Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

User:The Banner keeps harassing me

It started somewhere in 2023. I don't know why, but The Banner keeps harassing me. He accuses me of breaking the rules. He keeps undoing my edits. Sometimes even without giving any reasons whatsoever. And now he threatens me with losing editing privileges. I don't know if he even is admin or not. He knows I don't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia so he just bullies me and do whatever he wants, without giving any explanation. In July [[1]], he again accused me of bad behaviour, but when I confronted him with the truth, he just stopped replying on my talk page. And now, he keeps accusing me of pushing point of view. But the reality is, HE is doing this, not me. Let me explain: There is a legal dispute between football clubs FCSB and CSA Steaua Bucuresti. It spans many years, court-cases and even articles on Wikipedia. As a side note, FCSB used to be named "Football Club Steaua Bucuresti", but lost this name in favour of CSA Steaua. FCSB was stripped of the "Steaua" brand and deemed to never had the rights to legally use the "Steaua" name. It's a fact acknowledged by Wikipedia for years. So obviously, I tried to redirect https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti&redirect=no from FCSB to FC Steaua București records dispute as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti&action=history. He doesn't approve. How I am pushing for CSA Steaua point of view (like he accuses me), when my edit is focused on the neutral article regarding the "Steaua vs FCSB" dispute? He wants it to redirect towards FCSB, which is clearly intellectual property theft. I also tried to redirect this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:UEFA_Champions_League_winners&action=history. Again, it's the wrong name and the record is disputed. It's a well known fact. I only tried to redirect it to the article regarding the dispute. He is accusing me [[2]] of pushing Steaua's point of view (and VANDALISM?!) while, in fact, he pushes FCSB's point of view and encourage intellectual property infringement on Wikipedia. Why, I don't know. I always tried to respect the rules, to give sources and to explain my edits. But I don't have the time or the energy to keep arguing with him or be subjugated under abuse. Please do something about this. Dante4786 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Look, I get you think you're right. But you don't get to accuse another editor of intellectual property theft because they dispute the change you want to make. It's not property infringement for us to use that redirect to the club. The rest of this is primarily a content dispute. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not about him disputing the change I want to make. It's about intellectual property theft because FCSB can't use or be associated in any way with the "Steaua" name. It's like stating on Wikipedia x is innocent when he is fact convicted in real life. It doesn't reflect reality and it encourages (not is, per se) intellectual property infringement. Also, it just isn't a neutral aproach to push the FCSB-POV. CSA Steaua literally fought in court for FCSB to be stripped down of that name. Shouldn't Wikipedia acknowledge the outcome? Why push forward an edit that is confusing and that violates the rights of CSA Steaua? One team has the right to use the name, the other doesn't. At least redirect the page to the article about the dispute. Also, AFC Steaua (Asociatia Fotbal Club Steaua Bucuresti) is arguably a different team, that also used the ,,Fotbal Club Steaua Bucuresti" name between 1998-2003. Dante4786 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If anyone is harassing anybody here it is you, User:Dante4786, accusing those who disagree with you of intellectual property theft in what appears to be attempt to dictate content. These sorts of accusations have a distinct chilling effect and verge on legal threats.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I am only stating what the Romanian law is stating. https://www-economica-net.translate.goog/clubul-patronat-de-gigi-becali-nu-mai-are-voie-sa-foloseasca-numele-steaua_130606.html?_x_tr_sl=ro&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp. I am not accussing, I am explaining why this sort of edit can't stay as it is. I am explaining my reasoning. And third parties are also obliged to comply with court decisions. I am also asking you, shouldn't Wikipedia reflect current affairs? Shouldn't Wikipedia respect the legal rights of other entities? Shouldn't Wikipedia avoid confusion by redirecting readers to a suitable and neutral article about the dispute? Dante4786 (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No legal threats is a good page if you want to have a read. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but there is no need. I don't work for either entities, I couldn't sue even if wanted to :) I'm just explaining my reasoning about a LEGAL debate. Dante4786 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for the confusion! It's always better to make it clear as it could've been misinterpreted that way ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There was a long discussion about to clean up the confusion around Steaua București, resulting in FC Steaua București records dispute as a compromise. Dante4786 did not take part in that discussion. After a break, he immediately starting objecting against the consensus. To the point he started changing a template to his own wishes without any prior discussion (here and later again (again reverted but not by me). Dante demands that I explain why I revert his unexplained changes. I see no need for that with unexplained edits. In my humble opinion, the edit in the template is vandalism, or at least POV-pushing. The second edit on the template (that I did not see earlier), came with a curious legalese summary: Wrong name for FCSB. And the record is disputed. Wikipedia doesn't encourage intellectual property infringement. The same demand for explanation came for this unexplained edit. Maybe I am too harsh, but breaking open the long discussion to reach consensus in tough to witness.

@Scolaire:

The Banner talk 20:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I am in favor of there being an article about FC Steaua București records dispute. From my understanding, somebody proposed for the page to be merged with FCSB and I wrote on the talk page that I disagree. Also, really, are you going to bring up consesus achieved on 2nd January, by a handful of people? Did you even check who was involved? One of the users involved is currently banned. Another IP made his second edit ever right on that debate. How is this any fair? @Scolaire: challenged my position in a fair manner and I responded with PLENTY of sources. I replied with 3 pretty big paragraphs, arguing against all his point, not letting anything behind. You, on the other hand, started acussing me directly from the get-go and undid my edits even AFTER I gave my reasoning. Like I said, I was triyng to edit something that was a clearly known fact. You undid my edit, I edit it back, gave my reasoning and YOU UNDID IT AGAIN. So it doesn't matter to you if my edit was explained or not. You decided from the start that I was wrong and nothing that I can say could change your mind. And when I reported the unfair treatment on my talk page and your talk page, you ignored me. Only after I said I will report you, you gave a pseudo-explanation. Dante4786 (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I had never seen your threat of bringing me to AN/I until I got the notice of it. The Banner talk 22:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I admit, I had overlook that threat. And I even overlook your comment You are pushing point of view and you encourage intellectual property infringement. on my talk page. A second time that I see that legalese argument. The Banner talk 22:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi again! The process is usually "bold edit → revert → discuss". If someone reverts your edit, instead of editing it back with your reasoning, the best course of action is to write your reasoning on the talk page, and then wait for other editors to give their opinion (otherwise there's a risk for it to end in edit warring). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: Ok, thank you for the suggestion, but the problem is, he already ignored my reasoning, when I tried to edit the second time. And it isn't the first time he read my position on the subject and replied with false accusation, only to stop all together when I challenged him with valid counterarguments https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dante4786&oldid=1167705437 As you can clearly see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti_records_dispute&oldid=1199302981, I am willing to discuss with other editors. But if he ignores me and nobody else replies, should his incorrect edit stay for ever? This is why I reported it here, for a 3rd party to see. I don't want to argue with anybody, I tried to ignore and forget (since July), but what's the point when he does the same thing again? It's tiresome to have a dialogue with somebody who doesn't really want to listen. And I do like Wikipedia, that's why it bothers me when he insists with something which is misleading. Dante4786 (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a new one, I've never seen anybody interpret a disagreement over a redirect on Wikipedia as theft. I've left the OP a warning for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Like I said on my talk page, I'm only defending myself. I reported an abuse. And please explain how can I present my point of view regarding a LEGAL dispute (Steaua vs FCSB), without using LEGAL reasons??? The SUBJECT involved is ABOUT intellectual property. One party stole (the name) from the other party. It was never my threat, it was never A threat. Like I said before, I don't work for the entities involved, I CAN'T sue even if I wanted to. Please don't put words in my mouth, I never threated with legal actions. I only explained how articles on Wikipedia shouldn't break the legal rights of other entities. Again, shouldn't Wikipedia reflect current affairs? Shouldn't Wikipedia respect the legal rights of other entities? Shouldn't Wikipedia avoid confusion by redirecting readers to a suitable and neutral article about the dispute? Please explain how any of this is an attack. I literally commented on the content, on the use of "FC Steaua Bucuresti" regarding a team who is forbidden by the law to be associated with that name. It's literally a fact, it isn't my opinion, it isn't an attack on any editor. I gave sources (and until now, no one challenged them), I explained my position with plenty of details, what more can I do? I am blamed of pushing a POV by somebody who actually is at fault of this. Dante4786 (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a court where such things are adjudicated. I think some muddled language concerning the naming dispute may be an issue here, but ANI is not where this can be resolved. Take it up on the relevant talkpage, and be extremely careful to frame any argument around sources, not what you perceive other editors to be doing. Your comments up until now give the impression that you are blaming other Wikipedia editors, or are accusing them of harassment for disagreeing or not understanding what you're trying to do. Acroterion (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion: No, Wikipedia isn't a judge. But Wikipedia does try to reflect reality and current affairs. Am I wrong? Yes, English is not my native language, sorry about that. But please, answer me this. If x person is convicted in real life, can an article on Wikipedia state the contrary, that he is innocent? That is the equivalent of what I am trying to express. The current redirect doesn't reflect the present and, besides this, is also confusing and misleading. Because the subject is complex, I tried to make a redirect towards the article which is focused on the dispute between A and B. I didn't try to push for either A or B. But I am accused of being unfair. And when the false accusations persist, when my edits are undone without justification, even after I explained myself, when my questions are ignored and I receive only threats of being banned and so forth, am I not even slightly entitled to feel harassed? I literally gave sources and nobody challenged them. Should I just wait and let the article spread misinformation? I apologise if this wasn't the correct place to report the abuse. Like I said, I do try to respect the rules but I don't know the the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Dante4786 (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Not knowing the ins and outs of Wikipedia isn't an offense, but accusing people of not following a farfetched, tortured interpretation of a lawsuit that we're not a party to, in a court that has no jurisdiction here, in order to to further a result not in accordance with Wikipedia's rules, certainly is.

Playing fake internet lawyer is not an exception to WP:AGF and you're skirting on the very edge of WP:NLT. Just because *you* don't have the ability to personally engage in a lawsuit doesn't allow you to use legalese as a threat to attempt to shut down another editor's ability to post or skirt Wikipedia's consensus-making apparatus.

Your best bet would be to apologize, agree to drop the subject, and withdraw the complaint. I would guess that it's your best chance to avoid sanctions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what farfetched and tortured interpretation of a lawsuit are you talking about? I literally gave sources. Many sources. For you and others to read them. Here, on my talk page and on other talk pages. What more can I do? Nobody is challenging the content of what I am disputing. The redirect points are misleading and I was unfairly treated. And how can I give my reasoning on a LEGAL debate, without using LEGAL reasons? It's not a threat. Again, the whole subject is about intellectual property. A legal dispute between two entities. I don't think the redirect points present the LEGAL dispute in a fair and neutral manner. How can I explain this without providing LEGAL reasons? If the subject is about intellectual property, of course we are going to have to talk about intellectual property infringement. It shouldn't be taboo, it's a logical consequence when talking about a LEGAL dispute. I don't know how else I can put this. And no, I won't apologize for reporting harassment, which in good faith, I tried to ignore for months. But I do apologize for reporting it, in the wrong place, if that's the case. Dante4786 (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You haven't provided *any* valid legal reasons. The court literally ruled that a specific defendant couldn't use plaintiff's intellectual property when connected with their business. That's all. It has nothing to do with anything on Wikipedia.

What we call entities is determined by consensus from reliable sources and our policies, not an extremely tenuous interpretation of a court case that, even if accurate (which I highly doubt), would have zero effect on us as there's no jurisdiction here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I did provide valid legal reasons. And here's another one: Full Faith and Credit Clause. And in European countries, principles of legal enforceability and judicial authority underpin the obligation for third parties to respect court decisions. I gave sources and I explained my reasoning. I can't contradict you when you don't give counterarguments. You just state "no, you didn't". I also explained from a non-legal point of view, explaining how the current redirect points spread misinformation and more confusion and contradicts other articles on Wikipedia. And to reiterate, both in EU and in USA (and in pretty much every civilized country), 3rd parties are obliged to respect the decision of the court and the intellectual property and rights of other entities. To explain this with a more recent case (it's not the same thing, but maybe this makes it easier to undertand): some gave developer released a new videogame. Everybody describes it in an informal context as "Pokemon with guns", but it's not a Pokemon game. The game developer doesn't use these words and neither do Steam, Sony, Microsoft and so forth. They, as a 3rd party, have to respect the rights of the real owner. And even YouTubers hesitate to show a patch for the game (a patch that install pokemons), because it violates the rights of the real owner of the brand. Unfortunately, you already stated that you doubt what I'm saying, without further elaborating. You don't assume good faith. And Wikipedia redirect points doesn't reflect the current reality. Another example would be this: On Amber Heard articles, to state that she and her ex-husband DID NOT accused each other of domestic abuse. Or worse, to state that she was NOT found guilty of defaimation. It's not about opinions, it's not a personal interpretation. It's about FACTS. To acknowledge or not the current state of a present legal debate. A debate where there already is a final decision regarding the name. Dante4786 (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You should probably consult with an actual lawyer. That's not actually what full faith and credit entails. A CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

A trademark prevents others from using a mark in the course of *business*. It does not prevent third parties from referring to a company in a certain way, discussing a company in a certain way, or titling an encyclopedia entry.

And from your Amber Heard mention, it appear you're also confusing defamation with trademarks, which suggests to me that any more discussion to try to dissuade you from a path in conflict with Wikipedia's ideals is an unproductive use of time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to echo CoffeeCrumbs regarding people playing fake Internet lawyer. The Full Faith and Credit clause impinges on how states in the United States interact with one another. Neither European soccer clubs, nor Wikipedia, nor you have anything to do with it. If this absurdity is indicative of your arguments with The Banner, then we're well into WP:BOOMERANG territory, and your best bet is to quit while you're behind. Ravenswing 01:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

No, no, no. You misunderstood why I mentioned The Full Faith and Credit. The point was to show how 3rd parties are still obliged to respect court documents, even though they weren't actually involved in the case. And to further elaborate my arguments, I brought up how things are done in European countries (since it's a subject which I am more familiar to and is actualy related to the case we are discussing). Please ping me, @CoffeeCrumbs: and @Ravenswing: so I won't miss your response. And no, I wasn't trying to compare defamation with trademarks. Come on guys, actually read what I'm writing. I was giving a hypothetical example, to show how Wikipedia would look if it didn't reflect the verdict of that case. As in "x is stated to be right on Wikipedia, when in reality x was demosntrated to be wrong in court". That sort of thing. Everybody says I shouldn't give legal arguments in a legal dispute but I when I try to give an analogy, it's somehow also a bad thing. Dante4786 (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This argument is nonsense. It is illegal to write about the "Tank man" of Tiananmen Square in China. You'll note that we still have an article about it. We do not give preference to laws or 'court documents' from other jurisdictions. MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

We don't even give preference over consensus to laws or 'court documents' from our own jurisdiction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Redirects point to whichever target the reader that types that title is more likely to be looking for. You should make the argument on that and other grounds relating to how it would serve most readers best by taking them directly to the information they are looking for. If legal issues arise from what Wikipedia editors do using their best judgement, legal department of the WMF will handle it. That's where the legal arguments should be directed. Where exactly is the problem with your approach? It is here: Shouldn't Wikipedia respect the legal rights of other entities? We can't worry about that stuff with every edit. There are established matters where we take legality into account, copyright violations for example. At other times, we do what's right, irrespective of whether or not it's legal in a certain jurisdiction. It only matters whether it is legal in the US most of the time. I am sure there are many state parties that would consider some of Wikipedia's coverage of religion, sexuality, national policies and international disputes as illegal. But they can't touch Wikipedia because it is under US jurisdiction. So, they block Wikipedia in their countries. They may prosecute editors in their own country if they identify them. That is why editors are advised to take such personal risks into account when contributing. It's bad enough without having people come into discussions talking legalese. We as a community have decided that we won't have it. Either edit here without bringing in legal arguments or don't edit here and persue legal dispute with the WMF.

You are making legal threats. Admins are being nice to you by trying to explain instead of blocking you. Either drop that stuff, or go to WMF legal with your concerns. We will consider taking legality into consideration if and when WMF legal advises that we do so. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

"You should make the argument on that and other grounds relating to how it would serve most readers best by taking them directly to the information they are looking for." Exactly! Thank you! That's what I was trying to explain, until people got focused on the intellectual property infringement part. Like I said, the subject is clearly very complex and confusing, especially for foreign readers. I believe this discussion here proves my point even further. That's why I'm asking for the redirect points to be towards the article focused on the dispute. In this way, the redirect points will be helpful and people will read by themselves and chose which side to believe. Currently, the redirect points encourage FCSB's point of view and are not consistent with the articles on Wikipedia. I'm asking for the redirect to be neutral and not push the POV of either parties, FCSB or Steaua, but towards the article focused on the dispute. "Either edit here without bringing in legal arguments" This is literally not possible. How can somebody explain their reasoning about a LEGAL dispute, without giving LEGAL arguments? And please stop interpreting dialogue as a threat. It was never the case. LEGAL arguments are a logical consequence when talking about a LEGAL dispute. Dante4786 (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Just because you can't figure out how to do something does not mean it's impossible. Read WP:REDIRECT. Then try to formulate your argument wholly on the basis of its guidance. If you succeed, start a talk page discussion (then, there's WP:RFD). If you find you can't make that case, edit something else. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

So your suggestion is basically to not explain my reasoning about a legal dispute. You can not formulate your arguments without diving in legal terms. You can't talk about physics without using a specific terminology, you can't talk about biology without using arguments which arise from biology and so forth. You can't answer "how to put out a fire" without actually explaining how to put out a fire. Dante4786 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You can describe the dispute in an encyclopedic way with legal terminology, but not use this legal terminology as arguments about what to write about. It's a use-mention distinction, in the same way as you can use biological terms to talk about biology, but not argue that's it's biologically impossible to write the article. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you cease to ramble on about things you demonstrably know little or nothing about. Wikipedia is not a courtroom, and you were not hired to represent a party in a lawsuit. If you cannot sway consensus for your view, then the thing to do is lose gracefully and walk away. Ravenswing 01:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

"You can describe the dispute" But we weren't talking about "describing". "To describe" and "to give arguments in favor or against" a point of view is not the same thing. What's more, you moved the discussion completely from the content/subject and took it towards the semantics. "cease to ramble on about things you demonstrably know little or nothing about" Huh? What exactly are you accusing me here? "Wikipedia is not a courtroom" I NEVER SAID IT WAS. I acknowledged the fact Wikipedia can't solve legal dispute. But that's the thing, IT'S ALREADY SOLVED IN REAL LIFE. My whole point was that the redirect points are misleading, since they do not reflect the current state of affairs regarding a SOLVED legal dispute. Dante4786 (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's solved in real life.

That solution has nothing to do with how we reach consensus. An *American* court has no power to compel speech from us in this context, let alone a Romanian one. Somehow, you have reached this idea that because a Romanian court has recognized that a particular entity possesses the right to use specific trademarks, that it now compels private entities to tailor their speech in a manner consistent with that. It doesn't. If we reached a very odd consensus, we could redirect FC Steaua Bucuresti to the entry for Burger King or Santa Claus or Henry VIII of England.

If you had attempted to do so, you may have been able to craft a convincing argument that your preferred usage of FC Steaua Bucuresti is superior, swaying enough people into changing consensus. Instead, you're trying to browbeat editors using a court case that has no jurisdiction over any of the issues discussed here while misusing legal terms such as "full faith and credit."

No admin has yet taken any actions on this issue. This would be the best time for you to apologize, drop the stick, and agree to not cite court cases that have no jurisdiction over our process of reaching consensus as reasons we *must* conform to your wishes. Sanctions are *preventative*, not *punitive* and if you made a good faith effort here to avoid these behaviors in the future, I'd wager basically most admins would consider this manner closed for the time being. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Going through @Dante4786's history on the subject is quite enlightening and frustrating. Not only have they been accusing @The Banner of vandalism, but they have been doing this for some time, sweeping for every mention of their preferred name for this football team, making changes, and calling each one "undoing vandalism" amounting to dozens and dozens of edits.

