Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1164

Edits to James Longstreet by User:Beyond My Ken

Beyond My Ken has recently begun making changes to the James Longstreet article. I reverted their changes, as I had many objections to them which I outlined on their talk page here. Basically, with their edits, they added information which was unsourced, changed sentences and moved citations around in a matter that corrupted source to text integrity, and made stylistic changes that I felt were unhelpful. These changes included changing the Bibliography section so that the citations and the works cited were all one section and eliminating the sub-sections, which I felt made it more difficult to navigate when editing. My version is permitted by MOS and the article passed featured article candidacy this way. Beyond My Ken also broke up paragraphs in ways that left numerous one-sentence paragraphs alongside much larger paragraphs, which I found to be stylistically and aesthetically problematic. For all of these edits, Beyond My Ken failed to use edit summaries to explain why their version was better. I brought the matter to their user page rather than to the article talk page because I found their corruption of the citations and failure to use edit summaries to be a user conduct issue.

Instead of responding constructively to my criticisms, Beyond my Ken simply re-reverted me. They added some sources to things that weren’t sourced but restored their unhelpful stylistic changes and their damaging edits corrupting the citations in the article, and even adding a new problem with citations by inserting two citations to a new source in the middle of text cited to two different sources without duplicating the original citations. Meanwhile, Beyond My Ken did respond on their user page, but failed to address my concerns about the citations that I had already voiced and did not explain why their stylistic changes constituted improvements. This is against the advice given in Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I reverted again. As I explained here, my objections were not to adding new information and new sources. Rather, my problem is with corrupting the citations already in the article and with making changes to the style that do not appear to be helpful and without a proper explanation. Beyond My Ken has reverted me once again, saying that they removed my latest comment on their user page without having read it.

I have brought the matter here for intervention because it seems as though Beyond my Ken is not interested in explaining their changes and only wants to edit war me into submission, and as I do not wish to get into trouble by continuing to engage with someone who I feel is behaving in a disruptive and uncollaborative manner. Display name 99 (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

On the one hand, it appears to me that User:Beyond My Ken has provided an explanation of his edits at Talk:James Longstreet, which is the preferred place to discuss edits to an article. I see that Beyond My Ken has requested that User:Display name 99 not post to BMK's user talk page, which means that the article talk page is again the preferred place to discuss. On the other hand, if this is a content dispute primarily, and it appears to be a content dispute, I am ready to conduct mediation at DRN. I will start by telling both users not to edit the article while mediation is in progress, and by asking each editor to specify exactly what they either want to change in the article that the other editor wants to leave alone, or what they want to leave unchanged that the other editor wants to change.

Are User:Display name 99 and User:Beyond My Ken agreeable to moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You write it seems as though Beyond my Ken is not interested in explaining their changes. There's a long explanation of them in the correct place, the article talk page, at Talk:James Longstreet#Well-sourced material being forcibly excluded from this article, posted 5 hours before you posted the above. NebY (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I will add that their recent content additions made after the latest revert, and which I have just looked over now, also appear to have problems. While they are sourced, they consist of adding what is mostly fairly trivial information to an already long article. I also have some concerns with sloppiness; there are two spaces between paragraphs at one point, and a reference to "Teddy Roosevelt" was added to the article without a link. ("Teddy" is also not his official name). Display name 99 (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Display name 99: "I brought the matter to their user page rather than to the article talk page because I found their corruption of the citations and failure to use edit summaries to be a user conduct issue." Not even considering the WP:AGF issue here (do you really and truly believe BMK is trying to deliberately damage that article?), this was not a good approach. BMK is free to do (just about) anything they want at their user talk, including ignoring and deleting any and all messages others leave there. Even if you preferred not to take it to the article's talk page, you still should have since BMK would not have been allowed to delete your messages there, nor would they have been free to ignore you there while continuing to revert you at the article. City of Silver 20:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I would not be opposed to moderated discussion, but I believe that Beyond My Ken's failure to use edit summaries and continued reverts without explanation warrant a reprimand. NebY, if Beyond My Ken was interested in discussing the edits with me on the talk page, they should have pinged me. Their failure to do so meant that I was unaware of the post. I have since read the message on the talk page and it does not address or attempt to satisfy any of the actual problems that I voiced with the edits. So no, it is apparent to me that Beyond My Ken has no intention of explaining their changes but simply wants them to be accepted without question. This view is strengthened by the fact that they have not only banned me from posting on their talk page but also said that they did not even want me to ping them. Clearly, they are not interested in discussing this with me. Display name 99 (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I very much share Dn99's concern here. This isn't even close to the first time that a good-faith editor has been upset and confounded by Beyond My Ken's refusal to substantially explain what they're doing. If I correctly understand this message by User:Rhododendrites, BMK's edit summary allergy has been a major point of contention for over fifteen years. A lot of this complaint is regarding content but there are behavioral issues that need to be addressed here. City of Silver 20:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The post directly below that by Buidhe about reference sections rings very true. BMK altered a perfectly fine reference section at the Longstreet article without explanation and ignored my objections that doing so made editing it more difficult. On their user talk page, they simply stated that my objections about style were "noted and rejected as irrelevant," with nothing further. Maybe going to their user page was not a great move on my part, but it doesn't excuse changes to content without explanation and re-reverting without attempting to address the concerns that had been raised. Display name 99 (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Leaving informative edit summaries is a good practice and I recommend it to all editors including Beyond My Ken. But edit summaries are optional and an editor cannot be disciplined for not leaving edit summaries. Editors are not required to explain each edit. The same with pinging, which is often helpful but not required. Some editors complain when they aren't pinged and other editors complain that they are pinged too much. The best place by far to discuss content is on the article talk page, not on user talk pages. Cullen328 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Sorry if this is me sticking you with a big reading assignment but could you please go through this discussion from last December and give your thoughts? That thread, which is packed with editors (including several administrators) who were all exasperated about this exact issue, makes me think BMK came close to being the exception to the summaries-are-optional rule. That is, if there were a technically feasible way to force summaries on an editor-by-editor basis (and if not for real-life extenuating circumstances), BMK would have been under that restriction for a while now. No? City of Silver 22:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, I know that edit summaries are not officially required, but they are very strongly encouraged whenever making changes to existing content. Not pinging me on the article talk page was not a technical violation of a rule, but it certainly doesn't indicate a desire to collaborate with me. The same goes for "banning" me from pinging them, which Beyond My Ken also did through a post on my user page. And even accepting that I should have gone to the article talk page rather than to their user talk page, does continuing to revert while largely not addressing the problems that I had with the original edits sound like a good idea to you?

Additionally, regarding Beyond My Ken's changes to the references section, I would like to draw people's attention to a post made on the article talk page here by Isaidnoway, which states that, per MOS:STYLEVAR – When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. Unjustified changes from one acceptable, consistently applied style in an article to a different style may generally be reverted. If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, seek consensus by discussing this at the article's talk page. Isaidnoway then goes on to say that Beyond My Ken's changes to the references should be reverted, and I agree. Display name 99 (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Per Help:Edit summary - According to the consensus policy, all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. While this is just an information page, and not a policy/guideline, I would suggest that help page has community consensus, and leaving edit summaries explaining your changes is also considered the communal norm. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd also point out that as recent as January 2024, an editor was blocked with one of the three reasons being "missing and unhelpful edit summaries", which linked to the above help page. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, there is a very big difference between a missing edit summary, which is not blockable, and a deceptive edit summary which is lying, disruptive editing, and a blockable offense. Cullen328 (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• There is no excuse for DN99 deleting relevant sourced information because of an supposed MoS stylistic problem. I described the sourced information that DN99 was deleting from the article in the correct venue, the article talk page. Because they deleted without proper discussion on the talk page, and on the flimsy pretext of needing to revert stylistic changes to the reference section, I restored my edits, and continued to add more properly sourced information. I haven't been to the article or the talk page since then (and probably won't be able to until Sunday night or Monday) to see if DN99 has deleted that material or the old material again.
  I suspect, however, that DN99 actually gave away their real motivation above when they described my additions as "fairly trivial information". What I'm seeing in this is that DN99 feels a strong WP:OWNERSHIP stake in James Longstreet, and they are repeating the kind of behavior that @El C: partially blocked them for on Andrew Jackson and its talk page. If DN99 feels that the added information is trivial, the place to make that argument is on the article talk page, not on my talk page or on ANI. They do not OWN the article, and cannot make decisions about it ex cathedra simply because they have contributed to it heavily in the past. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, you are still failing to address my primary concerns with your edits: corrupting the citations by adding citations to a new source in the middle of text already cited to other sources while not adjusting the original citations and unhelpful stylistic changes that you did not explain. When referring to trivial information, I was speaking mainly about the content that you have added more recently, not so much what you added originally. I have major problems with your edits and explained them to you clearly. Even if it was not done in the ideal place, you still should have attempted to resolve them somewhere, whether at your talk page or the article talk page, rather than continuing to revert, per BRD. (The post that you eventually made on the article talk page ignored the core concerns that I raised and instead focused on explaining how the content that you added was reliably sourced, which I never questioned.) Instead of discussing these problems with me, you are instead stonewalling me and using whatever weak excuse you conjure up (me posting on your user page instead of the article talk page, bringing up my prior history, etc.) to avoid justifying your problematic changes. Me posting on BMK's talk page may have been a mistake, but it's not the main problem here, and is simply being used as an excuse by the editor to avoid explaining their changes.

Another editor has posted an objection to your changes to the reference section on the Longstreet talk page. Since you are so averse to discussing your edits on your user page, there is an opportunity to justify them in your preferred venue. Will you do it?

New pertinent information and new sources may be added to the article. The Varon book looks interesting and reliable; I have no problem with it being used. But this cannot be done while disrupting existing citations, and one cannot make sweeping changes to the article paragraph structure and references without explanation and while disregarding objections. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

BMK, you were once a frequent visitor to ANI and you know that the correct response to an editor's complaint is not to ignore their points and make counter-charges against them. Can you respond to the issues they bring up about your edits to this article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to block an editor for failing to use edit summaries because use of edit summaries, although encouraged, is optional and is not required by policy. That would be misuse of my administrator's tools. If any editor thinks that use of edit summaries should be mandatory, then they are free to go to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and make that proposal. Only if such a policy change was implemented could an administrator impose a sanction for failure to use an edit summary. Perhaps that policy could be enforced with a software tweak disallowing any edit without a summary. As for formally asking another editor to stay off one's talk page except for required administrative notices, that is a well established practice. I think of myself as a pretty easy going guy usually, but there have been a few occasions over the years when someone was so obnoxious on my user talk page that I made the same request. This is not a policy violation. Same for the ping or don't ping question. Any editor who wants to be pinged can say "please ping me" and any editor who does not want to be pinged can say "please don't ping me" and other editors should try to comply but should not be pilloried if they forget. Heck, I cannot even remember the names of the editors who I asked to stay off my user talk page over the last 15 years. I am 72 and do not hold grudges. The most striking thing that I observe here is that well into this discussion, Display name 99 has still not commented at Talk: James Longstreet. That seems bizarre to me. Perhaps it has something to do with the anti-Wikipedia screed on their user and user talk pages where they rant about the atheist and globalist ideology of the Great Reset, but on the other hand, maybe those two data points are unrelated. In my opinion, Longstreet is one of the most fascinating figures of the American Civil War, and that talk page is the place to discuss improvements to that article, not ANI and not another editor's user talk page. That article should be the best that it can be, and only collaboration on the article talk page can advance that goal. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, my underlying point in regards to the January 24 block, was that the blocking admin had linked to Help:Edit summary. In your opinion, do you think that informational page has community consensus? Or can it just be ignored altogether?

But leaving that aside for the moment, in this particular incident, BMK is an experienced user who knows that the communal norm is to always leave an edit summary explaining your edits. And per our editing policy, an editor should be helpful and explain their changes. I would also argue that in a FA, an editor should especially be mindful of explaining their edits, when those pages are on so many watchlists. And when BMK first started editing the Longstreet article on August 6, 7 and 8, he made a total of 22 edits with no edit summaries. That's not helpful. And then on August 10, after a dispute to changes of the content/style had been established by reverts, he went on to make another 13 edits with no edit summary. That's not helpful. Perhaps if he had been helpful in the first place and explained his changes via edit summaries, this whole fiasco could have been avoided. And speaking of collaboration, BMKs initial edit to the Longstreet talk page was a tad bit combative and accusatory, and not really an ideal path forward to collaborating with his fellow editors. At this point, I don't see a need for any sanctions, but I do think there is room for improvement to the behavioral issues raised here, and that should be acknowledged by the relevant parties involved in this incident. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, that help page you mentioned says All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Note the use of the word "should" instead of "must" and also the "either/or" formulation. Beyond My Ken explained his edits on the article talk page, which is clearly the best place to discuss content disputes. On the other hand, Display name 99 has said nothing on the article talk page at the time I write this. I have twice encouraged Beyond My Ken to use edit summaries in this conversation and so, again, for the third time, Beyond My Ken, please use edit summaries. I will say it a fourth time if you want, but who other than me is encouraging Display name 99 to use the article talk page to reach consensus on the content dispute? Cullen328 (talk) 09:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Right, so the 22 edits on August 6, 7 and 8 made by BMK had no clear edit summaries, so it was not obvious what the reason was for the changes. And you shouldn't have to encourage him to use edit summaries when he already knows edit summaries should be used. If you think a fourth reminder will change his behavior of not using edit summaries, please feel free to make that request, but personally I think it would be a waste of time. And yes, Display name 99 should go to the talk page to reach consensus on the content dispute, should I say that another two or three times as well, when he too, already knows this. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Mixed Conduct and Content Dispute

I said earlier that this appeared to be a content dispute, and was told that there are also conduct issues. I see that that is true. I will remind both editors that the ultimate objective should be to improve the article on James Longstreet. What we can do is either to identify and correct the conduct, or to focus on the content and minimize the distraction of the conduct issues. I don't think that focusing on the conduct is likely to be useful, because it is likely to result in more back-and-forth allegations of conduct issues. I think that the more useful approach will be to focus on the content. I am willing to act as a moderator. If the editors don't want to rely on my moderation, I would suggest that we ask for an uninvolved administrator to volunteer to moderate or mediate the content dispute.

I don't think that an inquiry into conduct issues is likely to be useful. It is too likely to result in one or both editors being topic-banned. However, I think that both editors can contribute to improving the article, so arguing about conduct will probably be counter-productive.

Are User:Display name 99 and User:Beyond My Ken willing to agree to moderated discussion aimed at improving the article on James Longstreet? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Between them both, they have been here for nearly 28 years and wracked up 19 blocks. 28 years. With hindsight, I'm sure moderated discussion is just what's been missing. SerialNumber54129 12:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I said before that I would; I await a response from Beyond My Ken. I have posted on the article talk page; maybe the content issues can be resolved there. Display name 99 (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken's refusal to use helpful edit summaries is permitted by policy and a constant source of disruption

I really didn't want to ping everyone from that December 2023 discussion that I've linked twice but I don't know what else to do. This thread has the potential to reach a constructive, permanent solution for this longtime, ongoing problem but not if the only administrative input it gets is User:Cullen328 lecturing people over and over and over on the right to not leave edit summaries while pointedly refusing to address the decade-and-a-half-long history of BMK weaponizing that right. (Note that BMK is also not saying anything about others' concerns regarding how they use edit summaries. I wonder if they've ever acknowledged this.) Here, again, is last year's thread and in order of participation there and with no other consideration, @HTGS, RegentsPark, Mackensen, Paul August, City of Silver, EducatedRedneck, Ivanvector, Swarm, Springee, Drmies, Rhododendrites, Buidhe, Morbidthoughts, Beyond My Ken, Andrevan, Ganesha811, and 78.26: can we figure this out once and for all? City of Silver 21:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

So, offering my sincere assessment as an administrator is "lecturing" now? And after I asked Beyond My Ken three times now to use edit summaries? How about assuming good faith instead? Other administrators are of course free to comment as well, and I hope that they do. Cullen328 (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: So, offering my sincere assessment as an administrator is "lecturing" now? Yes, if you're going to do it like this. You've said, over and over and over, that edit summaries are optional. Not one single person you've said that to doesn't know that. Not one single person you've told that to needed to be told that. At no point was that relevant to this discussion. You knew all of this so what were you doing? Friend, you were lecturing. If this is how you give administrative input, you shouldn't bother because you're very bad at it. How about assuming good faith instead? Can't. Either you haven't read that old thread, in which case your input is uninformed to the point of being useless, or you have read it, in which case your stance that edit summaries should be optional for Beyond My Ken is you deliberately trying to disrupt this website. Other administrators are of course free to comment as well, and I hope that they do. As I said, I didn't even want to pester those other administrators. Like you, I hope they speak up but it's because I know that they, unlike you, have read that old thread so they'll create a wide consensus that BMK has to leave edit summaries exactly like they did last December.

I don't think you'll respond to this but if you do, read the old thread first because I'll be able to tell if you don't. (Hint: if you read it, you'll agree that BMK's refusal to leave substantial explanations is majorly disruptive to the point that it's in violation of policy and if you don't, you'll just declare, yet effing again, that edit summaries are optional.) City of Silver 06:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

City of Silver, I read that thread last December and I read that thread again the other day. I simply disagree with your conclusion. I do not appreciate your repeated assumptions of bad faith. Please stop with that. Also, please do not call me "friend" since you are obviously not my friend. Cullen328 (talk)

Given BMK's response in December I was hoping this sort of issue wouldn't occur again, but here we are. BMK's behavior toward other editors often falls into an uncomfortable place between the letter and spirit of the law. I'll repeat what I said then: BMK is a good editor who does good work. He's also a confounding editor who digs in his heels over trivial things and makes mountains out of molehills. I don't like the idea of BMK getting blocked, but I also don't like that BMK's approach to collaborative editing guarantees that we'll be back here again. It's a waste of his time, our time, and the time of whichever novice editor accidentally crossed his path. Hello everyone, we're back here again. Mackensen (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll let the discussion about edit summaries and BMK's history play out without intervening (especially because I have quite a colorful editing history of my own), but I have already commented at the article talk page and would appreciate if some editors went there as well to add some opinions to supplement those of Beyond My Ken and myself. I believe that BMK's edits to the article were on the whole disruptive and unhelpful. Is this the truth or have I gone crazy? I encourage anyone interested to take a look through the article history and let me know, either here or on the article talk page. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Since I was pinged... article space edits without a comment should be discouraged. It's always best if the nature of an edit is clear to others. Looking at the original complaint, it does seem like BMK has violated NOCON by restoring their own recent edits to an article without addressing concerns raised by another editor in good standing. If this is a long term problem then perhaps a 0RR restriction on challenged edits is in order. It's not really a bad thing to say that editors must discuss changes when challenged. Springee (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I am responding to the ping. I've spent a solid hour and change reading through this thread and the linked diffs, and while I wish BMK would just use informative edit summaries, I think the sizable explanation on the talk page satisfies WP:UNRESPONSIVE; there was substantive communication.

I'm also guilty of removing what I view as "bad" edits instead of trying to fix then, but per WP:IMPERFECT, the policy does seem to say it's better to leave the work in so it can be refined. I feel like this issue would have been much smaller had DN99 used a surgical approach to fix or tag the bad parts, rather than remove it all. I don't think DN99 should be censured for this, however. If anything, I wonder if that policy actually reflects community norms, but that's a WP:VP issue, not an ANI one.

I am not familiar enough with the article to see if BMK has fixed the issues raised by DN99. If they have, then I don't really see a problem. If they have not responded to the concerns, then there might be an issue with edit warring, but I'm not familiar enough to opine on it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck, thank you for the post. I had issues not merely with some of BMY's original edits but nearly all of them. I explained these clearly on the editor's talk page. Although I probably should have gone to the article talk page instead, I still believe that it was inappropriate for BMK to forcibly re-insert their content into the article without attempting to satisfy my objections. As for their post on the talk page, as I have said both on the talk page and here, it is inadequate. It does not address or seek to satisfy any of the actual problems that I voiced with the article but instead mixes personal criticisms of me with trying to explain that the information that they added was sourced, which wasn't what my problem was. It does not seem like a sincere attempt to solve a problem. To date, the article still contains the changes made by BMK; the only issue that I raised which they fixed were adding some citations to content that was not sourced. But even that created additional problems, as I explained on the talk page. Display name 99 (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

For my own curiosity, has BMK made anything that could be interpreted as an effort to fix any of the errors they introduced? I don't trust myself to judge given the multitude of edits BMK has made and my unfamiliarity with the topic.

And for what it's worth, I do agree that for BMK, once reverted, a wiser way to go about it would have been to add it back in piecemeal, as you'd suggested. I also agree that them claiming WP:OWN behavior on your part wasn't great, and could arguably be a violation of WP:CIV. This section was opened as discussing edit summaries only, which is why I'm mostly commenting on that. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe this sub-section was opened to address a longtime, ongoing problem, according to the opening paragraph in this section. This particular incident is just a sliver of that longtime, ongoing problem. I've looked at BMKs last 1000 edits, and he has only left an edit summary roughly 4% of the time for those 1000 edits. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That may be, but for good or ill, the policy seems clear that edit summaries are not required. If you've found one that says otherwise, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, perhaps I could borrow from an archived ANI thread where a similar situation arose: nothing was a blockable offense, but it was also clearly against best practices. Therefore, we just tell the offending party that the behavior (in this case, not using edit summaries) is not cool, and then move on. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Our editing policy says - Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change.Try to use an appropriate edit summary. It appears to me he is not even trying to be helpful to the community by explaining his changes. If he was trying, that would be a different story, but he's not, so simply saying; not cool, let's move one, seems kinda lame to me, when our policy and information page says otherwise. If that policy and info page doesn't have community consensus, then I apologize for my misinterpretation of those pages. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, and certainly wouldn't be disappointed to see the community make edit summaries a de facto requirement. With respect to this specific page, there was a note left on the article talk. While it did not satisfy DN99, I do feel it qualifies as leaving a comment, which in my view satisfies WP:UNRESPONSIVE as written.

To be clear, I interpret leave a comment to be a requirement, which a TP post satisfies. I interpret Try to use an appropriate edit summary as optional due to the use of "Try". Do you have the same interpretation?

If you do, then I get the feeling you're implying that BMK's edit summary-less contribs do not have corresponding talk page posts, and thus do not satisfy WP:UNRESPONSIVE. That would be a good point. Taking my inspiration from you, I looked over the last 100 contribs, in which BMK made 10 mainspace edits without an edit summary, but only had 2 corresponding TP edits. (I ignored summary-less edits to articles that had previously been edited with a summary.)

I guess the next question is what to call that. WP:DE for violating the WP:Editing policy? I'd also like to hear from more editors on whether WP:UNRESPONSIVE is compulsory. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I interpret "try" as - is he making an attempt or an effort to leave an edit summary? So, I believe the question should be - is he trying to comply with our editing policy. I don't think he is. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

He used some edit summaries, so some effort was obviously expended. I'd say yes, he is complying. I also respect your interpretation as valid. Hopefully others can chime in and form a consensus on this matter. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

As are others, I'm responding to a ping. As before I agree with what Mackensen said above. I have not looked into the details of this current event yet, but right now I'm inclined to accept that some formal sanction is needed. Paul August ☎ 17:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

These two diffs, diff 1, diff 2, show where BMK changed the existing style of using section headings in the Notes and references sections, to using bold for the headings. No helpful edit summaries explaining why his preferred version should be used, instead of the existing style. And then on the talk page, states here, the change to the existing style is because his preferred version is "more efficient", without explaining why his preferred version is more efficient. I can't edit with a mobile device, which is how these edits were made, so is there a preference among mobile device editors for using bold in headings, instead of regular editable section headings? I don't get the efficiency of his preferred version, over the existing style. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

BMK's continued refusal to engage in discussion

Isaidnoway, Robert McClenon, City of Silver, NebY, EducatedRedneck Cullen328, Mackensen, this continues to get worse. I made a post on the article talk page clearly articulating my problems with BMK's edits. BMK answered with a brief snarky reply which absolutely refused to answer any of my objections, and insisting that I needed consensus to undo their changes, whereas it is my understanding that, per BRD, as the person seeking to add new material, the obligation is on them to discuss and seek consensus when met with opposition. Further down the page, in response to Isaidnoway's protests to their changes to the citation style, they claimed in a message here that MOS is optional. I can hardly believe that.

As I explained with this message [1], because they have refused once more to engage in discussion, even though we are now on the article talk page, am re-reverting them. I feel justified in doing so, as trying to resolve the matter through discussion is evidently pointless and because they should not have restored their changes without answering my original message in the first place.

I believe that formal sanctions are now warranted. Display name 99 (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I concur that as explained in the essay WP:BURDEN, BMK should not revert back to the work-in-progress version. If it's challenged, you need to get positive consensus before readding. I'll also note that the policy on editing WP:CAUTIOUS is very clear on this: Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. The refusal to discuss the issues DN99 alleges also seems to fit into WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #4.

Moving forward, I think DN99 might want to consider identifying some specific passages or edits they object to and state why. This would make it easier for BMK to fix them. BMK might similarly wish to consider grouping their edits into a number of proposed edits for workshopping. This would make it easier to implement any requested changes. I also feel that if BMK reverts their work in progress back into the article without a positive consensus, it may be worth considering a short p-block from that article for edit warring/disruptive editing. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you EducatedRedneck. With all due respect, I have explained both on BMK's user page and the article talk page numerous specific details about which changes I object to and why. I encourage you to look there. I've told BMK what problems I have. They don't want to listen. Display name 99 (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see it on the article talk page, which is why I mentioned it here. You described things that are bad, but I didn't see where you linked that to specific edits or parts of edits from BMK. For instance, you wrote, In one place, you... but didn't specify which place. Perhaps I missed it, (the text-block is more difficult to parse than, e.g., a bulleted list) but if I did miss where you pointed to a specific area, it's not unreasonable to think perhaps BMK did as well. As for posts to BMK's talk page, I didn't look there because I don't typically associate article discussion with user talk pages. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, but I did specify on their user page. It's also reasonable to point out that, if they were unclear, they could have asked. I don't think that a lack of clarity is the problem. They literally failed to justify every problematic edit that I identified. Surely they can't misunderstand what I mean when I say that the final sentence in the third paragraph of the section "Later life" is missing a citation due to their edits. And yet they didn't fix it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I'm assuming too much good faith. I can see where you're coming from, and agree that the result of their behavior has not been great, whatever their motives. I also agree that, if they don't get consensus (presumably through fixing the problems you've identified, or else convincing you they aren't problems) then they should leave the article as the status quo.

While I still don't see this as rising to the level of sanctions, I've been wrong before. What sanctions are you envisioning? On a related note, if BMK does not revert again, do you still believe sanctions are warranted and preventative? EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

As for reverting their content changes along with the stylistic issues, let me restate my reasons for that, as I know that EducatedRedneck called that into question. The content additions were problematic in themselves primarily due to the careless placement of citations. BMK added citations to new sources in the middle of text cited to old sources while not adjusting the original citations. I do not see it as my job to surgically pick apart their changes so that the 5% that were good can be saved. The best path forward, as I stated on the talk page, is to revert back to the beginning and then from there work on restoring some of the content that BMK added, with properly placed citations this time. I feel justified in having taken the initial step myself because of BMK's failure once again to engage in constructive discourse. Display name 99 (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck also asked above whether BMK made any attempt to fix their mistakes. The answer was no. Even basic obvious stuff that I pointed out on the talk page that could have been easily fixed, like having two spaces between paragraphs, leaving a sentence at the end of a paragraph without a citation, and adding a president's name without a hyperlink was unaddressed at the time that I restored the article. Display name 99 (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

We have two editors who have both exhibited substandard editorial conduct, who are both alleging that the other editor is removing well-sourced added content. BMK rarely uses edit summaries. Their use is strongly recommended, except that an explanation on the article talk page is an alternative. Sometimes BMK has used the talk page to explain, and sometimes BMK has used the talk page to not explain. At the start of this quarrel, it appeared that BMK was using article talk pages constructively, and that DN99 was avoiding their use, giving an inadequate reason. As this quarrel progresses, BMK seems to be also avoiding the article talk page. The recent history of the article is a slow-motion edit war. I will introduce two proposals at this time, a topic-ban from the article James Longstreet against User:Beyond My Ken, and a topic-ban from the article James Longstreet against User:Display name 99. I am not at this time supporting or opposing either of these topic-bans, but I think that proposing topic-bans is more likely to result in some signal in addition to the noise, rather than just continuing the name-calling. I will also be outlining a possible content RFC, as more likely to result in some signal than just continuing to bang away. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to highlight that in Special:Diff/1239061662 BMK deliberately introduced pseudoheadings in the references section. He's been told, repeatedly and at length, why these "headings" are accessibility problems and shouldn't be used. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1004#Proposed image-placement topic ban for Beyond My Ken where this and other accessibility issues were raised, and which resulted in BMK being placed under certain restrictions regarding image placement. A personal preference for one editor that creates accessibility problems for readers isn't permissible. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The restrictions regarding image placement were suggested by myself, and are completely and totally irrelevant here. There is no accessibility problem with using colons to create pseudo-headings, only with using semi-colons to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Using a colon creates a HTML description list with a description details list item, while using a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. Using them as headings is an accessibility issue in both cases. Assistive technology won't be able to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. isaacl (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Proposal 1: User:Beyond My Ken tocic-banned from James Longstreet

For slow-motion edit-warring, failure to use edit summaries, and failure to discuss constructively, Beyond My Ken is topic-banned from the James Longstreet article. They are encouraged to use the article talk page, Talk:James Longstreet.

• Oppose for the time being as premature. Let's see what develops on the talk page first. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose per Isaidnoway. My vote may change if BMK continues reverting or a long-term pattern can be demonstrated. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. BMK made edits, some of which seem pretty positive (adding add'l sourced info), engaged with explanations on the talkpage, agreed not to push through changes if they didn't have consensus, etc.; that's all as it should be. As near as I can tell, the only valid complaint here is about lack of edit summaries, but I find the explanation on the talkpage to sufficiently address a need for communication. Grandpallama (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - A ridiculous suggestion, tantamount to using a rifle to kill a flea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 2: User:Display name 99 topic-banned from James Longstreet

For slow-motion edit-warring, and failure to discuss constructively, Display name 99 is topic-banned from the James Longstreet article. They are encouraged to use the article talk page, Talk:James Longstreet.

• Oppose - this one is not necessary in my view. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose: While there are certainly things DN99 could have done differently to avoid escalation, the only thing approaching violation of policy has been reverting a large edit wholesale instead of combing through it to pick out the good bits. As this seems to be fairly standard practice for the community, I don't think that even moves the needle in terms of disruption. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - An equally ridiculous suggestion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 3: RFC

Since BMK and Dn99 will not discuss constructively, the next step may be an RFC. My first thought is that the RFC should be to restore all of BMK's edits that were reverted by Dn99 at 2132 GMT, 12 August: [2]. The guidelines for before an RFC specify that discussion is the best practice before an RFC. In this case, the best practice is not possible, but the worst practice can be avoided, and the worst practice will be to allow unproductive behavior to prevent improvement of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, this does not seem helpful to me. To begin, you say that both BMK and I are accusing the other of removing sourced content. That is actually not what I am accusing BMK of doing. You add: At the start of this quarrel, it appeared that BMK was using article talk pages constructively... As I and several other editors have pointed out, their initial talk page post was not constructive. I have since explained my objections thoroughly at the article talk page, which you fail to mention. You add, As this quarrel progresses, BMK seems to be also avoiding the article talk page. That is also false. BMK has made additional posts to the article talk page, only they too were not constructive as they once again did not explain the reasons for their edits despite my clearly articulated concerns. Lastly, you argue that BMK's edits should be restored. Under what theory? Per WP:Onus, they are required to have consensus, not me. Additionally, there are two other editors who have posted on the article talk page criticizing BMK's edits. Consensus is on my side.

Also, what would the RfC say?

Your inaccurate description of what has been taking place here makes me question whether you have looked thoroughly enough into the dispute before initiating this query. Display name 99 (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The RFC would ask whether to restore the edits that BMK made that you reverted. I did not say that I wish to restore BMK's edits. I said that the RFC will ask to restore BMK's edits, and an RFC is the usual vehicle for determining consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Very well, but an RfC is not "the usual vehicle for determining consensus." It is, as Isaidnoway stated, generally a last resort used only if the contributors already at an article cannot reach consensus. Already on the talk page, there is a consensus forming against BMK's stylistic changes, which BMK refuses to defend, while I am working towards restoring some of their content additions. An RfC is not necessary at this stage, and restoring all of BMK's changes seems completely out of the question. I also certainly don't feel as though I have done anything that should leave me banned from editing the article. Therefore, I do not believe that your proposal accomplishes anything productive. Display name 99 (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: I concur with DN99. Per WP:BURDEN, if BMK cannot establish a consensus for the changes, the changes should be discarded. If BMK does not believe the consensus on the TP, it falls to them to initiate WP:3O or an RFC. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. However, 3O does not apply here because it is designed for disagreements between TWO editors, and the talk page tally is currently 3-1 against BMK. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as premature. Retaining the existing style appears to have an early consensus, and BMK said that if a consensus here disagrees [with his change], I'm not going to buck it. So restoring all of BMKs edits should not be the question asked. There is some discussion taking place on the talk page, so let's see how that goes first, with a RfC as the last resort. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck, sorry, I didn't see the post above from a couple of days ago until now. I'm posting it here to try to keep the chronological flow of the thread as much as possible. I'm not totally sure what sanctions might be necessary and maybe should have left that part out of my post. A one revert restriction could perhaps be considered. Maybe we could do a restriction requiring them to use edit summaries when altering existing content, although I don't know if that's even a thing. I'll leave any further discussion about that to editors more familiar with BMK's history and who have a less extensive history of sanctions on Wikipedia than I do.

Talk page discussion is currently stalled. In my latest post there, which was more than 48 hours ago, I assessed some of BMK's content additions and said that I would be willing to agree to their inclusion with certain copyedits. They haven't responded yet. Some of these content additions are good, and I might actually restore them on my own with the copyedits if I don't hear back. But I think that they've conceded that they aren't going to be getting all of their changes back into the article, hence their recent silence. Display name 99 (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You think incorrectly, I have not conceded anything (except that consensus is against the formatting of the reference section, which I undid), least of all am I conceding to your obvious attempt at WP:OWNERSHIP of the article. Unfortunately, you do not get to unilaterally decide what is and isn't trivial, nor do you get to dictate what edits are required to allow material to go into the article. If and when there is a consensus on the talk page to support your demands, then I will, of course, acquiesce to that consensus. In the meantime, you do not own the article and you cannot attempt to single-handedly dictate to fellow editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - An RfC is not needed at this time, discussion about the removal of sourced information has only two participants at this point. There is, however, a clear consensus there to restore the original formatting of the references (this is the "3-to-1" referred to above), so I have done that. (And please note, using colons to create pseudo-headings does not cause accessibility problems, using semi-colons does, and should be avoided. I wish people would remember this.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal 4: Beyond My Ken is P-blocked from James Longstreet for 31 h

BMK has just reverted their content changes which are alleged to mess with the references back into the article, claiming that there's no consensus to NOT include them. Per WP:ONUS, this is incorrect. They did use the talk page to assert their edits are acceptable, but other editors are not satisfied, and there is no consensus for their inclusion. BMK's most recent talk page edit engages with the formatting concerns, but not the remainder. This appears to fit the description of disruptive editing (#4 in the linked list). Thus, I propose BMK be P-blocked from James Longstreet for 31 h for slow-motion edit-warring and disruptive editing. A longer or broader block may also be necessary. This behavior does not appear to be new. Last hear, he was brought to ANI over edit-warring against the MOS. In 2022, he was brought to ANI because he was edit warring to keep a non-free image, and was there reprimanded for misunderstanding WP:ONUS, precisely the issue here. The ANI report earlier this year is the same issue but from the other side; BMK edit warred against changes, requiring them to gain consensus first. (N.b.: There were extenuating personal circumstances at the time.) This shows a pattern of demanding positive consensus from others, but not requiring that same level of consensus from his own edits. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC) EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Your summation of the situation is inaccurate. On the talk page, objections were raised by 3 editors to the change in formatting of the references. This is a consensus, and I undid my edits to that material. WP:ONUS says: "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. In this instance, only one editor addressed the sourced material I had added, so there is as yet no consensus regarding it. Properly sourced information should not be deleted without a consensus, particularly when the reverting editor shows strong WP:OWNERSHIP behavior regarding the article in question. 13:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs)

Which part is inaccurate? I wrote, BMK's most recent talk page edit engages with the formatting concerns. The only thing I can think is that my summary made it sound like you reimplemented the formatting edits. I have edited my post accordingly. Is there anything else inaccurate?

As for your quotation, you seem to have missed the sentences immediately before and after. Before, While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Meaning there is no obligation to have information, sourced or not, in an article. After: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Meaning if you want it in there, you need to build consensus for inclusion. Nobody is obligated to build consensus against inclusion to keep it out.

As for there being WP:OWNership in there article, perhaps there is, but edit warring is not the correct response to a conduct issue. If you'd like to provide diffs to evidence those accusations, I recommend starting a new section. I have not seen it demonstrated in this thread yet. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck, your post was right the first time. Per Isaidnoway below, BMK said that they restored the original version of the reference section but didn't. They instead changed it back to their preferred iteration despite 3-1 consensus against it. While of course it's technically possible that this wasn't a lie but just an honest mistake, I'm not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt at this point. I suggest a more severe block in accordance with Robert McClenon's statements below. Display name 99 (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, and there's so much ownership at that page (not by BMK), and misrepresentation in this overlong thread, that this frothing to enact sanctions against him is encouraging me to support boomerang efforts. Grandpallama (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Grandpallama, I have explained very clearly to BMK on the talk page what problems I have with their changes. BMK, on the contrary, fails to explain their edits and has once again reinserted their edits to the article without consensus over the objections of me and one other editor, again without bothering to answer our concerns. Therefore, please provide evidence to support your accusation of ownership. I'll wait. Display name 99 (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Display name 99, stop bludgeoning the discussion. Stop. Grandpallama (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

So rather than substantiate your initial unsupported accusation, you're going to make another unsupported accusation. Got it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I will not enable your incessant bludgeoning, which has become absolutely disruptive and exhausting. Fucking stop. Grandpallama (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support a sitewide block of a longer duration, will support this as an alternative. Beyond My Ken once again ignores Wikipedia policy and re-inserts damaging edits over the objections of multiple editors. The fact that they are a repeat offender warrants a harsher punishment. I have been very specific about what problems I have with their edits, and not just with the reference style. Another editor on the talk page politely asked BMK if they were making sure that their addition of new citations was not damaging the integrity of the citations already in the article. BMK ignored both of us and reinserted their problematic additions without even bothering to respond to what we said in our talk page posts. Beyond My Ken evidently thinks that they are above the rules and community norms that the rest of the Wikipedia editors live by, and that they have the right to do whatever they want without explaining why. They need to learn that they cannot do this. Pinging other editors who have contributed to this ANI thread and not responded here already: Isaidnoway, Robert McClenon, City of Silver, NebY, Cullen328, Mackensen, Liz. Display name 99 (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support per my experiences with Talk:James Longstreet#Retaining existing styles. BMK has displayed either an extreme lack of familiarity with WP:ONUS or a cavalier disregard for it; this further reversion on 8/16 doesn't give me any faith that they're willing to constructively engage with the talk page concerns about their preferred version. I'm also concerned by their ignoring me and DN99's repeated concerns over their edit likely breaking source/text integrity. I haven't read all of this ANI thread, but the impression I've gotten from my attempts to engage on the talk page is that BMK does not have the sort of collegial approach to disagreements such as this that is necessary when editing featured articles. Hog Farm _Talk 19:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as an empty symbolic act. Either BMK should be blocked or topic-banned from the page, or BMK shold not be blocked or topic-banned from the page. A proposal to topic-ban BMK from the page was already closed as not supported. There is no point at all to a short-term partial block from any page except to create an entry on the user's block log, and blocks should not be used purely for shame puposes. Perhaps those favoring a longer sanction think that proposal 2 was closed prematurely, but that is not the issue in this proposal. This proposal is an empty symbolic act. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon I've found you to be a very level-headed editor, and am confused by what I'm hearing. My thinking was that a short-term block stops the behavior, and gives the editor a chance to change. Per the blocking policy, blocks can be used to deter any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conduct. You seem to feel differently, and have more experience than I do. Would you be willing to elaborate on why there is no point at all to a short p-block? EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  User:EducatedRedneck - I agree in principle with what you say about the purpose of a short block. I think that we differ as to what is a useful short block. The block that you propose is too short to have much effect. The slow-motion edit-warring has been going on for ten days. A one-and-one-half day block is no longer than the time between the edits and reverts, so Dn99 will revert any edits by BMK, who will then come off block and make similar edits again. I will consider supporting a five-day or ten-day partial block. A very short block is not long enough to be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 00:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon Oh, I see! Thank you for explaining, I'd completely misunderstood. I would support a 5 or 10 day p-block. I was going for the minimum as there haven't been any blocks since 2021, but both you and DN99 seem to feel a more stern sanction is needed. If I may ask for advice: should I make a Proposal 5, or is there some way to amend the current proposal without misrepresenting the !votes that have already been cast? Thank you for taking the time to explain your thinking to me. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I reverted BMK's recent edit here. He said he restored the original formatting of the refs, but he didn't, he restored his preferred version, and I also concur with WP:ONUS, so he does not have consensus for the inclusion of his disputed content, and also has not adequately addressed the concerns raised on the talk page about his sourced content. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Igoumenitsa1992

I'm putting this report here because it's part WP:NOTHERE, part multi-page edit warring, and part CTOPS. New-ish account Igoumenitsa1992 (talk · contribs) has exclusively been editing a range of pages related to Souliotes, to remove sourced information and replace it with their unsourced preferred alternative. They've been reverted by like half a dozen other editors, warned about contentious topics, and warned about edit warring, but their latest edit summary says "I will change it again and again", so it seems clear this behaviour isn't stopping any time soon. On top of that, they've also been engaging in copyright violation (from here) and some rather unsavoury comments about entire nationalities. --AntiDionysius (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Support indef. This is clearly an SPA with no indication that they understand or will abide by PAGs. I think a time-limited block would just land us right back here. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to do anything further at the moment, but it looks like diff by Igoumenitsa1992 is a copy from mlahanas.de. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was a copyvio too, but the bottom of the mlahanas.de website attributes the text to Wikipedia, and the overlapping text can in fact be seen in very early versions of the Souliotes article (i.e., 2010 or earlier). DanCherek (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:SPA, WP:EDITWARRING: WP:NATIONALIST: WP:NOTHERE. Jingiby (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I have given an initial block for disruptive editing. They've had 10 hours to notice, read, and reply to this thread and the various warnings provided. They have chosen not to address their behaviour and have instead continued their spree. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: In addition to another user's rationale for an indefinite block (diff), with which I agree, I also want you to consider a relevant SPI case I initiated on 14 August 2024 (here). Personally, I believe that the technical and behavioral evidence suggest we are dealing with a sockpuppet of the recently blocked User:TheHistorianPHD. Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks and bludgeoning by Berchanhimez and Samuelshraga

Berchanhimez has been repeatedly calling me a liar and refused to strike this assertion even after having been asked multiple times (see first diff above), and even after I provided evidence for the claims in question. He also has been bludgeoning this and related discussions with repeated aggressive assertions that he's totally 100% right and no disagreement on any point could possibly be had in good faith (see first diff above again but also this reply to him as an illustrative example). Other users have tried to lower the temperature to no avail, and I've repeatedly said that it's fine if they think I'm wrong, I'd just like them to strike their very aggressive claims about me lying deliberately.

Samuelshraga similarly accused me of lying and refused to strike when asked. (But he hasn't been bludgeoning the thread, so I'm much more willing to let this one slide.) Loki (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Loki has continued to say things that they themselves have disagreed with in the past. They have provided "evidence" that does not support their claims. It is in fact Loki that has been bludgeoning the discussion - he has only tried to provide evidence at this point after replying to so many comments asking for evidence without having provided evidence. And his evidence is not even supportive of his claims. I will not strike claims of lying that are substantiated by the evidence present in the discussion, and if Loki continues to claim he is not lying by providing evidence that substantiates the fact they are lying, I will continue to call it out as lying. Ultimately, Loki is on a quest to use Wikipedia to designate groups they don't like as hate groups, to prevent sources that report on viewpoints they disagree with, and to censor Wikipedia to only things they agree with. And that's the true problem here. Loki refuses to accept that the arguments in the original discussion did not result in a declaration that a source that reports information they don't like must not be used on Wikipedia.

This has been going on with Loki since the original Telegraph discussion - where many users (both in that discussion and since) have pointed out that his initial claims are at best intentionally misleading. Loki seems to think that because enough other users want to engage in the same advocacy on Wikipedia that they do, that nobody can call out the misleading, misrepresenting (of the original sources), and blatantly false claims being made by Loki and others. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This [3] by Loki includes: I didn't even catch this one the first time TBH, but Sex Matters is not that, it's an anti-trans hate group. Sex Matters is a registered charity:[4] It is difficult to see how anyone could seriously describe it as a ‘hate group’ in good faith. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No, Sex Matters is an anti-trans hate group, allied with other anti-trans hate groups.123 Woodroar (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't Loki argue this in the discussion rather than say that act like people must take anything he claims as fact? That said, an article from a LGBTQ-allied program at a university, another one that is basically an oped in a journal, and an advocacy group masquerading as a news magazine aren't really proof that they're a hate group. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

When did I say you have to take anything I claim as fact? Loki (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

By bludgeoning the discussion (with your opinion) even when editors requested specifically you provide evidence. The one time you tried to provide evidence, it did not support what you were claiming. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

For heaven’s sake, Loki, are you now saying that none of your statements about the Telegraph are intended to be taken as factual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet6970 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

...no? And what a wild misrepresentation. I'm saying, as I've repeatedly said, I don't care if you think I'm wrong. It's the specific accusation of lying that bothers me. Loki (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Loki, I said are you now saying that none of your statements about the Telegraph are intended to be taken as factual?. This is a question. I do not see how, in good faith, you could categorise it as a ‘misrepresentation. Because I asked a question, you are accusing me of misrepresentation, i.e. dishonesty, as well as Battleground Behaviour. How about you strike that comment? Sweet6970 (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that wasn't a rhetorical question, and that you did not in fact mean to say or imply that there was a reasonable possibility none of [my] statements about the Telegraph are intended to be taken as factual? Loki (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't Loki argue this in the discussion rather than say that people must take anything he claims as fact? Please can you provide a quote for Loki saying this as I don't recall it and haven't found it on a quick ctrl+f. In contrast I do recall you spending a lot of time asserting your opinion as indisputable fact. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I've updated my statement to be "act" rather than "say", because while he did not explicitly say that, his repeated refusals to provide evidence and then when finally providing evidence that evidence not actually supporting his assertions are an "action" rather than a "statement" that he said. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, you can read articles on Sex Matter's own site: "A person’s biological sex cannot change", canards about protecting children, "they do not have the right to compel anyone else to pretend they are a member of the opposite sex or to force anyone to share intimate spaces with them on this basis" or "We also believe that ideas and behaviours promoted in the name of gender ideology are misguided and harmful", more about defending children, etc. Woodroar (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

None of these sources say that Sex Matters is a hate group. And a flat statement that Sex Matters is a hate group which is not intended to be taken as true is just disruptive. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Having an idea/opinion you disagree with does not make them a "hate group". Wikipedia is not the place to advocate for your preferred worldview. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect here, I do not want to re-litigate the underlying issue, I want to litigate their behavior. I'm taking it you agree that their accusations are unfounded and I think we can leave this there. Loki (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You brought this here, and your own behavior should be expected to be evaluated too. Including your bludgeoning, your refusal to hear that your initial claims were inaccurate, and your clear attempt to use Wikipedia for advocacy purposes. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar: yes, I believe their accusations are unfounded. Quite frankly, I'm surprised at some of the replies here, like citing WP:ADVOCACY while defending a hate group. Woodroar (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, a group having a viewpoint you disagree with is insufficient for them to be a hate group. Trying to cover up advocacy by labeling groups you disagree with hate groups is tendentious and not appropriate on Wikipedia, which does not cater to one viewpoint or another. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sex matters is a registered charity, taken seriously on controversial topics by mainstream media sources like the BBC. Void if removed (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Both of those are independent of whether it is or is not a hate group. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This misses the point. Loki is claiming that any description of Sex Matters other than "hate group" is a direct falsehood. The fact that this group is a registered charity and quoted in sources like the BBC is evidence, as if it were necessary, that this is not so. Of course a different publication could call Sex Matters a hate group and still be reliable, it's just a question of POV. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

While this doesn't matter much either, in Britain, campaign groups and advocacy groups can register as charity, and that's the type of charity Sex Matters has registered as. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

To Thyrduulf: If you have evidence that Sex Matters is a hate group, then you should report this to the Charity Commission for England and Wales. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that it is or it isn't a hate group. I'm just pointing out that being a registered charity is not proof that it isn't one, only that the Charity Commission did not consider it a hate group at the time they granted it the status. There are multiple possible reasons why that might be the case:

• It is not a hate group
• It was not a hate group at the time but it is now
• It was a hate group at the time...
  • ...but the CC were not aware of that
  • ...but the CC could not at the time deny registration due to the combination of the evidence presented and the wording of the rules
  • ...but the CC made a mistake
  • ...but the CC deliberately granted the status anyway (for multiple possible reasons)
• There was no consensus at the time about whether it was or was not a hate group
• The definition of "hate group" (generally and/or as defined by the rules CC uses) has changed between then and now.

Whether a group is taken seriously on controversial topics by mainstream media sources is also not evidence of anything other than the media source(s) concerned consider them a relevant organisation in regards to those topics. Groups that are, by widespread consensus, undeniably hate groups can be and sometimes are treated as relevant and serious by mainstream media sources. Not that I think anybody is arguing that Sex Matters are not serious. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It does however sort the claim into WP:EXTRAORDINARY territory, as the regulator being incompetent or corrupt requires evidence, and makes accusations of being a "hate group" more likely hyperbole. Continuing to baldly state it as fact is not at all a reflection of the balance of sources.

