Some are completely unreferenced, others have had different concerns raised, and the unreferenced ones have been raised with them more than once. They have been repeatedly advised to look at [[WP:Communication is required]], [[WP:BURDEN]] and [[WP:V]]. I'm hoping he will communicate here, but I think he is likely to only respond if blocked. [[User:Boleyn|Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Boleyn|talk]]) 09:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
:::Today, the user made the exact same edit that was made in 2021, 2022 and 2023, after having being told in 2022 about the exact Wikipedia policy that made that edit disruptive. I don't call that taking advice on board. If there is some crucial reason to remove those red links on the David Madden page, it should have been said in an edit summary or on the talk page. If a kid on my street played knock-and-run on my door once a year for four years, I'd still consider that as annoying as doing it once a day for four days. [[User:Unknown Temptation|Unknown Temptation]] ([[User talk:Unknown Temptation|talk]]) 19:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:I looked at some of his edits, going back to December. Pretty innocuous stuff. But yeah, he probably deserves a block for completely ignoring all communication. Perhaps he does not understand how talk pages work?[[Special:Contributions/104.163.148.25|104.163.148.25]] ([[User talk:104.163.148.25|talk]]) 10:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
:::The user did not edit between 22 October 2023 and 24 October 2024, after two warnings in September 2023. That's a year of not editing, rather than a year of constructive editing. [[User:Unknown Temptation|Unknown Temptation]] ([[User talk:Unknown Temptation|talk]]) 19:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:: I've notified him of the AN/I discussion. However, it doesn't look like they know how to use a talk page - or it could be a case of [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]]. [[User:Bellezzasolo|<span style="color: #bb9900">&#x2230;</span><span style="color: #00326a">'''Bellezzasolo'''</span><span style="color: #bb9900">&#x2721;</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Bellezzasolo|<small>Discuss</small>]] 17:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
::::And I don't understand why you let this little error get so under your skin that you brought this to ANI. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Some people take Wikibreaks. I did myself for six months in 2009. I'm at a loss of what could be construed as sinister about that. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 15:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
 
::Adding some formatting to an infobox that the relevant wikiproject dislikes is not "outright vandalism". [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 22:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
== File copyright issues ==
{{archive top|result=Some images and articles deleted, editor informed of the problems. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)}}
{{u|Preetzaildar8}} is edit warring over [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Preetzaildar8&namespace=6&tagfilter=&start=&end= uploaded file without proof of permissions]. I've tagged some files they have uploaded and they keep removing the tag, could an Admin get their attention. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:FlightTime|<span style="color:#800000">'''FlightTime'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:FlightTime|<span style="color:#FFD700">'''open channel'''</span>]])</small></span> 13:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
:I see they have asked on your talk page for assistance. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]], [[Special:CentralAuth/Jo-Jo Eumerus|contributions]]) 14:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
:: I've deleted the obviously problematic images and explained why on their talk page. I'm unsure about the remaining ones - TinEye doesn't get any hits, and they could possibly be the user's. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
:::Google image search finds the remaining images but [[:File:Khushanpreet_Singh.jpg]] [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 17:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
:::: I couldn't find File:Tarsem_Jassar.jpg or File:Sunanda Sharma.jpg either, could you either let me know the original's location or tag the articles? Thanks, [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 17:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::[http://imgaram.com/media/BfQYxDWnZvu] and [https://www.facebook.com/SunandaSharmaOfficial/photos/a.1560210487620741.1073741828.1560181447623645/1766119610363160/?type=3&theater], i believe [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 17:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::Actually, [https://www.instagram.com/p/BfQYxDWnZvu/?taken-by=jassardaswag] for the first, also [https://www.instagram.com/p/Beeqna1H7K_/?hl=en&taken-by=jagjeetsandhu_] for the jagjeet sandhu image [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 17:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::And for [[:File:Khushanpreet_Singh.jpg]] he conveniently [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Khushanpreet_Singh.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=827227969&diffmode=source linked in a prior edit] to the source of the image, but it appears to be him, which is what I thought.. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 17:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::: OK, all tidied up. One of the remaining articles he created is at PROD, the other one [[Sunanda Sharma]] I suspect is actually notable, though it needs a lot of work. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
{{ab}}
 