This is clearly a long-term pattern of ignoring WP:AGF rather than a single incident of aggressively accusing another of vandalism. While I feel the filer should still be indefinitely blocked until they agree to drop the faux-legal accusations against people, there's a strong case here for a topic ban on FC Steaua București (the problems seem limited to this topic rather than the wider topic of Romanian football clubs or football clubs generally). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Support a topic ban from FC Steaua București. Unfortunately the behavior of this editor has muddied the waters to such an extent that even if The Banner has harassed them its not apparent. If either the legal threats or alleged harassment occur on other topics after then we can address it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't respond to generalities. I have nothing to hide. In proof of this, I sometimes (like now) involved third parties, just to solve an issue and prevent from being called bias. Like getting a page protection from REAL vandalism. Also, keep in mind, the legal dispute of Steaua vs FCSB has a long history, with many updates along the line. I tried to reflect this in my edits AND GAVE SOURCES whenever I was questioned. Proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti_records_dispute After the neutral FC Steaua București records dispute page appeared (and somewhat put together in an attentive manner by other editors), I concentraded my redirects towards this page. And again, I do not threaten the editors with legal actions, stop putting words in my mouth, it's not nice. I was demonstrating how some edits on Wikipedia don't reflect real life affairs. Dante4786 (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Third parties as in alternate accounts? The Banner talk 15:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Again with the harassment. Didn't you report me for this (or was somebody else?) and it turned out I was falsely accused and this is my only account? WHICH IT REALLY IS! But don't let me stop you. Search again, search my IP, search whatever you want, do all the necessary checks, I have nothing to hide, this is my only account. Dante4786 (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

So I ask you a question, and that is straight harassment again?

And yes, I once filed an SPI against you due to the massive sockpuppetry and POV-pushing on the Steaua-articles. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goalandgoal/Archive. You were cleared, the real sockpuppets were hammered. The other SPI against you Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dante4786/Archive was not of my hand. The Banner talk 15:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You are not asking, you are subtly accusing. Big difference. And you keep accusing, even AFTER I was verified and cleared of the accusations. But like I said, don't let me stop you, please report me again. I have nothing to hide and you just proved my point. Dante4786 (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You tried to prove your point by bullying me over an SPI from 2021. And when I look at this edit, I do not see any AGF or will to compromise or reason. The Banner talk 16:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

In fairness, that post was a reply to me; I found it reasonable, and I felt it assumed good faith. Not showing an inclination to compromise, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we can't reach a compromise after further discussion. Scolaire (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

24 hours and several posts later, I no longer find Dante reasonable, and it is plain he is not interested in compromise. I agree he should be blocked and/or topic-banned. Scolaire (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a will to compromise? What are you talking about? How can you lie like this? This is me asking for the middle ground. My opinion on the subject (as stated there) is this: ,,It was never valid and it was never about a separation. But I do admit, people did, at some point, think this was the case. So, for the moment, the middle ground would be to write about the separation, but to describe it only as an allegation." If I wasn't willing to compromise, I would have asked for the entire subject to be erased. Dante4786 (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

As I am accused of harassing anyway, per his argument You are not asking, you are subtly accusing, I think that Wikipedia is indeed best served by a topic ban for Dante4786 on Steaua-related articles. The Banner talk 16:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

So, after falsely reporting me for having multiple accounts (something you have admitted to), you straight up ask for censorship. Well done, mate! You could at least stop with the victim blaming. Let's not forget, you started this by accusing me. How much more do I have to defend myself until you stop with the sockpuppetry accusation? REPEATED and INVALID accusations constitute harassment. You are literally wasting my time. Dante4786 (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I give up. What you do is plain harassing me. The Banner talk 22:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Enough. Dante has clearly failed to AGF with Banner, has been consistently rude and making false accusations, and generally been a drain. I'd say indef as WP:NOTHERE. They are either willing to go to bat for their preferred club against our policies, or simply cannot comprehend our policies. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• I disagree with the direction this thread has taken but I don't blame anyone in specific, not even User:Dante4786 and certainly not User:The Banner. First, we're in the wrong forum. I'm wondering why this conversation isn't taking place at WP:Redirects for discussion, for example. Nobody in this discussion has made that suggestion. Am I incorrect? Next, it appears to me Dante4786 is having significant difficulty being understood correctly in English, and they've confessed the language issues have been part of the problem. I'm seeing a bunch of conflation issues which might be approached with different wording satisfactory to all. Because Dante4786 is the OP and because they raised behavioral issues, we're here now so we should try to solve this. ANI is a bad venue in which to give behavioral assessments unless a contributor is willing to bring diffs and Dante4786 doesn't have that experience. IMHO, this thread has amplified the problem instead of solving it (because we're not dealing with diffs or sources, this all comes across as personal disagreement, and not a redirect for discussion). I'm inclined to suggest to Dante4786 that they take an apologetic tone here, and then start a RfD. Several editors here are capable of helping Dante4786. I'm of the opinion that if The Banner (or another editor) were to assist Dante4786 neutrally in creating that appropriate discussion, this thread would be unnecessary. BusterD (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think you are incorrect. The problem is not the redirect, the problem is Steaua București and the mess around ownership of the club, a split, renaming, reforming of the split off and countless court cases. The fact that even the court cases are not consistent, makes it even more difficult. In the past a whole bunch of sockpuppets and aggressive IPs were disrupting discussions. The Banner talk 01:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  I do think the entire Steaua București subject matter must be frustrating to edit, for all the reasons described. And Dante4786 certainly is responsible for their own edits, whatever they may be. Their unfortunate habit of personalizing discussion does not play especially well at ANI. I don't think they mean other editors ill, or even intend to personalize. When Dante4786 says "intellectual property infringement", I believe they are speaking of the limitation already imposed on FCSB (the result of such changes via court judgement), and not an accusation of any wikipedian. Without speaking ill, there's a lot of unnecessary heat involved with this discussion and most of it comes from the OP, despite their good-faith intention. That's my reading. BusterD (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Agree. —DIV (1.145.41.30 (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC))

  I agree in part that mentorship ought to be part of a solution that preserves the filer as a contributor, but I do really think that a topic ban is a minimum; this is a very specific topic that's a long-term issue for this editor, with a massive chunk of their preferred name changes, going back years now, labeled as vandalism by them. The best place to demonstrate they understand that verifiability and consensus are key issues, I feel, would be in a topic in which they don't appear to be so invested. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, you are incorrect. I suggested that they try to formulate an argument for their position adhering to WP:REDIRECT and not invoking irl legality, and if they succeed, put forth that argument first on the talk page, and failing that at RFD. They replied that it was "literally impossible" for them to make that case without making legal arguments. Now, as long as they stick with their positions that (a) it's impossible to have a Wikipedia discussion without bringing in Law and (b) The Banner has been harrassing them, we are at an impasse. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  When the article's subject matter is legal dispute (as is the case here), Dante4786 reasonably asserts it's impossible to discuss without using "legal" vocabulary. It's hard to disagree that Dante4786 appears disruptive, but I don't believe that's their intention. BusterD (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  I did not tell them they couldn't use legal vocabulary or allude to the legal dispute. I specifically highlighted one aspect of their argument, that Wikipedia was violating legal rights of an entity by having a redirect point to a certain target, and told them that was a no-go. They've been completely unable to grasp the distinction between discussing the legal dispute academically and arguing an irl "Club [X] v Wikipedia" case that they've conjured up.

  I can envision a proper RFD on the dispute on the basis of correct name vs common name, or "information you're looking for" vs "information that best serves you" or their argument above about WP:NPOV. But I think you're failing to appreciate that there is absolutely no way to have a productive discussion, while they are not getting it. I could start a procedural RFD with weakass arguments that I don't really care for but then they are likely to swoop in and flood it with their arguments involving irl legality and we'd have the same mess over there. It's them that cares about the redirect's target. The only viable solution is for them to somehow begin to grasp why they need to and how they can adhere to WP:REDIRECT and skirt WP:NLT. I have not seen any post from them that gives me the confidence that they have come to understand that. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@BusterD: "start a RfD" Thanks for the suggestion! I think I will do that when I have the time. I need to read about what that implies and think how to make my "pleading" in a foreign language :) But I won't apology, I am sticking with what I wrote. I would like not to make any further comments, because I don't have much free time and I already expressed, the best I could, my position on this. But just as a final remark (or clarification): I went here because The Banner started accussing me again of vandalism and threatening me with loosing editing privileges. I didn't know where to go and as understood, this probably wasn't the right place. I apologize for that. The Banner has a history of falsely reporting me for sock puppetry. And as admitted here, he wants to get me banned. "I think that Wikipedia is indeed best served by a topic ban for Dante4786 on Steaua-related articles" Even though I tried my best to follow the rules, always wrote in good faith and gave plenty of sources and explained in high details my position on the subject, on different talk pages. (Edit: and no, I never made any legal threats) These are my final words. Thank you for taking the time to read this! Dante4786 (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your final words here. Feel free to contact me via my talk. I have some suggestions about how to phrase disagreeable assertions in such a way your intention is made more clear and less threatening. Normally I would say stick to what the sources say. In this case we may have to make that even more specific. In any case, thanks for disengaging. BusterD (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@BusterD and anyone else who thinks that this is just about a redirect: this relates to a whole family of pages, including FCSB (2019 discussion), CSA Steaua București (football) (diff), FC Steaua București records dispute (diff), Eternal derby (Romania) (diff), Steaua București in European football (diff), Template:Steaua Golden Team (diff), other clubs (diff) and players (diff). It's the same thing over and over for the last six years. Scolaire (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

And, they were saying Wikipedia was complicit in an illegal act, in 2019 (thanks Scolaire). The foundation isn't liable for editing decisions; individual editors are. So, how is that not a legal threat against other editors involved in the topic? Not only did nothing change in five years, I don't think anything has changed after this long discussion. I would support a topic ban from FCSB or Romanian football. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Before my first comment in this thread I did a lot of the linked reading. Lots of disruptive folks seem to edit in this cluster. In that context, our Dante4786 is a very minor-league offender indeed (compared to many others). This might even be considered a contentious topic. I'll have to do some reading on that--I've never made such an assessment but this looks pretty messy (and is within my remit as an uninvolved sysop). Allow me to ask each of you: If you were an admin, would you consider this a WP:Contentious topic and why? (please read that enforcement page before commenting) BusterD (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Under which area? I am only aware that this is about the Romanian domestic football scene. While Romania is in Eastern Europe, my understanding is that EE CTOP is for international and interethnic conflicts arising from the interaction of Nazi and Soviet past with these societies.

You are an uninvolved sysop here, yes. And you can enforce CTOP in designated areas, but you can't designate an area into CTOP, no. And CTOP is less forgiving, not more, unless you've changed your mind.

I have not looked so closely into it, other than Dante's involvement that's been brought up. So, I would certainly welcome insights you can bring from a more thorough investigation. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't want to write again, but I feel I am accused of new things.

1. Scolaire Wait a minute. Are you trying to have a nice conversation with me on one talk page and then imply here that there are problems with my edits on other pages? Scolaire, did you really looked at those edits? Do you understand them? Some edits I undone were from editors who now are banned. I am not a conflict-prone person. I saw, for example, that the Eternal Derby is a lost cause so I just dropped the subject. I won't do more edits there until there are new developments on the subject. And why do you reproach me for ASKING in 2019 for FCSB to change its title page? I followed the rules, I had a discussion and I gave up when I saw people didn't agree with me. You imply I'm the bad guy here. Why won't you show how many articles were truly vandalized from new ip-users and how many swear words I had to undone from other banned editors? One of them, who is still around here, is still allowed to edit on Romanian football even though he wrote in Romanian on one talk page that "he can't stand Steaua" and that "Steaua fans are autistic". Did you ever saw me write like that about anybody? Do you understand with what I had to deal with?
2. Usedtobecool Romanian Football is what I follow. It's the only subject I am knowledgeable about. It's the only subject I can write about in a foreign language. I can't and I refuse to edit on subjects I don't fully know. It would be disingenuous and unhelpful for me to do that. If you plan to ban me on Steaua or Romanian Football, then you can go ahead and give me a full block, because it would be the same thing, I won't edit on Wikipedia again. Dante4786 (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dante4786: Yes, I am trying to have a nice conversation with you on Talk:FC Steaua București records dispute, but you keep shouting me down and twisting things round. When I looked at your contributions I saw the same behaviour on page after page, year after year. You most certainly are a "conflict-prone person" I would have said nothing, but BusterD said that the discussion should be taking place at WP:RFD, which gave some people the impression that it was only about that one redirect, so I felt I had to set the record straight. If Steaua București is all you are interested in writing about, perhaps you should read WP:Single-purpose account: Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project." Scolaire (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Scolaire I am so glad you are bringing that up. I am shouting you down? You made very specific requests. I answered EVERY ONE of them. After that, you backpelled on your words and made new requests. I again answered and gave sources and so forth. I answered as best as I could and gave as much details as possible, so you would be happy with the reply and understand my stance. I didn't shout down even The Banner. I kept asnwering him as well, even though he was pleading here for my ban. Still, me answering all of your points wasn't enough, you moved the goalpost again. I'm sorry but you don't respect my time. Of course it is hard to agree with someone, when one of the parties involved in the debate doesn't know what they want or they keep changing their mind. While I asked from the beginning for the middle ground, you want things to be your way and your way only. I repeat, my view on the subject is different. If it was up to me, we wouldn't even talk about the "separation" because as I see it (and not just me), it was never a thing. In fact, if you aknowledge the facts, you will see it is disproved. I am not trying to trick anyobody hear, I encourage you all to read what I wrote, sources included. But to make everyone somewhat happy and achieve a common ground, I requested for the "separation" to be shortly described as an "allegation". That's it. You won't accept even 1 word while I accept a big compromise. I'm sorry but I can't, in good faith, agree with a false statement. Your own source contradicts the content of your edit. But just like I said there, I will try to reprase things, in a new manner, maybe on the weekend (or when I have the time) so that everybody agrees on it, while providing further sources. As for Single-purpose accounts, I am so glad you mentioned that. Again, I have to remind the so called consensus you insist on respecting, was achieved on the first days of the year (when many people are still on vacation), with just a handful of editors, one of which is banned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/93.140.217.166 or on their first few edits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/93.138.220.238 . As for me, what do you expect for me to say? Do you think this is a gotcha-moment? Do you want for me to write on subjects I don't understand? No, that would never happen. I don't want to screw other editors' work. I only write on things I am knowledgeable about. I'm honest and I will remain honest. If that's a bad thing, fine, do what you want. If the opportunity arises and I think I can help on other subjects, then I will do it, like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Last_Mercenary_(2021_film)&oldid=978463879 If not, not, I will stick to things I know and fully understand and can write about in English. I don't think people can (or should) write on multiple subjects. It's not realistical. Editors should stick to their areas of expertise and the subjects they are interested in. And while I probably have my biases (like everybody else) I try to keep them to a minimum. While I have over 200 edits on Steaua's page, I only have 6 on Dinamo's page (for clarification, I'm mentioning this because Dinamo is Steaua's main rival). So, as you can see, I try to be as neutral as I can. I don't try to stir things up or provoke or anything like that. I want the truth, nothing more. Nobody is perfect but I do edit in good faith. I even recognised my shortcomings, like not knowing the ins and outs of Wikipedia or how to write in a particular format and so forth. Dante4786 (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This is what I previously wrote here, on 26 January: "Also, really, are you going to bring up consesus achieved on 2nd January, by a handful of people? Did you even check who was involved? One of the users involved is currently banned. Another IP made his second edit ever right on that debate." I was referring to Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. I just didn't remember what it was called. You aren't bringing anything new to the table. I complained about the very same thing, I already knew about single-purpose accoounts. Sure, you can accuse me of the same thing, you can accuse me of anything you want, that's your choice, but don't believe mentioning Single-purpose accounts was a surprise for me. And don't expect me to lie because of it and mask that I am primarily interested in certain subjects. Dante4786 (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for topic-ban

This has gone on with little productive movement. Three or four editors have asked Dante4786 to drop the stick so everyone could move on and multiple posters trying to mediate now appear frustrated. So, I propose that Dante4786 be topic-banned from pages involving FC Steaua București, broadly construed, for six months. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. I don't believe anything here is so egregious that more severe sanctions are warrantedThis would give Dante4786 the chance to demonstrate the issues are limited to this topic, to review policies concerning verifiability and consensus, and a pathway to contribute again in the not-too-distant future on a topic that is clearly important to them. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  I share the concerns of @HandThatFeeds that we could be back here in six months with the same issues, but of respect for @BusterD's not-insignificant efforts to try and work with @Dante4786 and guide them to a more productive path, I think it's reasonable to leave this door slightly ajar and hope this is sufficient a warning. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've got the user talking reasonably on the talk page. User:Scolaire is assisting. I'll make an effort to help them understand the social norms which may make the language issues more challenging. If it's decided to block the user, it's unlikely I'll be the admin that does it. BusterD (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  I find a six month period to be within the realm of reasonable. Best case, the user takes some time off and comes back under the topic ban, edits other topics and picks up some useful policy and guideline knowledge. There's always a person in there, folks. We often disagree, but we don't have to be mean. Often folks refuse to give up an attitude. This user responded to feedback and is making their own affirmative choices. BusterD (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Support having read both this discussion and the talk page in full. Dante needs to put down the stick and walk away. BrigadierG (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment. No offence, BusterD, but you're setting the bar pretty low if you consider "And again, you make requests while ignoring mine" as "talking reasonably". I'd like to see some actual positive contribution by Dante before taking this proposal off the table. Scolaire (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support though I expect we'll be right back here either when he violates the topic ban, or returns to the same tendentious editing in 6 months. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support I wanted to give BusterD a chance, which has now played out. Topic ban needs to be in place in case they return. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Dante clearly has no intention of ever changing his behaviour. He says he is leaving Wikipedia but he could easily change his mind. Scolaire (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support Quite a few people have said that they were leaving only to come back a few weeks later when the attention on them has faded, so a topic ban seems reasonable as a failsafe. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Subject's last mainspace edit was eleven days ago, before they commenced this thread. Since that edit, the user has attempted to use talk pages and this noticeboard exclusively. I see no misbehavior during that intervening time. I would argue the user has restrained themselves, has attempted to make themselves heard, has gotten frustrated and has said suboptimal things (unnecessarily and perhaps unintentionally personalized). But they have not edited disruptively on pagespace. Not once since they asked for help here. In any case, I have offered to mentor them when they return. BusterD (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support Seeing this edit, I do not get the idea that he even understands what the issue is, not to mention do something about it. The Banner talk 05:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  And except for placing the retired template on the user page, it was their last edit. I agree understanding is the problem. The user has admitted this as well. They've been dark in pagespace for two weeks. So we're banning them in case they change their mind? BusterD (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  IMO, the ban is for disruptive editing and POV-pushing around Steaua București. I think the 6 month ban is rather short but I am willing to give it a go. Dante has more long gaps in his editing, so I have to see if his retirement sticks. And yes, I am now back after a short wikibreak (I was loosing my cool) due to his harassment of me. The Banner talk 13:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  So in your opinion the topic ban is punitive, for "disruptive editing and POV-pushing around Steaua București." It's not preventing any immediate threat. As an admin, I'm not allowed to block for punitive reasons. The banning policy does not make such a clear distinction. BusterD (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  @BusterD, I do not believe anyone is being punitive here. I for one do not hang out at ANI looking for my next kill. I only landed here because my watchlist updated with a section that had "harassment" in its name. I am confident that rest of the editors have also participated here in good faith, have tried to resolve this with advice and discussion, kindness and compassion, or have carefully evaluated whether those options have been tried before and how likely they are to succeed in the future. The editor stopped editing. But they did not stop accussing The Banner of harrassment, they did not accept that they could do better with respect to WP:NLT, and, although you offered, they flatly rejected your mentorship, because they concluded that accepting mentorship would be an acknowledgement of shortcoming on their part. Now, against that backdrop, as an admin, please consider your responsibility to the encyclopedia and the rest of the editorbase, and especially to editors like The Banner and others who have had to deal with this editor for five years. They did not jump to ANI after one or two day of disruption from Dante. Indeed, it was Dante who brought themself to ANI. Does The Banner not have a right to continue their work without having to see accusations of harrassment all over their watchlist? Do the rest of the editors not have a right to seek a more collegial environment to engage in something productive without constant disruption from an WP:SPA who shows no signs of collegiality? We are not banning them to punish them. We are topic-banning them from the area in which they have been disruptive in order to protect other editors in the area, for the sake of their productivity and their mental wellbeing. It is in fact preventative. It is always admirable to seek to resolve a situation with mentorship rather than sanctions but administration duties can not take a back seat to such efforts. Sometimes conflicts resolve with mentorship in place, other times sanctions become necessary and any mentorship should run concurrently but not in lieu of sanctions. This is the latter case, in my opinon, and evidently others'. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think you've got it backwards, BusterD. The topic ban is due to this editor's disruptive behavior in the area. If you consider that purely punitive, then all our topic bans are punitive and the whole thing falls apart. This is about preventing disruption to the encyclopedia, and the fact we don't trust a user putting "retired" up on their page is beside the point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

User:GoutComplex's noncompliance with WP:RS

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

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the correct forum for this issue, but I noticed that User:GoutComplex made a non-referenced edit at Empire. I reverted it and encouraged them to find a good source, but a review of their talk page shows that many editors have come to them with unresolved complaints. I feel that this reflects the community time being wasted in repairing their faultily-sourced edits and would appreciate an administrator applying some sort of harsher penalty than a talk page message. For what it's worth, their contributions seem to be overall good, as seen here: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/GoutComplex]https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/GoutComplex

Thank you!