The issue is that in the infamous telegraph RFC, not treating Sex Matters as a hate group was offered as evidence against the reliability of the Telegraph. As I pointed out at the time, that's a slippery slope indeed and one which begins by begging the question. If the Telegraph and BBC are in agreement, it's a mark against unreliability. That argument should have been dismissed, but here it still is, bubbling away in this discussion and the endless interminable debate over that RFC, weeks later. Void if removed (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Where does the BBC take sex matters seriously in that article? They only mention it because a Dr is a member. Looking through other times they seem to be viewed as a campaign/advocacy/lobbying group by the BBC and always seem to be balanced out with charities that help transgender people or just transgender people. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Loki and I have a long history of being buddies and colluding via emails regarding how we should both respond to common topics. <- That is a lie. I said it knowingly and I know it to be false. I don't view Loki's comments as lies even if I don't agree with them <- That is not a lie. I actually might be incorrect in that Loki may have said something that I would consider to be a lie but since I'm not aware of this, I can, hand over heart etc, say I wasn't lying. Looking at the evidence provided I don't see "lies". As an editor who has been accused of lying I do think such accusations should be used very sparingly as they are hurtful and uncivil. If I can't convince an editor that my ideas are correct, well it could be I'm wrong or just that I wasn't able to articulate what is "correct". However, when someone says I'm lying it says that I'm acting in bad faith with the intent to mislead. That certainly does make it much harder to stay civil. Even though Loki and I seem to disagree most of the time and I may find their logic flawed (as I'm sure they would reciprocate), I don't see being "wrong" as the same as "lying". Accusations of lying should be reserved for when an editor is deliberately trying to deceive. If I truly believe the Earth is flat then I'm not "lying" when I tell you as much. I'm only lying if I don't believe it but try to convince you otherwise. I don't see any evidence that Loki doesn't believe what they are arguing thus I do not believe it is correct to accuse them of acting in bad faith. Berchanhimez and Samuelshraga, I would suggest retracting the accusation of "lying" as it implies an intent to deceive in bad faith that just isn't supported by evidence. That doesn't mean you have to say Loki was correct or even that it was logically sound. It just acknowledges that Loki wasn't trying to deceive or promote an idea they personally don't believe in. I suspect no one actually thinks Loki doesn't believe what they are arguing regardless if we agree with it. Springee (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe Loki is, at this point, engaging in the form of civil POV pushing that Liliana points out below and is intentionally trying to mislead people. They have been pointed out multiple times how their claims from their start of the original RfC until now have been inaccurate, at best, and they have refused to recant them. They are intentionally trying to deceive/mislead. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Come on, I was obviously referring to y'all, not to Loki. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

How is this a response to what Springee has said? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Springee was discussing whether there are technically lies or not. As such, I pointed out how Loki has been given an opportunity to correct their falsehoods multiple times and has not done so - leading to the only assumption being that they are intentional at this point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I see the connection, then. But still, a horrible argument is not a falsehood. WP:DONTGETIT is one thing, and lying is another thing much more serious. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't see civil POV pushing as lying. I've been accused of civil POV pushing. I don't think the accusers felt I was lying or didn't personally believe what they might have felt was total BS. If you think Loki isn't listening to reason and is constantly pushing a claim that others have debunked, yeah, that could be ICANTHEAR or POVPUSH but it's isn't "lying". Also, if Loki doesn't feel they have been corrected or that they are incorrect, regardless of the evidence, well that might lead to an issue but it wouldn't be lying. I think Aaron Liu is correct here, a horrible argument (that the speaker believes) isn't lying. Since the specific concern is the claim of "lying" I would hope that making it clear that, regardless of the validity of Loki's arguments, you aren't accusing them of willfully trying to deceive should whole mess up. Springee (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be lying - if they've been shown their statements are wrong, there is a consensus (as there was at the original discussion) that their "opening statement" (and others) were wrong, and they still refuse to admit it and stand by their claims. I wasn't trying to say civil POV pushing is lying - but lying is certainly civil POV pushing. One doesn't have to accept that their statements are false for them to be intentionally making false statements - otherwise nobody would ever be "lying" because they would just claim "I believed it". Again, I ask others to think of someone parroting the Trump Big Lie ("the 2020 election was stolen"). If in the face of evidence that it was not stolen someone continues to make the claim that it was, that is a lie at that point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez How many times do you need to be told that whether or not there was consensus is your opinion, not fact before you start listening? Or are you listening and intentionally being disruptive? I hope for your sake is incompetence rather than malice Thryduulf (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I could ask you the same thing about your refusal to see the clear consensus (when weighting !votes accordingly) in the original discussion. You are also engaging in civil POV pushing at this point, and making personal attacks against me when you do. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The one thing that nearly everybody other than you can see from the original discussion is that there is no "clear consensus". Whether there was a consensus is disputed, but if there was one it was not remotely "clear". It is neither civil POV pushing nor a personal attack to point out when someone repeatedly bludgeons discussions with claims that their opinion is fact - especially when multiple people (involved and uninvolved) have called them out on it multiple times. Thryduulf (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, many people opined during the close review that, had the closer evaluated and weighted the comments appropriately, there would have been a clear consensus. So you are now misrepresenting the consensus in the close review to further your claim that it was not a clear consensus. It is also absurd that you are claiming I alone am a problem when Loki has been bludgeoning both the original discussion and to an extent the close review itself. Being louder/having more people agree with you is not how Wikipedia operates. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The close review contained an explicit part where participants !voted on their preferred outcome of the discussion. Only a bit less than half of 1 !vote (JoeJShmo's, which also favored no consensus) believed that the close should've been overturned to a consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with this analysis because it counts the !votes rather than the arguments. There were a significant number of people who voted for option 5 (reclose by another closer) - or in fact didn't comment in that section at all - under the understanding that another closer would've properly weighted the original discussion to result in the consensus that is clear when proper weighting was applied. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

From a sample of 10 uninvolved overturn !votes, only 1 thought that it should be consensus for G while 4 though it should be no consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see "no consensus" as a valid result. There should be a consensus found in a discussion where "no consensus" means an effective change (i.e. a backdoor downgrade of the source's reliability) - if it is at all possible. If no consensus is evident, the way !votes are being weighted down or up should be reconsidered. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works - you can't just manufacture one when one doesn't exist. The claim that no consensus is a "backdoor downgrade" has been discussed in at least two other venues and (imo) thoroughly debunked each time. Thryduulf (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that's how consensus works. But "no consensus" should not be a cop out for not fully weighting the commentary of the discussion, especially when it results in a backdoor downgrade of a source's reliability. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

As has been extensively discussed at other venues, it should be a downgrading, and you should not be diverting the topic to something that should be discussed at WT:RSP. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Were any of these "other venues" for PAGs instead of the RSP essay-class page? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

RSP is a WP:INFOPAGE project page, not an essay, as it simply summarizes past consensus, thus not requiring any consensus of its own to vet itself. It holds the acceptance of the entire community and the entire RfC was towards changing a listing at RSP. Not being a PAG does not magically degrade its status as the correct venue in any imaginable way. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I correctly said "essay-class", just because an editor gave it a title doesn't negate that "In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, and can reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting." Since you didn't answer my question I'll take it your "venues" have nothing to do with PAGs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

RSP is a list of how the community assesses sources according to WP:RS. The original RfC is all about changing the RSP-status of a source, and what a no-consensus outcome means for a source's RSP-status is of course best discussed at RSP. Whether RSP itself has PAG-level consensus is irrelevant. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That is your view, which a ton of people disagree with. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Further comments: It’s late where I am and I’m going to bed. So these are sort-of pre-emptive comments as to what might happen while I’m asleep. From my previous experience of dealings with Loki, I believe that Loki believes that he is acting in good faith. But from the evidence of all the discussions involving the Telegraph, it would be entirely reasonable to think otherwise. Loki started this thread because he objects to being accused of lying. He has now accused me of misrepresentation i.e. dishonesty, because, for heaven’s sake, I asked a question. I think it would be a good idea if he voluntarily stepped back from anything to do with the Telegraph for at least the next 3 months. Sweet6970 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Loki has not edited since you asked them to recant. I believe that both of you made perhaps slightly pointed ("for heavens sake", "misrepresentation" linking to BATTLEGROUND) remarks in good faith, and perhaps waiting and then apologizing would be a much better way than sanctions. I'm saying this as a near-native (i.e. none-native) speaker who thought that this was like the difference between disinformation and misinformation: the former has malicious intent. I'm surprised the word "disrepresentation" doesn't exist. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You asked what I believe to be a very pointed rhetorical question. If you didn't intend it that way I'm perfectly willing to retract my accusation. Loki (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was a request for clarity despite the intensifier. I can see how one may read it that way. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I can see the possibility but I still don't think it's the most likely reading. If it was a request for clarity, it surely was a very aggressive one. Loki (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar:You are mistaken. It was not a rhetorical question. It was a serious question. You said When did I say you have to take anything I claim as fact? as if you were denying that anything you said should be taken seriously. I was gobsmacked. Are you now ready to strike your comment? Sweet6970 (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not what I meant at all, but I will accept that it's not what you meant either and strike the bit about it being a misrepresentation. Loki (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Everyone in this discussion may be interested in this essay. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think perhaps I haven't lived up in every instance to Wikipedia:Civility standards here. However, bringing this dispute here is ludicrous. First of all, Loki's sudden indignation about accusations of lying is ludicrously hypocritical.

Moreover, the key difference is that I backed up my accusation (the diff that Loki shared in his complaint), and therefore stand by it. If not lying, I don't know what to call it. Reckless disregard for the truth? Loki said things that are false, this has been pointed out at length and repeatedly, by multiple editors over months, and Loki just repeats the false claims. I don't know what to call this other than lying.

I don't know how to engage in a discussion if such tactics can be engaged in so shamelessly and this is taken to be legitimate. Obviously I can no longer assume good faith here, and I don't think behavioural guidelines call me to either. I will go along with whatever de-escalation @Liz or other admin conclude, but frankly the brazenness of the complaint here is just a small taste of the shamelessness and gaslighting that we've seen from Loki over the past months. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Your accusations in the third paragraph are a (relatively) extreme amount of escalation. As I have pointed out (though to Bercham, not you), "lying" is an interpretation of bad faith while WP:IDHT is right there. It implies that Loki is intentionally trying to damage and disrupt the encyclopedia, which I heavily doubt. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

On reflection, I have lost my temper (being dragged here only exacerbated the situation). We can call it WP:IDHT. If "lying" is the bridge too far, fine. I will stick by what I said lower down: Loki makes false claims about the contents of paywalled articles in order to try and get sources with different POVs downgraded. Loki repeats those claims even after they have been thoroughly refuted. I'm gobsmacked if that's not a long way worse than anything I've done in any of these discussions.

As I say, I've lost my temper and don't want to continue to engage too much, but it seems to me this is an important point to keep emphasising. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that any of the articles I've talked about is paywalled, at least they aren't for me. But I have fairly strong anti-JS extensions running so it's possible I might have missed something.

I also don't think that my claims have been refuted, but honestly that's a matter of opinion so I don't care about it here.

The rest of this I will take as an apology. Thank you. Loki (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Boomerang?

Personal attacks - specifically aspersions - are where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, emphasis mine. Evidence was presented, so that isn't what is happening here. Bludgeoning has occurred, but the complainant is equally guilty of that, so I suggest all parties step back.

However, it is worth considering the complainants behavior in more depth. Specifically, they claimed that the Telegraph endorsed the Litter boxes in schools hoax, and in support of that claim presented this source, which explicitly calls it a hoax. When this was pointed out to them, they refused to retract the claim, and have instead repeatedly doubled down on it. This is source misrepresentation that amounts to POV pushing, and is not acceptable. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose boomerang, obviously, because there is only one correct POV here, and losing one's cool when someone is trying to push a different, and wrong, POV is very understandable. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's absurd and violates the essay you plugged yourself. Wikipedia isn't for you to convince the world you're right. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for you to convince the world you're right. This goes both ways. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You're the only one that's said there is only one correct POV here. Others (including Loki) have acted like that's what they really want to say. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, when the other POV can actively harm me, you should at the very least understand why I'd state that. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

We completely understand and support your right to be, but radical-ish censorship can go both ways. It is important for us to avoid a POV so that both sides can correct each other's POV in case we are in the wrong. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. I don't want to censor anyone for thinking differently than me, but I'm bummed that people consider a newspaper that deadnamed a trans teen who was murdered a reliable source for LGBT issues. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I would entertain a discussion on The Times, but that is a different source. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

To think I wrote my reply talking about the NYT's opinion piece on J.K. Rowling the day after Ghey's murder, then changed it to The Times after realizing I was talking about the wrong paper. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Having the right POV doesn’t justify source misrepresentation, nor mean that misrepresenting sources to advance said POV is not POV pushing. BilledMammal (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I sympathize with this reasoning, but this sympathy conflicts with the amount of !voters in the RfC that chose to accept the POV pushing, which conflicts with WP:Consensus is not a vote and would convert the "POV" into neutrality (as I believe bias to be relative). Compound that with the contentious nature of the discussion which boils everything on Earth, I kinda wanna wait this out on Mars. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose boomerang. Whether Loki is or is not right about The Telegraph they have consistently argued their position in good faith, and (broadly civilly) explained their reasoning in the face of personal attacks, misrepresentation and bludgeoning. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

A source that says "it's a conspiracy theory that JFK was shot by the CIA but here's a bunch of people who could have shot him that aren't Lee Harvey Oswald" is still pushing JFK assassination conspiracy theories.

I will cop to the fact that I consider "litter boxes in schools hoax" to be a bad name for that hoax because I personally don't consider the litter boxes to be a central aspect of it, and it was apparent during the RFC that many people disagreed with me on that point. In retrospect, I should have phrased that more precisely as something like "a conspiracy theory very similar to the litter boxes in schools hoax", but except that one change I stand by what I said. Loki (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

it's a conspiracy theory that JFK was shot by the CIA but here's a bunch of people who could have shot him that aren't Lee Harvey Oswald

That's not what the source did, though. If you want to follow that hypothetical, the source said "it's a conspiracy theory that JFK was shot by the CIA, but here is a teacher scolding two children for bullying a third for believing in the JFK assassination conspiracy theories."

Claiming that that is equivalent to endorsing JFK conspiracy theories would be source misrepresentation and POV pushing, and what you have done here is source misrepresentation and POV pushing. BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Err, no, the analogy would be "here is a teacher who appears to claim she knows who really shot JFK" or something like that.

But, I'm not here to relitigate this. I'm trying to focus as cleanly as possible on Berchan's battleground behavior, and not on whether or not I was right to try to downgrade the Telegraph. I don't care if you think I was wrong about that. I understand many people disagree with me, and that's fine. That doesn't give any of them the right to repeatedly accuse me of lying or to respond to half the comments in every thread about this with very aggressive accusations that they are 100% right and everyone who disagrees is malicious. Loki (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Loki, you did lie. You said that they endorsed the Litter boxes in schools hoax; they indisputably did not. The fact that you have since redefined the litter boxes in schools hoax to any support for Otherkin - including "support" as limited as "bullying is bad" - doesn’t change that, and in fact makes the situation worse, as it involves significantly misrepresenting facts to advance your preferred POV. BilledMammal (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I am again not here to relitigate this. You already know my opinion on whether any of this is even false, much less "indisputable". Loki (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And this is why we have a problem, and why I think a boomerang is appropriate.

You provided a source that explicitly disproves your claims, and then rather than retract them you tried to redefine the litter boxes in schools hoax to match the sources.

However, this didn’t rectify the issue, both because your redefinition is unsupported by sources, and because we know the "support" provided - a teacher telling off children for bullying - occurred.

Rather than at any point backing down and admitting you made a mistake, you kept insisting you were right - kept trying to push your POV despite the sources contradicting the allegations you made. This is disruptive behaviour. BilledMammal (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I provided a source that supports my claims. I have already explained at length across many discussions how the source supports my claims, and in response to that many people agreed and supported downgrading the Telegraph. I don't care if you don't, but I do think that coming here to accuse me of more stuff is also clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Especially since you have already tried to accuse me of, among other things, this exact same thing at AE, and got slapped down pretty hard. Loki (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You provided a source that says the exact opposite of your claim. Editors are allowed to make mistakes, but you’ve continued to make this claim long after your mistake was pointed out to you. BilledMammal (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Just a general question based on diffs. Is this dispute coming out of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliables ources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues discussion from July? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Liz It's that discussion, but the offending comments are much more recent. Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Support boomerang Loki dragged me here because I accused him of lying. I of course provided evidence. Loki has made the same accusation, in the same discussion, but without evidence. This was pointed out to Loki before this complaint was opened, in a diff shared in the complaint itself. I think it's therefore pretty axiomatic that Loki's behaviour has been at least worse than my own, so I don't know how a boomerang could possibly be opposed.

(Added to the fact that bringing this here is clearly a tactic to stifle anyone from pointing out that Loki lied. He claims things about the contents of paywalled articles that he shares as evidence in RfC, that are untrue.) Samuelshraga (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I offered a resolution that would allow the discussion to come to an end without any of the disruption from “my side” (so to speak) or the “other side” (Loki and Thryduulf being the biggest two bludgeoners and IDHT on that side). Loki refused to accept it. They want me to be removed from this topic area so they can continue to push their disproven (time and time again) claims about the Telegraph. They are on a quest to censor a source that doesn’t typically support their POV and are attempting to use administrative intervention to further that quest. Loki’s continued misrepresentation of sources after being pointed out is what is truly disruptive - both in the original discussion and in the close review. For these reasons, if Loki is unwilling to agree to not comment further on the subject (for a period of time), I support a boomerang. The time has long past for Loki to correct their false statements or accept they were disproven. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I specifically do not want you to be removed from this topic area, and that was the main reason I rejected that proposal.

I think you're a fine editor except for making up wild accusations about everyone who disagrees with you. That is the behavior I want you to stop. Please just listen to any of the many people who keep on trying to lower the temperature. Loki (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The temperature isn’t high because me and others have been pointing out your inaccuracies (at best). The temperature is high because of your IDHT behavior and others (such as Thryduulf) who act like you are blind to the consensus present in the original discussion when it is weighted appropriately taking into account that your initial claims, which were the only “evidence” many people used for their !votes, were sufficiently disproven. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Loki has now openly admitted in this thread multiple times that their goal is not to bring an end to the discussions, but to "win" (or in their words, get anything). If that doesn't show that they're in this topic area to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, I don't know what will. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what you're quoting. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's the diff link. Sorry that I'm not experienced enough with the diff templates to just post it as the template diff. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with that comment nor how it's POINTy. I think what Loki wants, an affirmation that such an assumption of bad faith is not accepted by the community which would hopefully push the discussion to be more civil, is entirely reasonable (although I do think the best solution to the bigger conflict which would also resolve this one is from the 3 involved parties to stop interacting for a month). Unfortunately it currently seems to be pretty much just you, Loki, and me commenting, so such an affirmation would be a long ways away. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I would be happy to agree mutually to no farther interactions with Loki for a month. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, of course my goal of bringing this to ANI was some sort of sanctions against the people I reported. (Well, or a retraction of the offending comments in this case.) Loki (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You're digging your hole deeper. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It's explicitly the point of ANI that this is the place you report people if you think they should be sanctioned. And I do think you should be sanctioned, because you made multiple personal attacks against me and refused to retract them, so I reported you here. I'm not sure why you seem so surprised by this.

Like, the point of ANI is not to resolve the RFC. I have in fact been trying hard to keep this thread focused on your behavior and not the underlying RFC explicitly because this is not the place to resolve the underlying content dispute. This is also why I wish I'd gone to AE to start, because AE is much better at focusing on behavior and not on the underlying content dispute. Loki (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If you had taken this to AE, your own behavior would've been evaluated too. Your bludgeoning, your WP:ADVOCACY violating behavior, and your own IDHT behavior would've been evaluated there just as much as it is here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Possible resolution

In the interest of bringing this entire debacle to a closure sooner, I will agree to not comment any further on the current AN thread (close review and assorted sections) or regarding the original discussion anywhere if Loki and Thryduulf agree to the same. I firmly believe that both of those users are engaging in civil POV pushing and are ignoring their own behavioral faults in attempting to bring this thread, and I do not think this will be enough for a closure of this thread without considering a boomerang against one/both of them, but I will agree to this condition if it helps bring this to a closure. The IDHT behavior of both of them and civil POV pushing does need to be addressed still. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• I would LOVE to close this complaint which I'm afraid looks like it could continue indefinitely without any admin action being taken at all. We just need the participants to agree to go to their separate corners, abide by civility policy and stop trying to antagonize each other. This discussion is murky and I really don't see any patrolling admins laying down any sanctions. At most, you all deserve warnings but you're experienced so it's nothing you don't already know. You just need reminders. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Yep. I am more than willing to accept and admit that I have behaved less than ideally in the close review if the other users who have done so are willing to admit the same. Sadly, I think that it is unlikely they will do so - they don't see a problem with their civil POV pushing behavior even when it has led to them bludgeoning the discussion as bad as I purportedly have. But I figured I'd split this out so that, if they're willing to admit they have behaved just as poorly, this can simply be left to the eventual closure (of the close review and original discussion) without any of us further bludgeoning it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
    • I reject your proposal but I would like to propose a counteroffer. If you strike the accusations that I deliberately lied and stop making them, I'll drop this whole thing. I doubt you will, because I've already asked twice, but if we're trying to end this quickly I feel the need to offer again. Loki (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      Nope. You chose to bring this here, and if you're unwilling to take my offer of resolution by agreeing to stop your own bludgeoning, your own conduct - from bludgeoning, to IDHT, to civil POV pushing - will be evaluated as well. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      I mean, if you say so. But I don't think anyone else shares your view of the situation. Just wanted to note that I did offer. Loki (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      Did you mean to include or exclude the part about ceasing activity? If nothing else, we won't have to deal with the high volume of kinda repetitive comments coming from Berchan and Samuel. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      The part about ceasing activity is the specific part I meant to reject. My problem here is not that Berchan posts a lot. My problem is the aggression with which he posts. I'm looking for a logged warning or some sort of custom anti-bludgeoning sanction here, not any kind of removal from the topic area.

      So I don't want to accept a trade of no activity for no activity, because I'm not getting anything. I don't want Berchan to stop posting, I want him to apologize for making personal attacks. If he'd offered striking his comment for me apologizing for misrepresenting the sources or something I probably would've taken that. Loki (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      You are claiming that an allegation (that you are lying) with specific evidence provided by both me and other editors (that you have refused to accept statements you have previously and continue to make are untrue) is a "personal attack". So you basically brought this entire thread to try and gain "first mover's advantage" for an issue that, frankly, isn't an issue except for your continued misrepresentation and attempt to use Wikipedia to push your POV on others. I will not strike a true comment just because it makes you feel bad. If you feel bad about being called out for your behavior, the solution is for you to actually listen to others who've told you you're wrong repeatedly and own up to the fact your original claims in the RfC were disproven, and your continued parroting of those claims amounts to intentionally being misleading. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      Are you Aaron Liu? If not, what are you doing here? I'm not talking to you here. Loki (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      This is a discussion between all users involved and administrators (and other users). Way to show that you are being disruptive and trying to silence others. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      Throughout the close review, the only people accused of bludgeoning are you, Berchan (both of which have made a similar amount of comments), and Sam. Even though my non-admin opinion is that the label of bludgeoning is overused, the arguments used by these three do seem to be getting repetitive. While I believe that an apology to you would be essential even ignoring the bludgeoning accusations, the best resolution to the latter part would be to refrain from discussing the source for a while, in my opinion.
      I do not condone nor recommend "combining" the two offers as I agree that the others' unapologetic behavior is quite awful, but I do urge you to consider this later when we are ready to consider the bludgeoning and STUBBORN actions. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

      Eh, on reflection I probably should disengage anyway. I do admit that I probably have been too active in those discussions.

      I don't really anticipate much more discussion there (there really only needs to be one more close and then hopefully it'll be over) but I will try to not get involved with any future discussions about it, if they do happen. Loki (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that while both have a few thousand edits each, neither Berchanhimez nor LokiTheLiar seem that interested in building an encyclopedia. Both of them are here almost exclusively to participate in contentious discussions (stats can be seen at Xtools for Berchanhimez and LokiTheLiar). While I won't go as far as to declare WP:NOTHERE, I propose that these two stop participating in project space and that they limit talk page activity to articles that they're working on. The question is whether they'll do this by choice or if it will need to be enforced. Otherwise we'll just be back here in a few months and do the whole thing over again. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, yes, 4 good articles but just not having time recently (for the past couple years - ever since people started doing stuff again after COVID while not treating it as a real disease, my work has been hell) to do the immense research I put into those good articles for others means I'm NOTHERE. This is just another person trying to silence a POV they disagree with. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I definitely wouldn't see that for Berchan, who has 26% of mainspace contributions (compared to 16% of projectspace, most of which are WikiProject discussions on various specific article issues). I wouldn't say "exclusively" applies to Loki either, who has 18% mainspace compared to 26% projectspace. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Note that I also mentioned their activity in talk namespace. And take into account that Berchanhimez only became active again in May but most if not all of their contributions since then have been arguments, disputes, and other contentious discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thebiguglyalien, I'm trying to deescalate this dispute while, for some reason, you want to prolong it. I don't see any urgent problems here. This is not a noticeboard to use to complain about other editors or share suspicions about them. There need to be policy violations for action to be taken and I don't see any in your remarks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Then I suppose we'll close this thread, ignore the underlying problem, and let things get worse like we always do. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  The underlying problem is those trying to civilly push their POV and censor reliable sources just because they report things these users don't like. The underlying problem is not that I've not had time to put the effort I think our articles deserve into articles recently. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Participating mainly in a contentious topic area is not the same as participating mainly in contentious discussions. I edit mainly trans topics, which are a particularly contentious part of GENSEX. As such, a lot of changes need to be hashed out on talk pages before being finalized. Statistics aren't everything and I don't appreciate you accusing either me or Berchan of being WP:NOTHERE.

  (Also for the record I'm not accusing Berchan of being WP:NOTHERE either. I do think that his behavior in the discussions spawned from the Telegraph RFC have been pretty suboptimal but I don't really see any reason to accuse him of anything more.) Loki (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with your sentiment here that a user participating mainly in project space doesn't mean you aren't here. And I hope I've never suggested you aren't here to build an encyclopedia - even though I think you are trying to civilly push your POV, I do believe that you're doing it to try to build an encyclopedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I was going to say that in the interests of not wasting more of people's time on this, I would be happy if Loki and I could mutually agree not to interact for at least the duration of any farther discussions about the Telegraph's reliability on trans issues.

However, if an admin is going to look into the conduct issues from the Telegraph saga, then I think that would be more than warranted. I know I wouldn't come out exactly smelling of roses - I have admitted that I lost my temper. At various times I was probably sarcastic or aggressive to some editors. I will try not to lose my temper further. I'll try to limit my farther involvement in the Telegraph issue too.

However, Loki has dragged me here for accusing him of lying. Loki has engaged in exactly the same conduct in exactly the same discussion, along with much worse, as I have said here - misrepresenting (not to use the L-word) paywalled content in order to get sources he doesn't like downgraded. I have evidenced my claim that Loki lied. Some here think it is important that we differentiate, that we still assume good faith about Loki's intentions, that this is just a case of Wikipedia:STUBBORN or Wikipedia:IDHT.

I disagree. Wikipedia:Assume good faith contains a caveat "unless there is specific evidence". Loki's own admissions against interest at the RfC are the evidence I brought. Loki did accept that the evidence was fatally undermined, and then spent the next two months pretending that it all stood up to scrutiny. That's not IDHT, it's gaslighting. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, This may not be obvious, but STUBBORN and IDHT are the same link to the same section of WP:Disruptive editing.
Secondly, as Loki has said below, he did not post inaccessible evidenced in bad faith. From this diff discussed, I believe that Loki still doesn't believe that quoting unreliable sources with proper attribution that characterizes these sources positively  or making misleading claims doesn't hurt the reliability of the quotee. He simply does not get or respond to the refutations that have held many including me and you, yet no one is obliged to WP:SATISFY you or me. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Broadly accurate, yes, but I've responded to the alleged refutations multiple times actually. I understand you don't find those responses convincing but I did make them. In fact I'd say it was the majority of my comments on the original RFC. Loki (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You can check for yourself which arguments you repeated despite not responding to refutations (sometimes of your refutations). Aaron Liu (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Look, at the end of the day... the underlying RFC probably reached some variation on no consensus, the overturn has probably reached no consensus, both have been contested and reversed in various ways now. The one thing we can say for sure is that there isn't a clear-cut obvious consensus here, which means that your arguments simply weren't as strong as you thought they were. And that in turn means that accusing people of IDHT for refusing to accept them isn't going to work; if you're going to go "this person keeps disagreeing with me and won't accept my obviously correct arguments, therefore they are a civil POV-pusher", then you need to be on more solid ground yourself, consensus-wise. Even then it gets complex because being in the minority and holding an unpopular view or interpretation is not, itself, against policy - there is a very important difference between "willfully ignoring all arguments" and "hearing them but disagreeing with them." But in this situation in particular, where a huge number of people have weighed in and are clearly sharply divided, the aggressive presumption that people who are reading things differently than you are acting in bad faith seems unwarranted - is everyone who !voted for some flavor of less-than-full reliability in the RFC or who opposed overturning the result acting in bad faith now? ---Aquillion (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  there is a very important difference between "willfully ignoring all arguments" and "hearing them but disagreeing with them."

  The reason I feel this falls into the former are that some of Loki’s claim are indisputably false, and proven so by the sources they provided.

  Specifically, they promoted the litter boxes in schools hoax is incompatible with one of the sources supposedly supporting the claim saying tales of schools providing litter trays to cater for children identifying as cats have turned out to be hoaxes.

  As a whole, perhaps the topic is less clear - but that lack of clarity doesn’t permit the repeated statements of obvious falsehoods. BilledMammal (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  No consensus is a cop out. If arguments are weighted appropriately, based on their actual factual validity, there is a clear consensus in the original discussion - and this is why the the close review came to a consensus to overturn. There mere fact that tons of people voiced their opinion that isn't based on policies/guidelines does not mean there's no consensus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is the third time you have STUBBORNly ignored what many have repeatedly told you or diverted this conduct discussion into the content dispute. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Do something: Here is what I know. Berchanhimez is definitely bludgeoning and the accusation of forum shopping is a personal attack. Accusations of lying probably are also. I am pretty sure that Loki, despite the user name, is not a liar. And yes, the Telegraph has a paywall. For the record, as best I recall, I voted in the original RfC but have not commented since. Not sure if that makes me involved or uninvolved. Since I can't see that source and don't want to subscribe, I am not convinced that Loki misrepresented it. I guess I have an open mind on that. But at the moment my takeaway here is that several people are to varying degrees trying to discuss, and one editor keeps repeating himself over and over. Elinruby (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I wonder if it’s possible that these accusations happened because of Loki’s username? His username is LokiTheLiar (emphasis on the “liar” part) and while I don’t mean that in bad faith; I can see how someone can maybe get confused by it and assume that the user is here to cause problems. Usernames have meaning to them; for example, if I was to have my username changed to “Banned from Wikipedia”, what are you going to think? You’ll think I’m a sockpuppet of a banned user. So if I make my username “(Insert name) the liar”; there’s going to be people out there that think that I’m a liar, even if I am a perfectly honest person. See where I am going? West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  i am not in the head of the editor who keeps calling him a liar so I don't know. Nor am I in Loki's for that matter; we aren't especially close, although we have interacted a bit. What I do know is that he has never impressed me as a liar. also, in the Marvel movie franchise Loki is a rather sympathetic character, or at least I thought so, but that is pure speculation when it comes to his username. I have never asked about it. Loki is one of a number of trickster characters in various folklores such as Coyote who may or may not be emblems of the human condition, in case anyone doesn't realize that. And for the record I deeply regret choosing a female-sounding user name. But a username does not exempt other editors from AGF. Elinruby (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Off-topic, but your username sounds pretty elvish neutral to me. You can set your preferred pronouns (which default to they/them) at Special:Preferences#mw-input-wpgender.
  I wouldn't think Loki's username has much hold here since his signature doesn't include the liar part. Anyone who would be distracted by that part probably wouldn't be paying attention to his full username. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with this except that the accusation of forumshopping is a personal attack. It's a reasonable reading we disagree with.

  Also, would you like to move this to the subsection below? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Remind Berchanhimez not to bludgeon or assume bad faith

FWIW, in the discussion fora I've got watchlisted or have participated in, virtually the only things I've seen Berchanhimez do are bludgeon discussions stridently presenting his opinions as settled facts, and periodically assume bad faith of editors who disagree, despite (as noted above) the efforts of various other editors to tone things down. (For diffs beyond the ones already provided above, it's likely easier and more informative to just Ctrl-F his name in even just the past week's edits to e.g. this rather than me pulling each comment out into its own link you have to open individually one by one, but one recent comparatively tame individual example is this asking me to square something I'd written with a "consensus" that was in fact just his individual opinion; obviously, no single comment in isolation can be bludgeoning, but see the other diff for [a one-week slice of] context.) He may be a stellar editor in other areas of this site, but based on the areas I've seen him edit — in which his actions have been raising the temperature in contentious topic areas where we need the temperature to come down — my suggestion is to issue a formal Reminder to refrain from bludgeoning, avoid assuming bad faith (re OP's diffs), and refrain from misrepresenting his opinions as established facts/consensus(es). -sche (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I've never interacted with Berchanhimez before this discussion, so I don't know about his general conduct. However, in this case bad faith hasn't been assumed, it's been demonstrated. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You are assuming that Loki is acting in bad faith based on behavior that's just WP:STUBBORN. You have not demonstrated that Loki is claiming things he doesn't believe. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that even in the diff Loki shared as evidence of my behaviour opening this thread, I demonstrated exactly that. So I don't think it's an assumption, I think it's a conclusion based on experience.

I also think my accusation is a much less serious behavioural issue than Loki's direct and knowing repeated misrepresentations of paywalled content in order to push a POV/get sources with the opposite POV downgraded. See same diff. Happy to keep providing evidence along the same lines. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Honest question: what content that I've posted has been paywalled? I don't know if it's because I block most JS or if you're talking about something different, but as far as I have been able to tell there is no paywall on the Telegraph. Loki (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The Telegraph does have a paywall. If you allow allow scripts can read the first ~paragraph of articles but to read more it wants me to subscribe, however due to the way it is implemented if you block scripts you will be completely unaware of this. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see.

Genuinely was unaware, sorry. If I'd realized I'd have linked to archive.org or similar. Loki (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oh, just to be clear: I would prefer a "warning" not a "reminder" but that's a tiny distinction and overall I support this. Loki (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• I also support this. After discharacterizing Lokis IDHT behavior, Berchan is now openly exhibiting the same IDHT behavior as well. For example, in this very discussion, right after Thryduulf and I had to restate the rebuttal for Berchan's claim that there is consensus for reliability above,[ see thread starting around #c-Berchanhimez-20240812015500-Thryduulf-20240812015200 ] Berchan proceeded to repeat the same argument below, unmodified, without giving any mind to arguments that we have extensively offered.[ #c-Berchanhimez-20240813005900-LilianaUwU-20240812233700 ] Aaron Liu (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's move this to AE

This is a mess. The discussion is going off on all sorts of crazy tangents, the underlying RFC is being relitigated in several different places, Berchan continues to refuse to admit that he can ever be wrong in any circumstance, etc etc. I sort of anticipated it being a mess, and would have taken it to AE (since AE is usually much better about preventing CTOP issues from devolving like this) except I thought at the time that we were far enough removed from GENSEX that AE wouldn't be a valid place to file this. But now I've seen this discussion I'm reasonably confident that's not true. This definitely feels like a GENSEX discussion, broadly construed, and so I'd like to move this to AE where it has any shot of a productive outcome. Loki (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice attempt to FORUMSHOP. You don’t like that your behavior is being brought up too so now you’re trying to move it. You’re the only one who’s refused to admit you’ve been wrong. I’ve admitted that I didn’t need to be as repetitive as I did, but you still refuse to admit you were spouting falsehoods (provably so) and you are doubling down on them. If anyone needs to be removed from the topic area, it’s you.

Put another way, you don’t want to move it to AE for any shot of a productive outcome, you want to move it there because you want to avoid scrutiny here for your own behavior. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This would not be forum shopping, as Loki isn't taking it to AE unilaterally while this is open. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think that AE will be particularly friendly or merciful to anyone involved in this debacle, unless you aren’t opposed to yourself becoming one of those sanctioned. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The RFC itself was handled with little uncivil behaviour, but since the close the behaviour of core editors on both sides has been very poor. I would support moving this to AE and I completely agree with The Kip that doing so would likely cut both ways. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I've done here that makes you or The Kip think that this would cut both ways. Like, I sure have accused Berchan of stuff, but I have also given evidence and this is ANI, the place to raise behavioral issues. Loki (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I've done here that makes you or The Kip think that this would cut both ways.

That you still seemingly refuse to see how you’ve been about as disruptive in this mess as Berchan has is exactly why it will cut both ways. The Kip ^(contribs) 00:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see any suggestion of what might be gained by moving this to AE. It looks to me like such a move would just mean more time lost and more acrimony generated. What is really needed is a resolution to the RfC. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

We already had a resolution to the RfC, but people who wanted a different outcome are trying to overturn it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, as it currently stands the RFC was closed the way S Marshall closed it.

Someone really should close the close review, again. Ideally an admin or a panel. If it doesn't get closed officially, which I'm increasingly worried about, it will be difficult to interpret. Loki (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Please keep engaging in the very behavior your essay warns about. There was a clear consensus at the original discussion (after !votes were weighted appropriately) that The Telegraph is a reliable but biased source. The close was a supervote, as confirmed by the consensus in the close review. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

We are not discussing the contents of the content dispute again, especially not one we have repeatedly demonstrated to you (Berchan) as frivolous. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus at the original discussion Are you not listening, are you not understanding, or are you trolling? Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• I will just state the obvious since editors weren't getting the hint from my comments. I'm 99.9999% certain that no sanctions will come from this unwieldy discussion unless a frustrated admin trying to make sense of all this decides to issue sanctions to all involved parties due to disruption being caused. But it's much more likely that nothing will come of this so at this point, you are just continuing to argue for argument's sake. My advice, since this complaint has virtually zero chance of action being taken, that you simply stop responding to each other at least here on this noticeboard (ANI). Go do some productive editing, work on an article that brings you joy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  While I agree that sanctions are probably a bit far gone, warnings would be great. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Advice taken, thank you. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Time for an ArbCom case?

The disputes in the transgender topic area look to me to be intractable and to have reached a fever pitch. It seems to me there is a good case for an ArbCom case specifically dedicated to the transgender topic area separate from the original GamerGate case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

As discussed in the above subsection, AE is a smaller and much better escalation Aaron Liu (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Putting together an ArbCom request is quite a commitment and a roll of the dice since, in my experience, cases, if accepted, rarely close with final decisions anticipated by those who initially filed the request. A case, if opened, typically lasts 3-4 weeks so it's not a venue for a quick resolution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

At this point I don't think any quick resolution is going to solve the problems in this topic area. The GENSEX CT designation that allows for the use of AE has been around since Feb of 2021 and yet the temperature in this topic area continues to rise. ArbCom cases are long and messy, but the chain of events that led us to this point has been longer and messier. Pinguinn 🐧 02:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• An Arbcom case about trans people is absolutely inevitable, but it doesn't have to be now. January or February would be the ideal time, when there's a new intake of arbs at its most active, focused and principled.—S Marshall T/C 07:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Time to close due to closure

Was this thread originally about personal attacks and incivility in an RFC closure review about the Daily Telegraph and trans people? If so, it appears that the original dispute has been resolved by unclosing the original RFC. So can this thread, about conduct issues during a closure review, be closed because the closure review is closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel like some sort of action should be taken. Since the original dispute was not about conduct, I don't think we can just close this. That said, the parties did stop honor the withdrawal above and stop participating after this report was filed. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

As the person who originally opened this, I now doubt there's a consensus for much of anything here. If someone wants to close with no action, go ahead. Loki (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

EEng

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

A user who was only recently blocked for uncivil conduct against another editor in July: User_talk:EEng#July_2024 has despite being asked to refrain from doing so multiple times continued to be uncivil, misconstrued points, and posted comments that have been inflammatory and disruptive to the collaborative process at Talk:Memorial_Hall_(Harvard_University)#Rfc_on_use_of_"imposing" (please see the full discussion). Also of note is the following discussion closed on the 30th of July #Resumption of incivility by EEng and suggestion of self-harm.

Leading to this was what I and at least one other editor interpreted as repeat flaunting of consensus, which is also what led me to create the RfC - in order to establish a firm consensus and avoid further conflict. This has unfortunately not been successful.

I removed a disruptive post here [5], which I should perhaps have replaced with {{RPA}} However, upon restoral of this post by the user, followed by further negative comments, I am at wits end. Due to this persistent incivility I am disengaging for the time being from the issue. I am turning to this noticeboard in an attempt to find a more civil and collaborative environment for collaboration in the future, allowing consensus to develop through the RfC. I hope this will let arguments stand for themselves, without disruption or further refactoring. CFCF (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

CFCF accused me of "intentional failure to consider the subject of the issue" and of "being WP:NOTHERE" [6], so I warned him to watch it with the casting of aspersions [7]. That I did it in a humorous and memorable way is irrelevant.

I might also mention that CFCF went out of his way to assert that a list of sources I had given (with quotations) "ostensibly" say what I quoted them as saying [8], which questions my truthfulness -- a most serious AGF failure bordering on a personal attack. What CFCF calls misconstrued points, and posted comments that have been inflammatory and disruptive to the collaborative process, others might call "effective refutation of his narrow and rigid personal interpretation of guidelines and policies". EEng 16:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

But do you always have to be such a wiseass when you are refuting another editor's narrow and rigid personal interpretation of guidelines and policies. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - My use of ostensibly was to signify that I have not confirmed the usage (not having access to most of the books).

It ought be noted that what is being referred to as putting "in a humorous memorable way", was something I did not take as such, but as an directed insult using vulgar language and the image of a behind (please see the comment, which is still live).

It followed my comment that expressly noted my offence in how verbatim quoting of guideline was claimed to be "strawmanning", calling into question the guideline [9]. I further fail to see how the following revision is to be taken as anything but a directed insult [10]. CFCF (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"Tsk, tsk" -ing someone is not "warning in a humorous and memorable way", it's extremely patronizing and only serves to raise tensions, not lower them. Fram (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I would say that EEng's response is no worse than the assumptions of bad faith by CFCF in the message that EEng was responding to, so I'd call it a wash. Everyone, go forth and sin no more. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Not long ago, EEng was also at ANI explaining their humorous and memorable references to boners and cocks. Now we've got a humorous and memorable reference to an ass, with a visual aid. This one isn't even funny, which was EEng's defense of the "cock up" joke. Judged solely on its comic value, "ass Persians" doesn't even work as a pun. What is the purpose of EEng's repeated sexually-charged comedy tour? Toughpigs (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a new thing, see WP:ASSPERSIANS for the whole collection. It's a play on the frequent misspellings of WP:ASPERSIONS. EEng's humor can often have the effect of diffusing conflict in a way that's less combative than directly telling someone to stop casting aspersions against them (which CFCF does seem to have done by calling him WP:NOTHERE). I've endorsed blocks/sanctions against EEng before when they're deserved, but...really? This is why we're here again? Ass Persians? EVERYONEIS SO UNHAPPYAN/IIS REALLY CRAPPYBurma-shave The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Id argue the "joke" could have been made without having to use a picture of a statue ass. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I can say it was not only that comment, but the full interaction that led me to post here. I repeatedly felt myself and my arguments being belittled, being told that I have claimed things that I never did, or met by direct insults. That particular diff is only what broke the camels back. I do not find editing in such an environment pleasant, and it makes me want to avoid Wikipedia. CFCF (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Some might be appreciative and don't mind EEng's humor, others not so much as evidenced by the multiple complaints filed here at ANI in relation to his sometimes crude humorous comments. So keeping in mind the diverse personalities of our editors, and him not knowing how his humor might be received, wouldn't it be best practice for EEng not to assume everyone will think his humor is always going to be acceptable. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

If this were a professional workspace and EEng posted an image/comment like that (via email or slack or something), he would've very quickly been called into HR. If he did it multiple times, he'd be fired. I understand that blocking for user conduct on Wikipedia is different from a decision to fire an employee, but why do we hold people to such low standards of engagement? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

If you think a visual pun featuring photos of a piece of public art and two kitty cats would get you called into HR at a "professional workplace" (where words and ideas are the stock in trade -- I'm not talking about Walmart), then it's clear you haven't been in many actual professional workplaces EEng 02:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• I will add that the user in question also mocks other users for their inability to understand what they're trying to say, but often slips in "clarification edits" along without anyone prompting it, implying that their communication wasn't clear in the first place. Seasider53 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, the user in question does not do that. I wasn't implying CFCF couldn't understand what I had asked, but rather that he found himself unable to answer since a truthful answer would have implied the indefensibility of his own PUFFERY argument as a corollary; so I substituted a different question that he might feel more comfortable answering. What you call a "clarification edit" was for the benefit of others reading the conversation -- CFCF certainly knew that already, since it was his post I was quoting.

  What you have done, however, is to let an ungenerous interpretation of my post pop into your head, and then immediately rushing to cry foul instead of (as AGF requires you to do) taking a moment to see if there isn't another way to interpret the post as appropriate. That rush to judgment is what certain people involved here do a lot, and it's the real incivility on display. EEng 19:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to say I don't really see what the gravamen of the filing is. There's a link to previous threads involving EEng -- is there any new information? Is the idea that "not getting the result we want at a noticeboard" should result in just posting the same thing with a link to the same diffs over and over every week until we win? The only new thing is that he posted the "casting of ass / Persians" pic. How is that a "personal attack"? Can someone explain, specifically, in what way this is "personal" or an "attack"? Or is the phrase simply being used as an incantation where if someone says it enough times they win? jp×g🗯️ 22:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

FFS, are we six? Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

EEng has been blocked in July 2020 ("Gravedancing and trolling"), February 2021 ("continued incivility"), March 2021 ("insulting a BLP subject after being asked to stop"), January 2022 (that block rationale not easily to interpret), June 2022 (3RR), January 2024 ("Long pattern of incivility towards other editors") and July 2024 ("Personal attacks or harassment") - so that's 7 blocks to date, at least 5 of which relate to incivility/harassment/trolling. When is enough enough? GiantSnowman 17:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That was kind of my point, we are not 6 year olds and no its not big or clever but is disruptive. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

As a point of order, the February 2021 and March 2021 blocks were overturned as clearly unjustified. Same for many of the blocks before that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that, The Wordsmith; you are a gentle(wo?)man and a scholar. I'll just add that in several cases, the blocking admin ended up actually apologizing, and in several others, the block was placed in explicit recognition of my "extensive block history" -- of overturned blocks. EEng 17:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

OK - some of your many blocks were overturned. Do you think that justifies your continued style of editing, which seems to repeatedly get you in bother? GiantSnowman 18:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

No, ALMOST ALL of my so-called civility blocks have been overturned; everything else was some 3RR violations (over 16 years over an editing career of 16 years) -- just to keep the record straight. But I do appreciate your acknowledging.

Beyond that, a pattern of overturned blocks doesn't call into question the editor's editing, but rather the system under which (as a wise editor said)

Someone can make a talkpage comment which twenty different people see and conclude is non-problematic, but it only takes one admin to misinterpret it and the editor in question gets blocked [11].

Those trigger-happy, shoot-first-ask-questions-later admins are the ones causing the bother. And their trigger-happiness does real damage to project, as another wise editor pointed out in the context of one of my many (yes, overturned) blocks:

My concern would be that this kind of block may have gone un-noticed if it were not of a high-profile editor ... could've led to an otherwise low-profile but productive editor to leave forever [12].

So maybe think about that a little. EEng 18:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Aaaand continuing with the snark on ANI. Yeah, I think the community has just about had it with you, EEng. I know I suppport an indef at this point, I'm done with this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

forgive me for any possible misconceptions or misinterpretations, but wasn't your last 3rr p-block just over a year ago, with your last standard 3rr block being in 2019? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I've clarified my wording by changing "over 16 years" to "over an editing career of 16 years". EEng 02:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I try to be fair in issues like this, and I do call you out where it is warranted (several of the blocks were justified). This instance seems silly, but you do seem to have diffused this conflict nicely. Maybe it's not such a great idea to use puns/humor like this towards someone you're directly involved in a conflict with? Time and a place, etc. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That's great advice. In future I'll try to apply such gentle ministrations only where I'm an uninvolved, dispassionate third party. EEng 18:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

EE’s already covered his entire history of blocks here, if you’re interested. I find EE hilarious (and I ain’t made a secret of it) so, to avoid bias, don’t really want to throw a bone into this dogfight. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind jokes, but the fact remains that among other things I was told to "fuck off", "tsk, tsk", that I was "strawmanning" when quoting guideline verbatim, and that I had a "narrow and rigid personal interpretation of guidelines and policies". I don't find any of that funny, nor do I find that sidelining serious discussion by posting crude irrelevant images is humorous. CFCF (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• The tsk-tsking image was fully relevant to calling out, forcefully, your personal attack on me by calling me NOTHERE. (That attack, BTW, really calls into serious question your basic judgment. Certainly there are editors who would counsel me to adjust my mode of operation, but anyone who thinks they'll get any traction with a NOTHERE accusation needs to get out of the house more.)
• I told you to fuck off when you had the fucking temerity to remove my post calling you out for the NOTHERE accusation [13]. Really, you had to be kidding if you thought that was kosher. (The classy move would have been if you'd removed my post while striking your NOTHERE accusation, with a conciliatory edit summary. But, again, that would have been the classy move.)
• Your strawmanning consisted in quoting PUFFERY's over-the-top example Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter, investing several sentences in explaining what everyone already knows -- why it's not acceptable article text -- and then pretending that all that somehow puts the kabash on the text actually under discussion, an imposing Victorian Gothic building, which isn't remotely like the Dylan passage [14].
• I do believe you have a narrow and rigid personal interpretation of guidelines and policies (a comment made here at ANI, BTW, where we comment on editors, not on content). You're not supposed to find that funny. You're supposed to take it under advisement, especially in light of the careful comments of other experienced editors at the RfC.

EEng 19:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• I’ve just read the talk page thread that led to this ANI case. I understand EE’s frustration with OP. However, I think EE needs to “read the room” when unleashing humor, and it is plain to predict that OP would not respond well.

Regardless of what policies require, EE would be a more effective editor and would spend less time stuck in tarpits like this one if they chose their humor targets with more care. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

And before anybody brings up this, I’m totally cool with it. Ain’t got a clue how to SpecialLink, Permalink, whatever. I know [] links and internal links ( [[]] ) so making my links look better? Works for me. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 19:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, The Wordsmith made that point above, and I have to say that it would have been better for me to hold my fire for a situation in which I'm not already involved, so as to WP:DEFUSE conflict instead of WP:DIFFUSINGCONFLICT. I wrote that essay, so there's some irony there. ("Doctor, heal thyself!") EEng 19:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• time to commit reckless acts!!

i believe that the fact that eeng getting reported here and then possibly blocked for a week for incivility has become a running gag proves that this case has gone out of hand. i've seen multiple editors get almost immediately indeffed for less just this week. their jokes can get a wide range of reactions, from being treated as harmless humor and moved on from, to derailing a discussion and kickstarting this week's ani report, and the most eeng gets is a slap in the wrist that sometimes gets overturned. this back and forth of short incivility blocks followed by more of the literal exact same kind of incivility that got them blocked gives me doubt that unblockables is an essay and not a policy

i won't suggest that any action be done because i can already guess what it'll most likely be, but i know i wouldn't come out unscathed if i asked that they "learn what a chastity belt is and wear one" as opposed to "show some restraint with sudden sexual jokes and jokes at the expense of others" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Not to nitpick. But would you please begin your sentences with capital letters? Would make'em easier to read :) GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

hypocritical as i am when complaining about someone taking their jokes too far, i'd be betraying years of learning how multiple programming languages work to avoid every possible capital letter in every single digital thing i've been on. which is to say that the answer is "i actually don't know"

i will say, though, that my comments seem to be considered confusing in general, regardless of missing capital letters or periods, so i won't even humor the thought that you don't have a point. probably not enough commas cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

In all honestly, I think the chastity belt thing would be a memorable way to make the point. I'll have to use that sometime. EEng 19:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

i don't have a nice way of saying that this is the exact opposite of what i think you should take from this, so uh... please don't cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? You said it very nicely. But, um, did you really think I was proposing to do that? I'd really like to know. EEng 20:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

yes cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Is "if people make a gigantic quantity of frivolous reports you automatically get blocked regardless of their merit" here supposed to be a more humane and less gameable policy? jp×g🗯️ 22:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Facepalm --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

At this point, anytime I see that a complaint has been filed against EEng, I know I'm going to end up rolling my eyes. Nothing to see here, folks; close it up. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG and very long block. ANI is not your personal WP:BLUDGEON. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  If there is a boomerang here, it is not so much for bludgeoning people with ANI per se, but for (1) being mildly incivil in a content dispute, (2) receiving mild incivility in return, and then (3) attempting to win the content dispute by using that response as an excuse to get the other side blocked. That pattern of behavior should not be acceptable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Just look at the sheer duration that Talk:Memorial_Hall_(Harvard_University) has been going on for. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  It’s truly an imposing thread. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  If any of what Andy Dingley suggests is even on the border of a legitimate outcome here, I request a permanent block for myself. For my own mental health, I see no future where I can justify engaging in Wikipedia, face insult and belittlement, for it to be brushed off and told that I am attempting to win a content dispute by reacting to incivility in what is the suggested manner of stepwise escalation, also after asking the other party to stop. It would help me to quit and stay away, because I can only say I am very tired of the way it seems fully acceptable to use insult, as long as it's funny insult and there is some pattern of working on articles. CFCF (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Six years. Give it up. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

My audience with the pope starts in a minute so I'll have to be brief, but I want to be clear that I don't want to see you blocked, CFCF, and I certainly don't want to see you quit the project. Nor, I am fairly certain, does anyone else. More later. EEng 22:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That man just would not let me go, and the time for comment has passed I guess, but I meant what I said. EEng 02:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@CFCF: to those of us not involved in this dispute, it appears very silly. All of this over the word "imposing"? I read through the RFC and I think consensus is leaning towards your side, but the whole issue with EEng appears to be a sideshow. Just focus on the RFC and don't interact with EEng if that helps. Problem solved? Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

My friend Viriditas gives good advice here. I indicated above that my facepalm was going to be my only comment about this thread, but I've changed my mind. I consider EEng to be my friend, too, and I also consider CFCF to be my friend. (Maybe I'm just easy.) I remember defending CFCF's position during an ArbCom case some years back, and I was saddened when CFCF appeared to have left Wikipedia in the wake of that case. So I don't want to see CFCF have a self-requested block, and I don't want to see CFCF leave. And I don't think this complaint rises to the level of needing any admin action against EEng. It's just an RfC over the word "imposing", for goodness sake, not the end of the world. And some of the editors who have demanded actions be taken in one direction or the other, in this ANI thread, are being over the top. We can all do with a little more civility and mutual respect (and maybe even a ball-gag in lieu of a chastity belt). And we can all do with a little less overreactions to life's little indignities. And I hope an uninvolved admin will close this thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @CFCF: I'm sorry, but I'm with Viriditas here. Your aversion to mentions of buttocks doesn't justify accusing EEng of being NOTHERE, and its removal was indeed a violation of talk page guidelines. You started an RfC, which would perhaps have been better done long ago; let it run. The complained of incivility here is pretty small even as snark; we don't ban crude language or even "dirty words" here, and the personalization of the dispute was by you, in this particular encounter. That said, EEng should indeed save that pun for discussions where he isn't one of the disputants, since some editors do regard use of "dirty words" as inherently hostile. (My aim in this comment is to defuse, not diffuse, the conflict.) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• An indef was overdue the last five times EEng was brought to ANI, and it'll be overdue the next five times too, but ANI has a problem of missing the forest for the trees. If he were willing to read the room and self-reflect instead of doubling down, he would have started a decade ago. I don't know whether he enjoys the drama and tries to provoke people with "just barely acceptable" comments or if he really doesn't understand what the issue is, but I don't care at this point. It's not a question of if he's indeffed, it's a matter of how much more effort we want to spend arguing with him and his wikifriends before we go through with it, and how much harm we're going to allow by perpetuating Wikipedia's infamy as a toxic community in the meantime. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, which of these two do you think is "perpetuating Wikipedia's infamy as a toxic community":

  1. Some guy saying "casting of ass persians" and posting a picture of a bronze statue's ass next to a picture of cats.
  2. Repeated monthly screaming matches where dozens of editors spend thousands of words arguing, going back nitpicking through literal decades of talk page comments to summon up an annotated list of every time the guy posted "ass" in order to argue for his expulsion from the project?