== Vandalism related to Wisit Tongmo ==
== [[User:Ivan P. Clarin]] ==
 
Since [[Special:Diff/1218052367|April 2024]] at least, a person has been vandalizing Wikipedia by adding his own name, Wisit Tongmo (or วิศิษฎ์ ทองโม้ in Thai), to pages. He has appeared through a bunch of sockpuppets (see [[:Wikidata:Q130757841|categories]] & [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DLOEI2536|investigations]]). But blocking his accounts seems to be in vain, as he still comes as IPs. His recent IPs include {{user|2001:44c8:663c:53f9:7d16:7576:dabb:3299}} & {{user|2001:44C8:663C:53F9:ECD2:4516:5460:E49A}}.
I have contacted this editor 4 times over the last month and a bit, with no response although they have continued editing: see [[User talk:Ivan P. Clarin#Sources]]. I have been contacting them about creating unreferenced articles, but they won't discuss it or amend it. They seem to have not responded to any messages over the six months they've been editing. There have also been concerns that this is the same user as {{u|Jhoven Sulla}}, please see [[User talk:Ivan P. Clarin#Please do not move pages.]] and [[User talk:Ivan P. Clarin#Editing other users’ user pages]]. I have directed them towards [[WP:Communication is required]], [[WP:V]] and [[WP:BURDEN]], but they have just ignored it. [[User:Boleyn|Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Boleyn|talk]]) 19:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 
Wikidata has created a filter, LTA 273, to prevent adding his name to pages, which appears to be very effective (as seen in [[:Wikidata:Special:Contributions/2001:44C8:6601:4A43:5824:CBD5:4EA5:D42A|this log]]).
== Does this look familiar to anyone? ==
 
So, is it also possible for the English Wikipedia to have some filter which prevents the addition of the following phrases to a page?
{{userlinks|Retro72}} is a new user making multiple sequential small edits to articles. This is a known tactic for [elided due to [[WP:BEANS]]]. Does the user look familiar to anyone? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
# "Wisit Tongmo" (or "WisitTongmo");
:It should be added that many of the edits are weirdly incompetent. I had this same thought - it seemed familiar somehow - but can’t quite recall the bell that it rings. [[User:JohnInDC|JohnInDC]] ([[User talk:JohnInDC|talk]]) 22:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
# "วิศิษฎ์ ทองโม้" (or "วิศิษฎ์ทองโม้");
::Looks like making edits just for the sake of making them. The net effect seems close to zero. Weird. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 23:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
# "วิศิษฏ์ ทองโม้" (or "วิศิษฏ์ทองโม้").
:::::But the net effect isn’t zero. A significant percent of his edits are just wrong, and introduce errors that have to be cleaned up. I’ve noted several on his talk page. [[User:JohnInDC|JohnInDC]] ([[User talk:JohnInDC|talk]]) 23:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
:::Hasn't this kind of behavior come up in one of the arbcom-related venues such as [[WP:AE]] or [[WP:ARCA]]? It might be worth adding a sentence or so to the relevant section of [[Wikipedia:Protection policy]] (and maybe [[WP:GAME]]). [[User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris|Shock Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 23:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
:If they're aiming for that status, it's easy enough for any admin to remove it under discretionary sanctions. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 01:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
::This reminds me of several other [[WP:TE|tendentious]] users, but appears to be unrelated. Apparently [[Special:Diff/827480107|this]] just happened, which if it's not deliberate trolling, probably should just be CIR blocked. [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]] ([[User talk:Alex Shih|talk]]) 02:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
:::Well Alex, you're an admin now. Let's see your mop-fu. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">[[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</font>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 04:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
::::{{re|MjolnirPants}} The mop manual says no edit after final warning means wait and see. [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]] ([[User talk:Alex Shih|talk]]) 05:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 
Letter case is irrelevant.
== Range block request for 2600:1700:C9F0:76D0:* ==
 
Thank you. -- [[User:Miwako Sato|Miwako Sato]] ([[User talk:Miwako Sato|talk]]) 22:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=100&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=2600%3A1700%3AC9F0%3A76D0%3A*&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=&end= Range contribs for 2600:1700:C9F0:76D0:*]
 