Sincerely, JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I have added the standard links for GoutComplex at the top of the section. GoutComplex's use of sources was reported here a month ago, so there are recent differences here. They did not edit while the previous report was active and have only posted two replies to advice on their talk page, including a thank you for a standard welcome message. TSventon (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

GoutComplex has been editing for a year with over 2000 edits. I see their editing as problematic for two reasons firstly when I look at a sample of their recent edits almost all show sourcing problems. Secondly they have not responded to advice. Also they hardly ever use edit summaries.

Check of recent edits

Latest twelve Decline and modernization of the Ottoman Empire diff unsourced Empire diff unsourced 117th United States Congress diff unsourced 117th United States Congress diff unsourced 116th United States Congress diff unsourced Legalism (Chinese philosophy) diff change to section heading Ainu people diff unsourced Austria-Hungary diff move reference to end of sentence Ashoka diff unsourced Xinjiang diff unsourced Maat diff this misrepresents the source Temples, tombs, & hieroglyphs : a popular history of ancient Egypt by Barbara Mertz. The added sentence Under Akhenaten's rule, the concept of Maat represented honesty in art, heat, and innovation confuses definitions of Maat as "truth", "justice" or "candor" and Mertz's views on sun worship My own, admittedly subjective, feeling is that it was the spirit of animation and creation implicit in the heat and light-producing sun that was the object of Akhenaton’s adoration. Legalism (Chinese philosophy) diff copy edit, no source needed 30 January Inari Ōkami diff partly added before a reference to "Religions of the Tao. Art of Faith II. Episode 3. 2010. Sky Arts.", partly unsourced. I doubt that GoutComplex watched the 2010 television programme, but they may have done. Michael Wood (historian) diff claim about a TV programme sourced to the book of the programme, not independent Michael Wood (historian) diff correction to the above Culture of Iraq diff Throughout the region's history, Iraq was second only to India in how many religions originated from it and how many its culture influenced.{{Citation needed|date=January 2024|reason=I heard this on a TV episode called Iraq, Cradle of Civilization, but another source is needed}} better source needed

TSventon (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

JuxtaposedJacob, can you explain what you mean by "their contributions seem to be overall good", as most of their edits I have looked at have sourcing problems. It may be that you are looking at a different sample of their edits. TSventon (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey @TSventon,

I tried to give the benefit of the doubt; I also went on his contributions and noted the seemingly-small number of reverts compared to live edits.

Have a great day!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry for creating edits that get reverted. I did not know that creating summaries was advised to be quite important. In the future, I will create better sourced content.

Every single one of my contributions to the Wiki has been a good faith attempt, including various deleted alt accounts since 2015.

What can I do in the future to clear any lingering situations up? GoutComplex (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries aren't the issue, what you need is to source content inside the text itself through <ref></ref> tags. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I did refer to that with my third sentence. I will always do that from now on unless I am doing an edit where I am just correcting the flow of an article or sources merely just imply a fact that I would like someone to clear up if another source I do not know of elaborates on it, such as my contributions here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_(Taoism)#In_art_and_culture GoutComplex (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand now that it is not appropriate to insert a statement with no source and instead a {{Citation needed}} tag with "reason=I heard this on a TV episode called Iraq, Cradle of Civilization, but another source is needed", as you did in one of your most recent edits[3], a few days ago? NebY (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Now I do now that you said it. I was just looking for someone to contribute a better source that was more modern about this in the future. GoutComplex (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

GoutComplex I can see that you are trying to improve the encyclopedia, but you didn't reply when several editors criticised the sources you are using on your talk page and in the previous AN/I report. (Almost) everyone makes mistakes and gets corrected when they start editing, the point is to learn from your mistakes. That is why I advised you to respond to advice on your talk page. My general advice is that a book about the general subject of the article is more reliable than a book about a different subject. TSventon (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I've just come here after reverting the problematic edits here Special:Diff/1204754874 and here Special:Diff/1204755126. I'm trying to understand what these additions were suppose to add value wise, on top of the fact they are wrong. (A 64-bit integer is not a length of characters, and a character is typically 8 to 16 bits each.). I'm now reviewing, and likely reverting, further recent edits of this sort. Even where the sources used seem to be reliable, the conclusions the editor has drawn from them seem... off. -- ferret (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@GoutComplex Can you please disclose your alt accounts? There's no such thing as a deleted account. -- ferret (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Eric

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

---

The user is deleting my edits with invalid reasons. I really do a lot of research, I consult the English language vocabulary "Collins Dictionary" (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english), I make 100%, or almost 100%, accurate edits, and a user who doesn't know the rules well (he wrote "Parmesan" with a lowercase initial ("parmesan"), removed useful wikilinks (such as the wikilink "Italy" in the infobox), and, not happy, deleted italics from uncommon English language terms, such as "tortelloni"). I request a temporary block for this user. JackkBrown (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Please do not use descriptions like you are ruining the encyclopaedia in edit summaries, especially for something as trivial as a change in italics. For the dispute itself, have you tried discussing it with Eric on one of the talk pages, before bringing him here? Requesting a block for disagreeing in the italicization of a few words is more than overblown. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 01:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: it's not just about italics, understand me, I've been working a lot these days, and not only these days, and I don't want my (right) changes to be undone in a second. JackkBrown (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Working on a collaborative project means that people might object to your changes (and believe themselves to be right, just like you do). In this case, if you don't agree, it is best to discuss the issue with them (and explain your understanding of the rules), rather than immediately bringing them to the drama board. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 01:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Eric was correct to de-link Italy per WP:OVERLINK. Also, why hasn't you tried to resolve this with Eric on their user talk page m EvergreenFir (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

JackkBrown As highlighted at the top of the page, this page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I would suggest that you withdraw this report. Also, when you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page, I have done so this time. TSventon (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

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

JackKBrown again

Has this editor made any attempt at being less disruptive? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145#Partial_block_for_JackkBrown closed without consensus, but some of the very, same issues are popping up. Is it time to ban them entirely from project space? Star Mississippi 03:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

so, let me get this straight, a user who has improved most of the articles in Italian and enriched the encyclopaedia must be excluded from the project? I thought Wikipedia was a healthy place... JackkBrown (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Making personal attacks in edit summaries doesn't really help with the healthy place thing... ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

You'll notice I said nothing about your access to editing articles. You manage to edit content productively, and should focus there since that is why we're all here. Star Mississippi 03:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: I'm the first in this encyclopedia to always be attacked for every little thing. You (plural) have almost never rewarded the fact that you have improved this encyclopedia. JackkBrown (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

...you brought an editor to ANI for a silly content dispute. I'm sorry, but you're not the victim here. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: I have been criticised for every single thing, even, and especially, for the right edits (I'm very precise in this encyclopedia); it's obvious that sooner or later I lose patience and do the same (obviously I was wrong too). JackkBrown (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

JackkBrown, accuracy is well and good, but it is absolutely impossible to be very precise about things like whether a given Italian loanword is common enough in English usage that it no longer needs to be italicized. There will always and inevitably be subjectivity involved and edge cases that do not have black or white answers. These matters are relatively trivial, and expanding and improving actual Italian culinary content is vastly more useful than quibbling about italicizaton. You and I and other editors discussed the word "sweetbread" the other day at the Help Desk. As a result, I was motivated to significantly expand the article Sweetbread and added content and five references about sweetbreads in French, Creole and American cuisines. How about sweetbreads in Italian cuisine? You are the expert. Cullen328 (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

although having read the three different talk pages about the capitalization of parmesan and italics over tortelloni, I'm beginning to wonder if editor interaction is also a problem. Star Mississippi 13:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: the bad thing is that I have consulted all the English dictionaries to check whether a food is known or not, and then I find my laborious edits deleted. Until this situation is resolved, I will no longer edit any articles. JackkBrown (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Until this situation is resolved, I will no longer edit any articles.
— User:JackkBrown 15:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Somehow I find this hard to believe if the edits after this comment are anything to go by. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Less than a day since they said they would no longer edit any articles until the situation is resolved, there are already more than 70 edits to food-related articles alone, mainly featuring edits of the same type we're talking about here in the first place.

I'd certainly like some clarification, @JackkBrown, because few things make me lose trust in a person as quickly as when they immediately do the opposite of what they say they are going to do. And there's a practical reason too; any actions the community may choose to talk may differ on the level of trust there is in the editor doing what they say they will. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I was wrong to say what I said, many many apologies. A little curiosity: Why do you (and everyone else) always use "they" when referring to me (even in other threads)? JackkBrown (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@JackkBrown: People don't know whether you prefer "he", "she", or any other pronoun. Singular they is a common way around this in English. Bazza (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: right, I hadn't thought of that, but I prefer "HE", thanks. JackkBrown (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Great to know! If you want to, there's an option in Preferences to select the pronouns that are used by default for you (in system messages and stuff like {{pronoun}}). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 11:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: thank you! Done now. JackkBrown (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Do I think JackkBrown should be banned from what I presume to be WP:? No, because there needs to be a line of communication for situations like these. Do I think they should take an extended leave of absence from the project? Absolutely. Once again there are constant questions from this editor at the help desk seeking assurance that what they're doing is correct. In the amount of time they've been registered I'd hope that they're confident enough to make what they think is the right decision, but that doesn't seem to be the case. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I think he's well meaning, but it's increasingly apparent there's a WP:CIR issue here, likely due to the language barrier. That's not to say that there aren't many productive things they can do, but they've made the curious decision to focus on types of edits that especially require the most fluency in English. Some of the personal conflicts appear to also be language issues.

It certainly doesn't help that they toot their own horn about how valuable they are and how precise they are. If they were anywhere near their "very precise" self-description, there wouldn't be most of these conflicts or various Teahouse floods. At the very least, they shouldn't be involved in any edits involving capitalization/italicization/formatting, though wording it to not be overly harsh may require some deftness. Their assumed grasp of English is going to be a constant issue unless something is done. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: "their assumed grasp of English". I have stated several times (see, for example, my user page; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JackkBrown) that I don't have a great knowledge of the English language. As for the rest of your comment, by precision I mean that when I make a mistake I go back and correct it, so, having established that most of my changes are correct, those that aren't I correct, even months later; so, without arrogance, yes, I'm very precise. JackkBrown (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a very non-idiomatic use of the word "precise". Any native English speaker would understand "I'm very precise" to mean "I don't make large errors", not "I clean up after my own errors when they are pointed out to me" (a completely different idea). I think if you want to convey the second one, you should find a better way to do it (i.e., not use the word "precise"). --JBL (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

You've repeatedly used the word precise in a way that is unfamiliar to English speakers (including myself), others have to clean up your errors, and you have regularly spent time insisting how accurate or precise you are, how you don't get enough credit, and so on.

So again, if you're not well-versed in English, then why are you specifically choosing to focus so much of your effort on specific style areas that require the most fluency in English? There are only so many times someone can be dragged to ANI on the same issues before the community loses patience. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, my first post at WP:ANI. To offer a complementing perspective:

• Not here to expand content. The concerned editor isn't really here to expand content; for example, they recently asked me how to add a source, which they said they had never done before. As I recently summarised, the editor appears here to support content expansion by, as this noticeboard has previously noted, usually minor, cosmetic, and individually-inconsequential changes to the wikitext. This choice of specialism is somewhat strange, given that the editor's background and editorial interests presumably render them a better fit for content expansion than this kind of support.
• Why not expand content? My instinct is that the editor does not feel that they have a sufficient command of English to expand content, which I think is a pity, especially given how many free, accurate (AI) translation tools now exist. As someone frequently editing Italian-language articles with a limited working knowledge of Italian, I make copious use of such tools, and recently created my first article on the Italian-language Wikipedia from an English translation in this way. In a series of five edits, fluent editors kindly fixed my mistakes. Of course, a concern in the other direction is that Italian-language articles are usually poorly-cited, but from my interactions with the editor, finding and formatting citations could feasibly fit their interests.
• Helping WikiProjects? The editor could even be a great help to WikiProjects by identifying articles requiring clean-up or expansion, especially on Italian-language topics; I think it's no bad thing to encourage the editor to develop their contributions in this direction, but in a way that doesn't involve starting frequent talk page discussions.
• Other considerations. Nevertheless, previous discussions on the noticeboard have highlighted how the editor is enthusiastic and encourages others to be consistent in their editing practices, something which I personally have also found helpful in my interaction with the editor. Then there are two other concerns: the editor's lack of charity in interactions (something I have experienced) and their abuse of talk pages to solicit help and contest edits.

I suggested that the editor could remove a lot of the heat on them by getting off mobile web editing if they possibly can, which can remove the annoyance many editors feel from seeing a string of minor edits from the user by encouraging previews. Finally, I think encouraging the editor to contribute to Wikipedia in some of the ways suggested above could be a really fruitful approach; banning the editor from project spaces would effectively block this encouragement. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@IgnatiusofLondon: exactly! With the knowledge I have of Italian subjects, if I had been a native English speaker I could have gone beyond the five improved articles. However, English-language articles on Italian topics aren't poorly cited, they are less cited than the Italian-language Wikipedia, but the Italian-language Wikipedia doesn't value sources (for example, gossip sources are accepted), whereas in the English-language Wikipedia, a lot of attention is paid to sources, so the English-language Wikipedia is a million (or billion) times more authoritative than the Italian-language Wikipedia. JackkBrown (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

 Note: JackkBrown deleted an earlier comment apologising to Eric:

I would like to publicly apologize to User:Eric for not being kind to him at all. It doesn't matter what I think, the main thing isn't to be rude, and I was. My apologies, Eric. JackkBrown (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2024

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I deleted it by mistake when I posted the last comment. Just as well, it's even more prominent in the template. JackkBrown (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I've been watching JackkBrown for a bit now after an interaction on his talk page, and have been debating whether or not to bring him to ANI. There are a number of issues here, not all of which are language-barrier issues.

• In addition to italics and capitalization, he is fixated on fixing redirects (including template capitalization) and whitespace in templates, despite being told by multiple editors numerous times about things like WP:NOTBROKEN. When asking another user for advice on how to avoid making purely cosmetic edits, he came up with the idea: if I think I'm about to save a cosmetic edit, I can check for missing commas in the text, so that there are no problems if I save the edit [4] suggesting that these edits are still his primary focus, and the other things are an excuse.
• He also has an obsession with adding the "Use dmy dates" template to every article / updating the date on the template. As I understand it, you can update the date on this template if you have made sure all of the dates in the article conform to the standard. However, the fact that he changed the mdy template to dmy on the United States page (without changing any of the dates, which were obviously mdy), makes me wonder if he knows what he's doing in that regard.
• He does not appear to use the preview feature, resulting in multiple minor edits in a short span of time, or even undoing his previous edits. This is especially noticeable on non-mainspace pages (see, for example, his edits to this page or to his own talk page), which can result in multiple notifications to users. He continues to do this even after being asked multiple times to slow down, use preview, and read over his edits before submitting them. He also not infrequently edits his comments even after others have responded to them.
• When his errors are pointed out to him, he protests that he doesn't make very many mistakes, and when this claim is shown to be false, plays the victim. Yet he lashes out at others for minor mistakes, such as with Eric above or with User:IgnatiusofLondon in these two edits (he has since apologized to both of these users). He also has the strange claim about precision above, and the following quote on his own talk page: the problem is that I edit quickly, and very very very carefully, so unfortunately I don't pay much attention to this ban on cosmetic changes (emphasis in original). Of course, if he did edit as carefully as he claims, he wouldn't be making as many mistakes as he does.
• He's been criticised for his lack of edit summaries before. Though he now claims to have enabled reminders when leaving a blank edit summary, the edit summaries he leaves are often not helpful.
• Then, of course, there's his overuse of the Help Desk and other such forums. At one point I saw that he had 5 topics live on the Help Desk, and in two of them he had asked completely unrelated followup questions because he happened to have someone's ear.
• N.B. this user somehow has two separate talk page archiving systems: [5] [6], which are both full of these sorts of things.