  Like, what is the model of a "non-toxic" community that we're trying to emulate, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union? jp×g🗯️ 23:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Nice variation of Godwin's law. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

EEng is, by now, very well aware that their use of language offends and upsets many editors. They continue to use such language. Therefore they are deliberately offending and upsetting many other editors. It's clear that certain admins, and others, support this behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

No he's not. jp×g🗯️ 23:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Not aware? Really? DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The whole premise of this argument is grotesquely offensive: if people claim something is so inappropriate for the project it warrants sanctioning, it falls on them to give some sort of explanation for how this is the case. We cannot simply say "oh, well, three people said that Bill caused $2,930,417 of damage to their crops by posting the word 'accede', so to hell with Bill". jp×g🗯️ 23:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you must be replying to an entirely different comment. You certainly aren't making any sense. DuncanHill (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. For clarity, here's the comment you made:

EEng is, by now, very well aware that their use of language offends and upsets many editors. They continue to use such language. Therefore they are deliberately offending and upsetting many other editors. It's clear that certain admins, and others, support this behaviour.

Here is the comment I made as a direct response to it:

The whole premise of this argument is grotesquely offensive: if people claim something is so inappropriate for the project it warrants sanctioning, it falls on them to give some sort of explanation for how this is the case. We cannot simply say "oh, well, three people said that Bill caused $2,930,417 of damage to their crops by posting the word 'accede', so to hell with Bill".

Let me know if you have any questions regarding this. jp×g🗯️ 23:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"Grotesquely offensive"? "$2,930,417 of damage"? No, you are making no sense. It's sad. DuncanHill (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"You, DuncanHill, have made an argument that I, JPxG, find to be grotesquely offensive". Can you understand this sentence: yes or no? jp×g🗯️ 23:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Did I cause you "$2,930,417 of damage"? DuncanHill (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

From our article on comparison:

Comparison or comparing is the act of evaluating two or more things by determining the relevant, comparable characteristics of each thing, and then determining which characteristics of each are similar to the other, which are different, and to what degree. Where characteristics are different, the differences may then be evaluated to determine which thing is best suited for a particular purpose. The description of similarities and differences found between the two things is also called a comparison.

Hope this is helpful. jp×g🗯️ 00:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Did I cause you "$2,930,417 of damage"? DuncanHill (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

(outdent) I just stumbled onto this and I have to say as an outsider with no dog in the fight: from reading all of this I begin to get the impression the problem here is now less about EEng and more about the refusal to hear of everyone else here. Something I cover very early on in my couples counseling sessions is active listening and what I see at AN/I, again and again, is people not listening. CFCF has been editing Wikipedia for 18 years and has a single block (from 7 years ago) that was swiftly undone after a couple hours. This history doesn't tell me that CFCF is at all an overly-dramatic and unreasonable editor. So again, maybe some of the people here could try actively LISTENING to your fellow editor instead of going straight to the the knee jerk dismissals and eye rolling. And consider that if people keep complaining about this issue then maybe there's something to it? Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are we six?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Slatersteven asked above, FFS, are we six?, and I think that's a question worth exploring: Are we adults, or are we six?

• Are we adults who participate in the rough-and-tumble marketplace of ideas -- where intellectually honest people, secure in their own skins, appreciate having their foibles pointed out and their misapprehensions corrected, and can take pleasure in humor (including grown-up humor) even if it's sometimes at their own expense?
• Or are we innocent children whose fragile, developing egos need to be protected from bruising by ever-vigilant playground mommies? Who break into tears when the older kids try to explain that playing the game well requires understanding not just the rules, but the subtleties of how the rules interact with one another and are applied in practice?

So again: FFS, are we adults, or are we six? EEng 02:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Take a breather & move on. GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

We're children, teenagers and adults (evidence for all) who appreciate being taken seriously, not patronized, and encouraged to contribute more to this awesome (let's face it it is awesome) project without being unduly ridiculed. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

ok, I will correct a misapprehension. Your puns are not funny. They come across as belittling and I have never seen them diffuse tension. At all. And look, it was possible to say that without referring to either buttocks or genitalia. So are we six or are we adults who appreciate having our misapprehensions pointed out? Left as an exercise for the reader. Elinruby (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Passive-aggressive and not funny. Toughpigs (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Compared to -- ? jp×g🗯️ 03:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Compared to something funny? Not sure what the question is here. Toughpigs (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

"It's just a bit of banter" and "we're all grown-ups here" used to be the go-to excuses of bullies, harrassers, homophobes and racists, but have become tired, desperate and seen. Times change, EEng. NebY (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Is the idea that EEng is racist, or is the idea simply to put the word "racist" close to his name on the page? jp×g🗯️ 04:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

No. That's as false a dichotomy as EEng's above. NebY (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, no attempt at giving two alternatives: your comment is a deeply unserious attempt at guilt by association. Historically oppressive forms of violent and deadly bigotry are, in fact, extremely easy to distinguish from some guy saying "casting of ass persians" on Wikipedia. jp×g🗯️ 05:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Deeply unserious? The guy commits juvenile puns in threads about whether a CIR is appropriate. He may think he is diffusing tensions, maybe, possibly, with a sprinkling of good faith, but it says that the concerns of other editors are not something the community should take seriously. I am on the fence about this particular incident, but the OP isn't feeling that his tensions were diffused and I am probably not the only person wondering why EEng was practically applauded for mocking him. What the hell, people. Maybe it wasn't block material, but a warning, even an informal warning, would have been appropriate. No wonder he doubled down with this little essay about how adult it is to make butt jokes. Elinruby (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why this is formatted as a response to my comment, as it has nothing to do with any of the things I said. jp×g🗯️ 06:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your idiosyncratic concept of what is "deeply unserious" about this thread. Hth Elinruby (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You've never ever seen EEng mistify stress? Really? Have you never used a sprinkler to make your grass greener than your neighbour's? To confirm that I am six, I'll say this thread should be quickly sown into Speedo^TM clothes and dropped into the Styx. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@EEng: Why would you reopen this thread so that people could yell at you? jp×g🗯️ 04:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Impulse control appears to be an issue. Toughpigs (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Because they enjoy the drama and winding people up. GiantSnowman 08:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

So trolling? Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Precisely. GiantSnowman 11:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Climb down off that soapbox Norma Rae. Your performance here is nowhere near Oscar worthy. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Having successfully escaped the lion's den, it is ill-advised to return to attempt to retrieve one's hat. This sub-section should be closed. Daniel (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  It does seem to demonstrate what some people seem to be complaining about, such as an inability to disengage. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Not just an inability to disengage - rather it is the seeming need to wind people up, by trying to push things further. GiantSnowman 12:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Given the level of many people's reading ability I would say that the answer is "yes". I sometimes share EEng's sense of humour and sometimes not, but at least I can tell when he's trying to defuse tension, and the rest is simply assuming good faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  i am new to the EEng follies, but to my mind it doesn't matter what he is trying to do. The central point to my mind is that gentle hints that This Is Not The Way are having no effect. Look at what he posted here minutes after getting a pass yet again. This is not pearl clutching over butts and boners. I'm saying that someone who is upset enough to come here should be listened to respectfully without being interrupted by unfunny and off-topic jokes. Then by all means wield the ban hammer if it seems appropriate, sure. But EEng to my eye derails. This is not the same thing as diffuses. That is all. Speaking as an adult, I know what a butt is, sure. Mooning someone is however disrespectful and I ask if it is not possible that this is getting missed here. Elinruby (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  A friend has brought to my attention the fact that on a well-known "Wikipedia Critics Forum", a user with a name coincidentally exactly the same as yours has found time to endorse a post labeling me a "douchebag". Now, I have no way of knowing for sure whether that user is in fact you, but if it is, then Way to go, Mr. or Ms. Respectful Listening Parliamentary Language Champion of Civility! EEng 13:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

And on that note, with the masks lowered, this thread has fulfilled its function and can be closed. EEng 14:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You have made an accusation that the user in question may decide they need to respond to, give them the courtesy of waiting until they have had a chance. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that Elinruby out themselves by confirming or denying that they're the one who made the post. Simply suggesting that, if they are, then they might want to think on the irony. EEng 16:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

What 'function' precisely? GiantSnowman 14:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

To let EEng have the last word? Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I interpreted the thread as "let's have a second go at pushing some buttons" and the closure request as being "OK I've had my fun and I don't want another block". GiantSnowman 14:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You interpreted it that way because, like so many of the civility enforcers, you yourself lack AGF. I honestly wanted to hear people's comments on whether we're supposed to treat one another like 6-year-olds, or like adults, and thought the aftermath of the main thread was a good time to elicit those comments. That it, as so often, exposed the incivility of the civility brigage was an unexpected bonus. EEng 16:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The best part about these threads is reading people uncivilly complain about incivility. "That fucking asshole needs to be more polite!", they'll say. Levivich (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone here explain what exactly any of this has to do with creating and maintaining an online encyclopaedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT FORAN/IMAYBE TEAHOUSEYOU SHOULD TRYBurma-shave A teahouse seems like a good place for six-year-olds in any case. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It caused a (very minor) improvement to L'Arroseur arrosé? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

source hijacking and pov-pushing on the Algeria article

Good morning,

The user Skitash persists in introducing an erroneous reading of the source (CIA Factebook) . While this clearly indicates: « Arab-Amazigh 99%, European less than 1% note: although almost all Algerians are Amazigh in origin and not Arab, only a minority identify themselves as primarily Amazigh, about 15% of the total population; these people live mostly in the mountainous region of Kabylie east of Algiers and in several other communities; the Amazigh are also Muslim but identify with their Amazigh rather than Arab cultural heritage; some Amazigh have long agitated, sometimes violently, for autonomy; the government is unlikely to grant autonomy but has officially recognized Amazigh languages and introduced them into public schools. »

The user deliberately reintroduces the erroneous/POV version which mean that Algerians are 85% Arab and 15% Berber (Amazigh). This editorial does not specify that this is a feeling (« identify themselves ») and aims to make this information an absolute truth. Which is all the more unforgivable since it removes the mention justified by the source (99% Arab-Amazigh, 1% European...). I added a second source which provides genetic data (Dmoh Bacha, Algerie Culture Identite, Maghreb Algerie MarocTunisie, p.233, ). As it does not go in his direction to Arabize the ethnicity of Algeria, he deletes it purely and simply. Please therefore sanction Skitash for 1) source diversion 2) pov-pushing 3) cherry-picking (takes an isolated element from a source which it reinterprets and refuses other sources which do not go in the direction of its idea).

Sorry for my poor English language level :(.

Monsieur Patillo (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this with them first? From what I see, they left a reply on your talk page explaining their arguments, so you didn't have to escalate the matter to ANI. This board is a last resort for conduct disputes, not a way to sanction editors for disagreeing with you on how to interpret the sources. Also, you did not inform Skitash of this discussion on their talk page, which you are required to do. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly a content dispute, and does not belong here. (I have been involved at previous disputes at Talk:Algeria, and I am involved in discussion in question but only to try to disentangle some TPO issues and have not opined on the topic of the dispute itself.) Both editors should be warned for edit-warring, and Skitash, you had no business warning M.P of edit warring when you are one of the edit warriors. Monsieur Patillo, I've already explained about the TPO issues, and you seem to have understood that. There is nothing actionable here; the content dispute should be continued (amiably, with respect, confining comments to how to best improve the article) at Talk:Algeria, not here. Mathglot (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Chaotic Enby and Mathglot.

There is not only an editing conflict but an appropriation of the article on the part of Skitash. It is also a WP:CPP in the sense that accustomed to the rules of the encyclopedia he gets bogged down in the status quo of the articles in the sense of a pov.

1) Refusal of the official name in an official language of the country and its constitution

2) misappropriation of sources: CIA Factbook gives 99% Arab-Amazigh, 1% European (specifying that 15% claim to be Berber), but Skitach does an unprecedented job of asserting that the remaining 85% are necessarily "Arab" without any other form of nuance, by pure speculation and refuses the source's own terms (99% Arab-Amazigh, 1% European) in favor of its original synthesis.

3) I also surprised what is a beginning diversion of source on the article Talk:Arab_migrations_to_the_Maghreb#Remarks. The academic sources testify to an Arabization of the native populations but the article is written with the aim of replacing the population and making it appear that the population of Algeria/Maghreb is largely from the Arab peninsula. We are therefore faced with an ideologue who is knowledgeable enough about the encyclopedic workings to block common sense modifications (eg: updating the official name in Tamazight which even exists on the websites of the ministries / [Ministry of Energy | Algeria (energy.gov.dz)]). It is even an anomaly compared to other versions of Wikipedia. Please insist that this person demonstrate a greater cooperative spirit. Otherwise he can always block everything arguing that there is no consensus and read the sources as he wishes. The misappropriation of sources and ideological editorials are also a non-cooperative act and falsification which pose a problem. I promise not to bother you anymore and to seek consensus in discussion, but please be vigilant about his behavior. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Chaotic Enby and Mathglot are right. This is merely a content dispute and appears to be just another case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. You seem to be the one diverging from the WP:STATUSQUO and established consensuses by attempting to force your unconstructive changes through edit warring.

1) I have repeatedly informed you that there is an established consensus not to use Berber in the infobox, irrespective of its status as an official language. This decision is based on several issues, including MOS:FORLANG and the lack of standardization in Berber. The Algerian constitution indicates that efforts are ongoing to develop Tamazight to ultimately lead to its adoption as an official language in the future, implying that there is still work that needs to be done. Your attempt to force this change disregards consensus and constitutes WP:BLUDGEONING, especially given your decision to vote on behalf of other editors without their consent.

2) As discussed on the talk page, there is no such thing as an "Arab-Berber". The concept is not supported by reliable sources, and it remains unclear whether the 99% statistic combines Arab and Berber population or denotes people of mixed Arab and Berber origins. The Arab-Berber article was redirected for a reason. This is why the decision was made to use specific divisions of ethnic identity, supported by multiple sources in Algeria#Demographics. 85% of the population identifies as Arab while only 15% identifies as Berber.

3) The article in question is supported by 73 sources and has been written collaboratively by several editors. I'm unsure of what "source diversion" you're alluding to, but this just seems to be another case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.

Since you've escalated this content dispute to ANI without even notifying me on my talk page, I want to highlight the irony here: you're accusing me of "POV-pushing" for reverting your disruptive edits that go against consensus, yet your contributions and block log suggest that the sole purpose of your account since its inception has been to POV-push and edit war on Algeria-related articles. Skitash (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

When there is a deliberate content discrepancy between the sources and what is reported (diverted) from the source it is not a WP:JDL problem.

1) The link does not show consensus, but disagreement and maintain the status quo. Consensus means a broad basis of agreement, it does not exist to prevent the introduction of the name into Tamazight. And I can't be aware of the archives before running my edit. So I returned to the talk page. The Algerian State clearly states that the Amazigh language is a national and official language. [SGG Algeria (joradp.dz)]. “Tamazight est également langue nationale et officielle. ” (it is stated "is" and not "will", and "également" in french means in the "same way, on an equal basis...").There is then a question of promotion and concretization but the status of official language and its current use is acquired as in the official press agency (Algérie Presse Service (aps.dz)). We are therefore here in the presence of pov-pushing aimed at displaying a uniquely Arab Algeria. Why is what is valid on other Wikipedia encyclopedias, or the fronton of certain Algerian ministries, invalid here because of a pan-Arabist ideological orientation? The only question we must ask ourselves is: is this name in Tamazight attested in several secondary sources? The answer is yes. Here a handful of contributors including Skitach have agreed to block any modification of the article to deny the existence of the name in Amazigh. But the debate must take place on the discussion page of the article. They will never agree ideologically for the introduction of the sourced name of the country in Tamazight, and therefore distort the debate.

2)Skitach wrote : As discussed on the talk page, there is no such thing as an "Arab-Berber". This is an obvious error because the source cited speaks well of "Arab-Amazigh". Here Skitach imposes its judgment and its original synthesis to the detriment of the data provided by the source. When the source says “only a minority identify themselves as primarily Amazigh, about 15% of the total population” nothing allows us to deduce 85% Arabs. The sources in the body of the text do not give this figure of 85% (Britanica gives other data). This is a pure deduction from Skitach and therefore a new work. The ONS (ref 216) does not give ethnic statistics that I know of (or please indicate where?) and the second article (ref 217) is a source on genetics which demonstrates the opposite (majority of Amazigh origin ) and does not give these ethnic statistics. We still touch on the bad luck of Skitach who has refused a source PA192&printsec=frontcover under the pretext that genetics would not be admissible... while accepting the diversion of another source on genetics (ref 217) to go into his pov. This figure of 85% does not appear anywhere in the sources cited; it comes from tinkering and deductions.

3) While affirming that there are 73 editors, Skitach demands that before any modification of the article's discussion page we talk to him about it on his personal page? On the other hand, it was Skitach who introduced the diversion of sources as shown in this diff. So I posted a message for him and the reviewer on the article's discussion page (with the additional claim of making it a quality article). His only response is to attack me on a slight blockage of 48 hours 7 years ago for completely different reasons...

Note also that the ubiquitous mention in the sources that the population of the Maghreb is made up of Arabized Berbers is absent from the article... which wants us to believe that everything comes from the Arab peninsula. When other users notice it, they are systematically censored (example: here or here) without discussion or improvement of the article.. Impartial mediation is therefore necessary for the editorial aspect because Skitach is not reliable (WP:NOR and WP:OWN...). Thanks. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Whatever this massive block of text says, I don't have the time to wade through all of it, so I'll cut to the chase:

1) Here are links to the two RfCs on this matter[15][16]. The consensus was clear: omit Berber from the infobox and include it in the name section in the Algeria article if it's properly sourced. Feel free to read the RfCs (or not, it doesn't concern me). The Algerian constitution states "L’Académie qui s'appuie sur les travaux des experts, est chargée de réunir les conditions de la promotion de Tamazight en vue de concrétiser, à terme, son statut de langue officielle."

2) Care to define what an "Arab-Amazigh" is? The CIA World Factbook gives a passing mention of this term, but no detailed explanation of such thing exists. This is why Arab-Berber was rightfully redirected to another article. The rest of your argument tells me you still haven't learned the difference between ethnicity (based on language, culture, and identity) and genetics (completely unrelated and not determining of ethnicity).

3) You're using this source issue as a red herring to dismiss the entire article, which I doubt you've even read. I may have copied that source from Punic language#Neo-Punic without checking it for verifiability, but that's not an issue as this is an easily attributable fact. Several sources confirm that Punic and Arabic share similarities as Semitic languages.[17] The two editors I reverted were clearly disruptive, trying to delete or replace sourced content, and the article obviously does mention Arabization (that's the whole point of it).

If your next reply is just more content disputes or baseless accusations (such as calling me a "Pan-Arabist") don't expect a response. I'm done wasting my time here. Skitash (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, both of you can go to the talk page or try mediation/dispute resolution for what is very obviously a content, not conduct, dispute. This has no place on ANI at all, and @Monsieur Patillo's attempt to spin content disagreements into a conduct issue is not a way to constructively solve this. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Both of you stop. You are wasting your time, and that of other editors, talking about something that simply is not going to be acted upon here. This is not the venue for your disagreement about adding the language to the Infobox—the proper place for that is the Talk page. If you are hopelessly deadlocked there, try WP:Third opinion, or one of the other methods of WP:DR, so there is no need to keep talking past each other at the Talk page or repeating past arguments if that hasn't succeeded previously.

Where behavior comes into it, is the edit-warring that has taken place at the article, which appears to have stopped, but if that starts up again you will both end up at the WP:Edit-warring noticeboard. The only other behavioral issue raised was a mention of possible ownership, but that is too hopelessly bound up in the content disagreement to see clearly, as someone disagreeing with one's point of view may be seen to be an ownership issue (other than the edit-warring) when really it isn't. If you believe that really is an issue, I would put it on hold for the moment, try to resolve the content issue first, and then come back to the conduct issue later (if it exists/is still worth it). Mathglot (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Imtiaz Ahmed(s)

It seems Imtiaz Ahmed (student) and ImtiazAhmed404 are the same individual (possibly also Imtiazahmedx, hard to tell?), so I'm referring to both of them. There's no explanation given for the multiple accounts, and it's not a case of forgotten login etc. as their edits overlap.

They are keen to publish an autobio, which has so far been attempted at Draft:Imtiaz Ahmed (student), Draft:Imtiaz Ahmed (Student), Draft:Imtiaz Ahmed (student leader) and User:Imtiaz Ahmed (student)/sandbox (at least). They are also removing large chunks of content from exiting namesake articles Imtiyaz Ahmed and Imtiaz Ahmed (cricketer) without any explanation.

I don't know if any of those things alone is actionable, but put together they are causing a fair bit of disruption which others are having to go around cleaning up.

Plenty of warnings have been issued but they go unheeded (could be a case of THEYCANTHEARYOU, of course?). Perhaps a short block would get their attention, since nothing else so far has? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Opened an SPI case. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Imtiaz Ahmed (student leader) isn't even an autobio; it's a copy-paste of Nahid Islam with only two mentions of Nahid Islam changed to Imtiaz Ahmed – the rest remain. User:ImtiazAhmed404 still submitted it using AfC-submit-wizard. NebY (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Deleted that one as a hoax. Star Mississippi 23:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024 - User Swearing and Abusing Page and Editors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user @Bgsu98 has been (1) deleting their own talk page messages, (2) swearing to others (me), and (3) reverting edits without consulting back to the talk page.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&oldid=1240607788 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&oldid=1239016117 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&oldid=1229466076

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&oldid=1240869852 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&oldid=1239016117

3: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_26_(American_season)&oldid=1240867323 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_26_(American_season)&oldid=1240870112 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_26_(American_season)&oldid=1240626695 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_26_(American_season)&oldid=1240600102

there is more from (3) if you go through Big Brother 26 (American season)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd101991 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

While the name calling isn't ideal or productive, @Bgsu98 and any other editor, is allowed to remove messages from their Talk. It indicates they're aware of the notice. You're both (as well as others) edit warring on BB26 and as such the article is now protected. Please discuss color palette and other issues on the Talk. Star Mississippi 00:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unexplained removal of sources by User:Shalini4321

Shalini4321 (talk · contribs · logs) has

1. never written an edit summary
2. keeps removing sources from articles with no explanation. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and that is just from the last month or two. I haven’t dug further. An exemplary is this edit removing sources of a BLP with no reason at all.
3. accumulated 17 warnings on their talk page for disruptive editing, including failing to communicate.
   Well, not quite, because they didn’t hesitate to tell other editors to “fuck off” (rev) and “get lost” (first time, second time).

Northern Moonlight 01:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely partially-blocked them from article-space, for "Near-total failure to communicate regarding articlespace editing, unexplained removal of sources. Block can be removed by any admin once they satisfactorily engage at ANI discussion about their conduct". See talk message at User_talk:Shalini4321#Blocked. Any other administrator, please feel free to unblock without checking with me if you disagree, or if they engage appropriately here to explain their editing. Daniel (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Radlrb in WP:WPM

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Tension arises between user @Radlrb with multiple users in WP:WPM, regarding the article 1234 (number), and numerous discussions about how funny and ridiculous according to some of the users in that WikiProject. Pinging some concerned users: @Jacobolus, @Mathwriter2718, and etc.. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The main argument is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#1234_(number), though I'd like to mention that there are other complaints about Radlrb's edits in other places as well. I think this issue needs admin input because this is a chronic issue involving willful ignoring of Wikipedia policies. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

There can be no doubt that Radlrb has good intentions. However, I think there may be an difficult-to-reconcile difference between Radlrb and others about what the purpose of Wikipedia is and what policies are. For what it's worth, I still maintain my hope that there is a resolution that will make everyone happy and that doesn't make Radlrb feel like they are being kicked off the website. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I am about to quit, I think. Radlrb (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest (really) that you take a copy of the entire contents of the number articles and move it to your own blog / wiki / whatever, then you can expand it as you wish. Almost nothing you have added is actually wrong, so you could have you own wiki with a vastly higher relative truth content than WP. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

My fear is that if I make a blog, that it will quickly be hacked because of obvious reasons (too much truth), I feel WP is a stronghold that can protect this content. Also, as an anonymous editor here in WP, where there is also a type of vetting that can validate these delicate number-theoretical synchronicities. This being said, we can remove the deemed-superfluous material, and I'll make my way. Radlrb (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there are any hackers out there who have an agenda in mathematics that they want to advance by force. If you were writing a blog criticizing the government of Russia or North Korea, I could see worrying about hacking...but math? -- Beland (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, seems very unlikely. Rolando 1208 (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

arXiv is where I'll head over to first, most likely, then set up a blog and forum thereafter. It's been an idea I've been contemplating for some time. I appreciate your suggestions. Radlrb (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is the main concern. I believe as with the example I added recently to the thread at WP:WPM, that these points will naturally accrue, and some will coincide, lending to an appearance of SYNTH. I make no statements of consequences, as they generally are out of scope.

I would also like to mention, and will link later diffs, the bias against my heated exchanges, without taking accountability in these exchanges, of the many-a-times demeaning behavior against my position or my person.

I would also like to express that my intentions here have only been of the highest I can give, and honest. An important note, is that my edits have stood for 2.5 years almost, without much backlash, aside from a small number of editors.

Respectfully yours, Radlrb (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The project page discussion is illuminating. Seven editors have objected to Radlrb's edits. Radlrb's response in all cases was long paragraphs of weird purple prose that did not engage with the complaints but ranted and philosophized: "Do you have any idea, of how difficult, and challenging, it is to find synchronicity and sense in mathematics? Be grateful, for the love of our very existence and subsistence, that these facts exist.", "we are ants still, trying to understand a landscape of truth far larger than you or I can even conceive, proven every millenium by the next mass discovery that upends everything once conceived.", "And im being kind here, there's no telling how complex Mathematics really, really is. There's no living organic-born or ethereal angel in our Universe that has a real-idea of all Math. Thats for the stars to contemplate.". Also boasting about the brilliance of their edits, arguing that the fact that all of their edits have not been reverted means that their approach is right, and a quite offensive comparison of their disregarding policy with fights against historical racism: "You know, as with many peoples, black folk were unnallowed to do many things in America, against "laws" inhumane to them. They broke free, and are breaking free more every day, teaching us along the way to not hold back against unfair and limiting barricades. In like manner, I am unafraid of breaking this Wiki "law"". The main issue seems to be a lack of willingness to work collaboratively with other editors, based on an assumption that anyone who opposes any of their edits lacks understanding. CodeTalker (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it is important to gauge the scale of this problem. Over the last year or two, Radlrb has expanded number articles so that probably 50% of the total content is his additions. And has been extremely persistent, making several personal complaints to me in particular, because almost all of the editing I have done is removing stuff - this is true, and the complaints are not remotely offensive, but they illustrate a total unwillingness to consider whether something is really relevant or notable. (See the diagram I just removed at Talk:2.) Imaginatorium (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Lets make a laundry list of the properties that should be removed, and we can remove them (or go article by article Radlrb (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)). However, I'm really way to depressed with this and other things in my life, to hold a healthy state of being. So I think it's probably time I take my leave, and unfortunately leave my personal goal of improving all of the first 100 articles to proper standing. I know I take some liberties, I was hopeingRadlrb (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC) they were in good conscience and in the direction of where we are headed. Radlrb (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding one point you mentioned - I was not boasting about brilliance in my edits. I affirm my inputs, equally as I affirm others, and laud our collective work. There is nothing wrong in appreciating one's work, and welcoming it, at whichever stage of fulfillment perceived (usually, it always come short of actual worth, a lesson history teaches over and over). Also, these "rants" were also rooted in dissapointment I felt at ignoring my pleas of non-triviality over some of my edits, as well as affronts that were directed at me, passively or directly. This is all water under the bridge for me, I am not going to hurt myself or depreciate Wiki space any further, anger in the end always ends in lament. Radlrb (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Before this discussion goes any deeper, can someone please outline what the actual incident here is that purportedly requires administrator intervention? This sounds like a content dispute (that doesn't even identify what the dispute actually is) involving someone who doesn't fully grasp the point of this project (e.g. "too much truth", "WP is a stronghold that can protect this content," etc.) Does not sound like a problem for AN/I. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, in response to my question, an IP editor who is unable to contribute to this discussion due to the semi-protection at the moment, has responded on my talk. It is a much more succinct and direct statement of the dispute than what we have here, so thanks to them for that. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 on that. "Tension arises" tells us nothing (and, after all, ANI discussions get pretty dern tense), and a third of the active user pages on Wikipedia burble about barnstars and articles created/taken to GA/DYK/FA. A little less on Radlrb's verbiage and more on how this diff or that diff illustrates a genuine policy violation? Ravenswing 19:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for administrative intervention. Editors should remove material they consider to be original research, off topic, undue weight, out of scope, etc., and any resulting disputes can be resolved on the relevant talk page(s) or at WT:WPM. With that said though, user:Radlrb can you please tone down the weird puffery and try to keep discussions cooperative and on topic? –jacobolus (t) 20:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Because this board is about conduct not content, perhaps this is the place to point out Radlrb's bad-faith assumptions in WT:WPM#1234 (number), where another user started the discussion by pointing to Radlrb's past block for personal attacks [18] and Radlrb immediately responds by questioning the other user's impartiality merely because they had some past interactions with me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to comment on this. We can also bring up David Eppstein's examples of bad-faith, and with regard to the article at 1234 (number); it might be time to show his absence of good-faith, especially when others try to cooperate with him. That would be for a seperate AN/I, though. I did not assume bad faith here, I pointed to his possible willing miscontrusion of what occurred, which is different (i.e., one is the assumption that I did assume bad-faith, while the other is me seeing an incomplete introduction to an issue that occurred in the past, which is my right to point out, because it was misleading - maybe from favoritism, and therefore, with obvious negative intentions for me. Notice I never actually said anything explicit about me thinking either way, I said it raises questions of impartiality, as mentioning a "block" immediately leads to negative connotations without due context). This is actually a real-time example of a twisting of events he is concocting here, to push me out. Radlrb (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

At that time, I took "one of them was blocked" from Dedhert.Jr (in the diff David Eppstein provided) as hinted at me, since it has been the general experience (I believe) that David Eppstein has not been admonished for his oft-times demeaning attitude with editors (so its less likely to assume that the person blocked would be, David Eppstein). Radlrb (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this combative response, together with the admonishment above it "to keep discussions cooperative and on topic", speaks for itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No combative tone here, actually, just facts defending my response. Some of it is accusatory toward you, however that is not necessarily aggressive, just sharp. Radlrb (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Reading carefully Talk:1234 (number) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#1234 (number) and the edit history of the article, I can offer some tips on how to avoid this sort of personality conflict in future interactions. I don't share this commentary to assign blame or because anyone's supposed to be perfect (personally I'm kind of blunt and generally terrible at navigating emotionally charged conversations) but in the genuine hopes of improving future cooperation.

• This dispute should probably have ended when Radlrb said, "I found it interesting within its class of numbers. Do what you want you with it, I'm done fighting irrationally over things here." If that was your feeling, Radlrb, and there were two editors against and only one editor in favor, I'm not sure why you didn't just accept the removal as you said you were going to, given it's a minor fact and there are probably more important things to use your time on.
• On the other hand, if you actually do want to spend time defending this inclusion, arguing for it with detailed reasons and better sourcing are desirable responses to a removal based on unimportance, and you did that, so well done there. However when doing so, using language like "Seriously, stop, you're being petty now." (as Radlrb did) is not appropriate. It's a bit of a personal attack, and violates the guideline "assume good faith". It also seems to come out of frustration more than from actual evidence. I don't see any reason to think David Eppstein is removing this tidbit for any reason other than what he stated: he does not believe it is relevant to the article or important enough to include. That rationale was already supported by another editor, so it would be arrogant to assume it is without a reasonable, rational basis.
• David Eppstein replied on the talk page "Radlrb please stop edit-warring to add your junk WP:SYNTH non-interesting property to this article. It should be removed. Despite most of this conversation being dominated by your walls of text replying to yourself I see no other supporters of this content." Radlrb was not simply reverting the removed content, but modifying it to try to address other editors' concerns. Characterizing this as "edit-warring" seems to me a bit inaccurate, but regardless of whether it's correct or not, making a personal accusation is more likely to annoy the other editor and make them uncooperative than it is to encourage them to have a rational discussion. Criticizing another editor's talk page writing style in this way is unhelpful; it's almost certainly going to be perceived as disrespectful, and it's not necessarily something that someone can easily change about their personality. My advice would be to focus on the content of the article and the merits of the arguments made, rather than the style or the messenger. You could simply say, "I see you added mention of property X back to the article. The new {phrasing, sourcing, whatever} doesn't establish its importance because ___." Instead of attacking the author's "wall of text" writing style, you could respond on the merits with something like "I didn't see anything in the above reply that convinces me that this property is important." and ideally some specifics indicating you read and considered the good-faith arguments being made. You could wait a bit to see if the reply changed the mind of the other editor in support of removal was convinced, but if not, you could say it's two editors for removal and one against, so the choices going forward are either removal in X timeframe or solicitation of more opinions.
• Radlrb did indeed remark that the previous comment was rude, so I can see why they got upset at this point. Part of their reply was: "Interesting would be to see you respond to some of my points, rather than ignore them. It could give validity to your perspective, however you do not want to engage. In the light of true intellectual pursuit, you come heavily short, and all from substantial prejudice you still hold against me, and people of the like, who are willing to cross bludgeoned barriers of destruction that continue to exist today. But you're not the type to fight such heavy things." Everything after the word "perspective" here is an attack on David Eppstein. It's pretty unrealistic to think that David is going to go, "Oh, you're right. I didn't realize I was doing that. Sorry, let's talk about this rationally in detail or maybe just restore your proposed text." Responding to rudeness with rudeness is probably just going to fray everyone's nerves and reduce willingness to cooperate or find agreement. If you're asking them to engage with you, telling them they don't want to engage is a good way to thwart your own purpose - telling people how they feel or what they think is never received well, especially if - as in this case - it's probably factually incorrect. Accusing them of bias against you and questioning their commitment to intellectual pursuit is going to hurt a lot, and could easily make an enemy out of someone who wasn't actually one to begin with. If you can find it within yourself to respond to rudeness with calmness and rationality, you will not only look like the more reasonable person in the conversation, but you will also be more likely to reach a satisfactory compromise. A better reply here would have been, "I changed the added text in X way to try to respond to your concerns. If that wasn't satisfactory, was there something else that could be added in terms of sourcing or context to address them? Did you find (brief reference to best argument in long previous post) unconvincing?" This forces them to think about possible compromises if they want to look like a reasonable person without accusing them of being unreasonable, and makes it easy for them to engage with your arguments even if they were too annoyed to read them the first time, without accusing them of not engaging.
• When this got taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#1234 (number), Dedhert.Jr wrote: "Previously, both users had already edited war in the article Golden ratio, and one of them was blocked." and then mentioned what the dispute was about and asked for more opinions. Radlrb replied: 'I'm not sure why you mention "one of them was blocked" unless you are purpusefully trying to tilt the scales'. I assume Dedhert.Jr wrote that to explain why this dispute was serious enough to merit WikiProject attention: these editors have been in a dispute before that got so bad one of them had to be blocked, so we need to talk about this in a broader forum and diffuse the conflict. This also sends a signal to other editors that emotions are running high, so it would be good to phrase comments carefully and in a sensitive fashion, to avoid making the interpersonal conflict worse. Radlrb, you were the one blocked in the previous conflict. The fact that Dedhert.Jr did not mention you by name was doing you a favor, avoiding making you look like the worst offender. It's a bit ironic that a comment going out of its way to avoid biasing the conversation against you was used as evidence of bias against you. In general, it's unhelpful to think of Wikipedia editors in terms of friends and foes, of settling into factions. Treating groups of editors as tribal enemies leads to persistent violations of the "assume good faith" rule, and generally prevents otherwise-easily-resolved conflicts from getting settled in a quick and cooperative fashion. It's also usually just plain wrong - most of the time, people who revert our edits, argue with us on talk pages, or complain about us on WP:AN/I, are not out to get us. Usually they just disagree with the changes we're making or the behavior we're exhibiting.
• Radlrb had this idea that because over time so many more people read Wikipedia articles than editors who try to change them, any attempt to change long-standing content must be erroneous because of all the people who didn't object. That's very wrong. I used to work in customer service, where the rule of thumb was that for every 1 customer who called in to complain about something, there were probably literally 1000 others who felt the same way but didn't contact us to complain (assuming it was something that affected everyone and not just that we had messed up their individual order). Most people just don't have time or the emotional energy to engage in that sort of conflict, even though it's actually very helpful feedback for a catalog company and a powerful way to fact-check and NPOV-balance Wikipedia. In general, I assume the opinions of readers are probably proportional to editor opinions, to the degree that editors are a representative sample. If the prevailing view on talk pages seems out of whack and it's important enough to spend more editor time on the question, the best way to determine this for real is to increase the sample size of editors and draw opinions from a larger group, possibly not limited to enthusiasts of one topic, if you need it really representative. (For example, a site-wide RFC is useful if we're figuring out how to clearly explain something to non-experts in a field, but consulting a WikiProject is better if you are seeking enlightened experts who can fact-check a dubious claim or have an informed opinion about sources or something.)
• Radlrb wrote: "Well, if you don't follow what I am saying, then you very likely don't understand the very subject matter we are speaking of, I think." I think it's poor form to assume someone is having trouble following what I wrote because they're stupid, and tell them that to their face, rather than assuming that what I wrote was unclear. A better response is to figure out why the original explanation is unclear and clarify, apologize for unclearness and offer to clarify if that would help, or just ignore the "I didn't follow you" as unproductive to respond to and move on in the discussion, trying to be more clear and concise in future comments. Yes, it's possible the other person simply doesn't have the expertise to follow the argument, but it's much more graceful for them to be the one to say that or for us to politely ignore that while accepting everyone's input as valuable - especially since if something is too complicated for interested editors to understand, most readers are going to have similar problems.

-- Beland (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Great points, thank you Beland, and I agree with most of what you have expressed. Without a doubt, I lament my behavior. I extend my apologies to @David Eppstein, I'm sorry. I do cherish and value your work here on Wikipedia, and more generally the scholarly work you put forth elsewhere; you continue to write with fortitude. I also extend my apologies to @Dedhert.Jr, @Jacobolus, @XOR'easter, @Gumshoe2, and @100.36.106.199, and also extend it to @Dhrm77, @Imaginatorium, and @Certes, as well as everyone involved here and elsewhere that was directly affected, dissapointed, and dismayed at my poor and selfish responses that are not in my character. I know this is not enough, however maybe it can lay a path toward reconciliation and understanding. Radlrb (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Beland Thank you for this thorough response. Much to learn from it I think. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

TBAN for User:Radlrb

Well... it was inevitable. For all we mathematicians like to pretend we are the only field that deals in universal truths the fact of the matter is, there is WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE in math, as in any other field (for a good example, see the trainwreck that is IUTT). In this case, it is pretty clear that the user in question has rather WP:FRINGE opinions on what is mathematically WP:DUE and has thus created vast reams of low-relevance text made worse by a general inability to write in a way that is penetrable to others. I think disconnecting the user in question from the topic in question might help ameliorate this issue. Frankly, and as a math major, I say: Wikipedia's math articles should be getting more accessible, not less. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You could, could give a definitive warning first (an ultimatum on this issue). As I am also willing to undo the edits that are superfluous. Up to administrators, though. See the article for 2, for an example of work that is likely acceptable in your eyes. Else, I'll accept the penalty - I can still provide great quality work if you allow me to finish some pages I think I can put together nicely (the page for 7 is nearly ready for an upgrade in layout of the mathematics section, for example; a well cited mathematics section). Radlrb (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I think Talk:2 would be a good place to start. It includes two bits of your contributions which have been removed. The first is the mysterious "digits of pi" which I spent quite a lot of time struggling to understand, and which I believe amounts to the following: "Consider the initial subsequences of the digits of pi, including at least one digit after the decimal place. (i.e. as strings: 31, 314, 3141, 31415, 314159) Then the first four terms represent sets of consecutive (positive) naturals, excluding only 2. And that's it? Then there are some apparently unrelated equivalences, and I can make no sense of your attempted explanation. And I do not really think that any of the "Transcendental numbers" section is really relevant, because it just amounts to finding expressions including the number 2. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel at least, one is particularly valuable as it provides an actual property of

the number 2: one can generate e very simply with a pattern involving 2. If there is more consensus, let’s remove it! (Certes in his last conversation with me mentioned the example with pi, yet not e as superfluous). The one for pi is a well known example, and one of the simplest, which is why I chose to include it. Maybe a mention is warranted that it is not the only such fraction, and one of many. It still is a property of 2 I believe, since one cannot so the same with 3 nearly as nicely, or 17 say, without making it look much more complicated most likely (one can actually make that formula look like something entirely different if one wishes… by manipulating both sides of an equation). Again, I’m alright with removing them, the one for e is the one I find particularly relevant, feel free to do so. Radlrb (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The strings example has already been removed for some time, and you recently rid the image I had put there. I’ll give my rationale for it on the talk page after work today. Radlrb (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If anything, saying that the articles on 7 and 2 are "likely acceptable in [my] eyes" shows the depth of the problem. I'm a math major and I can tell you that talk of "heptagons in Eucledean space" (just call it a heptagon for crying out loud, we know what you mean and furthermore, should only be in the heptagon article), or "all cubes are congruent to" (pretty irrelevant if you ask me), or the Fano plane (I doubt anyone is looking for that on the article for THE NUMBER 7) or Wythoff symbols, or... I could go on, the point is, that, besides maybe a few short factoids (that could probably be trimmed down for readability), these article's math sections need to go. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like consensus on this from other editors, since it seems to me this is not a proper reading of properties and their validity on the page for 7. The point on heptagons, in Euclidean space specifically, is needed to disambiguate from heptagons in hyperbolic space, which do tile the plane. That's for that. The point on cubes congruent modulo 7 I did not add (it was @Seckends), and it seems very relevant. The Fano plane point describes the smallest finite projective plane, with an order in proportion to 7, with a structure of 7 points and 7 lines such that every line contains 3 points and 3 lines cross every point, whose incidence graph "embeds in three dimensions as the Szilassi polyhedron, the simplest toroidal polyhedron alongside its dual with 7 vertices, the Császár polyhedron". Obviously relevant. The Wythoff points are definitely relevant as well, not only as a count, but to show that 7 is the number of uniform tilings that are Wythoffian (some of this can in fact be reduced some, and I will reduce it here too, in good-fath - to show you that I am serious here in making amends, and further the encyclopedic value of these pages vis-a-vis verifiable sourcing). There are also points of dimensionality, freeze groups (that has been there for a while, here as counts of 7 too), and other valuable points as well. Radlrb (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN - Radlrb has shown they don't know what should be included in a numerical wikipedia article. The section Imaginatorium points out on Talk:2 about the insertion "In decimal representation, after the first two, three, four and five digits in the approximation of $\pi (\approx 3.14159)$ the number 2 is the only digit greater than zero not yet represented (overall, up to the largest appearing digit). [Where also, operations of strings $1\times 2^{2}=4$ and $5-3=2$ are collectively satisfied.]" is ridiculous. It's the mathematical equivalent of playing with dolls. "If you take a constant, and then turn it into decimal, and then take only the first few digits, and then interpret that as a set, then it will have all the digits except 2 (or 0, or some other digits)" - this is no way an interesting property of the number 2. This is like if I went to pear and added "if you peel an orange, you can cut the peel up and rearrange it in a particular way to spell the word 'pear'". It's meaningless WP:OR. When pointed out to Radlrb that this was arbitrary they posted a comment saying It's cool, more than just cool...incredibly interesting and telling if you have the sensitivity to understand how immensely useful and absolute most unlikely to be trivial, if you don't think its meaningful then you don't think so, but if you have any hope for something in mathematics that makes sense, instead of fronting the same arguments over and over, over "trivialities" that I am adding (meaning you are not really clicking with what is going on here), then you will noot want it removed.. Yesterday, they seemed to be heading towards an edit war while adding similiar pieces of trivia to 18 (number). On one re-addition (of a "if you add a bunch of carefully cherrypicked numbers together, they total another number" style fact), they included a very pointy edit summary "that is obviously a nice property (when having normal personal mathematical saliency, that is)". When another editor removed these useless facts and explained why, Radlrb just immediately added them all back in and added another one, ignoring the protests. From what I can see they are (whatever their intentions) creating messes for other editors to pick through and clean up - TBAN is the right way to go. BugGhost🦗👻 09:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You chose select examples. I've written plenty of material, what are your views on the other material I have added on 2, most of which has not been contested? Check the page for 9, for 8, for 7, for 6, as well as for other pages such as 17 (all uncontested so far, care to look through so you will see there are good additions made? Some points I will also remove from these pages). This seems like a biased analysis, as you have not vetted a large pool of my additions, and therefore are cherry-picking. Yes, I agree those additions for 2 were not productive here on WP (I did compound multiple points on that quote, if it's read through all the way, which gives more validity to its substance, however viewed as FRNG or not). Check the material added to the other pages below 11, and please tell us what you think, and if you still believe they are not worthy points added (no contest has been submitted to my additions for those pages I mentioned above, for integer articles between 3 and 10, aside from 5).

Also, in good-faith of this discussion, I have started to revert some of my additions, however I won't get the chance to do real work on these until a week from now, as I am not with my computer at the moment, and am working most of this week at least 12 hours a day. Radlrb (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia:Wikiproject Numbers where I led changes to a now-greatly improved guidelines (will add more on SYNTH/OR), and improved the Project Page into more refined working order. This, so that you see that I do also know what to include in these number articles; I'm not in anyway a "crackpot", like the User IP 100.36.106.199 said of me on the Mathematics Project discussion thread. I do know what I am talking about, putting aside the SYNTH bits (that I thought were relevant additions, but not for here; how people define triviality is defined differently over time, as we understand more intricate details that merge properties together, in light of parsimony, regardless of personal objections to seeming-"numerology"). Radlrb (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The articles pointed out confirms my vote. In the articles you point out as your "good work":

• 9 - your most recent edit adds The regular hexagon contains a total of nine diagonals, and is one of only four polytopes with radial equilateral symmetry such that its long radius (center to vertex length) is the same as the edge-length: (the hexagon), the cuboctahedron, the tesseract, and the 24-cell.. This was added under immediately under the heading "Polygons and tilings", and actually pushes down relevant info like A polygon with nine sides is called a nonagon.. This change includes one tenuously relevant piece of info about the number 9, and then some completely irrelevant jargon-filled info about hexagons, with no citation. People who visit 9 are not looking for trivia about hexagons.
• 8 - no substantial edits since January
• 7 - [19] Cites [20] for the claim the heptagon is the only convex polygon to have a one-to-two ratio between the number of its sides and diagonals., which is not interesting or relevant, and also not in source - either based in WP:OR or WP:SYNTH
• 6 - [21] - you added a piece of useless geometry-based trivial about the number 25 (not 6), completely unrelated to the preceding sentence, which was about aliquot sums.
• 17 (number) - [22] - added far too much detail about the behaviour of subatomic particles (I wish I was joking), completely unsourced.

I didn't cherrypick these examples, they are all the most recent non gnoming/copy-editing edit in each of them. Your changes on these articles only goes to show the breadth of this problem and reaffirms the need for a topic ban. I also would ask you to not add/edit guidelines on SYNTH/OR considering this situation at hand. BugGhost🦗👻 13:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That's definitely looks like a type of cherry picking, with respect. Are there any other facts in those number pages that you disagree with? Because, thats less than 5% of content I added in each of the pages you mentioned. For the page for 8, what you see in the mathematics section, I wrote and expanded most of it (and organized it as you see). I am asking for a more comprehensive summary of your views of content I added in these pages. Could you please do that? In honor of your points that you mentioned as being superfluous, I will remove them now, except for the heptagon point, as I see it worth mentioning, and even @Dhrm77 protected an edit that was trying to word it differently, 1. Radlrb (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not replying further - I presented 2 examples, and then when you wanted more, I posted 4 more examples of your unhelpful changes, from recent changes from articles you specifically cited as your good work. This response is just WP:IDHT and WP:SATISFY. If I post 5 more examples (which I could), you will just ask for 5 more. One final thing I will point out is to show that you should be TBANNED from editing number-based articles is the 2,000 word essay on your userpage that has such insights as: These three unifying states are themselves united into a single state of equanimity (16, a value representing the ninth composite number), such that these two polar opposing states and middle state are united into a healing and sustaining flow of expression (all-feeling, all-knowing, and all-fulfilling). This yields sixteen elements (1-16). A state of rest of this equanimity is full sleep (0, the only number aside from 9 to yield a digit sum that is the same as the original number added to it, as with any final numeral-number in a given base, here in decimal), which is the root emotional and mental element. - I don't think it's a good idea to have someone who has this kind of relationship with numbers to be editing mathematical articles. BugGhost🦗👻 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Correct, your input is not comprehensive and is selective of evidence, so does not satisfy "beyond reasonable doubt" so to speak, your vote, just shows bias you have and are unwilling to actually present wholesome evidence. What's on my personal user page should tell you that I think out of the box, and yes, think critically beyond what we know today. After all, that's how new knowledge is born, not out of stagnation. However that does not change the fact that I added great information in the first 10 integer articles. I will make a list of the points I have added, and will check mark the information that is clearly admissible, so that you can see actually (you likely do not know, by how you are describing my edits) what I have added! Radlrb (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

From my experience with User:Radlrb's edits, he has done a mix of good and some controversial/fringe/unorthodox edits in the WP:WPM area. So, I'm not sure if TBAN means Temporary Ban, Topic Ban or some other form of Banning, and I don't know if that would accomplish the ultimate goal of keeping the peace and keeping Wikipedia both informative and not filled with obscure or fringe cruft, but I support some form of action that would go in that direction. Dhrm77 (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

TBAN is Topic Ban, I believe. Radlrb (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Tban even above Radlrb is showing IDHT. Also some minor bludgeoning Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Tban for the examples given directly above, followed by Radlrb's accusations of "cherrypicking" and excuse that they are "thinking out of the box". Radlrb says to go check out the articles on 2 and 7, and when it's pointed out that they added bad content to 2, Radlrb says to look at more pages. When there are problems on those pages, Radlrb says it's "cherrypicking" again. This is WP:IDHT and arguing in bad faith. "I sometimes add content that hasn't yet been challenged" is not a good excuse for adding bad content. Also, announcing that you're "thinking out of the box" because "that's how new knowledge is born" violates WP:OR. Toughpigs (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  IDHT more from people here, that don't want to see the majority of the valuable points that I have added, so they only highlight the minority points in hope that it will flood over the actual evidence. For this, I can seek mediation from higher Wikimedia bodies, if this unfair treatment still persists, entirely against guidelines (ironic, because I am being framed for violating policies that here I was willing to fix, and after I gave heart-felt apologies). Also, the misquoting, taking my own words out of context. A lot of hypocrisy unfortunately, and worse, deep prejudice that does not want to come out from most (some are more vocal about it). Radlrb (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's "bad faith" to have an overly high opinion of one's own edits. If one doesn't think they are good, one probably wouldn't have made them in the first place. WP:AGF says "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful." I see no evidence Radlrb is playing a game or trying to put material they think is harmful or self-serving or deliberately provocative into Wikipedia. It seems they are simply trying to share information they think is interesting with people interested in that type of information. Yes, it's often original research and excessive detail and meandering off-topic, but that's a disagreement over what is good, not a conflict between good and evil. -- Beland (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Radlrb has posted a declaration of retirement but is still commenting. XOR'easter (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Correct. I can still talk in relevant spaces in retirement since it has to do with me, without editing articles directly. I'm making sure my voice is heard, regardless of people trying to silence me. Radlrb (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  From the template documentation: Do not use this template unless you plan to completely and permanently stop editing. Other templates are available if you might return at a later date, or if you plan to significantly reduce your activity. XOR'easter (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. I am generally a sentimental softie and don't like recommending sanctions, but by now I think it's unavoidable here. Spamming number articles with nearly incomprehensible prose about points that are either esoteric or trivial is bad. Failing to understand the problem after multiple other editors have tried to explain it is worse. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Conversations with Radlrb are uniquely exasperating. Any disagreement will be called either "passive-aggressive" (here) or "combative" (here). They argue for including content because It seems to be "nice" (here) or It's cool, more than just cool (quoted above), while taking offense at being told they are relying on their personal opinion (here again). They'll say that an article needs to read with structure, rather than a seemingly haphazard listing of data (back here), while producing the most haphazard agglomeration of mathematical factoids that I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I don't doubt they're working with the best of intentions, but those good intentions have paved the road to abysmal articles. XOR'easter (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is taken out of context, with old information and quotes that have the effect of distorting facts as they stand today, as I am already removing in good-faith much of the content in dispute, meaning this is an effort to make it seem as if the main issue still persists. Yes, in the past, my commentary was not voiced in the best way possible. The dry tone that you use, and the lack of affirmation of my work already, points to the idea that you are being passive-aggressive, and that you possibly do not hold good-faith intentions in remedying this collaboratively with me, rather just want to push me out of WP regardless. So, given my efforts, it seems yes, that you are not still not understanding that I added much great content. In other words, flooding the good WP:DUE I have contributed with instances of SYNTH, and making it seem as if I have added apparently no good content at all. And no, I have already agreed, multiple times, to reductions, so "Any disagreement will be called either 'passive-aggressive' (here) or 'combative' (here)" is incorrect, and not all articles I have worked on are in an "abysmal" state; this is wrong. Radlrb (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  XOR'easter has been collaborating with you, and I see no evidence they are doing so "bad faith" - that implies they are intentionally sabotaging the collaboration in order make you look bad. They are supporting a topic ban because you have been difficult to work with, and making an accusation of bad faith without good evidence is a violation of WP:AGF and actually does make it hard to work with you. -- Beland (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think he has been collaborating with me, actually. He has possibly been "needing to work through me" in his eyes, is how I feel. Collaboration has a different connotation, where the language becomes much more aggreable between editors. I have tried, and continue to try, to be respectful, however his shortness is definitely frustrating, as are his invalid representations of what is transpiring here, as when he says "Any disagreement will be called either 'passive-aggressive' (here) or 'combative' (here)'", which is not the case, I have yielded plenty. Aren't my reverts evidence of this?? I am not assuming bad faith, I am seeing his very words, where he still persists and lies to say that I write abysmal articles only; that is bad-faith from him because I have clearly attempted to revert some of my SYNTH, and also have great material generated, which he does not comment on. Radlrb (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  You're assuming XOR'easter would agree that some significant fraction of the content you've added to articles is good, which I wouldn't take as a given. I don't disagree that "any disagreement" is a bit of an exaggeration, but I do understand why this has been added to their reasons to support a topic ban.