:As the first 12 characters of their dynamic IPv6 addresses are the same, might I suggest a rangeblock before considering an LTA filter? [[User:Departure–|Departure–]] ([[User talk:Departure–|talk]]) 22:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Widespread vandalism on ''The Amazing World of Gumball'' pages over the past few weeks. Example edits: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Amazing_World_of_Gumball_(season_1)&curid=38402242&diff=prev&oldid=817039999] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Amazing_World_of_Gumball_(season_1)&curid=38402242&diff=prev&oldid=817039999] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Amazing_World_of_Gumball_characters&curid=34150110&diff=prev&oldid=814089410][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Amazing_World_of_Gumball_characters&curid=34150110&diff=prev&oldid=814093275] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Amazing_World_of_Gumball_characters&curid=34150110&diff=prev&oldid=814093275] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Amazing_World_of_Gumball_(season_4)&curid=43012524&diff=prev&oldid=827423876] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Amazing_World_of_Gumball_(season_4)&curid=43012524&diff=prev&oldid=827474743]. I believe the range is 2600:1700:C9F0:76D0::/64 [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 23:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
:The two IP addresses used today were in the same /64 IPV6 range, so I briefly blocked them to stop today's disruption while we're discussing further steps. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 22:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:The edits might not be ''blatant vandalism'' (just the removal of people and items from episode credits) - but I don't know much about this article, so I could be wrong. Either way, the edits ''are'' concerning - they're not explained in edit summaries, large in quantity, and with intentions being questionable. Hence, I've blocked the IP range for disruptive editing. [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 23:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
::{{re|Oshwah}} thank you for blocking. I should have clarified that I did check the credits for some of the episodes being edited. The people being removed were indeed credited for those episodes, so the user was removing correct information. To me that constitutes at least disruptive editing. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 04:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
:::[[User:EvergreenFir|EvergreenFir]] - Cool, sounds good to me! Thanks man - [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 04:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 
:May I refer you to [[WP:EFR]], which is thataway →. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
== Concerning image changes on animal articles ==
 
== Cycling through IPs ==
{{Userlinks|Esagurton}} registered in February 2017 and became active in October, taking an interest in altering the lead image on animal articles. I have attempted to have discussions with them about various things, posting on their talk page three times starting in November when I noticed their many image changes. They have learned to use the minor edit function appropriately and now somewhat successfully use edit summaries, but have not really engaged with me in a conversation. Some of their image changes are helpful, such as [[Special:Diff/827366395|this edit]] just hours ago at [[Ring-tailed cat]], but they have a ''very'' strong determination to unnecessarily make the lead images feature the subject's full body (e.g. [[Special:Diff/808629204|on Hairy-fronted muntjac]], replacing [[:File:2011 Muntjak-2.jpg|this closer image]]). And also feature a mature individual, unless they've exhausted other options (see [[Diamondback terrapin]], reverted twice… really enjoy [[Special:Diff/813797266|the first attempt]]'s reasoning). In the case of Ring-tailed cat the "full body" philosophy worked, but in many cases it hasn't… see [[Sea otter]] (four times: [[Special:Diff/808681326|Nov 4]], [[Special:Diff/813324710|Dec 2]], [[Special:Diff/820177715|Jan 13]], [[Special:Diff/822613362|Jan 27]]) and [[North American river otter]] (replacing a FP five times: [[Special:Diff/808679281|Nov 4]], [[Special:Diff/810311835|Nov 14]] which I didn't see until 3 weeks later, [[Special:Diff/820175976|Jan 13]], [[Special:Diff/822612644|Jan 27]], [[Special:Diff/827388589|Feb 24]]—why I'm posting here). Although the last attempt on Sea otter did miraculously [[Talk:Sea_otter#About_Main_Image|lead to]] a crop and a better choice, this pattern is quite tiresome. After Esagurton's [[Special:Diff/809316536|attempt here]] to "fix" the lead image of the GA [[Cuvier's dwarf caiman]] it took me [[Talk:Cuvier's_dwarf_caiman#Lead_image_swap_&_then_move|a whole week]] to get a good quality image back, which I was only able to do after contacting the author of 6.5-year-old image on Commons.
 