Although he does a lot of good work, he also makes many not-so-great edits, and his apparent inability to take advice from others and amend his ways ends up wasting a lot of time. Smdjcl (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Carrite: it's really disrespectful, rude and horrible towards me to say this. I take care of the pages as a whole: English grammar, MOS:CAPTIONS, MOS:GEOLINK, punctuation, correction of dashes, various templates ("circa", "literally", "flatlist" and "plainlist"), upper and lowercase initial letters, italics, etc. JackkBrown (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

How is it disrespectful for them to point out a link? Star Mississippi 02:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I refer to his sentence "suggesting that these edits are still his primary focus, and the other things are an excuse." JackkBrown (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

From what I understand, they meant that the cosmetic edit is the primary focus of the kind of edits mentioned above, with the rest (e.g. missing commas) being an excuse. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I never denied that you did other things. In fact, by saying you do a lot of good work, I implicitly acknowledged it. If all you did was useless edits like the ones I pointed out in that bullet point, I wouldn't call it good work. But the comment I highlighted does in fact suggest (though not prove) that you intended to add other things to your cosmetic edits as an excuse to make your less-acceptable edits acceptable. Whether or not you ever actually did that of course is another question, but the suggestion is there. Smdjcl (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Smdjcl: no, it isn't to make them "less-acceptable"; I, simply, modify a page as a whole, so if I want (example) to correct the grammar of a sentence, since it's the same edit, I also modify the rest. JackkBrown (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Edits to redirects and whitespace like I mentioned are generally frowned upon. Your comment said that if you were about to make an edit like that, you would add something else so that the edit would be okay. That implies that the other things are secondary, only added to make those edits acceptable. It may well be that you never ended up doing that, but that is what that comment suggests to me. If others disagree with my interpretation of that comment, I will happily retract it and apologize for my mischaracterization of you. However, your dispute of one relatively minor point in my overall comment isn't helping you. Smdjcl (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Which @Carrite didn't say, so you should retract your blaming of them while discussing the issues raised with the editor who did so. Carrite simply raised another discussion Star Mississippi 03:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I think there's been a mistake somewhere, the comment above isn't even from Carrite but from Smdjcl. Carrite's only comment in this whole thread is one below about Wikipediocracy. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• I know some of y'all don't like Wikipediocracy (different strokes, etc.) but a heads up there is a thread about this user/situation there. Public Area > General Discussion > Just Asking Questions. Perhaps illuminating or not. Carrite (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  .....As of 2/5, WPO mod Zoloft has moved the thread out of the spotlight to the registered-users only area now, following an observation that "He's hardly unique, and focussing on the one individual tends to obscure the broader issue" of "Wikipedia's systemic inability to adequately control the well-intentioned but [CIR-related] time-sinks..." Carrite (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Support CIR block; the evidence in these ANI threads seems clear to me. What really jumps out is 50,000 edits in the first year (!). Is that a record? I've seen tens-of-thousands-in-the-first-year before, but I don't think I've seen 50k. Imagine, someone who doesn't really speak English, but makes 50k edits to the English wikipedia in their first year! Can you imagine doing this at another language wiki where you're not fluent in the language? How absurd. Also, they're indef'd at itwiki for block evasion (so not the first account, explains the 50k edits in the first year) and on itwikinews for being an LTA. Both are Global Sysop blocks. I don't know if they have merit, but ... well, I haven't tracked it down, but I'm going to bet the prior itwiki account had the same problems in Italian that we are experiencing in English. Bottom line: time sink due, at least, to language barrier. Levivich (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Support I didn't want to land here and was hoping a p-block would be sufficient but the further this discussion has gone on, the further it's clear they don't understand nor intend to change their edit pattern which extends beyond their perceived fluency in English. And thanks @Levivich for the heads up on the accounts. My spidey sense was going off but not enough for SPI Star Mississippi 00:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: hi, could you please read my last two comments in this thread? I only ask you this, I will not comment on any of your decisions towards me, I have no right to do so and I must accept, with profound humility, whatever decision is made. I would just like to add that I have understood, finally, that the user with the wrong behavior towards other users, who has sinned deeply of total lack of humility, who has not listened enough to the very useful advice regarding my defects, well, I have come to the awareness that I'm this user. Now I would like to take a pause for reflection and think about everything that's wrong and then, perhaps, continue to be active with the project, because I could also think about limiting myself to a maximum of 20 changes per week (example); it won't be easy, but I know I can do it. JackkBrown (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You have promised to limit yourself or stop editing on several occasions,and you have yet to follow through.

Despite probably 50 edits here since, you haven't apologized to Carrite for @Carrite: it's really disrespectful, rude and horrible towards me to say this. (when they didn't say it)

Your editing future is within the community's discretion, not my opinion. BUt I would strongly suggest you take on the feedback you've received here and why you're blocked on other projects. It's clear there is some problem with your editing. If you want to edit in the future, you need to make some changes. Star Mississippi 01:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I apologise to him in private. JackkBrown (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Very good; I'm glad you've apologised. For future reference, as a general principle, I think because your comments were public, so should your apology be public. To retract what you've said, I recommend you strike out your comment accusing Carrite (see Template:Strikethrough). IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 I think you're most probably right, Levivich. ——Serial 17:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: I specify that I don't write new texts, but I understand perfectly what's in this encyclopedia, also thanks to paid translators. JackkBrown (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If you "understood perfectly what's in this encyclopedia" or made "100% or almost 100% accurate edits" (your words), we wouldn't be here in two very long discussions about the same behavior barely a month apart.

I started this thread thinking you needed a mentor and to stay away from making style edits, but your attitude of superiority and your lack of forthrightness in answering any concerns are putting me close to a CIR block. It certainly does not help that you said you would make no more edits while the situation was unresolved, and before even a whole day had passed, you had made a hundred edits in the same problematic territory. Now, you were not prohibited from making those edits, but as I said above, not doing what you say is a quick way to lose trust. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: all right, I admit it, I need help and, in order not to admit my shortcomings, I make myself look (non-maliciously) superior, but the truth is that I have many faults and I need to improve (I'm trying, so far unsuccessfully, to take a pause for reflection). JackkBrown (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Admitting your own shortcomings is a great (and difficult) first step — congratulations and good luck! ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: I should take a bath in humility and put myself on a par, equal with others, without feeling superior; unfortunately it's a defence, because as a non-native English speaker I start at a disadvantage; I hope you understand me. I didn't just admit it out of fear of the block, but because I can no longer stand pretending to be superior to those who, like you for example, have much more experience than me. JackkBrown (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: I hope I can take a pause for reflection, I have to make it (it's hard, difficult for me not to edit for, say, a week). JackkBrown (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Good luck, I trust you! It's always healthy to take breaks from time to time, really! ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd support a temporary block (one month) for JackkBrown. I hope some time away from Wikipedia might help. If anyone has any suggestions as to how to deal with the persistent deluge of questions at the Help Desk, I'm all ears. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 JackkBrown has said: I hope I can take a pause for reflection, I have to make it. So a temporary block might be in everyone's favour, and to make good of what he has said, I hope the concerned editor also replies in support of this suggestion. His recent erratic edits to his userpage suggest the editor is really taking the discussions on this thread to heart, and that's always a good invitation to step away and reconnect with other things in life. In his time away, I suggest JackkBrown consider some different approaches to contributions he can make to support Wikipedia, as highlighted in this thread.

Finally, I am concerned that the editor has recently, in this thread and in a reverted edit on their user page, began talking about "paid translators". This feels like an unnecessary expense, and one that doesn't entirely engage with the concerns expressed by the community in this and previous noticeboard discussions. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 it would be nice if the description of the block included my support; that would make the block even more important. JackkBrown (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get something actioned instead of letting this fade into the archives like last time? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Ieditpagesmhm behaving abusively at slightest incident

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

---

User was completely uncivil when reverted for adding unsourced material. When I informed them to keep their insults to themselves, they kept going, abusing me further. I don't think anyone else needs to be subject to this user's behaviour. Possibly an alt account of 2A02:C7C:94B9:C800:E48E:8698:A99F:68E. GraziePrego (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Eyes on AfD please

This LTA is back to their antics and another set of eyes, hands would be helpful as some of us head to bed. Thanks! I assume no edit filter would help here despite the predictable habits Star Mississippi 02:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

What username are they under now? Or has it been dealt with? Professor Penguino (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes. I remember scrolling one time through this page while playing MKWii and noticing a lot of comments regarding the user. I'm sure they're back to their old ways and trying to really annoy us. We got to keep a close watch on AfD and make sure that they're not doing any pesky stuff. Obviously, I can't, since I'm usually in bed by at least 11:00. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Timeshifter behavioral issues

I brought this up at User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Sort under template discussion becoming uncivil, but no response so I brought it here since the behavior is intractable and seems chronic.

I recently created Template: Sort under and Timeshifter made a request on its talk page for a change that I consider to be his personal preferences and that I disagree with. His recent responses have become too heated, personal, assumes bad faith, and very uncivil. He responded with some profanity: "BS". He stated that he will apply the changes and that I should find consensus against it: "Unless you find consensus against that I will put it into the CSS myself." Apparently he thought I supported his preference even though I disagreed from the start, but a misunderstanding is no reason to act this way and threaten to circumvent reaching consensus. This isn't the first time, and I'm not listing all occurrences.

In a discussion last month (January 2023) at Template talk:Static row numbers#Column label unspanned look, there was personalization about me: "Why do you go into these massive fights over adding the smallest bit of additional info? It is extremely annoying, and a huge waste of time."

In an discussion two months ago (December 2023) at Template talk:Sticky header#Class sticky not working on mobile, he started talking about himself, other content, then me as a developer that ended with me abandoning any template fixes I was working on. Although he somewhat apologized, it's very difficult to discuss content with someone who personalizes conversations or can't stay on topic.

@HouseBlaster, Redrose64, SMcCandlish, Gonnym, and JohnFromPinckney: pinged since I've seen them in similar discussions with him in case they want to add anything. I mostly see these kinds of discussions with him on help and template talk pages like at Help talk:Table. In general, when his opinion is agreed with, he is easier to work with. Jroberson108 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I could go into a long list of uncivil stuff from Jroberson108 also. But we have never called each other names, and there were no personal attacks from either side. There were plenty of disagreements.

Jroberson108 has a habit of WP:OWN with almost anything he works on. By the way here is the "BS" in context:

"And what is this disrespectful BS: "You've provided no solid metrics to back your claim of 'templates get used more' or 'saves time'." I told you it saved me time. That should be good enough since you know that I edit a lot of tables.

That is not a personal attack. It was me pointing out his disrespect.

By the way after much effort on my part I finally got someone to reply concerning Template:Sort under. They suggested going to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables. I did so. See:

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables#Template:Sort under

--Timeshifter (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "BS" isn't profanity, it's a "minced oath" to avoid actual profanity. And profanity doesn't automatically make something a civility problem anyway. This does seem to be a weird and unproductive argument. I would think a single-discussion RfC in one particular place, with all the other threads closed and pointing to it, and relevant pages notified, would be enough to resolve this, especially if it's neutrally laid out in very simple "here are the options; pick one" terms. I don't think either of you've been ideal in this (starting with Jroberson108's "You don't need to continue pushing your same opinion", which was testy and standoffish enough that it seems to have flipped Timeshift into "resist at all costs" mode). We're all human (I hope!), and shit happens. (See? Profanity, but not an attack.) I can't see any cause for an ANI action here, this template functionality and output-layout matter (what? a disagreement about a style issue? how could that possibly be?! LOL) simply needs more eyes and brains on it to reach some kind of a consensus. Edit: The thread at WT:MOSTABLES is probably good for this, just {{discussion top|{{moved discussion to|...}}}}...{{discussion bottom}} any other open threads about it to prevent the WP:TALKFORK issue.

To pre-emptively give some input: I would suggest that more options are better, but only up to a point (KISS principle; and the observation than a left-aligned version of such a control widget would not be of use in an LTR language is probably correct). Concision in class, parameter, and other names is generally better, but also just up to a point (they need to still be intelligible). Default behavior of the template should probably be what best matches default appearance of sortable wikitable controls (principle of least astonishment). If some particular variant is expected to be needed over and over again, make a simple template wrapper that does that version with a shorthand name that doesn't require lots of parameter futzing.

PS: I don't recall what similar discussion I was pinged about; I don't pay much of any attention to usernames, and just look at the content of what's posted and what the reasoning is, when it's practical to ignore who it's coming from.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

How can you seriously say there were no WP:PA when I literally quoted one example above that is about me as a contributor and not the content.

According to BS, it is profanity, which is both unneeded and unwanted. This is my first time seeing it used in a discussion.

If you look closer, he got upset over my "You don't need to continue pushing your same opinion" remark, which wasn't meant as an attack, but I apologized anyways, then we moved on and he even thanked my apology edit. As I mentioned, it was fine until there was a misunderstanding, then it went down hill from there. I understand he might have been upset, but there are better ways to respond without blowing up unapologetically to where there is nothing more that can be said, which for me appears intractable. Granted that I'm new to asking admins for advice and approaching ANI, the description at the top this page matched this situation so I posted here.

There is nothing disrespectful about me questioning the source and metrics of statements about others used to support someone's opinion. You may have included yourself in part of it, but they still talk about others, which is what I question. "Now you are back to your original position of ignoring my point about simplicity working to make templates get used more." and "Those, like me and many others, who want to save time, will use class sort-under, knowing it is the more popular choice." aren't just about you. From my perspective, it just sounds like POV, assumptions, or projecting, which I usually ignore unless its repeated. My response was You've provided no solid metrics to back your claim of "templates get used more" or "saves time" and pointed to no discussions showing consensus for "many others" or "popular". If there are metrics or consensus for these statements, then it would have changed the discussion completely.

BTW, wanting consensus isn't WP:OWN, it's just WP:CON. Jroberson108 (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This is my first time seeing it used in a discussion. Oh come on, that is BS, which is common word in the English language. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I will say that I've noticed other instances of Timeshifter being overly-combative about getting their way. Most recently, there was Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Add_year_to_article_title., in which Timeshifter framed their desire to include the year in the article title as a crusade against self-centered Americans (not an unfair criticism in general, but the article's title certainly isn't an example of it), which spilled over to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(events)#US-centric_common_names,_or_names_that_only_mean_something_nationally when they realized they weren't going to get their way, and is full of the same bold-typeface shouting against pretty much everyone else who opined. There are other examples I can think of off the top of my head, but as they're all probably years-old at this point, I'm not too fussed about them. Regardless, and without comment on OP's behavior, I do think the complaint has some merit. It's not the worst thing, and I certainly don't think it merits a block or anything, but it is annoying, and I think Timeshifter would be well-advised to cool their jets when people disagree with them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I will start by saying that I believe that Timeshifter is a boon to the project, and genuinely believe he engages in discussion in good faith. I will also mention that at Help talk:Table#Linking to User:The wub/tocExpandAll.js he demanded increasing levels of consensus against including a link to User:The wub/tocExpandAll.js—a tool which has nothing to do with tables—at Help:Table. There was also Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Parkland doctors say neck wound was an entrance wound. Meaning more than one shooter and Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy#Parkland doctors say neck wound was an entrance wound. Meaning more than one shooter, another classic WP:1AM attempt at including a WP:FRINGE POV. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll respond to the "boon" part. I agree that he is a boon and probably the one editor I've worked with the most in my fixing of templates and a gadget for the last couple of years. Jroberson108 (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

A comment made today at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility engages in personal commentary about another editor: ... I will not change your strong tags back to regular bolding, now that this discussion has sadly resolved in the favor of your current point of view. If you want to waste your time on this useless activity, then knock yourself out. In fact, after you completely convert all bolding to strong tags on a few help pages, you will have annoyed enough editors that this vaporware of the semantic web will be seen as contradictory to the simplicity that wikis were created for. I strongly urge Timeshifter to avoid making these types of remarks. isaacl (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

[Update] I do feel like Timeshifter's behavior has improved in the recent RfC (see his link above) to reach a consensus with two other editors and myself, so thank you for that. Note, the RfC started about the same time as this notice. I can't speak for everyone else above. I'll also point out that he has and still does give praise for my efforts in fixing templates he's also involved in. Jroberson108 (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

My input, FWIW: I have indeed had difficulty in the past with Timeshifter as he has effectively taken ownership of a few pages in both Help: and article spaces. He has frequently and steadfastly insisted that because something works for him and is simpler to him, then it therefore "works fine" and must not be changed. He generally rejects a standardized format for examples (e.g. table coding) and does not care (or apparently know) what valid HTML is or why we might want to use it. TS habitually outdents his posts on Talk pages, even when replying to a level two post, although he's not demonstrating indentation examples or including tables in his response (which might justify such an outdent). He's overly fond of bold text in inappropriate situations and has often thrown in non-sequiturs and irrelevant arguments and unsupported claims of fact. He has repeatedly reverted me (one infuriating example) and others because "I edit this page a lot" (meaning him, TS), the implication being that nobody else is worthy of making changes.

Having said that, I have spent some time scanning through recent exchanges involving TS, including the ones linked by Jroberson108 and others, and I found TS's to be much improved over my earlier interactions with him. Further, I do not see that anything in the discussions I read through rises to the level of ANI-level action. I responded some time ago to TS's stubbornness by disengaging from the tables pages (and articles with "his" tables) in particular, and Wikipedia in general. His behavior was just so maddening to me I had to (try to) stop my involvement where our paths might cross.

So at this point, I think there's insufficient need for admin action at this time. A couple of years ago, maybe, but not from the current evidence I see. Sorry, Jroberson, but thanks for the ping. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yikes, again. Timeshifter literally just asked me Can you not read?. (For transparency, I am also the editor who the comment ... I will not change your strong tags back to regular bolding, now that this discussion has sadly resolved in the favor of your current point of view. If you want to waste your time on this useless activity, then knock yourself out. In fact, after you completely convert all bolding to strong tags on a few help pages, you will have annoyed enough editors that this vaporware of the semantic web will be seen as contradictory to the simplicity that wikis were created for. was directed at.) I would like the personal attacks to stop, but I also do not want to see Timeshifter blocked. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations by User:SabinaKawsar

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

---

Despite warning, all of SabinaKawsar (talk · contribs) contributions continue to be copy-and-pasted from the bjsports website. There has been no engagement with messages places on their talk page. Block requested to prevent further disruption. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I've INDEFfed until such time as they choose to communicate and make it clear they understand the issue and will change the behavior Star Mississippi 15:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Sanity check

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

Can I have a sanity check please? I am right that we don't want trivia adding to articles (in this case, the plot of an episode of Seinfeld being added to Buccaneer) and that we frown upon people switching between logged-in and logged-out editing in order to subvert 3RR? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yup. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections for the trivia, and WP:LOUTSOCK for editing as an IP and with an account. The latter, if done deceptively, can lead to a block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it was done deceptively as well to avoid appearing as too much of an edit warrior, but I may just be assuming bad faith. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 18:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Nothing was done deceptively. I am new in wikipedia. Please see my updated "In popular culture" section which is not "trivia" but adds valuable information to the "Buccaneer" entry. It is also well referenced both primarily and secondarily Yotamabramson (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You need sources that establish its significance to the article's subject. Not just sources that verify facts. It's a common misunderstanding. Doug Weller talk 16:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Regardless I don't think this is an issue and is just a noob with like 55 edits @Yotamabramson just refresh yourself on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Cross-wiki vandalism here and on Commons

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

---

Dwelchactress is a vandalism-only account. On Witney, the account has added four images, uploaded by themself, which are just edited versions of the existing photos to add an image of Denise Welch (who this account appears to be impersonating) to them. As this is a case of subtle enough vandalism and it involves edits to Commons, I'm taking it here rather than the usual AIV. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved: The account has been blocked here, and images deleted on commons. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Tendentious editing by Thomas Basboll

• Thomas Basboll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tim Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thomas Basboll is continuing to engage in tendentious WP:FORUMSHOPPING and edit warring regarding the Tim Hunt biography. For several years Basboll has insisted on framing a 2015 controversy regarding comments that Hunt made at a conference that were widely considered sexist as an "online shaming" campaign. After LokiTheLiar recently attempted to alter this, they were reverted by Basboll and subsequently made a post at WP:NPOVN (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Tim Hunt) Over half a dozen people responded, none of which agreed with Basbolls position. Discussion was then opened at Hunts talkpage (Talk:Tim Hunt) which again found against Basbolls position. Basboll is still reverting any attempt to alter the wording in the article despite a consensus against their postion, and has now opened a discussion at WP:BLPN (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tim Hunt which is a clear attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Basboll needs to be firmly told to WP:DROPTHESTICK regarding this issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The admin @Firefangledfeathers: has previously warned them on their talkpage, see User_talk:Thomas_Basboll#Stonewalling. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I was just about to post this over at WP:ANEW, because these three diffs are bright line three reverts in 24 hours:

• 19:00 2024-02-04
• 06:01 2024-02-05
• 06:15 2024-02-05

This is also after a long history of reverting any changes made to the Controversy section of the Tim Hunt article. See for instance this diff from about a week ago, this diff from 2019, and this diff from 2020. It's largely due to reading the page history that made me jump to WP:NPOVN so quickly, exactly because it was clear that Basboll had a history of stonewalling behavior on the page itself. Loki (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

From the beginning, I believe this should have been raised at WP:BLPN not WP:NPOVN and I said so repeatedly. At the moment the dispute is about including as quotation a disputed report of the most shameful thing the subject of the article has ever been accused of saying or doing. Getting the story even half-way right, will force us to make it a WP:COATRACK for the entire social shaming incident that he was the victim of. This clearly violates WP:BLP and that is the position I'm maintaining. Also, I have said repeatedly that I am reverting only out of caution (again a BLP concern). The disputed section has been stable for several years. A few more weeks of it being (perhaps too) kind to its subject isn't going to make a huge difference in the long. A few weeks of slander, by contrast, can do unnecessary harm.Thomas B (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• There was a lot of discussion at the noticeboard over an issue and consensus emerged, but Thomas Basboll is reverting every edit to effect that consensus. Suggests if this continues a partial (page) block might be the best way to prevent this problem continuing. Bon courage (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  This looks like something of a misrepresentation of the discussion at the neutral point of view noticeboard Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Tim_Hunt, where there were two options, both of which did mention online shaming, while the version that Hemiauchenia last made at Tim Hunt did not. It's certainly not true that TB is the only person advocating inclusion of the words (Firefangledfeathers wrote "I think the online shaming must be mentioned"). The two options were suggested on 3rd Feb, and here we are two days later claiming a consensus on an extremely divisive issue - it needs more time for discussion. Hemiauchenia's edit was therefore not changing an article according to a clear consensus arrived after adequate discussion. It is really, really unhelpful that this content dispute has been scattered over so many noticeboards. Let's fix on one place to discuss, and if discussion fails, go to DR. Elemimele (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know with certainty that there's clear consensus for any particular version, but we did have (rough, early) consensus at the NPOVN noticeboard about a better starting point than TB's preferred version. It was apparent very early on in the process that consensus was against TB's version, so TB's reverts to that version are definitely evidence of stonewalling. Some of the strongest consensus items—that the incident should not be presented primarily as one of online shaming and that some quoted material should be included—have been reverted to the point of disruption. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Having participated in the WP:NPOVN discussion, I agree with what Hemiauchenia, Loki, Bon courage, and Firefangledfeathers said. Thomas B is stonewalling by reverting additions to the Controversy section of the Tim Hunt article despite consensus against em. And indeed, this user has been removing large amounts of content from that section for 4 years. I'm also under an impression that the amount and frequency of comments made by this user is distractingly excessive, going against WP:BLUDGEONING. Overall, I find Thomas B's behavior rather disruptive.