  My advice, if you don't want to give people ammunition to use against you? Only talk about content on talk pages and don't address the attitudes or behavior of other editors at all. Then no one will have any grounds to come here and complain about the words you are using to describe them or their actions. It will also generally cause them to focus more on resolving the content issues on the merits, even if it involves ignoring sharp elbows and perceived slights. -- Beland (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes (WP:DUE passes many of the points, as with 2, where he has not reverted most points, but why not mention this directly so that it is more a true representation of the altogether possible summary of my work), and Yes (I am trying to not get annoyed, but this all still hurts, because well, I am human, and have lived through thick in thin like many of us, and gee, no one likes to be misrepresented, since that goes straight to the soul and the view of worth in the eyes of others). Radlrb (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have not "reverted most points" in the article 2 because I know that you will just undo my edit and then complain about it! XOR'easter (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, I would ask for consensus, as people have asked to do first. Radlrb (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  It seems as humans we're remarkably inaccurate at determining the thoughts and motivations of people on the other side of the text-only Internet. -- Beland (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  It is such a limitation. I would love to just get on a mass conference-call and speak in "real-life". Radlrb (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Even so, I am starting to think once more that it is moot for me to do any of this self-reverting if all that will be seen is that I have done poor work. Let me point out that Certes said before his retirement on his talk page: "I haven't looked through your contributions in detail but I do think your work has been of worth and that you are contributing worthwhile information", while also stating "However, I do think that you sometimes go into more detail than is ideal, especially when the text is not primarily about the article's topic." 1. Imaginatorium also stated back in December 2023 at Wikiproject Numbers: "@Radlrb: in particular has done a huge amount of work on these articles, most of it in the right direction I think, yet some of it highly dubious to me" 2. This was near the end of last year, a whole almost two years since I started editing. Radlrb (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Certes told you back in June, Yes, it is our duty to reveal published information, which means summarising reliable sources rather than drawing conclusions for ourselves. Mathematics is unusual in that statements can be proven true even if they don't appear in the literature, but we should still follow Wikipedia's general rule that we are reporting knowledge rather than creating it. To be blunt, I don't think you've learned that yet. Less than an hour ago, you called my attempt to re-explain that to you quite the personal attack and declared that it goes without saying that this was a comment aimed at insulting me [23]. Being willing to remove (some of) your additions only after other editors have poured hours into trying to work with you ... well, it's better than never removing your additions at all, but it still means that trying to work together with you is ... I'm trying to think of a more polite term than "time sink", but that's about the size of it. XOR'easter (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Correct, while also stating "I do think your work has been of worth and that you are contributing worthwhile information" first, meaning he acknowledged my good work as well (notice he said I sometimes "go into more detail than is ideal, especially when the text is not primarily about the article's topic"), the word used is sometimes, which some others do not agree with. I wanted to show everyone here that there have been outstanding editors that have seen my good work here. Working with me does not have to be a "time sink" (a bit harsh). Think of it from my point of view, you add substantial important information, but only an adverse side is noticed by someone. It is not fair.
  He said, let me emphasize, that my work (overall, most likely he meant) has been of worth. Radlrb (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Davey2116 is another editor that has expressed such understanding (that's three already). Radlrb (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know why you're pulling quotes from months ago while, when I quote things you've written in the past couple days, that's old information and quotes that have the effect of distorting facts as they stand today. I don't know why you say of me, he still persists and lies to say that I write abysmal articles only; I don't think I've ever said that 100% of your work is bad. That's not the problem. The problem is that too much of what you have written is unencyclopedic, that after days of attempted explanations it is still not clear that you understand why, that you take unremarkable criticisms of your writing in unreasonably harsh ways, that you react by lashing out and then sometimes striking through. All through this thread, you've taken the attitude that people think you contribute apparently no good content at all. Days ago, you called people pointing out examples of poor editing cherry picking and not comprehensive. But the thing is, it doesn't have to be "comprehensive". If 90% of what you contribute is unobjectionable, and 10% creates a massive drain on other volunteers, then that 10% is the problem. XOR'easter (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  These are quotes others gave, and might not be able to reiterate today, so it is different. Your quotations are of things I said, subjects of which I am now reversing, so they no longer stand (maybe only more minor points, even of the sort such as keeping 5! in the page for 744, that I agreed was in the end not worth keeping given guidelines we might agree on in the end). What is too much? I've been asking of a quantification of this, which stands against what editors like Imaginatorium or Certes pointed to. Lets work on that 10% then (if that is the proportion that is problematic - finally some number came out! And is vastly different than stating that "Radlrb has shown they don't know what should be included in a numerical wikipedia article", as editor BugGhost mentioned in his vote.) I am just asking for KINDNESS. I AM A HUMAN, with a HEART. Radlrb (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN, because of the refusal to listen to others' relevant opinions demonstrated well in the interactions with BugGhost above, and the reliance on original research over published sources demonstrated in their number-related edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN. While some of their edits may indeed be good, the need for continual monitoring to pick out the wheat from the trivial and OR chaff is an unacceptable drain on other editors' time. Given their responses here, they clearly don't understand the problem nor the purpose of Wikipedia, and don't intend to change their behavior. If they really intend to retire then the TBAN is harmless but if they return to editing then the TBAN is necessary. CodeTalker (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Imaginatorium has asked me to chime in here. I don't really have the time or care to slog through the entire backstory of what has transpired here, so feel free to ignore this comment if you think I am missing important context. To the extent I am involved, I reverted Allan Nonymous's BOLD edits at the number articles which were wholesale deletions of content. I was then informed on my talk page that some of the removed content had been contributed by Radlrb, who was the subject of this AN/I discussion, and that I should weigh in here if I find their contributions positive. Personally, I believe that much of the content in question is interesting, informative, and useful; the reader who searches for individual numbers on Wikipedia is looking for exactly this kind of information. So, based only on this involvement it is my opinion that pushing away the editor who created this content would be a loss for Wikipedia. However, I should make clear that the reason I attempted to revert Allan Nonymous's deletions was not that I reviewed every single fact in question and determined that they were all suitable for inclusion; I simply disagree that making such large changes all at once is the right way to go about this. Davey2116 (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  The opinion expressed here is exactly the reason I stopped most editing of number-based articles a year ago. It is clear that there is a community of like-minded editors who like having number articles in states like (to pick only the most recent of Davey2116's restoration of material removed in recent cruft-removal) 744, packed with statement after statement after statement sourced to OEIS and almost as interesting as "744 = 723 + 21".

  It may even be accurate that this is what readers who come to Wikipedia looking at articles on numbers in this range expect and want: they intend to find some factoid to say about this number (for instance, maybe as a lead-in to a blog post) and they don't much care whether there is any mathematical depth to that factoid. That's not a use case I care to contribute my energy to, and I'm not convinced it's encyclopedic, but it is a use case. So eventually, to me, the effort of cleaning up what always seemed to me the Augean stables weighed too much relative to the opposite reaction to appreciation for those cleanups from editors like Davey2116 and I stopped. But I applaud others who have the fortitude to continue cleaning this up. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is not a fair representation of what happened. Davey2116 didn't restore the content because they think meaningless trivia belongs in the article, but because Allan Nonymous's deletions went too far, removing high quality encyclopaedic content written by users (including myself) who have been actively removing trivia and developing the articles with GA quality prose. Polyamorph (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your advocacy of the same cruft does not change my evaluation that it is cruft. Also "I worked so hard putting all this cruft into the article and it's unfair to just remove it" does not count for much to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm clearly not advocating for the inclusion of "cruft" but the manner in which it is being removed, taking genuine high quality encyclopaedic content (like that which I contributed to at the article 1) out with it. I'm not impressed. Polyamorph (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your "genuine high quality encyclopaedic content" is my cruft. And your "taking content like that which I contributed" is my "I worked so hard putting all this cruft in". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think you've read my contributions at all, if you had you would know it is not "cruft". Polyamorph (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Please be open to the possibility that someone has read your additions and decided that they are too much detail for that encyclopedia article. Not everyone has the same priorities and interests on a given topic.

  And folks, just typing back and forth "it's cruft!" and "it's not cruft!" isn't getting anywhere. We're discussing changing the guidelines on what should and shouldn't be included on integer articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers. Being more specific about what is and isn't important in a huge pile of changes would be helpful, as would be specific reasons for why readers would be interested. -- Beland (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Beland that it would be more productive to discuss specific things at WP Numbers than to back-and-forth about whether Polyamorph is a "cruft-pusher". Mathwriter2718 (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment the wholesale removal of the content at the integer articles by Allan Nonymous were totally reckless, removing high quality prose written collaboratively by multiple authors in addition to the so-called WP:CRUFT. It is for this reason they have been reverted, not because anyone wants to keep trivia. It's a case of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There is a discussion about this at the numbers wikiproject. Polyamorph (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN seems moot at this point as Radlrb appears to have retired. Some of their comments suggest they are not in the best state of mind. My interactions with them suggest they are a good faith editor that tries to do the right thing. I also note Radlrb's apology above. I'm not impressed that the user that proposed this TBAN has been systematically mass deleting content on numbers articles without consensus. Polyamorph (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  People often announce that they're "retired" during ANI discussions, and then come back shortly after the discussion is over. Radlrb announced their retirement two days ago, and then kept posting here. The topic ban is still necessary to prevent further disruption. Toughpigs (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  On the basis of what policy infringement. It just comes across as a content dispute with a few disgruntled editors taking there chance to dismiss an editor that annoys them. Polyamorph (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  This dismissal of alternate opinions, well represented in the comments here, as "a few disgruntled editors" is exactly the same pattern of failing to consider seriously any disagreement that has been so problematic in the behavior of Radlrb. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  How pleasant. Polyamorph (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  They never actually declared that they were retired. They added a "retired" template to their user page but did not mean that they were leaving completely, which is what the template is supposed to be used for. Any claim that a TBAN would be moot because of their retirement is unfounded. XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I still plan to retire after this is done, I only came back because there was misrepresentation of my work, and because I wanted to clean up after myself. Radlrb (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I gently urge that further discussions about specific removals of content we should make, comments about recent reversions made by editors other than User:Radlrb, and generally material relevant to WikiProject Numbers but not relevant to sanctions against Radlrb, be placed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Help remove WP:CRUFT on number articles! and not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathwriter2718 (talk • contribs)

  Of course, but when it comes off the back of a kneejerk reaction to Radlrb's additions and is by the very same user who is proposing a TBAN, then it is of relevance for the admins reading this. Comes back to this essentially being a content dispute. Polyamorph (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Mathwriter2718 (talk) Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment it is clear, with all the edit warring now occurring at the integer articles, that this is about more that just one problematic editor. this accusation of "continued cruft-pushing brigading" is both untrue and a personal attack and was met with further hostility and doubling down by David Eppstein when challenged on their talk page, to the extent that they accused another admin of also being part of a tag team. There is edit warring by Allan Nonymous at the numbers pages, and refusal to engage in the very discussion that they initiated at wikiproject numbers. Folks need to calm down, engage in discussions, stop throwing around "cruft" as if it's a valid reason to dismiss good faith editors contributions in their entirety and frankly start being a lot friendlier to your fellow editors. Polyamorph (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Radlrb has officially come out of retirement (as predicted by some) and made 45 edits this morning to math based articles. Seems to be a combination of restoring deleted content (with pointy edit summaries) but also removing (presumably their own?) additions to numerical articles, citing wp:synth - from first glance it looks like they have taken the criticism in this thread on board and are attempting to course correct - but still are very much against Allan Nonymous' bold deletions. BugGhost🦗👻 11:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  This edit warring needs to stop. The discussion is open at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Proposed_update_for_integer_guidelines. Polyamorph (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Polyamorph with respect I think you are commenting a lot on this topic - it is already very long. I was able to see this project talk topic the other times it was posted. BugGhost🦗👻 13:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  The link to the discussion was not necessarily meant for you but to those who continue to force their opinions in mainspace instead of at that very discussion, in an attempt to prevent any further escalation. Perhaps that is a futile hope, but your comment is noted with thanks, I will not comment further. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not very much against his BOLD deletions. More so, I am against non-consensus removal, as I explained in the edit summaries, as well as question some of his extreme removal of WP:DUE content. Thank you for your words @Bugghost. Please do see that I intend to remove all of my SYNTH, and the reverts on Allan were based on the need to seek consensus before removing mass-content, as multiple other editors asked. Radlrb (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN, given the above return to the exact same problem area editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Notice the changes that I have made since the beginning of this AN/I, and the good-faith edit-removals I have made of the synthesized material I added in the past (that was also in great-faith, of course). Notice that my reverts of the very information described by editors as being worthwhile (see above, as well as words from Mathwriter2718 1) have also been substantiated by other editors recently. The editing of recent mass removals was in consensus with five other editors at least (Beland, Polyamorph, Davey2116, QuicoleJR, and Johnuniq a b), regarding the over-deletion of information that has remained for a long while in various number pages and deleted by Allan Nonymous without consensus (see the pages for all single digit integers aside from 0 as well as select other two-digit integers, actions which he is not repeating nearly as much - gladly the last occurrence was earlier today at 1), and seen as unjustified since it can lead to deletion of valuable information. There is also currently good-faith collaboration over the very requirements that we are seeking to make these articles be of the highest quality that could be, at least for now; for my part, I just recently joined that discussion peripherally, so to speak 2 , and I will also express my own input and proposals for the guidelines in question at WP:WP Numbers (shortly, I hope!). Radlrb (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  None of this absolves you of the issues at hand. You need to step away from this area of editing, and I think a TBAN to force it is the appropriate measure. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Of course it does, undoing bad work is an example of good-faith - it shows that I do understand the transgressions and can be a generator of good content for our number articles. And as other editors have noticed, I have done plenty of good work and is against the idea that "I don't know what to include" - care to comment on my good work, or just notice the bad? Even XOR'easter noted, the 90% and 10% balance, why kick someone out for only 10% of the work, when the other 90% is seen as worthwhile and of quality? It seems you are not being impartial either, as with most of the votes against, and therefore not following assuming good-faith: your point assumes overall bad-faith, and hurts your position, as excluding me from the project clearly is a case of hurting Wikipedia. Also, the vandalism of Allan Nonymous, by which the page for 1 had to become protected, shows hypocrisy at play here to remove valuable information that you are not even willing to vet yourself. Worse yet, you are simply trying to be hurtful, by not providing an avenue for reconcilliation. Radlrb (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not taking a position on sanctions, but I'd like to respond to some unhelpful points made above.

  XOR'easter did not say that 90% of your contributions are acceptable to them, only that even if that were the case, it wouldn't matter if the other 10% were sucking up a huge amount of time from other volunteers.

  Wikipedia:Vandalism says: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Allan Nonymous' changes do appear to be motivated by a desire to reduce clutter and improve Wikipedia; they are not "vandalism" in the sense used in Wikipedia policy.

  Whether other people are hypocrites or have behaved badly as well doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not your behavior is tolerable.

  I would not expect anyone not-voting here to be impartial, and they don't have to be. Many have formed strong opinions that certain behavior is unacceptable and that's why they are here complaining. -- Beland (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I am not convinced that Allan Nonymous was not trying to mass-delete information without consensus on purpose. It's on him after so many iterations of telling him to stop, even after he said he would, did not come through. Also, I asked explicitly for an evaluation of my good work versus that which is superfluous, and it is still not being given. So that a proper assessment of "whether or not I do not know at all if I can contribute material" stands. Whether people are hypocrites does have bearing here, since it gives less validity to their points of view. I am being honest here in calling out bad behavior, as people are calling out mine, and this needs to be taken seriously, and I see no true sign of that, or intention to identify it. I hope this changes, from editors here who have commented here, and from those who have yet to comment that want to, so they also give their honest opinions. I am not going to kneel to unfair treatment. Radlrb (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the point of the quote above is that even when something is done on purpose, against consensus, in a disruptive fashion, it's not necessarily "vandalism".

  If we're supposed to ignore an accusation of bad behavior if it comes from someone who has engaged in bad behavior, then we should ignore your complaints about other editors. If you want us to take your complaints about others seriously, then we should take their complaints about you seriously. Admins here tend to look more at the evidence being pointed to and not who is doing the pointing, which to me seems like the only fair and rational way to operate.

  Politely pointing out the bad behavior of others might help reach a more fair outcome if their behavior would otherwise be unaddressed, but going overboard with name-calling and insinuating bad motivations just provides more evidence that you need to be sanctioned in order to avoid disrupting the project.

  Based on the above conversations, it looks like the percentage of your significant contributions considered "good" ranges from "none" to "some", depending on who you ask. I don't think you're going to get a more quantitative answer than that. The general complaint seems to be that for a long time, you put up an unreasonably big and somewhat uncivil fight over additions which seem to go well beyond what anyone else finds appropriate for inclusion, and arguably run afoul of various Wikipedia policies. Given that you've apologized above for incivility and are now helping clean up all those additions, it's possible this thread will simply be closed with no action taken. I'd say the best way to maximize the possibility of that is to stop commenting here, stop commenting on other editor's actions and motivations on talk pages and in edit summaries, and focus on content and guidelines. Or you could take a break and let other folks deal with the cleanup, and come back later refreshed and more focused on content that has consensus for inclusion. -- Beland (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Somewhat, fair Radlrb (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC) Fair, regarding your advice. My patience is running on almost 0, so we'll see if I survive this emotionally, else you'll know why if I don't, everyone has limits. Radlrb (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think this is a better summary of things than any I could give. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Radlrb's edits restoring bad content to number articles have resumed: see Special:Diff/1239791869. And their unencyclopedic mysticism is on full display in their most recent addition to my talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  This response to the re-removal of that trivia is untenable. Leaping from the assertion that there is no consensus to "and therefore I must be right" is antithetical to collaborative editing. XOR'easter (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't the only person to return that content? Anyways, I'm going with it, I'm not taking it personally or anything, as people here have been wanting me to avoid. Cool? ; ) Radlrb (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, mysticism, and logic! Good friends. Radlrb (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I will soon start removing the SYNTH I added into all the remaining articles; the focus was first on 5 and 744, which were the more developed articles I contributed to. Please allow me some time (no more than a week), to complete this task. I appreciate your patience. Radlrb (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  While I appreciate the gesture here, this doesn't seem to have amounted to a huge change in practice. The behavior that is the subject of the complaint still seems to be here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe, "subject of your the" complaint, however, *respectfully* Radlrb (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC) in agreement with other editors seeking consensus before removal of information at the relevant pages, where other editors also reverted your mass-removals; I have agreed with removals of other edits in the meantime (see, Talk:1, Talk:5, 744, and Talk:1234), all of which have been under greater consensus. I have also continued to work on removing my own SYNTH found elsewhere (please do see my editing history, of course). You also have been forcing guidelines in your edit summaries currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers, which have not yet gathered a vote of consensus to move into the mainspace of the project page, so I am not quite sure why you think my behavior here is not in line with policies where my only retractive additions have been to protect the material other editors are seeking consensus to keep or remove. I would appreciate it a lot if you could clarify your position further. Radlrb (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  If you have not understood after the numerous explanations in this entire section, then I don't think you'll ever understand. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  I showed I did, and am continuing to show it. Radlrb (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  You have not demonstrated an understanding, and even you admit: I am not quite sure why you think my behavior here is not in line with policies. So just outright stating you are following policy when people are saying you are not, is incredibly frustrating. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  At least, quote the exact policies you believe I stated I am going against, please. Radlrb (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Tban The bludgeoning here helps illuminate the problem. Regardless of good intentions, a net negative to Wikipedia.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  "Bludgeoning"? I am replying to each and every one of you directly, as you deserve my attention to your comments, as it seems there is a need to keep illuminating people toward the notion that I am deleting all the "SYNTH", and continuing to add meaningful content, directly in Wikipedia pages (see the article for 11, which is a grand improvement, or the very Wikipedia policy guidelines being drafted for this very issue); so please, familiarize yourself. Ignorance of evidence against abject points being pushed is not evidence of absence. I am not afraid of being pointed with misrepresentations of "bludgeoning", and most of these support votes come from people of the like who do not put weight behind the votes, and this is a grave error that can lead to an incorrect assessment of the matter at hand, and therefore potentially lead to an inappropriate response. Radlrb (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  I am replying to each and every one of you directly, as you deserve my attention to your comments, as it seems there is a need to keep illuminating people toward the notion that I am deleting all the "SYNTH", and continuing to add meaningful content, directly in Wikipedia pages This is, by definition, bludgeoning; people can read the discussion before posting and still not find your explanations persuasive. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  So you're saying, then, that I cannot defend myself? In the case that they are not following appropriately? Radlrb (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Of course you can defend yourself. I'm saying you don't need to post the same thing over and over again in response to people making similar points. You can instead post a separate comment in the thread. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Alright, yes, I agree... I just feel ignored, after I'm trying to do so much work in good-faith of the issues at hand. So apologies if it comes accross as intrusive/interruptive. Radlrb (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  There is administrative leeway for an accused to defend themselves.Polyamorph (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  But Alas, I am done responding also, it seems to not do anything. Radlrb (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. I agree with David & Bugghost's analysis that Radlrb is just inserting weird facts about numbers that have no actual significance. A TBAN is sufficient to prevent further edit-warring and drains on editor time in wall-of-text talk page discussions. I hope that Radlrb will find another topic area to edit productively in. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Time to close?

Can someone resolve this thread one way or the other? The involved editors seem to have started editing relatively harmoniously, but occasionally come back here to criticize each other, and it's not helpful to keep that going. -- Beland (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat what I've said previously, except to say that the user has been proactively removing content considered WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, has been actively collaborating on the revised content guidelines at WP:WikiProject Numbers, has been engaging on talk page discussions. This was, and remains, a content dispute. Polyamorph (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree it is probably time to close. I think this summarizes the issue here better than I can [24]. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Joesphew89

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Joesphew89 (talk · contribs) made edits to New York, Ukraine and Lysychansk that were clearly cases of vandalism (here is a prime example). Their response to a warning on their talk page was "stfu lil bro" and then "then do it what’s stopping you lil bro" after receiving a level 3 warning. Does this warrant a WP:NOTHERE block? They have over 500 edits (I have not checked the other edits) so I am not sure why they are making such edits now. Mellk (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like they stopped yesterday. If it happens again it's probably obvious enough for AIV. QwertyForest (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually I've just indeffed them. One of their edits was to insert racist and homophobic edits (mild but even so) and that's an instant indef in my books. Zero tolerance for any of that stuff. They can sort it out with an unblock request if able. No one should be able to retain or reobtain editing privileges if they make such edits without convincing the community.. Canterbury Tail talk 11:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threats and false accusations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Chauncey Green (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) going on a threatening spree on multiple user’s talk pages for false vandalism charges. Borgenland (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Nope, not false. Everyone I reverted was being disruptive and vandalising pages. You should be thanking me. Chauncey Green (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed three blank spaces from the Louis XV page as part of a minor edit; not sure that counts as disruptive or vandalism. FatPie123 (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Don’t wait for me to bring up your sockpuppetry since January. Borgenland (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

You miiight want to link the appropriate SPI for that, Borgen. We’ve got a lot of LTAs these days. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 10:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

See Simeon Mortensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a start. Borgenland (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I am the primary editor for the Girls Band Cry page responsible for adding much of the relevant information to the page, but I am confused with what information is considered disruptive. JT0219 (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I think Chauncey has had a mental breakdown. I wonder what his original account is so we can take action on that as well. Does anyone have access to what other account this individual may have had access to? His other account might have been banned for nafarious reasons as well. Marty2Hotty (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

My money’s on User:Hamish Ross. Simeon Mortensen is previously  Confirmed to this one. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamish Ross/Archive#30 July 2024). Hamish has been going since 2007ish, and he’s not on WP:LTA? Putting up an SPI, to push a sleeper check. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 14:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I was about to mention this here. This user has been repeatedly warning others with immediate level 4 notices for minor issues or for no identifiable reason whatsoever. Sigma440 (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, Chauncey Green is being disruptive himself right now. The account also just started editing today so it might be worth checking if this is a WP:SOCK. Alin2808 (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Well started editing today, after being created in March. Anyone with goggles wanna check for more sleepers? DMacks (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Not a clerk, but I support a sleeper check. Borgen’s mentioned Simeon Mortensen above, and Czello mentioned Bret Hayes below. Who knows what else is in the wings. Plus the more that NewUsers patrol (like me) learn, the better chance we have to flag them when they’re made, before they do damage. preventing damage before any occurs, as it were. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 10:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Eleazar Conn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems like another sock, they're doing the same thing. Isi96 (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Found this 223.136.110.159 (talk · contribs) from February. Borgenland (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

No objections from me, if you want to add it to my report ([25]) but we both know that CU’s won’t connect an account to an IP. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 14:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to confirm it's all Hamish Ross. No comment on the IP, other than to say I've seen it. Thanks to whoever's been cleaning up. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if this user is a sockpuppet of Bret Hayes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who pursued the same behaviour. — Czello ^(music) 09:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely by WereSpielChequers. Bishonen | tålk 10:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC).

  Also request TPA revocation per their unblock appeal summary. Borgenland (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

   Done DMacks (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• I need to scoot, but if anyone has a bit of time to go through those edits and warnings and clean up it would be useful. There's a whole bunch of bitten newbies out there. ϢereSpielChequers 10:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  I've gone through and reverted everything that was current. — Czello ^(music) 10:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  I’ve chipped in to the first editor he did this to, and explained what’s up, but my train’s getting close to where I’m travelling to, and I’m lunching with the significant other, so time’s catching me up. Anyone else care to jump in? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 10:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Undid a few of his edits as well. Everything should be reverted now (except for the edit on his user page). Alin2808 (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thought I'd help out here too. This has been a really fun task for me and has got me motivated, especially the variety of replies from the victims. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 14:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kobzar1917 and WP:RUSUKR

I have warned this user multiple times about WP:RUSUKR and they are still not following this, while also following my edits and making disruptive reverts (see their talk page). I gave them one last warning a few days ago about RUSUKR (after they made this revert without giving a valid reason) and now they decided to make this edit about the Russia–Ukraine war again while again following my edits and making unexplained reverts on articles they have never edited before, for example this edit. I have already warned them countless times but they are not listening. Not once have they responded on their talk page. I would suggest an indefinite block due to WP:NOTHERE while also continually violating WP:RUSUKR. Mellk (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Samirlalas Engaging in Edit Warring and Vandalism After Using IP Account

Dear Administrators,

I am reporting User:Samirlalas for engaging in persistent edit warring and vandalism, particularly on the Ogaden article. This user has a history of disruptive behavior that began with edits made under the IP address 148.252.144.47. After I requested protection for the Ogaden article due to this vandalism, the user switched to the registered account "Samirlalas" to continue the edit war.

**Evidence of Misconduct:**

1. [IP Contributions] – The IP account 148.252.144.47 was used to vandalize multiple articles related to Horn of Africa history, including the Ogaden article. The edits made under this IP show a pattern of inserting unsourced information and engaging in edit warring.

2. [Warning on User Talk Page] – I warned User:Samirlalas about their disruptive behavior, emphasizing the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's content policies, specifically WP:V (verifiability) and WP:NOR (no original research).

3. [Diff 1] – User:Samirlalas reverted sourced content and replaced it with unsourced material, continuing the pattern observed under the IP address.

4. [Diff 2] – Despite the warning, the user again inserted unsourced information, claiming that Kenya and Djibouti bordered the Ogaden, a claim not supported by the sources.

The similarities in editing style, subject matter focus, and conduct between the IP account and the registered account strongly suggest that the same individual is responsible for these disruptive edits. The user has shown a clear intent to bypass protective measures and continue violating Wikipedia’s content guidelines.

I am requesting administrator intervention to prevent further disruption and to address this user’s repeated attempts to undermine the integrity of Wikipedia articles. Blocking the IP address and the user account may be necessary to stop the continued vandalism and edit warring.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best regards,  

Replayerr

--- Replayerr (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey Replayyer this account @Samirlalas is also a sockpuppet account of a previous user who was blocked for edit warring and abusing multiple accounts. This account is a sockpuppet of @Bennyblanco10 and should be reported immediately to administrators. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I have found a strong case stipulating that he is indeed @Bennyblanco10 in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bennyblanco10 Replayerr (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I have already reported the user to Administrators but i suggest you add your case with evidence at the sockpuppet investigation. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Potential COI and NPOV issues with Grail Movement and related articles

See [26] by Calvasche. They (i.e. a fellow religionist) performed this trick at the de.wiki with the help of an ex-admin. We should not allow them to whitewash the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

See also Grail Movement (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch tgeorgescu (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

[27] indicates they have a WP:COI. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest long-term semi-protection for the two articles, Abd-ru-shin and Grail Movement and indef for Calvasche per WP:NOTHERE. Jeppiz (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Jeppiz. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

False signing

I'm planning on taking this direct to SPI after completing this report, but I'm very troubled to learn that someone else can use my own signature to misrepresent a statement I did not make.

• Jaheim1987 (talk · contribs)

The above editor (which is a likely sock of JaheimHines (talk · contribs)) decided to create a nonsense AfD for a non-existent article and posted a notice on a user talk page for WikiText2005 (talk · contribs) (themselves likely a Jaheim sock) here with my signature, thus I received notice of it when I checked my watchlist. Very troubled that someone can do this and I wonder if there's a way to block false signatures. Nate • (chatter) 21:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It also looks like WikiTest falsely signed as @AntiDionysius: and @Nettrom: here and here. Nate • (chatter) 21:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

And to add I have blocked WikiText2000, WikiText2005, WikiText2003 and WikiTest2004 as socks. The last two are also globally locked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response/blocks, Rick, I appreciate it. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism and ban evasion

Recently, a vandal has been targeting articles related to historical figures, languages, and places. The IPs that they have used to do so include the following (all Brazilian):

• 177.47.251.160
• 200.173.172.59
• 177.58.252.93
• 177.47.251.225

The pages that they have targeted include the following, arranged in chronological order:

History of the Malay language (subsequently reverted by user Austronesier) History of the Malay language round 2 (subsequently reverted by user Austronesier) History of the Malay language round 3 (subsequently reverted by user Nyilvoskt) Odoacer (subsequently reverted by user Vif12vf) Ancient Corinth (subsequently reverted by user Remsense) Illyrian language (subsequently reverted by user Future Perfect at Sunrise) Illyrian language round 2 (subsequently reverted by user Future Perfect at Sunrise) Illyrian language round 3 (subsequently reverted by user Future Perfect at Sunrise) Old Japanese (subsequently reverted by user Kanguole) Early Middle Japanese (subsequently reverted by user Kanguole) Old Church Slavonic (subsequently reverted by another IP) Old French (subsequently reverted by user Womtelo) Proto-Romance language (subsequently reverted by me) Proto-Romance language round 2 (subsequently reverted by me) Proto-Romance language round 3 (subsequently reverted by me) Old Korean (subsequently reverted by user Kanguole) Old Korean round 2 (subsequently reverted by user Glennznl) Old Korean round 3 (subsequently reverted by user Drmies) Mycenaean Greek (subsequently reverted by user Botterweg14) County of Anjou (subsequently reverted by user Nyilvoskt) Old Anatolian Turkish (subsequently reverted by user Ogress) Achaemenid Empire (subsequently reverted by user Remsense) Old Georgian (subsequently reverted by user ალექსანდროს)

As can be seen from the edit histories of several of the aforementioned pages (cf. History of the Malay language, History of the Hungarian language, Illyrian language) this vandal is none other than the user Real_Mordecai_456 (+sockpuppet M1SH_MA$H), who was banned by @Future Perfect at Sunrise on the second of June, shortly before the IP vandalism spree began. Note also the identical modus operandi (spamming history-related pages) and the identical nationality (Brazilian).

Requested course of action: immediate block of the aforementioned IPs and rollback of all edits made under the aforementioned accounts and IPs, plus any others that I may have missed.

Edit: additional IPs:

• 45.187.100.39
• 177.47.251.245
• 2804:A78:805F:B900:9151:477F:9B38:F551

Nicodene (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of the IPs listed here are stale now, but 177.47.251.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is indeed a recently returned stable IP of Real Mordecai 456. I've blocked for a month. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Svito3

• Svito3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has spread false accusations about me of vandalism on Talk:List of countries by system of government, when all I was doing was undoing an edit they made with no clear consensus. They accused me of deliberately ignoring discussions (when I was simply unaware that one was taking place), claiming that I "don't care to participate in discussions at all, when again, I simply missed the final few words of their edit notice mentioning the talk page, and completely mischaracterised me as someone who "ignores [them] and [their] edits completely and [does] not care". Obviously this is a blatant violation of both WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL and I hope it can be addressed.

While I'm on the subject, I'd like to point out their undiscussed unilateral replacement of File:Forms of government.svg on Template:Systems of government with their own File:Forms of government (color blind palette).svg, which is missing information present on the original file and has undiscussed unilateral palette changes. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 13:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I admit to my fault misusing term "vandalism" and being generally rude. Also I still have low opinion about "good faith" behavior of GlowstoneUnknown.

If I may I demand strongest punishment available for myself and spare administrators time. -- Svito3 (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but since you recognize what you did is wrong, I don't think you deserve the strongest punishment. Can you avoid a repeat of this going forward? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, admin action on conduct issues is not meant to be punishment, but to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to be disruptive. I was simply being rude. I think generally my characteristic of User:GlowstoneUnknown is accurate. Their edits are techically under realm of GFE while behavior is actually extremely disheartening and rude to me and my efforts.

I still belive they don't absolutely give a shit about other editors and their contributions, and especially my contributions. -- Svito3 (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

If this characteristic is slander or whatever I don't care. It's my opinion. If I'm forced to change my opinion on that I can't. Svito3 (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Then I suggest stepping away from Wikipedia entirely. Edits are going to be challenged, and if you cannot remain WP:CIVIL when that happens, you will find yourself blocked from editing at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Then I suggest stepping away from Wikipedia entirely. This statement is not productive. Svito3 is being honest about how they feel and has already acknowledged their behavior was wrong.

@Svito3: two wrongs don't make a right. If you find others being rude, don't be rude back. Instead, step back, breathe, and remember that you're not defined by anonymous people on the internet. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It's absolutely productive. If someone cannot control themselves, and lashes out when their edits are challenged, they're going to wind up with a civility block. Either they need to deal with their issues (which is not something we can fix), or just walk away. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't intend to make any further interactions involving characteristics about @GlowstoneUnknown personality. I will simply not comment about that on Wikipedia. I am sorry about doing so and it won't happen anymore. -- Svito3 (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this as it's been over 48 hours since the incident was reported without a response from a sysop. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that their behaviour hasn't changed on talk pages and they're still making accusations about me, such as that I am not actually sorry because [I] still continue non-participation on the issues [they] opened talks about. This was their description of me not participating in discussions where they previously have, and still continue to, repeatedly accuse me of things I haven't done. There are also continued violations of WP:GOODFAITH with their statements such as I am only more convinced how right I was about you generally even if I didn't use correct words in response to my statement: I don't appreciate your incivility in the way you defended it and your assumption of bad faith in my edits. I'd also argue there are new violations of WP:NOPA with their remark of I will be perpetually upset with you because you still have holier-than-thou attitude here and throw around rules to shut discussion, not to actually have one. It's offensive and lowly behavior, and that their actions could be considered a form of WP:ICA, specifically WP:HOUND with their recent response to a months-old discussion on Commons. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

You continue engaging in exactly what I described. You can read all those rules you just linked and think about if it actually also applies to yourself instead of labeling me all that.

By the way you still haven't changed and continue your revert streak and not participating in discussions, except where you think you can shut me down with linking bunch of rules you haven't even accepted for youself like here.

If you were more considerate you would actually react directly to my complaints and tell on those discussions my arguments are simply wrong and other people's arguments are simply wrong. Yet you care to only do reverts of other people and still ignore discussions before and after your reverts. I have done 0 reverts even before you reported me as being a problem and wasn't looking to create any conflict. You are the one pretending to care about consensus while repeatedly ignoring rules you yourself present to other people. -- Svito3 (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

By 0 reverts I mean I have done a move to deescalate by reverting my own edits and trying to deescalate by avoiding edit war.

What happened after is @GlowstoneUnknown has continued doing what he was doing because it's not his style to deescalate too, but instead report me as incident causing person. -- Svito3 (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

As for hounding accusation I was only editing List of countries by system of government and 2 directly related pages for a long time, so you can't claim I hound you there. Again you are interested only in shutting down all discussions and continue to do reverts of my and other's contributions. -- Svito3 (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This really seems like a content dispute that seems to be escalating into a personality dispute. I think you would both benefit from moving on. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Pluseine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I suspect a sock is on the horizon here, account registered years ago without any edits, today suddenly goes and makes exactly 10 dummy edits to WP:GAME system to get autoconfirmed and start making edit on semi protected article. Also their Userpage contains a WP:NPA against transgender people violating our MOS:GENDERID guidelines, so I have the suspicion this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Raladic (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Raladic, I’ve read through everything you linked and I don’t see how I’ve violated any policies? I also have not made any personal attacks, so I’m not clear where this is coming from either. You’ll see on my user page that to the contrary, I am actually quite supportive of transgender people as well as other current things. Pluseine (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Your userpage implies trans women are not actually women. It also explicitly says you will missgender non-cis people. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, trans women are not in fact actually women. Per woman a woman is an adult human female and trans women are not female. I don’t understand how acknowledging this fact means that one is not tolerant and supportive of transgender people. As for misgendering, all I mean by that statement is that I will never use gendered pronouns in a way that falsely characterizes a person’s sex. To the contrary, it is a commitment not to misgender trans people. Pluseine (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Trans women will be always women. There are no reasons why trans women are male. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

We didn't even need to take the WP:ROPE out of the package for you to use it, Pluseine. Your view is wholly incompatible with this project and I'd suggest both an apology and resolution to be more accepting of our fellow trans editors before you edit again. Consider your next statement very carefully. Nate • (chatter) 00:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Where did I say I’m not supportive of trans people? I made it clear on my user page that I am supportive Pluseine 🏳️‍⚧️ 🏳️‍🌈🇺🇦✊🏾 (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Your very first edit was to put a WP:POLEMIC statement on your userpage, then you make the required 10 edits, then head straight to puberty blocker and remove content, which was reverted, made a few other edits, and then come here and say trans women are not in fact actually women. Maybe you should take the time to read our policies and guidelines before you jump right into the fray and start editing in contentious topic areas. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed a sentence that was redundant and I had no idea what “autoconfirmed” was. I don’t know why everyone is so up in arms about a statement that trans women are not female. They have a Y chromosome and females have two X chromosomes. Pluseine (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If you think I’m some kind of bigot or something, I should point out that I voted for Obama, Hilary Clinton, and Biden, and I will be voting for Kamala Harris in November. Pluseine (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

You wrote on your userpage - Before you ask, because unfortunately we now live in a time where apparently it’s necessary to ask, yes I am an actual woman. I’m pretty laid back and tolerant and supportive of transgender people being able to go about their lives as they wish to live them, but I do not think I should be expected to go along with anyone’s fantasy and address them as a sex they are not. I've edited here for 12+ years and not once has anyone thought it necessary to ask me if I'm a woman or a man or transgender. So FYI, here at Wikipedia it is not necessary to ask, and quite frankly, it's really none of your business, and you shouldn't go around asking editors that question. And as for how to "address" your fellow editors, if they have indicated they have preferred pronouns, you are expected to address them with the pronouns they prefer. If you are unsure on how to address a fellow editor, then just their username, or simply use "they". Isaidnoway (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

And furthermore, if you are involved in a discussion on a talk page of an article where the subject of that article has self-identified per MOS:GENDERID and has indicated their preferred pronouns, you are expected to use those pronouns or use their surname when referring to them. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

And one last thing, your comment "I do not think I should be expected to go along with anyone’s fantasy", is rude, divisive and hateful. If someone is transgender, it is not a fantasy. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Pluseine has come here for one reason only: to troll us and have this exact conversation, and enjoy the thrill of playing with the libs. That's why her first edit was to post her unsolicited manifesto explaining her position on an issue that nobody asked her about. She is WP:NOTHERE and any direct engagement with this fictional persona only helps to feed the troll. Toughpigs (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you and the OP are both probably right in your assessments. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s unfortunate that you find that statement to be “rude”, “divisive”, and “hateful”, but I can assure you it wasn’t made in that fashion. Again, I support transgender people. A Google search for the definition of “fantasy” yields “ the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable.” Changing one’s sex or being a different sex is definitionally impossible. Pluseine 🏳️‍⚧️ 🏳️‍🌈🇺🇦✊🏾 (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

You've made this point before, Architect. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 05:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It's only a matter of time before you dastardly, zany people realise the the game is up. Knitsey (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually I think some of the articles on transgender subjects should refer to the subject by their surname rather than using pronouns at all, to avoid the issue of having to either use pronouns that are incorrect, or use pronouns the subject doesn’t like. So, it looks like we are in agreement there! I like that this is how Wikipedia works, where people can come together and have discussions about how to make information fair and neutral. Pluseine 🏳️‍⚧️ 🏳️‍🌈🇺🇦✊🏾 (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to say that the transgender flag in the signature is quite the artistic flourish -- most trolls are not smart enough to come up with something like that. However, the rest of your work here has been sloppy enough as to make your intentions obvious. What on Earth is that "I'm With Her" routine about?

Seeing as you clearly understand this is a contentious issue of great importance to many people, and are apparently quite interested in politics as a hobby, why would you go out of your way to immediately do a huge go-off about said issue, apropos of nothing, using the most obtuse and boneheaded language possible? It just doesn't make sense. I am disappointed in the laziness of this trolling attempt. jp×g🗯️ 06:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Indef, by the way. jp×g🗯️ 06:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

And locked by the way too. Ahri Boy (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess I missed the part of WP:PGAME where it says "no new users are ever allowed to sign up to Wikipedia, and if they do, following the rules we explicitly tell them to follow is ipso facto blockable evidence of bad intentions". Ten edits is ten edits. If they are bad enough to be revertable, that is one thing; but if the autoconfirmation system is inadequate, we should make an RfC there, rather than running random noobs out of town on a rail! It's a miracle we get any new users at all with this nonsense.

As for the user's comments on their userpage, of course, they are asinine trolling -- even if those really are their opinions, it is still asinine trolling to express them in this way, and I would be inclined towards blocking them (or keeping a close eye on their contributions) on such basis. jp×g🗯️ 01:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for this issue. It is an area where we use reliable sourcing to spread information. Gender is a hot topic and always will be. Pluseiene ought to be WP:TROUTed for their userpage at the very least, though if it is determined they are WP:NOTHERE, indef it is. Conyo14 (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The userpage was the point. Actually, the roleplaying and the arguing was the point, but the userpage was the intended trigger for people getting upset and starting the fight. Toughpigs (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP 2.100.205.41 being transphobic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2.100.205.41

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2.100.205.41&diff=prev&oldid=1240576250 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sall_Grover&diff=prev&oldid=1239503651 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sall_Grover&diff=prev&oldid=1239504454 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sall_Grover&diff=prev&oldid=1240451173

IP editing disruptively, now spraying transphobia around and directly admitting that their edits were motivated by transphobia, which they don't see as a problem. GraziePrego (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This is the most calm and articulate "transphobe" I've ever seen. Honestly it's not really disruptive. A block would be just to punish a POV, unless there's a bunch of mainspace edits I'm missing. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The edits to Sall Grover are the disruptive ones. Not sure why you've put transphobe in quotes when that's how they've described themselves? Also I don't see how being calm and articulate is relevant; disruptive editing and POV pushing in mainspace is still exactly that. GraziePrego (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That page attracts a lot of trolls it seems. I've semi protected it for a week. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The disruption is slow and very minor. The page protection should solve it. I'm frankly more concerned with this edit summary than the reported IP EvergreenFir (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I posted a warning to them. I haven't looked through all of their edits but I don't see where they describe themselves as transphobic. Now, they know that the language they used isn't tolerated so any future edits in this vein will be intentionally against policy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Liz In this edit, they say that the justification behind their edits was that they are transphobic. GraziePrego (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff, I missed that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, they shouldn't be editing anywhere near gender and sexuality topics. With a comment like this, they are obviously here to push a POV. Expressing hateful views is a form of disruptive editing. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

They also said they would refrain from editing this article again, so they don't seem to be looking for trouble. I think the problem here was quite minor and has been satisfactorily addressed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the problem here was quite hateful, and it is yet to be determined if it has been satisfactorily addressed. People like that rarely change their hateful POV towards us. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone posting that they will not deny that the motive for the edit was "transphobic" is WP:NOTHERE. That said, as an IP there's not a lot we can do beyond a temporary block of the IP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/1240520594 seems fairly damning for the IP regardless of whatever arcane quibbles (e.g. "I am aware that in many cases wikipedia's position seems to be that trans women are women (they aren't) which is why I didn't edit the page to call them men (they are men"), but looking at the conversation it's a part of, I do not really understand some of what's being said. No more changing the correct phrase "trans woman" to the incorrect dogwhistle phrase "transwoman" -- is this true? These seem like almost exactly the same word to me (e.g. "home owner" vs. "homeowner" or "nosepicker" vs. "nose picker"). @DanielRigal: I confess to having been exposed to a good deal of posts online about gender over the course of the last 15 years or so, but I have never heard of a case in which saying one of these terms made somebody cool and the other made them a bigot. jp×g🗯️ 21:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Happy to explain. "Trans woman" is two words because it describes a type of woman in the same way that "tall woman" does. Running it together into one word implies a denial of this. It is often used as an assertion that "transwoman" is a separate type of person and not a type of woman. Many older sources do run the words together without intending this, and some people may still do it without realising the implication, but you will not see knowledgeable sources using it as one word these days. This is subtle enough that many people will not pick it up but the people in the know will. This is what makes it a dog-whistle. This is covered very briefly in the trans woman article.

Normally, it is something you just fix without comment, as it is something that people can do in mistaken good faith. (After all, if somebody writes "tallwoman" you assume it is a typo, not a slur.) In this case, the IP was piping the correct name to the incorrect name in links which is making an extra effort to do it wrong and hence was a very likely indicator of intentional bad faith, leading to my warning. Transphobes have their own jargon of twisted terminology. "transman", "transwoman", "TIF", "TIM", calling all the straight trans people gay and all the gay ones straight, pointing at people and shouting "AGP", etc. It is all very tedious. Sometimes the intention is to confuse and sometimes it is to offend but it is all bad faith. After feigning ignorance for a bit the IP revealed that I was right in my suspicions.

(Btw, the same logic applies in reverse to make it preferable not to hyphenate "antisemitism". To do so can give the false impression that there is an ideology called "semitism" which antisemitism opposes. Even the spell checker on my older computer doesn't know that so we can hardly blame editors if they don't know it either. The irony here is that I didn't know this until recently, despite being of Jewish descent, and I only found out about it because I saw a trans woman explaining this stuff on Twitter. It is mentioned in our article on Antisemitism. I just never noticed before.) --DanielRigal (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation, and I also learned something new, best practice is not to hyphenate antisemitism. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Linguistically, this argument seems unsound to me. Your examples aren't comparable because "tall" is an adjective and "trans" is, or at least originally was, a prefix. You don't attach adjectives to words in English, but you do attach prefixes, usually directly, or with a hyphen if you are concerned that the resulting word will be difficult to recognize. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The prefix "trans-" has no connection to sex or gender; it is only via the adjectives "transexual" and "transgender" that it gains such a connection, and the adjective "trans" is an abbreviation for (one or both of) these. --JBL (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Replacing "trans woman" with "transgender woman" would be a neutral change, just a matter of style whether or not to abbreviate the adjective, while "transwoman" is definitely not neutral. "transwoman" is a term that should only be used in direct quotations. The correct terminology is used and explained in the article trans woman. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Running it together into one word implies a denial of this. It does? _{T. suomalainen W}ADroughtOfVowels^P 07:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That's the argument, anyway: I recommend perusing the resources given lest this becomes a collapse-worthy tangent. Remsense ‥ 诉 07:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That isn't disruptive beyond reinserting without consensus but that isn't something new editors should be banned for. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

If was was done in mistaken good faith then I would agree but we have clear evidence of bad faith here in the IP's own comments explaining their edits. If they were still editing in the same manner then I'd definitely advocate for at least few days block but they seem to have stopped now. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The page on WP:AGF talks about people trying to harm Wikipedia, I do not see this IP's actions as being intended to harm the project. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

They were deliberately changing correct terminology to incorrect terminology. When challenged, they admitted to transphobic intent and then made a personal attack on me for being "radical enough to notice the difference"[28]. That is bad faith. They knew that what they were doing was wrong and they did it in the hope of going undetected. Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact applies here. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Simply put, editing to insert bigotry is disruptive and has a chilling effect on the minorities affected. It harms the project by driving away editors based on who they are. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing on that policy page that supports what you said. The IP said they would stop editing it too which is listed as productive editing... Traumnovelle (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The IP seems to have gone quiet so there is probably no need for a block right now. Maybe issue a warning, wrap this up, and pick it up again if they come back with any more of the same nonsense? --DanielRigal (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Attack page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am not sure about others but I consider User:BilledMammal/Bludgeoning statistics to be an Wikipedia:Attack page that falls under Wikipedia:Harassment. Is the intent to present this to the community to shame these individuals? Moxy🍁 18:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I assume this is more about Wikipedia:User pages#POLEMIC than Wikipedia:Attack page. WP:POLEMIC says The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. This has been provided as evidence at WP:ARCA here, and I imagine will be provided in the likely event of ARBPIA5. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Not very familiar with that process..... last call to action for the same people over and over.... focus on editors rather than content I understand. Moxy🍁 19:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

They've got themselves smack in the middle of the list, so probably not to shame people? Valereee (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

A tactic used to diminish one's own involvement.....yes I was involved....but others are or even more horrible than I am. Moxy🍁 21:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like assuming good faith? Valereee (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

BilledMammal (talk · contribs) is using an invalid definition of bludgeoning. The second sentence should contain, "...in a very small number of cases...", rather than, "...in most cases...". There is no automated statistical panacea here. You need to read the discussions to determine whether there has been bludgeoning. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The false accusation is, in its own way, a form of double reverse bludgeon, since refuting it is such a timesink. Taking the first example of the account mammal smears as a bludgeoner (an account the mammal account would like banned) we have a hotly argued requested move, a discussion that went on for about a month. The first examples of "bludgeoning" in the order they appear as you scroll down the page:

Extended content

If we are going to do it this way, I prefer Gaza genocide accusation in line with Palestinian genocide accusation. Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) The relevant main article is Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present) (RM in progress to remove the dates) rather than 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, support a change to Allegations of genocide in the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip or Genocide accusations in the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip Selfstudier (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Work for the closer in the first instance. Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Uh huh, but below you have said 1 or 2 if you have to choose. Selfstudier (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

My God! Lock up the children! Dan Murphy (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of data, I happened to notice the other day that 18% of Billed Mammal's contributions to mainspace (947 of 5327) have been reverted. I know I've reverted one or two (one which was a misrepresentation of the source). This led to a discussion where a sock of a banned user appeared on a page they had never edited before... Perhaps there is an explanation for this abnormally but objectively high number of reverts to BilledMammal's mainspace contributions? I know it's the highest I personally have ever seen from an active editor with over 5000 edits to mainspace. That said, I'm sure there's a logical explanation for this 18%, perhaps along the lines of Lies, damned lies, and statistics? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Those figures are outdated, but they are mostly explained by wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#Undiscussed mass article merging and redirection by BilledMammal; I boldly merged a number of articles and was reverted.