After I [[User_talk:Rhinopias#Recent_edits_on_some_articles|wrote an essay]] a month ago recapping what had been said to Esagurton and attempting to give some clear examples, they satisfyingly [[User_talk:Rhinopias#Edit_requests_for_articles_about_animals|asked me]] about talk pages. I gave some related advice and they just recently [[Special:Diff/827388970|did ''exactly'' what I suggested not to do]]. (But maybe they never even saw my response. I may never know.) Changes for the worse on a GA or FA (especially if it's a prominent species) will be noticed, but I'm troubled by changes to articles that likely have hardly any watchers and may go unnoticed ([[Special:Diff/808663624|this one at Knight anole]] almost 4 months ago instead of [[:File:Jielbeaumadier anolis chevalier mjp paris 2014.jpeg|this way better image]], for example). Esagurton has learned a couple of things, but without the ability to collaborate and understand how the project works I don't see how they'll be a productive editor and have an overall positive impact. [[User:Rhinopias|Rhinopias]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Rhinopias|talk]]) 02:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
:{{u|Rhinopias}}, what action are you asking administrators to take? This editor is using edit summaries and in some cases, discussing their changes on talk pages. It is obvious that they have a preference for full body images, and I understand that you disagree. But there is inherent subjectivity in selecting images. You have not presented evidence that this editor is being so disruptive that a block or a topic ban is warranted. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 03:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 
:I've seen this preference for full-body images of animals several times now, and I've seen several people argue against using it as an absolute rule. Since I haven't seen it codified in any guideline/MOS page, this would work like jsut about any other content dispute -- coming to a consensus regarding which best illustrates the subject. Or, to quote MOS:IMAGES: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." While full-body shots might be the best thing to satisfy that guidance in many cases, if there's a higher-quality, more engaging way to illustrate the subject, I think that would also work (with the full-body shot going further down the page). Regardless, since this isn't the place for content disputes but for behavioral issues, it seems like the best advice would be for Esagurton to read and appreciate [[WP:BRD]]. When it becomes clear that changing the image on a page will be contentious, it would be good practice to simply propose images on the talk page instead of continually adding them to the article. Rhinopias, you would probably need to make a stronger case that this is disruptive to bring about admin action, as Cullen said. If there's no clear guidance (or even something that ''says'' there's no clear guidance :) ), it may be worth an RfC at, say, WikiProject Animals. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 04:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 
I have a question about vandalism accounts. I help edit a series of reality TV articles and, from what I can tell, there appears to be a single user who will edit with either rumored spoilers for upcoming episodes or flat-out fake information. They don't use an account and the IP used will eventually be warned/blocked but then they will just pop up sometime later using a similar but different IP. Is there any potential resolution for this that isn't an endless game of whack-a-mole? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Noahp2|Noahp2]] ([[User talk:Noahp2#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Noahp2|contribs]]) 07:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
== IP user 73.62.146.11 ==
 
:[[WP:RANGE]]? [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 08:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/73.62.146.11 contributions] of [[User:73.62.146.11]] evince that they are [[WP:NOTHERE|not here]] to build an encyclopedia. They include [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammon_Bundy&diff=prev&oldid=827504581 vile insults] in edit summaries, introducing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_von_Hindenburg&type=revision&diff=827420644&oldid=826363449 outright Nazi apologia] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319&diff=prev&oldid=827416696 adding Star of David flags] to a list of murdered German revolutionaries. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 03:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
:Blocked:We'll theneed some IP aaccounts month,first theto personsee currentlyif assigneda therange IPblock is indefinitelyappropriate. --[[User:NeilN|<bspan style="font-family:Papyrus; color:navy#800080;">Neil[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color:red #006400;">N<[[Special:Contributions/span></b>Liz|'''''Read!''''']] <sup>[[User talk:NeilNLiz|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 0309:2935, 254 FebruaryDecember 20182024 (UTC)
:::Sure, here are seven I suspect are the same user. All do the same type of unannotated edits on similar pages. 222.153.65.98, 222.154.16.98, 222.153.14.129, 222.153.114.170, 222.153.13.121, 222.153.68.214, 222.153.50.12. [[User:Noahp2|Noahp2]] ([[User talk:Noahp2|talk]]) 15:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::They're back at [[User:73.94.200.16]]. Might have to investigate some rangeblocking. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 04:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
:::This charming talk page comment shows the editor's sweet personality: "The bugs hiding under the log get mad when you remind them of the light of day." They are fond of comparing people to animals. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 04:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
::::I blocked the second IP and will leave rangeblocking to another administrator who is more technically proficient. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 04:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::The range is way too wide. {{u|NorthBySouthBaranof}}, if they hop again then we'll look at article protection. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 04:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::I semiprotected [[German Revolution of 1918–19]] and am watching their other favorites. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 04:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::::I am not too sure whether this is related to [[User:EchoUSA]] or not, see [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EchoUSA/Archive]]. [[User:SA 13 Bro|<b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b>]] ([[User talk:SA 13 Bro|talk]]) 05:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::::I remember a neo-Nazi a few months ago who was interested in the elaborate logos of the various contemporary fascist factions. This one wants to plaster red Stars of David on all mentions of Jewish Communists. Whether it is one person or two, the disruption is clear. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 07:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 
== Undisclosed paid editing ==
== Legal threats from NannetteKnowsMen ==
 
* {{User|RayanTarraf}}
Hello, {{u|NannetteKnowsMen}} is a new editor who had edited only two content pages, a draft which appears to be an autobiography, and a draft which is of a new therapeutic technique by same person. I declined the technique page at [[Draft:The Agony Element™]].
 