I suggest for the page protection to be lifted and the RfC to be withdrawn, as I think both are going to be a needless time sink. Given that Thomas B was warned already but continued to revert afterwards and appears to have violated WP:3RR, I suggest to appropriately sanction this user so that the disruption ceases. NicolausPrime (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

No comment on who is wright or rong but it's fully protected for a week so it can be discussed without reversions. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that is a great idea. It's already been discussed, quite a bit, at two different places, for over a week now. We're at the point where there is a clear consensus, and the issue is that the one in this WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY discussion keeps on reverting any change made to that section of the article. Loki (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Could someone, please, decide where this wretched debate is going to take place, so that those of us who failed to notice that a consensus-for-all-eternity was being formed in the last week, can take part in it? Elemimele (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

What a peculiar comment. The 'consensus for all eternity' being pressed is the the prior one which apparently cannot be changed because it has stood for a while! Remember WP:CCC. Bon courage (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've now made an RfC to hopefully resolve the dispute: Talk:Tim_Hunt#RfC:_2015_remarks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Hemiauchenia: thank you for this constructive step forwards. Elemimele (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have no personal knowledge of events before NPOVN, where I joined the discussion, which moved back to the talk page, but I agree that Thomas B seems very invested in defending Tim Hunt. I understand the BLP concern but accuracy always trumps accusations of libel. If true, the episode is important and Thomas B seems determined to omit it. As I pointed out, if weight is a concern, there is always the option to add favorable material. Surely this is possible when the subject has won a Nobel Prize. Elinruby (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

(somewhat later) As an illustration: [7] was written a half hour after the notice of this complaint was posted to his talk page, so apparently he thought it was an acceptable thing to say. Elinruby (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I have disengaged with Elinruby. I will not bother this user in the future. Thomas B (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, then I shall ask: could you please be clear whether you have any kind of connection to Hunt? Bon courage (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no connection to Hunt. Thomas B (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Thomas Basboll: what did you mean when you said "I followed the controversy closely at the time, and even participated in it, so I have lots to contribute."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I meant that I participated in online discussions about it on various platforms. Thomas B (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for page ban

To avoid spending even more time on this, I propose for Thomas Basboll to be page-banned from Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages per above evidence.

Pinging all the talk page and NPOVN discussion participants to weigh in: Elinruby, NicolausPrime, Barnards.tar.gz, JoelleJay, Hemiauchenia, Bon courage, LokiTheLiar, Firefangledfeathers, Zanahary, Elemimele, JayBeeEll.

• Support as proposer. Thomas B has been edit warring, repeatedly reverting others to maintain the stripped-down version e created even after being warned against stonewalling by the administrator Firefangledfeathers and in violation of WP:3RR. The user has been also posting an excessive amount of comments in the discussions, which constitutes WP:BLUDGEONING. This user's POV is clearly too strong to participate in these pages constructively. NicolausPrime (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I came in here with thoughts of making a similar proposal. This topic is clearly very important to the user for whatever reason, and he has repeatedly said that various editors including Firefangledfeathers [8] who do not ascribe to his point of view do not understand the issues.[9] What he said to me imho reaches the level of a personal attack. (see above) But back to Thomas B: He seems, beyond the issues of tone, to feel a strong need to argue individual points made by other editors one by one in favor of there being nothing sexist at all about calling women "girls" or joking that they present a problem. There seems to be no question that he is impeding quite a reasoned discussion of how best to report this because he feels that it should not be reported at all.[10] [11]Elinruby (https talk) 19:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Puzzled. This strikes me as a bit over-the-top. As I recently said[12], I'm happy to disengage from the whole disussion voluntarily until the page is unprotected. After that, I'm sort of assuming that the consensus is so heavily against me that I can't have any say on the article page, given the constraints of 3RR. I had intended to keep offering criticism and suggestions on the talk page, however. I think banning your critics is a bad idea. Thomas B (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Partial support; I support a temporary page ban but not a permanent one yet. I honestly don't think Thomas B's behavior on talk pages is really that terrible, though it's not great. But his behavior when actually editing the Tim Hunt article has been bright-line edit warring against a clear consensus, in addition to POV pushing. My understanding is that it's very normal for admins to impose temp page bans against users that edit war like this. Loki (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Temporary would be OK. It would cut down on the time sink involved in fixing the issue and maybe pierce his utter certitude that the people he is bludgeoning are either acting in bad faith or simply can't or won't read. Permanent is not in the cards anyway for a relative newbie with no prior blocks. If he picks the behaviour back up then a somewhat longer page block would be usual, I think. If I have that wrong hopefully an admin will tell us Elinruby (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Temporary is OK for me too. NicolausPrime (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is too heavy-handed. I've looked at the various discussions/talk page and his comments are not out of line. If he continues to edit war at the article in question, then a block for edit-warring is the remedy, not trying to ban someone you disagree with. There is a RfC currently underway, and consensus will decide this content dispute. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  The RfC is already SNOW and was before it started, as noted by Nemov [13] and Bon courage[14]

  This has gone on for four years, I hear, and Thomas still does not see the problems with his editing, which include:

  • Dismissing RS sources such as the Guardian (!) whose reporting he dislikes:[15][16][17]
  • Disrupting what otherwise seems to have been quite a collegial discussion: [18][19][20]
  • misconstruing policy [21] vs [22] and painting other editors as bullies:I just want to make sure that it's clear, at least in Hunt's own BLP, that he neither thinks ill of women nor was trying to make fun of them during his toast. He was trying to have fun with them.

  He isn't here for disagreeing with people, he is here for violating community norms.

  • Assuming bad faith [23]ff

  His love of reductio ad absurdum isn't great either since it results in subtle but important distortions of what other users actually said:

  • [24][25]
  • [26] and doubling down: [27] and [28] Also [29] He further did this here, saying that I think banning your critics is a bad idea when in fact nobody has proposed a ban, and it would not in any case be for a dispassionate critique of the writing of others. Elinruby (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Have to say, the "fun with women" comment certainly struck me as ... quite remarkable. Bon courage (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe go outside and have a breath of fresh air, have a cup of tea, go to some flea markets, distance yourself from Wikipedia for a few days, or in the alternative, just ignore him. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Moot in view of page protection and the RfC, but further edit warring should probably attract a sanction. Bon courage (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose If there is any sanction to be handed out, it should be to both parties in this content dispute. Having taken the time to look at the edit involved, the so-called quote shouldn't be mentioned for a number of reasons. Firstly, what was actually said was disputed, so putting it in Wikipedia's voice is accepting one version as the true one. That isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Secondly, text is a crap media for conveying nuance, the hosts of the event made clear the remarks were light hearted and jocular and hadn't offended anyone or spoiled the conference. In fact the only person seemingly offended was the journalist who reported them out of context. So those insisting that the quote should be included and edit warring to force it into the article as a WP:TAG team should receive a WP:TROUT. Moving on to the insistence of Thomas this be classed as online shaming. He is actually correct in that this is a view in the literature and Wikipedia should reflect the range of opinions in the literature. He is also correct in suggesting that the BLP article shouldn't be dominated by this controversy and its appropriate to link to the online shaming article. He is also correct in seeking to resolve matters on the noticeboards. Where he is wrong is in edit warring to remove it, though I understand the dilemma of a wikipedia editor being the lone voice. The motion for a topic ban is an example of an inappropriate use of ANI, it seeks to remove one party who has a valid opinion, with the aim of clearing the decks to impose the views of the other side in a content dispute. As such I strongly oppose a topic ban. WCM_email 08:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as a bit too heavy-handed. I think it's important we are able to debate things in which people have strongly-held views. Of course a "lone voice" must be prepared to give way as consensus turns against them, but lone voices can also make valuable points that the rest of us have missed. It's important to Wikipedia that we don't deter those who adopt a minority viewpoint. Bans have a strong chilling effect, and should be used with extreme caution. In this case, TB's most unhelpful action was starting discussions in multiple locations, worth a smallish trout. The focus on his personal motivations by other editors is equally worthy of a small trout. So, distribute fish as needed, and leave it at that! Elemimele (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  The proposal is for a short page block. Not a ban. Ban is his straw man Elinruby (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Proposal for page ban is literally the name of this sub-section and the proposal presented - I propose for Thomas Basboll to be page-banned. A proposal for a "short page block" is an entirely different ballgame. As it is written, it is not a straw man. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  You really want to argue with people about what they are asking for? He is fixated on that one page. It isn't necessary to ban him from other pages, shrug. The people trying to edit the page want to be able to edit the page, is all. Elinruby (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  No argument, just merely pointing out what the editor's proposal explicitly stated - I propose for Thomas Basboll to be page-banned from Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages. That is a specific remedy being "asked for", and the proposer confirms - "these pages" - in his !vote. If it isn't "necessary to ban him from other pages", then the wording of the proposal should probably be changed. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  And just for the record, I would support a short-page block if he continues to bludgeon the talk page, and admin discretion allows for that remedy without any proposals being presented, but as this proposal is written, I don't support that. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am unsure what you mean here. (And for the record I'm also confused by Elinruby's comments as well, for similar reasons.) The usual difference between a block and a ban on here is that a ban is a sanction that prohibits editing something, while a block is the technological enforcement of said sanction. As such, a block necessarily implies a ban, which is what is confusing me here: it's possible to page-ban someone without page-blocking them, but not the other way around. Loki (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  The way it is worded and proposed is a community endorsed sanction banning the editor from editing Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages, which would mean that the ban could only be lifted after a successful appeal to the community, usually after anywhere from 6 months to a year, from what I've witnessed before in these type of similar community proposed sanctions. Whereas, a block and/or page block would be for a set period of time with an expiration date, unless it is indefinitely. I didn't see a proposal for a set period of time, which is why I interpreted it to mean a community endorsed ban that must be appealed to the community to be lifted. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have seen three and that is what I meant by "short". But come to think of it, an even shorter block/ban would accomplish the goals of

  1. allowing a return to the reverted consensus version
  2. working out any minor differences over wording that may still exist

  I think that requiring an appeal (isn't that for a topic ban?) would just perpetuate the waste of time that this has been.

  Also, I think the other editors in that discussion are capable of working out a wording that satisfies weight + accuracy + BLP without the suggestions and guidance of Thomas. Oh and if I muddied the waters here by using the wrong word then my apologies to all for that. I read "page" as meaning p-block and assumed that other people would also Elinruby (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I see. I think I have done all I can as a fresh opinion here so I am pretty much out of the discussion, but to clarify my apparently badly-stated position: I am under the impression that the scope of the proposal is this one page, Tim Hunt, and associated talk, and that other editors believe it is the entire project and that is why they think it is too heavy-handed. Hth. It sounds like Isaidnoway and I actually agree, given their last statement and that clarification. Elinruby (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  The only remark I saw worthy of a page ban was [30] "I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood." I would say anyone holding such a fixed view and openly declaring they're not going to listen to counter arguments shouldn't be editing that page. WCM_email 07:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but does he not claim to be misunderstood? Did he not refer to him female co-workers as "girls"? Did he not say that there was a problem with them? As for a page ban for me -- sure, random cowboy admin is always in the cards. But I think it's pretty obvious ti anyone that cares to look that I've never touched the article and not only didn't plan to do so, but still don't.

  So stop with the aspersions please, as I just told you at the talk page. I'm just an editor who commented on a noticeboard and came to a conclusion that you don't like. This is the third time I have happily gone off to other topics. Bye now. You can have the last word if you like. Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Some of the oppose comments have a tone that suggests they think this is a site ban, when the proposal is simply to restrict editing these specific pages. NicolausPrime's reasons for as proposer are well articulated and persuasive, especially the matter of Thomas Basboll's WP:BLUDGEONING and stonewalling. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Speaking for myself, I can read, I know it is not a site ban. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I also understand this to be a proposal for a page-specific ban covering Tim Hunt and online shaming and their talk pages. I don't really see how @NicolausPrime's proposal can be read any other way. The aim seems to be to speed the process of implementing changes along the lines of those @LokiTheLiar originally proposed by removing me from the conversation. I do indeed oppose them, and I think that any changes along those lines should be implemented, if at all, very slowly and carefully. I will respect a ban if that's what is decided but I really do think it's a bad idea to remove people who think you're wrong from a conversation about what to do, even (and perhaps especially) if you're very certain you're right. Thomas B (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• By my count there are 193 signed comments on Talk:Tim Hunt, of which 59 are by Thomas B. I see several places over several days in which they've suggested they'll step back, but it doesn't seem to be happening. My first choice would be for Thomas B to exhibit self-control and for other people to stop engaging with Thomas B in order to faciliate that; but since that seems not to be working, a short-term p-block from the page would be a reasonable second choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayBeeEll (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• I had 39 notifications from this page this morning. That's for 10-12 hours , mostly for Thomas or Wee Curry Monster casting aspersions. Revdel may be needed for possible BLP violations with respect to journalists, and yet another editor was told that they aren't competent to edit. That's the news from the front. ThomasB hasn't edited about anything else in months. Elinruby (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Elinruby, I would like to ask you to reduce your commenting frequency as well, both at Talk:Tim Hunt and here. I assume this discussion made you feel insulted at some point, but from my perspective your comments are starting to appear excessive too, and I would like not to make this matter even more intractable. I feel I already messed it up by not narrowing down the time of the original proposed page ban. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  While recognizing the bolding seems unnecessary and tonally ill-advised, I would add that I think this behavior from Thomas Basboll—repeated expressions that behavior will change, followed by repeated commissions of behavior—is concerning and strengthens the case for the proposed page ban. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Nod, you have a good point and I had already said I was out of it, but the 39 notifications and level of vituperation seemed remarkable enough for an update. As for the insult, oh well, but they've started on Bon courage now. Elinruby (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Lotobomymaster

The locked account LotobomyMaster has made another account named LotobomyMaster2. If anyone can set up a sock investigation and request for locking that would be cool. Toketaa^talk 13:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this should have been on the SPI. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

But the investigation page hasn't been made yet and I don't know how to do it. Toketaa^talk 13:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Go to WP:SPI and find the box that says "How to open an investigation" and follow the instructions. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

So, what you could do is, if you have Twinkle, go to the user page, click on TW in the top right corner, select ARV, then click the drop down menu and select sockpuppet from the menu. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't use tools. Toketaa^talk 13:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, the account has already been blocked. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The block might have been in response to the post here. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

oh someone did it already while we were having this conversation. Toketaa^talk 13:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Probably the fastest sockpuppet block ever. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved At this time, I wouldn't bother with an SPI. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yet another thread at ANI from this editor that didn't need to be here, and should have been submitted elsewhere. See User_talk:Toketaa#Use_of_ANI for context. Needs to stop. Daniel (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

sorry, I didn't know about SPI at the time of typing. You can partial block me from here if needed. Toketaa^talk 14:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Toketaa, For most functions, you can go to the search box and simply add WP: ahead of the topic you wish to find out more about (and locate the relevant noticeboards). For example WP:Sockpuppet; WP:Conflict of interest; WP:Copyright violation, and so on are shortcuts to some common topics for which we have guidance and policies. Also, Twinkle is very helpful and easy to use. I recommend you consider trying it out. — Diannaa (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The top of this page has a listing of commonly needed areas as well. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Toketaa, was there any reason why you reverted to restored poorly-sourced (WP:PRIMARY) material not once but twice? Daniel (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not know what was happening. I just tried to revert the one that was flagged as vandalism. Toketaa^talk 14:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

17:44, 5 February 2024: edited to remove the content. 17:47, 5 February 2024: edited to add the content. If you don't know what is happening, maybe just leave it for others? Scolaire (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I was just confused there, first I reverted the flagged vandalism, then rollbacked to the last edit before the edit war started. Toketaa^talk 15:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

A bit late, but just to add: if the socking is that level of obvious, AIV is often a better place to report it than SPI. Easier to report, and saves clerk manpower. (If there would be a 100% sure case for an impersonation block if they turned out to be different users, AIV is the place, otherwise SPI) ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 20:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

DE Block

Toketaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was unblocked because they magically quit socking and badgering editors long enough to get the standard offer (User_talk:Toketaa#Appeal_for_standard_offer) and I understand why they were procedurally unblocked. (Funny that they didn't know about SPI at the time of typing). But their disruption in the short time back has already been more trouble than their edits are worth. I was toying with a project-space block, but I'm really wondering whether we need their edits at all. If folks are in support of one more chance (again), I think this really should be the final straw because they seem both unable and unwilling to listen to the advice provided. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 00:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice made to user, courtesy pings to @Daniel Case @Bbb23 @NinjaRobotPirate @331dot who have actioned their blocks/unblock requests Star Mississippi 00:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really involved in this situation. However, I'll note that people are always going on about how "reblocks are cheap". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not know how to open an investigation, I did know what SPI was. Toketaa^talk 14:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I would say just 6 month partial block me from SPI and ANI and maybe RFPP and AIV, but if you wanna do indef partial its ok with me :) Toketaa^talk 15:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand; you are one single annoyed administrator away from being indef blocked sitewide. A block I am 99% sure will never be undone, based on your history. We are not interested in what block you think you deserve. You are going to (a) have to use your own willpower to avoid posting in project space, (b) not revert edits you don't understand just because they've been "flagged" as vandalism, and (c) generally stop being a timesink for other good faith editors, many of whom have been trying to help you. p.s. if your response to this is "I didn't understand SPI", I'll block you myself right now. Zero more careless edits. Literally zero. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• I believe that Toketaa should be indefinitely blocked sitewide. They've been unblocked for only a month, and they persist in exercising poor judgment in a number of areas, not just in project space. The core of the problem is their immaturity and inability to control their impulses, which, unfortunately, are often wrong. They also often acknowledge rebukes and seem to say they will do better, but they fail to do so. I do not believe they are malicious; nor do I believe they are socking again, but they are not an asset to the project. Some examples of bad judgment. They patrol edits by others as a sort of counter-vandalism. Yet, they often don't warn users when reverting them, even though they've been told by another editor and by me that they should. They also revert users for things other than vandalism, but don't provide an edit summary. Warning editors and providing edit summaries are not required, but undoing another editor's work without an edit summary is not something anyone should be doing - unless it's vandalism or at least something akin to vandalism. They even have on their userpage (not sure when they put it on because they mess around with their userpage frequently) the following: "I revert all vandalism but only warn user accounts, not IP's." OTOH, it's very honest, but OTOH it's not a thing I'd brag about. Same thing in a userbox that they revert users "manually", not with Twinkle. That's because they don't like using "tools". Okay, their privilege, but why not? Apparently, I didn't object to the user being unblocked (must've had some discussion somewhere other than their Talk page because it isn't there and Daniel Case, who was the unblocker, said he would consult with me). Anyway, if the user is indeffed, I recommend an extended standard offer, at least a year before they can request an unblock and explain how they've changed. I just can't imagine that less than a year would cut it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  You assented to the unblock here.