As for where you claim I misrepresented a source, we disagreed on the meaning of "inveighing against French Jews", although you have never actually explained what you interpreted it to mean other than you disagreed with my interpretation. BilledMammal (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So there has been more than one time that you have been asked to mass revert multiple bad edits to mainspace. Oops! I guess that shows how much you can trust the WMF's statistics to determine whether an editor is a problem or not. As to your misreading of a time clause as an argument rather than an adjunct, I did indeed debunk it and in one short sentence. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The edits you are now referring to were good and necessary, and remain in place. As for "inveighing against French Jews", we discussed this extensively on the talk page without you ever actually providing your interpretation of what he was inveighing against them for, and I’m not interested in revisiting it now.

As such, I’m going to back away from this line of discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

false.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Editors are assumed to have bludgeoned a discussion if they made more than twenty comments in it. That seems like a sufficiently idiosyncratic definition of bludgeoning that it makes me question the value of this for discussions. While the page concedes that exceptions exist, I don't think that a flat "21+ comments = bludgeoning" definition has any real value at all. Bludgeoning isn't about the raw number of comments, it's about eg. making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions; the percentage of comments a user made is also usually central (since it's about one editor dominating a conversation through sheer weight of comments.) If someone simply participates in extremely large long-running conversations (as, for example, must of the examples for Selfstudier fall under, at a glance), and their comments are mostly distinct or their contribution discussion is otherwise moving rather than going in circles, they're not bludgeoning even if they make a hundred or a thousand comments. Likewise, it's generally not bludgeoning for an editor to reply to questions or comments directed at them. And as it says on WP:BLUDGEON, To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided, so using such an idiosyncratic definition of bludgeoning to list users by name and say "they bludgeoned all these discussions" as fact seems like a bit much. If it was absolutely essential to use raw numbers with no analysis to accuse editors of bludgeoning, listing the percentage of comments that come from them would be more useful (though still not ideal, because the content and context of the comments matters) and would be a much more obvious approach. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Number of comments is often a useful approximation for bludgeoning; by the time you’ve made 20 comments in a discussion you’ve probably started repeating yourself.

  However, not the right location to discuss this - I encourage you to open a discussion on the pages talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: Based on your comments here, you were unaware that I had presented this at ARCA.

How did you find that page then? BilledMammal (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Special:NewPages ...user parameter ..[29]...can also set for attack pages....thus why we are here. That said seems I was mistaken by the nature of the page. Moxy🍁 21:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

There are thousands of such pages created per day - how did you find the one I created? You opened this nine hours after I created it, at which point it would have been very deep in that list? BilledMammal (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Samirlalas & User:148.252.144.47

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

Both users are sockpuppet accounts of @Bennyblanco10 who was blocked for abusing multiple accounts and edit warring. @Samirlalas logged out and edited on their IP account @148.252.144.47 to restore their version of edits at Monumentum Adulitanum. Both of these users edit and restore the same versions of edits at Somali clans, Monumentum Adulitanum, Somali–Portuguese conflicts, Somalis in Ethiopia, and Somali people. The latter user also abused me or my account at my talk page. [30]. I also suspect that 95.145.186.54 is also a sockpuppet account of Bennyblanco10 due to the fact that they also restored their version of edits at Somalis in Ethiopia and Rauso.[31], [32] Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

For sockpuppet concerns, it's better to file a case at WP:SPI than come to ANI. Most of the admins who patrol this page are not Checkusers and can not verify your suspicions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Persistent MOS:RETAIN violations from 2607:FEA8:22A0:38F0::/64

2607:FEA8:22A0:38F0::/64 has been making persistent changes to English varieties, changing to American English in numerous articles despite being warned four times, including in cases where there are indeed ties to a particular location. I would normally be concerned that with an IP which changes so frequently, they may not have received these warnings, but with each warning they immediately stopped making these changes for at least a brief while. Tollens (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This has continued after opening this discussion. Tollens (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Alaska4Me2 : is she WP:NOTHERE or just WP:NOTHERENORMS?

Alaska4Me2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over time, I have had a number of interactions with Alaska4Me2 that I took as her overtly making bad faith assumptions. I thought it had been rather isolated and was due to a personal animosity that maybe was best ignored and that she was WP:NOTHERENORMS ("Here with difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms]]"). However, too many recent interactions seem to show that this may be a battleground mentality associated with WP:NOTHERE as displayed by a pattern of disruption.

The examples are full discussions rather than single diffs so context is in the open.

• Recent issues on my talk page show accusations of acting in bad faith & accusations of personal attacks that are not such: [33] & [34]

• Other recent issues involving other editors
  • Several "wall of text" discussions, resulting in needing to be told to WP:DROPTHESTICK: [35] & [36] (To be fair, she was involved in other discussions there, too; and when things went her way, discussion appeared constructive and did not degrade, which is as it should be. If she could do that when her position is opposed, we wouldn't be here)
  • Related to the above, responds to a standard WP:CTOP notice and self-closes it: [37] By itself, that may not seem problematic, as a lot of newer editors not understand the reasons for a CTOP notice, but taken in with the other items, it seems to indicate a battleground pattern.

• Although the following are older interactions, they show that the above are not isolated and this is a pattern.
  • An unwillingness to accept direction on our specific norms; namely, keeping user conduct discussions on user talk, not in article talk space (for complete context, refer to the section I had to collapse as off-topic): [38]
  • Examples of how discussion often degrades into victimhood and conduct accusations: Don't talk down to me, don't lecture me:[39] & Why are you so frequently downright rude?:[40]
  • Not understanding what AGF actually means, where she accuses an experienced admin of a lack of good faith and manners: [41]
  • Here I have provided only what I thought was necessary. If any clarification is needed, or specific diffs requested, I will oblige.

My concern is not the lack of understanding of standards, but that there is an apparent unwillingness to change or correct it and that this has become a repeated pattern over time. She is able to go for long periods without any issues when she edits in spaces where her work is not challenged. But in instances where her position or edits are challenged, especially with an editor who has challenged her previously, it often degrades into battleground and an apparent inability to distinguish between constructive criticism and personal attacks and to separate content discussion from user behavior, often taking any direction offered as personal affront.

I had hoped that a change would take place, but that does not appear to be happening. If anything, it appears that the problems are now spreading from the original topic niche into something broader, hence bringing it to AN/I for discussion. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the bigger issue is with WP:CIR. For example: assuming that you are targeting her even after you explained your AWB edit, refusing to listen to others about providing sources first before trying to nail down wording on the Tim Walz talk page, and insisting on using a deprecated source on List of The Chosen episodes. That lack of competence then expresses itself as IDHT, primarily through accusations of bad faith. (Closing a CTOP warning is not a problem in my view; editors can do what they like with their own talk page.) A warning seems appropriate here.

@Alaska4Me2: A lot of people on Wikipedia are not the best at communication (see, for example, any random thread on this page). People on Wikipedia often make sort of rude comments (e.g., the "This is Wikipedia, not fandom.com" comment that you took issue with). The best way to deal with comments like that is to assume good faith, get to the substance of what they're saying, and respond professionally. Don't get hung up on slights from random people on the internet. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been watching this situation for a while, and I have noticed a pattern of recurring WP:CIR issues, especially with WP:AGF/AAGF. The first I saw of A4M2's issues with Butlerblog was this discussion in December, which I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) was in response to this edit to The Chosen (TV series). In this first discussion, A4M2 alleged without evidence that Butlerblog personally attacked her. In their second discussion just two weeks later, A4M2 first accused Butlerblog of holding a grudge against her and attempting to "stir the pot by reverting one of [her] edits at an article he never edited previously"; accusation that would come to be leveled quite frequently. Probably of note, though I'm not sure how useful it would be here, is this log kept by A4M2 in January and February of interactions and edits made by Butlerblog and Fred Zepelin.

The accusations were repeated in July, when A4M2 once again accused Butlerblog of following her. In response, Butlerblog explained that he was "cleaning up WP:BAREURL refs", but that didn't stop A4M2 from repeating the accusations once again ([42] and [43]), or from making a rather threatening pop culture reference.

I too had hope that A4M2 would eventually overcome this hostility toward Butlerblog. However, her most recent wave of false accusations of personal attacks and her response to the WP:CTOP notice indicated to me that this hostility was neither limited toward Butlerblog nor was it going to stop anytime soon, and therefore I finally suggested that Butlerblog take this matter here. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's relevant to point this out (as it's dated), but for context, while you're not wrong about the edit, the UTP discussion from December overlaps with an ANI discussion I had opened for edit warring,[44] and that is what was being referenced when I said The outcome of this was unfortunate, as she had received a 2 week article block for edit warring. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Per a suggestion from another editor (maybe an administrator? I didn't look at their page to see if that is actually the case), I am commenting here to let you all know that my intention for participation has always been to edit neutrally and according to policy. I think I've demonstrated that many times over since I began editing. As far as assuming good faith, I can't say I've always done that when editors have been, in my estimation, rude and used what I would say is a snobby or caste-related tone. Additionally, when an editor who I feel has been rude and seems to be insisting on their own way suddenly shows up at an article I am editing and they never have edited it before, my radar activates because it feels as if I'm being poked intentionally. Nevertheless, I'll truly work harder on not just exhibiting, but also thinking, good faith. Especially in the situations where I sense something else is afoot. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alaska4Me2: This does not appear likely to go any further, which is OK because ultimately, if resolution is achieved without sanctions, that's a better outcome. I don't think anyone here has issue with your actual editing. That doesn't mean we won't disagree on specific edits, but as far as the editing itself, that's not problematic.

As text-based communication, the tone of what is said is often limited to how you interpret it, which is part of why AGF is so important. As @voorts pointed out, the focus needs to be on the substance. If you think the tone of something said is rude, keep in mind that it may have sounded perfectly reasonable to the other person. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

If you think the tone of something said is rude, keep in mind that it may have sounded perfectly reasonable to the other person. Good point. Another way to deal with perceived rudeness is to write out a response to blow some steam, delete it, and then write out a kinder response. I do that sometimes. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Excellent advice. I typically do this too. And in the cases where I did not do it I most always regret it. We can always improve our communication skills, even in text. Words spoken or written can never truly be taken back, even with an apology. It is better to make the correction before anything is said. I appreciate the things being said here. --ARoseWolf 16:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Climate of Spain and Classical Guitar: users (likely socks) straight-up inventing quotes from books to push agenda?

See the section I added at Talk:Climate of Spain. The page Climate of Spain is one of the pages often targeted by socks of User:JamesOredan/User:Venezia Friulano. His favorite claim there is that Spain is "the most climatically diverse country in Europe". (latest blocked user there: User:DrakeXper by User:Daniel Case). After the latest round of blocks of socks of JamesOredan (Claudio di Roma, Dreom, Ocean Stones, Combrils and Fauvertt; unfortuanetely he has hundreds and never stops vandalising) I put a more neutral version saying Spain is a very climatically diverse country, without "THE MOST" part. Another user appears and he adds four sources explicetely saying Spain it is the MOST climatically diverse country. That was very convenient and suspicious, but at first I incorporated them into the text, assuming good faith. However, I found the book of the first source on archive.org and the sentence in question seems to be literally invented, it's nowhere to be found. The other three I am not able to verify so I added verification tags to that page, I have not removed the first one yet btw.

Now to Classical guitar, another page targeted by socks of James Oredan. The thing there by James is that the Classical Guitar is "also known as the Spanish Guitar". I have heard the Flamenco guitar called the "Spanish cuitar", not the Classical guitar, but who knows I may be wrong, so I remove it but saying it could be reincorporated if a good source is provided. A few minutes pass and an user provides a source explicetely saying the "classical guitar is also known as the Spanish guitar". Again, weirdly convenient. And this user was just coming from editing the Climate of Spain, taking advantage of those problematic sources to push the usual Spanish chauvinistic agenda, which he is doing in other pages as well. I look into that source, and that's very suspicious. There is an author named Roger Evans writing on guitars, but he has no book titled "The Guitar: A Guide for Students and Teachers". That's a title of a book of Micheal Stimpson. I say that and the user corrects it to Simpson (it's still incorrect as it's Stimpson, but that's beside the point). Still, this need verification, given the weird timely convenience, the user, the connection to the Climate of Spain page etc.

Barjimoa (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

On Classical guitar the suspected source has been replaced by one that I was able to verify, altough it's been found on a article from a museum page and not from a scholarly book. So the problem remains for the climate of Spain page. Barjimoa (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

They have been blocked as socks of James Oredan, quotes on Climate of Spain appear to be invented so I replaced them along with the tag with another provided by another user. Barjimoa (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

{{subst:void|Please remember to notify any editor(s) you start a discussion about on their talk page. You can do so by inserting " There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)". (This line will disappear when you save this edit.)

Vandal IDs

There were huge vandal IDs were blocked from ta.wiki and some there are blocked in en.wiki & commons and you may find some CheckUsers at Meta. There are one and two. Same user's another ID which is blocked in ta.wiki continues here. Related IDs and all are blocked in ta.wiki some might missed: AntanO2, Chilli Soonyam, Dhairya Notosri, Naughty Nightingale, Neha Xorg, Neoshine, Neoshine K.Sreeram Official, Sanuthi Aahidya, Sanuthi Linux, Selvasivagurunathan m2, Shanvika Drake, Sridhar G1, Ubishini, Urmila Pardus, VAW 2404, Veraswini, Wikishini, க.சிறீராம், பவி தமிழ். Admin can take proper action including on their contributions. Note: I do not notify the user since it is pure vandal with vulgar words.

The latest ID and IP are SreeramKalyan (talk · contribs · logs) & 2409:40F4:8:E30F:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs · logs) --AntanO 14:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, AntanO. All those accounts are locally blocked (except a couple without accounts here) or are globally locked. I’ve blocked the IPv6 and revision deleted a couple of their edits; Bbb23 has blocked SreeramKalyan. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Here is the full list of same user/s who engage in vandal and vulgar language use since February. So many IPs too that were blocked in ta.wiki. Some IDs are imitating as sysop user & bot IDs in ta.wiki.

AntanO4sock (talk · contribs · logs), AntanO2 (talk · contribs · logs), Chilli Soonyam (talk · contribs · logs), Dhairya Notosri (talk · contribs · logs), DhairyaNotosrii (talk · contribs · logs), K.Sreeram 2603 (talk · contribs · logs), K.Sreeram Wiki (talk · contribs · logs), Mahi Linux (talk · contribs · logs), Naughty Nightingale (talk · contribs · logs), Neha Xorg (talk · contribs · logs), Neoshine (talk · contribs · logs), Neoshine K.Sreeram Official (talk · contribs · logs), Neoshine2 (talk · contribs · logs), Neoshine3 (talk · contribs · logs), NeoshineFuk (talk · contribs · logs), Neoshineofficial (talk · contribs · logs), Neoshineofficial2 (talk · contribs · logs), Neoshineofficials (talk · contribs · logs), Neoshineofficials2 (talk · contribs · logs), NeoshineWiki (talk · contribs · logs), Pavi Tamil (talk · contribs · logs), SanuthiBot (talk · contribs · logs), Sanuthi Aahidya (talk · contribs · logs), Sanuthi Linux (talk · contribs · logs), Sanuthi Wiki (talk · contribs · logs), Selvasivagurunathan m2 (talk · contribs · logs), Shakeela Banu (talk · contribs · logs), Shanvika Drake (talk · contribs · logs), Sreeram2603 (talk · contribs · logs), SreeramKalyan (talk · contribs · logs), Sridhar G1 (talk · contribs · logs), Sweetyhoney64 (talk · contribs · logs), Ubishini (talk · contribs · logs), Urmila Pardus (talk · contribs · logs), VAW 2404 (talk · contribs · logs), VAW 2406 (talk · contribs · logs), Veraswini (talk · contribs · logs), WikiMagic45 (talk · contribs · logs), Wikishini (talk · contribs · logs), ஆய் (talk · contribs · logs), க.சிறீராம் (talk · contribs · logs), பவி தமிழ் (talk · contribs · logs) AntanO 14:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, I can see straight away that a large number are blocked locally. I’ll check out the rest. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@AntanO. All are locally blocked or globally locked (or both) except seven that are not registered on this wiki: AntanO4sock, Mahi Linux, Neoshineofficial, Neoshineofficial2, Neoshineofficials, WikiMagic45, பவி தமிழ். I don’t think there’s anything we can do about the unregistered ones on this wiki except to be aware of them. Thank you for your help. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Chris O' hare

I'm reporting @Chris O' Hare for repeatedly violating WP:NOR and WP:CIVIL

User Chris O' Hare has been engaging in original research and has been synthesising many unreliable user generated sources, such as Ancestey.com and FamilySearch (both of which are user generated sources and are, according to WP:RSPS, unreliable) to add lebansse descent to figures' articles or to remove non-Lebanese descent from figures' articles. Despite me and others telling them before that these sources are user generated and are unreliable according to consensus of the Wikiepdia community, but Chris is not listening to what we are saying and keeps going against Wikipedia's consensus. Let me show a few examples:

-Peter Lupus

They only used FamilySearch to add that Peter Lupus has Lebanese descent 1 and earlier 2 without backing it up with reliable secondary sources

-Jacob Safra

They added back content supported purely by FamilySeach Please see

They defended again their user generated source and went against wiki consensus.

Please see "The Lebanese origins of the Safra family" and and "The Syrian origins of the Safras per their official websites" sections on Talk Page the first of which user Chris started where he did quite Literally what WP:NOR says not to do, combining sources (including FamilySearch) to reach a conclusion not stated by secondary sources.

What's frustrating is that I and others, explained to them before that these sources aren't reliable per wiki and are user generated.

I did this here (Jerrier A. Haddad)

Where Chris added a lebanese descent to the figure using FamilySearch, I explained to then why they can't use such sources, they pushed back and then asked me to seek a third opinion which I did, and the third opinion agreed with me. Yet Chris still seemed to have not changed their mind

The user has been doing this for a while

Here are some old examples

- Moshe Safadie

Please see

They started a section on Talk Page in which they combined sources to reach a conclusion not stated in ANY source all over the web, they also went on to add Dov Charney to a Lebanese list because Dov is related to Moshe by blood (please see)

Here too I explained to them why they can't use such primary sources please see talk page

-Kelly Slater

Again

-here [45] where they used a user generated source Find a Grave. WP:USERGENERATED mentions that this source is unacceptable

(please check the relevant talk pages so that you get the full picture)

NOT ONLY THAT! Chris has recently used a disgusting and offensive language with me, by saying that what I do shows mental incompetence and later said this: Everytime you read Syrian in an source you cum in your pants and rush into editing the article to add your favorite word in the world . There are other instances where Chris said incredibly racist things to other users.

I'm showing previous behavior so that you know that this user has been practicing this behavior for years, he is not willing to change.

Just so that everyone knows, I was banned years ago, and I changed my behavior and successfully appealed my ban after proving to the admins that I improved and educated myself with wiki policies, Chris on the other hand doesnt show any sign that he will change his aggressive and disruptive behavior. Whatsupkarren (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Dif for the rush... comment @Whatsupkarren references. No time to dig into their contributions to see whether there's a pattern of incivility to go with poor sourcing.

Star Mississippi 23:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

This is an old example of their racism which I happened upon while reading Najeeb halaby talk pages. Fortunately for Chris, the user whom Chris attacked didn't report them on their racism:

"I know you Syrian Americans have little accomplishments just like the rest of the non-Lebanese Middle Eastern Americans so you resort to stealing the accomplishments of the Lebanese Americans. And when you cant, you resort to saying the Christian Lebanese dont descend from the original Cannanites and Phoenicians and that they are descendands of Arabs to calm down the pathetic insecurity of the Syrians and Palestinians which are 90% arab muslims" while this is old, yet still it shows the pattern of incivility they show towards other users Whatsupkarren (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Chris O' hare for their sexualized insult against another editor and their ethnonationalist nonsense. Cullen328 (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

…. Whatsupkarren (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Kelvintjy and SGI promotion

Kelvintjy (talk · contribs) is a Soka Gakkai member who has been editing for more than a decade now. The vast majority of their edits have been regarding SGI and most often have been to promote the organization or slander organizations which have a bad relationship with SGI. For example, here are some of the more blatant, dating back from 2013:

• Adding the SGI-run "Research on Nichiren Shoshu Issues" to the external links section on Nichiren Shōshū (SGI broke from NSS);
• Removing well-sourced criticism of Ikeda and then reverting a rollback without explanation;
• Sneakily removing a mention of Ikeda striking a priest "once or twice" while adding a source about how Ikeda was arrested on "unfounded charges" and how he was exonerated, but that source had no mentions of the events;
• Removing mentions of the alleged cult of personality around Ikeda and sources mentioning the fabrication of evidence against SGI detractors;
• Adding an SGI-run website to the external links section of Canadian Indian residential school system;
• Removing a well-sourced paragraph about how Soka Gakkai's founder might have been influenced by the nationalist Kokuchūkai;
• Significant edit warring over POV with Raoul mishima (talk · contribs) on multiple pages, including legitimate edits, but also doing things like adding back SGI YouTube videos as references among other things;
• Removing a mention of an investigation into SGI corruption by the Italian government;
• And, as I've brought up before, ignoring WP:CITEOVERKILL despite it being brought to their attention-.

In other words, I think it is obvious that the majority of Kelvintjy (talk · contribs)'s edits are to promote SGI and I propose a topic ban. It's strange to me how long this has gone unnoticed.wound theology◈ 07:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Kelvintjy has never been given a {{uw-coi}} warning or similar, and this issue has never been raised at WP:COIN. Raoul mishima's comment in User talk:Kelvintjy § WP:CITEKILL briefly alludes to COI, but doesn't link to the relevant guideline. My understanding of ANI is that you should try other methods of resolving issues with individual editors before reporting them here. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Put simply, Kelvintjy does not respond to warnings or really any discussion. They've again reverted the page back to their preferred version despite a third-party (i.e., not me) rolling back their edits. wound theology◈ 11:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple users who tried to talk with Raoul mishima who had made haevy edit without discussing in the talk page and when asked. the user keep avoiding answering the question. Now, come in Wound theology who are making the heavy edits without giving us the change to discuss and falsely accused to making the edits without consensus. Kelvintjy (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:WHATABOUT. This has nothing to do with Raoul mishima (talk · contribs) and everything to do with your pattern of editing going back to 2013. Do you have any explanation for your actions here? wound theology◈ 06:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I did not think that my edit have issue as I saw other editor who are far more aggressive than me. Raoul mishima (talk · contribs) is one of the editor that made me step in to restore back the article that have been well sourced for quite a long time. It is him and you, jlwoodwa who is the issue now. Kelvintjy (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand. How am I the issue here? jlwoodwa (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:OWN. You do not own any articles or have the final say on what belongs there. The "well-sourced" article is full of laudatory and promotional material like claiming that SGI is supported by the United Nations and violates basic WP:MOS guidelines. wound theology◈ 10:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, jlwoodwa. What I am trying to said is wound theology. Kelvintjy (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

What is interesting is that the only time I met the user, he was not promoting SGI, instead he was adding infos on a corruption case involving SGI. I do not know the user's history and edits, but he might be much more balanced than it is reported here. More importantly, he respectfully engaged in discussion with me. --Checco (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I find it very suspicious that the user in question would do so only after I reverted their edit; when discussing the change they ended up asking you to revert back the article in Soka Gakkai Italian Buddhist Institute because he "had been treathen with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for removing the said article about the corruption." Also, note that an investigation "going nowhere" is not a good reason to remove a mention of that investigation being opened. wound theology◈ 06:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Removing a mention of an investigation into SGI corruption by the Italian government;

For the above point, kindly refer to Talk:Religion in Italy. Kelvintjy (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like YesI'mOnFire is reverting everything that I had restored to the version where it is very one-sided painting Soka Gakkai in a very negative light. Kelvintjy (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kelvintjy Look, as I had said in my edit summary, I have restored the article to its last stable version (before you, kelvin, has started to edit on it, and wound theology with other editors revert) in belief that you two can discuss the content in the talk page (it has nothing to do with the information). As I have seen on the talk page, @Wound theology has already started a discussion here, but you have not replied to it, let alone justify your addition to the article. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 09:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Yashas Surya

Having admitted to being a sockpuppet of a notorious sockmaster, User:Yashas Surya is now a purely disruptive account, going about blanking random portions of pages and adding gibberish. Can someone please block ASAP? Thanks, Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that's all dealt with now. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not so good with all the template-y notices, so working on this. One of those emails from General Counsel to Chief Counsel asking Shirt58 to urgently write up submissions has come in, so I might not be online for a few days with respect to this.Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 12:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)>

Sandbox thief

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Montigliani, after seeing the material on my sandbox that I was preparing for the article of Ivan Savvidis, which I have been enriching for days, decided to be the first to create the section with this material in order to promote the positions of the Olympiacos administration on this particular issue. The section lucks of npov, as it only serves to convey the Olympiacos point of view in a messy style of writing.
In fact, it forces me to engage in a edit war in order to restore a minimum npov and delete the chatter.

I don't want to be forced to give up my sandbox, as it is very useful to me, but I also don't want to have threads stolen, so I'm asking for your help. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Also it may be useful to you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Montigliani_and_User:D.S._Lioness_reported_by_User:ToBeFree_(Result:_) D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@D.S. Lioness I'm rather confused by this report. I think it would be useful if you explained a little more.

1. Your diff that shows your sandbox appears to be mostly in a Greek script. The diff of Montigliani adding something to the article is English. A machine translation of your page doesn't seem to suggest (at a casual glance) that it's a a translated version from your sandbox. Can you perhaps quote some passages from your sandbox, and compare them to quoted passages from Montigliani?
2. Note that none of us own our work; once you press "publish", it's protected under Creative Commons. (See the fine print below edit summary box as you reply.) However, if you can show that Montigliani directly copied your work, you are correct that they must attribute it. They can still use it, in part or in full, so long as they make it clear it came from your sandbox page. See WP:CWW for details.
3. I can't tell what the WP:ANEW link is meant to convey. Is it just to provide background about the dispute between you and Montigliani?

EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

1 + 2 No, I'm not accusing him of copying content. I accuse him that in order to avoid publishing my version, he sat down and hastily made up his own version to catch up with me.

3 Yes, I wanted to show the purpose and the reason behind this editing of it. It is like content forking. D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

So basically you're saying that another editor created a section before you, and that you wanted to be able to create that section? I don't see how there's anything actionable here, your desires to be the first to create a section is not a protected right. Is there even any evidence that they A) saw your sandbox and B) saw that you were working on a section? And lastly, what's stopping you expanding the section with additional material? This actually comes across as rather childish and a schoolyard complaint "miss, he did the work there before me! I wanted to do it!!" Canterbury Tail talk 20:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Good evening. Calling someone a thief without any evidence is a personal attack and an insult to me. Of course her slander has no basis and you can see it here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivan_Savvidis&diff=1241121697&oldid=1240986505

On the contrary, the same person who accuses me has copied (I'm not saying stolen) edited puppet confirmed and placed it in this article.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_League_Greece&diff=1241166381&oldid=1241045405 She admits it herself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super_League_Greece#Remove_cited_content, but as you will see in the summary of its last edit in the Super League article, it threatens that if we undo it we are vandals. In the meantime there are two of us, me and the user Abutabanas and she alone. But he threatens us! I demand her exemplary punishment. Montigliani (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

A + B I have written evidence already. As you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_League_Greece&diff=prev&oldid=1241010290 mentioned my edits and almost immediately began to write his own version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Montigliani/sandbox&oldid=1241095914

...lastly... the issue is not whether or not I can or cannot expand or shrink the section (which to do so would require me to engage in an edit war) but that he deliberately edited the section to promote the point of Marinakis and Olympiacos. D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Bringing this back for a minute: @D.S. Lioness: nobody's actions "force you to engage in an edit war." Reverts to enforce NPOV are *not* one of the enumerated exceptions to the edit warring policy; in fact it explicitly states that "edits from a slanted point of view" are not covered by the exemption for vandalism. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

sorry, i couldn't understand your point. Can you rephrase it, please? D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's confusing about it. You stated above: In fact, it forces me to engage in a edit war in order to restore a minimum npov and delete the chatter. I'm telling you that no, that's incorrect; nothing "forces" you to engage in an edit war. You can *choose* to be in an edit war, but that's a bad decision because edit warring is, per policy, unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers. If you find yourself thinking that you're "forced" to do it, that's an almost certain sign that you're in the wrong. I then pointed out that your justification that it was necessary for you to "restore a minimum npov and delete the chatter" is *not* one of the explicitly listed exemptions to the edit warring policy. Could you perhaps clarify what part of that you find confusing, perhaps after a thorough review of the WP:EW page first? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

How can you achieve consensus with a bad faith user? D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is a good start. Consensus building takes work. If it didn't, there wouldn't be a dispute. Using consensus building techniques -- talk page discussion, RFCs, third opinions, dispute resolution noticeboard, etc. -- is how you accomplish that work. Consensus is not unanimity, and it may well require more than just a couple of editors who disagree with each other. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

D.S. Lioness and Montigliani, would you both agree to a two-way interaction ban? All I ever see between you is fighting. I can't believe you enjoy this, so perhaps you'd both be happy about it ending. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It would certainly be a relief. I came here to write and not fight. I deal exclusively with football. I didn't know the other user, who, as I saw, deals mainly with politics. He called me first for help, to deal with the Michalis 1994 puppet. But then he attacked me and brought back edits of the puppet. He certainly doesn't know football better than I do. So let him stay away from here and I won't deal with him again. It's that simple. But he must be punished. He falsely called me a thief. I have a family and a profession as a lawyer. I don't allow anyone to call me a thief. Montigliani (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

And something else, which I don't understand why you ignore it. Here https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:D.S._Lioness&diff=prev&oldid=2198053132 among other things it says:Wikipedia is dead If you want to protest, somehow, I suggest creating a counter-front, outside of Wikipedia. Gather disgruntled or ex-users (difficult) or collude with acquaintances and friends to build it, to publicize the scandals that take place in there. Since there can't be an opposition front inside Wikipedia (since we're talking about a normal prison or, if we wanted to talk about a regime, a junta), it can exist outside of having a rudimentary organization. Of course, I don't think it will work, but the point is to have a healthy reaction. Something is better than nothing. Of course, with the current crisis, I understand that such a thing is not easy. Anyway, the prison is months, based on what I see happening at the international level. Marina the Ugly (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

did you see my intervention in the Agora?? Diu undid her because....she had no place there! D. S. Lioness (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you expect from such a user Montigliani (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Montigliani, for an editor who wants to agree to an interaction ban, you are immediately violating it by posting further complaints about this editor. An interaction ban includes discussing the editor you are banned from interacting with and that includes on ANI. I have to question whether or not you will abide by an interaction ban with D.S. Lioness. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

That's from a sister project to Wikipedia, but outside of ENwiki's jurisdiction. Even if it wasn't, we've had users on this very board note that the existence of such organizations can be a good thing. Note that WP:PUNISH is clear; sanctions are not meant to punish. I also find "sandbox thief" to be very tame, and further assume DSL misunderstood the rules, not intended to insult.

As for the interaction ban, do note that it doesn't force DSL to stop editing football articles. It just requires you two to not interact, including not reverting each other. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I would only accept it as a last resort, because it's not just a problem between us. The user has also caused a problem for another user.User:Abudabanas Am i right? His edits are not npov because they are SPA. He's here to whitewashing Marinakis and Olympiacos. It's a pity because you don't know Greek, you can't understand the problem in depth. D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

the question is whether or not the administrators can enforce compliance with the rules of the project.

Am I allowed to reinstate content of a blocked user if I find it worthy; yes or no;

if yes, why are you letting him vandalize the article;; if no, why are you letting me vandalize the article;;?

Is he allowed to circumvent the concept of consent by writing that "there are two of us and one of you", so I delete it, yes or no;; if yes, I do editwar, if not he does edit war. D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

DSL, which rules are you alleging have been violated? I ask because you seem to have several misunderstandings about what the rules are, such as edit warring (above), and content policies (Montigliani's writing of content for an article). To clarify, there is no prohibition whatsoever against trying to write content before someone else. In fact, WP:JUSTDOIT encourages people to fill any gaps they are made aware of.

I understand that you believe Montigliani's edits are not neutral. This is a matter for the neutral point of view noticeboard, where editors will take a look. If they agree with you, they will fix or revert the edits without requiring an edit war. An edit war which, as SWATJester notes above, is not justified by fixing POV content. Because everybody thinks they're right in an edit war, there are only eight cases where you can revert at will. In all other cases, you must follow the usual rules.

And to answer your direction question, yes, you are allowed to reinstate content. He is also allowed to then revert it if he disagrees, as with any edit. The proper response is use dispute reslution, not to edit war. Also note that, even in your false dichotomy, neither case would be vandalism; see WP:NOTVAND. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

O.K. I see. We are going to arbitration committe, about Super League Greece article. The other options, they don't work, as there are few editors in greek football articles. D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

DSL, please carefully read the policies that have been linked. The arbitration committee would be skipping quite a few steps. The section on arbitration in WP:DR states it is only for after you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article. (Emphasis original) The ones to try would be third opinion, and if that doesn't work, one of the content noticeboards. And given your response below, please, try to assume good faith. Other than that, I would suggest you request this section be closed, then open one on WP:NPOVN, the noticeboard for NPOV issues. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I see... my report regarding his use of my sandbox remains valid. And I would like to focus your attention on that. (the other one I will solve somehow or leave unresolved) D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

You wrote, my report regarding his use of my sandbox remains valid. Earlier, I wrote, there is no prohibition whatsoever against trying to write content before someone else. Please link to the policy or guideline page that prohibits writing content in response to another's sandbox. Also be sure to quote the relevant passage. As I said above, I don't believe such a policy exists.

I'll be honest, DSL. Given the ANI thread last month, your attempt here to use a block to "win" a content dispute, and your continued assumptions of bad faith, I'm concerned you may not have the temperament for a collaborative project. It seems like you could be very productive, so I hope you'll show me that I'm wrong by editing collegially and avoiding personalizing content disputes. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

As long as you consider that there was no violation and as long as you consider that it is not a fraudulent tactic (bearing in mind that even this user did not question the details I provided) then the matter is closed. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think what Swatjester was trying to explain above is that "vandalize" (here again) is the wrong term. This is not vandalism. Neither of you is a vandal. Vandal is intentional damage to the encyclopedia. Neither of you intentionally damages the encyclopedia.
Regarding the restoration of content, if your motivation is that you find it unfair for a specific user's contributions to have been undone, and if your motivation is restoring a specific blocked user's contributions, you shouldn't do this. You need independent reasons for taking over the content, making it your own responsibility. You must check if it really says what you mean; you must check each reference; you become the author. If it's not neutral, you have added non-neutral content to an article, and that's your own fault. If it damages the reputation of a living person, you yourself have decided to do so, and you can not blame someone else for it. If you are truly willing to completely take responsibility for content, you may restore it. It's an individual decision for every edit, not a generally always allowed action. This is why answering your question with a definitive answer is so hard, and why Montigliani's objections are not simply automatically wrong. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I have read the policy about restoring blocked users' edits, and i take fully responsibility for the content of the paragraph.

You have written "Neither of you intentionally damages the encyclopedia.". actually, Modigliani doesn't care if he damages wikipedia with his contributions. he doesn't do it on purpose but he doesn't care either. all he cares about is defending Marinakis and Olympiacos. D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Your courage is incredible! Why are you trying to slander Marinakis and Olympiakos? Justice has vindicated them. Why should I? And so you understand. You accused me of theft and it turns out you lied. You'll probably say that now. Man's habits are unbreakable. You are indefinitely blocked elsewhere, under another name, politically oriented user and slanderer. If we are to bring back malicious edits of confirmed puppets with such audacity, it makes no sense to talk about wikipedia foundation rules. Montigliani (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Montigliani, there's no trophy on Wikipedia for "most scathing retort". Your reply above does not seem well-crafted to encourage collaboration, and accusations must be backed up with evidence or they become WP:ASPERSIONS, a form of personal attack. This is particularly true with politically oriented user and slanderer. I'd like you to strike that passage, but will settle for you trying to avoid inflaming the situation further. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I have given too much information. But I don't think you even read them. I apologize for sounding rude, but the truth is like rudeness. They are both hard and hurt. When she called me I helped her. He then makes fun of us all. What can I say. Sorry again. Montigliani (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Montigliani, well "the truth" is that I don't see how you thought you could abide by an Interaction ban when every response you make includes an insult to the other editor. And they are not doing much better than you either. If you can't control your posts and emotions, you might both be facing a block for personal attacks. You don't seem to realize that your words and evidence-free accusations have consequences. We can't foster a collaborative editing platform with editors attacking each other. If you want continue editing here, you will focus on the content, hopefully, of other articles and not on other editors. Because at some point, I imagine relatively soon, we won't be talking about warnings but about blocks for one or both of you for either edit-warring or personal attacks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Calling me a thief isn't a personal attack? Montigliani (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I said you were both guilty of making insults. But this isn't a fistfight and being attacked doesn't give you permission to attack another editor. It's not a game of "last one standing wins". Read Wikipedia is not a battleground. You both need to stop bickering and move on from this dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

here is further proof of why this user is contributing in Wikipedia, and what the purpose of all his edits are. If you don't block her, you'll be forced to block me. I appreciate you immensely, but I won't back down. They want to pass the slanders about Marinakis to the Super Liq article. Over my dead body. [46] — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.S. Lioness (talk • contribs) 01:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

What is your purpose? Slander Marinakis, Olympiakos or both together? And why do you write in green? Montigliani (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

At a guess, the color is supposed to indicate quotation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

What action to take?

Honestly at this point I'm starting to think that, at minimum, both D.S. Lioness and Montigliani should be topic banned from Greek Sports, broadly construed. Neither of them have shown any ability to edit in that area in a collegial or co-operative manner. Canterbury Tail talk 19:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. This is getting unreasonable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  I will say I'm this >< close to just blocking both of them outright. Canterbury Tail talk 19:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have felt this way also over the past week. D.S. Lioness appears far too often at this noticeboard and other places I don't want to see editors recently. Daniel (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Support I suggest D.S. Lioness be topic banned from Greece, broadly construed, as that seems to be the common factor between this area of disruption and the one last month, in which DS Lioness' was p-blocked and multiple editors suggested a topic-ban from Greek politics. I would also support an indefinite block, though it is not my first choice. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I am engaged in Greek articles since December 2023. I have reversed edits and have had edits reversed many times. Only in this case did a problem arise. I think your generalization does me an injustice. D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from either Greece, broadly construed, or Greek sports (whichever gains greater support, I can live with). This has been going on too long. Daniel (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support the standard offer for both users, in addition to a topic and two-way interaction ban as an unblock condition.

MiasmaEternal☎ 08:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's start with an interaction ban! I need a little more time to adjust myself. D.S. Lioness (talk)

Sorry but this isn't just about the interaction between you two, it's about your entire approach and attitude to this project as a whole. Canterbury Tail talk 19:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Support the topic ban indef block for both because of the repeated edit warring and the suggestion by both it would continue. I would also suggest the interaction ban as a means to dissuade future reoccurrences of this discussion. --ARoseWolf 20:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC) - edit: like others I have continued to see the refusal to back away from their battleground positions and drop the stick. As a result I am siding with an indef block for both editors with the condition of a topic ban and interaction ban should they be unblocked. This has gone on long enough. --ARoseWolf 12:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I would like you to allow me a comment before you make your final decision. I know we tired you and caused a disturbance. I accept that I have a responsibility too. But I never vandalized or mocked or put false information. I will not judge what the other user did. However, he persisted and managed in a cunning way to restore the treatment of the well-known puppet Nikolaos Fanaris to the entry of V. Marinakis. He does the same in the Super League entry. If it's considered correct that's fine. I also did not curse or offend. I only deal with football. If you block me from there, it's like an indefinite barrier. The decision is yours. Thanks for putting up with me for so long. But I feel wronged to be equated with a user who supports puppets and is indefinitely banned from the Greek wikipedia named Dora Stroumbouki.--Montigliani (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

You say you "will not judge what the other user did" and then you go on ahead and do judge and insult them. You say you won't do something and then in the next sentence, that's exactly what you do. Do you see how conduct like this can lead to a topic ban or a block? We can't trust that you will do what you say you'll do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. By what criteria do you judge us? From our actions and from our behavior. Am I wrong? How can I protect myself if I don't show what he did and what he said?

Is it false that it reverts edits of confirmed puppets? No, she admitted it herself.

Is it a lie that she deceived the TOBEFREE administrator and her interlocutors on the discussion page of the entry B. Marinakis? No. I gave proofs on your own page. He came here and called me a thief and it turned out he was lying. Here, re-read above.

Where exactly are my personal attacks? I am very sorry. You are negative towards me, but you are not right at all. We also have a dignity. Montigliani (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. Daniel (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

What she said. jp×g🗯️ 23:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I have submitted a report here on a specific issue, a very serious one in my opinion. As far as it appeared (although only one or two administrators commented on this particular issue) it was rejected. Accepted. But how an issue of banning from certain categories has suddenly arisen; has there been an edit war somewhere; has any of the articles been vandalized; why we should be banned from editing specific categories, I don't understand. If you want to provide a solution, an interaction ban and perhaps a ban in anything about Marinakis is enough, i think. unless you just don't want to solve this particular problem just to get rid of possible future problems D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban from Greece as a minimum, but I'm not seeing what's lost by INDEFFing both. Star Mississippi 01:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  • The continued interactions between by both even since this thread opens lead me to land here too. I also support this course of action. Daniel (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

    which interaction? I don't interact with user since this thread opened D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

    Your comments in this sub-section above to other editors speak for themselves. Daniel (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

    so help me God, i can't understand how ANI works...Any way i rest my case. Thank you. D.S. Lioness (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  Because I haven't done anything to be ashamed of, I don't accept half measures. Unlimited block for her and acquittal for me. Anything else is a wrong decision and a scandal. Montigliani (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  If someone asked what does WP:BATTLEGROUND look like in one line of text, the above is just about the most descriptive response possible. Genuinely astonishing approach to take. Daniel (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Greece broadly construed for both editors. Neither seems capable of self control. Cullen328 (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Indef for both I'm changing my mind. The conduct of both editors here even after it's been made clear to them that serious sanctions are being considered is showing that the project loses nothing by not having them on it. It's clear that for both editors what they say and what they do are not the same thing and their conduct is just incompatible with our goals and conduct. Any trust or sense of wanting to believe what they write is completely gone. Both of them seem insistent on taking this to a scorched earth pyrrhic end, so lets just end this and stop wasting everyone's time. Canterbury Tail talk 01:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Indef for both. Wikipedia cannot afford to host such disruptive behavior, this is not social media. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC).
• Support blocking for both. Per above. If they cannot calm down, it would be worse for editors of Greece-related topics. No wiki will be a punching bag for harassment and/or personal attacks. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef and topic ban if unblocked; I'd prefer indef at this point because I have no confidence they would abide by the terms of a topic ban alone. Both users seem unable to drop the stick and cease their personal attacks even in this thread, when they should be well aware that their behavior is under intense scrutiny. Neither seems to understand that their squabbling is wasting volunteer time, both want to have the last word, and this isn't going to end without the community forcibly intervening. StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef on both, with a topic-ban from Greece (broadly construed) as an unblock condition - The fact they're mostly ignoring everyone and focusing on waging their fight in the thread itself is very concerning to me. Neither are willing to disengage, and as noted above Greece en generale seems to be the main locus of this issue. So a pox on both their houses, blammo-disintegrate them, and if they want to come back, they need to accept an enforceable topic-ban from Greece on top of putting together a sensible unblock request. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_of_Solomon this will show you who is right Montigliani (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  Seems a flawed example. But in so much as it has relevance, wouldn't the judgment of Solomon mean that once people started to discuss a topic ban or indef, instead of saying "Unlimited block for her and acquittal for me. Anything else is a wrong decision and a scandal." as you did above, you should have said ' Unlimited block for me and acquittal for her. I'd rather Wikipedia at least keeps one of us and our work flawed as it may be to improve Wikipedia and especially coverage of Greek topics on Wikipedia, rather than lose us both and all that work.'. Because what you actually did seems to be fairly different from what the actual mother did in the Solomon legend. Instead of saying 'I'd rather give up the baby than let it be killed', you just continued to say 'It's my baby, don't kill it but give it to me not her'. Nil Einne (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  What I want to say is that I do not accept any punishment for myself, precisely because I am not guilty of anything. The other user accepts compromises. I don't. I am innocent and I am fighting for my right. I thus put myself at risk by appearing intransigent to the administrators. Montigliani (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them both - Seems nothing has changed since my last login, the amount of people changing their opinions from topic bans to blocks just tells me that this is only going to end one way. So I have gone ahead and blocked both of them before we waste any more time on this. We don't need any more comments or opinions to reach a decision here. Canterbury Tail talk 13:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding User:CriticallyThinking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user CriticallyThinking has repeatedly ignored feedback regarding edits made to a handful of articles, and regrettably discussion has been reduced to mudslinging on more than one occasion; on this most recent occasion I am attempting to curb falling into this behaviour by warning the user and subsequently filing a report.

For example, on more than one occasion, despite my best efforts to adjust the structure of Tom & Jerry (2021 American film), specifically the visual effects and animation section, the user has often removed quotes I have attempted to embed from sources, in favour of paraphrasing that usually only serves to make the relaying of information more confusing. It has sometimes come down to hasty edits to the page for the sake of dominance.

Here is a passage I worked on embedding quotes from in order to make the production process of the film clearer:

Revision as of 20:22, 23 July 24

To evoke the original Tom and Jerry shorts' character designs, movements, and expressions, animation director Michael Eames stated that Framestore "developed new rigs that enabled us to squash, stretch, and at times totally deform the characters." A 2D draw-over phase was introduced in which 2D artists guided the 3D animators with hand-drawn poses and expressions of the characters over a rough edit. Eames explained that the draw-overs were a reference for the 3D animators to "refine and better sculpt shapes we were not fully able to achieve in the production process." An automated tool was also developed to generate 2D outlines into the models. Story described this technique as "2D-plus animation."

This was admittedly my preferred iteration of the paragraph. During our dispute, CriticallyThinking would make changes that were grammatically poor, complicated the intent of the original source and removed those quotes.

Revision as of 20:29, 23 July 24

To evoke the original Tom and Jerryshorts' character designs, movements, and expressions, and their 2D finish,the production introduced software for every traditional animation technique, ranging from the models' outlines to their deforming potential. A 2D draw-over phase was also introduced, where 2D sketchviz artists guided the 3D animators with hand-drawn poses and expressions of the characters over a rough edit. Animation director Michael Eames explained that it's to help "refine and better sculpt shapes we were not fully able to achieve in the production process", to bypass CGI's creative limitations and replicate their 2D execution.  Story described this technique as "2D-plus animation."

This was quite frustrating, as not only were what I felt were concise and easy-to-follow quotations being removed, but they were being replaced with passages that were hastily written without much thought, and contained an implicit and recurring bias that frequently veered into original research despite defences to the contrary.

Thus, I am adding this topic to protect the sanctity and integrity of my own contributions, and to hopefully take a step toward preventing further disruptions like this again. I would also like feedback on how I could have handled a situation like this differently, because I think I could have prevented it from becoming quite so volatile in hindsight. Thank you. Ciscocat (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Read the paragraphs and the cited sources again. You are outright trying to re-write history and removed insightful information and sources that proved the direction and how high the demands were for the production and animation. Admins, because of you, protected this page from vandalism and called you out for being biased. In the end, you'd be better off seeking therapy rather than throwing a fit because it's not done your way. CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If it wasn't for how obsessive you are over stalking me day after day, which you always do on every social media platform I am in, you wouldn't have an issue and moved on with your life. Regardless of how you feel, the production behind it innovated and was a first-ever attempt at a CGI workflow cloning the look and feel of traditional 2D and with many software tools introduced to achieve the part. This isn't me trying to make the film look like it's postivitely received. It's just a fact behind its production, and the sources proved it. Take it with a grain of salt and move on, because it's better than being a biased, uneducated vandal. CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't exactly have a horse in this fight, but can you cool it with the personal attacks? MiasmaEternal☎ 22:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If you did not have a history of attacking peers of mine, unprompted, across multiple platforms (because people would not defend the 2021 Tom & Jerry film and you would literally beg them to like it) and gotten yourself temporarily suspended a number of times, I would not have gotten myself involved. Any flippant jokes I may have made were in response to your behavioural pattern of harassment, insults and self-victimization, and a shared amusement/frustration among those communities. Also plagiarism, which is why moderators removed you from Letterboxd and a good reason to be concerned about you editing Wikipedia. Ciscocat (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As I've said before, using positive terms like "innovative" that aren't reflected in the source isn't appropriate editing and shows a clear bias in favour of the film. Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

And one thought off the top for you: you had better, right the heck now, take a look at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You've already had a block for edit warring, in your short Wikipedia career, and an insult like you just levied against Ciscocat is blockworthy in of itself. Stop that at once. Ravenswing 22:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Some more insults have been directed at me. CriticallyThinking (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Ciscocat (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Please explain to me how embedding quotes directly from a crew member is rewriting history. And no admin has ever admonished me for being biased in this ordeal. On the other hand, considering your opinion on this film is very apparent in spaces such as the edit logs–

"Stop throwing a fit because a movie you didn't like managed to be unique."

"Creative and artistic liberties are shown, regardless of how much you want to re-write history."

–I would say you’re leading with a certain agenda. You’ve also demonstrated that you have misread the sources you have often coveted by, for instance, referring to it as “the first project in all of animation to introduce software for 2D animation techniques.” You have amalgamated sources and came to a conclusion that does not exist within them, or taken phrases that were partial or subjective and extrapolated them as fact (i.e. believing that the visual effects vendor’s description of the animation as “hyperkinetic” is factual). Ciscocat (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

One thought right off the top, without respect to the issue of your complaint: there's no protection to be had for the "sanctity" or "integrity" of your contributions. Any articlespace edit you make is subject to being changed, replaced or removed, and we all agree to that as a precondition of any edit we make. Ravenswing 22:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. Ciscocat (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. Ciscocat (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There was a very long drawn-out edit war between these two users on 23 July at Tom & Jerry (2021 American film) that required an admin to fully-protect that article for a week. It looks like some of that edit-warring behavior between the two has since carried over to The Looney Tunes Show, albeit to a lesser extent. The reported user has a history of being blocked for edit-warring, though that doesn't exonerate the filing editor's conduct from being examined as well; it takes two to tango. We may need to consider topic bans and/or blocks from specific articles, especially if this behavior persists. For feedback on handling this type of situation, it's simple; don't edit war, and use the article talk page. Left guide (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this heated dispute is over Tom & Jerry (2021 American film)? I just want to be sure because it's not stated in the initial complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Well yes, mostly, at least from the on-wiki perspective, which is the lens through which I made my initial reply. From reading this thread, it also appears that these two users have had skirmishes with each other on other websites, and their "rivalry" has spread to this site. Pinging @Star Mississippi: who made the full protection, in case you might have additional insight as to what's going on. Left guide (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Zero interest in article content; it appears that CriticallyThinking’s version is simply subpar at a WP:MOS and grammatical level, introducing syntax errors, (unencyclopedic) introduction of contractions, and jargon. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way that can be rectified? Ciscocat (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Some insults/name-calling have come my way.

Just face history and re-writing it won't change anything. Find something better to do than to stalk people on the internet, even after deliberately cutting ties with an egotistical jerk. At this point, I can assume you're either a bot or a troll. CriticallyThinking (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Ciscocat (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this user’s vandalism has since spread to other pages. During a discussion regarding the “innovative” nature of Tom & Jerry (2021 American film), I brought up several examples of animation techniques that had been previously established on the production of several other high-profile animated projects such as Hotel Transylvania (as an example, a “drawing-over“ phase for feedback on 3D animation, as well as the distortion of rigs on character models). The user then began to make edits on Hotel Transylvania’s page that did not enhance it in any way, such as divorcing mention of the animation from the overall production section. User HarryHenry1 can vouch for this.

There were also repeated difficulties on the Looney Tunes Show article in which the user would often accuse various other users of “sugarcoating” sources to fit their personal bias by revising certain word choices:

The fact that you are sugarcoating the series as "differences" rather than the lack of fidelity to the Looney Tunes as criticized by the sources means you shouldn't be the one calling one person out for "edit warring". Stop making it look better out of personal bias.