Never disclosed their paid editing.
Said user responded to me with some inappropriately hostile posts on my Talk, and allegations of CoI. I've responded civilly, asked them to specify the CoI, asked them to post links to the "help desk" and other page when I've apparently "been reported" (I do not see such in user's Contributions). Honestly, the overall tone of the writing is rather disturbing which combined with the refusal to give details makes this a rather uncomfortable situation.
 
According to [[User:DubaiScripter]]: {{tq|Glimpse Digital Agency is a Marketing, Digital Marketing and design production studio set up in Dubai in 2017 by Lebanese '''Rayan Tarraf.'''}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DubaiScripter&oldid=806819780][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DubaiScripter&diff=prev&oldid=808988550] [[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] ([[User talk:Hypnôs|talk]]) 10:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Please see this entry wherein Nannette issues a legal threat to me: [[User_talk:MatthewVanitas#You_are_a_COI_to_Wikipedia]]:
:I note that this user has not edited since March this year, and has only made three edits, none to mainspace, since 2017. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 10:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
{{quote|''Wiki's Legal Department will be asked to review YOU in this matter. Doubtless, I am far from the first person to complain about your tactics, but I will be the last.''}}
::So? [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 11:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I will post said::And userwhat ado linkyou tomean thispaid ANIediting? forWho theirpaid notification.who? [[User:MatthewVanitasDubaiScripter|MatthewVanitasDubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:MatthewVanitasDubaiScripter|talk]]) 0911:5011, 254 FebruaryDecember 20182024 (UTC)
:::You disclosed in 2017 that you were paid to edit.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DubaiScripter&oldid=806819780]
:If I seem brusque in the AFC, it's because I already wrote said editor a very clear explanation at the AFC Help Desk, including explaining why it was not ready to be submitted, only to have them immediately submit it with no changes. So I was brief because I'd already gave them a full explanation five minutes prior. [[User:MatthewVanitas|MatthewVanitas]] ([[User talk:MatthewVanitas|talk]]) 09:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
::Note:If onyou myare Talk,unaware hostileof this, postsare fromthere sameother editorpeople boththat abovehave andhad belowaccess theto linkedyour section.account? [[User:MatthewVanitasHypnôs|MatthewVanitasHypnôs]] ([[User talk:MatthewVanitasHypnôs|talk]]) 1011:0135, 254 FebruaryDecember 20182024 (UTC)
:Who is getting paid for editing? Rayan Taraff or Dubai Scripter? Do you have any diffs of problematic content that they have added to articles?[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 11:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::This user also came into the help IRC channel before all of this and refused to declare her COI as she is writing articles on herself and her "groundbreaking discovery". No legal threats were made there, but I did want to point out the antagonistic behavior from this user. Also see [[ticket:2018022510002155]]. [[User:Nihlus|<span style="padding:2px 2px;font-variant:small-caps;color:#000;letter-spacing:-0.5px">'''Nihlus'''</span>]] 10:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
::Thank you @[[User:Isaidnoway|Isaidnoway]] I just noticed a big discussion on social channels going around the article of Baalbek in Lebanon. Apparently, Some editors are using Wikipedia for political benefits in order to push war agenda. Which is terrible of course. I went straight to the article in order to see what is happening and found that many referenced articles have actually no backing or reliable sources. Two minutes after requesting access to edit, I received the notification of Hypnos questioning my integrity which makes me think that what is being said online is actually true. [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 11:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I was going to nom her user page for deletion, but somebody beat me to it. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy,''' knows women.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''barcus''']] 10:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
:::incase you want to see what I'm talking about https://www.instagram.com/khalilshreateh/reel/DB1rDyqNjCc/ [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 11:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::<small>At long last, I am somebody! --[[User:Bonadea|bonadea, knows people. Well, some people.]]</small><br>On a less frivolous note, I would have liked to tag the drafts as blatant spam because they are clearly only there to promote herself and her own personal pet theory, but I'm not sure the language is promotional enough. --''[[User:Bonadea|bonadea]]'' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonadea|contributions]] [[User talk:Bonadea|talk]]</small> 10:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