  I do think they're sincere about wanting to do right, but I admit I don't know them as well as others here seem to and thus I defer to their judgement about a reblock. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the link. I agree about their sincerity, but, unfortunately, good intentions go only so far given all the points I've made above about their editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Welp... Goodbye... Been nice to see you :( Toketaa^talk 13:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• This (especially the edit summary) is just bizarre. Support indefinite block for CIR-related reasons. Daniel (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Ill just support, no rebuttal. Bye. Toketaa^talk 20:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Cynic in me wonders about the connection to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Something_horrifying_happened_to_me_this_afternoon_(based_on_my_time_zone,_Eastern_Time)... @Daniel Star Mississippi 01:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Reading that thread, I don't understand why NoobThreePointOh says that Toketaa "know[s] about this IP".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 I remember on that IP's talk page, I found one comment from Toketaa saying to the IP that Writ Keeper blocked the IP. So I'm just saying it based on assumption. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Was reverting the blanking but the block notice got caught up there so I had to add it back. Toketaa^talk 02:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's my take on it, too, it's actually fairly typical of Toketaa's interference in things that don't concern them. To the extent Star Mississippi is implying that the IP and and Toketaa are the same person, I seriously doubt it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Was gonna say this earlier on that thread but after FloquenBeam's comment I stayed silent for a while. Toketaa^talk 02:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry @Bbb23 that isn't what I meant to say. I'm just finding Toketaa and Noob's meddling a little curious. I have no doubt that Noob was harassed. But Tok is worried about folks finding them and Noob jumps in with an LTA so I think there's something else going on here. Star Mississippi 02:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi Definitely nothing with me. I'm just here to have a general discussion on certain comments. In fact, the LTA one where I commented is certainly true. I actually remember that user continuously closing AfDs, which is something I still kept in my mind until now. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Welp... Gotta go to bed now, so this will be my final comment. Farewell, and see you in around 1 year and 3 months. Toketaa^talk 02:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• This thread was started by Star Mississippi. My reading of their comments was that Toketaa should be sanctioned for their conduct since being unblocked last month, but SM wasn't sure whether it should be a project space pblock, a sitewide block, or a final warning. Since then, the thread has not attracted a great deal of attention. Daniel and I have explicitly stated that Toketaa should be indeffed. Daniel Case, the unblocking admin, appears to consent to a reblock. Floquenbeam, in their usual blunt style, gave Toketaa a zero-tolerance warning, but did not expressly object to a block. Toketaa, in their odd manner, supported an indefinite block, and posted "Blocked INDEF. Goodbye." to their userpage in anticipation. I'd like to wrap this up and will indefinitely block Toketaa unless someone objects (I believe I've pinged everyone involved). To be clear, my block would not be a community ban as there was no formal proposal or clear consensus to block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  No objection. See you in a year and 3 months. Toketaa^talk 16:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Confirming your assessment of my comments. The disruption I was most aware of was project space, which is why I started there. And confirming I have no objection to the original unblock. There was no policy based reason to retain the block. Star Mississippi 16:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Confirming I agree with your summary and support the proposed action. Daniel (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Earth6282

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

---

• Earth6282 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 180.74.218.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Disruptive editing, some bizarre edits, edit warring, serious lack of civility. These seem to belong to the same person. Wareno (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, that was quick. Keep up the good work. Wareno (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

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

172.56.232.3

This IP address (172.56.232.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has recently been replacing translingual text on many articles, including Kyokushin, Banpo Bridge, and many others. I have no knowledge of if this is policy or not, so I would like to request others to look into this user's contributions. I have reverted one of their edits, and they have reverted it back. I have not reverted it again for fears of a WP:3RR violation, so I would like to know more people's opinions. Thank you. 2003 LN6 20:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is at MOS:KO. The IP editor is removing Wiktionary links that are unlikely to be helpful. For example 극진 on the Kyokushin page is just a Korean transliteration of the Japanese name and has no other meaning here. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Alebir and the article Jannik Sinner

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

---

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

Ever since he won the Australian Open, the article Jannik Sinner has been a target for disruptive editing. Multiple IPs and User:Alebir have been particularly interested in replacing German town names with Italian town names, removing reference to Sinner coming from a predominantly German-speaking region, and removing reference to Sinner being a native German-speaker. All of them have in common that they removed sourced material and didn't provide any kind of explanation (there is none, of course, but they didn't even make an attempt). The IPs were temporarily dealt with here. This leaves us with Alebir, who has edited the article as explained above three times so far ([31], [32], [33]), and is unwilling to explain his edits either on the article's talk page or when asked to do so on User talk:Alebir. I suggest a temporary block. Mai-Sachme (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The towns are in italian territory of course the Italian names have precedence and regarding German being his mother tongue is false because he speaks a dolomitic dialect completely unintelligible with standard German. Alebir (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Alebir: Will you promise to immediately stop editing that article and start a discussion at Talk:Jannik Sinner? You've received multiple warnings about how you're breaking policy. City of Silver 22:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Editor indefinitely blocked for "Disruptive editing: edit warring, single purpose account, failure to discuss on talk pages, failure to establish consensus when challenged (BRD)". Daniel (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Editor page blocked from one article moving to related article

XMcan (talk · contribs) was page blocked from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and its talk page for disruptive editing. Since then, the majority of their editing has been to James A. Lindsay and that article's talk page. Their focus has been to remove mention of Lindsay's promotion of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory([34], [35], [36], [37], [38]). There has been other disruption along the way, such as reverting attempts to add sourcing or labeling edits they disagree with vandalism. I submit that the disruption the block was intended to prevent has simply moved to a new article. Can something be done about this? MrOllie (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• One thing I want to point out here is that XMcan said, here, on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, that it was decade since us dinosaurs broached our concerns about that article (in a context where they were generally discussing, and showing familiarity with, decade-old Wikipedia disputes on that topic.) Yet XMcan's edit history has only five edits prior to December 2022, none on that topic. The dispute on that topic a decade ago involved a large number of WP:SPIs, throwaway accounts, and so on, many of whom ended up facing sanctions for the sort of behavior XMcan is exhibiting now; I suspect it's possible that XMcan is among that number and switched accounts to evade scrutiny. Their response when I asked them about this - which I think was a reasonable thing to ask, under the circumstances, in order to give them a chance to explain the discrepancy - was to deflect. --Aquillion (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  I had never even heard of CMCT/FSCT until November '23 when I first stumbled upon the Lindsay BLP. The dinosaur reference was simply an inartful quip about my age. Can we please refrain from making further bad-faith aspersions? XMcan (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  @XMcan:, regardless of your age, how can you have "broached our concerns" a decade ago about something you first heard of last year? Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  What I remember about the post in question is that I had just finished reading the 2014 Slate article, which explains the history behind FSCT/CMCT/CM pages and how they were merged. I was excited to learn that even the great JW shared my misgivings about the CM=CMCT equivalency. In my excitement to show how JW and I are on the same side of this issue, I misspoke. BTW, it was that Talk post that led to my p-block. XMcan (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  To state the obvious, there's no guarantee Jimbo was ever on the same side as you, at least in a temporal sense. What Jimbo felt in 2014 might not be what they felt nearly 10 years later, and you didn't feel it until recently. Those of us who are actually dinosaurs in a Wikipedia sense have been on various "sides" of this throughout the years. Plenty of editors still feel the same they did 10 years ago, but some don't.

  Anyway if you had offered this explanation when asked the first time, I think plenty of us would have been willing to accept that at face value. (I mean I think we can all accept you misspoke, but there are various ways that might have happened.)

  But the fact you've been persistently evasive about it and we've had to drag something resembling an explanation out if you, means the existing doubts are compounded. There might not be enough for any sanction, but we're all free to disengage from you when it isn't necessary. In this case, while you seem to have raised some legitimate concerns (without having looked at the sources), I have no desire to help someone who could be a sock; and the BLP issues seem to minor to worry so I doubt I'll look into it further. I might not be the only one.

  Consider this carefully the next time you decide to evade legitimate concerns about your activity. Plenty of us actual dinosaurs, for good reason based on long experience, detest socks, and are very reluctant to get anywhere near anything involving them unless it's to counter them and we feel we can do it fairly. If there are socking concerns and these are unanswered, this might lead to the same result. Sometimes the concerns are great enough that we get involved anyway, but not always. Socks never seem to understand that they're generally achieving the opposite of what they seem to aim to achieve.

  Nil Einne (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  To give a different example of what I mean about the temporal issue, let's say an 18 year old, opposed to same-sex marriage says Barack Obama shares the same views as me! In that cases it's an even weirder statement since we actually know he doesn't. Yes when this person was about 2 years old, Obama may have said something similar about same-sex marriage. But by the time this person was about 7, Obama had already came out fully in favour of same-sex marriage Social policy of the Barack Obama administration#Same-sex marriage. So to get so excited about the fact their views matched at different points in time, is just odd. To be clear, I'm not aware Jimbo has expressed any differing views on the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, it's not something I care about. I just find it odd you'd get so excited about something nearly 10 years old, when the world especially the US and Wikipedia, and I'm fairly sure Jimbo Wales has moved on a lot since then. For example, this was before Trump's presidency run and so before post-truth, alternative facts, fake news and the Intellectual dark web took on their modern realities in the US political environment. (For example, consider that Dave Rubin was still with the TYT at the time.) It was also at a time when Fox News caused some concerns but their news arm was often an acceptable source without question especially outside of politics and science since they hadn't yet gone all in with the election results denial angle. I mean heck Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources didn't even exist, and WP:DAILYMAIL style source deprecation had never happened. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether there any reason to believe that extending the partial block to also cover James A. Lindsay would do any good? Having already migrated from one venue to another, taking the disruption with them, it seems likely that this would just be repeated in a third place. Maybe a topic ban from anything related to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory could do the trick but I am doubtful. DanielRigal (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

XMcan's reverts here are not disruptive. This article has a blatant BLP issue, and XMcan has challenged content that I have also challenged, within a WP:BRD process. What's being attempted here in this ANI is to silence and minimize dissent through sanctioning. This is a move we've seen many times before, and it's the reason we have a huge bias problem across Wikipedia when it comes to politically-charged topics. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

As Jweiss11 correctly points out, this is first and foremost a content dispute. Editors can scan through the current Talk discussion and assure themselves that my posts are civil and on-topic, unlike some other posts, which have, in some cases, focused on the messenger rather than the message. Whenever I mentioned the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory in Talk, it was solely in relation to the BLP and not as a soapbox about the CMCT article. (e.g., [39]) I’ve learned my lesson from Valereee’s ban not to soapbox in Talk, a fact that they can hopefully confirm in this ANI.

Meanwhile, Aquillion and MrOllie have been repeatedly trying to add new controversial material to the BLP without addressing already raised problems with the existing statements/sources. (e.g., [40][41][42] ) When challenged on policy grounds such as WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH and in contravention of consensus from prior discussions, and in contravention of WP:BLPUNDEL, they still restore this content falsely claiming consensus or asserting that there is no need for further discussion.[43][44][45] This approach is not helpful on any article, let alone on a BLP, where the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

In summary, rather than solving this content dispute through Talk or bringing it to the appropriate venue, such as the BLP noticeboard, MrOllie and Aquillion are attempting to silence and intimidate dissenting voices. This constitutes a misuse of the ANI process. Therefore, a boomerang for both parties should be considered. XMcan (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Responding to ping. XMcan, it's completely appropriate to call out an editor's behavior in a content dispute; that's not focussing on the messenger. It isn't inappropriate to ask about a statement you've made that implied you might be a returned editor using a new account. It's also completely appropriate for someone to bring what they in good faith believe is a behavior issue to ANI.

That said, at a BLP, continuing to argue against content when there's not clear consensus to include it is something we should encourage. Especially when it's at articles about US conservatives. We do in fact have a tendency to treat such subjects less neutrally.

That said, XMcan is a bit long-winded -- XM, I'd definitely recommend you learn how to write short -- and it's very hard to tell whether there's bludgeoning or sealioning going on. I just brought a case of very clear sealioning here, the worst I've ever personally been involved with, and only two admins apparently were willing to read the diffs because proving sealioning requires so many of them.

Is there any reason one of you hasn't opened an RfC or taken this to BLPN or NPOVN or whatever's the most appropriate noticeboard? Valereee (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Question and comment Question: was the tban for a specific article or a topic. If an editor is tbanned from article A then they aren't allowed to edit the article or the talk page. If they are tbanned from the topic A then they can't edit article A or content about A at related articles. I would not view an article ban as a topic ban. Comment: I don't see any clear examples of problematic behavior at the BLP in question. I do see an editor who perhaps should be more brief/selective in their replies but that is about it. Certainly nothing that requires intervention or blocking based on what seem on the surface to be legitimate BLP concerns. Note that one may ultimately not have consensus for their BLP concerns but that doesn't mean their concerns were without merit. Springee (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  There was no tban, it was a p-block from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and its talk. Valereee (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Edit warring continues while this ANI is open [46]. This includes deleting a newly added cite to a peer-reviewed journal under the false claim that its use is SYNTH - please, read the [47] article in question and do not be taken in by the misleading summaries offered in this thread. Promotion of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory by Lindsay and the other figures examined is the main topic of the citation. - MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  It seems that content is in dispute and given this is a BLP and NOCON it's probably best to run a RfC to decide if the material should be included. Springee (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Parminekhosravi continuing unsourced edits after final warning

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

---

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

Editor continuing to add unsourced material and WP:OR after multiple warnings (see their talk page). After their final warning yesterday ([48]), they still did this. Examples of earlier unsourced comments or unjustified deletions: [49], [50], [51], [52], etc. R Prazeres (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

They got blocked. Possibly in response to this post. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Something horrifying happened to me this afternoon (based on my time zone, Eastern Time)...

Pinging the two editors who know about this IP: @Toketaa and @Writ Keeper. Remember that IP, User:63.115.31.130, which Writ Keeper blocked until 2026? Well, it got pretty horrible this afternoon. I was sitting during lunch at my school, browsing through Wikipedia, when I noticed on my phone that I had like 6 alerts from Wikimedia Commons. I opened them up, and yeah. It was bad. This IP had written racist statements on my Wikimedia Commons talk page, saying I'm a "curry-munching fagmonkey who needs a pair," "I should get a real job instead of sitting on Wikipedia," etc. I reverted those edits, thinking the IP was just trying to annoy me again, and then it became worse during my journalism class. Somehow, some way, the IP had leaked my mom's first name on his next message. And I don't even know how he did it. Nobody knows my mom's first name.

Now thankfully, he got globally blocked by a steward, Superpes15. Unfortunately though, while he's blocked on MediaWiki and Meta-Wiki for sending messages like this, he hasn't been exclusively blocked on Wikimedia Commons, and his global block only lasts until Feb. 7. I'm still a bit shaken up from this event, and I'm nervous that he might start these messages again. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I noticed this on Commons earlier today (he was harassing another editor in a particularly vile way). If he comes back - it's from a high school in Massachusetts - you can make a request at m:SRG for a longer block. I don't see any useful contributions from that IP going back a long way. Antandrus (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Should I add a school IP notice? Feels appropriate for this IP. (Edit, it's already added.) I like Astatine (Talk to me) 03:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Probably. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Roger roger. Also we should keep the IP and where it leads in mind, I remember of reading on the school IP notice that we can contact the school if this continues as bad as it is - though I can't remember if that's still an option. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 03:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure necessarily if one user or several others are editing from the IP, but I also remembered that he kept creating accounts with names attacking me, which I knew were 100% socks. Thankfully, all of them were blocked. I'm grateful to the admin who did that. Still have to keep a watch on the IP address itself, though. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry you had to go through this. Given the degree of harassment going on here, I'd recommend sending an email to WMF Trust & Safety. In the meantime, a few things: (1) perhaps an admin could temporarily semi-protect NoobThreePointOh's user and talk page to avoid getting a bunch of harmful messages (you'd have to reach out to an admin on Commons for it to apply over there -- WP:DISCORD and email are options if you'd rather keep it off-wiki); (2) you may want to reevaluate what personally identifying information you share in public places. Send me a message if you're not sure what I'm talking about. It's not ideal that we have to thing about such things, but the reality of making public decisions on a public website that allows anonymous comments is that you will attract a jerk once in a while. (3) if you're worried about notifications, there are a lot of options available at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. Adding one more thing, if a Commons admin is seeing this, there's some revdel work that needs to happen in the history of NTPO's usertalk. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to send a message to the SD attached to this IP and let them know of this? I think with the scope of the actions taken here it might be a good idea for someone in the facility to know. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 03:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Might ask Trust & Safety's opinion on that. Some of the edit summaries/messages are overt threats. Probably wouldn't be considered "credible threats", but it's all extreme enough that it might be worth sending to someone. Looks like it's not their first IP -- another one in Maynard, MA, looks to have been used to mess with Y2hyaXM, too. At minimum, persistent disruption by students can lead to range blocks that ultimately affect the ability of other students (and teachers/staff) to be able to edit Wikipedia, which is something they may be interested in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel N3PO should decide if that's a good idea. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 03:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

A few more of their IP addresses can be found in the edit history of w:Sharon Green Middleton—they've been targeting me for the past few months after I reverted one of their racist edits to that page. Y2hyaXM (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I'll get on the line with Trust and Safety. Edit: sent. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 04:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, after just 6 hours of sleep, I surprisingly feel much better now. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Since I've sent the email to Trust and Safety, I haven't gotten a response yet. So I'll keep on it. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 22:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

That's good. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The times I've contacted them, they are not prompt to respond (not even a quick receipt with tracking-number). That's not a good look for them IMO. It seems like they are higher-level and eventual handling/longer-term support and sometime handoffs to [arbcom, CU/OS, etc] at periodic meetings rather than immediate handling of acute issues (unless I guess severe enough for WP:EMERGENCY?). DMacks (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to hear that, @NoobThreePointOh. If anything like this happens again, please send me an email and I will handle it for you. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 02:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity Yeah, no problem. The incident has just gone from my memory now, so I feel much better. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@NoobThreePointOh: I protected your user talk for some days; if you're not ok with that, just ping me. Lectonar (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It's fine. now I feel really good. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

playing with rules, ignoring any sources at StoreDot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HueSurname A user, HueSurname, has been consistently reverting any new edits, irrespective of their source or relevance. This includes information from reputable sources such as The Guardian and Electrek, among others, which are being dismissed as "press releases" without valid justification. The current state of the page is heavily biased, overemphasizing statements from the CEO (and youtube video) and outdated promises, while neglecting recent developments and balanced viewpoints. This persistent exclusion of relevant and reliable sources has resulted in a disproportionate representation of the subject.