This is contradictory to the opposing user’s own claims that on a subjective level they also have a distaste for this show, and ironic considering that they appear to have done the exact same on pages such as the Hotel Transylvania one. InedibleDevon (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mahdi Mortazavi 1987

• Mahdi Mortazavi 1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just recreated Amirkian Mohammadi right after it had been deleted at AfD

I strongly suggest an admin to deal with this guy, cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they did the same with Aref Jalayeri and Parsa Sanat Khorasan Jonoubi, couple of times in a row each. —Cryptic 15:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

With that continued habit, I would suggest an indef-ban. Govvy (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

lol, he just recreated yet again!! :/ Govvy (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

LeahAnderson2005

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We have an editor that is making edits en masse over multiple days [47] [48] to the lead sections of prominent bio articles (mostly rappers) and not talking to other users. These edits are not in-line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography as several people have explained to them. They are also removing invisible text in the article code (perhaps mistakenly, using the visual editor). I have assumed good faith and left several messages on their talk page trying to explain how we do things and to slow down and talk to us, to no avail, as the edits keep coming. Their edits are reverted on every page they attempt, yet they charge ahead. They are close to WP:3RR on several articles but appear to be knowledgable enough not to breach it, coming back the next day to try again. Some of these edits (like [one] to Swae Lee) appear to be unverified contentious claims about living people. (I asked for a source after that one, giving them a chance, and didn't get a reply.) These edits are wasting a lot of editor effort having to be reverted/altered. The editor is not interested in getting consensus, seeking advice, or talking to anyone, simply trying to enforce their own preferences on Wikipedia.

To add to it all, the account appears to be a sock of a blocked account (see the investigation here) along with several other accounts/IPs that have engaged in extremely similar disruptive edits to lead sections of prominent rapper articles.

This is my first AN/I report, so apologies if this is not the venue or doesn't rise to the level; just trying to help the encyclopaedia. StewdioMACK (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

100% this is sockpuppet master Maurice20111 (talk · contribs). Same MO, same topic. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Correct. So was Joseph231028. Both now blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Autobiographical article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@User:Jmelki has been repeatedly editing and submitting Draft:Jad Melki about themselves to WP:AFC. This violates WP:AB. Ktkvtsh (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:YOURSELF (part of AB), we encourage people who really really want to write an autobiography (despite the warnings) to go through AfC. The draft you declined was submitted on May 15 and this editor (with 22 total edits) hasn't edited since May 20.

Trout for bringing this to AN/I. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Endorse trout, user in question hasn't edited in exactly three months - this isn't at all the urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems ANI is for. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent sockmaster

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I wonder if an administrator could help with the following situation. Basically a sockmaster has repeatedly been creating an article (?apparently about himself?). History as follows…

An article on Khashayar Farzam [49] was initially created by an SPA in 2017 and curated by various other SPAs. The article went to AfD [50] where various SPAs popped up to contest the deletion. The article was deleted in May 2017 and the various SPAs were blocked as socks following an SPI here [51].

The article was then re-created at some point shortly afterwards and re-deleted under G4 in August 2017.

Then fast forward to Nov 2023 and the article was re-created by a new SPA and then curated by various SPAs with similar editing habits. After an amount of edit warring with other users these SPAs were all blocked yesterday following an SPI [52]. The article was then deleted under G5. The deletion had been contested by a further newly created SPA, who was surely also a sock.

Within half an hour of the deletion another SPA appeared, Stevenmartin12. This account, obviously another sock, immediately created a draft [53] on the same subject and submitted it for review (although they later blanked the draft after I posted the history above on the draft talk page).

It seems that a lot of community time is being wasted by an individual with an apparent conflict of interest repeatedly trying to install an article on this subject on to Wikipedia, and who repeatedly uses sockpuppets to try to circumvent policy. Is there anything that can be done to put a stop to this disruptive activity? Axad12 (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock, and another one (Casual viewerON), and deleted the draft. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Catia108's stubborn behavior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Catia108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been warned and reprimanded for months regarding their poor practice of citing references by frequently using Instagram blog sources (WP:RSPINSTAGRAM) as well as not using Wikipedia naming conventions as per WP:COMMONNAME on Miss Universe 2024 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Several editors such as @Sciencefish have been trying to remind them of this on the user's talk page but they have not responded at least once regarding this, instead they just continue on their poor editing practices. They don't seem to plan to change one bit and I think that it's about time admin intervention is needed. Milesq (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Since most of their editing activity involved editing the Miss Universe 2024 article, I have blocked them from this page for two weeks and left them a comment on their User talk page that they need to start reading and responding to messages there. They have used the article talk page so they can still make suggestions there. Please return to ANI or contact me if this behavior returns after the block is over or whether it continues on another article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Shivam Thiruppathi

Hi,the user: @Shivam Thiruppathi and I were involved in a conflict regarding the article: List of Telugu film actresses, where I previously reverted an edit of a different user with this edit summary: [54] and the user didn't revert anything back again. But @Shivam Thiruppathi reverted back my edit with this particular edit summary, constituting the nature of attack on me: [55] and also reverted my other edits on different articles without providing any explanation for the reverts, which I see in the nature of personal attack since there was no basis for his reverts of my contributions on other articles. I recieved 14 notifications in this regard.

Look into the very recent edit history of the following articles: [56] [57][58][59] [60]

These reverts were performed by him after he reverted my edits on List of Telugu film actresses which is a clear indication of vandalism and attack, where I have also requested him to provide an explanation for his activities on his user talk page and also on the article talk page, which he didn't reply but continues to make changes on the respective article. And now an IP user made the same change as it was intended by the user on the article in the same way without an explanation or response on the talk page. See: [61] where I suspect it is the same person. 456legendtalk 03:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Can any administrator please look into this? 456legendtalk 06:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the diffs but I posted on their User talk page, asking them to participate in this discussion. I'd pause before calling it a personal attack but, as I said, I haven't looked into this yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Alex091981 and WP:RUSUKR

• Alex091981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have alerted this editor several times since November ([62][63][64]) that non-extended confirmed editors are unable to make edits about the Russia–Ukraine war, broadly construed. They acknowledged the final warning I gave [65], but they have once again decided to not follow this with a recent edit very clearly about the war.[66] Therefore, I am requesting an indefinite block for Alex091981. Mellk (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, they made two edits on that article explicitly about the war.[67] Also an edit on another article that mentions the Russian annexation of Crimea, which obviously falls under the war.[68]. Mellk (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

You might want to talk to them first. Northern Moonlight 20:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

They only responded after a mention that this would likely lead to a block. They said that they had read the GS but these edits now are pretty blatant. Since I gave the final warning, they have been careful not make edits about the war but now decided to make a series of edits very clearly about the war. I do not think this was by accident. If not, this is a matter of WP:CIR as WP:RUSUKR very clearly says that only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area. Mellk (talk) 08:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Vihar Exports time sink

User VIHAREXPORTS was blocked a few years ago for spamming about their business at Draft:Vihar Exports. This was continued by a number of socks, as can be seen here, and at other titles eg. Draft:Viharexports.shop and Draft:Viharexports.co.in; they also keep adding that business to the Talala, Gujarat article. After these accounts got blocked, they've resorted to editing from several IP addresses in the 2409:40F2: range (at least 2409:40F2:47:2049:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2409:40F2:F:F988:A596:C3EB:6A73:7F65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2409:40F2:2041:789F:257F:DBDE:B31B:6661 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2409:40F2:3051:2BC5:9538:3360:F3DA:F5DA (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2409:40F2:47:2049:E9E0:887:B6B3:77E5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). Of these, 331dot has already briefly blocked 2409:40F2:3051:2BC5:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the rest remain open. As this spam storm doesn't show any signs of dissipating, I'm asking for the broadest and longest block that can be applied to this range, please. TIA, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know who I'm meant to notify here, so I've notified the master, FWIW. Didn't seem much point in notifying all the IPs. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve requested temporary page protection for Talala, Gujarat. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

2409:40F2:2053:8E41:115E:1E1D:C583:CBFC (talk · contribs · WHOIS) now active. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

PS, forgot to say that although Draft:Vihar Exports is protected, Draft:Viharexports.co.in and Draft:Viharexports.shop aren't, so if those could be protected that would also help. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Brayan Waelchi

Brayan Waelchi is reverting constructive IP contributions and leaving vandalism warnings for no apparent reason. Can someone take a look at their reverts? Thanks. C F A 💬 04:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Now globally locked. Someone might want to mass rollback their edits. C F A 💬 05:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI, this is a sock puppet of a user. The owner had made thousands of Wikipedia accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamish Ross. Who has been mainly targeting innocent IP users. This has been going on since 2007. PEPSI697 (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring by vandal IP

There's recurrent edit warring in Pallava dynasty and Tamil script. I tried my best reverting these but it's still going on. Rasnaboy (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to report the issue. Please use WP:EWN. Be warned, on a first glance it appears to me that you have also been edit warring. --Yamla (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I was only reverting sourceless changes. But since it continued beyond 3RR, I stopped and chose to report. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

User:NoaTigva repeatedly accusing me of Nazi sympathies and defending Nazi atrocities with no evidence.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In a discussion about an article, User:NoaTigva repeatedly accused me of defending Nazis and their actions during the Holocaust, which I did not do and have never done. In this revision they accused me of having an "insistence on defending Nazis" (I never defended Nazis), and after I said that the accusation was "uncalled for and extremely rude", they responded that I was engaging in "excusal of Nazi atrocities", and that their feeling were "unchanged". Nowhere in this conversation had I excused or defended Nazis, their ideology, or their actions, in any form. When I said that I was going to bring the subject to ANI, they responded that I am "trying to have a Jewish editor removed", which is a pretty blatant accusation of antisemitism. To be entirely clear, I had no idea that this user is Jewish, I know literally nothing about them at all. I think this user doesn't know how to assume good faith in a disagreement and is thus using personal attacks and unfounded accusations. Frankly I am deeply insulted at being called a Nazi-defender and I think that a person who throws accusations like that around so casually should not be part of this community. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: User:Solshineonline has now also jumped into the accusations, accusing me of Holocaust denial. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Diffs are easier to read, rather than a page revision, diffs correspond to the way they were presented in original comment - diff 1, diff 2, diff 3. NoaTigva's account was created on August 21, 2024, with a total of 23 edits, all to the aforementioned talk page. Solshineonline's account was created on August 21, 2024, with a total of 24 edits, again, 22 to the same talk page, and 2 to article. Their edits primarily consist of backing up NoaTigva. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Just block both Editor Interaction Analyser Moxy🍁 05:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I see its Wikipedia:Meatpuppet I'm on an outdated phone and couldn't view the page properly, so I screenshot it, shared it to a Jewish Facebook group and asked for help. Help arrived, in the form of user Solshineonline.. New users....fast block see if they still have interest in helping Wikipedia in a day or 2. Moxy🍁 06:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's meatpuppet via off-wiki canvassing, and not familiar with any of our policies and guidelines. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, whatever it is, it is completely unacceptable disruptive editing -- a single-purpose account which has done nothing but make repeated personal attacks against one editor on a talk page, admitting meatpuppetry for the sole purpose of helping browbeat them? A disagreement about whether a citation should be on a page does not justify this. jp×g🗯️ 14:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

<- Maybe it's better to treat people like this as victims of misinformation. I read their comments. If you ignore the accusations, they seem like a rational agent trying to improve an article. However, the statement "Given the rampant antisemitism and Holocaust denial throughout Wikipedia since 10/7 (leading to several media reports and the creation of its own Wiki page)" suggests to me that they are a victim of misinformation and manipulation. If they hold that belief they are going to see antisemites everywhere. Maybe it is better to tell them they can think whatever they want but what they can say here is constrained by rules. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:AimanAbir18plus and refactoring/removing others' talk page comments

User:AimanAbir18plus has a long history of refactoring or removing the talk page comments of other users, despite being warned countless times to not engage in this behavior. When this user receives a warning, they will immediately remove it from their talk page, and then continue the same behavior that led to the warning. While I don't believe it is against policy to remove warnings from their talk page in this way (as it implies reading and understanding), this immediate removal makes it nearly impossible to track exactly how many warnings they have been given, and how long this behavior has been going on for, unless you run through their talk page's history like I have for this discussion.

Their edits to or removal of others' comments: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74].

Removals of warnings or discussion from their talk page: [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82].

I believe there is clearly a pattern being established, and while I also believe that AimanAbir18plus ultimately is here to build an encyclopedia, there is recurring behavior that is entirely unwarranted. GSK (talk • edits) 20:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I also expect my required notification on their talk page will be removed, so here is a diff for that: [83] GSK (talk • edits) 20:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

makes it nearly impossible to track exactly how many warnings they have been given

A very brief filtered search of their contributions gives us an answer of 8, so that's seemingly all of them. Remsense ‥ 论 20:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into this more at the moment, but I wanted to quickly mention that people are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk page, per WP:OWNTALK: The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user... Just putting this out there so this report can have the proper focus. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

They have never been warned not to remove comments that have been struck. The only relevant message warned against removing "legitimate talk page comments" which might reasonably be interpreted as allowing the removal of struck comments. Two of those WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE violations happened before any warning was given. The third happened afterwards so that's the only legitimate complaint here. I say warn them again about WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE and tell them explicitly that even comments that have been struck are not to be removed (don't just use a generic warning template), and come back if this continues. --Un assiolo (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Scratch that, the removals of struck comments happened before any warning was given about removing others' talk page comments. I would still suggest warning them explicitly that even struck comments are not to be removed, just in case, but that part of the complaint is absolutely unjustified. --Un assiolo (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

My warning on July 29 was in regards to them removing struck comments from Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk. They received another warning from a different user just five days prior. There is some justification in that part of the complaint. GSK (talk • edits) 22:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I understood that I shouldn't remove comments of others. I just removed some struck comments from Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk. But from now on I am ensuring that I won't remove comments of other people on talk pages. All I want is to contribute and make Wikipedia better. Thank you for your understanding. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless they are notices on your own User talk page, please leave comments on talk pages, even ones that are struck. Otherwise, it can be confusing to follow a threaded discussion when individual remarks are removed. If an editor makes a comment that is truly offensive and needs to be revision-deleted, contact an administrator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Alhitmi123

Alhitmi123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:TENDENTIOUS at Abu Tahir al-Jannabi, attempting to remove "Persian":

• Removed sourced info (Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica) with no edit summary, replacing "Persian" with "Arab" [84] [85]

• Removed sourced info (Iranica), falsely claiming it does not support the info [86], even though it literally does [87]

• Removed sourced info (Iranica) again, this time not only falsely claiming that Iranica does not support it, but also calls Iranica for not "peer-reviewed" [88], which is blatantly false had they bothered to make a 10 second search.

• Earlier they openly demonstrated that they did not even bother to check the citations that they removed (one of them is open access as well..) Not sure why it says WP:RS, do you have the name of the book or the full source? Thanks

• At Qarmatians, they replaced sourced info with their own words [89]

WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA:

• Very mature dig at Persians due to me merely saying their claims are unsourced, replying with another unsourced claim "I guess you are correct, It didn’t make sense at first an original arab would do a genocide against defenseless civilians, his honor wouldn’t allow it. Thanks for clarifying 🙏."

• "It seems that you want him to be Persian so hard for some reason or the other."

• if you are a person of knowledge you would care about learning and not pushing an agenda.

Which are all ironic... considering they were the ones to replace sourced "Persian" with their unsourced "Arab" [90] [91]

Alhitmi123 has been here since July 2023 and made 38 edits. Based on this report, I've no doubt they would have already been indeffed if they were more active (WP:NOTHERE). --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

They're still removing sourced info [92] [93] [94] and adding unsourced info [95]. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I added the fact that Jannaba is mainly Lurs ethnicity and speak Luri and you deleted it for no reason! Why did you do that? Why do you want them to be Persian so bad? Alhitmi123 (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I even added a book source behind my claim abd you deleted it! Alhitmi123 (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You're referring to this [96]. Not only is this hypocritical because you removed sourced info, but your citation has no page, what "Ph.D in middle-eastern History from Cambridge University" does not even know how to cite a page? And even if the citation you added does indeed support it, it's incredibly irrelevant, so what if the city has a Lur minority in present-day or around that time? What does that have to do with the Qarmatians and the era? Also, more WP:ASPERSIONS. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

No the city has always been a Lurs majority. This area always had a Persian minority not majoriry! The claim that Abu Said is Luri is much closer to reality than Persian. I see why this site is not respected among academic and more of a blog, ill leave this playground to you, im “outta here” Alhitmi123 (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

As you've been told countless times, Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not your personal opinion. And you are certainly not helping this site by adding your own opinion, removing sources, and failing to cite a source properly - no academic would respect that. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef block per WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Their account was created in 2019, never edited their user page. and then suddenly becoming "Ph.D in middle-eastern History from Cambridge University" after this ANI report[97][98]?! Is that some kind of justification/excuse for their problematic edits or what? It sounds like trolling in my opinion. Already violated 3RR on Abu Tahir al-Jannabi and Qarmatians. Ignoring all edit summaries/messages, non-stop pov-pushing, and refusing any kind of collaboration. --Mann Mann (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Alhitmi123 is either trolling or has severe WP:CIR issues, look at this revert I just made [99], where they amongst other things engaged in plagiarism of the Iranica source. WP:NOTHERE indeed. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Please be respectful and don’t insult me by using words such as trolling and having issues! The source says that the claim in “uncertain” and it is imported to the readers that this is mentioned in the context. Again please stop deleting important information that is found in the source (you have provided)! Alhitmi123 (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  HistoryOfIran is using direct insults to my useful edit saying im trolling and having serious issues WP:PA . Please stop that as we are trying to enlightened readers and not push personal opinions. Alhitmi123 (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies, please look at these direct insults on me. Alhitmi123 (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef block per my report, WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR issues, as well violation of WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS. They have also violated WP:3RR at Qarmatians. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Report on Violations by User “historyofiran”

  I would like to bring to the attention of the administrators that the user historyofiran has been engaging in the following disruptive behaviors, which are in violation of several Wikipedia policies:

  1. Violation of Three-Revert Rule (WP:3RR): The user has repeatedly reverted my edits on the Abu Tahir al-Jannabi article and the Qarmatians article, exceeding the three-revert limit within a 24-hour period. This clear violation of WP:3RR is disruptive and hampers the collaborative editing process. Relevant diffs include: [291], [292], [293], [294].

  2. Personal Attacks (WP:NPA): The user has made several inappropriate comments that amount to personal attacks against me. Examples include: • “You’re referring to this [295]. Not only is this hypocritical because you removed sourced info, but your citation has no page. What ‘Ph.D in middle-eastern History from Cambridge University’ does not even know how to cite a page? And even if the citation you added does indeed support it, it’s incredibly irrelevant, so what if the city has a Lur minority in present-day or around that time? What does that have to do with the Qarmatians and the era? Also, more WP:ASPERSIONS.” • “As you’ve been told countless times, Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not your personal opinion. And you are certainly not helping this site by adding your own opinion, removing sources, and failing to cite a source properly - no academic would respect that.” • “Support indef block per my report, WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR issues, as well violation of WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS. They have also violated WP:3RR at Qarmatians.” These comments violate Wikipedia’s no personal attacks policy and are not conducive to a collaborative editing environment.

  3. Tendentious Editing (WP:TENDENTIOUS): The user has repeatedly removed well-sourced information, including content from Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica, while inserting their own unsourced claims. This behavior is not only against the guidelines of verifiability and reliable sourcing, but it also shows a pattern of tendentious editing aimed at pushing a particular point of view.

  4. Aspersions (WP:ASPERSIONS): The user has cast aspersions on my motivations and qualifications, which is a violation of Wikipedia’s no casting aspersions policy.

  Given the above violations, I respectfully request that an administrator review the actions of historyofiran and take appropriate measures to ensure that Wikipedia remains a respectful and collaborative environment.

  Thank you for your attention to this matter. Alhitmi123 (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  I did not violate WP:3RR ("An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page") as clearly seen here [100] [101], but you did per [102] - in other words, you keep proving my point in regards to WP:CIR. Your whole comment is a poor attempt at parroting the issues that were brought up about you, especially point 3., which is blatant lying and was what you did (which is also why you can't show any diffs). HistoryofIran (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have noticed that you are going to every single edit and source i make and delete them. I really hope that you stop doing that and please revert what you did and leave me alone. I really don’t want to get into a conflict with you, i really hope you understand that. Alhitmi123 (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef Edit-warring, persistent disruptive POV-pushing, and so on, which continues since the filing of this report. Aintabli (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef block Clearly, they are not here to contribute constructively to this encyclopedia, as indicated by the provided diffs. They can continue playing a fool's game elsewhere, but not on Wikipedia - LouisAragon (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Four supports for indef block, would appreciate if an admin would look into this. Otherwise Alhitmi123 is just going to continue. Heck, they attempted to credit their violations of the policies of this website to me in this report, that says more than enough about their character. Here is another of their rude remarks; "I know this place is your life but you don’t have an authority over putting down other cultures and civilizations that doesn’t fit your narrative. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Sportsfan 1234 at Tennis at the 2024 Summer Olympics

@Sportsfan 1234: has been consistently edit warring the sport's page Tennis at the 2024 Summer Olympics. On 18 August, 2024 they reverted an edit on the aforementioned's page layout to fit what they claim is per WP:OLYMPICS guideline claiming "Set up consistent structural and graphical layouts for displaying data on theme-specific articles." as its goal which the project certainly does not follow. Moving individual sections to top and others to bottom to fit their narrative of what they feel is a proper order of the sections which supposedly follows the guideline by doing so on all summer Olympics pages in 2024, yet the Olympic project itself lists different layouts for different sports at YEAR summer/winter Olympics, i.e. it is not consistent and there is no standard layout specified in the goals. They have been reverted by multiple editors on different sport pages and still play the per WP:OLYMPICS standard or per WP:OLYMPICS guideline, where said guideline allows for flexibility as it does not have a unified layout for SPORTS at YEAR Olympics pages.

WP:TENNIS, the project's previous Olympic editions pages are perfectly fine and within consensus without any objections. We tried reasoning with him on:

1. the warred page's talk page: Talk:Tennis at the 2024 Summer Olympics#Medal summary format;
2. olympics project's talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Medal Summary Order and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Medal summary sections on sport at x Olympics format.
3. tennis project talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Olympic tennis article issue

but to not avail. They still continue reverting layout edits made at Tennis at the 2024 Summer Olympics to the proclaimed WP:OLYMPICS guideline, which holds no water.

I issued two level 1 warnings for vandalism and disruption after going back and forth patiently for a full month of with them, hoping they would stop warring, and immediately they removed 2 warnings which means they have read and are aware of the warnings' contents. And then they accuse me of edit warring (issuing a level 3 warning, skipping the first 2) when they are the one causing the disruption.

I request for this editor's behavior to be dealt with accordingly as they are causing not just me but also other editors in the tennis community headaches, namely @Fyunck(click): on their talk page.

This needs to stop. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah... I had to block him from my talk page for all the stuff he was posting. They do a lot of good work on Olympic-style articles, but seems to believe they can create rules out of thin air that the Olympic Project never discussed or has in their guidelines. And also demands that all sports follow their own personal Olympic style rather than another Project's style. This leads to a lot of reverts. He's deleted his talk page but Olympic Volleyball has issues with him where user @98Tigerius: has had to warn him. It's his seemed ownership of all things Olympics that is the problem, and that Olympics trump all other projects, even if it's his own made-up rules. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

What you failed to mention is its YOU who reverted the article to your preferred version first. This is how the article looked [103] and after you edited it for the first time [104]. Per the WP:BRD cycle, you were bold, and then reverted. However, your discussions have failed to yield any sort of consensus from what I see. As per WP:OLYMPICS goal, The project aims primarily to: Set up consistent structural and graphical layouts for displaying data on theme-specific articles. Which you continue to violate without getting consensus. Here are three examples of sports from the 2024 Olympics [105], [106] and [107] among others that have the schedule at the top, the medal table above the medalists and the medalists table with see details among other uniform formatting, which your preferred version violates and goes against consistent formatting. There is no consensus at all to change just the tennis articles, and I asked you to start a RFC to get ALL OLYMPIC articles changed to maintain uniform formatting [108] if you wished to do so. You and the other editor have been reverted multiple times [109], [110] among others. Most if not all of the 2024 articles were not created by me, rather I am following the format from these pages (ie consistent formatting across all pages). Please get consensus at WP:OLYMPICS or perhaps somewhere else where other parties can comment (I am not sure of the name of this)! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

"even if it's his own made-up rules" can you cite a rule that I have made up? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

"And also demands that all sports follow their own personal Olympic style rather than another Project's style. " - Again another dubious statement. I don't have an "own personal Olympic style". I have been citing examples from the 2024 Olympics or the Wikiproject itself. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234 has a long history of bad-faith conduct involving spamming other users' talk pages with inappropriate template warnings and edit warring. In this instance, SF1234 has also engaged in personal attacks by accusing other users, including Qwerty284651 and Fyunck(click), of vandalism. Just because SF1234 doesn't like their edits, it does not mean that they qualify as vandalism. An examination of SF1234's behavior on this tennis article shows repeated accusations of vandalism, as well as inappropriate vandalism template warnings delivered to both Qwerty284651 and Fyunck. Examples of this inappropriate conduct can be seen here and here. Someone needs to impart on SF1234 the importance of cordiality and cooperation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I find it funny and ironic that this user is able to point out vandalism templates posted on Fyunck's talk page (I don't think there was any posted on Qwerty's) but does not call out the exact same warning posted on earlier in this thread [111]. Does this not count as a personal attack according to this user's criteria? The vandalism warning was left on Fynuck's page when they blindly reverted all my edits including adding a picture to the article under medal summary (ie removal of content). All my other warnings have been under 'disruptive editing'. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Stealth canvassing to edit Manosphere using Reddit for recruiting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IGhostEdd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is canvassing on reddit for additional editors.

One commenter says "Yeah but any updates you make will be instantly reverted. Wikipedia has gone fully woke and should just be avoided at this point". IGhostEdd says "They can't revert us all! If we keep changing the page to the actual truth they might eventually give up, no?"

Also StarZax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in that same thread says "But I still think it's something that we should try [editing Wikipedia despite the admins]" and "We're just not enough. Wikipedia is about the number of people, and we aren't enough to weight in our favor (yet), maybe then they'll see « nuance »"

These are clearly attempts to recruit more people from reddit to edit Manosphere to shift the narrative.

Also I'm going to tag User:Sangdeboeuf who's been talking to StarZax about their edits.

Therealteal (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is off-wiki canvassing for a call for meatpuppetry, but the article hasn't been edited since July 30, so at the present time there is no disruption. If the call for arms does result in a brigade of POV pushers descending upon the article, then the appropriate measures can be taken. In the meantime, I don't know, maybe a warning to those users, that we don't tolerate canvassing to WP:RGW. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Based on (Redacted), their claim I'm not coordinating with anyone outside Wikipedia seems to be a bald-faced lie. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I looked into it because their usage of "we" and "us" seemed very suspicious. Luckily they used the same names here and on reddit. Therealteal (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Reading through that reddit thread, it's funny how they claim that most administrators are women when it's more like 5-10%. But mostly that discussion thread is just the kind of complaining about Wikipedia that we are familiar with. These manosphere articles are on a lot of Watchlists so I don't think we have to worry about any covert vandalism. I also would like to affirm to them that most editors here are responsible, policy-abiding users and not revert-happy, man-hating leftists who want to censor every viewpoint that is counter to the feminist narrative (their viewpoint). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected for a few years so all they will do is complain on the talk page. We do need to get better about not feeding the trolls there, though. MrOllie (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, I liked the part where the one fella thought that the numbers on the diff were an upvote/downvote, and that your edits were all getting 200 thumbs down, and someone had to explain it was the byte count of the modification. jp×g🗯️ 20:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Holydiver82

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This editor is exhibiting WP:NOTHERE behavior at The Acolyte (TV series). Despite multiple attempts to steer the user to finding a consensus, Holydiver has accused myself and others of being a sock[112] and of ownership[113][114]. After urging Holydiver one last time to AGF they responded by filing a malformed 3RR request against me.[115] Last week, I reported the user to the edit war noticeboard, but the admins instead pointed me to WP:ANI. I was just going to leave this alone, but this latest incident means I'm bringing it here. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I reported you because you revert every edit anyone makes on that page, in violation of the 3RR policy. all anyone has to do is look at the edit history of that page to see that you both revert every edit, and in the last 24 hours you have made 3 reverts. I have no idea why you have decided to take ownership of the page and refuse to allow anyone to edit it, including multiple people simply rewording poorly written sentences. If you simply allowed other people to edit the page there would be no problem. Holydiver82 (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Holydiver82, you know that content is being discussed at the talk page and there is no consensus for your changes. You can't keep making your edits every day or so and then complain that you keep getting reverted. Stop editing, wait for consensus to be found at the talk page, and then respect that decision. In your most recent comments at Talk:The Acolyte (TV series) you pointed out that you are new here and don't understand all the policies and guidelines. You should be taking it upon yourself to learn those rather than doing whatever you want and feigning ignorance. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

multiple different editors fixed some poor wording of 1 sentence, that changed absolutely nothing about what it said. now we need to start consensus every time someone re-words a sentence. hilarious. for reference as I read about all the rules of wiki, The three-revert rule states:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions. ...this was violated by nemov as evidence by the page history Holydiver82 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If you're accusing someone of breaking 3RR (and thank you for quoting what it says as it means you understand it) please provide evidence that they have reverted 4 times in the last 24 hours on the article. As I can only see 3. I do however see you doing a slow motion edit war pushing for your favoured wording without consensus as shown by the fact multiple editors have reverted these edits multiple times. Canterbury Tail talk 19:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

not sure exactly they the rules are, and what counts as a "revert" but for what it is worth adam has made 5 "revert" edits to change what another editor had done on the article, so far today. no idea how to property link up it, but if you simply go to the page and look at the edit history its all right there Holydiver82 (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

speaking of finding consensus, on the page in question multiple more editors have come to the page to attempt to edit it. at least 2 of these editors are making edits pretty much in line with what I was trying to do in regards to the lead, and viewership. as well as going to the talk page about the items, one of those editors included concern over the problem with ownership of the article by adam. who has today made at least 5 revert edits, and looking at the talk page, has basically started some form of argument/disagreement/etc with every additional editor. the talk page is pretty much someone pointing out a change they believe the article needs, and adam reverting it and arguing that no one else is allowed to change the page. not sure how to post references, but the talk page and edit history show a pretty clear pattern. there are now 3 different talk page topics about whip media and other editors disagreement with how adam is attempting to include it in the article in question, by 3 different editors Holydiver82 (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe Holydiver82's pattern of WP:NOTHERE editing began with The Marvels where at the talk they showed they would not accept consensus building if the consensus opposed their personal views. Their comments were often WP:BLUDGEONING with accusations that other editors were hiding the truth (ex: "Indeed there is a clearly politically motivated interpretation of the film's Absolutely terrible performance. This talk page is probably the best example of that since people are still trying to manipulate reality even in the face of this clear reliable sourced information on its performance. Will be interested to see if the truth and reality finally wins over manipulation"). From there, they've mostly moved onto other film articles which were classified as bombs and making various arguments around that. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of, Holydiver82 just started an edit war at Nia DaCosta (director for The Marvels) and violated WP:3RR. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This response[116] makes it clear the editor is not getting the message. Nemov (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

trust me, i got the message. any edit i make to any page will be reverted. you guys have made that crystal clear. for instance on the nia dacosta page. the 2 editors who reverted every change i made to it had never once edited that article before i made an edit. now they are all over it. if they give a reason, such as lack of citation, and i fix that problem. some new reason will be given to revert the changes i make. trust me, message received i am not welcome to edit wikipedia. if i do it will be reverted Holydiver82 (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

To speak for myself as one of the reverting editors, I only began editing the DaCosta article when I added an image of the director. Only after that did I notice the UNDUE statements which raised some BLP concerns. Everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia so long as basic policies and guidelines are being followed, especially in regards to biographies of living persons where this is more strict. The reasons why your edits have been reverted in these articles now and in the past has been constructively given, although, you have not followed through with the advice from other editors after several months of similar behavior with these articles, which, from my perspective, appear to be somehow related to the fact that these are Disney projects led by female actors that have received their share of controversy. Not trying to insinuate anything with this assessment, although it does further some WP:POV concerns with what Holydiver's intent or rationale may be with the nature of their edits, especially in this BLP. I would strongly suggest a page block of the articles for DaCosta, The Marvels, and The Acolyte if nothing else permits as necessary to prevent this long-term disruption from continuing, as Holydiver appears to be exhibiting WP:IDNHT. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Each time you reverted you gave a reason. And each time i made a correction to address the issue you brought up. You said exceptional, so i reference reliable sources. You said i didn't use citations. So i did that. Then you said it was undue. The problem is that you kept coming up with more and more reasons to revert. Each time you had some new reason. How am i supposed to edit and article and correct issues with my edits if literally every correction is reverted with some new reason why it's wrong. Holydiver82 (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Holydiver82, this behavior has already brought you to AN/I. Remember the Law of holes: If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Toughpigs (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

"trust me, message received i am not welcome to edit wikipedia. if i do it will be reverted" is passive-aggressive and WP:IDHT. The editor's POV-pushing purpose is obvious; they are not a victim of over-aggressive reverting. Toughpigs (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: Holydiver82 has returned to Talk:Nia Costa, beating the same drum and responding with outraged WP:IDHT to every comment anyone else makes. I fear that Holydiver is WP:NOTHERE, and just wants to argue. They should be urged to WP:DROPTHESTICK at the very least. Toughpigs (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• This may or may not have much of an impact at this late stage, but my first run-in with Holydiver82 was in the collapsed discussion at Talk:The Marvels/Archive 2#Comments regarding closed discussion. Other editors were accused of misbehavior and editing with hidden motives, without evidence, which led to this warning (diffs provided there). Then another warning after a second instance on a different talk page. This all happened 8 months ago. I can't really speak to any pattern since, except that in a few brief discussions I was involved in, the passive-aggressive behavior was still present – albeit in a milder form. However, what we're seeing at Talk:The Acolyte (TV series) is reaching an entirely different level:

• "the goal is to protect and promote the show as much as possible" – 1236818951
• "the talk page makes it quite clear that this page is being protected" – 1237605192
• "Since you are a Disney shill who was accused of Multi accounting I won't hold my breath for a informed response" – 1238660575
• "the fact that you clearly want to add a lot of BS fluff to viewership ... to try to portray this show extremely positively is very obvious" – 1238774437
• "Reality makes the show look bad." – 1238851750
• "but this definitely isnt a WP:ownership situation" – 1240353206
• "it is getting ridiculous how nemov and adam have taken ownership of this article" – 1240283832

Aside from the behavioral concerns, it's quite clear that this editor is committed to Disney-related articles, and in particular, any negative aspect including controversies, financial performance, etc., associated with this company. Combined with their arguments, it is highly unlikely that this editor is able to contribute or collaborate without editorial bias. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Disney-related articles, Sounds familiar. Anyone familiar with this case seeing quacking? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 19:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• There's more than enough evidence cited here for an admin to do something about this editor who continues to be a disruption. Holydiver82 has just created a new section on the article's TALK that continues the same behavior. Nemov (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yet another example of the editor making accusations and edit warring instead of finding consensus.[117] Nemov (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  you being so self absorbed that you cannot be bothered to read the edit history and see what i was adjusting the wording to an edit done by someone else. instead assuming that everything must be about you, thats a you problem. again, see the page history. try to understand not every edit needs to involve you Holydiver82 (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked - enough of this nonsense. It's quite clear that they are unable to edit in a collegial and co-operative manner. Some evidence they're only here to deliberately stir up trouble which makes them indistinguishable from a troll. Ultimately it doesn't matter, there is no willingness to be a positive on the project. If someone wishes to try and CheckUser against Bambifan101 feel free to alter the block if it comes up, but other than that we're done here. Canterbury Tail talk 19:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerns about MountVic127

I have serious competency concerns about User:MountVic127. He has been editing since 2020 and continues to make serious mistakes despite the attempts by multiple editors to provide help and guidance on their talk page. A few examples of the problems caused:

• Creation of inappropriate articles, including ShortCut, Fell into Well, Improving upload descriptions, Silver City ESP, Aurina (Toilet) and DW GTB Grand Toilet Battle amongst many others. These lack sources and some are outright hoaxes/joke articles. There are dozens of these mentioned on his talk page with many editors asking him to stop.
• Repeated copyright violations, for example File:Railway Sleeper in Ghana with provision for dual gauge and gauge widening.gif and their edits to Transport in Benin which had to be revdeled
• Repeatedly linking to draft articles from mainspace, eg in 2020 [118], and again this year [119]
• Adding unsourced WP:BLP violations such as [120]
• Demonstrating a lack of understanding of WP:OR and WP:V eg [121] and [122]
• Attempts to alter layout in a way that breaks text and references eg [123] and [124]
• Adding completely inappropriate articles that show this user does not understand what an article is such as Rebecca Weisser

Their talk page contains many more reports of problems, spread over 4 years. The same issues repeat, new ones crop up and there is almost no engagement from MounVic127 despite many editors offering advice and help. This is wasting a huge amount of time. Thanks, Opolito (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding that User:FlockHerd is likely a sockpuppet account. Both have edited Draft:Failure to nominate (elections), Draft:Instant_run-off_voting_(Resources), User:MountVic127/ShortCuts and they had a short conversation together at Talk:Tina Peters (politician). Opolito (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

There are too many points above to respond to them all.

I started FlockHerd to see if different categories of articles can have different usernames, but this has proved more difficult than expected.

Wiki sometimes complains that my articles lack citations, but don't links to other articles using angle brackets count as cites? ----FlockHerd (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, at least in the context you appear to be referring to. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thus 1435 might link (cite) to railway gauge.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FlockHerd (talk • contribs)

Klačko

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This user has been mass-removing native names of political parties in Serbia (see recent contributions) without providing edit summaries. Serbian language uses two writing systems, Cyrillic and Latin, and for some unknown reason they have begun removing the Latin name, while keeping the Cyrillic name. I've reverted some of their edits, although minor, these removals do not make sense at all, and notified them on the talk page (twice, see Special:Diff/1241731815 and Special:Diff/1241733790) that they should use edit summaries to explain their edits (most of their edits do not have edit summaries). They've ignored the warnings and continued to remove the names on tens of other pages. What should be done regarding this situation? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, I don't think they have edited after you posted your notices on their talk page or they quit soon after. It also helps if you add a header to an ANI notice so it doesn't look like a comment in a different discussion. It stands out more. They don't use talk pages much but hopefully they will respond here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello to both of you.

First of all, I admit that I did editing without providing edit summaries - I thought those were minor edits since I only removed native name of party in Latin script in the infobox. I should've done it differently especially since I am not the one who is not familiar with Wiki rules and policies - I've been editing for some 15 years and recently passed the milestone of 10,000 edits and vast majority of times I do summaries of my edits. I guess since there were some 10+ pages of Serbian political parties I took the easier way... I apologize for that.

Now on the substance of the issue... The reason behind my edits is following: native names of parties in infobox were for some reason provided in both Cyrillic and Latin script, I edited in a way that (besides English) left only one in Cyrillic alphabet as a native version of the name - in line with Article 10 of the Constitution of Serbia that clearly states:

Serbian language and Cyrillic script shall be in official use in the Republic of Serbia.[125]

Only official script in the country is Cyrillic, plain and simple. It is true that in general public space Latin script is also widely used, but only official script is Cyrillic - one that is used in state/government domains and I therefore think it is appropriate to acknowledge that in a way that in the infobox of wiki articles in English should stand besides the name of the party in English, the one in Cyrillic script. Nota bene: native version of the name in Latin script is provided in the very first sentence of the article and I think it is appropriate - no reason to put it also in infobox.

Looking forward to your feedback!

Regards Klačko (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Klačko: It does not matter what the government considers, Cyrillic and Latin are both widely used–Latin script is also much more present online. I do not see the reason to omit the Latin script from the infobox, but considering that both scripts are in the lede, I think that the only appropriate solution would be to either keep both scripts or none in the infobox. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It really DOES matter what Constitution says - it is the basic law of the country and the political parties act in legal boundaries set by that same constitution.

Latin script is widely used in the public space, nobody argues that.

I think the best way is to leave the native version of the name in Latin script in the very first sentence of the article (as has always been), but there's no reason to put also version in Latin script in infobox - there should be English version of the name and Serbian version of the name in Cyrillic script as provided by the Constitution. Klačko (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Like this? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Socialist Party of Serbia Социјалистичка партија Србије

The Socialist Party of Serbia (Serbian: Социјалистичка партија Србије, romanized: Socijalistička partija Srbije, abbr. SPS) Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, like that. Klačko (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think that is fair enough. Thank you for explaining, and I apologize if I acted tough. We can proceed with this change. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revdel of racist addition

Asking for a revdel of this.

Had asked for the term to be blacklisted/filtered at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 13#Racist term that needs blacklisting but nothing came of it. I am asking again for these terms to be filtered (term 1/term 2). As wiktionary notes, "The term acquired wider online usage in the early 2020s, with large increases after 2023."; a lot of this racist nonsense already proliferates on X, Reddit, Facebook and the like (yes also 4chan/chans) and we can least expect to not see this here on enwiki. Gotitbro (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be anything beyond garden-variety vandalism, so I don't think this requires revdel. (Also, please see WP:REVDEL for how to request revdel; making a request on a high-visibility board like this isn't the way to go.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Taken care of by K6ka. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Socks : FYI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Chin pin choo (talk · contribs · logs) and TamilRoman (talk · contribs · logs) are socks and possibly SPGSec (talk · contribs · logs) too. AntanO 17:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't inform at user talk page as it is clear sock. --AntanO 17:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The first two have been indefinitely blocked since yesterday. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DIPLOMATIQUE916

User: DIPLOMATIQUE916 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Article: Daniel Mendoza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DIPLOMATIQUE916 (with 22 edits) claims he has the same name as Daniel Mendoza a boxer who died 200 years ago and says the article is actually about him (the user) so keeps trying to add a photo of himself to the article and change other details. When challenged on his talk page, the user bizarrely says "[I] have a family and do not know another Daniel mendoza besides me." It's either a severe case of WP:CIR or they're just messing. Either way a WP:NOTHERE block is needed. DeCausa (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I vote "just messing" because he uploaded a picture of the blue plate for the correct Mendoza. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

He's done it again and doubling down on it.[126][127] DeCausa (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I've indef blocked the account.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

LTA MakaveliReed 4

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MakaveliReed
• Special:Contributions/2601:240:CF00:37C0:0:0:0:0/64

Back from a 1 week block. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 20:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I've reblockled the /64.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 23:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Imane Khelif should get 1RR Arbitration Enforcement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1 RR discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It appears there is large amount of edit warring happening on the article. I suggest it gets set to WP:1RR under CTOPS WP:GENSEX. It also appears that the two users User:M.Bitton and User:JSwift49 may need a temporary timeout as they're well past even 3RR. Raladic (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've filed a report for JSwift49 edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JSwift49 reported by User:TarnishedPath (Result: ). I must have been filing it at exactly the same time that this was filled. TarnishedPath^talk 02:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Regardless of the outcome at WP:ANEW, I would concur that this should be classified under WP:GENSEX with a 1RR. This is the second time this week the article has made its way to ANI as a result of arguments around that topic area. Grandpallama (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  There's already a CTOP notice for GENSEX at the top of the article's talk so I agree that active arbitration remedies of either 1RR or compulsory BRD should be put into place given the edit warring and incivil behaviour from some editors. TarnishedPath^talk 04:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Appears that JSwift49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has cast aspersions in that discussion on two occasions based off a quick skim.[128][129], in addition to the blatant 3RR vio. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those is an aspersion. They're characterizations of another editor's conduct based on what's in plain view—whether or not they're accurate characterizations. An aspersion would be something like calling someone a pedophile without evidence. Accusing someone of proceeding in bad faith, POV-pushing, and violating NPOV are the same sorts of accusations that get made at this noticeboard all the time. I have no opinion on whether any of those happened here. Just chipping in because I hate seeing that term genericized to mean "saying something negative". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 04:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree there. Any negative characterisation of another editor's conduct which is lacking is appropriate specific evidence to substantiate such characterisation is an aspersion. Per WP:ASPERSION, "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". Therefore, repeatedly stating to another editor that they are not engaged in good faith discussions without evidence to back that up is an aspersion. TarnishedPath^talk 04:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

1RR would be welcome. Note that edit war and incivil behaviour were shareed by both sides. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to strike the "good faith" comment, as it was not focused on a specific policy and that is not helpful. However I'm not sure why the other comment linked, where I mention specific policies, is an issue. JSwift49 12:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You can't possibly justify your personalization of the discussion by claiming that your aspersions were in "good faith" (while doubling down on them on this board). The fact that you initiated a 3R report about me, after engaging in this one, speaks volumes.

Your only explanation for persistently violating the WP:ONUS policy, in a WP:BLP article, is according to policy good-faith additions should remain in article pending consensus (another claim of yours that has no basis in reality). M.Bitton (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Re. my policy comment that was a misunderstanding from an essay, which I have corrected. However, you still violated the 3R policy I'm afraid (as well as, as I outlined, sealioning). We have both received warnings and I think that is a fair call. JSwift49 13:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Your so-called "misunderstanding" doesn't justify the persistent violations of the WP:ONUS policy, nor does it explain your aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Accusing someone of proceeding in bad faith, POV-pushing, and violating NPOV are the same sorts of accusations that get made at this noticeboard all the time. That is because this noticeboard, WP:ANI, is one of the few appropriate places to raise such concerns - though even here, only with evidence; without evidence, as they were posted there, they would obviously still be WP:ASPERSIONs. But the purpose of an article talk page is to focus on the article, not to attack other editors; it is completely inappropriate (and obviously contrary to both WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL) to outright accuse an editor of bad faith there. And, more importantly, it is precisely the sort of behavior that WP:CTOPs exist to prevent - those are the sorts of comments that routinely get editors blocks at WP:AE. I'm baffled that a longstanding editor would attempt to defend it - do you really believe that a comment consisting solely of It's pretty clear here this isn't a good faith argument or one ending with Sealioning and disregard for WP:NPOV are also issues I've seen with you, I'm afraid are remotely acceptable behavior on an article talk page in a WP:CTOP? --Aquillion (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi; not aspersions, I think it’s reasonable to point out if another editor is sealioning, which consistently was the case here. (This involved repeated asking of the same question while refusing to engage with other peoples’ arguments.) I would support 1RR. JSwift49 10:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No one is here to WP:SATISFY you. I'm cognisant that your first edit after me leaving you a notice about a discussion concerning your breaching WP:3RR was not to remedy your breach by self-reverting, but to come here and further cast aspersions. TarnishedPath^talk 10:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm just sitting down now to look at all this :) happy to revert my violation, though someone had already changed it and added their own content. JSwift49 11:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you might have lost your chance at self-reverting then. That's a risk when you engage in 3RR violations. TarnishedPath^talk 11:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a baseless claim, just like the one you made about the fictitious policy that you keep mentioning to justify your multiple violations of the real policies. M.Bitton (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Sidenote, if Imane gets 1RR, arguably so should Lin_Yu-ting which is another olympic boxer caught up in same controversy with IBA Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Janjaem Suwannapheng should be subject to same rules too. The Thai boxer is vulnerable to same hatred Khelif received. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

In agreement with adopting 1RR & it also appears that the disputes have spilled over into this ANI report, as well as the EW reports. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I note that the disputed material, in clear defiance of WP:ONUS, and despite an obvious lack of consensus for its inclusion, has been restored to the article by JSwift49. It takes two to edit war, but policy around BLP matters, and if JSwift49 doesn't remove the challenged material, sanctions should be applied. Grandpallama (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: JSwift49 said above that a self-revert might have resulted in a block since their addition had since been edited by others. In light of administrator Ingenuity's designation of this as a 1RR matter, I just removed the contentious text in the hopes that everybody will stay on the talk page and off the article. City of Silver 17:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver Related question: I understand the policy in this case as this is text that I had added and people objected to. So delete until consensus. However, I also started another discussion Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 3#2nd lead paragraph: "public scrutiny" vs. "misinformation" where consensus seems quite far off re. which term/s to use in the lead. As far as I can tell the current term was added a few days ago and got reverted and re-added twice before I weighed in.[130][131][132][133][134] What is the best practice if no consensus or compromise can be accepted by both sides, and it’s a matter of word choice and not content addition? JSwift49 03:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49: I've reviewed this whole mess as best as I could and I keep having the same question: why hasn't anyone started a request for comment for this? and that? and the other thing? Everybody hates RFCs for all kinds of reasons but it simply doesn't matter because they're the only workable way to get past a situation where every editor has dug in their heels, which has certainly happened at Khelif's talk page in several discussions. Don't you get tired of citing the same policies, the same guidelines, the same essays in response to editors who you have to know won't be convinced by anything you say? Aren't you tired of those same editors over and over citing the same irrelevant stuff to you? (If I were you, I'd have absolutely lost it by now at how many times WP:ONUS has been thrown at me by people who don't know that it can't come into play before a discussion is closed. Every single editor who's cited ONUS in response to you doesn't have the first clue what it actually means.) To my understanding, an RFC is the only way to get past issues where there's a completely, totally intractable "both sides" problem because it'll attract editors who aren't on any side at all. City of Silver 06:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver Why does WP:ONUS not apply here, because there was not a discussion/consensus when the term was added? If so, should the contentious lead material be removed until consensus is reached? JSwift49 10:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Your parenthetical is not a correct understanding of the entirety of WP:ONUS. RfC is a good suggestion, though. Grandpallama (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I have taken your suggestion re. RfC. JSwift49 14:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Grandpallama, City of Silver, Ingenuity, TarnishedPath, and GhostOfDanGurney: please have a look at these two edits (12:10 and 14:37) that were made today by JSwift49 (after casting aspersions and accusing me of sealioning). M.Bitton (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that they've at least moved past aspersions and are bringing diffs, but nonetheless, this isn't exactly lowering the temperature in there. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

They are still commenting about me (this editor has a history ...) in unrelated discussions, which is the continuation of the aspersions that they started and doubled down on (in this discussion). M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Both of these comments were in fact direct responses to assertions by M.Boli that I 1) "ignored what everyone else said" and 2) "keep repeating the same argument that has been addressed multiple times". Especially the first comment crosses the line to an aspersion as they assumed I was "ignoring".

In my responses, I took care to only mention the fact that M.Boli had repeatedly asked the same questions verbatim, and I did not (by contrast) ascribe negative intentions. JSwift49 17:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding this editor has a history ... to a RfC is beyond the pale. M.Bitton (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is an accurate statement; and I have intentionally avoided reporting you for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing to give you a chance to weigh in. If you don't want other editors to mention that you asked the same question verbatim 4-5 times in a row, don't do it, and certainly don't accuse others of purposely ignoring you. In fact, my RfC proposal is based on a compromise that was in response to your original concerns. JSwift49 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, adding this editor has a history ... to a RfC is beyond the pale. As for the above baseless assertions, that's all they are, and serve no purpose other than to exhaust my diminishing good faith stock. M.Bitton (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Jswift has racked up an impressive number of notifications for contentious topics. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies, three of those were mine that I provided to them in a bulk message. TarnishedPath^talk 04:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Now subject to 1RR. —Ingenuity (t • c) 16:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 1RR should not be used lightly. It effectively "freezes" an article and should only be used for a limited amount of time. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Kcmastrpc, I disagree, but I'm sure Ingenuity, who's a bit of a noob, appreciates your opinion. Drmies (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

      You can make snippy remarks all day, but look at the edit history of Marjorie Taylor Greene after May 2023 and prior to see an example of how chilling 1RR restrictions are. Most edits are now superfluous and the activity has dropped nearly 50%. I suppose maybe that's a good thing, I don't know. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

      Article stability is always a good thing. Presuming of course that there are no issues with the article. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

      With someone as active of a public life as MTG, I might disagree. However, in this instance, Imane, through no fault of her own, is a very notable public figure now. Perhaps I'll do some research on how heavy arbitration remedies impact the encyclopedia both short and long term. (when/if I get laid off from my FT job). Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Behaviour of JSwift49

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

JSwift49 has engaged in repeated synthesis or outright misrepresentation of sources on the talk page in order to insert their POV.

Their current RfC,[135] which has been described by several users[136][137][138][139] as whitewashing the abuse faced by Imane Khelif, selectively uses quotes from sources in order to support their POV, and omits information in the very sources used that support the status quo[140][141].

Between this RfC and the preceding discussion,(version as of writing) JSwift has replied to every single !vote opposing them and has commented on many replies to support !voters. They have engaged in personalization of the discussion.[142]

They attempted to support the inclusion of a meeting between the far-right Italian Prime Minister and the head of the IOC (the locus of the above edit war) based on "textbook synthesis" (struck after this was pointed out to them, only to create the above RfC with a subsequent support !vote based on synth).[143]

I am quickly losing my good faith that JSwift is able to productively edit in the GENSEX topic area based off this behaviour and at this point am close to supporting a topic ban if they don't commit to quick behaviour changes. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok; let's look at each of your points here.