::DubaiScripter disclosed that they were paid by RayanTarraf's company to edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DubaiScripter&oldid=806819780], and have created the page [[Rayan Tarraf]] three times. But since they seem to be unaware of this, the account is possibly used by someone else now.
{{deindent}}
::Regarding Rayan Taraff, I can't go into details due to [[WP:OUTING]], but the pages they created are either related to them or have a promotional tone.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RayanTarraf/sandbox]
{{u|Nihlus}}, I take it one can't see the OTRS ticket without a login? Am I allowed to ask if I'm actually being threatened with legal action via WikiMedia by an author in Australia? I'm not necessarily alarmed since I really, really doubt I've done anything actionable, but it does seem inappropriate. [[User:MatthewVanitas|MatthewVanitas]] ([[User talk:MatthewVanitas|talk]]) 11:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
::{{tq|Since joining the Mohammad & Obaid AlMulla Group in 2017, Beshara has played a key role in its growth and success.}}
::{{tq|American Hospital Dubai, under Beshara's guidance, has achieved significant healthcare innovations, particularly in the field of robotics and artificial intelligence.}} [[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] ([[User talk:Hypnôs|talk]]) 11:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry but you are assuming too much. Not related, Nor paid. These pages were my attempts at learning on how to create new articles for known companies and figures that are not already on Wikipedia which I obviously failed to do but that certainly doesn't mean I'm paid and the section you quoted about American Hospital CEO is depicted directly from their articles which you can find online. And if you are talking about the option where you choose if you were paid or not for an article that was also a failed try when i was trying to find my way around understanding how this works. So again, no I never got paid nor do I know these people in person.
:::Now the real question is... Why is @[[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] very insistent on diverting from the original issue which is using Wikipedia for Political gain? [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 13:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::DubaiScripter, ''you'' have stated that you are indeed a paid editor, paid by Glimpse Digital Agency. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 13:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yes, as I have mentioned in my previous reply. I had chosen that option in one of my attempts to understand why the article is being rejected but I can confirm that was by mistake. not really paid by anyone. [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 13:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::DubaiScripter, please be exactly specific. What ''exactly'' is your relationship to Rayan Tarraf and to Glimpse Digital Agency? --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 13:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Also, please watch this video https://www.instagram.com/khalilshreateh/reel/DB1rDyqNjCc/ which explains exactly why @[[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] is doing this. He is plainly mentioned in there. [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 13:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::You need to stop this - I suggest you read the contentious topic notification on your talk page. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::My last message: Whoever is reading from the esteemed and amazing non-biased Admins... That are obviously more experienced and much better than me. Please check the this issue and don't let misinformation run loose on Wikipedia. https://www.tiktok.com/@zeez870/video/7435060973855116562?q=baalbek%20wikipedia&t=1733319093938 [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 13:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, @[[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] I've noticed that in the talk page your name is mentioned 27 times and that in trying to block the removal of exactly what I came to check. All, I can say is that this issue is blowing up on social channels and it's only reflecting badly on Wikipedia Admins and Wikipedia as a reliable source. I also, noticed that you are only interested in historical pages that are related to the Jewish community which makes me believe that you are biased but again it that's my assumption. I could be wrong [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 13:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::... "this issue is blowing up on social channels"? Really? How about providing us some links to those? You wouldn't happen to be involved in ''pushing'' that, would you? [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 15:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
 