In accordance with Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and reliable sourcing, I propose the following:

• A review of the recent edits and the sources deemed unreliable by HueSurname.
• An evaluation of the current content for balance and adherence to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy.
• Consideration of a temporary restriction on HueSurname's editing rights if it is found that their actions violate Wikipedia's editing policies.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. --2A02:2149:8BDB:B00:E9A0:470:B1A5:6F1E (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I just took a look at the sources in the previous revision before he reverted it, and yes, they removed information from The Guardian and Electrek. Probably can get an admin to put a temporary block or simply a warning on their talk page. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The Electrek reference was buzzword salad from various press releases. The Guardian source is fine and was removed because it supported promotional language and nothing more; the source itself is fine if it were used for proper purposes. Why is an edit from more than a year ago being brought up now? By some random IP address editor? HueSurname (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• As the big notice atop the page says, This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This was already resolved by talk page discussion a year ago, and there is no chronic behavioral problem being alleged, so I think that this should be swiftly closed as stale and moot. If one doesn't like how the talk page discussion a year ago went, and wishes to challenge the edit from January 2024 that re-instated the consensus from back then, then the article talk page is the place. This is an extremely ordinary content dispute, but for the IP opening this thread. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

IP Adding partial block

Hi, could we add Manuel Luís Goucha to the list of partial blocks for this IP range 2A00:23C7:F915:8901:E874:F73A:26D5:AE14 due to persistent vandalism? Thanks, 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Also, blocked the /64 range for 3 months with a non partial block for good measure. PhilKnight (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

BlueVizoR

• BlueVizoR (talk · contribs)

The above editor has been given multiple warnings for their editing issues since starting here in August of last year; they started out trying to push that somehow the Pluto TV version of Spike, a defunct channel, is somehow more important than its pay-TV replacement, the Paramount Network, along with overloading templates for the networks of Paramount Global and Warner Bros. Discovery with anything that's ever existed for those entities. They also have front-dated the articles for defunct networks with predecessor companies where those channels have never existed for them and 'corrected' items in articles that are complete falsehoods, such as this example for The CW.

Lately, they have been modifying image sizes in infoboxes. However, as they're editing in mobile mode for every single edit, they're unable to discern how these changes affect the article in regular viewing mode. They have been warned many times to stop editing image sizes without comparing in desktop mode, but outside one clueless reply in September on their talk page for that CW edit, have not acknowledged any talk messages whatsoever. In their latest wave, I implored them to acknowledge multiple messages on their talk in an edit summary, with no response, so it's clear they know about their user talk page even in mobile mode, but are choosing to not listen to anyone. One of their latest edits shows a complete lack of CIR, and I'm worn from trying to keep them from doing any further damage. Nate • (chatter) 22:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• An indef is called for, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. I can't see why this user would even bother to contribute constructively after multiple warnings. We told them, but they wouldn't listen. So I agree with Jusdafax. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have indefinitely blocked BlueVizoR for disruptive editing. In order to be unblocked, the editor must agree to communicate with other editors and respond to their concerns. I see that a large percentage of their edits have been reverted, so they are improving the encyclopedia far less than disrupting it, and they are creating unnecessary work for other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Do you mean disrupting it far less than improving it? JM (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  No, Cullen means what he said. What he means is that the editor is doing more disruption rather than improving the site itself. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Somehow I read it wrong and then rewrote it wrong... this is a sign that I'm too sick to be here right now, I'll take a break lol JM (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  I mean that their disruptive editing has damaged the encyclopedia much more than any of their possible marginal improvements, which are not readily visible to me, JM2023. Cullen328 (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's what I thought you were trying to say, but I accidentally read it wrong and instead thought you had written it wrong, I've got to be more careful JM (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  It's fine. Again, every editor, including the admins, tend to make mistakes quite a bit. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Joy and “self control issues”

User:Joy has some issues with self control. Yestarday I've recieved some threats on my IP's talk page and on article talk page. Today he's still continuing with bullying.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:46.188.178.195
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serb-Catholic_movement_in_Dubrovnik

Examples:

• "Please find a better hobby, don't try to abuse Wikipedia like this, it's just bad."
• "You're very adept at this kind of wikilawyering, which makes me believe we're dealing with repeat business here."
• "You've been notified of the rules of decorum a sufficient number of times already; further violations will lead to a block." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.142.181 (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Your first step is to make sure that you are not abusing Wikipedia, are refraining from Wikilawyering, and are following the "rules of decorum", which I interpret to be the policies and guidelines related to editor behavior. To be frank, these comments are curt and not very friendly, but they address editor conduct rather than rising to the level of actual personal attacks. Based on the evidence you have presented so far, I do not see anything here that requires action by administrators. Try respectful discussion with the other editor instead of anything that could reasonably be construed as wikilawyering. Cullen328 (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Than you for looking into it, I only responded on this user's attacks. I hope you had the sam discussion with User:Joy about WikiBullying, especially about:

• WP:POV railroad
• WP:No personal attacks
• WP:No-edit orders

46.188.142.181 (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a classic, in the same 24h I've been accused of "promoting a Greater Serbian agenda" and "retarded ustasha kleptomaniac claims" by two different anonymous warriors. --Joy (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you're doing something wrong in your editing and communication with other editors. You started by accusing me to be "Kubura" You have replaced every mention of "Croatian" to "Slavic" in my edit by forging the quotes of several authors to suit your (and Greater Serbian) POV. It is sad that you're trying to prove the Serbian identity of Dubrovnik in XIX century by denying Croatian identity since XIII. 46.188.142.181 (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

No, I did not tell you you were Kubura, I told you you were parroting their edits while removing 6-year-old citation-needed tags from them. It's hard to continue assuming good faith from you when you keep misinterpreting everything in some sort of a malicious manner over and over again. Perhaps I'm not as patient as I once was, but there's only so many ways to try to engage someone who clearly isn't receptive to it. --Joy (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Jaymailsays

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

---

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

This user has received many warnings from different users, mostly for tendentious editing, BLP violations and edit warring.

At least seven warnings, five from different administrators:

• [53]

• [54]

• [55]

• [56]

• [57] (1 warning from admin and 2 warnings from other users just in the last month)

And more warnings previously from other users:

• [58]

• [59]

• [60]

• [61]

• [62]

Their talk page is so long that all those warnings are easily overlooked (I didn’t notice them the first few times I was there). It is obvious that this user is creating a time sink for the community and also continuously disrupting the project. Given their recent multiple problematic edits and reverts that other users have also complained on their talk page, (e.g., Brendan Kavanagh, [63] unreasonable threatening of blocks against other user in edit summary, etc.) and their edit warring behaviour, BLP violations and tendentious editing, etc., I believe further disciplinary action is warranted. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

While I am pretty sure these complaints had merit, could you evidence that please? Bon courage (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

There are over 12 warnings mentioned above filed by many different users including 5 administrators (but not including me). Which one do you want (me) to evidence?

FYI, more evidence can be found on thier talk page. Respectfully, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This page has hundreds of watchers. Your report amounts to "other people have complained about this guy, here are some links which might or might not give you the means to assess the merit of those complaints, about which I offer no opinion". This is a kind of meta-policing which can waste a lot of editors' time as they go down rabbit holes looking for evidence. Please, if YOU have evidence of disruption, present links to that disruption with your assessment briefly given and the remedy you seek. The last thing we want is for ANI to be a place for complaints of the kind "this editor has been warned a lot; might be worth looking into everyone!". Bon courage (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the first time I file a case at ANI. I expected that there would be help from senior editors (e.g, to provide evidence) like you in case my post above is not good enough from your point of view. I hope you are not implying that I’m the one creating the time sink. I have already provided some evidence above in addition to the links to warnings. I’m not sure whether you’ve read them or why you hadn’t commented on them.

Phrases like: “If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.” and “... can result in you being blocked from editing” have been added to their talk page more than once by different editors and administrators. If the phrases are meaningless, they should be removed from all warning templates.

My report is not “ other people have complained about this guy” as you said. It is: “Twelve editors have warned this guy, including five administrators.”

I have already spent time providing the 13 links above. Two editors other than me plus two administrators had raised concerns on their talk page in the past 2 days. If you believe that the user should be allowed to further waste the community’s time and disrupt the project, I’m fine with that. You tone really scare me off. Respectfully, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

You did a good job of providing diffs, but I agree with Bon courage that they do amount to, "other people (12 of them) have complained about (warned) this guy". Just as courts don't allow hearsay, so too with ANI; those warnings are proof only that the user has been warned. They could have been given in error (even administrators make mistakes!) or somesuch. If you feel there is a problem, you're welcome to provide diffs of Jaymailsays doing the things they've been warned about. We're all volunteers; many editors don't want to dig through someone's history because there may be a problem, so to make it easy for them to action something, it's best to present all the evidence in a row (in a format like you did with the warning diffs, above). I hope that helps clarify things. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah ... I’m just trying to be a “good citizen” and report “offences” that I know. I’ve provided the information on “when/who/where/what” already. Further information is just one two clicks away (the warnings on user talk already have diffs the links to the articles). I don’t know/think that I have to be the detective too ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC); edited 17:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

the warnings on user talk already have diffs ← I checked the first couple and they didn't. Bon courage (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Echoing what Bon courage said above; the ones I looked at didn't provide diffs. Some led to pages, but I'd have to dig through the history, and don't have the context to know what diffs are worth investigating. Please understand that A) I don't [think] I have to be the detective means you're expecting someone else to do the work for you. B) You probably don't WANT them to take action based on user warnings; anyone can post a warning, whether warranted or not. I've seen disruptive editors posting retaliatory warnings on their reporter's talk pages. Requiring diffs of behavior, not warning, protects the innocent. If you don't want to go through that trouble to make reports, that's okay, I'm just telling you what increases the odds of an administrator acting. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I can’t agree that “disruptive editors posting retaliatory warnings” is comparable to this case. I don’t think we have as much as twelve disruptive editors or five *disruptive* administrators there. If so, we may say any administrator acting on this board *disruptive* too. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I’d be happy if people can be patient and see if other users will help providing more evidence, or, better yet, help providing diffs themselves instead of saying something that seems to be putting the good citizen to trial (immediately after a case was filed) ... but it’s nothing to do with you EducatedRedneck, it is likely because a user (the one posted before you) isn’t getting along very well with me ... I’m sorry that you got involved ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Bonthefox3 and adding the "controversial" tag to talk pages, again

• Bonthefox3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous block

Bonthefox3 was previously blocked by DMacks last month for indiscriminately adding the "controversial" tag to talk pages, after many warnings. Even on Talk:Cat, for example, which I'd think is pretty uncontroversial.

They've continued again a month later, adding the tag to numerous pages about bras, bikinis, and underwear. I'd just ping DMacks normally in this situation but Bonthefox3 seems to be adding these tags at light speed and not responding to warnings. Endwise (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Right after my 31-hour block on January 8 expired, they resumed the behavior, and I warned it would result in another block. Even today, when called on it with level1 and then level4 warning, they promised to stop, then even did it again on one of the same pages (always without edit-summary) that another User:Meters specifically identified (in usertalk and editsummary) as inappropriate. So that's edit-warring also. And then jumped to editing the Wikipedia:Harassment policy page to make a factual change to the definition of Harassment in the first sentence. Their userpage is full of all kinds of deceptive userboxes and talkpage evidences inability to communicate clearly in English (let alone honestly or constructively respond to concerns). DE? CIR? Take your pick. DMacks (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they need to be topic banned from adding templates and tagging in general. Canterbury Tail talk 14:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

And now they're tagging articles of clothing as being part of the pornography project. Canterbury Tail talk 14:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I think your one-week block is exceptionally generous, Canterbury Tail. I spot-checked a few, and they are generally bogus, so I undid the lot of them that others hadn't already. DMacks (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that myself. I'm considering changing it to an indef and they need to convince the community to get their editing rights back, due to their wilful breaking of promises and stubborn disruption. Canterbury Tail talk 15:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I've changed this to an indef. They need to convince us all to regain their editing rights, not just wait out a short period of time. Canterbury Tail talk 15:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the other talk pages that were tagged. I think they may be tagging things as controversial based on whether they are controversial on vi:. Definitely not helpful though. Secretlondon (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

User: Yotrages

On the article about singer Wizkid, User: Yotrages is purposely altering direct quotes and violating WP: NPOV. Following my correction of his fake altered quotes in the "Legacy" section of the article, he's continuously restoring them despite being notified for it. Even after a lengthy message left by User: Vanderwaalforces on his talk page, he refuses to understand that a statement like “Wizkid is regarded as an African living legend” is not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NPOV. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

DollysOnMyMind is editing per his own opinion and violating WP:NPOV, he has removed lots of fairly written and reliably sourced contents without reason. He's also owning the article, he has already changed the article's lead section, in which I didn't revert. So he's also trying to change the whole page without tangible reasons, and based on some rubbish excuses. And he's even accusing me of being a fan of the artist, in which i'm not. Yotrages (talk) 16: 29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

“without reason”? I have written in every single edit summary of the article the reasons of my edits, that are: removing altered fabricated quotes, change the wording per WP: NPOV, and fixing genres per Wikipedia:Independent sources. Everyone can check that you altered almost every quote in the legacy section, please stop it.DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

These are your edits. You surely have some nerve accusing me of violating WP:NPOV. This is you, caught red handed altering quotes DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

 Note: @SarekOfVulcan: has increased the protection level of the Wizkid article to allow only administrators to edit it, which is a prudent measure to end the dispute between you two. As I mentioned here, please initiate a constructive discussion on the talk page of the article and address the NPOV issues, this is a simple matter that can be resolved without involving any administrator who has other priorities to deal with. The WP:3RR is there to advise us, but you both disregarded it.

@SarekOfVulcan please I would suggest that, in the future, the protection level should be reduced as its current level won't allow other productive editors who are not administrator to edit the article. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The full protection is set to expire tomorrow, so this shouldn't be an issue. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Great! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@DollysOnMyMind can you heard that? we both violated WP:NPOV, so don't act like you're doing a good job to the article. And I wasn't caught red-handed or whatever I rephrased those qoutes, and about the first one, I gave you three tangible source deeming him "One of the greatest". so I think you're on your own. Yotrages (talk) 4:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yotrages, no one said that Dolly's edits violated POV, but I'll say that your edits were not productive. Besides the overlinking and the excessive quoting, there's statements like this, "Wizkid's contributions to the Nigerian music industry have earned him several achievements"--no, he did not get a Grammy for contributing to the Nigerian music industry; he got one for best video, apparently. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing should not have editor permissions

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

---

This user should not be an editor on Wikipedia at all due to unprofessional and extremely rude behavior.

I was threatened multiple times in multiple ways in multiple messages by this user. They should not be editing for the brand Wikipedia. This is my first bad experience ever with Wiki after 3 plus years as an editor myself and 10 plus years of usership. I had to make the brand aware of @DoubleGrazing inappropriate behavior and hope this is my first and only bad experience with Wiki. It is unfortunate that this had to be escalated but I genuinely do not want other users to have a bad experience like I did. I'm learning how to correctly contribute to Wikipedia and will hopefully receive help from other editors and or moderators that are more professional and respectful.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartcake (talk • contribs) 15:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Smartcake You have made serious accusations; serious accusations require serious evidence. Please provide your evidence in the form of diffs detailing threats and of taking bribes and undisclosed monetary compensation. If you are not prepared to provide this evidence, you should withdraw your unfounded accusations and instead hear the advice you are being given. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I edited my response and removed any claims I have no evidence for. Thank you 331dot and others for educating me on Wikipedia Smartcake (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Your current post still doesn't contain any evidence. As 331dot said, please provide diffs that show the things you're claiming. — Czello ^(music) 16:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The evidence is in my message portal/message history on Wikipedia @Czello I edited my response. Smartcake (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not how this works. You need to make your case here and provide your evidence here. We won't go looking for it. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

You can't really expect people to go digging for it. If you want people to take your report seriously you need to bring the evidence here. — Czello ^(music) 16:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Smartcake: I have already asked you not to make unfounded accusations, and yet here you are again. You can call me rude if you wish; that is a subjective concept, and you're entitled to your opinion. I don't particularly like to be accused of threatening anyone, but even that I can live with, untrue as it may be. However, I happen to take the problem of paid editing very seriously, and will not put up with repeated mud-slinging of that sort without a hint of evidence.

And just for the record, I am not a 'moderator', never have been, and most likely never will be, nor have I ever claimed anything of the sort. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I have edited my response and still strongly feel you DoubleGrazing threatening me today warrants having editor permission revoked but that is Wikipedia decision not mine. Smartcake (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of these threats. Canterbury Tail talk 16:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I have good news for you if you think they shouldn't have moderator permissions: Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. Anyone can place a speedy deletion tag on a promotional page, it doesn't require any advanced permissions. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Smartcake I strongly suggest you retract the outrageous baseless accusations, and see WP:BOOMERANG. Theroadislong (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I have edited my response @Theroadislong Smartcake (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Please don't factor comments after they've been posted; this includes your own, especially if doing so would give a misleading picture of what has been said. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This is ridiculous at this point. You say that there is evidence, yet I don't see any. You promise to put it up: where is it. If anything, this is the clearest example of WP:BOOMERANG I've seen. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Canterbury Tail beat me to the block, so I obviously endorse it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Came here to do and say the same. Enough is enough. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Enough. They've admitted they're promoting their clients, paid or not. With the aspersions, personal attacks, and admission of promotion I've blocked them per WP:NOTHERE. No need to waste more time here. Canterbury Tail talk 16:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I was about to touch the brakes here to prevent pile-on of a newish editor who doesn't understand how things work here. We could all take a step back, draw a line, and move forward with no further poor comments from them, and not keep escallating while they try to find the evidence they claim exists. But Canterbury Tail raises the new, unrelated and serious problem of being less than honest about their promotional intent. So I'm no longer inclined to go easy on the other concerns, but instead that also adds to their incompatibility with being an editor here. Here are the details I noticed: [64] [65]. Not sure if CT was also seeing those and/or others. DMacks (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with DMacks regarding the recent(ish) uptick in overly-enthusiastic newer editors who are overly preoccupied with ANI and admin areas in general. I would hope that improving the encyclopedia would be more enticing than basking in drama, but alas, it appears not to be so. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Quissie

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

The new user Quissie appears to be making lots of unsourced or copyvio edits. I'm wondering if it is some sort of AI bot? It might be good for an admin to simply undo all of them, since there's a lot. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Looking at more of their edits, I think this is a real person, but they don't source things and they introduce errors in grammar or facts. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Noting that Inter has temporarily blocked Quissie and that several editors (including myself) have reverted some of the aforementioned edits. I'm inclined to believe that they are a real person and are not editing in bad faith, but rather with a bit of zeal coupled with not fully understanding some of the relevant policies and guidelines. I don't think there is anything else to do unless some pattern of problematic editing and/or lack of communication emerges once the block expires. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Eckstasy

Eckstasy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was reading Talk:Murder of Brianna Ghey after redacting her deadname (which, per MOS:GENDERID, doesn't belong, but that's another story for another day) and Eckstasy posts a comment: very ridiculous that Wikipedia has been made a politically correct playground for lefties, instead of being a factual source of information. Having the "dead name" would remove any confusion of biological identities. I feel like this is a personal attack. Also, it seems this editor isn't interested in doing constructive edits anymore: a lot of their recent contributions were reverted, with one on Huw Edwards even being revdelled. What to do? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow, what a history. Lots of reminders why I used to think Wikipedia was a trash website back in the early days. Back in those days, Holocaust denial got a finger wag, and if you were blocked for sock puppetry, your friend could just unblock you after being contacted offline. Anyway, indefinitely blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Tia Canita- Competence, copyright vios, etc.

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

Tia Canita, as you can tell by her talk page, is a persistent problem. She continually copies episode summaries from the seaon's page into the page for the article. Her grasp of the English language is also problematic, as many editors have had to clean up her articles due to grammar, spelling, and usage issues. At the very least, her autoconfirmed privileges should be revoked.

See The Walking Dead (season 11) episode summaries compared to New Haunts, Rogue Element, The Lucky Ones, Warlords, and The Rotten Core. Warlords shows how poorly she grasps the English language, as she tried to change the plot wording, but turned it into an incomprehensible mess. Afheather (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

At no time did I violate the author's rights, I only tried to improve the joints to those who accused me, I asked them from all hearts that didn't bother them to help me improve them, please. Tia Canita (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

You copied and pasted from one article to another, maybe making minor changes, or in the case of Warlords, turning it into a huge mess. That is a copyright violation. People shouldn't have to follow behind you fixing your mistakes. Instead of making a mess of English articles, why not write them for the Spanish wikipedia? Afheather (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, blocked. Good lord. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Boing! said Zebedee is making personal attacks against me.

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

---

Background of the Situation:

A few weeks ago I discovered a sentence on the page 2018 United States Senate election in California that I considered to be violent hate speech against the elderly. Originally I handled this situation very badly. I removed the sentence. When people reverted my edit, I was furious. I couldn't understand why anyone who wasn't a far-right hate monger would want the sentence to stay. So I edit-warred and made personal attacks that I shouldn't have made on this talk page. I should of handled myself better and assumed good faith, which was very hard to do at the time. I am deeply sorry for what I did. I was blocked for doing this. After my block expired, I promised that I am done with assuming bad faith on fellow editors and now am ready to have a good discussion. I wanted to have a productive discussion about this issue. I started another section of the talk page for the article for this purpose.

Why I am reporting the actions of User:Boing!_said_Zebedee:

On the section on the talk page Talk:2018 United States Senate election in California my behavior was completely fine. I was respectful and was no longer making personal attacks. However, User:Boing!_said_Zebedee then decided to go into the discussion making nothing but personal attacks. He started off with an extremely rude and unhelpful comment, saying that what I was claiming was "utter nonsense" without explaining why. Then he said that me and my claims were stupid. Then he threatened to seek a topic ban although I had already been blocked for my wrongdoings had had corrected my offending behavior. He threatened to ban me simply for disagreeing with him. That shouldn't be how Wikipedia works. Then he baselessly accused me of being a troll. Again, all I was doing was attempting to have a reasonable discussion.

After I called the user out on these personal attacks, he then quoted a personal attack I had previously made in a sad attempt to deflect from what he had done. He conveniently left out the fact that I had already apologized many times for the comments and promised to not do anything of the sort again. He then threatened to ban me from the site, although I had already been punished for my actions and had stopped doing them.

This behavior was clearly hypocritical and unacceptable. When I made personal attacks, I was blocked from the website. I then apologized for my actions and stopped doing them. Now User:Boing!_said_Zebedee, while criticizing me for the things I said, ironically made a bunch of unfair personal attacks against me. It was completely hypocritical and absurd. Because I was blocked for making personal attacks, it is only fair that User:Boing!_said_Zebedee should also be blocked for making personal attacks, and should apologize afterwards. 67.60.186.104 (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Please provide diffs to support your claims. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The personal attacks can be found in this talk page section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2018_United_States_Senate_election_in_California#Discussion_of_whether_the_section_of_the_article_talking_about_Feinstein's_age_should_be_removed 67.60.186.104 (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a 5 year old discussion. Unless you can come up with a pattern of this happening, this should be closed. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 18:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this the right link? This discussion was four years ago. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The relevant comments by Boing were made on the 28 May 2019, nearly 5 years ago. Suggest speedy closing this as a complete waste of time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for clear block evasion. "When I made personal attacks, I was blocked from the website." Also, this is User:DefenderoftheElderly who was blocked on that page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow, that was closed fast. I was just about to ask User:RickinBaltimore if the account that the IP admitted to creating on their talk page, User:EpicTiger87, should also be blocked. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I assume Rick means User:DefenderOfTheElderly. DMacks (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Pitsarotta

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

Personal attack, Nazi allegation, refusal to get the point: [66] --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The other user has made pretty convincing points and was relatively polite throughout the entire interaction, and why did you have that flag on your profile? I don't see anything relating to that user really justifying an ANI. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The user has committed WP:PERSONALATTACK (You espouse a murderous ideology and bring shame to the Ukrainian nation), violated WP:CIVILITY rule, made racist, xenophobic, Nazi and Fascist allegation (It's ironic that someone who worships fascist killers would dare accuse anyone else of racism. I hope you see some sense one day) and Ad hominem tu quoque argument, refused to get the point and assume good faith (I can no longer believe ANY of your contributions here (both the actual article and this talk page) were made in good faith and take back all I've just said). Their behavior is disruptive and offensively to me, harms to find a WP:CONSENSUS and build an encyclopedia and I ask their block as a deterrent to such unacceptable behavior.

I do not share the aggressive ethnic nationalist ideology of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and condemn every single one war crime and crime against humanity committed by the OUN and UPA, as well as any other crime ever committed in the world. This flag was used long before the creation of the UPA by the Ukrainian Cossacks, you can see these flags in the Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks painting. I've used this flag as a historical symbols of my country and never as a hate one, I've immediately expressed a will to remove it when realized that picture of this symbol can be offensive for certain groups of the users and removed it as as soon as I was unlocked.

UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Now you are claiming that Pitsarotta is what they claimed you were, which is odd. I don't see any instances of them worshipping "fascist killers". LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say that. It was the quotes. Read what I wrote more closely, if you do not understand something because of my level of English, you can ask me about it. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh in English quotes tend to be denoted by "quotation marks" not (ellipses). Apologies for misunderstanding your comment and hope this helps. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I know. Now I realized that I should have use both ellipses and quotation marks. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

UA0Volodymyr

(edit conflict) It seems to me like the content addition you've made is heavy on soapboxing and low on quality secondary sourcing. It is almost as if your edits were nationalist POV-pushing. --JBL (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:BOOMERANG is in order. I suspect that @UA0Volodymyr is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that UA0Volodymyr seems to be skirting their topic ban with several edits recently. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 20:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban is on themes related to the conflicts between Russia and Ukraine, Rosa Luxemburg was German and Polish, not Russian. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This comment says "the general classification of their words on Ukrainians (In the The Russian Revolution work, Rosa Luxemburg is convinced that Ukrainians have never been a nation, have not had their own government, and have no national culture". This seems like a violation of the Russia-Ukraine topic ban, no? Daniel (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Due to the topic ban being broadly construed I would say so. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I still don't understand what do words of the born in Poland German writer of Jewish origin have to do with Russo-Ukrainian conflicts of my topic ban on this theme. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

If Rosa was Russian maybe, but I thought she was German. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban: "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as: ... weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;". Based on this, I believe you making comments and edits relating to Rosa's views on Ukraine in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict amount to a pretty clear breach of your topic ban. Daniel (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It isn't related to the context of the Russia-Ukraine, she didn't support any side of the conflict, but denied the existence of the Ukrainian nation and language as whole, not only in the conflict's context. That's not about Ukrainian revolution of 1917-1921 or something else, that's just a regular xenophobia of unrelated person. This has as much to do with the Russian-Ukrainian conflict as regular anti-Semitism has to do with World War II. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This kind of hairsplitting is against the letter and spirit of the "broadly construed" clause in the topic ban. I agree that the edits violate the topic ban for "Disputes between the countries Russia and Ukraine, both present and historical, broadly construed". Calling out Luxemburg's book about the Russian revolution as part of characterizing her views about Ukrainian nationhood makes the violation clear. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree, this is exactly what "broadly construed" means. Daniel (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

DISPUTES BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES RUSSIA AND UKRAINE, not dispute between the existence of the Ukrainian nation and German communist. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

A dispute about Ukrainian nationalism during the Russian revolution by a German communist. You seem to misunderstand the tban and what 'broadly construed' would include. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The existence of the nation and denying of it has to do with neither nationalism or revolution. You ignore an obvious violation of CIVILITY by Mr. @Pitsarotta. That's unacceptable. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow you really need to read WP:BATTLEGROUND, as for you totally unfounded aspersions they are also not something acceptable here.

Anything discussing the dispute between Ukraine and Russia is covered by that topic ban, and what you added was about that dispute. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Again: dispute between Ukraine and Russia, not dispute between the existence of the Ukrainian nation, culture and language and German communist. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I just can't understand how you see a distinction here, the content is without question covered by your topic ban. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No, you've made it up. Rosa Luxemburg was not Russian and I've written her general opinion on the Ukrainian nation, culture and language, not her opinion on nationalism and revolution. That's a TBAN on the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, not on the all themes related to Ukraine. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No I haven't made it up. Your topic ban is not in regard to "the Russo-Ukriane conflict" it's a topic ban from "disputes involving Russia and Ukraine broadly construed". That broadly construed covers a German communist talking about Russian claims to Ukraine during the Russian revolution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I was not written about the Russian revolution, I've written "In the The Russian Revolution work, Rosa Luxemburg is convinced that Ukrainians have never been a nation, have not had their own government, and have no national culture, except for the poetry of Taras Shevchenko. She compared them to Bavarians:" and after there is a quote proving it. The quote has mention of the "Ukrainian nationalism in Russia", but not the revolution and what I've written has mention of neither Russia, nationalism or revolution, except for the name of work and no more. You're trying to find a rule violation where there isn't and can't be one. That's an obvious violation of the WP:BURO and no more. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the fact you can't see the issue is worse than the infraction itself, this isn't BURO it's an inability to see something very obvious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

UA0Volodymyr Being very serious, either show prove that You are putting pressure on me because of your political views is true or strike it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I've confused you with Mr. @LegalSmeagolian. Excuse me, I'm gonna strike it. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

You still seem to have a very battlefield mentality, you might not have made that mistake otherwise. If other editors disagree with you that doesn't make them your enemies. As to LegalSmeagolian comment it should be struck, but if you had a swastika on your user page because you were a Buddhist you might be asked some probing questions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anyone here as an enemies, I'v just tired of these senseless and bureaucratic accusations and because of this I've confused two users. I apologize again and emphasize that I have no bad faith regarding this encyclopedia, I just want to help to build it and build a consensus regarding disputed points and Mr. @Pitsarotta got in the way of that by deeply insulting me, accusation me on what I do not do, basically accused me in the support of the horrible Volyn massacres and pogroms and refused to get the point and now I ask for a precautionary measure for him. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

What about this also? You literally link "Ukrainian War of Independence". Daniel (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverted. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting it, UA0Volodymyr.

UA0Volodymyr earlier changing that wiki link pipe to Ukrainian War of Independence was definitely a violation of the topic ban. That combined with edits pertaining to the Rosa Luxemburg topic make me worry UA0Volodymyr isn't willing to adhere to the terms of the topic ban (which includes the topic and ban being broadly construed). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I forgot about ban being broadly construed to all pages while adding this link, sorry. If you want me to not edit even on accusation of anti-Ukrainian sentiment people who have nothing to do with Russia and Ukraine you should have grant me a topic ban on all themes related to Ukraine, but now it's just a ban on Russo-Ukrainian conflict and not more. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

That's what the words "broadly construed" cover. Just stay away from Russia/Russians and Ukraine/Ukrainians entirely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not. TBan is on Russo-Ukrainian conflicts, not on Ukraine in general. You are deliberately interpreting the rules to suit yourself and against me. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

We are a bunch of uninvolved editors who are trying to help - talking about historical perceptions of a the formation and existence Ukrainian state closely parallels some of the modern discourse and thus, when the ban is broadly construed, it applies here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

State has nothing to do with that, I've written about the obvious denying of the existence of the Ukrainian nation, culture and language, not a state. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This kind of hairsplitting is not helping you. If you aren't willing to abide the broadly construed ban, then what will you abide? Perhaps the community could propose a topic ban for you from Russia and Ukraine, but I have to wonder: will you hair-split that and write about Crimea and Kievan Rus'? I wonder if some other editing restriction will be more effective. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. I have in plan to complete an Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia article with translation from the Russian Wikipedia and complete some article about Ukrainian settlements, for example Milove.

Stop trying to expand a topic ban to areas unrelated to it. If you for some reason, which I do not understand, because I, unlike Mr. @Pitsarotta didn't violate any rule, was civil and I agree with the revert of my edits by Mr. @LegalSmeagolian, because I agree that the Zbruch newspaper is a weak source for the English Wikipedia, don't want me to edit any article related to Ukraine just give me a complete topic ban for this whole theme, don't game the system and evaluate my actions and Mr. @Pitsarotta's actions equally, otherwise I have a right to request arbitration, which will independently assess whether my actions are in line with the topic ban and Mr. @Pitsarotta's actions are with WP:CIVILITY.

Thank you.

UA0Volodymyr (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Just friendly advice: don't expand an article about a Ukrainian town under Russian occupation if you're topic-banned from the Russia-Ukraine conflict broadly construed. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I can expand a sections of the article unrelated to the conflict(s). Topic ban is not for all Eastern Ukrainian towns, it is for the Russo-Ukrainian conflicts. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how it's realistically possible. I strongly suspect if you try, you'll cross the line and rightfully end up blocked. If you no longer wish to end, the better solution is to voluntarily stop editing rather than force us to block you. Also even if it were possible for an editor with a decent understanding of their topic ban and who is very diligent in ensuring they stay away from it, it seems clear this isn't you. I see at least one acknowledged mistake editing in violation of your topic ban, requiring a revert here, as well as the Rosa Luxemburg which it sounds like you still don't see as a problem. And checking out your user page makes it seem you've violated your topic ban before too. Nil Einne (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

(uninvolved non-admin comment) Yeah The Russian Revolution work is obviously within the bounds of the topic ban, thus a t-ban violation. Lavalizard101 (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not even sure what is being discussed here. The user has been indef blocked. They were recently unblocked with the condition of a topi ban on everything related to RUSUKR broadly construed. Then they go and violate the topic ban. Logically, send them back to the indef block. If they can not understand the scope of their topic ban, they should not be editing Wikipedia. If they understand but willingly walking at the edge, even worse.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User:FreePalestine2024 keeps falsely editing Singer Eden Golan

Keeps labeling Singer Eden Golan as supporting Genocide. Zzzander (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Dollars to donuts thats not the only person that should be indeffed here. nableezy - 01:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio issues and revert war.

Hello, I have an issue with a copyvio template and text being restored after repeated warnings.

Muhammad Abbas Sheikh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and WikiFixer2023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Geardona (talk to me?) 01:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h and revision deleted the copyvio. Looking to see if further action is needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I have suspicions on all of their edits to that page, too big not enough time. Geardona (talk to me?) 02:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't find anything else that was clearly copyvio, at that article or at Basit Ahmed Dar, the next one I checked. I'd encourage further scrutiny. If disruption, either copyvio or edit warring, resumes, I'd be likely to indef. I would not object if another admin wanted to extend the block based on prior behavior, which includes uploading copyvio images to commons (not our purview) and then adding them to articles here (within our purview). They were not warned on this project about copyright issues until earlier today. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Racism

This page → https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deslocalizaci%C3%B3n Contains a racist caricature of asian people. This is unacceptable, it's asian hate

Please remove immediately

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Yann_Wehrling_(%22delocalisation2%22)-01.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.63.120 (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

That's Spanish Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing that English Wikipedia admins can do about vandalism on Spanish Wikipedia; you need to contact the equivalent page to ANI there. If you need help with this, see the Embassy or the Spanish Wikipedia equivalency. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Paid editing scam involving User:BradKins

User:BradKins has twice used my account name in edit summaries in a strange attempt at avoiding attribution for page moves.

In November 2023, they tried to move Draft:Lamar Richardson to main space with the edit summary "Moved by wikishovel".

Now they've tried it again at Manfred Little Konzett, with the edit summary Wikishovel approved this page. No idea why they chose my name: I've had no involvement with either page, and as far as I can tell no involvement with any edits by User:BradKins. Revenge for previous SPIs is one possibility. The article creator of Manfred Little Konzett appears to an innocent victim of a paid editing scam: they wrote that they were approached via email by another user (whom I'll assume was BradKins), and has just now confirmed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manfred Little Konzett that they were asked for payment for this.

This isn't the first time my name's been used in a paid editing scam: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#User Wikishovel asking for money to publish our company. Wikishovel (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Now blocked. Looks like they also tried to "impersonate" AlanM1. At least these strange attributions in edit summaries should make the ring easier to spot in the future. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Salto Loco and continued tendentious editing

Salto Loco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been blocked three times and warned multiple times for tendentious editing (including vandalism) in RUSUKR topics. Now we had this, which is either vandalism or POV pushing borderline vandalism. Probably a long-term block is needed now. Ymblanter (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Edits such as this one suggest perhaps a topic ban is needed as a minimum. Mellk (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This is vandalism, and a long-term block (possibly an indef block) is needed. This is not the first such edit. Ymblanter (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

207.144.23.222 edit warring

Repeatedly reverting warnings and editing my messages, see page hist. Could someone revoke tpa? JayCubby plz edit my user pg! Talk 15:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I've replaced the declined unblock requests and removed talk page access for the duration of the block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast! JayCubby plz edit my user pg! Talk 15:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@JayCubby: Could you please modify your signature to comply with MOS:ACCESS? You current colour combo makes it virtually unreadable (at least to me).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I've also left a request to that effect on their talk page. Bazza (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Done! JayCubby plz edit my user pg! Talk 17:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's even less readable for me... (check the contrast checker, you'd want at bare minimum 4.5 of contrast and it's best to aim for 7) Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this ok?

JayCubby plz edit my user pg! Talk 17:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that works! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Should the admin comments be restored to what they used to be? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Recentcontribution2000 and nationality changes

• Recentcontribution2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nearly all edits by Recentcontribution2000 (talk · contribs) consist of changing/modifying the nationality. They started off by replacing "Russian" with "Ukrainian" for 18th- and 19th-century artists, even if there was already source cited (see for example this). Other times they would use low-quality sources for this. I warned them about MOS:NATIONALITY and how ethnicity should generally not be used unless they could first demonstrate that most sources refer to an artist in a certain way but they decided to again continue with mass changes adding "of Ukrainian origin" without any sources. See for example this edit on Kazimir Malevich. This may be something covered by RUSUKR but I am not certain. Mellk (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

All of my contributions are complimented with researched and verified sources, I have corrected any of my consensus errors and read up on the consensus of naming and nationality. Everything i am editing is both historically accurate and important contextually. Recentcontribution2000 (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Further: I'm seeing a double standard/bias for Ukrainian born artists who grew up in the Russian Empire. See Chopin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Chopin -- born March 1, 1810 in what is called "Poland", but was at the time not Polish land. Recentcontribution2000 (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

See also this edit on Ilya Repin. They did this based on "Resembles more closely the Ukrainain article (the artists birth country)" even though there are a bunch of references there. Mellk (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

All references acknowledge Repin's Ukrainian origin. for further reading: https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/finnish-museum-acknowledges-painter-ilya-repin-long-classified-russian-as-ukrainian-1234694820/

Artist Ripin and journalist Hilyarovsky corresponded in Ukrainian. They were united by their love for Ukraine

Repin, Malevich and 5 more Ukrainian artists who were appropriated by Russia

One of the world's largest museums, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, recognized Ilya Ripin and Ivan Aivazovsky as Ukrainian, not Russian, artists

Vsevolod Mikhailovich Garshin (1855–1888) Recentcontribution2000 (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

One edit to this initial claim by Mallk -- All of the pages I was editing came from the wikipedia page titled "List of Ukrainian Artists" Recentcontribution2000 (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that per WP:RUSUKR this user, who has 29 edits, is prohibited from making the edits mentioned above. I have now made it clear at their talk page. If they continue (which means if they make one more edit like this) the account must be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Some IP is trying to hack my account

This evening, I discovered a bunch of failed logon attempts and an email about a temporary password. I was off-wiki during this time.

I have two-factor authentication, so they aren't going to get anywhere, and my password hasn't been guessed. Should I ignore it or escalate it? I've got the IP address (clearly not mine) and can forward that to Trust and Safety, or whoever deals with these matters. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure whether you should report it, as it may be different for admin accounts, but if it happened to me and there were no indicators of compromise, I wouldn't personally. To reduce unwanted reset password emails though, you can enable the "Send password reset emails only when both email address and username are provided." setting in Preferences. FozzieHey (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)