• Main point: the RfC does not selectively omit anything. The point of the quotes is not to say "misinformation" doesn't feature, but to show the ways each source describes other types of attention beyond misinformation. I made this clear below:
  • I believe "misinformation" is important to mention in the lead, but that the lead focuses too narrowly on it. Most reliable sources mention misinformation/false accusations, but these sources also include broader descriptions of what occurred:
• The RfC has nothing to do with the Italian Prime Minister; and regardless the part where I wrongly used synthesis was a small part of the argument. This was my main one [144] Getting banned for a mistake which I acknowledge and strike is nonsense. Learning from mistakes is exactly how we become better editors. It's why I started the RfC and am attempting to work toward consensus/a compromise solution.
• Re. personalization, I am happy to take a step back (was not aware too much involvement was unacceptable unless you were blatantly repeating yourself), however several comments were necessary to respond to. This has included:
  • Stating I want to remove the term "misinformation", which was a misunderstanding I felt the need to correct [145]
  • Providing explicit clarity on a question you had [146]
  • Responding to an aspersion of "ignoring" other users [147]
• Re. whitewashing accusations, this has been a contentious debate, but I believe my arguments are well-reasoned, and users have weighed in on my side re. adding "scrutiny" or "attention" alongside "misinformation". [148][149][150][151] In fact, my RfC is a compromise proposal based on concerns of all editors, as I outlined here: [152] (Also, one editor you cite said they opposed whitewashing because I wanted to remove "misinformation", which was inaccurate.[153])

JSwift49 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition, I directly addressed your concerns about the RfC selectively omitting quotes here,[154] an hour before you posted this. JSwift49 20:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Multiple people opposed your proposal as a SYNTH/cherry-picking of sources; your "compromise" still contained the offending part that people were opposing. Obviously the Meloni part isn't related to the RfC, but it's directly related to your misuse of sources to push your POV, which is what you are doing again in the RfC.

The opposers are not looking for a compromise solution; they feel that the status quo is perfectly fine and does not need to be changed at all. Additionally, you are continuing to demonstrate WP:IDHT behaviour by doubling down against the latest editor to enter the talk page and say you are cherry-picking.[155][156] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Whether the opposers are looking for a compromise solution is immaterial. The facts are, several editors besides myself supported some form of change [157][158][159][160] and the text arguably did not have a consensus to begin with, [161][162][163][164][165][166]

See my below post [167] re. cherry-picking and WP:IDHT. JSwift49 16:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This looks like an attempt to undermine the current RfC. The RfC has been described by several users[131][132][133][134] as whitewashing the abuse faced by Imane Khelif, selectively uses quotes from sources in order to support their POV - what??? The "several users" are M.Bitton, TarnishedPath and GhostOfDanGurney themselves, who is literally quoting their own comment, plus Drmies, who apparently misunderstood the RfC: the RfC doesn't propose to remove "misinformation" from the lead - there's been plenty of misinformation about Khelif, and by all means "misinformation" must remain in the lead (no one is arguing otherwise). The point of the RfC is not to "whitewash abuse", but to acknowledge that alongside fake news and hate speech, there have been also legitimate concerns and meaningful public debate about eligibility standards in women's boxing competitions.

JSwift49 is very much involved and perhaps they should be reminded of WP:BLUDGEONING, but there is no reason to doubt their good faith and competence. The RfC is the correct path to follow, and should not be disrupted by frivolous accusations at ANI. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Gitz, I'm not known for my understanding, but saying there's been "legitimate concern...about eligibility" is just--how shall I put it, absolute fucking bullshit. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies, this is the exact bullshit that @M.Bitton, myself and others have been putting up with in the article's talk. Editors constantly trying to POV push language which makes what Khelif has faced to have been on the basis of at least some reasonable concerns. Frankly anyone pusshing that bullshit should be topic banned from GENSEX. TarnishedPath^talk 04:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree, and I plan to post excerpts from articles and op-eds later in the RfC, which show that the "Khelif affair" has also been the subject of a reasoned (not bigoted, not hateful) debate on the criteria for inclusion of intersex people in women's sporting competitions. In the meantime, I suggest you and others take a look at this piece in The Atlantic [168]. You can agree or disagree with Helen Lewis, but you should not dismiss her arguments as "absolute fucking bullshit". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Why, exactly. Or look at the sources posted here [169] by two scientific experts in the BBC and WSJ. I have never argued that misinformation didn’t exist, but that the sources also support other reactions. @GhostOfDanGurney as I explained here [170] and here [171] the quotes I shared were meant to prove the narrow presence of something and not that other things don’t exist in the sources. Why report me to ANI instead of responding to my initial explanation? JSwift49 11:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

All three references in that diff [172], [173] and [174] are opinion species. Notably only one of person out of all those is a subject matter expert in developmental biology, being Dr Emma Hilton who is very briefly quoted in the first. The fact that the author of the second reference may be a scientist is entirely irrelevant as they are not subject matter experts in the content under discussion and more seriously for the judgment of their reliability on the subject they make the disinformed assertion that Khelif is a "biological male" when there is no reliable evidence for such a claim. The third reference is again a opinion piece by someone who is not a subject matter expert. Going back to the first reference, Emma Hilton does not directly address Khelif in the parts in which they are directly quoted and the only further information presented is that she is associated with a charity that thinks that Khelif shouldn't be boxing until further testing is perforemd. The opinion of the charity is not attributed to Hilton and no factual basis is given for such opinion. So no those sources absolutely do not support the argument that there are any reasonable concerns. Trying to pass off that there are any reasonable concerns is complete bullshit. Reasonable concerns have a basis in reality and such basis has not been appropriately established. TarnishedPath^talk 13:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record, your BBC assessment doesn't tell the full story. "Dr Shane Heffernan has a PhD in molecular genetics in elite sports", and the article both quotes him and says "He believes that the International Olympic Committee is not basing its eligibility criteria on the best available science".[175]

But to avoid getting bogged down in details: the threshold of my claim all along has been that Khelif prompted "attention" that did not only include "misinformation". [176] Given that people including scientists have weighed in with reasoned arguments helps corroborate that fact, in addition to how reliable sources both use "misinformation" and broader terms to describe the reactions. JSwift49 13:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if they are scientists if they start weighing in and making statements about reality without sufficient evidence then that is misinformation. Statements about the nature of reality are not and never will be reasoned when there is no evidence to support such statements. TarnishedPath^talk 13:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

But that's the thing: the sources do not support that. The sources, as I outlined in the RfC, support that there was misinformation, and at the same time she received attention that was not. To state we should disregard the opinion of a PhD in molecular genetics in elite sports as "misinformation", whose opinion was published in a significant, reliable source (might I add, as part of a news story) it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. JSwift49 14:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It's an opinion peice. Per WP:RSOPINION, Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. The source made a statement about facts and notably did so without a providing a reliable evidentiary basis. Sorry striking that last bit because I got confused between the sources we were discussing. However in regards to Dr Shane Heffernan, he does not address Khelif and concerns himself with discussing DSD. Notably there is no reliable evidence that Khelif has DSD and Hefferenan does not make that assertion. His words do not demonstrate that there are any reasonable concerns about Khelif. You continuing to push it as some example of reasonable concerns which demonstrate that there was anything other than misinformation is a further example of your WP:POVPUSHING. TarnishedPath^talk 14:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not basing my argument on the opinion piece; reliable news sources mention that Khelif was the subject of "scrutiny" or "attention", or caused a "debate", in addition to mentioning abuse and misinformation.

Besides, if we can't consider the opinion of a PhD in molecular genetics in elite sports re. the IOC's criteria for women's sports eligibility, by that standard what opinions can we consider? JSwift49 14:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The hate campaign was exclusively because of the misinformation that was propagated by celebrities and the like (and their millions of followers). Whitewashing what really happened by cherry picking (again) part of the NPOV policy (while ignoring WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:WEIGHT) is wrong on so many levels and speaks volumes about your inability to edit a BLP. M.Bitton (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll address the repeated "cherry picking" accusations here:

• Cherry picking, according to Wikipedia, is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position"
• My RfC position is this: reliable sources describe that Khelif was the subject of both misinformation and other types of attention.
  • I believe "misinformation" is important to mention in the lead, but that the lead focuses too narrowly on it. Most reliable sources mention misinformation/false accusations, but these sources also include broader descriptions of what occurred:[177]
• I looked at thirteen major, reliable mainstream news outlets, I didn't find any sources that only mentioned "misinformation". Each also referred to some broader form of attention ("scrutiny", "debate", "accusations", "controversy") Khelif was the subject of.
  • If I was cherry picking, I would specifically ignore sources that described misinformation only.
  • In fact, I explicitly invited both M.Bitton [178][179] and TarnishedPath to share such sources. [180]
    • M.Bitton replied with an opinion article from The Nation, a partisan source.[181][182][183]
    • TarnishedPath simply replied by stating Many reliable sources say "misinformation" or "disinformation", which is what actually occurred. I have never disputed this.[184]
• As I outlined in the RfC, I support Khelif being the subject of "misinformation" remaining in the lead. So did the editors who opposed my proposal. The term "misinformation" was not a subject of debate.
• The main subject of debate was whether the term "attention" should be added, changing "misinformation" to "attention and misinformation".
• Therefore, all I needed to do was show that reliable sources referred to other forms of attention, in addition to referring to misinformation.
• I explained my rationale to GhostOfDanGurney in response to his concern,[185] and instead of replying or asking questions, they reported me to ANI.[186]
  • I later asked for more of an explanation, and did not receive a reply.[187]
  • I had previously engaged in good faith discussion with them about concerns they had.[188][189]

In short, I do not understand, nor agree with, these accusations at all. JSwift49 15:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You are simply refusing (at this point) to listen to multiple editors who are telling you that any other type of "attention" was the direct result of mis/disinformation and that your repeated proposals dilute that fact. Until you get that through your skull, I have nothing to say to you. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the crux of our disagreement is, you say if it's a reaction in response to misinformation, we should count it as misinformation. I think if misinformation brings attention to a situation, and non-misinformation discourse/debate occurs as a result, then we should mention both misinformation and attention more broadly as sources do.

Assuming (for argument's sake) that a reaction prompted by misinformation counts as misinformation, I had another look at sources. Most sources describe the IBA and/or Carini fight as causing the reactions toward Khelif, but they don't describe IBA/Carini as misinformation. So since the sources don't describe all reactions as misinformation, or all of their causes as misinformation, I still see a reason to include some other term. [190] JSwift49 00:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49, he wasn't even quoted with his opinion on Khelif's eligibility. He was quoted discussing DSD and eligibility in general. There's not even an assertion from them that Khelif has DSD and if there was it would speak against their reliability on the topic given that there is sweat fuck all reliable evidence for any such assertion. That you try and spin it as evidence of reasonable concerns about Khelif demonstrates that you are engaged in WP:POVPUSHING. TarnishedPath^talk 02:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Why, I think it's usually good to defer to experts unless we are experts ourselves. :) As I've always said though, let's look at how reliable sources describe this discourse.

"A frenzied debate has raged over the International Olympic Committee clearing the duo to compete in the women's boxing in Paris, despite them having been disqualified from last year's Women's World Championships for failing to meet eligibility criteria."

Sounds like the BBC views this as a debate that was spurred by Khelif's/Lin's disqualification, not just "misinformation". JSwift49 03:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? The expert didn't address Khelif as a subject matter. They were quoted in regards to DSD and eligibility and nothing else. You continued pushing just confirms what I and others have said which is that you are POV Pushing. TarnishedPath^talk 04:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t dispute that re. the expert, that’s why these opinions were never the crux of my argument. My argument is based on how reliable sources describe the attention she received. (As I said I do think generally disregarding expert testimony, unless they already have serious credibility issues, is not something that should be normalized.)

No point continuing to discuss ad nauseam, we’ve both made our points multiple times. JSwift49 10:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is just further WP:POVPUSH. You presented these sources because they had experts in them, but close analysis of the sources shows that any subject matter experts don't support your position of reasonable concerns because any reasonably put positions don't even address the subject. You have not made any point and continue to engage in WP:IDHT. TarnishedPath^talk 11:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You are doing POVPUSH, by engaging in a conversation with me where I simply stated my opposition to a suggestion. I am only stating facts that there is no evidence against. I elect not to engage in further discussion with you on this topic. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think perhaps you replied from the incorrect account there. MrOllie (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I hate when that happens. Remsense诉 11:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

They pinged me saying that I am doing POVPUSH under my comment. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems that I replied under the wrong comment. I will move it to the place where I intended to reply. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie you can check the other subthread where "tarnished path" is accusing me of POVPUSH, replying to my statement about XY chromosomes. Since I have notifications on for the entire discussion and they published a comment about JSwift49 doing POVPUSH shortly after replying to me, I mistakenly thought this message was another reply to mine. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That's one explanation. MrOllie (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

These accusations are honestly tiring. I did not expect to face such baseless claims for joining wikipedia. You could just check the first IP address I have used to comment before creating my account, it is from Switzerland. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is hardly a baseless claim. MrOllie (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Then just check the IP address. I have nothing to add. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Kindly stop trying to edit or remove the comment in question. MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Kindly explain if it is not allowed to edit your own comments? Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It isn't. See WP:REDACT. MrOllie (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's one explanation. TarnishedPath^talk 12:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

From a mobile device, it's impossible to read this discussion; one letter per line... JacktheBrown (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that they've been called out for synthesizing or cherry-picking sources numerous times in a contentious topic area and demonstrating IDHT in response is not at all frivolous. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

See [191] strongly disagree re. "cherry picking" accusations, including w/ your referral of me to ANI while ignoring my explanation/question. The instance of synthesis had to do with one source and I struck it after being informed. [192][193] JSwift49 16:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There has been exactly zero legitimate concerns about Khelif's eligibility to compete. Any such characterisation is an attempt to minimise and at least partially WP:WHITEWASH the misinformation and disinformation which has been pushed by various bad faith actors on social media platforms. TarnishedPath^talk 04:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Seeing the section below that JSwift49 started without signing (a very convenient "oversight"), the persistent aspersions casting (highlighted above, which also suggest that they hold grudges), the cherry picking to push a POV in a contentious topic (as well as in any discussion, including the below section) and their battleground approach to everything (editing, discussing, etc.), I think it's high time the admins started considering taking some kind of action. M.Bitton (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney, I appreciate you've not been part of a lot of discussions, but you missed them engaging in WP:CANVASING to further their POV pushing. TarnishedPath^talk 05:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If you’re talking about this, [194], I rectified that by pinging all the editors from the (related) neutrality discussion, in response to your concern. [195] so the effect was notifying all editors who had weighed in on a similar topic. (Of course, M.Bitton violated WP:CANVASS on this very board, as I described) JSwift49 11:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Your misrepresentation of what people do and say has no limits. Pinging (on this board) those who are discussing the issue on this board to highlight your continued aspersions casting is not canvassing. M.Bitton (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you worry about the baseless aspersions you made about me “ignoring” you, and not when someone posts diffs proving you repeatedly asked the same question :) and for the record, you didn’t ping all users in the discussion such as Gitz6666 and GoodDay, only a group you selected, so yes that’s a violation. When you pointed out to me I was violating WP:CANVASS, I rectified it by subsequently tagging everyone in that conversation (as I hadn’t know the policy). Will you do the same? JSwift49 11:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Either you don't know what you're talking about or you're just being disingenuous as usual (more than likely). M.Bitton (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging any editor in a discussion that they are already involved in is not WP:CANVASSING and never has been. TarnishedPath^talk 12:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Given that they start a new portion of the discussion by selectively pinging five editors it seemed to me like that would cross the line. JSwift49 12:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Further pinging other editors from an unrelated discussion (so that all editors from that unrelated discussion were pinged) does not change the WP:CANVASSING. You should not have been pinging any editors from unrelated discussions in the first place, let alone only those who you thought would agree with your stance. TarnishedPath^talk 12:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It was very much a related discussion; concerning the neutrality of the lead paragraph, which my proposal also concerned. [196] JSwift49 12:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Now you're just playing with words: unrelated here means not the same discussion (I'm certain that you know that). If that's not the definition of being disingenuous, I don't what is. M.Bitton (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I actually didn't know that; but I appreciate you letting me know. What is the issue with pinging all editors from a discussion if that discussion is closely related to your own? JSwift49 12:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe you and every reason to believe that you're being disingenuous. M.Bitton (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes exactly, that was what led to the wrong reply that @MrOllie pointed out. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes exactly, that was what led to the wrong subthread comment @MrOllie pointed out. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For failure/refusal to WP:LISTEN to others' concerns about their editing and proposals with regards to their POV-pushing/whitewashing of gender-based abuse faced by Imane Khelif, and their WP:BLUDGEONING of discussion with repeated "compromises" that don't address concerns, JSwift49 is topic banned from the GENSEX area, broadly construed. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer - JSwift49's first edit to the Imane Khelif article was to insert their POV that Khelif faced "intense public scrutiny about her biological sex" and removed the word "misinformation."[197] Ever since, JSwift has disruptively persisted in their attempts to add some form of language which dilutes the fact that Khelif was a victim of misinformation. They previously violated 3RR,[198] and since stopping the edit warring, have refused to listen to repeated concerns that their proposals whitewash the abuse faced by the article's subject. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Lack of basis for this, and here's why:

  • My original addition [199] was based on the use of the term "scrutiny" in multiple reliable sources [200][201][202][203][204] I acknowledge it would have been better if I had sought consensus- at the time, I didn't see my change as controversial. However, the original "misinformation" lead was arguably not the subject of consensus before I weighed in.[205][206][207][208][209][210]
  • My original proposal, or changes along those lines, was supported in some form by several other editors.[211][212][213][214] (update: [215][216] [217])
  • After a discussion on the lead where there was no consensus, I proposed a compromise solution that incorporated the concerns of all editors who had weighed in. [218] This proposal gave "misinformation" prominent weight and changed the word "scrutiny" to "attention", as editors felt gave "scrutiny" gave too much weight to negative attention.
  • After further disagreements, I explicitly, and in good faith, invited editors who disagreed with me to submit sources that promote their POV.[219][220][221]
  • Failing that, I started an RfC, which was also a compromise proposal. I used thirteen reliable sources to promote my argument. [222]
  • I was accused of cherry picking, but don't understand why. The sources were reliable, and the quotes were meant to support the addition of a term, not that the existing term did not exist. Concerns, as I understand, have to do with not including quotes that support the (undisputed) existing term. For more information see my writeup above: [223]
  • I tried to resolve concerns about my proposal, before this, with GhostOfDanGurney in good faith.[224][225]. I explained my argument re. cherry picking accusations,[226] but before I was responded to, I was referred to ANI.[227]
  • Being accused of WP:WHITEWASHING does not hold water in my view; I wanted to account for the variety of attention Khelif received while still noting the significance of "misinformation". (One accusation also mistakenly claimed I wanted to remove 'misinformation' from the article. I want no such thing.[228]) Regardless, my argument was sourced and in good faith.
  • I am guilty of edit warring with M.Bitton, and we were both warned for violating the 3RR rule. [229][230] I have refrained from that behavior since and have tried to find consensus on the Talk page. Whatever other policy violations I was made aware of, I remedied or struck. This has been a learning experience, but I do not believe my conduct merits a ban whatsoever.

  JSwift49 17:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. As an uninvolved editor, the rationale for a tban doesn't add up. Wikipedia never required every edit to be perfect nor prevent editors from having opinions. The WP:3RR violation was already dealt with at WP:ANEW and the bludgeon often swings both ways. The content dispute is just a content dispute even if a handful of editors strongly oppose it. Yvan Part (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support: JSwift49 has constantly WP:POVPUSH to insert language that would at least partially WP:WHITEWASH or minimise the misinformation and disinformation in regards to Khelif by suggesting that there were legitimate concerns. This sort of POV pushing has no place in the CTOP area and therefore JSwift49 should be topic banned as a preventative measure to minimise the current disruption that they are causing. TarnishedPath^talk 01:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support:: It is exhausting to even skim this thread. No wonder M.Bitton sought help with this. The gender topic area is already highly toxic and absolutely does not need this sort of contribution. I may have more to say later if I can find time to look at this in more detail. JSwift49, answering every single post is not required and is in fact strongly discouraged as counterproductive to discussion. Elinruby (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Elinruby (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (email with M.Bitton on day of TBAN proposal, No wonder M.Bitton sought help with this)

  PS - I am uninvolved in this article.Elinruby (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  [231] this is NOT evidence of canvassing, @JSwift49:. I urge you to strike the accusation of canvassing. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hi; I based this on WP:STEALTH. Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, IRC, or Discord, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions and the use of email, IRC, Discord, or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is strongly discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Given the emailing and phrasing I believe I have expressed a reasonable concern, and of course the closer/others can judge its significance. JSwift49 16:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  wut. And you decided that I was trying to persuade them to join a discussion in which they were already deeply involved??? Check the time stamps. He's an editor knowledgeable about Algerian topics. I have been working for months on an Algerian topic. Nice try. Next? Elinruby (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  M.Bitton has been involved in this discussion before Elinruby. Your claim that there is canvassing going on because Elinruby sent M.Bitton an email (which you no nothing about the contests of) is absurd. You need to strike your accusations of canvassing. TarnishedPath^talk 23:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as uninvolved: based on the section below, the overall picture is much more complex than what is described by the topic ban request, the other faction of the dispute is guilty of the same behaviours, particularly with regards to the "failure/refusal of WP:LISTENING" and "WP:BLUDGEONING of the discussion", as well as being WP:BITEy and hostile towards anyone slightly disagreeing with them. I would certainly be in favour of banning from the article both JSwift49 and M. Bitton (and perhaps others), as we need a more collaborative environment and not a war between opposing POV pushers. --Cavarrone 09:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I am happy to step away from the article voluntarily; I and my opponents have made our points multiple times, so I agree it’s now better to let others pick it up. This is definitely a learning experience re. not feeling the need to weigh in on every point you disagree with.

  I will emphasize that I think a difference here with some is that I have made efforts toward compromise/consensus, and to revisit arguments in response to others’ concerns. (More examples: [232][233][234][235][236][237][238]) JSwift49 11:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Given that it is not clear whether the person is a victim of all the claims or not (the claims about them having XY chromosomes are neither proven nor disproved), it is better to use a neutral word about controversies in this topic. While it is not true that the person is male or transgender, the XY chromosomes is a question without definite answer. The article currently looks as if both the male / transgender claims and the "XY claim" are misinformation. There is at least a need to point out that the "XY claim" is not disproved and therefore cannot be classified as misinformation. Therefore, I support JSwift49 and think that they are right. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"the XY chromosomes is a question without definite answer". The person has stated that they are female. Any assertion otherwise should require appropriate reliable sources. This muddying of the waters is entirely inappropriate and constitutes WP:POVPUSHING. TarnishedPath^talk 11:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I am simply stating that while the gender is not under dispute, having XY chromosomes (or the claims about it) is worth mentioning. Most of the sources that I have seen are saying that the person has XY chromosomes, not that they are male or transgender. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think your previous statement is mudding waters by intentionally interpreting my statement as something that I did not state. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point with your further comments. TarnishedPath^talk 11:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You are doing POVPUSH, by engaging in a conversation with me where I simply stated my opposition to a suggestion. I am only stating facts that there is no evidence against the person having XY chromosomes in addition to reports that state they do have. I elect not to engage in further discussion with you on this topic. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice WP:GASLIGHTING. By your logic you could argue that there's no evidence that the earth isn't flat. I'm sorry, that doesn't cut it. TarnishedPath^talk 12:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There is the report by IBA about XY chromosomes. While that one cannot be regarded as proof, it can still legitimately raise doubts. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

IBA as a primary source is completely and utterly unreliable. For you to even put forward any suggestion about a report from the IBA is further WP:POVPUSH. You need to stop now. TarnishedPath^talk 12:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Where do you justify your claim of it being unreliable? Is that not POVPUSH? Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

They were suspended by the Olympics in 2019 and completely banned in 2023 for lack of governance and transparency. Their boss has been described by US officials as having close ties to Russian organised crime and heroin smuggling. Claiming that it is POVPUSH to state that the IBA is unreliable is absurd. TarnishedPath^talk 01:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

That is just one point of view. Even if what you said were true, the US officials' statement should not be taken as veridical either, especially when it comes to Russians, given the political tensions that are enough to justify why they would not be fair and neutral towards Russians. And describing other points of views as "absurd" is also absurd and POVPUSH. But I will not discuss any further in this topic as it is a waste of time, does not lead to anything and it is going in circles. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

And last part really means: I will not reply to this subthread from now on. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

after accusing people (and countries) of Russophobia it is probably a good idea to stop talking, yes. Look, if you are the good-faith new editor you say you are it would probably be a good idea to re-read WP:RS with particular attention to what is a primary source. I also would recommend Firehose of falsehood or if you prefer, some other source on disinformation. Elinruby (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

One can only argue this if they choose to put weight on the position that the configuration of one's sex chromosomes is ever of note to nearly anyone else for any reason that is unrelated to social categories of sex and gender. Remsense诉 11:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Not getting involved in further arguments; but for clarity I do not support mentioning XY chromosomes in the lead.[239][240] JSwift49 12:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• 'Support at minimum' Given the IDHT-ness displayed above. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that JackkBrown (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
• Support, given what I've seen here and at the talkpage. The bludgeoning alone is exhausting, and it is not equally distributed on "both sides". Grandpallama (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support There is no evidence that this poor women is anything but a biological female, indeed not a single iota of real evidence has been presented to show any facts that support an alternate thesis, yet a whole of series NPOV positions have applied to the article by JSwift49, in what is essentially misinformation and conjecture. I sincerely hope she is not reading this article. We must have a higher standard of quality, on what is WP:BLP article. The churn on it for more than a month has been shocking, for such a small article. I've never seen that. Topic ban is ideal. scope_creep^Talk 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  My RfC proposal of “Khelif became the subject of attention and misinformation regarding her gender” – which I arrived to after learning and hearing concerns from both sides of editors, and which seven other editors have at least partially supported – has a basis in reliable sources and is certainly not an NPOV violation. Disagreeing on content is one thing and I welcome it, but your characterizations and arguing for a ban based on that do not hold water. JSwift49 21:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  No. I see you still trying to WP:BLUDGEON folk on here instead of letting the conversation develop naturally. I don't think you know what WP:NPOV is or how to apply it. The clearest evidence for it is that RFC you presented, which should have been never been posted. That RFC is a form of misinformation, because its based on false conjecture because there is no facts to support it. It exists in own pocket universe detached from the original facts. It doesn't add anything and instead if passed would have npov'd it further. You shouldn't be working in this article or indeed any article of this type. I could say more about the sources you presented. Everyone (ones I was able to read) are categorical in their statement that she is a women and no evidence has been presented otherwise. Yet the quotes you are stating in the RFC, don't represent the full article or even the gist of the article. They are completely arbitary in nature and NPOV and don't represent reality. scope_creep^Talk 07:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  I started the RfC based on above recommendations from @City of Silver [241] and @Grandpallama [242]. JSwift49 14:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Those editors did not give you recommendations on the specific wording of an RFC. Don't put words into other editors mouths. TarnishedPath^talk 00:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per proposer. Jdcomix (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a dispute about content, not behaviour. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support No,the contemt dispute became a behavoural one. Opposing because it was a confuct dispute at one time is incorrect. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The WP:BLUDGEONing, failure to WP:AGF, and misrepresentation of the sources are all serious conduct issues that are way below the standard expected for a WP:CTOP. And the fact that their responses here continue to try and rehash the content dispute rather than engage with the fundamental problems with their behavior makes it clear that they're unlikely to improve. Things like "It's pretty clear here this isn't a good faith argument"[243] and "Sealioning and disregard for WP:NPOV are also issues I've seen with you, I'm afraid."[244] are obviously unacceptable in a WP:CTOP and I'm baffled that people above would try to defend them - these are both straightforward WP:ASPERSIONs and clear failures to WP:AGF. And the behavior here and in the section immediately below it is classic WP:BLUDGEONing; by my count nearly half of the comments in that fairly massive section are from them. --Aquillion (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Happy to directly address each point re. behavior:

  • The 'good faith' comment was a response agreeing with another editor who initially questioned M.Bitton's good faith.[245][246] I later decided to strike the comment anyway,[247] as I agree it was not constructive and did not reference Wikipedia policies.
  • The 'sealioning' and 'NPOV' comment, I believe, has validity, As I detailed in the below thread, M.Bitton asked the same questions five [248][249][250][251][252] and four [253][254][255][256] times near-verbatim, and repeatedly cited an opinion article from a partisan source in support of their POV. [257][258][259]. If I should have phrased it differently or posted about it elsewhere, that's fine, but it was in no way an aspersion.
  • It's also worth noting that there was a clear pattern of incivility on their side in response to me and other editors, which I detailed in the thread below.
  • As Tamzin said re. my comments:[260] Neither of those is an aspersion. They're characterizations of another editor's conduct based on what's in plain view—whether or not they're accurate characterizations ... Accusing someone of proceeding in bad faith, POV-pushing, and violating NPOV are the same sorts of accusations that get made at this noticeboard all the time.
  • I did a count of the comments in the sections you mentioned: '2nd paragraph'[261] and 'Meloni again' [262], plus the RfC [263], all per the following diff [264]. (Note figures could be off slightly each way).
    • 2nd paragraph. JSwift49: 48, M.Bitton: 35, TarnishedPath: 10, Others: 19.
    • Meloni again. JSwift49: 20, M.Bitton: 15, TarnishedPath: 4, Others: 5.
    • RfC. JSwift49: 12, M.Bitton: 13, TarnishedPath: 13, Others: 36.
  • I fully acknowledge, in the first two sections, that I weighed in too much. I had originally thought it was OK since I had started/prompted the sections and had made some efforts to find consensus.[265] In context, it is nonetheless important to point out that those two threads were primarily two-way discussions between myself and M.Bitton (and to a lesser extent, TarnishedPath).
  • After those two sections I posted the RfC. The numbers show I have taken a much more proportionate role in the process since receiving feedback. I have still responded to editors if I felt I could meet them re. their argument [266][267], address their concerns about something I did not spell out in the RfC, or if I felt they had misunderstood my proposal, but not to everyone who opposed me.
  • This has been a learning experience about discussions in many ways (yikes: [268]) and I think it will serve me well.

  JSwift49 14:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  This very reply encapsulates why people are supprting a TBan, by continuing to bludgeon/badger with repeated points that have been stated before, by cherrypicking the lone established user to (wrongly) say "no these weren't aspersions" and by continuing to defend their personalization of, and casting aspersions in discussions in a CTOP. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  It’s not bludgeoning when someone raises a concern that you didn’t address a certain topic, and then you address that topic. JSwift49 16:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, I don't like people misusing the word "aspersion". It's part of the toxic "Okay when I do it, sanctionable when you do it" culture here at AN/I. That does not mean, however, that I think your statements were correct, or that I think you have behaved appropriately here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Imane is busy dealing with hatred as of this comment. A TBAN is enough to stop JSwift from further disruption. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support for reasons outlined by other users. For transparency, I have been involved with the discussion at Talk:Imane Khelif, but my direct interaction with this user has been minimal. --AntiDionysius (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The accusations of "POV pushing" and "whitewashing of gender-based abuse" are completely false. And the other accusations, even if true, are not sufficient to justify TBAN.

Vegan416 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose (uninvolved). Having reviewed the talk page, archives, and this thread, I see no reason to think JSwift's actions have been done in anything other than good faith. Moreover (and I'm willing to back this up with diffs if need be), I think sanctioning them for being uncivil or capricious in their editing would be unfair, as they cannot be said to be more guilty of any of those things than any of the editors conflicting with them. Mach61 21:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would love to see that bold assertion be backed up with diffs. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Put simply, I think this subsection is an attempt to get an editor on the opposite side of a content dispute with you done off with for the crime of being in the minority. You say that JSwift's talk page conduct constitute failure/refusal to WP:LISTEN to others' concerns about their editing and proposals. The LISTEN page defines itself as [perpetuating] disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive. I do not think this applies in this case; JSwift is clearly in the minority, but their position has not been unanimously rejected, and does not appear to be so prima facie unreasonable as to warrant a sanction. If anything, starting an RfC is their attempt at reaching a final, concrete solution to the content dispute.
  • You are correct in noting that JSwift had been bludgeoning discussions. To this end, I note that, Of the last 1000 revisions to Talk:Imane Khelif, ctrl-f brings up 135 hits for "JSwift49", but also 235 for "M.Bitton", and 79 for "TarnishedPath". That the talk page has been bludgeoned by other editors does not absolve JSwift, but it does make me doubt that T-banning them alone would help matters.
  • You claim that They have engaged in personalization of [a] discussion, and to support your assertion you provide a diff of them noting that M.Bitton repeatedly gave verbatim replies within a discussion. This diff was a direct reply to M.Bitton accusing JSwift of the same thing (repeating ad nauseam while ignoring what everyone else said). Clearly, this specific discussion was already "personalized".

  Mach61 04:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  My initial comment in this discussion was Appears that JSwift49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has cast aspersions in that discussion on two occasions based off a quick skim, in addition to the blatant 3RR vio. The two diffs I cite, [269] and [270] contain JSwift accusing others of arguing in bad faith, and then of sealioning and NPOV vios, all without evidence, and with the earlier claim assuming bad faith coming in response to M.Bitton asking him "What's that got to do with Khelif and why should the opinion of a politician (an unreliable source as far as athleticism is concerned) belong in her article?", strictly a question about content.

  It was my mistake not including these diffs with my TBan proposal; I didn't figure that the top section would get closed before this one and I also didn't want to repeat myself too much. I find JSwift to have been the primary force raising the temperature in the discussion, and I find M.Bitton and TarnishedPath to be defending Wikipedia policies on BLPs and thus, the reports on them to both be retaliatory to this one and highly frivolous. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose (uninvolved). It makes a mockery of our policies when content disputes are routinely escalated into behaviour disputes. I understand that the editor has engaged in heated discussion, but we are creating an incentive for one partner in a tango to rush to the drama boards as a way to enforce their perspective. Riposte97 (talk)

Uninvolved here, perhaps, but your talk page shows a very recent interaction history with TarnishedPath, specifically them bringing you to AE, with the result being a logged warning. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I also proposed they be topic banned from Indigenous peoples of North America during a WP:ANI discussion. There was community consensus for the proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 02:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

You’re quite right. Although, I don’t really see this proposal as personal for TP, and nor is my position. I am uninvolved in this dispute. Riposte97 (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose (uninvolved). I echo others who stated this discussion is exhausting. I saw the WP:CR for this discussion and it was far from neutral. I was surprised that an involved editor described this discussion as a clear community consensus for a TBAN.[271] I do sympathize with the WP:BLUDGEONING and this seems like a WP:TROUT situation. Although, I will add there's been a bit of bludgeoning going on here as well. Nemov (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I frankly think everyone involved needs to step back and take a breather, honestly. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question re. below thread closure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi; I don't intend to distract from my own case here, but I would like to ask: how come the thread on M.Bitton I started was already closed, without as much of a substantive discussion about the points I had brought up especially re. sealioning? Given that I and M.Bitton are accused of similar behaviors re. bludgeoning, NPOV violations and incivility, and that Liz identified at least some of my examples as not frivolous, I'm not understanding why my conduct in particular resulted in more scrutiny. I believe the diffs I brought merit more consideration, especially since many of the personal attacks that caused the thread's closure came from M.Bitton themself. Pinging @HandThatFeeds as closer and @Liz as admin who had asked for more information. JSwift49 00:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh good lord. The closing statement was clear, the situation was becoming an excuse for people to snipe at each other, no other admin action was going to be taken. Admin Doug Weller suggested it be closed for generating more heat than light, but was unwilling to do it himself due to being pinged to the discussion. So I did it.

Honestly, just let it go for now, or else the boomerang is going to look more and more appropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand your rationale, I do... I just don't understand why personal attacks (including from the subject) can cause real concerns with the subject's behavior to get less attention. Will leave things there and see what others say.

(What's a boomerang?) JSwift49 01:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49, WP:BOOMERANG. Required reading for anyone before opening a complaint at ANI. THTFY is giving you good advice. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Behavior of M.Bitton

This has devolved into personal attacks and is not productive. Closing. (non-admin closure) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For the record, I would like to submit these cases of sealioning and personal attacks/aspersions by M. Bitton on or regarding on Talk:Imane_Khelif, as I am questioning whether their conduct is conducive to editing contentious topics. We have argued back and forth a lot, and I have not been blameless myself, in part due to lack of experience with applicable policies and in part due to not questioning my own assumptions (has been a learning experience). However, the pattern of personal attacks and sealioning by M.Bitton seems quite consistent here, not just toward me. I don't see any will by them to compromise or address concerns of editors who disagree, even after I worked on a compromise solution, [272] started an RfC based on that, [273] struck a remark I made that they saw as an aspersion [274] etc. Sealioning Same question 5x near-verbatim, despite receiving replies [275][276][277][278][279] Same question 4x near-verbatim, despite receiving replies [280][281][282][283] Opposed incorporating description based on in five, later thirteen, reliable sources (including AP) due to "cherry picking" [284][285][286] while repeatedly citing an opinion article from a partisan source in support of their POV. [287][288][289] Pretty blatant example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT [290] Attempted to discredit three opinion articles (two of which by scientific experts) published in significant, reliable sources as "nobodies" by tying them to opinions from "nobodies" [291] Stated "I don't want anything" in response to editor seeking to understand what they wanted [292] Violated WP:CANVASS to assemble people in response to my pointing out sealioning (specifically, the 4 and 5 question repeats, with diffs) [293] Personal attacks/aspersions Accused me twice of not reading/ignoring their POV [294][295] Called my statement (with diffs) that they asked the same questions 4 and 5 times "aspersions" [296][297] Reverted a 17-year-old new user twice asking to resolve a dispute on their talk page, stated "you're not welcome here" [298][299] Reverted user who posted to talk page expressing concerns about archiving of a Talk thread, stated "you're no longer welcome here" [300] Said "what a surprise" in response to editor who disagreed with his position [301] Stating "not an improvement (that's a generous way of describing it)" in response to a good faith proposal by a new editor [302] Goaded users on their "lack of courage of conviction" to report them three times in a row [303][304][305] even after asked to stop [306] "You're not fooling anyone with that extremely poor excuse" in response to a concern about unsourced lead material [307] Stating "you have an issue with silence" to editor during discussion [308] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSwift49 (talk • contribs) JSwift49 01:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Violated WP:CANVASS to assemble people in response to my pointing out sealioning (specifically, the 4 and 5 question repeats, with diffs) [309]"; I read it now. M.Bitton accused me (rightly) of being improperly invited to this discussion (obviously I'm not at fault); however, the user in question has violated this rule. A very serious incoherence, which adds to all the other problems. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC) Adding to this (new) point re. incoherence, M.Bitton accused me of violating WP:CANVASS for pinging one editor who was already part of a discussion [310] even though they pinged five editors here. [311] JSwift49 17:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC) That diff of M.Bitton's comment is clearly not an example of WP:CANVASSING. Pinging edtiors already involved in the discussion in which you ping them is not and never has been canvassing. TarnishedPathtalk 00:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC) This retaliatory hollow section by JSwift49 (who conveniently "forgot" to sign it) is a perfect example of their out of context cherry picking to mislead the readers while pushing a POV. It also highlights their battleground approach to everything. M.Bitton (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC) This is confusing, it looks like M.Bitton filed a complaint about themselves. But, M.Bitton, do you have any comment about these specific instances? It would help if you provided a more thoughtful response as these do not all seem frivolous complaints. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC) M.Bitton's behaviour has been very poor - very confrontational and harsh, and frankly unwarranted, since no one is trying to dismiss or belittle the notion that Khelif was subjected to idiotic fascist abuse. They are presenting a relatively minor disagreement over article content (should we mention in the lead that there's been also public debate about eligibility standards in women's boxing competitions?) as a fight between Right and Wrong, the ultimate resistance against fascism and bigots - I find it ridiculous. Anyway, their behaviour towards the young newcomer (who was quite civil and cooperative) is appalling. It's also worth mentioning (as a sign of their battleground mentality and WP:ownership) that they've made 8 (eight!) non-consecutive reverts in less than 24h (as I documented here) and the result was... that TarnishedPath reported JSwift49 at 3RR/N and not M.Bitton! These two users are blowing things out of proportion and disregarding common sense and civility - admins should step in. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Thanks for glossing over that JSwift49 had pissed all over WP:3RR in as much as the third revert shown in my report had a message in the edit summary in which JSwift49 lectured M.Bitton not to breach 3RR and then they breached it 4 hours latter. TarnishedPathtalk 10:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC) You're very much part and parcel of the problem, so don't pretend to be a third party. no one is trying to dismiss or belittle the notion that Khelif was subjected to idiotic fascist abuse then, why did you keep citing the crappy Italian sources (that you described as RS) that violate BLP? Their behaviour towards the young newcomer (who was quite civil and cooperative) is appalling. that's a lie. The so-called newcomer is more than likely, like a sock who started casting aspersions (your stance is not neutral and that you are biased towards) and kept doubling down on them (this means you admit you are biaised), etc). M.Bitton (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC) The fact of the matter is, you have made personal attacks against several different users on this one topic. At some point it becomes a concern for all contentious topics. Re. 3RR this was reported and dealt with with a warning, and we’ve both done a good job since sticking to the talk page. JSwift49 11:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC) The section that you created to justify your aspersions casting and your usually cherry picking and misrepresentation of the sources, as well as what editors said, has been addressed. M.Bitton (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC) @JSwift49, the fact that you lectured another editor to not violate 3RR in an edit summary and then proceeded to violate it yourself is not reason to say that you've done a good job. It was demonstrably wilful behaviour engaged in to push your favoured version. That fact that you both got away with only a warning is largely due to the existence of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 12:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Let's not forget that JSwift49 was edit warring while citing a fictitious policy to justify their multiple violations of the WP:ONUS policy (in a BLP article). M.Bitton (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I meant we had done a good job since receiving the warning :) JSwift49 12:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC) that's a lie - I think you're wrong, M.Bitton. I have reviewed Fanny.doutaz's contributions - which is easy to do, since they amount to 79 edits - and I'm persuaded that they are a newcomer, not a sock, and that they are sincere when they describe themselves as 17y || Swiss || CSE @ MIT on their user page. You can check their comments in this thread - they are sensible, but are the comments of someone who is not aware of WP:RS. No experienced editor would make this comment. it will be up to Wikipedia to verify it in this comment is also the talk of a newcomer, as well as chat history in this comment. Here they ask M.Bitton about the meaning of ONUS - M.Bitton's reply? Onus is an English word. If you don't know what it means, you look it up in a dictionary. M.Bitton's behaviour in this thread and on their user talk (hereand here) was a disgraceful violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NOBITE by an experienced user who should know better. I'm pinging Bbb23, who closed the previous thread at ANI. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Others disagree with your baseless assertions about the potential sock. Regardless, what you said about me is a big fat lie given that they started casting aspersions and doubled down on them (see my previous reply to your comment). Regarding the "Onus" word, they filed this report on the 9th and my response to their so-called question was on the 10th. The fact that you didn't provide the diff for my response cannot be an oversight. Also, why did you keep citing the crappy Italian sources that violate BLP and that you falsely described as RS? This explains why you're defending those who share your POV. M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Since you pinged the admin, I will also ping the other editors (10mmsocket and GoodDay) who shared their views on the so-called "new editor". M.Bitton (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Uninvolved, but I also doubt that the "new editor" is all that new. The fact they immediately referenced IP addresses and UUID's on M.B's talk page makes it kind of obvious. WP:MANDY. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Friendly reminder to WP:AGF - looking at their edit history of another very young student from Switzerland and the talk page there with mention that they know the other student, I believe that this editor may very well also be a young talented student, which per their user page is studying computer science, which means they would be well aware what CS terms such as IP and UUID's are, those are not magical terms of Wikipedia, but of computing. Some of the behavior cited above definitely does look a bit WP:BITEy as it appeared to come from a position of assuming a new user would know policies without having linked them from looking back at the discussion. Raladic (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC) That's what they claim. They started casting aspersions and doubled down on them. That much, I know for a fact and see no reason to let myself be attacked by a so-called "new editor" (who strangely found their way to ANI after a handful of edits). M.Bitton (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Could you please share the diffs with the serious personal attacks by the newcomer that provoked your hostile responses? They are needed also to assess the "big fat lie" accusation that you just levelled at me, when I said that that newcomer's behaviour was overall civil and cooperative - they just happened to disagree with your POV. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I already have cited some of them (in green) and highlighted your bad faith comments (in bold). Now, feel free to answer the question that I asked you (about your POV pushing in a BLP article). M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Ok... So in conclusion it was not a lie? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC) the young newcomer (who was quite civil and cooperative) since they most definitely were not "civil" (see this and their talk page), what does that make Gitz's baseless assertion? M.Bitton (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC) If I understand you well, their personal attack on you was to say so this means you admit you are biaised. Well, keep your chin up... But what did you spotted on their talk page? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC) The above response wasn't meant for you (as far as I'm concerned, you made yourself irrelevant the moment you exposed your bad faith). Your refusal to answer the question about your POV pushing in a BLP speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Your refusal to answer the question about your POV pushing refers to the question why did you keep citing the crappy Italian sources that violate BLP and that you falsely described as RS?. I think this is called deflecting, grasping at straws and wasting my time, but WP:EQ and civility require that I share the relevant diffs: [312][313][314]. Anyone can check them and assess whether my behaviour on that talk page was questionable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC) You can call your POV pushing in the BLP whatever you want. Collecting some shitty Italian newspapers (that you falsely described as RS) to refute "there is no RS to support such a contentious label" speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC) The shitty Italian newspapers were ANSA [315], Adnkronos [316], la Repubblica [317], Il Messaggero [318], La7 [319], Radio DeeJay [320], and I shared them on the t/p not to argue that they should be used to describe Khelif as intersex, as they do (we shouldn't) but to argue that we should not suggest that the allegation that Khelif has DSDs is false: that allegation may be true, and many professional NEWSORGs and subject-matter experts ([321], [322]) either take it for true or debate the potential presence and nature of her DSDs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC) You cited those shitty Italian newspapers (with shitty headlines) and described them as RS to refute "there is no RS to support such a contentious label". I don't believe for one second that you didn't know what you were doing (you've been around long enough to know what RS and BLP are). M.Bitton (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I found my way to ANI after that you have threatened me to report me to ANI. Now you are using this to spread false information about me, saying that I found it without any context. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I said I will report you if you continued to cast aspersions. I specifically said "you're new, so you get a pass". This is how you thanked me for giving a chance to concentrate on the content. M.Bitton (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I have not been involved in anything here except for the one day when I reverted Fanny.doutaz's contributions and subsequently posted in support of M.Bitton when Fanny.doutaz took the matter to ANI. I stand by my assertion that Fanny.doutaz was not a new editor, was someone very family with Wikipedia editing and Wikipedia administration and was, in my opinion, very likely a sockpuppet account. New editors simply don't gain that level of knowledge within a few hours of coming to Wikipedia. On that occasion I thought M.Bitton's behaviour was entirely reasonable in response to an antagonistic editor. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I am not a sock puppet account. The knowledge that I have about Wikipedia comes from a friend who used to be active in this community. Apart from this, "M.Bitton" did not act in an acceptable way and nothing justifies their actions, given that my proposal about the article was legitimate, but they started to refute it without enough justification, and eventually started attacks such as the ones that I have mentioned. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I am replying after being pinged. Thank you for raising the issue about "M.Bitton". I have not raised it before, because I am currently busy with an academic project and therefore would not like to be overly involved in online disputes. I am glad that other nice people are helping to report this person, for their (in my opinion unacceptable) attitude towards multiple people including me. This attitude includes, but is not limited to, calling other people's opinion "useless" and saying that other people's proposal is bad without any justification. "M.Bitton" provoked me multiple times saying that I lacked courage and that "empty barrels make the most noise" when I pointed out their disrespectful behaviour. I found this behaviour unacceptable for an encyclopaedia community, especially given that they also refuse to resolve an issue that started to consist of personal attacks, while I proposed to resolve it. I will not be able to bring much more information in this discussion, but I wrote this message to thank the people who raised this issue, for their help to make this community more welcoming (to be honest, "M.Bitton" scared me quite a lot as I make my first steps in this community). Fanny.doutaz (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC) +1. JacktheBrown (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC) @Fanny.doutaz: I remain available for any questions or curiosities you wish to ask me; I'm here to help you. I advise you not to focus on users who don't treat you well (in this case the user you're referring to), as you would only waste energy that you could use in a healthier way. JacktheBrown (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Says the editor who has been been canvassed for their extreme views that led to them violating the BLP policy on more than one occasion (discussed at the ned of this report below). M.Bitton (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "Extreme views"? Which ones? Extreme views just because they don't align with yours? Furthermore, it's not my fault if, unfortunately, I was improperly invited to the discussion. I advise you to avoid this behaviour towards me. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC) Bada bing and Bada boom. M.Bitton (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC) You calling me a sock puppet is defamatory. [I have retracted the rest of the message, I was not aware that it was not allowed here, thank you MrOllie for pointing out] Fanny.doutaz (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC) WHOAH, you can't make legal threats on Wikipedia. That's a big NO-NO. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC) [retracted]. If this is not tolerated on Wikipedia, then thank you for letting me know. I will not say this again here. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC) That is plainly a legal threat. Per WP:NLT you should retract that immediately or you can expect to be blocked. - MrOllie (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC) After that you have told me, I declared that I retract it. I was not aware that this is not allowed here. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)  Note: Fanny.doutaz (the "new editor") is now WP:CANVASSING. Please see this comment. M.Bitton (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC) @Liz: First part: The first two is what they keep plastering all over the place with this editor has a history ... (to justify their persistent attacks). The claim that the questions were answered is has no basis in reality. They are also part of the edit war in which JSwift49 kept mentioning a fictitious policy to justify their multiple violations of the WP:ONUS policy (I have every reason to believe that this was done intentionally and not reason to believe otherwise, given that this is an experienced editor). I opposed the inclusion and explained why. Their irrelevant opinion of mine. A lie and another example of their bad faith: I described those who started the hate campaign as nobodies (as in non RS). The full comment speaks for itself. More bad faith: pinging (on this board) those who are discussing the issue on this board to highlight the continued aspersions casting by JSwift49 is not canvassing Second part: Their repeated "as I said ..." to what was addressed by multiple editors is a prove that they are ignoring what is being said by others. Stating this editor has a history ... in a RfC is beyond the pale. My right not to discuss anything on my talk page (especially, with a suspected sock who has nothing but aspersions to offer). Same as above. The editor in question violated BLP more than once (I can prove it and I'm certain that they won't deny it). Not an improvement means "not an improvement" (that's my opinion and I stand by it). The previously mentioned sock repeatedly attacking me while refusing to either stop or take it to ANI. I fully stand by that comment: trying to remove the easily attributable content that is being discussed in a RfC (that they started), while arguing that it's unsourced is a very poor excuse indeed. My response to an editor who kept repeating that "silence is often considered an admission" and describing it as "the silence issue", to insinuate that she is what they think she is. M.Bitton (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I think this is quite revealing here. Not least the response to the sealioning by turning it around on me (Whataboutism). Even now, they call me "disingenous as usual"; [323] it seems the default response to any concern is to just turn it around on the other person. I will strike one point as they are right: the "nobodies" on second look was in fact referring to people who started the hate campaign. However, I still think it's concerning that they would discredit articles by experts by associating them with opinions of "nobodies" that happened before. The facts are, the pattern of behavior deals with content that several editors supported some form of change to [324][325][326][327] and which arguably did not have a consensus to begin with, [328][329][330][331][332][333] and this is not how someone editing contentious topics should generally behave. I hate to play into the "both sidesing" of this issue, but I couldn't find a single instance where M.Bitton expressed a desire to compromise or admitted they could have done something better, despite the consistent pattern shown above. And for my faults, I did make a good faith effort to achieve consensus and incorporate feedback. [334][335][336][337][338][339][340][341] JSwift49 12:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Your disingenuous assertions have been addressed. M.Bitton (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Noting here that User:Fanny.doutaz made a legal threat in this section and then deleted the subthread after WP:NLT was pointed out. - MrOllie (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I retracted it, my original message was stating that the sockpuppet claim against me was defamatory [and all the rest], but I was totally unaware that it is not allowed here. I have retracted it since MrOllie pointed it out. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC) P.S. @Yamla told me that I should only edit my own message. Therefore the thread stays and I have now only edited my own one. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Did Yamla say that you can engage in WP:CANVASSING (like you you did with that comment)? I will also ping Doug Weller (the admin who warned you on your talk page) and see what they have to say about your continued disruptive behaviour. M.Bitton (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC) If you ping them, then you should make sure they see the entire conversation. I did not say anything for days, until I have been pinged in this conversation. I pointed out your continued disruptive behaviour, and warned you about your defamatory claims. I was not aware that it was not allowed here to make such warnings, and retracted it immediately after that other people told me. But it does not make defamatory actions better and you should be aware of that. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Their behaviour proves beyond doubt that they are a new editor. WP:NOBITE is there for a reason. By disregarding this guideline, M.Bitton has made Fanny.doutaz's experience on Wikipedia quite unpleasant. I hope that admins will take action without repeating M.Bitton's mistake. It is clear who deserves sanction here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC) It's your POV pushing (in a BLP) that they should look at. A living person's reputation is far more important than the feelings of some random editors. For the rest, even if they are new (which I and others doubt), that still doesn't excuse their behaviour, and you're obviously defending them for the simple reason that their POV aligns with yours. M.Bitton (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC) @Gitz6666: "By disregarding this guideline, M.Bitton has made Fanny.doutaz's experience on Wikipedia quite unpleasant. I hope that admins will take action without repeating M.Bitton's mistake": exactly, it's not correct for a collaborative project like Wikipedia to allow this kind of behaviour. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that JackkBrown (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) First of all, when you get canvassed, it's usually good practice to state it before commenting. Did you or did you not violate WP:BLP? M.Bitton (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I forgot to ping (to make sure you don't miss the question). @JackkBrown: Please answer the above question. A simple yes or no will do. M.Bitton (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Was your behaviour, based on what is reported here at ANI, disrespectful to several users (including me) or not? Answer my question and I will answer yours. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC) No. Please answer the question about your violations of the BLP policy. M.Bitton (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC) What I imagined; you never realised your repeated disrespect towards other users (you admitted it yourself: A living person's reputation is far more important than the feelings of some random editors), and, unfortunately for you, this is very serious for a collaborative project. I'm fair and respectful towards users, so I will answer you sincerely: yes, I made an error in a comment that I later deleted; for the rest, I didn't make any mistakes. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC) You violated BLP on more than one occasion. This is important to note because it explains what you've been up to and why you've been canvassed to this discussion. I'll let the admins draw their own conclusion. M.Bitton (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC) No, I was invited to this discussion because I, unlike you, was kind to the user: [342]; however, I'm not responsible for the invitation, don't accuse me. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I wasn't asking (you were canvassed because of your extreme view, as evidenced by your BLP violations). Also, please don't refactor your comment once someone has already replied to it. As for your "I'm fair and respectful towards users" claim: Why did you write these (on the article's talk page) and can you please substantiate the last part of the second? unfortunately, a user (you already know who I'm referring to) is too convinced of their (questionable) ideas M.Bitton is a good user, but, unfortunately, also because of them the article isn't neutral. I'm leaving now, so you have all the time you need to justify these and your other baseless assertions. M.Bitton (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Really? After the enormity of disrespectful comments you've written over the weeks do you think I'm the user who's wrong? Furthermore, you're contradicting yourself, because in the second comment I wrote: "M.Bitton is a good user" (are you complaining about a compliment?). Anyway, I wish you a very good night. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC) because of them the article isn't neutral is not a compliment and neither are the other baseless accusations that you're throwing around to whitewash the fact that you violated BLP to push a POV. M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC) You never realised your repeated disrespect towards other users (you admitted it yourself: A living person's reputation is far more important than the feelings of some random editors); what do you think about this? You admitted it yourself. Let's talk about what you were reported for, don't change the subject. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC) This is generating far more heat than light. It needs to be closed, but as I've been pinged I'm not the right person to do this. And yes, it's more important to enforce WP:BLP than worry about editors' feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC) @Doug Weller: "And yes, it's more important to enforce WP:BLP than worry about editors' feelings." Of course I'm aware of this. I quoted their comment to demonstrate that they themselves have confirmed their lack of respect towards other users, a lack which unfortunately occurred in many situations. I have nothing against this user, in fact I have said and repeated that they're a good user; however, it's their behavior that's not at all cooperative and collaborative. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Your disingenuousness knows no bounds. M.Bitton (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC) The insincere user isn't me: [343]. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC) @JacktheBrown: As a regular at BLPN, IMO anyone who cares more about editors feelings than BLP should probably just leave Wikipedia. But failing that, they should voluntarily refrain from editing anything concerning living persons, before they are rightfully topic banned. Such behaviour is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. Yes especially if editors are new, there is room for education, but this cannot come at the expense of BLP. If the editor isn't able or willing to understand that they have a lot to learn, and while doing so they need to take great care how they handle anything concerning living persons, then we should warn and block them in short order. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC) @Nil Einne: so is it right to insult all users? In any case, I believe that when working on Wikipedia the BLP is, fortunately or unfortunately, more important than people's feelings, but if a user exaggerates and, even more seriously, is allowed to do so, in my opinion it's right for them to take a break from Wikipedia. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC) @JackkBrown: also if you care a lot about new editors, maybe consider changing your signature to match your username. While it's allowed, even as a long term regular, I find it needlessly annoying and occasionally confusing. I'm fairly sure most new editors find it very confusing. Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC) @Nil Einne: no, I only added "the". JacktheBrown (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Fanny.doutaz and legal threats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Earlier in this discussion, User:Fanny.doutaz made a clear legal threat, which they doubled down on after an initial warning. After more warnings they edited those comments to remove the threats, but did not really retract them. Just now, they made what looks like another such threat to me on their user talk page. I think something needs to be done here. - MrOllie (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I wish you two would stop fighting. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@JackkBrown I do not know how to forward edit history to another page, could you please help me showing the current version of the page where the "legal" statements happened, where I clearly stated that I retracted my statements (unlike what @MrOllie is trying to make others believe by showing an older version of the page)? Thank you Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fanny.doutaz: date and time of the edit? JacktheBrown (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@JackkBrown I cannot find the time of edits, but a message where I stated clearly that I retracted it was on 21:16, 13 Aug 2024, in UTC time. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fanny.doutaz: here. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Just so this is clear: I stated that defamation is bad (literally just this), because @MrOllie accused me of things that are completely untrue. Stating that defamation is bad does not mean that any legal measures would be taken. It is just from a moral point of view, and I do not see where the legal threat comes in. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I also did state clearly that I retract all the legal statements yesterday. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie As I clearly stated on my talk page before you brought it here: it was not a legal threat, and it was only a moral blaming against you. Would you explain what your intentions are, as you accuse me of legal threats in a statement like "defamation is bad", despite that I already explained clearly previously that it does not mean any legal actions will be taken? Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the admins can handle it from here, I don't plan to argue back and forth in this section. MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Summary message for admins: @MrOllie is making fake accusations of 1) me not retracting a "legal threat" after it being pointed out, I was not aware of it being disallowed on Wikipedia (I am new) and I did retract it clearly after being told it was not allowed, contrarily to what he claimshttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1240155873

2) Calling a message from me, namely "you do know that defamation is bad, do you not", a threat, and bringing it to here after being told clearly that it was only moral blaming and not a threat. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• @JackkBrown. please stop pretending to be a third party: a) you have been been canvassed by anny.doutaz and b) you violated the BLP policy on more than one occasion (discussed at the end of this report). M.Bitton (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Are you stopping me from expressing my thoughts? Could you kindly finish justifying what you were reported for and stop trying to accuse and blame other users, including me? I can't stand you anymore. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Fanny.doutaz: a veiled legal threat (after making explicit legal threats) is a legal threat whose intimidating purpose is crystal clear. What you think is neither nor there. M.Bitton (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton I never explicitly threatened @MrOllie nor veiled legal threats. Also you seem to be obsessed with me, following discussions about me even where you were not involved. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Administrator note @Fanny.doutaz: This was certainly a legal threat. Thank you for retracting it. If you feel you have been the subject of a defamatory statement on Wikipedia, you should email info-en-q@wikipedia.org with details of the article and situation. Please do not post any further legal threats like this, as they will lead to a block on your account.

Re the other comments mentioned in this thread: you're certainly correct that calling something "defamatory' is not the same as threatening to personally take legal action. However per WP:LEGAL it is important to refrain from making comments that others may understand as a threat. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret it as a threat. This appears to be how other editors have interpreted some of your recent comments. Can you therefore please stop using this terminology to describe posts by other editors, as it is disruptive to the editing environment. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Euryalus thank you for your message, I will keep that in mind. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Behaviour of JacktheBrown

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This list of some of the statements that were made by JackkBrown (JacktheBrown) should highlight a) what they think of the subject (Imane Khelif) and b) their behaviour towards those who stand in the way of their POV pushing.

• I also think they are a transgender.
• we still know little about her (or them, in the case of transgender).
• I believe Imane Khalif is Intersex, but it's largely correct to report the official comments (via social networks) of her opponents. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view This is the edit summary of their addition to the article.
• I think Imane Khelif is intersex, but the attitude of not deciding to include different opinions of important people is very strange; this is an encyclopaedia, not a political campaign. When I asked them to delete it, they did, but not without making another point in their edit summary.
• in my opinion it's not correct; it's right to leave the freedom of criticism, and not only what interests you, even if the user (in this case the IP) isn't very good at writing a thread. This is their response to me after I reminded the IP. who wrote what follows, that Wikipedia is not a forum: IMO an issue with the article is that it looks as if Khelif is a VICTIM of false allegations. Right now the situation is unclear and the tendency is to believe that she does have XY chromosomes.
• Undid revision 1238981048 by Mellamelina (talk) everyone is free to express their thoughts, whether it bothers you or not. Here, they restored a comment that states most likely Imane has Swyer syndrome.
• @JSwift49: unfortunately, a user (you already know who I'm referring to) is too convinced of their (questionable) ideas. This comment is clearly about me.
• @JSwift49: M.Bitton is a good user, but, unfortunately, also because of them the article isn't neutral. If there was any doubt about the target of the previous comment.

There are others, among their "exactly" and "I agree" to any comment that aligns with their POV, that I didn't bother mentioning (the above statements are more than enough). Personally, I believe that they should be banned from the Khelif article, and ideally topic banned from BLP and the GENSEX area, but I'll let someone else propose what's appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I never wrote the following sentence: "I also think they are a transgender." Please report truthful comments, thank you very much.
To avoid making further mistakes, I suggest you post the links (obviously only the latest version, because some comments were changed a little later). JacktheBrown (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear M.Bitton, although I know very well the singular they, I kindly ask you to address me with "he" (not "they"); see here. Thank you and have a great day. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I never wrote... this diff says otherwise. M.Bitton (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear M.Bitton, what you didn't understand about "obviously only the latest version, because some comments were changed a little later"? SEE. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You cannot say "I never wrote that" and then cover it with "because some comments were changed later". You did write that. It's good that you took it back out, but the fact is that you still initially wrote that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: yes, correct, you're 100% right. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with the speculative comments re. transgenderism/intersex. But re. personal attacks, that has very much gone both ways between you two (see 'Behavior of M.Bitton' thread for more examples) JSwift49 02:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Link: Behavior of M.Bitton. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@JackkBrown, I don't know what possessed you to wander into GENSEX, but it's not a good place for anyone who doesn't understand the intersection of BLP and GENSEX well enough to know that we don't call someone intersex/transgender unless they've called themselves that, we don't speculate on people's pronouns, and we don't speculate on a medical diagnosis, even if other people -- even "important people" -- are doing so in RS. I see you've now received a notification of contentious topics on your user page. If I were you I would back away from this, as you clearly do not know what you're doing there.

For future reference, your posts never go away, even if you revise them. Valereee (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: yes, I think I should stay in my area of expertise. However, a few hours before your comment I disabled all notifications of every discussion in Talk:Imane Khelif. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I note that the previous discussions have occurred in relation to JackkBrown

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:JackkBrown (arcived without action)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145#Partial_block_for_JackkBrown (archived without action)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#JackKBrown_again (one month block)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1158#JackkBrown_further_disruption (archived without action)

TarnishedPath^talk 08:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX (Behaviour of JacktheBrown)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Due to their comments as outlined above, JacktheBrown be topic banned from the GENSEX area, broadly construed. TarnishedPath^talk 14:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. It's clear from JackkBrown's comments that they have no place editing the the GENSEX area. TarnishedPath^talk 14:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBan or indef - Repeatedly making the outrageous claim that Khelif is trans/intersex/XY show a complete incompatibility with productively editing in this topic area.

― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC) Edited ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This looks like an attempt to win a content dispute by removing dissenting editors. Since a staggering amount of mainstream Italian news organisations have described (in their own voice, without attribution) Khelif as "intersex" (as explained here), it is not surprising that an Italian editor shows up on the article talk page arguing for a POV which, from their perspective, is a "significant viewpoint" worthy of inclusion per WP:DUE. The user in question has retracted his first erroneous statement "I also think they are transgender" (31 July) and since 10 August has stopped claiming that the article should include that she is intersex (all quotes in the OP are prior to 10 August). Like others on the article's discussion page, he was exasperated by the battlefield mentality and lack of civility of two experienced users, including the proposer, who lash out at anyone who does not align with their POV (i.e. that that BLP should convince the reader that Khelif is not intersex); however, their behaviour remained overall civil. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Valereee has already explained to them that we don't call someone intersex/transgender unless they've called themselves that, and we don't speculate on a medical diagnosis.

  What's your excuse for violating BLP (by labelling her as intersex, including on this very board)? M.Bitton (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Whose excuse are you asking about, mine or JackkBrown's? If you're asking about me, I've never labelled her as intersex on this board or elsewhere - if I'm wrong, please provide a diff. If you're asking about JackkBrown, I've already explained why I think he called Khelif intersex (preponderance of Italian sources) in the very comment you're replying to, and you're just bludgeoning. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Gitz6666: and M.Bitton: to avoid confusion, my new nickname is "JacktheBrown". JacktheBrown (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  We shouldn't damage Khelif by pushing the well-intentioned but questionable POV that she is not intersex did you or did you not write this and is there any part of what Valereee said that you don't understand? M.Bitton (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, and I stick to it. Doing otherwise would be WP:ADVOCACY and a serious BLP violation, detrimental to Khelif herself. We should not frame that BLP to push the POV that she doesn't have DSDs. Can you please provide one RS stating in unequivocal terms that she doesn't have DSDs? If you can't, can you at least provide one RS (apart from our article on Khalif, which is not a RS) suggesting or implying that she does not have DSDs? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Let's see what Valereee has to say about your statement and your justification. M.Bitton (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't ask you what Valereee says, I asked you to provide at least one reliable source suggesting or implying that Khelif does not have DSDs. If we don't have such a source, then what are we discussing? why the hell are we saying the lead that Khelif was born female - horrible and transphobic expression, frawned upon by LGBT organisations, that you and TarnishedPath want to keep in the article? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'd like Valereee to know that my opinion on the "intersex issue" has never changed and was already expressed at 11:36, 6 August 2024: We must strictly abide by WP:BLP, WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS, which means that we shouldn't be suggesting that Khelif does or doesn't have XY chromosomes: we just don't know anything for sure about chromosomes. Therefore as to her gender, we write what we do know: she was assigned female at birth and identifies as a woman. We don't speculate about her genetics and the lack of information about chromosomes. See also 07:58, 7 August 2024: We should say that she was assigned female at birth, that she identifies as a woman and has lived her entire life (including sports) as a woman, without speculating on who has seen the gender tests. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your opinion is highlighted in this comment, in which you falsely claim that the Italian newspapers that labelled her as Intersex (because she beat their darling) are reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Why do you think la Repubblica and Il Messaggero are not reliable sources? Looking at their wikipedia articles I see absolutely no reason for your smearing of them. Vegan416 (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  What makes you think that they are reliable for the statement that they are making? You see what you want to see, because just like JacktheBrown and Gitz, you too insist on shifting the burden of proof. M.Bitton (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't work like this. These are respected mainstream newspapers in Italy. If you think that they are not GREL you should open a discussion/RFC about this in RSN and see what the Wikipedia community thinks. Until you do that and get consensus for your opinion you cannot smear them as unreliable just because you don't like what they say. Vegan416 (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Why are you unilaterally inserting "generally" here? M.Bitton's saying they're not reliable for these claims specifically. Remsense ‥ 诉 12:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Then we all misunderstood their comments; no offense, but they should have explained themselves better. In any case, these two sources are reliable for this article. Finally, I would like to clarify that although, unfortunately, the Imane Khelif page has serious problems regarding neutrality, I no longer want anything to do with either M.Bitton or the article. Regards. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's made fairly clear in most of our infrastructure related to reliability of sources (e.g. WP:RS, WP:RSN, WP:RSP...) that reliability often heavily depends on context. It's hard to come to that assumption if this had been kept in mind. Remsense ‥ 诉 12:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  @JacktheBrown, if you're referring to la Repubblica and Il Messaggero, no they aren't MEDRS, which means they cannot be used for statements about a medical diagnosis, nor for speculating on one. Valereee (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Valereee: all right, I understand everything. Thank you very much and have a great day. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, they've amplified a totally spurious claim about a public figure's biological sex without a shred of evidence. Seems like a dimension of claims you shouldn't trust their word on. Remsense ‥ 诉 12:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Vegan416, you do not have a thorough enough understanding of sources w/regard to GENSEX/BLP/MEDRS to be working in that area. I strongly suggest you stop participating here in this discussion and at the Khelif article. Valereee (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Valereee: to circumvent your suggestion, Vegan416 started a discussion on BLPN to continue their argument that silence is often considered an admission. Luckily, it was collapsed by another editor who saw it for what it is. M.Bitton (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  False claim. That discussion doesn't argue that "silence is often considered an admission". Rather is asks why it is ok to mention "no comment" response is some BLPs that I show there, and not here. How can one learn how BLP is correctly used without asking questions? Vegan416 (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  The way one learns how BLP is correctly used in a nondisruptive way is to work in less contentious areas until one has learned the basics. Do not disrupt Wikipedia under the guise of "But how else will I learn?" Please stop. Valereee (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm trying to remain an admin here, so I'll try to parse this along that line. Frankly a lot of the argument over content at that article looks like people who dislike working with one another and want to win and keep letting themselves get taken off on tangents by editors who don’t really understand sourcing when it comes to the intersection of GENSEX, MEDRS, and BLP. For instance, saying “No RS are saying (whatever) just begs one of those less experienced editors to go dig up the Italian media, who absolutely are reliable but not for MEDRS, and especially not in a BLP. Both of you should know better than to let yourself get dragged off task on that when literally all that’s needed is for someone to note those sources can’t be used ‘’in this case’’ and point those editors at the relevant policy.

  I’m going to AGF that Gitz6666 sincerely believes "born female" is asserting in WikiVoice what Khelif’s chromosome makeup/medical condition is and is not. I’m going to AGF that M.Bitton sincerely believes pointing out "assigned female at birth and identifies as a woman" actually calls into question Khelif’s chromosome makeup/medical condition. And that both of you are arguing BLP from that sincere belief. If the two of you (and the other experienced editors at that article) could take a step back from your suspicions about one another, you should be able to find some compromise position that is both useful to the reader and protects the rights of this living person. If you can’t, then it becomes a behavior issue, and admins may have to start removing people from the discussion. Valereee (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Their attribution of the opposition to use AFAB (for reasons that have nothing to do with chromosomes) solely to me and TP is disingenuous. There are others on that discussion, including an admin, who share the same view. M.Bitton (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  If the admin is weighing in on a content dispute, they're actually now an editor for that content dispute. Their opinion is no more important than that of any other experienced well-intentioned editor. Valereee (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that they are attributing something to me and TP, while ignoring the others who share the same view. M.Bitton (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for AGF. I have no personal beef with M.Bitton, and I certainly have no "suspicions" about them, if that means attributing bad intentions. I disagree with them on a few content issues, which is everyday business on Wikipedia, but I also find that they were quite rude (not towards me, to be honest) but towards other less experienced and undoubtedly good-faith editors, with whom I happened to agree (partially) in talk page discussions. If this combative approach changes, I will happily compromise on content. If it doesn't, I will "step back" by banning myself from that article, so to speak, and leave it to others to deal with the damage that approach is likely to cause both to newcomers and to the quality of that BLP. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your baseless claims about me have been addressed in the closed discussion, so no need to repeat what was said. The fact that you "partially agree" with those who were rude to me is perhaps what's clouding your judgment about me and those who are enforcing the policies. M.Bitton (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  As I see it, those who were rude to you accused you and TarnishedPath of bad faith while you and TP were accusing them of POV pushing. You and TP were also warned by other uninvolved editors about your lack of civility and disregard for WP:TALK as early as 06:42, 7 August 2024 and 20:31, 10 August 2024. You bit a newcomer, bludgeoned the talk and edit warred. TP ran to dispute resolution noticeboards (3RRN and ANI) to remove the dissenting editors with futile accusations, and you seconded them. This attitude of yours exacerbated the content dispute and resulted in an impressive waste of time to secure an unbalanced BLP that suits your POV and prevent it from being corrected. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  those who were rude to you accused you .. of bad faith for no reason whatsoever. Yet, here you are defending them because you agree (partially) with their POV. What does that say about you? In the meantime, I have provided the quotes that prove that you have been pushing a POV that is a violation of the BLP policy, and to be honest, given this reply, I'm not convinced that you fully understand the issue. In any case, my patience has limits, so unless a valid argument is put forward, I'll simply ignore the time sink that you're creating with your hollow assertions. M.Bitton (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  "TP ran to dispute resolution noticeboards (3RRN and ANI) to remove the dissenting editors with futile accusations"

  Firstly, I didn't start this ANI thread. Secondly there was a demonstrated violation of 3RR that was actionable. You need to strike your WP:ABF. TarnishedPath^talk 01:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  You are right, it was GhostOfDanGurney the one who started this thread, I was wrong. You, however, argued that Editors constantly trying to POV push language which makes what Khelif has faced to have been on the basis of at least some reasonable concerns [...] should be topic banned from GENSEX and proposed that JacktheBrown be topic banned. On 3RR/N you reported (without warning) JSwift49, one of the users you disagree with, who had made 4 reverts, and you chose not to report or warn M.Bitton, who had made 8 reverts (eventually they both were warned). This selective use of the noticeboard suggests to me that you were not interested in enforcing the 3RR but in winning the content dispute. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Violating the BLP policy and defending those who do (in the most disingenuous way) tells me that you should stay away from the article and BLPs in general. M.Bitton (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  When I opened up the article history, prior to submitting the 3RRN report, I saw an obvious violation by JSwift49 at the top of the article history. I didn't go looking further. That in no way makes my report selective. Additionally I did warn them as required and you can find the link in the 3RRN report if you care to look. You have absolutely no basis for your WP:ASPERSION that I've been weaponising noticeboards in an attempt to win disputes and you need to strike your WP:ABF. TarnishedPath^talk 08:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Gitz is clearly being disingenuous, a fact that I highlighted previously in the closed discussion. They commented on the 3AN (to support the editor who was citing a fictitious policy to violate a real one) before me, making their you seconded them look as ridiculous as the rest of their comments. Their only interest here is to defend, at the expense of a living person, the editors whose POV align with theirs. M.Bitton (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  re I did warn them as required and you can find the link in the 3RRN report. I don't understand why you want to drag this out. You warned them at 02:40, 11 August 2024 and reported them 10 minutes later, at 02:51, 11 August 2024, without any new revert or edit being made between 02:40 and 02:51. This means that JSwift49 was not given the opportunity to comply with your so-called "warning" (Self revert your last revert immediately or the next stop is a noticeboard) because they did not edit between 00:20, 12 August and 03:56, 12 August. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  You wrote "On 3RR/N you reported (without warning) JSwift49". This is demonstrably false as you now admit. Strike your false WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:ABF. TarnishedPath^talk 11:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, I won't strike my "false aspersions', which i have supported with diffs. If I misunderstood anything, I hope that someone will explain to me how posting "Self revert your last revert immediately or the next stop is a noticeboard", followed by an immediate report to 3RRN, makes sense on a collaborative project and qualifies as a "warning'. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Gitz6666, @TarnishedPath, @M.Bitton, all this extra sniping at one another is not helping here. You are all making it nearly impossible for any admin to help. I feel like you've all had your say here. Please stop talking to/about each other in this thread. Valereee (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Valereee: Gitz continues to make speculative medical claims about Khelif by using statements such as If Khelif has DSDs... as a basis for their reasoning. When JustAnotherCompanion removed their comment that steps over the line, they restored it.

  Could you please point out where WP:BLP prohibits making hypotheses about the medical conditions of a living person? is their response to this comment, which means that they still don't fully understand the policies despite claiming otherwise (in response to your explanation). M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support, but it's not enough, there disruption will just move elsewhere as it already has following prior AN* discussions (this is the editor formerly known as Jackkbrown until @FlightTime: completed the rename). A site block is unfortunately probably what's ultimately needed. Star Mississippi 00:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

My extreme apologies, I saw/had no indecation of this discussion, or the rename wouldn't have been done. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Not your fault at all @FlightTime and apologies if that's how it came across. I don't even think Jack meant it to deceive/escape sanctions although he did seem to be forum shopping the question, but it was enough and I didn't want folks to think it wasn't the same editor in a new issue. Disclosure, I opened at least two of the AN discussions for their prior disruption. Star Mississippi 01:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Not at all @Star Mississippi: Just wish I knew, I would of held it till after the discussion :P. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

FT, Jack had been using that as his signature, which someone else complained about, so I think Jack was simply making his username match his signature. I don't think there was anything nefarious going on. Valereee (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: yes, exactly; I matched my nickname and signature ("which someone else complained about": here). JacktheBrown (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support; because of the above comments, and because this user agreed with this comment, which basically argued that because Khelif never explicitly disagreed with the IBA’s assessment, she tacitly confirmed it. This blatant misunderstanding of the burden of proof, along with previous issues with this user, show that they can't be a net-positive on a contentious BLP talk page. Mach61 05:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support but widen to ban from contentious topics altogether; Like Star Mississippi stated above, the disruption is chronic with this user and it has also spilled into WP:CT/EE where JacktheBrown has violated WP:DUE, edit warring to do so as seen on their recent edits on Russo-Ukrainian War. This shows a wider lack of understanding and etiquette that makes them a poor fit for CT areas. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Slatersteven wrote to me to "include them" (SEE), so I added the information; I did what they wrote.
    I didn't want to start an edit war. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Err, no I did not [[344]], as I said here [[345]] an edit summery is not a good place to raise complex issue. Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support this topic ban, and I think we are getting close to the point where a sitewide block will be necessary. While I have no doubt of the editor's good faith and he is certainly knowledgeable about Italian cuisine, JackkBrown/JacktheBrown seems incapable of editing without serious problems with adhering to the neutral point of view. Now that he has strayed from the relatively innocuous area of Italian cuisine to contentious topics areas like gender/sexuality, Russia/Ukraine and controversial BLPs, I see nothing but pitfalls along that road, ending in disaster. Maybe he can pull back from the precipice, but this topic ban is the bare minimum required. Cullen328 (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @Cullen328: "Russia/Ukraine": simply because what I write doesn't coincide with a certain way of thinking; it's very sad to try to prevent the plurality of information. For the rest of the comment I might agree. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    Plurality of information does not mean wp:false balance! Also this edit [346] clearly misrepresents sources—blindlynx 13:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I completely disagree with JacktheBrown's comments but I am also troubled by the tendency to punish users who hold divergent opinions. We already have policies for unacceptable behaviour, but I am far more worried by the slide towards banning users for holding opinions we don’t like than by the occasional user going too far. Jeppiz (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  In my view, removing this editor from a highly contentious topic area is preventative rather than punitive when his expressing random opinions becomes disruptive, impedes development of consensus, and wastes the time of other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Fully agree. Doug Weller talk 08:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Exacty. These statements the editor has made are at complete variance with estabished facts, and in complete variance with the expectations needed to write an accurate a WP:BLP. Much worse than the previous tban request. They are all over the shop. There is no constistency in approach. No understanding of WP:NPOV. This could really serious problem in the future if there is an attempt to edit a popular BLP article. I wouldn't like that all. scope_creep^Talk 12:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support ban on CT topics very reluctantly. I have tried to help JacktheBrown in the past, but it seems they are not just a new editor, but a new editor who does not know when they should stop and ask for advice. Had I been asked, which I was not, I would have recommended in very strong terms that they stay away from. BLPs, trans topics, and especially Russian/Ukraine. The fact that they have not only gone there but been quite belligerent about going there concerns me a great deal. Elinruby (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support but widen to ban from contentious topics altogether as I have been mentioned, this user has a very odd attitude towards neutrality. As this thread shows [[347]]. Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support per all the clear evidence above. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Behaviour of TarnishedPath

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

TarnishedPath has been repeatedly accusing Vegan416 of POV-pushing in response to good-faith contributions to talk page discussions:

• 10:47, 14 August 2024 Quite frankly it strikes me as WP:POVPUSHING to be making fringe arguments on the basis of sourcing which doesn't explicitly back you up (in response to this comment by Vegan416)
• 12:12, 14 August 2024 I'm not going to waste my time and read the rest of your WP:POVPUSH (in response to this comment by Vegan416)
• 12:32, 14 August 2024 You continue to push a position which is not based on "reasonable concerns" while stating that it is (in response to this comment by Vegan416)
• 10:13, 15 August 2024 Referring to others who are engaged in POVPUSH as backup isn't the victory you think it is (in response to this comment by Vegan416
• 10:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC) No, I'm suggesting that YOU are engaged in POVPUSH by seeking to selectively use quotes (in response to this comment by Vegan416)
• 23:52, 15 August 2024 Now a better question is why are you pushing material in a manner which is presumptive that the IBA (an unreliable source) is correct? (in response to this comment by Vegan416)

None of these accusations are warranted: please see Vegan416's comments that prompted them.

At 09:16, 15 August 2024 I warned TarnishedPath that this conduct was not acceptable, especially since we already had this thread at ANI for discussing user behaviour. It didn't work. I repeated my warning on their user talk page, and they asked me to never post there again. They also opposed a proposed edit, and when I asked for the reasons, they twice refused to give them (03:38, 16 August 2024 and 13:40, 16 August 2024 ^[corrected]), showing unmitigated hostility. Since it is impossible to cooperate on that article talk page, I'm reporting this user. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC); edited 21:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

But not telling them I see. They seem to have logged off. perhaps until tomorrow afternoon. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Since they asked me to never post on their user talk page again, I thought that pinging them here in my OP was enough. Prompted by your comment, I just left an ANI notice. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't want be involved in this, and I am against this complaint that was filed without consulting me. I have already stated in the past with regard to other attacks that were made on me (by another editor) that I do not need any protection from the admins, and I can handle aggressive behavior against me on my own.

I won't comment here any more. Vegan416 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I warned TarnishedPath that this conduct was not acceptable you're in no position to judge an editor who's enforcing BLP. I already mentioned an instance of your POV pushing (based on some garbage sources that you collected online). M.Bitton (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I have already replied to you here. Please clarify which sources were garbage: ANSA [348], Adnkronos [349], la Repubblica [350], Il Messaggero [351], La7 [352], Radio DeeJay [353], Corriere della Sera [354] - one of them in particular or all of them? As I explained on the article talk page, I didn't cite these sources to argue that Khelif is intersex and that we should say so in the article, but to argue that we shouldn't suggest that she's not intersex (e.g., Khelif was born female, as is stated in the lead), because both professional news organisations and subject-matter experts (see Public debates about eligibility standards in women's boxing competitions) openly discuss the possibility that she may have DSDs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: as an Italian I can confirm that most of the sources you cited in your comment are, objectively, (very) reliable (e.g., la Repubblica). JacktheBrown (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Behaviour_of_JackkBrown explains why you think that. M.Bitton (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you kindly stop attacking me all the time? I simply wrote that most of these sources (e.g., la Repubblica) are (very) reliable, and this is objectively true; it has nothing to do with my idea. Please stop provoking me, I didn't reply to your comments. JacktheBrown (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I already did (my answer is just above what you wrote) and don't intend on repeating myself. The fact that you keep collecting speculations (literally, anything you can find) about what you think she may be (despite the fact that there is no evidence that she is anything but a woman) speaks volumes about how far you're willing to push it into the BLP (to victimize her even further). This is exactly the kind of POV pushing that has plagued the talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

A person with DSDs can be a woman, as Khelif undoubtedly is, as she was assigned female at birth and identifies as a woman. To use her BLP to suggest that she doesn't have DSDs is disrespectful to her and does not reflect what RSes report. It is disrespectful to her because it implies that if she has DSDs then her gold medal is undeserved - on the contrary, given the IOC's eligibility criteria, it is clear that she was fully entitled to compete and win at the Olympics. Since your POV does not reflect what RSes say, it drives editors (mainly newcomers and inexperienced editors) to come to that talk page and argue, sometimes clumsily and in violation of WP policy, that the article is unbalanced and/or that Khelif has DSDs (which has not been verified and should not be included in the article). As a result, you and TarnishedPath mistreat them, provoke them, exacerbate them, and eventually ask that they are blocked or banned. You are damaging the encyclopaedia without being useful to anyone. This needs to stop. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

to suggest that she doesn't have DSDs is disrespectful to her to suggest, without evidence, that she does (like you've been doing again and again) is what's disrespectful and harmful to her. If you still don't get this, then I suggest you stay away from the article (your POV pushing, that is bordering on BLP violations, serves no purpose other than prolonging her victimization). M.Bitton (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Besides, I was not the one who first ran to dispute resolution. At 3RR/N, I tried to mitigate the disruption you and TarnishedPath were causing, and I did not ask for sanctions against anybody. See this comment of mine, this report should be enough to prevent further disruption without having to sanction anyone - the report could work as the "warning" that was missing. Yet you didn't stop and became more and more confrontational, reaching a peak in your interactions with Fanny.doutaz, which in my view were inexcusable, as I argued here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't damage Khelif by pushing the well-intentioned but questionable POV that she is not intersex this is you declaring in no uncertain terms that she is Intersex (while violating BLP and pretending to care about her reputation). Comments like this literally sum up your contributions to the talk page. I'm now more than convinced that you should stay away from the article. M.Bitton (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Gitz, with all due respect, your tactics on the talk page have been similar (though more subtle) than JSwift49's. You are repeatedly WP:BADGERING people. Your "proposed edit" that you link to in your filing (again, similar to JSwift) cherry-picks sources to fit your POV (The NBC article, for example, you omit the fact that your quoted line starts with "However, the [IBA] test results were never published..." and your proposal is to state that after the content supported by the line you quoted). You then badger TP with a "why don't you support this" which again, came only moments after they had just had aspersions of censorship cast on them, so of course the answer was going to be a bit snippy. I think a BOOMERANG is more likely to come from this than any action against TP from this disappointingly and highly frivolous report. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the more subtle, if it is an expression of praise. The sentence you criticise me for omitting from my proposed edit is already in the body of the article and in the lead (... criticized the IBA's previous disqualification ... No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published), so I'm not convinced we should repeat it again. If you feel differently, you can explain your reasons on the article talk page.

As for WP:BADGERING, I disagree: TP had reverted an edit and had raised BLP's concerns in the edit summary and on the talk page; I had proposed a new draft of the reverted edit that attempted to address their concerns and those of another editor; TP should have explained why they were not satisfied with the new draft, otherwise this is WP:STONEWALLING and using BLP as a bludgeon. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I did provide adequate explanation in my edit summary. I advised you of that and that I wasn't going to repeat myself. You choose to badger me and ceased when I wrote to you that I was not there to WP:SATISFY you. TarnishedPath^talk 08:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666, your question Please clarify which sources were garbage: ANSA [223], Adnkronos [224], la Repubblica [225], Il Messaggero [226], La7 [227], Radio DeeJay [228], Corriere della Sera [229] - one of them in particular or all of them? was from two days ago, I trust you now understand that none of these can be used w/regard to a medical diagnosis or speculation about one? FTR, even reporting in such sources that a recognized expert had done the speculating isn't good enough when it comes to MEDRS, and especially not in a BLP. Valereee (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that none of these sources can be used for a medical diagnosis. On the article talk page I explicitly acknowledge that we should not use them to state or suggest that she is intersex. I said I wouldn't use these sources for our article and cited WP:NOENG. I could have also cited WP:DUE (preponderance of sources that do not define her as intersex), but I agree with you that WP:MEDRS provides an even stronger and clearer basis for a conclusion I fully agree with. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the complaint right now, but heads up, Gitz your last two links are both to the same diff. CambrianCrab (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, corrected. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Gitz, I would hope that an editor of your tenure would be aware that TP need not answer to what they feel (and I tend to agree) was WP:BADGERING from you, coming only an hour after Vegan416 had baselessly accused them of wanting to censor content.[355] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to say, especially these comments from TarnishedPath seem to me like examples of WP:Cherrypicking:

• Just because some sources use specific words doesn't mean we should use the exact same words. There are reliable sources available which use the term "misinformation". E.g. [1][2] [356]
• Even if they are scientists if they start weighing in and making statements about reality without sufficient evidence then that is misinformation. Statements about the nature of reality are not and never will be reasoned when there is no evidence to support such statements [357]

JSwift49 02:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

(Note the second comment was in response to a PhD in molecular genetics in elite sports criticizing the IOC's eligibility criteria) JSwift49 02:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

This filling is entirely retaltory for my steadfast enforcement of BLP and my involvement in above discussions. This should result in nothing else than a boomerang.

Per WP:POVPUSH:

POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas.
The term "POV-pushing" is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular point of view in an article, including on talk page discussions.

As has been noted by other editors above there has been a group of editors in article talk who have sought to selectively use quotations from sources to push a narrative that there is reasonable debate about Khelif's gender/having DSD. The sources cited in support of their positions, where experts are involved, often have generalised discussion about eligibility standards (refer to Special:Diff/1240179585 for the largest grouping of sources) and the editors have sought to push quotes of such discussions as evidence that there is reasonable concerns about Khelif specifically in the absence of any reliable evidence stating that they have DSD. It is notable that some of the sources where they do address Khelif have experts categorically stating that there is insufficient evidence that Khelif has DSD (E.g. "When it comes to Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting, we don’t have enough information to know if they have a DSD"). TarnishedPath^talk 03:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

OS needed? Maybe I am not seeing something here. It looks to me like a new page patroller is valiantly trying to prevent a Wikipedia editor from making a medical diagnosis that a qualified professional would refuse to make without examining the subject. Why is the retaliatory thread repeating and repeating and repeating this not getting shut down with extreme prejudice? Policies only apply to certain editors and not others? Some BLP subjects are less worthy of protection than others? This discussion is at the intersection of at least two contentious topics, three if you add medical. Why is this thread even being allowed? It should be revdeled. Elinruby (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You're correct that the topic is at the intersection of three contentious topics which Valereee has noted elsewhere. Therefor I would expect that statements which make diagnosis or speculate about it should have the appropriate sourcing. TarnishedPath^talk 01:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion of restriction placed on JacktheBrown

A discussion of the restriction placed on JacktheBrown is occurring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Broad vs. narrow TBAN closure at ANI]. TarnishedPath^talk 10:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

SpacedFarmer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Honestly, I don't trust this user, I agree there are issues with the string of articles his just listed on AFD, but the whole process is questionable. At first I was only looking at Tottenham Hotspur (Superleague Formula team) which he nominated for AfD, but as I was going through the process of doing my own google search, I then decided to look at his contrib, hardly any time space between each nomination, which gives me indication he really hasn't done a WP:BEFORE in my opinion. This honestly feels all the AfDs are nominated because he is running WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That and looking at his talk page history, I felt I needed to post to ANI anyway. I am hoping a more sane head can review, I might be overly hotheaded here. Govvy (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

There were some comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 August 7 regarding this editor, that I filed in the back of my mind at the time I closed it. Pinging Hey man im josh, whose comment I especially noted. Daniel (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That DRV, where I asked the appellant what remedy they wanted and how many AFDs they wanted to reconsider, and didn't get an answer. DRV, like AFD, is a content forum, so that the boomerang principle does not apply, but competency is required. I haven't yet looked at the topic-ban proposal. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Govvy: I had nominated them as a whole before yesterday but I was advised of WP:TRAINWRECK with the advice that they can be nominated individually, so I requested to pull them to nominate them again individually. As with WP:BEFORE they have been done in advance for weeks. Nothing other than the football team they're named after. Does this explain why there was little time in between? What time in between should I do these? As with WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you are completely wrong. I nominated them because they have one thing in common, the lack of enduring notability, the series itself might be sort of but everything else is not. The cars and engines is not like most of those in spec series. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I withdrew the original nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China (Superleague Formula team)) despite the sole Procedual Keep vote by 1ctinus. When I nominate them individually, I get this. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you do in your offline wiki moments other than eat and sleep, but in your pattern, it seems you nominated the China Superleague article as soon as you went back to editing wikipedia and you bundled a load of articles together. I've also noticed you like to delete, you like to delete a lot!! Sorry mate, but there are too many red flags from you for my liking. Govvy (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh it's 100% clear they are NOT doing before searches way too often. What I find more troubling is that, in almost every nominating statement they make, they cannot help themselves from disparaging people who might be interested in the content. Honestly, I think their attitude is incompatible with Wikipedia, especially since they've been given a dozen warnings now and haven't improved on that aspect of things. You can nominate pages without putting people down, but I don't think Space believes that or believes in before searches. If you oppose deletion they'll typically badger to get their points across. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Not to mention he has the hubris to post [358] Given your language here, I shall recommend you to wash your mouth every morning and night with a toilet brush to get rid of those foul language that stains your vocabulary. That way, you could be better than those clowns who congregate at pubs every Saturday afternoon and get drunk till May. BTW, you speak of WP:IDONTLIKEIT given by your response. then template my talk page! How civil! :/ Govvy (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I'd block just for that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

They were blocked last month for 31 hours due to personal attacks, namely this screed at another editor. I also agree they should be blocked, probably for a week on this occasion. While I'm probably not administratively involved even with the DRV closure and my initial comment above, playing it safe and leaving it to others to handle.

Additionally, some more back catalogue evidence of spiteful revenge-warning: revert of perfectly fine message on user talk page followed immediately by NPA warning of editor. Jtrainor (an editor who registered in November 2004) hasn't edited since this rather unpleasant interaction.

Finally, some further reading from the ANI archives:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1155#Uncivility,_profanity_and_name_calling_by_user:SpacedFarmer - April 2024.
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Mass_AfDs_despite_warnings_to_gain_experience - May 2024. Outcome inconclusive
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1161#Continued_incivility_from_SpacedFarmer - July 2024. I am amazed this was archived without the consensus for a restriction from AfD being actioned - that is sufficient support in the subsection to implement a community restriction.

Daniel (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• In light of their additional uncivil comments, I'd like to point out there was a conversation about their incivility at the beginning of July, which can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1161#Continued_incivility_from_SpacedFarmer. There was a consensus to topic ban SpacedFarmer from deletion, broadly construed, but it seemed as though nobody wanted to close/enforce the consensus. I think that, at a minimum, the topic ban should be revisited. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked one week for the continued incivility, which does not preclude discussion on a topic ban and/or re-visiting the July discussion that @Daniel referenced. Star Mississippi 13:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I was in the process of clicking the buttons for a week block myself. Mirror the words of Star Mississippi. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I've just got a question about all the recent AfDs he started, do they need to be shut down or are we leaving them up? Govvy (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Govvy my opinion as an editor, not admin/policy but I think the bulk nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China (Superleague Formula team) wasn't going to work so individual noms are the best path forward. Your comment at Tottenham makes me think that PAs aside, there was no isue with the nomination as there "may" be a path to GNG. So I'd say let them go forward. If someone else disagrees, feel free. I don't think there's yes/no answer. Star Mississippi 13:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I didn't have anything against the nominations, just the way he processed the nominations, too me those articles were always a bit on the thin side and I am not an F1 person myself. Govvy (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like @Liz had an issue with them too, so I may well be in the wrong here @Govvy. If someone thinks they need handling, please do. Star Mississippi 00:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBan from deletion/merge/split discussions, per my comments at SF's last trip to ANI. My opinion of this editor is unchanged, unfortunately. The DRV reeks of IDHT, and the personalized comments at AfD have not stopped. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Their incivility is unacceptable, while basic statistics show their delete !votes are predominantly in accord with the outcomes and it seems their AfD nominations usually succeed. Might escalating blocks for incivility and PAs be more appropriate? NebY (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I had to sit and watch people defend him purely on his record the first go-around; we've returned twice since already and at this point he should need to prove to us that he can collaborate in a topic area productively before returning to a naturally charged area such as AfD. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I do fear that editing collaboratively in a less charged area wouldn't be any proof that they could handle a more charged area such as AfD. Anyway, it seems their main activity is AfDs,[359] so a tban might effectively be a block anyway. NebY (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN per above. I'd support an indefinite block too, just based on the conduct issues. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN: I supported a TBAN last time, when SpacedFarmer defused tensions by staying off the site for a couple weeks until the ANI discussion was archived. I don't see why editors need to put up with SpacedFarmer's hostility. Toughpigs (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN it's a shame SF's hubris got the best of them. Had they heeded my warning about slowing down on the AfD train and conducted civilly, perhaps their time doing AfD could have been fruitful. Alas, they have stooped down to a level where they needlessly insult other editors and shut down valiant keep !votes. Conyo14 (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from deletion. These threads have become an almost once a month occurrence. Enough is enough. Pinguinn 🐧 20:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from deletion broadly construed; the fact that this editor was somehow able to escape a strong TBAN consensus last time was an extremely elastic rope and last chance they were lucky to receive. By now it's an open-and-shut case; the nail in the coffin is that I suspect intractable listening and/or competence issues from the editor in the AfD topic area having witnessed them file this trainwreck of an AfD within which there was about a dozen pages of reliable book SIGCOV presented for several articles each, and they completely ignored that and instead plowed ahead with getting four of those articles deleted, signaling an ignorance of (and/or lack of respect for) the time and effort spent by good-faith editors in searching for sources. Left guide (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Topic-Ban from deletion and deletion-related processes. This has been going on for four months and isn't changing. Let them try copy-editing or some gnome activity for a while, or something that doesn't involve waking sleeping bears. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN and any kind of indefinite block. These articles should have been sent to Afd, that was the correct decision for what is indefensible trash. There is no other way to describe them. These are essentially copy/paste articles. Also there no definition on Wikipedia that is cognizant of a editors time and effort being taken into consideration when making an evaluation of the quality of an article and whether it should be sent to Afd, so why mention it. scope_creep^Talk 09:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's actually possible to make an AfD rationale without using charged language like "trash"; SF comments went beyond even that. Disappointed in this !vote which brushes aaide conduct issues because of his record. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: SpacedFarmer just posted on his talk page, "I accept I made another [comment] mocking English football fans (and not intended to be on an individual) but who doesn't think they deserve a mocking?" Sigh. Toughpigs (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support again. SpacedFarmer has shown over and over and over that they don't have the temperament to work in deletion. The comment ToughPigs points out is just the tip of the iceberg. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 20:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per my commentary above and their subsequent comment on their talk page. Daniel (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN: I brought up the subject of a TBAN, but I did not necessarily make my stance clear in the initial post. As mentioned above, I think their attitude and temperament are incompatible with Wikipedia, but people deserve a chance and this may serve to be a better option than an outright block. If they behave and edit constructively, I see no reason that a TBAN cannot be rescinded down the line. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from deletion processes, broadly construed but oppose any further block, in the hope that the former solves the issues. GiantSnowman 14:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support tban from deletion processes, broadly construed, in hope that we see a SpacedFarmer who enjoys building the encyclopedia without stress or charged language. NebY (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from article deletion discussions, both within and without AfD, broadly construed. Per the habitual abuse of process that has been attested to and substantiated in repeated discussions here over recent months.
  Support TBAN from motorsport topics, broadly construed, since those same discussions demonstrate a pattern of behaviour in this area that leaves me with precisely zero doubt that they will still be disruptive in their approach to such subject matter, regardless of their ability to participate in deletion discussions.
  Support an unambiguous warning that an indef is the likely next stop of there is continued willful violation of WP:CIV, WP:PA, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:TEND. Indeed, I'll be blunt: I would support an indef right now on WP:CIR grounds, given the user's repeated violations of our most basic behavioural guidelines, followed by acknowledgement of same and promises to avoid such comments moving forward, only to fall back on them again, in a cycle that has gone through at least three iterations now, if not more.
  But failing an immediate indef, we cannot keep obviating our standards on account of SpacedFarmer's self-control issues (and that's AGFing that we aren't being actively trolled with this pattern). The WP:ROPE is exhausted, as I see it, and it's only fair to make this plain to SF, as I can't see their editing privileges surviving if they end up here for a fifth straight monthly discussion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - inb4 archive. There's clear consensus here (despite me being involved) for a TBan from at least deletion. Sorry, but I'm not letting this go without a close this time. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  11:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  I actually also came back to see to it that this section did not get automatically archived without action or closure, like the last one did. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ye, I started this post, but there does seem to be a lot of support for a TBan, surely an admin or someone needs to wrap this up now. Govvy (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is just my opinion but this editor has been blocked for a week and that block will end in the next 24 hours. As an admin, I wouldn't close this discussion until they have had a chance to respond to where this discussion has led. It doesn't seem fair to take this action against an editor who hasn't had a chance to rebut comments since this discussion was started on August 16th. I don't think it hurts to leave it open for another day or two. If another admin disagrees, that's fine, admins and editors differ all of the time but that's my stance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  SpacedFarmer didn't respond to the last ANI after their block ended, so I don't have faith that they'll respond here either. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 03:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  I thought my ban ended just. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  SpacedFarmer has made three comments since his block ended: the above demonstration of WP:IDHT, and two comments on his talk page indicating that he intends to return to the same behavior that has resulted in the proposed topic ban. I think it's time to close this discussion. Toughpigs (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  I did not say I am going 'to return to the same behavior' though I had intended to tone my language down. I have the right to defend and speak for myself when and where needed. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Now its gone and quitely [sic] forgotten, nobody cares like A1GP. [360] Yeah, this doesn't strike me as someone working on their tone/behavior. This area of Wiki is not healthy for them. Conyo14 (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  I since removed it, having acknowledged it. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment SpacedFarmer, I am very confused, you came straight off a ban and you go straight back to nominating AfDs, you've sent List of Superleague Formula records and Liverpool F.C. (Superleague Formula team) to the queue. I would have thought you might have given it a little break before nominating an article. I also find what you wrote for the Liverpool article one, the article is about a sports team, that's not a content fork! You call it fan craft? I don't see anything like that. I feel it's the way you write your nominations, it's never straight forward with you is it. Do you read articles like this one? How about a major news corp like the BBC, did you read this one? Govvy (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• I was surprised, too. Here there is support for a topic ban from AFDs and SpacedFarmer comes off a block and nominates more articles for deletion discussions. It's just providing fuel to the fire here. They sure can't read the room. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@groovy I have made this clear in that nomination and checked them up too; the one by BBC Sport is an announcement. As I also said, Merseysportlive is a hobbyist site run by students (checking it up, it is linked claimed to be run by LIMU students). SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Firstly my name is Govvy, secondly BBC Sport article is viewed as a secondary source, there-for that's not an announcement. I am also curious why you call Mersaysportlive.co.uk which is Liverpool's John Moores University sports news portal a hobby. Also like Liz said, you seem to just be providing fuel to a fire. So I really don't get you. Govvy (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The BBC News article looks to me like another WP:ROUTINE article. Also, are you saying student magazines are reliable third party source? This look like if they cannabilised it from that Wikipedia article. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from deletion and deletion related topics per various rationale above. This is bordering into disruptive editing now. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Bringing to light another issue I see that I'm not sure has been touched on yet while we're still open here and that anyone still opposing further action should consider. At one of their latest AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Superleague Formula records, SF continues to misrepresent the policies/guidelines he links to, particularly WP:NOTSTATS. He says "Purely WP:OR stats of a virtually forgotten series that is of little value other than to the most ardent fans (WP:FANCRUFT) and a WP:NOTSTATS failure", yet NOTSTATS says "Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article", which seems to fly in the face of his rationale. This is not the first time that I've been able to raise this part of NOTSTATS in a SpacedFarmer AfD, which means I'm sure it's a recurring issue that I'd be able to find more examples of in AfDs from areas I don't watch as closely as motorsport(s). This seems to indicate WP:CIR and/or further WP:IDHT issues that may simply be a language barrier, but are issues nonetheless. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent disruptive editing by 2601:8C0:37F:63ED:0:0:0:0/64, again

2601:8C0:37F:63ED:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps removing romanized Japanese titles from articles with no explanation (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), hasn't responded to warnings and behaviour continued after a 2 week block on August 2nd as a result of this previous ANI report. Waxworker (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked again EvergreenFir (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Suga

Reporting legal threat made by 2603:8001:2EF0:A0D0:35C8:D8EE:CFEA:E8BA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Talk:Suga (diff). JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

That editor isn't threatening to take legal action, but rather making the misguided assertion that the photo used in the infobox might lead to legal action by a third party against Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It's obviously intended to have a chilling effect so it's indeed a legal threat. EEng 04:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NLT#Perceived legal threats. Such assertions, whether deliberately or unintentionally, obviously behave a chilling effect on discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked, they are using the possibility of legal action as a cudgel to obtain a desired result in a discussion. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

IP 2a00:23c4:b3ad:8e01:0:0:0:0/64

Persistent talk page disruption for the past two days at Talk:Gender-critical feminism from the IP block 2a00:23c4:b3ad:8e01:0:0:0:0/64. I've requested RPP, but there's a big backlog there currently, can someone please help intervene? Raladic (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Isabelle Belato blocked them. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)