== Troublesome single purpose account ==
 
Bringing everyone's attention to [[User:AngadSingh2004]], who is a single-purpose account that has never edited any topics outside of [[Disney Star]] and related articles since their account was created in June 2023.
 
The user in question performed several ill-advised moves to [[Disney Star]] and related articles as bold moves that were reverted as controversial.
 
After a request was made at [[WP:RMT]] {{diff2|1258182183#TXF|here}} to revert the controversial undiscussed move, and the reversion was completed by @[[User:Robertsky|Robertsky]], [[User:AngadSingh2004]] posted about the reversion on the article's talk page [[Talk:Disney Star#Move the page to JioStar.|here]], replying {{tq|1="Are you dumb or something"}} when advised that moving the article without consensus was disruptive.
 
[[User:AngadSingh2004]] came to [[WP:RMT]] to again try to bypass the RM process for a controversial move by requesting the page be moved ([[Special:Diff/1258324632|here]]). This move was declined at [[WP:RMT]] because it didn't meet the criteria for an uncontroversial move, and the editor was advised to open a full RM discussion.
 
The editor finally opened the full RM discussion, [[Talk:Disney Star#Requested move 19 November 2024|here]]. However, during the RM discussion, presumably when they realized things weren't trending the way they wished, the editor went ahead and deceptively edited other people's RM votes, editing them from '''oppose''' to '''support''' (see [[Special:Diff/1260958741|here]], [[Special:Diff/1260907303|here]], [[Special:Diff/1260959048|here]]). When confronted about this [[User talk:AngadSingh2004#Do not edit other editor's comments or votes|on their talk page]], they said they "thought it was a glitch".
 
Shortly after the requested move was inevitably closed as "not moved" with very clear consensus to not move the article, the editor decided to unilaterally proceed with the move ''anyway'', [[Special:Permalink/1261086478|moving the article with the reason "Perform requested move, see talk page"]]. When confronted about this [[User talk:AngadSingh2004#Do not edit other editor's comments or votes|on their talk]], they said: <br>
{{tq|1="The discussion was useless, no body agreed with the real proofs I have provided and the people opposing didn't give any concrete region, not did they look up about the company or website themselves."}}<br>
 
This [[WP:SPA]] is pretty clearly [[WP:NOTHERE]] to participate in Wikipedia in any capacity other than disruptively editing the small set of articles that are within their interests, and seems to be operating in bad faith, especially when it comes to deceptively editing other people's RM votes, deceptively trying to skirt around the RM process, personal attacks, and deciding unilaterally, after clear consensus, that the opinion of the community apparently doesn't matter. [[User:RachelTensions|RachelTensions]] ([[User talk:RachelTensions|talk]]) 13:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
 
:I would support a TBAN at the minimum, and have no objection to a site block; it isn't as if that AngadSingh2004 has a contribution history to remotely offset such blatant nonsense. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 15:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::A topic ban would be analogous to a full block considering they’ve never expressed any desire to contribute to any other topics. [[User:RachelTensions|RachelTensions]] ([[User talk:RachelTensions|talk]]) 17:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'd support a site block - nothing of value will be lost. - '''''[[User:DoubleCross|<span style="color:#FF1800">DoubleCross</span>]]''''' ([[User talk:DoubleCross|<span style="color:#FF1800">'''‡'''</span>]]) 17:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
 
== Please Advise on a Move Discussion ==
 
I request that an Admin provide some uninvolved observations on the course of two recent move discussions here: [[Talk:Expectation of privacy (United States)]]. Everyone involved knows what they're talking about, and we have a basic consensus that the current article title needs to be fixed, but we're going around in circles on finding a solution. Thanks. ---<span style="font-family: Calibri">[[User:doomsdayer520|<b style="color:#9932CC"><small>DOOMSDAYER</small>520</b>]]<small> ([[User talk:Doomsdayer520|TALK]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Doomsdayer520|CONTRIBS]]) </small></span> 14:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:[[User:doomsdayer520|doomsdayer520]] - After reading over the discussion and then seeing your recent comments in that discussion, I'll merely note that if you act on the statements you've recently made, including ''"... then I am going to put "Reasonable" in the article title or die trying"''; that there is a decent likelihood that an [[WP:UNINVOLVED|uninvolved]] admin may remove your [[Wikipedia:Page mover|page mover]] user-right.
:Being entrusted with extra user-rights doesn't mean that you can implement what you want. When we use our extra user-rights, they are in service to the community and to the encyclopedia project. And I think you also may want to re-read [[WP:CON]] and [[WP:BOLD]].
:At this point, I'll let others take a look, and see what they think. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 15:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::I haven't taken any action and instead asked for advice here, which is the exact process recommended by [[WP:CON]]. It would also be a "service to the community" to fix an article title that everyone agrees is wrong. ---<span style="font-family: Calibri">[[User:doomsdayer520|<b style="color:#9932CC"><small>DOOMSDAYER</small>520</b>]]<small> ([[User talk:Doomsdayer520|TALK]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Doomsdayer520|CONTRIBS]]) </small></span> 15:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Advice: Wait, just fricken wait, don't say you're going to get the article moved based on your preference or die trying. The discussion was relisted 2 days ago and has been open for a total of 9 days. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq|...then I am going to put "Reasonable" in the article title or die trying}} Geez, that's a statement that should ''NEVER'' be made when trying to achieve consensus. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
 
== Nazmul995, See also sections, and promotion ==
== WP:BLP issues at [[WP:ITN/C]] ==
 
*{{userlinks|Nazmul995}}
Could someone uninvolved step in to explain to [[User:Stemoc]] that he cannot refer to someone recently deceased as a "pathological liar" per the BDP clause of [[WP:BLP]]? I'm no fan of Billy Graham, but this is getting disruptive and even though I'm aware that reverting per BLP is exempt from 3RR, I get the impression he's not listening to me or [[User:Stephen]]. Thanks, [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
* And ... no, he's definitely not [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStephen&type=revision&diff=827556362&oldid=825218922]. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 
Nazmul created their account on November 22 and has racked up 525 edits, of which 16 are deleted - they've created drafts that have been deleted per [[WP:G11]], including a self-promoting userpage. Mostly what they've been doing is adding massive See also sections to Bangladeshi places. Often, the See also section is larger than the article. Yesterday, {{U|Worldbruce}} left a message on their Talk page about the problem. The user not only didn't respond but continued to add See also sections. This morning, I added "Why are you adding massive See also sections to articles? It's disruptive." after Worldbruce's post. The user hasn't responded but instead persists in their agenda. I thought about a short-term block to get their attention, but decided to come here instead to get more input because it's an unusual problem.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 16:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:Calling a cow a bovine is now a crime? look up the description of [[pathological liar]] and look at the work done by the person in question. The comment was added to make a justifiable point. [[user:The Rambling Man|people]] who do NOT know about certain people should NOT be making nominations on their behalf. This is NOT the first time Wikipedia decided to ignore the death of a known international actors by stating bullshit reasoning for it...and it definitely won't be the last. There was no option given by TRM for a blurb when it was obvious to most that that article should have received a blurb nomination. Manish tried to bring that up and [[User:Stephen|Stephen]] abused his admin rights and blocked him.Why are only "american-known" celebrities treated better than the rest of the world, Is this wikipedia, Ameripedia or Christianpedia, please explain...in detail.--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">[[User:Stemoc|Ste]][[User talk:Stemoc|moc]]</span> 11:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
:Nazmul995's most recent edits are adding 10+ "See also" links to every one-sentence "X is a village in Bangladesh" article, like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bacha_Shah_Nagar&diff=prev&oldid=1261153425 this]. Doing so is unhelpful and against the spirit of [[MOS:LINK]]. I'm guessing from a photo they uploaded, [[:File:Tanvir Mehedi.jpg]], that they may be more accustomed to a hierarchical work environment than a collaborative one. It would be good to have at least one more voice reach out to them and try to persuade them to redirect their energies into something constructive. Many ways to help are linked at [[Wikipedia:Community portal]]. If that doesn't work, it might get their attention and make them consider their edits more carefully if someone in authority blocked them briefly, and mass reverted their "See also" edits. --[[User:Worldbruce|Worldbruce]] ([[User talk:Worldbruce|talk]]) 18:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:: If you look back, it is quite a regular thing for people to be nominated at RD and then get a blurb when there is a significant support for it. Indeed, if you look at Billy Graham's nomination, it was originally posted as an RD [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=826875388#RD:_Billy_Graham] (by The Rambling Man, no less) before being converted to a blurb when sufficiently supported. So the discussion at Sridevi is nothing unusual - a number have people have already suggested a blurb so consensus will just form in the usual manner. Manish was just being disruptive trying to open a second nomination, removing other people's comments, canvassing ''and'' restoring those same BLP violations despite being warned not to multiple times. And no, you ''don't'' get to describe Graham in that way, so please don't do it again, you can compare the two nominations without resorting to that. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
:::Yes but ppl were supporting RD cause no one knew that you can "support blurb", people who voted there are not the same people who vote regularly on ITN/C so if you are going to make a nomination, makes sure you make one which is the better option which in this case was a blurb, i'm pretty sure if the 8 or so people who supported RD were aware that they could support a blurb, they would have done so....--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">[[User:Stemoc|Ste]][[User talk:Stemoc|moc]]</span> 12:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
*Stemoc seems to be rather POINTy when it comes to religion. I can funnily recall the last time I came across this editor, which was during [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May_2014|a 2014 discussion]] concerning the nomination of the new patriarch of the [[Syriac Orthodox Church]], which he kept describing as a "cult" despite reservations from other editors. A strong reminder that BLP applies to recently deceased individuals and that it involves talk pages as well should be issued. [[User:Fitzcarmalan|Fitzcarmalan]] ([[User talk:Fitzcarmalan|talk]])
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents"