Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RickinBaltimore (talk | contribs) at 12:13, 4 August 2023 (→User:HiLo48 and incivility: Closing thread, per community consenus, HiLo48 is under an indefinite civility restriction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    HazaraHistorian

    HazaraHistorian indeffed for OR, personal attacks, edit warring by Rosguill. Ravenswing 21:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    I believe I've given this user more than enough WP:ROPE.

    I suspect it's mainly thanks to their false belief (this is not even close to the mainstream consensus in scholarship, not sure where they're getting it from) that the Hazaras are basically "Turks" [1] which have led to much of this disruption.

    • Yesterday they added that this Hazara tribe was descended from the Karluk Turks under the guise of a citation, except the citation mentioned no such thing. I.e. they inserted their own personal opinion/interpretation.[2]. They previously attempted to the same here without a source even [3]. Simultaneously, a random IP tried to do the same here [4]. That same IP tried more or less to add the same WP:OR POV edit of HazaraHistorian [5] here [6], trying to connect the Hazara to the Khazar Turks. Moreover, a mere day after I reverted HazaraHistorian for inserting a primary source [7], the IP conveniently knew of the rule, removing info about the Mongol connection of the Hazara [8]. In other words, that IP is probably theirs.
    • [9] Once again their own words under the guise of a citation.
    • [10] Removed info that was heavily sourced in the body of the article.

    Based on this, I would wager there are probably more edits where they have mixed sources with their own words.

    And here are some of their grim remarks (WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS):

    When I told them (again) to stop attacking me [11], they acted like any other mature and collaborative Wiki user and responded with a head exploding emoji [12] --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll wait for HazaraHistory to respond to this thread, but I'm not seeing much which inspires confidence. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The book I cited literally mentions some Hazaras being Karluk, it don’t know if you can tell, but Qarluk is Karluk but with a q, without any sources you can see the connection. I also have DNA prove from Vaha duo distancing but idk if Wikipedia allows them to be uploaded. He adds that the Ghurid Dynasty is of Tajik origin, which is really disputed and there are many sources that say it is a Turkic Dynasty, I can provide them too. HazaraHistorian (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thing is I only have/use 1 IP address, I never used a different ip to make edits. I even didn’t use a different ip when I was banned earlier. HazaraHistorian (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the Ghaznavid edit I’m not sure if I did anything wrong about the Middle East part, but I’m sure I didn’t do anything wrong with the Karluk part since I cited 2 sources of Ghaznavids being Karluk, if he doesn’t know that it’s clear that Ghaznavids were of Kalruk slave origin. HazaraHistorian (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you also ask him why he put the deletion request template on the Karakhanid-Sassanid War page, other than the reason of it being against what he likes. HazaraHistorian (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet you were reverted again by another user for WP:OR and non-WP:RS [14]. I would advise you to stop commenting on me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You advise me not to comment on you but you comment on me HazaraHistorian (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    HoI is commenting on your behavior. And you're doing a great job of demonstrating that your behavior is in conflict with Wikipedia's policies. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @HazaraHistorian The matter at hand is whether you understand Wikipedia policies such as WP:Reliable sources and WP:No original research. Your edits appear to demonstrate that you do not. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    HazaraHistorian's recent addition of "Origins" to the Ghaznavid article. The talk page discussion received no response, after I quoted from the source they provided(which made no mention of the middle east) and then I provided sources stating unequivocally the origins of Sabuktigin(ie. Ghaznavids). I would have to say HazaraHistorian does not understand original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The premise of the complaint seems to be that the cited source does not support the claim Hazara's are of Turkic origin. I note the source is 290 pages of dense text. As far as I can tell, most of the editors piling upon the editor don't have a particular expertise in Hazara community or geneology, and are quick to accept that this 290 page volume does not support this claim. The simple solution would be for to a ask User:HazaraHistorian to provide the relevant page for citation. Jagmanst (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not the premise, sorry but I'm not sure what you're talking about. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have blocked HazaraHistorian indefinitely. Behavior in the above discussion alone, even without considering the evidence provided by HoI, shows a clear lack of understanding of OR and a similarly clear intent to forge onward regardless. I considered whether it would be more appropriate to call for a topic ban on Turkic history (or equivalent), but upon reviewing their contribution history, it's clear that they are a SPA with respect to this topic (even their username would arguably be a violation of any reasonable topic ban here), have made few if any contributions that would make a case for them as a net-positive as an editor; I don't see how a topic-ban would be worth the bureaucracy in this situation. signed, Rosguill talk 03:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Requesting immediate closure. ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 17:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not necessary. The post will be archived in a couple days after no one else posts. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:HiLo48 and incivility

    There is a clear community consensus that the community authorizes an indefinite civility restriction for HiLo48. If they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then they may be blocked for a short time up to one week, and up to an indefinite duration for repeat offenses. Per the discussion below, blocks resulting from this restriction can only be appealed to the blocking administrator or the community, where community consensus takes precedence. The civility restriction can be appealed to the community after one year since the restriction was imposed or the last enforcement action (whichever is later), and each year thereafter. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello. A few days ago, I opened a requested move at Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). While I have seen some valid arguments opposing my proposed move to Bill O'Reilly and the idea of it being a primary topic (the only other page that exists under this name is one about an Australian cricketer), one user at the talk page, User:HiLo48, has felt the need to make fun of others who disagree with them, making comments about how they will "mock any comment that shows an ignorance of cricket," as well as calling those who lack knowledge about cricket "parochial Americans." Personally, I believe this is unacceptable and violates the core policy of WP:CIVILITY, and while I have tried to explain to them that they should be commenting specifically on why the move itself wouldn't work, and not make fun of others who disagree, they seem to be set in their ways about mocking the sentiments of those who disagree with them. I didn't want to take this here, but their comments about how, among other things, American contributors should "learn more about the world outside of [their] borders" seem unnecessarily rude, and they certainly have no place in a page move discussion, regardless of how "ridiculous" it might be to them. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    JeffSpaceman, I'd just rise above HiLo48's potshots, as tedious as they may be. Continuing to engage with this person will waste your time because, unlike you, HiLo48 is probably enjoying this fight and your discomfort on some level.
    The page move decision will be on consensus, not the volume or tenor or one person's posts.
    I'm not an admin; they may decide otherwise. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your advice -- I think I will take it and stop engaging with them. I am trying to get through to them and assume good faith (as I try to with a lot of people on here), but that clearly just isn't working. Thank you for your kind words. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "HiLo48 is probably enjoying this fight and your discomfort on some level." Basically, HiLo48 is behaving like a troll, intentionally trying to provoke you. Please try not to answer in kind, because emotional outbursts never end well in Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment JeffSpaceman has also fallen for the classic trap of not checking the archives before proposing a move that has been shot down on multiple occasions. HiLo48 may be slightly glib at talk but the truth is that the American newsreader Bill O'Reilly simply isn't globally relevant enough to make this move. At best he's a washed up former debate partner to Jon Stewart and a generally disgraced journalist. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I will admit fault at not checking the archives, since I tend to just check whatever is currently on the talk page (something that typically works for me on pages that aren't updated as relatively regularly as O'Reilly's, but clearly didn't work this time). At the same time, I don't believe that HiLo48's snarking is a good way to go about it, since civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Personally, I think that there are better ways of getting the opinion that they hold across (including in ways that other users who have opposed have used as reasoning). JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I doubt that this thread will result in any sort of formal action being taken, it would be nice if an uninvolved admin could go to Hilo's talk page and explain why it is not appropriate for them to mock any comment that shows an ignorance of cricket or refer to other editors as parochial Americans. These are bright-line violations of our civility policy and they clearly run afoul of the collaborative spirit required here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to block people for bludgeoning, incivility, or discrimination based on where someone is from. I don't really see that here, though. I just see someone threatening to do that. If that happens, I'll block or topic ban. I'm tired of dramamongering in articles related to American politics, and I think maybe the topic area needs to be cleared out. If anyone is tempted to engage in dramamongering, they should consider this before posting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate, are you saying that HiLo48’s comments are OK and that JeffSpaceman is to blame? His proposal, even if ultimately not the best, certainly is within the realm of reasonable. It seems tendered in good faith. His reactions to HiLo48 seem civil. HiLo48’s don’t. As for American politics, I’m sure the majority of Americans would also like the drama dialed down in the U.S.
    As for your comment, ”I think maybe the topic area [American politics] needs to be cleared out” - what are your intentions? A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. More dramamongering. Did JeffSpaceman threaten to bludgeon or mock anyone? If not, what I wrote probably doesn't apply. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @NinjaRobotPirate: No; but they don't seem too fond of being reminded of their own responsibilities in the area; I imagine it's more satisfying getting one's opponents hung out to dry at ANI. While they can do what they like with AC/DS notices, of course, it's always interesting to see how positive a response is. Or not, as the case might be. SN54129 16:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they did snap back on Simonm223's talk page, and I interpreted "I am not going to explain this a second time" as enough of a threat to check whether or not they were an administrator (to see if they would or could follow through on such a threat), but I agree that none of this rises to the level of warranting action. While "parochial" (as in Wiktionary's description, "characterized by an unsophisticated focus on local concerns to the exclusion of wider contexts") is absolutely a correct descriptor for Americans of the belief that their pet newsbarker exceeds in notability a top athlete in a sport of intense popularity pretty well everywhere else on the planet, it's still an insult even if in jest, and Wikipedians should not be throwing it at other Wikipedians for any reason. All of that being said, calling attention to drama is rarely a suitable approach to squelching it. Can we all agree to go do something else? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will say that I shouldn't have said the "I am not going to explain this a second time." I think I was just angry with what you correctly point out is an insult that should not be used against other users on here. I appreciate your forthright approach here, Ivanvector. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I left Hilo a note and I hope they'll consider it. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Here's a question I have to ask though - and I know it's irrelevant to the general policies at a RM discussion, but this sort of thing always bugs me. When someone types "Bill O'Reilly" into Wikipedia, looking for the (incredibly famous) cricketer or one of the other people at the dab page - do we really want to say to them "no, the one you're looking for is this guy who if you don't live in the USA you've probably never heard of, and who is best known for inventing sensational news stories and abusing women"? I'd say we probably don't. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "" "I'm tired of dramamongering in articles related to American politics" O'Reilly is not particularly relevant to politics, American or otherwise. He is just a former television presenter and a notorious hack writer, whose main claim to fame is a series of scandals concerning non-consensual sex. Dimadick (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I accept the premise. I have no stake in the RM, but you're asserting without proving that the cricketer is more famous than the media personality. Leaving aside any question of morality (e.g. who should be better known), how do we know that? The page views point the other way. The media personality article exists in 32 languages, against 9 for the cricketer. If this speaks to the outsize influence of American media on the rest of the world, then I apologize, but we have to take the world as we find it. Mackensen (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      However, are we a popularity site or a work of reference? As I asked in the RM, should a musical act that lasted all of seven years be the primary topic over a millennia-old foundational spiritual concept, just because of pageviews? Zaathras (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, you said it yourself. I don't think anyone would make that argument. If they did, I don't think it would convince many people. The example is inapposite. Mackensen (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Editors are literally making that argument now, to rename the article based only on pageview arguments. Zaathras (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      With Bill O'Reilly yes, we're speaking of two men, one alive, one dead, who lived within a few decades of each other. Pageviews may well be relevant since we can't evaluate lasting importance. Your analogy, involving a millennia-old foundational spiritual concept and a recent rock band, doesn't speak to this issue, and that's what I was responding to. By all means, if Nirvana gets moved on the strength of pageviews I'll reconsider. Mackensen (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, in a way we can. The cricketer last played an international match 77 years ago and is still talked about as one of the best players in the second-most popular sport in the world. I'd be very surprised if the "political commentator" that has more pageviews (because controversy and being American) is likely to be remembered 77 years after his last rant on the Internet - wouldn't you? Indeed, if pageviews weren't being taken into account here, I'd say the cricketer should be at the base article name. Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ehh we’ll cross that bridge in c. 77 years Dronebogus (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      In 77 years, I hope someone still remembers Bill O'Reilly's exceptional performance in the field of falafel-based sexual harassment. --JBL (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      ...I don't even want to ask. SnowRise let's rap 06:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Snow Rise: Oh, this is so worth knowing about :). See the end of section 78 of the first harassment lawsuit (NSFW) against him. --17:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC) JBL (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mackensen: I'm fairly sure I've heard a number of people making arguments that the programming language should be the primary topic for Java based mostly on page view type arguments. At the very least people have said there is no primary topic. Edit: I initially posted this on my phone so didn't bother to check the history but now I'm not I checked and sure enough it was about 14 months ago that a move was proposed on that premise [18]. True the specific claim of the programming language being the primary topic got FWIW no support (the closer said "Pretty much a snowball close", I don't actually see anyone other than the proposer who supported it). There was however a bit more support there being no primary topic (albeit at least some was abandoned) and you can see the several previous proposals listed in the history which again were mostly of the no primary topic variety but with some the programming language is the primary topic variety. While you might argue the failure of these RMs proves that the community will get it right, I'd argue that the persistence of these good faith but clearly flawed proposals does demonstrate why people tend to get annoyed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC) 08:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nil Einne Yes. An assumption of good faith means that a clearly flawed RM springs from ignorance, not malice. It's an opportunity to educate, not belittle, and the community generally gets move requests right, or at least not wrong. Mackensen (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mackensen: I don't disagree on the need to educate. OTOH, it's also true that editors, especially editors with some experience, really need to consider some variant of WP:BEFORE, so when making a proposal that common sense would suggest has surely been made before, really should look into the previous discussions and consider how likely it is is things will be different this time. And if they can't find them, perhaps rather than jumping straight into an RM, first asking hey am I missing something, why are our articles titled this way? More importantly though IMO your earlier comment makes it sounds like such things never happen, no one ever proposes them and they will never pass. In reality we have IMO clear evidence they are at least proposed. And actually I'm fairly sure some cases involving more minor examples have passed. Some of these may have eventually been fixed. Some of them are probably still like that and may one day be fixed but haven't been yet. There's no reason to think the contrary since flawed community decisions happen all the time especially when there is low participation and the significance may not be obvious. Or to put it a different way while HiLo48's comments were IMO way way over the line (as unfortunately they often are) and exceedingly unhelpful, your comments here were IMO far less extreme but at least partly in the same vein. I mean if you want to argue that the Bill O'Reilly case is dissimilar, that's fine you're entitled to make such an argument. But to be so dismissive of the good faith concerns of others as you did above is also unhelpful when experience with Wikipedia should tell you even before I provided an IMO reasonably equivalent example that it has happened before, and will happen again. Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, that's why I said my comment is probably irrelevant to policy, I was more theorising about an IAR "what should we do" scenario. Having said that, looking at the RM the status quo is likely to be upheld anyway. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Generally speaking, yes, we do want that. We're not here to judge (and especially not to influence) what are the most likely to be searched topics; our role is, once the most likely topic is reasonably determined, to get the most readers to the information they're looking for with the least amount of effort. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC already covers the hypothetical case that Bill O'Reilly the Fox News personality is a much more (like, a lot more) likely topic amongst readers globally than Bill O'Reilly the accomplished cricketer, but that's not the case here. Disregarding the guideline over a morality panic would not be a good use of IAR. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've both disagreed with and defended HiLo48 on and off for about 14 years. It may be cultural for them to have rough-and-tumble conversations, including with friends. I find them to be refreshingly blunt without all of the underlying vitrol and clever wiki-warfare that underlies most of our drama situations. Not saying that that should make anything OK, but it's useful to understand it in that context. North8000 (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Conversely, IMHO HiLo48 should also calibrate. Understand that what may be OK routine rough and tumble conversation in other venues might be the equivalent of tossing hand grenades in the Wikipedia venue. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Personal attack removed)
    An interesting, unusual dynamic in this dispute: each Bill O'Reilly is very important and noteworthy to a passionate, large group (hundreds of millions). Almost every member of one group has no interest in or even knows of the other Bill O'Reilly. The circles in the Venn Diagram are huge, flamboyantly colored and barely touch, let alone overlap.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that William Joseph O'Reilly is deceased (and therefore incapable of political commentary), obviously the best resolution here would be for Wikipedia editors to convince William James O'Reilly Jr. to take up cricket. --JBL (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    How many times does this topic come up? Surely at some point we need to do something. I've dealt with this editor many times and although I can get a little dry in my humour, at least I play the ball and not the man. I find wikipolicy generally settles disputes, not raising one's voice and making discussion so unpleasant that the abuser wins by default.

    If we use this sort of procedure to create our encyclopaedia then it shows and well-meaning newbies are scared off. On that point, HiLo seems to take a particular delight in "welcoming" new editors by making comments about their mistakes, often using some sort of passive aggression to boot home the message and making assumptions about motives, if not morals.

    I appreciate the sort of wikignome work he does tirelessly and without complaint but perhaps a little more tolerance of fellow editors wouldn't hurt. Can we get a commitment to be nicer, or are we going to be reading the same old anti-American diatribes again and again? Doesn't that come under the heading of racism? Do we tolerate that sort of thing? --Pete (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I said somewhere in the sea of words above that throwing fuel on the fire is a poor way to deal with drama, and calling anything that happened here "racism" is exactly that. It is a very long way off from racism to note the documented tendency of the archetypal American to be disinterested or entirely unaware of the world happening outside of their own borders, as discussed for example in The Hill, The benefits of American disinterest in world affairs; Washington Post, Do Americans care about the rest of the world?; The University of Buffalo, Researcher says Americans are "deluded" regarding what they know about the rest of the world; Pew Research Center, The problem of American exceptionalism; Council on Foreign Relations, Americans lack knowledge of international issues yet consider them important; or Forbes, The American public's indifference to foreign affairs. It is also not racism, and frankly not a personal attack, to challenge an argument on the basis of it being grounded in this noted American parochialism, though as I said using it as an ad hominem crosses a very bright line. That said: calling this incident racism is just inflammatory rhetoric, whether you intended it or not, and not only does it not help to solve anything happening here, it also cheapens genuine discussions about real, systemic, institutionalized oppression. That is in fact an incredibly serious issue, and the term deserves not to be thrown around casually and haphazardly like this. I must also note here that baselessly accusing editors of racism crosses that same very bright line.
    As for HiLo48, they're aware of this discussion, and hopefully will absorb the criticism of their approach (although their most recent responses seem to indicate they instead feel justified in their "blunt" approach, which this non-American administrator suggests they should not). If they're also causing problems for new editors I have not seen evidence of it, but if they are they need to knock it off yesterday. Many an editor who felt their collection of contributions outweighed the civility policy have had that opinion noted in their block log. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we should just sweep it all under the carpet. Again. Until some well-meaning editor runs afoul of some harsh comments. Again.
    I chose that word carefully. Here is an extract from WP:NPA:
    Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
    The colour of one's skin or the colour of one's passport; in the eyes of Wikipedia it is all one when derogatory remarks are directed against another editor. This is one of our fundamental pillars.
    Americans are a diverse bunch. I have many American friends and family and for every one of them who disagrees with my politics there are others who are shoulder to shoulder. Some are insular, some are well-versed in the world, some are this and some are that.
    I make the point that Americans who are also Wikipedia editors might be reasonably accepted as having views and attitudes that are broader and better-informed than the average. I'll accept that many Americans are insular and ignorant of the wider world. But that is definitely not true of many Americans of my acquaintance and I suggest that American Wikipedians are more open to other views, other eyes, other minds than the mass, simply by being part of the project. There is a degree of self-selection in play.
    I am chided for adding fuel to the fire. A valid point, but if so, then just what has HiLo been doing for years and years but just exactly that? There seems to be no capacity for acceptance and repentance and understanding on just how hurtful his remarks might be. Passions rise, discussion becomes inflamed, and we end up dealing with the fire here on a regular basis.
    I'm not seeking to raise the temperature here with ill-advised comments. I'm looking to find out the truth and I think a big part of the truth in general Wikipedia editing is disruption caused by heated personal attacks. What goes on in this forum is - by definition - out of the main stream of routine editing. Can we at least work towards making Wikipedia a safer, more welcoming, coöperative place for editors of all levels of experience and nationality? --Pete (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that HiLo’s comments are obnoxious and casually xenophobic, but they barelyrise to the level of offensive conduct. What are we even supposed to do here? Dronebogus (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the long term behaviour. Offensive to other editors, unable to accept there is a problem, unwilling to accept that there is a community setting the standards and enforcing the rules.
    We accept all manner of views and reasons for editing and styles of participation. That's fine. His participation is as welcome as anyone else's.
    But we can't have someone ignoring one of our basics - WP:NPA - if they also set themselves up as a sort of wikipoliceman as this guy does with his "welcomes" to new editors who offend him for whatever reason.
    He's not participating here in this forum because he knows that if he says nothing, it will all go away and he can keep on driving his own bus the same way it's happened dozens of times before. Until it happens again.
    I'd like to see a commitment to lift his game, and I'd like to see that backed up by the community of editors who don't want to see the disruptive behaviour continue.
    I don't know how that's going to happen, though. Look at his user page. He is one of those people who melts down when shown that the facts contradict their opinions and it is just heartbreaking to see such anguish.
    I don't have the deft touch to steer him calmly into safe waters. As a diplomat I make a good hockey player. --Pete (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    HiLo's behavior at the requested move was pretty uncivil. He said that Jeff has a "standard American lack of knowledge of cricket and lack of respect for history", as well as is a "parochial American". Directly aimed at Jeff. He called Jeff lacking in knowledge because he's an American. That's a personal attack. HiLo treats the discussion as if having deep knowledge of a subject gives your !vote more weight, and when Iamreallygoodatcheckers said subject knowledge wasn't relevant, he called that "wikilawyering". SWinxy (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    HiLo48: courtesy break

    Before we go running off and closing this thread as no action taken, I want to attest to HiLo's behavior being extremely difficult to work with at WP:ITN. He seems completely incapable of having any sort of civil discussion where he doesn't immediately erupt into bursts of all-caps and shouting. A difference in user conduct is to be expected given differing cultural backgrounds, but some of these diffs go beyond the pale:
    [19]You clearly cannot read!!!! My opposition is NOT because the event is only relating to a single country. It's because it's about one PARTICULAR country, the USA!!!! I simply cannot imagine this getting any support at all if it happened in any other country. It's pure and blatant US-centrism. - Edit summary: "Stupid argument!!! Can't you read????"
    [20]Not another one!!!!! We are getting blurb nominations every few days at present. WE NEED BETTER RULES!!!!!
    [21]IT CANNOT BE PROVEN!!!!!! You have been told why. You are asking for the impossible. You are proving nothing with that demand. Read what others say carefully please, think about it, then bugger off!!! - Edit summary reads likewise
    [22]WHY ARE THE ADMINS IGNORING THIS??? Several Admin actions have occurred since the most recent comment above. My question is a serious one.
    [23]In a time critical environment, ignoring it for that long simply isn't good enough. You want the glory of being an Admin? Do your job!!!! If you can't do it, something really needs to change.
    Just a few examples. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s pretty embarrassing conduct that would get a newbie blocked. I think a topic ban from ITN might be necessary. Dronebogus (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean yes, ITN/C has its problems. Yes, lots of people don't like ITN and think it ought to be removed from the Main Page. Yes, you can argue there's just as much a civil POV pushing problem going on that page as there is with HiLo's incivility. However, if you look back in history to when he was previously topic banned from ITN for similar comments, this rises to the level of chronic activity. Or is this actually allowable as long as he's telling someone to "bugger off" and not actually calling them a slur? Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I read HiLo’s talk page reply anc rant archive userpage and it’s pretty clear that, despite assertions to the contrary, they hold some chauvinistic views towards Americans. Their overall attitude seems combative an incomparable with Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @WaltCip: I looked in the usual places but don't see any record of HiLo48 having been banned from ITN in the past. Do you have a link for that sanction? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you go. It was a very long time ago, admittedly, back in 2012 and I had thought it was sooner than that. I'm not certain whether this would lessen the significance of it. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing that has changed is he is no longer calling people "fucking morons" so in that sense, this current behavior a significant improvement as it no longer includes direct personal attacks. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I also found these:
    Note that these incidents were all within a span of roughly 3 years between 2011-2014, and their block log also mirrors this period. A common theme in these is a closing admin noting the problematic behaviour but referring the discussion to RFC/U, which was a handy catch-22 as RFC/U would not consider complaints if the user being discussed did not participate, and so in many of these cases action should have been taken but was not. However, there have been no other discussions (other than one which was frivolous, and this one) and no more blocks since December 2014, which suggests either that HiLo48 learned something from being reported so many times, or that the community got tired of reporting an unblockable and having admins pass the buck.
    Their recent behaviour at ITN (from WaltCip's diffs) suggests they're returning to their decade-past disruptive outbursts, but it would be a stretch to call this a pattern based on four edits over three months (one of the diffs is a duplicate). I think all that's warranted here is a warning that civility is required regardless of who your opponent is or what you believe their motivations are, and that further incidents will result in blocks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In general long-term productive editors are given a lot of leeway for obvious bad-faith lashings-out compared to newbies who might get an insta-indef. while in some ways this is understandable (thousands of good edits to one personal attack is a net positive; 100 edits entirely of angry POV warring isn’t) it’s also disturbing that we’re starting to let things like literal vandalism slide from experienced users Dronebogus (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That edit was 7 months ago, but if you wanted to bring it up there's already a thread about that editor on this page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    …and as you can see it’s closed. I was bringing it up as an example of the abysmal standards we have for behavior from well-established editors. Dronebogus (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That example was instantly self-reverted. Do you have other examples? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn’t matter that it was self-reverted, in fact that’s basically system gaming because an experienced (or even novice) editor would know there is zero tolerance for vandalism on WP. So vandalism and subsequent “lol just kidding” is still vandalism. Dronebogus (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This goes back for a while. I only posted those as a current example, but HiLo has recently been posting on and off on ITN for more than a year. This is a sample of some of his behavior and absolutely does not represent the totality of his behavior at ITN/C, which I could certainly compile if I had the time in the day to do so. But if you think a warning - a FIRM warning - will do then so be it. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that they keep editing while this discussion continues, but they did not show up here. I am afraid all wishes that they take the criticism onboard are wishful thinking until they show up here and acknowledge the existence of the issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that HiLo48 is watching this. Maybe they're too humiliated to participate? I could sure see why. Their peers are wondering out loud if their future contributions are worth the aggravation of any further bad behaviour.
    In any event, if they like editing Wikipedia, they should understand that many people are now aware of their negative behaviour and watching. They should understand they've just had their "last bite at the apple" before serious sanctions, even an indefinite block.
    They've played their last remaining "but they're a productive editor" pass.
    On the plus side, nobody's asking them to do anything exceptional -- just be polite like most everyone else. That's all. They can even secretly despise each one of the 335 million Americas alive on the planet -- they just have to keep it to themselves and treat them like everyone else. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course he's watching this discussion. He doesn't participate for two reasons:
    1. If he doesn't say anything, it will get set aside with no action taken. Like always.
    2. He's pants at polite discussion. If someone contradicts him - like with facts and diffs and stuff - he blows up and melts down and lashes out. That sort of behaviour doesn't help when people are discussing his behaviour.
    Perhaps he might be induced to make a statement on his talk page or similar protected area where he can feel secure in simply removing responses he feels are upsetting him? -- Pete (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was introduced to the move discussion through this ANI and I have to agree that HiLo48's general attitude towards those with whom they disagree is problematic.[24] It's weird to me that a simple move discussion is contentious, but HiLo48's comments certainly haven't helped the tone despite multiple editors asking for people to tone it down. This behavior shouldn't be ignored. Nemov (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well that’s… (sunglasses) just not cricket. Dronebogus (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just want to highlight this comment in particular, which was made after most of this ANI discussion. I know this is a foreign concept to most Americans, so they need to defer to people who do know about it. I don't know if this is HiLo's intent, but I read this as saying certain people shouldn't be allowed to participate in a discussion or that their input is less valuable on the basis of their nationality, which would be a bright red line on xenophobia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      He didn't say they couldn't participate or that their input is less valuable, just that American editors need to acknowledge their limitations. Like trying to impose the American concept of a "bright red line"; most will recognise this as a gaff, inadvertently proving Hilo's point, but many people around the would would see it as an example of American cultural imperialism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah I agree, I would personally not have tried to evoke the silly concept of a "bright red line", which to me evokes thoughts of some recent events that happened on the international stage when America was playing world police. If there is a case to be made against HiLo, this isn't it. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 11:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      ...What limitations? --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That most of them don't know about a global sport. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      A global sport that’s only played in the commonwealth because Britain introduced it. Let’s drop the “imperialism” natter. Dronebogus (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure what you mean by your second sentence, and the commonwealth is still all over the world and quite significant; I don't get your point here. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The second part was kind of a response to Hawkeye7, it was admittedly kind of unclear. But I think we’re digressing too much over whether it’s socially acceptable to be ignorant of cricket and not focusing on the fact that this user is frequently uncivil and combative. Dronebogus (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not even sure if I'm posting this comment in the right place with how messy this AN/I is, but purposeful incivility has been an unceasing issue with HiLo48 for years now. As an example to demonstrate this, I recall an interaction with them from nearly four years ago in which they insisted on making all of their comments bolded, uppercase, and with innumerable exclamation marks, was asked kindly to not WP:SHOUT, and responded by specifically stating that they were deliberately being uncivil. I reached out asking that they not be intentionally belligerent, and they responded on my talk with further belligerence, doubled down on their knowing disregard for "precious sensitivities" because shouting (in their opinion) helped them to get what they wanted, and then ignored attempts to close the discussion on my own talk page. And even during (and after) these discussions, it was pointed out by others that this is a longstanding issue with HiLo48's editing. I'm only focusing on such an old example not to dogpile or to focus excessively on old news, but rather to make the point that this not a new problem; it's one that needed correcting a very long time ago, but never was. Comparing how HiLo acted then to how they act today (as seen by the many diffs provided by WaltCip) shows that nothing has changed for the better.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    HiLo: How to fix

    HiLo hasn't commented; presumably he thinks it's fine to abuse other editors based on nationality.

    Because we never do anything about it. --Pete (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I was prepared to say that I too was of two minds on this when reading the initial portion of the thread. On the one hand, context is king, as the old saying goes, and I can see some circumstances in which the comments that are quoted by the OP could be taken in a affable light. But then I actually went and looked at the context. First HiLo apparently said "standard American lack of respect for history" followed up by "That too is a standard response from parochial Americans. It's NOT an insult. It's an invitation to you to learn more about the world outside your borders" I'm sorry, but how is this not a textbook WP:PA of one of the worst sorts? This is literaly item number one on the list of "types of comments that are never acceptable" (emphasis in original), according to the section of the policy "What is considered to be a personal attack?":
    "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race ... ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors."
    This is not sassy "glibness", or blunt straight talk: it's just plain small-minded, bigoted regurgitation of tired stereotypes that serve no function other than to incite outrage in others and signal the speaker's general small-mindedness and willingness to reach for the most offensive representation of another editor's motives: that is a presumption of sheer ignorance on the part of your rhetorical opponent. This kind of behaviour has no place on this project and editors (American or otherwise) are very right to be upset with this and concerned about what it says that we are not nipping this sort of thing in the bud the second the first pair of community eyes falls on it. Do we really not have a single admin here willing to block such a brightline violation of WP:CIV? That surprises me, because there are names attached to mops that I respect in this discussion already. SnowRise let's rap 07:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And let me add that such would be my opinion if I was basing it just upon those comments initially alluded to by the OP. To see it followed by those additional diffs that can only be described as histrionic meltdowns? This seems to be an editor with tonal and self control issues that should have been addressed a long time ago. Indeed, I'm also pretty certain this is not nearly HiLo's first time here when it comes to this kind of thing; I did not participate in previous occasions his conduct was brought here, that I can recall, but I do feel confident in saying I've seen something like "HiLo and civility" in a discussion header here at least a dozen times over the years. Stopping to look at the conduct this time, it's clear why.
    I'm not familiar enough with the overall conduct to feel comfortable making a proposal for an appropriate preventative sanction, but if someone else does and it's reasonable, I am prepared to strongly consider support. HiLo could have shown up to defend this cluster of behaviour: their choice not to means I have to assume the pattern will persist if we don't do something. A block, TBANS...something seems called for. We can't let our editors/community members run around making these kinds of comments, stoking nationalistic rhetoric and division, in plain view of everyone. I try to avoid emotive appeals whenever possible, especially in a context like ANI, but honestly, it's an embarrassment that we even have to debate this. If these kinds of comments don't get an administrative or community response, I don't know what the point of having WP:CIV and WP:PA are. I really was starting to feel the community was turning a corner on "popularity armor" when it came to these kinds of issues, but the fact that this hasn't been acted on in the last couple of weeks makes me wonder.
    So if an admin is not willing to step in on this on their own onus, let's have an !vote, and we'll see what the community thinks about the idea of casually dismissing another editor by talking about "ignorant/myopic Americans" (or "loud Italians" or "drunken Irish" or "defeatist French" or "violent Africans" or "calculating Asians" or any other easy, stupid, hateful stereotype that we might slot in there). SnowRise let's rap 07:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a random community opinion for you. I don't think much of the idea of casually dismissing an entire race of people in words like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stolen_Generations&diff=prev&oldid=853625286. This is from an editor who later tried to shoehorn a poor quality source into the Stolen Generations article: [[25]].
    Yes, anyone who's been around for a while knows that HiLo and Skyring don't get on. It looks to me like this is dragging on because of Skyring's agitation to get HiLo censured by any means possible. Good on HiLo for not taking the bait.
    The notion that Americans have little interest in the world outside their borders is a cheap stereotype but isn't racist. It's well known that Americans are one of the tiniest minnows in international cricket. It's no more racist to point that out than it is to point out the absence of an even vaguely competitive gridiron team in Australia.
    But basically we have two editors to contend with here. HiLo is blunt, abrasive and a net positive to Wikipedia. Skyring is polite, calm and a net negative to Wikipedia. Are we here to build an encylopaedia, or are we here to have a dinner party? Daveosaurus (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPA is a policy, you don't just dismiss with with "are we here to have a dinner party?" and excuse poor behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've heard about Skyring (btw why is his sig "Pete"?)—'s poor behavior, but I have not seen why they are a net negative while HiLo is a net positive. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people have too much “fun” creating screwy signatures. Hence why mine has always been the default. Dronebogus (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm more asking why it doesn't violate WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It pretty clearly does but that’s the least of our concerns here Dronebogus (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can’t we just censure both for casual racism/xenophobia? Dronebogus (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, or if there is no appetite for that for this particular user at this moment in time (which is unfortunate but not entirely unheard of a when a long term editor acts in a thoroughly unacceptable way but makes the conservative tactical choice not to comment here), then the least that should be done is to give a final warning, so the next time it happens, the community's lack of tolerance for any further such is a matter of record. That shouldn't be necessary, mind you, when we are talking about a bigoted screed, but it's better to get half the job done in this thread than nothing at all. (Bearing in mind that I for one would still consider supporting a limited and tailored sanction to get HiLo's attention, but don't get the feeling that's where this is headed). SnowRise let's rap 21:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a consensus above to treat this as a final warning. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope the closer reaches the same conclusion. I'm still pretty concerned about the milktoast response from the community here, given the specifics of the conduct. SnowRise let's rap 21:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is the final warning it must be logged in at the talk page of the user as such. (Not sure why this is final since they have been blocked before, but fine). If it is not logged we will be back here in a couple of months. Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Daveosaurus, that reasoning is flawed in numerous ways. First off, it's a false choice to suggest we can't address the conduct of both editors in a situation like this. Second, I don't see the value in the suggestion that we should downgrade one editor's clear pattern of abusive language for another--least of all in this kind of area--because it happened to coexist with similar policy violations. Further, as a purely rhetorical/policy matter, it doesn't matter that most Americans take little interest in cricket: the argumentation techniques employed by HiLo here are clearly just stirring the shit: you are meant to comment on the content, the sources, and the policy factors when discussing work on the encyclopedia, not opining on what you perceive to be your rhetorical opponent's failings or gaps in knowledge: even if he had just kept his comments to "Americans know nothing about cricket", that would still be a weak, unconvincing, and problematic discussion style under our policies that should be immediately discouraged. These kinds of comments can do nothing to resolve the content issue and only serve to drag out and personalize things.
    But further, and crucially, HiLo went well beyond such unwanted dead-end comments straight into the territory of nationalistic invective. What he said was unambiguously unacceptable: again, it is literally the first, paradigmatic example given at WP:PA for comments that are never acceptable. I don't see the point in arguing whether this is Racist with a capital R; for what it's worth, that's not the first descriptor I would use either (though it's certainly in the same family of observation, make no mistake). It's bigotry, no matter how you slice the rest of the semantic label: the ascribing of supposed personal flaws to a monolithic group. Regardless, it suffices that it is unambiguously against policy, unquestionably a bad faith behaviour, and clearly WP:disruptive. We regularly block on sight new users exhibiting this exact conduct, and I never see any hand-wringing about whether their behaviour was "that bad" when we do.
    This combined with the other demonstrations here of a longtime pattern of incivility and losing his cool in a frankly childish manner when confronted with opposition paint the picture of someone who does not respect our community behavioural guidelines, in that the shortfalls between their conduct and what is expected of them has clearly been pointed out to them numerous times. Inaction is clearly enabling this to persist, and the community has recently had declining patience for the "net positive" argument for doing nothing in cases of brightline behavioural issues, for very understandable reasons. If Skyring has done anything nearly as bad as we've seen presented here for HiLo, by all means, let us look at that and consider action there. As to HiLo, I am convinced: this user needs to hear from the community that under no uncertain terms will this trading in comments about the supposed shortcomings of the people of X country be tolerated. It has no place in an open project like this, where inclusion is a mandate and your comments are meant to be avoiding personalizing discussion anyway. SnowRise let's rap 21:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Daveosaurus, Ben Roberts-Smith was awarded the Victoria Cross for gallantry but it has subsequently emerged he committed a number of atrocious war crimes. By your argument we should overlook the latter because of the former. 1.136.105.123 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    I love a good analogy, but it is very easy to slip into reductio ad absurdum with them, as you’ve just proven, IP. — Trey Maturin™ 21:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Inclined to agree: an example from such another universe of misdeed that it can only really inflame and muddy the waters. Nevertheless, the underlying point that existed before the IP's hyperbolic example remains: we don't give community members free passes on violations of pillar policies just because they've been here long enough to accrue a body of positive mainspace edits. ...Well, actually, as a community we routinely have in the past, but we shouldn't. SnowRise let's rap 21:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly Confused Comments

    I made the mistake of reading this series of posts, and I either have missed the request for administrative action, or have concluded that there isn't a request for administrative action. This isn't as much of a tentacled monster as the discussion about BHG and her enemies and categories, but it is at least as confusing, because I can't see the call for administrative action. I see that the discussion is mostly about:

    • Insults to Americans. (Many Americans ignore national insults.)
    • Two people with the same name, a great Australian sportsman, and an American who should be forgotten.
    • National differences in sports and in interests in sports.

    As soon as User:HiLo48 is mentioned, it seems that the subject gets changed back either to someone else or some other thing about nations.

    There are several mostly valid reasons to insult Americans. Ignorance of cricket is not one of them. That sport is international, but is not worldwide. Americans play a different game that has an almost lost common ancestor with cricket, and is also international but not worldwide. It is reasonable to insult an American who is ignorant of another sport of British origin that is worldwide. This month and next, an American who expresses a lack of interest in the worldwide game is probably not so much ignorant as misogynistic.

    Is there a request for administrative action, or should this discussion be moved to a subpage or archived or closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    How in the world does misogyny come into it??? EEng 21:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most American sports fans do not usually follow association football as much as other sports, but will be watching the defending champion United States women's national soccer team in the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup, unless they don't care for women's sports. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah... about that. As much as I'm a big fan of UConn Huskies women's basketball (about as much as the men's team, this year was a mirror image of the more common outcome for each team), if you want a decent summary of my attitude (which is very representative of Americans) towards women's soccer this should do the trick. I only know anything about it because I heard Sue Bird was on the cover of SI, and... did not know it was the Body Issue (I've never understood the appeal) or that she was married to Megan Rapinoe. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is going nowhere except on a grand tour of prejudices and their intersection with sports. Can we just get into the inevitable transphobia and get it over with, or better yet actually discuss the topic at hand? Dronebogus (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a discussion below I think Aaron Liu (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure there's a request to give HiLo a final warning for their insults. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the community has mostly been discussing the side issues, maybe an administrator should give HiLo a final warning as a normal administrative action, and then close this before it becomes another giant squid. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be honest Robert, I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying here. There's no need for some kind of formal "request for administrative action" in order for the community to discuss behavioural issues, and if there was, I would say that it was satisfied by the OPs bringing the matter here in the first place. And while there have been short divergences here and there, the bulk of the above discussion is clearly focused on HiLo's poor record for civility in general and the recent unacceptable PAs in particular: the discussion does not look very "confused" to me at all. further, I think your summary of the conduct a) leaves out a lot of the more problematic language, thereby minimizing the community's concerns, and b) just generally does not align with the rough (if non-unanimous) consensus above that this behaviour is in fact not "reasonable" but rather quite serious violations of policy. It's possible I am misunderstanding you, though, because your comments seem to me to go back and forth on whether this is a serious issue or not.
    All that said, while heavily disagreeing with your analysis of the situation, I do find that I am agreement with your suggested course of action. Speaking as one community member (un-involved in the underlying disputes but kinda aghast at the behaviour here and the inaction of multiple admins who watched this unfold) I'd be happier if the community sent a more unified message in the form of a sanction for HiLo (even a slap on the wrist half day block or a narrow TBAN would be something), but it doesn't look like that it is going to happen. An admin issuing a formal warning would certainly be better than nothing--ideally it would be logged/relayed to HiLo via his TP and put in the formal close here. But I think I have to agree that the writing is on the wall here: there's not sufficient community will for a sanction here. That mystifies me, personally, but there's insufficient justification in keeping the discussion open indefinitely if it is not leading to a useful conclusion. So let's hope an admin is willing to make the warning and close the thread. SnowRise let's rap 21:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:SnowRise - I wasn't really commenting on the seriousness of the nationalistic attacks by HiLo. I was reading the discussion here in the possibly futile hope that it would enlighten me as to what the offense was. It didn't enlighten me, so I was and still am confused as to what the details of the main issue are, if the main issue is the conduct of HiLo. I will admit that I don't normally get upset by non-Americans who say stupid things about Americans. Either the stupid things are true, or they are not true, and citizens of a big country can ignore stupid comments. I didn't see any specific evidence of a civility problem by HiLo here, although I am aware that there is such a problem. I thought that the discussion here was mostly tangential, which is why I said it was about other things. Maybe I was expected to read several months of archives, but I am not doing that. I didn't see evidence presented here that amounted to a real case against HiLo. Do you want to show me where it is? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Robert. Like you, I believe it is a dubious use of time to go digging through historical reports for past misdeeds. I do believe that a large and consistent enough pattern of behaviour is worth noting after a time, and I think one exists here, but more to the point, I don't think you need look at anything more than what has already been reported here to be able to appreciate the depth of the problems. That includes some comments that you are clearly aware of but (if I am reading you correctly) are largely dismissing, suggesting the gap between our perspectives is one of philosophy about what is appropriate conduct and speech on this project, rather than a difference in the facts we are working from.
    For example, I still feel you are underrating the severity and the damage done by the nationalistic people-bashing comments in question. First off, even if HiLo's comments had been restricted to the message of "you clearly don't know anything about cricket because you are American--therefore get out of my way", that in itself would be a major issue. That's not how we discuss or form consensus on this project, and as someone positioned as an ADR guru on this project, that's something I'm surprised you don't readily agree with me about, and take more seriously. It's a brightline WP:CIR issue when an editor decides to take potshots trying to tear down their rhetorical opposition personally, rather than arguing a priori from the sources, content, and policy.
    But HiLo then went far beyond this, beginning to opine more broadly about ignorant Americans with no vision or interest beyond their borders. There is no question that in doing so they leapt straight across any dubious plausible deniability they had for their prejudice and straight into nationalistic WP:PA territory. I respect that you (and probably many of our American editors) have thick enough skin that you can shrug this kind of comment off. That's a character strength. It does not, however, change how unacceptable this kind of comment is, and we don't need you or any one particular American editor to take offense at it before it is a massive problem. Even if the OP had taken no issue with, it would still be a serious violation of core (even pillar) policies, and needing addressing.
    Then also in this thread we have a number of diffs of this user losing their ever-loving mind on people in ways that I can only really classify as "TEMPER TANTRUMS, OMG why can't people see what a problem this guy is!!!!!!!!!", to ape the form of these posts. This is somebody who is not exercising the minimum we expect (or at least I thought we expected) for communication in a productive and civil fashion on en.Wikipedia. Worse yet, if you look at this editor's user page, you will see that they themselves have documented that these kinds of observations have been incoming for them for years and years, and yet they have dismissed all such efforts at community intervention (regarding what are clear basic competency issues with regard to discussion) as they themselves being harassed by the "niceness police" or "civility police". This is clear WP:IDHT that, from all indicators, has been going on for well over a decade. Their block log further reflects this.
    So, this seems to be a community member who has had more than fair warning that they are falling short of community standards, and yet interprets it consistently as whinging from editors who just don't get how important their contributions are and why they can't be expected to adhere to the normal rules, which they consider an unfair burden. Well, respectfully, at least with regard to this recent wave of behaviour, I think they have been let off lightly up until now. This inaction is not helping the situation with this user, and it's not a good look for us to continue to enable the status quo, simply because of the resistance in this space to sanctioning and established user, relative to a new one. From jut the details established in this thread, HiLo's arguments are often not valid policy arguments, and even cross the line into bigoted invective. What is the argument for tolerating any of this, when it could not be more clearly a violation of WP:PA, WP:CIV, and WP:DISRUPTIVE? SnowRise let's rap 09:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All that said, this is the end of my contributions to this thread: after four sizeable posts, I don't have anything more novel to add, or better ways to say it. And even as an uninvolved party to the underlying dispute, there comes a time where one more comment begins to look out of proportion. Indeed, I'm only adding these last two posts to respond to your inquiry, clearly made in good faith. I recognize there is not an appetite for a sanction here. I'll repeat that this confuses and worries me. But there should be no doubt that the problems here are real and substantial, whatever our collective response to it. SnowRise let's rap 09:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Snow Rise - You refer to me as an ADR guru. What is ADR? Is it Alternative Dispute Resolution? I don't think it has to do with footnotes. When I mediate disputes, I try to encourage the parties to ignore any personal attacks and will collapse them. Sometimes ignoring any unpleasant comments may make it possible to solve a content dispute. But the reason that I am ignoring the "impersonal attacks", that is, attacks on my nation, is mainly that I haven't seen them, and I don't want to see them. So if I am ignoring the attacks, it is because I am ignoring the attacks, not because I don't think that they are serious. I haven't seen them to assess whether they are serious. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even just a warning would be sufficient. A thread like this closing with no action sends a message to contributors (and not incidentally, also to admins) that the community has decided violations like these are tolerable because they are not against an unacceptable target and because nothing was done about it in the past. I for one won't stand by idly if disruption like this continues at WP:ITNC, however. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I come to this thread after I was thinking of leaving a message at HiLo's talkpage (put it at the article talk instead). From being in the same place as HiLo in various corners of Wikipedia, I think that HiLo is a generally a well-meaning editor but knows their own mind; does not like being challenged on those well-held beliefs (from big, like injustice, to small, like word placement - the reaction is the same); and does not like the idea that others may perceive them negatively, tending to say it is those others' fault somehow. This last one was very much confirmed for me (though not in a Wikipedia context) recently through a discussion about haka, though comments above suggest they've also acknowledged (but relished in) it.
    I think that HiLo has got away with such editing attitudes at ITNC, where I see them most, for so long because of how short those discussions last. Regular contributors can expect an erratically-capitalised, strongly-worded, anti-American !vote from HiLo, and possibly some follow-ups if a newbie dare interact with HiLo's comments. But these comments don't warrant response and disappear within a week; they can be easy to ignore (not in the sense of not considering them, if apt, but that they're so routine and fleeting that the fact it's uncooperative no longer affects regulars). Of course, the issue there is that it makes ITNC unwelcoming for newbies, being alarmed both by such comments and the passive attitude towards them. A similar phenomenon may be happening across Wikipedia - that users are familiar with HiLo's MO and don't engage with it, thinking trying to fix it would be fruitless and being so accustomed that it has no effect.
    This situation could probably continue, even though it requires concessions from the editing community at large to allow HiLo to continue with the absolutism. However, for the benefit of newer editors who are not accustomed and may feel bullied or such when first interacting, I would agree that the community should probably try to address this. Kingsif (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there anything stopping us from having an admin go to HiLo's talk page, give them a formal final warning, and then just close this? IMO this has been in closing territory for nearly a week Aaron Liu (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I don't think that'll fix it. In among it all, HiLo does make useful contributions. The attitude is something deeply entrenched with their editing. I do not think they will be able to immediately change it, certainly not everywhere, and then they'll have gone past their final warning and be gone. Maybe some people want that, but perhaps different steps should be taken. An ITNC TBAN could be useful, or to encourage HiLo to use variations on a standard response in their ITNC !votes. Asking them to drop the all caps would help. Users familiar with HiLo's editing and presence could brainstorm measures to help curb the ... lack of bedside manner, for want of a better short way of describing it. Kingsif (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about we combine these and give a final warning before TBAN? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that could be recommended. I meant that, in addition, we could find ways to either encourage or enforce better manner, rather than just say "do it or be banned". I'm not sure it would be effective, but worth a try? Though I understand if everyone thinks that's too much effort. Kingsif (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Early on in this discussion, Mackensen left some polite advice on HiLo's talk page to which HiLo responded here.
    So far as I know this is his only response to his action and far from expressing regret or remorse at the disruption caused, he blames the targets of his personal attacks as being irrational and ignorant and opinionated. He sees his abuse as serving some sort of corrective purpose because his opinion is always informed, correct, objective, and measured.
    His final words on the contributions of other editors are instructive: "I get rather sick of that sort of bullshit."
    He has not commented here, he has not made any commitment to improve, he has made no admission of error whatsoever.
    This attitude persists through numerous complaints and interactions extending back over a long history here. It is always the other guy, or the entire Wikipedia community at fault.
    He doubtless views himself as the victim, and the complaint an ANI discussion as weaponising wikiprocedure against his blameless self.
    If he says nothing, then nothing will happen to him - except maybe a warning which may be ignore along with all the others over the years - and his behaviour will not change.
    It is one thing to offer correction and advice to those in error or ignorance, but to attack other editors on the basis of nationality or political affiliation or any other personal characteristic is a direct breach of one of our fundamental pillars.
    I don't think a "final warning" will have any more effect than the numerous prior warnings, some of them given in rather strict and unambiguous terms.
    I think that either HiLo should
    1. acknowledge the problem, own his behaviour, and make some firm commitment to improve, or
    2. a short block would be something that would focus his attention.
    It doesn't mean that we don't want him or his contributions are not welcome, just that he needs to accept that making personal attacks on other editors is something that the community views dimly and they must stop. There is no justification for incivility. --Pete (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If they goes past the final warning to continue their behavior then there will be a block or TBAN, that will get their attention for sure. I don't think we need to go past a final warning right now though. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Civility restriction

    I see that HiLo48 (talk · contribs) has refused to make a comment on this ANI or any concessions anywhere else along the same lines, this seems like WP:IDHT behaviour to me. Thus, I am proposing a community civility restriction:

    The community authorizes an indefinite civility restriction for HiLo48 (talk · contribs). If they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then they may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. The civility restriction can be appealed to the community after one year since the restriction was imposed, and each year thereafter.

    --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Version 2:

    The community authorizes an indefinite civility restriction for HiLo48 (talk · contribs). If they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then they may be blocked for a short time up to one week, and up to an indefinite duration for repeat offenses. Blocks resulting from this restriction can only be appealed to the blocking administrator or the community, where community consensus takes precedence. The civility restriction can be appealed to the community after one year since the restriction was imposed or the last enforcemention action (whichever is later), and each year thereafter.

    Adding a version 2 based on Cryptic's suggestions. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Shifted ad-hoc discussion below (feel free to revert). --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support now that HiLo48 has demonstrated their lack of accountability above below. It never ceases to amaze me how editors with long, well-documented histories of incivility can be so thin-skinned when confronted with fair and valid critiques of their behavior. Don't dish it out if you can't take anything in return. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as proposer, and the lack of accountability in their latest response. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support because civility restrictions are inherently stupid. The fourth pillar of Wikipedia should be non-negotiable. I started out saying that I wasn't persuaded that a case had been against HiLo48. HiLo48 has made the case. At this point I would support a civility block, and would weakly support a ban of an editor who has shown that they plan to continue to blatantly disregard the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, but those aren't being discussed (yet). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support though I'm sympathetic to what Robert McClenon said above. Long ago I pleaded to HiLo that "something has to change [...] either your behavior changes, or it doesn't." That much-needed behavioral change never came, and here we are. I don't want to be overly punitive, I just want something binding. A mere reminder that basic civility is not optional has been tried far too many times in the past and met with contempt. As has been pointed out by many throughout this discussion, had a less "established" editor exhibited identical behavior, there'd be no question as to whether a harsher sanction would be in order, be it a block or a topic ban. This civility restriction is a very measured and restrained sanction, which I believe has the potential to be beneficial both for HiLo and for the encyclopedia as a whole. They'll have the ability to continue editing the encyclopedia normally wherever they please, so long as they abide by the basic pillar that one should treat others with respect. So long as they engage in no forms of verbal abuse, be it shouting, insults, or nationalistic or xenophobic remarks — a "restriction" that in reality applies to all editors at all times — they can edit freely. But should this aggressive style of editing continue, and I genuinely wish that it doesn't, I'd push for something more along the lines of a civility block or an ITN/C topic ban.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Everything about HiLo's attitude and incivility is corrosive to discussions at worst, and unhelpful at minimum. HiLo's response absolutely proves that some sanction is needed, and this is worth trying. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - with misgivings. Vanilla Wizard makes the point that civility should be a simple measure for most editors. It's not that HiLo struggles with compliance, he doesn't seem to give a toss about it. Making another editor feel small or inadequate is a way of scoring points in editorial discussion. If this measure is to work, HiLo must accept that his behaviour is inappropriate and commit to comply. Otherwise I lean toward Robert McClenon's view, because the only thing that seems to get any concrete acknowledgement from HiLo is concrete action. I would prefer that this editor keep contributing but with some internal daemon saying, "count to ten", "chill, mate", or simply "No". --Pete (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support v2 - as being more likely to be taken seriously. I hope that this turns out to be like travel insurance; I gladly pay for it but pray that it never gets to be used. --Pete (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I would have been happy with an acknowledgement from HiLo48 that they understand that their behavior was subpar and would try to do better. But given that their only response to this thread was to express contempt for it, I see no choice but some kind of action. I honestly don't understand what HiLo48 is referring to as "loaded, biased, uncivil, tabloid language", but if they are referring to QEDK's very calm and measured proposal, that's even more concerning. Honestly, this should not be a very controversial proposal: EVERYONE is expected to be civil and should be sanctioned if they are not. The fact that HiLo48 objects to this sounds like they are saying they don't want to be required to abide by our civility policy, or don't expect that they will be capable of it. CodeTalker (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The fact that this restriction is little more than "if you don't follow the rules we already have, you'll be on the naughty step" and HiLo responded as vociferously as they did is more than enough reason to know it's necessary. Kingsif (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. HiLo's first response, after much time to cool down, is still showing hostility. SWinxy (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Support v2 SWinxy (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Their comment above shows very clearly their hostility. Their incivility has become a perennial problem, and it's time to do something. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      And, obviously, Support V2. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I have the same concerns expressed above by Robert and echoed by others: this is essentially just restatement (indeed, arguably a more milktoast version) of the basic standards of WP:CIV and the normal applicable responses, so in terms of a "sanction" designed to get HiLo to contemplate the mere possibility that there might actually be something even suboptimal in their approach (something HiLo has made abundantly clear they are not prepared to do), this proposal is essentially just air. Nevertheless, this is better than nothing. At least this enters into the record another clear community finding that HiLo's approach to conflict (and their willingness to use Wikipedia as platform to vent their feelings of disdain for a particular nationality) is unacceptable. The fact that this discussion has sat here for three weeks, and not a single admin could be arsed to so much as issue a warning, despite clear community consensus from virtually every community member giving feedback that some serious action is needed here (and is probably years overdue) is, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, deeply perplexing to me.
    So I don't know what all this proposal changes in terms of genuine restraint, but it seems we un-mopped are to be left holding water here, and this is the best thing we can do to protect the project in the circumstances. If I am perfectly blunt, this is pretty clearly entering into WP:CIR territory (or rather seems to have some time ago): HiLo very unambiguously does not accept this project's civility standards and has, under no uncertain terms, made it clear that they don't care that such standards exist as an expression of collective community will, or how many times the community finds they have breached said community expectations. They expect the community to accommodate them. They aren't the problem: the "civility police" are the problem--"this place" is the problem. Well, bluntly, if they can't soon make a turn around and accept community will that the problem lays with them, it may well soon be time for "this place" to ask them to move along to what they would consider greener pastures, where their surliness, personal attacks, histrionics, and low-key bigotry will be more easily tolerated. SnowRise let's rap 22:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for version 2 as well. I may well need to apologize to another community member who I recently went to the mat with (to use the charming and apropos American colloquialism), on the question of whether these kinds of "presumption against reversal" blocks make sense. But I'm convinced by the arguments below that this proposal lacks value without some extra conditions.
    So, mixed feelings or no, I join with the emerging sentiment behind the amended proposal that the community supply of WP:ROPE is up. This user either crawls out of this crevasse themselves, without any more favours, breaks, or extensions of time to internalize and conform with basic community expectations regarding civility and on-topic reason(rather than person)-based arguments... Or we leave them behind, to howl at the cold ice alone about how they always knew they would go down here fighting American small-mindedness and 'niceness' bureaucrats, and it's a glorious, principled, and worthy cause upon which to be exiled. Of course, as has been reflected by an admin below, said user is always free to find common warmth and companionship at one of the many America-reviling and/or free speech absolutist bonfires to be found on the internet, but one way or another, this community is clearly done tolerating certain varieties of disruption from them here. SnowRise let's rap 22:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Toothless. We regularly block editors with fewer edits and friends for periods as long or longer than the maximum permitted by this redundant "sanction" for edits less disruptive than he's made. The reason no administrator has been willing to block or even explicitly warn yet is because we don't want to deal with the inevitable "you only blocked me because you're an ignorant American" invective and the just-as-inevitable support from his enablers. Something that might be actually meaningful would be to remove the second-mover advantage: forbid unblocking absent explicit, strong, and unambiguous community consensus to do so. —Cryptic 00:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I would support a proposal with that language. Heck, I'd write it myself, but I'm not sure how it should be phrased. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "The reason no administrator has been willing to block or even explicitly warn yet is because we don't want to deal with the inevitable 'you only blocked me because you're an ignorant American' invective and the just-as-inevitable support from his enablers."
    I'm sorry, but this doesn't go a long way to explaining this strange situation to me. If blocked for such obvious violations of core policies, and a user did launch into such a diatribe, it would very certainly be rejected if part of an unblock request, and would probably ultimately end in talk page access lost for the duration of the block, if pursued for too long. As for the "just-as-inevitable support from his enablers", I see exactly one person opposing the block here (out of dozens otherwise supporting either this particular solution or some sort of action), which is a virtually unheard of ratio of support in a discussion at ANI proposing a sanction for a longterm contributor. I think the community's patience being exhausted is about as uniform in this case as it ever comes.
    And if a single admin (let alone every single one who has surely seen this discussion) were to avoid taking action on such brightline violations (and clear community consensus on same) just because of the possible blow back from supporters of a justifiably blocked party, that would be a pretty screaming indictment of whether they are keeping faith with the reason they were invested with the tools in the first place. Possibly I can see a few admins basing their choices on such criteria, but it just doesn't do to satisfactorily explain the overall inaction here, which remains perplexing to me in light of community consensus.
    " Something that might be actually meaningful would be to remove the second-mover advantage: forbid unblocking absent explicit, strong, and unambiguous community consensus to do so."
    Ok....but that would still require a block first, which is the thing that isn't happening in the first instance, and which you have just told us not to expect. Basically you're saying "We're not going to block this user, but hypothetically, if we did, we should be really serious about it." If the original proposal you are criticizing is "toothless" (and honestly, that's probably a fair critique), then this is like giving that toothless mouth a set of dentures made out of jelly gummies: not really solving the underlying issue.
    Or is the entirety of your commentary above trying to hint at the possibility that there are admins who have historically backed HiLo in these situations? That's really the only thing that I can think of that explains your response and your proposed solution: i.e. no one wants to block and get reversed (or worse, into a wheel war), but if that possibility were no longer likely, they might be willing to? Is that a historical element of this user's conduct and why it hasn't been addressed sooner? If so, I haven't seen any indication of it looking through their block log and history here at ANI. SnowRise let's rap 09:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not so much HiLo48 in particular (though I see elements of it in the February 2013 unblock discussion, which of course was a long time ago), but there's a long, long, history of civility blocks of long-term editors being quickly unilaterally reversed, and so then needing a positive consensus to reinstate - which at that point is unlikely. A block based on a community sanction like the originally-proposed one here would discourage unblocking, yes; but it was also objectionable in that it capped the block length and removed the usual tool of escalating blocks. At that point it was less of a sanction, more of a get-out-of-jail-free card. —Cryptic 23:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'll be perfectly honest with you: I just argued with another community member a few weeks ago that I didn't think these kind of "prior restraint" block conditions, committing us to the idiosyncratic call of one future admin, whose judgment may be off on that particular occasion, were a very good idea. That was after a block that resulted from a previous ANI C-TBAN with similar language to your proposal. But maybe I'm a convert, because seeing the issue from this juncture in time / point in the implementation, and considering the particulars of this situation, I can see the appeal as a backfill to make sure the buck stops here, in terms of timing of the end of the disruption. SnowRise let's rap 21:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, perhaps symbolically at this point. But it seems administrators already possess the capacity to do this to any editor found in breach of civility policy. This comes across as "well, we have to do something". Zaathras (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this can be read as the community licensing purely punitive blocks in specific circumstances as a way to discourage rudeness by a net-positive editor without running them off the site. signed, Rosguill talk 03:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Lepricavark. — Moe Epsilon 18:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with Cryptic's addition, mostly per Snow Rise. Civility restrictions are often unsuccessful (cf. the current ArbCom case) but it's worth trying. This seems like the only reasonable alternative to an indefinite block, which I doubt is a preferred outcome for anyone who's commented here. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There are a lot of alternatives; it’s not that polarized. I would also support Cryptic addition if I could see the actual wording. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @QEDK I'm pretty sure the addition needs to be "only appealable to community consensus". Aaron Liu (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Aaron Liu: Blocking admins should always be eligible to unblock until and unless the block itself was community-imposed, otherwise it causes a quite weird scenario where an accidental block needs community approval to rescind (for e.g. take the latest Paul August block), which is just not how it's supposed to work. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Huh, guess I support v2 then. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I also support V2. When I had first !voted, I failed to see that HiLo has been in and out of AN/I for pretty much identical behavior for over a decade, and was much more inclined to support a very soft sanction as a result since I was under the wrong impression that they're still learning or that they'll outgrow their edginess. I apologize for infantilizing them like that. They've been here since '06, they've been "learning" about WP:CIVIL since I first learned how to do arithmetic as a child. This has gone on for an unreasonably long time. They're not going to change unless the proposal has some teeth.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 13:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support V2 because yes, doing something is better than symbolically protest-voting in HiLo’s favor (oppose automatically equals acquittal, remember that) because the current sanctions aren’t good enough. Dronebogus (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support V2 because this editor needs to have a crystal clear understanding that the community appreciates their many positive contributions to building this encyclopedia, but we are thoroughly fed up with both their chronic incivility and their wikilawyering defense of uncivil conduct. The editor is reminded that there are many other websites where incivility, flaming, and attacks against various nationalities are permitted or even welcomed. So, feel free to blow off steam elsewhere, but not on Wikipedia. Clean up your userpage. Cullen328 (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support V2, though i am appalled at the need for it; we ought to all be on our own civility patrol (of ourselves, not each other) in order to participate in this community. Unfortunately, the fact that this editor seems to view civility as optional means that, despite the large number of useful edits, the community needs to step in and potentially lose the editor and future edits. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 11:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose AlanStalk 12:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support V2 – with numerous complaints over the previous years, dating all the way back to October 2011, it's quite clear here that the editor's behaviour ain't gonna change, and so we have to stop them instead. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • That post is written is loaded, biased, uncivil, tabloid language, and is a perfect example of the appalling nature of this place. I haven't REFUSED to comment here. I have simply chosen not to. There is a huge difference. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What is the difference, in your opinion? --JBL (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems fairly obvious to me that "refused" is far less civil than "chose not to". HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I would prefer not to. [26] EEng 01:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not obvious to me -- see GabberFlasted's comment below, which accords with my experience. --JBL (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think - and I am open to correction here - that I can translate. By using "refused to make a comment" rather than "chose not to" or "declined to", qedk chose a shade of meaning that HiLo regards as "loaded, biased, uncivil, tabloid language". He is quite correct that there is a distinction, though I would not label it as huge.
      By extension, if a Wikipedia editor is using uncivil language here in proposing a civility restriction, then HiLo is exposing the hypocrisy inherent in the system.
      Perhaps we can find an acceptable medium if QEDK were to reframe his comment using the term HiLo proposed and then we can proceed with the core issue which HiLo has, as yet, chosen not to directly acknowledge? --Pete (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      While the terms are subtly different in how they are used (to refuse is to firmly reject or show unwillingness, and to decline is to politely reject or show unwillingness), I feel this is such a small semantic difference that it is a distraction to focus too much on it. Considering the anger with which HiLo phrased their comment above, it's not unfair to say "refused" is probably the more semantically correct term in this instance and I don't feel that QEDK using that term amounts to incivility, certainly not compared to the incivility we're here to discuss. But that's neither here nor there; this is an inconsequential side conversation.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that refused is probably a more accurate term, given that it implies some degree of consideration rather than, "I don't feel like it" or "I haven't gotten around to it yet" but I don't think it's a matter of pointless arguing over distractions so much as HiLo struggling to make himself clear in what he feels - with some justification - is a hostile forum.
      God knows that I've butted heads with him countless times and owe him no love beyond that due to any other being but if he has seen fit to make a belated comment it is worth trying to hear what he's trying to say. I think it is a mistake to assume that he is just giving everyone the ups for the pleasure of it.
      But that's probably by the by. Regardless of whether he acknowledges a failing or not, it exists and judging by the comments below, is clear to all. --Pete (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Truth be told, I actually thought they were referring to the entire thread, which could make sense given that most editors opining were opposed to their behaviour. I am still not fully clear what they were referring to as loaded and biased - but assuming they were referring to my proposal, I atleast have to disagree on the semantics alone, refused is no more uncivil than chose not to, in both cases, you have to be aware of the discussion and make a decision not to opine, maybe they're mistaking refusals as something explicitly stated but that's not how it works, if I refuse to pay my taxes, I'm not announcing to the IRS that I'm not paying it, I'm just not paying it, and "refusing" and "choosing not to" would carry the same weight in that regard. Similarly here, even if the fact is that they chose not to, it carries the same weight as an outright refusal. That said, I really don't want to get into semantics here, the question is about their conduct, it's quite tu quoque to simply drag semantics in here for no reason and I have no desire to derail the discussion. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for refactoring the discussion. I'll say no more on this point here. --Pete (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Honestly, not only is the semantic argument over that little piece of phraseology largely irrelevant, I think HiLo's participation (or relative lack thereof) is largely irrelevant. At no time in the numerous attempts at community intervention has HiLo ever indicated an intention to accept, or even try to hear, community feedback--not that I have seen anyway. In fact, their user page has been constructed as a monument to their affirmative declaration of intent to ignore all such attempts. From the evidence present there and here, I don't think we can expect that there was ever any real chance of HiLo being won over by a well-worded, thoughtful, and novel description of our behavioural policies and the reasons behind them. HiLo simply doesn't believe in them and clearly will not change course short of community action to restrain them.
      At the same time, there is also clear community will that the problematic behaviour cannot be left to slide once again. So I don't think HiLo robbed us or themselves of anything by keeping their head down--and tactically I can understand why it felt to them like their best option, since they cannot countenance the idea of actually restraining their approach consistent with our policies and knew they would only be saying essentially as much to us here, which certainly would not have gone over any better than just staying silent. SnowRise let's rap 23:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if you have chosen not to comment, it is the opinion of multiple editors that you have repeatedly been WP:UNCIVIL, what do you have to say about their opinions specifically. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @HiLo48: Oxford defines refuse in this context as "indicate or show that one is not willing to do something". Merriam Webster presents a nearly identical definition, as does Cambridge. By your extensive contributions elsewhere concurrent this discussion, without participation here despite a proper ANI alert on your talk page, you have publicly indicate[d] or show[n] that you will not participate here. Therefore, you have refused to comment. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]
      On that note, I find it mildly amusing that someone accused of making comments using language that is dismissive of other editors only comment on that thread is to complain about the specific language used to describe their own (lack of) behavior at this thread... Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 03:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Refusing and choosing not to respond both have an element of agency which indicates the consent of the speaker. Simple inaction which doesn't indicate consent, either refutation or approval, will suffice alone. By acknowledging the conversation you thereby have indicated you grant your own consent in participating within the conversation now. Rather ironic. UnironicEditor (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @QEDK: Regarding: short time up to one week, and up to an indefinite duration for repeat offenses, is that meant to say short time of one week and up to an indefinite duration for repeat offenses (suggesting a one week minimum), or short time and up to an indefinite duration for repeat offenses (leaving the minimum duration up to the blocking admin). The latter seems the more likely option. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 00:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mako001: The latter, yes. The proposal specifies a maximum duration of one week for the initial offence and an indefinite duration for repeat offences. --qedk (t 愛 c) 10:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This incident was filed almost a month ago and the behavior by the editor in question has been condemned by several editors. It's bizarre to me that we spend so much time and resources discussing this stuff when it would have resulted in a quick block for a new editor. It seems like we have this backwards. We should show new editors more tolerance for incivility because maybe they're learn their lesson instead of letting experienced editors lean on the gears of bureaucracy to protect their behaviour. After a month of discussion I won't vote on the proposal above because we all know where this is ultilmately headed. It's just going to waste a lot of valuable time to get there. Nemov (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      In general, extremely long term users are treated as WP:UNBLOCKABLE due to their perceived rarity, compared to newbies (or anyone who doesn’t have 10+ years under their belt) who are more-or-less treated as expendable. Dronebogus (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Why does WP:UNBLOCKABLE need to be a thing that exists? Basic logic goes that experienced users should be more knowledgeable of Wikipedia's policies, and as such should be more accountable for violation of said policies. On the other hand, newcomers may not know of certain policies, and as such should be given more time to learn them. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Impatience with newbies always making the same mistakes + some kind of unspoken insider buddy system, as far as I can tell. Dronebogus (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can someone close this thread finally? Discussion has basically died out, and there's a clear consensus to implement version 2. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      the way i see it, newer editors get indef blocked and have their tpa revoked for less. while their edits are helpful, hilo's incivility is a serious issue, and this time, there's no excuse to close this with "no action" or "no consensus"
      i think they need at least v2, because a full month of discussion about this is beyond unnecessary
      the more this drags on, the more people might think hilo can get away with, and the less likely any actual action becomes cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 11:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continued disruptive edit requests at Talk:List of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius episodes

    As described in a previous ANI thread, a troll has been using the IP ranges 148.76.224.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 192.208.124.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), as well as 173.19.60.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to post disruptive faux-CIR edit requests on Talk:List of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius episodes (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs), which I've been removing. I haven't looked into it too closely, but there also seem to be some issues with the same IPs adding unsourced content to articles about TV shows. The two ranges geolocate to the same area, and they've both been recently blocked for similar behavior. — SamX [talk · contribs] 16:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Also 173.17.94.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a partial block of 173.16.0.0/12 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from the talk page would work here, unless there's some more disruptive editing on other articles from that range that I'm missing here. WHOIS info suggests the 192.208.x.x range is /21, but it seems like the edits from it on that talk page can be narrowed further down to /23 indeed, which looks like it can be fully blocked with minimal collateral damage. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    POV edits

    Portwoman made a change to the lead of Hindu Terrorism, where they removed the word "alleged" [27] and then edit warred over it [28][29] when I tried to revert to the status quo version.

    When asked to explain their rationale, they refused to do so, and instead told me I had no consensus for my version. I found this behaviour weird, and upon checking, came across several problematic edits.

    [30] - Inserted "Category:Hindutva Terrorism" when the page has no mention of either Hindutva or Terrorism.

    [31] - Inserted "Category:Hindutva Terrorism" when the page has no mention of Terror/Terrorism of any kind.

    [32] - Removed a large section of massacres that happened during the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide under the edit summary "miscellaneous".

    [33] - Removed the same section of massacres that happened during the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide under the edit summary "WP:SPAM".

    [34] - removed mention of a man converting away from Islam with the edit summary "false: Harilal Gandhi did not reconvert". The source cited in the article clearly mentions the reconversion.

    [35] - Removed sourced material and citations and placed citation needed tags in their place without explanation under the edit summary "better source, reliable source tags where needed"

    [36] - Removed mention of violence by Muslim Rohingyas with the edit summary "facebook not a reliable source"; The material was cited to the India Today newspaper, not Facebook.

    [37] Deleted mention of a radical organisation that targeted atheists (well sourced) as "trimed out the unrelated part". Also removed a statement regarding radicals cited to a spanish website under "no spanish links for inline citations".

    The above is limited to what I could find easily; There are over a thousand edits in the two months since they joined. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blatant POV pushing. Pretty obviously they're not a new editor. Their edits should be carefully reviewed (and probably mostly reverted). --Cavarrone 07:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since they seem to have caught a case of ANI flu, I have gone ahead and put a noarchive template for seven days. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding the repeated attempts by User:Portwoman to add defamatory claims about the son of a politician at Bandi Sanjay Kumar, from 22 - 23 July. Highlights:
    [38], adds a subsection titled "Criminal activities", claiming multiple attacks on multiple students by the son
    [39] reverts my move of this section about his family to the end, placing it up between the Early life and Career sections
    [40], slaps an edit-warring warning on my talk page with Twinkle
    [41], pads the section out with vague allegations about the subject of the article
    [42], reverts my correction from references that the charges were about a single attack against a single student, with the edit summary "restored content"
    [43], attempts for the second time to semi-protect the article.
    The rather WP:UNDUE section about Kumar's son being charged (but not prosecuted) for a fight at college remains up near the top of the article. It's been a busy month for me on that article, having up to now been busy reverting attempts by IPs and a SPA to whitewash Kumar's involvement in a scandal. 2A00:23EE:16A8:C58:6836:22FF:FE30:62BD (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can this please get dealt with, Portwoman is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Didnt want this to be archived without action for lack of interest, so here's another such edit, made after this ANI filing :
    [44] - Added an "unreliable source" tag with reason a community website like think print.in is a reliable source. The Print is one of India's most reliable and objective news sites, not a community website.
    It seems they wont reply here, can an admin close this now? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor frequently misuses ROLLBACK to undo good faith edits.

    Editor (not administrator as previously stated) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TrangaBellam frequently misuses rollback (edit: and restore to previous version) in this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sengol (and also this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kup, and possibly others)

    See rollbacks (edit: one of these is restore to previous version).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sengol&oldid=1165491677 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sengol&oldid=1165143945 EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Kup&oldid=1166659637


    My edits were purely stylstic: to remove some flamboyant language favored by this editor. For e.g:

    "As the Independence of India drew near, Jawaharlal Nehru and other luminaries of the Indian National Congress partook in many religious ceremonies that sought to augur well for the incipient nation and received a multitude of gifts in the process"

    I think it is better more succinctly as:

    "As the Independence of India drew near, Jawaharlal Nehru and other members of the Indian National Congress took part in many religious ceremonies and received gifts"

    EDIT: I want to address claims that this complaint is some sort of machievlian attempt on my part to win some content dispute.

    • First, I am owed a presumption of good faith.
    • Two, I have no dog in this fight. My edits to the Sengol article in concern are minor unimportant syntax issues, and not in contention in the current version.
    • My reason for bringing this is because this editor frequently engages in aggressive content warring, misusing the Roll-back and revert options.
    • Also this editor is not alone.It is part of wider culture in Wikipedia I have observed as a new user. More established editors (those with fancy user pages) act with immunity and treat articles as their personal fiefdoms. This particular editor couldn't tolerate even a minor simplification their purple prose.
    • This is an opportunity for administrators to choose do you want to address this culture of immunity, or do you want to punish those question it.

    Jagmanst (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    Jagmanst (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you read the big red notice requiring you to notify TrangaBellam of this?
    TrangaBellam isn't an administrator.
    This is a content dispute, and does not belong here. Acroterion (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue is the misuse of revert power. They also threatened to block me on my talk page, for having edited their wording. I'll look into how to notify them. I don't care about the content. If wikipedia prefers pompous language because an editor insists on it, then so be it. Jagmanst (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no abuse, they have explained what they're doing and why. They did not threaten to block you, because they can't - they're not an administrator. They said they would ask for one if you persisted. Perhaps not the best approach, but not actionable here. Work it out. You're being disagreed with. Acroterion (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The abuse of Rollback: "Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism and should never be used to revert good faith edits or in content disputes."
    How do I work it out, when they keep rollbacking and manually reverting, and using threats? They have not explained anything. Frequent reverts and a threat to report me. Jagmanst (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Jagmanst (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Edited this incident to clarify they issue is the misuse of Rollback (not just edit warring).Jagmanst (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, Jagmanst did notify TrangaBellam of this discussion. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haveJagmanst (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Observation. TrangaBellam has participated in discussions at Talk:Sengol. Jagmanst has not. I think that may answer the question of how Jagmanst should work it out. —C.Fred (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue is misuse of Rollback. Jagmanst (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      (Also I have participated in discussions, not that it is relevant, actually: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sengol). My only changes after the deletion debate was making the writing better, and it was not disputed by anyone except this one editor who threatened to request to block me today. In fact I got my first thanks on wikipedia for these edits. Jagmanst (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      [45] did not use rollback, so cannot be misuse of rollback. [46] is, I would say, a borderline use of rollback, but nothing to write home about—the edit it reverted was POV-pushing and needed to be reverted, so we're really just nitpicking over the lack of a descriptive edit summary. If you have an issue with a single rollback someone makes, you should take it up with them on their talkpage, not drag them to AN/I. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Part of the instructions on rollback is that it's allowable to use it if there is explanation given, which may be done on the talk page. I'll grant that it may be a borderline use of rollback but it's certainly not bad faith. I don't see anything here that requires administrator intervention. —C.Fred (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism and should never be used to revert good faith edits or in content disputes." POV correction is not a valid use. Nor is 'good faith' roll back allowed. Either the rule applies or not. Jagmanst (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You seem to be quoting Wikipedia:Rollback policy, which is a failed policy proposal from 2008. My and C.Fred's comments are based on WP:ROLLBACKUSE, the actual guideline, under which TrangaBellam's revert was, at worst, a violation so minor that it doesn't matter, and at best not even a violation; one could argue that this was a case "where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear". All of that is to say, I would recommend you drop this. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok. thanks for sending me the latest Roll back policy.
      I disagree the roll back merely lacked explanation. It reverted good faith edits including mine, as part of content dispute perhaps.
      "The rollback tool should not usually be used to perform any revert which ought ordinarily to be explained, such as a revert of a good-faith content edit, nor should it be used in content disputes. However, rollback may be used in circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually. In such instances, it is expected that an explanation will be provided in an appropriate location, such as at a relevant talk page." Jagmanst (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The path forward is to take the content dispute to the article's talk page. If it was a mistake, the editor who made it will hopefully be willing to restore helpful changes. If it was intentional, you may get the explanation you're looking for. If there's no response, try the user's talk page and then pursue other forms of dispute resolution. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see the obvious reasons for their rollbacks or revert to previous version
    See revert to previous version:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sengol&diff=1165143945&oldid=1164723382
    They just undid lot of my cleaning up of language.
    Or this bonafide Rollback
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sengol&diff=1165491677&oldid=1165453880
    Or this Rollback in which they deleted an entire article practically
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Kup&diff=1166659637&oldid=1166497361 Jagmanst (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "I fail to see the obvious reasons..." – So begin a discussion and WP:NEGOTIATE. Discussion is "not a mere formality, but an integral part" of editing Wikipedia. It doesn't appear you've attempted this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    However my complaint is misuse of rollback and reversion to previous version of good faith edits. It was said earlier the rollback etc were obviously clear thing to do. They aren't. I welcome discussion. But the only discussion I received (weeks after my benigm edits to the article) was a threat to block me. Jagmanst (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jagmanst, is it registering here that almost no one is agreeing with you? If your aim here is to convince people that you are not a tendentious editor out to argue the "I'm right so everyone else must be wrong" side, you are employing a singularly unproductive way of going about it. Ravenswing 12:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits of mine in concern were purely stylistic and therefore can't be considered biased. However yes, I do note a pattern of comments of people attacking the complainant rather than addressing the complaint itself. That is more indicative of a culture that permissive of toxic behaviors, and would be consistent with Wikipedia's longstanding reputation for exclusion. Jagmanst (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. What's that indicative of is that you are sounding increasingly shrill and argumentative, that your willful flipping of the metaphoric bird at numerous veteran administrators and editors is a poor look, and that several of us think that's a good deal more toxic a behavior than whether TrangaBellam was more trigger-happy on a couple of rollbacks than was warranted. I would suggest you change your course here at once, save for my conviction that you would reject any such advice out of hand. Ravenswing 16:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ravenswing I do concede that I was indeed more trigger-happy on a couple of rollbacks - esp. the one on battle of Kup - than was warranted. That won't be repeated. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the use of "shrill" consistent with WP:NPA? Jagmanst (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good question. Do you find accusing us of permitting toxic behaviors and exclusionism consistent with NPA? Ravenswing 19:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its pretty bad when an admin doesn't follow WP: NPA. Its worse when their justification is "newbie editor does the same". Besides, pointing out features of toxic cultures is not personal attack on any individual. It is a criticism of a culture. Its quite different from calling someone "shrill". Thanks Jagmanst (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jagmanst, it is becoming clear that you are trying to use this noticeboard to have someone sanctioned so you can win a content dispute. That is not a wise strategy. Your conduct can be and is being reviewed, and your single-minded behavior here is not doing you any good. Once you post here, you do cannot control the discussion to focus on your preferred issue, and you do not have the right to do so. I strongly advise you to drop this matter and to seek a resolution through Wikipedia's normal dispute resolution processes, which involve discussion. Trying to Wikilawyer your perceived opponent into sanctions is only revealing issues with the way you are approaching editing on this very public noticeboard. Acroterion (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My aim is to show that one editor has a pattern of misuse of roll back and revert to previous version to undo good faith edits. Jagmanst (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which you keep saying, but have failed to do, and have been advised of that by many editors and administrators. Do you see the problem with that? At this point, this discussion is illustrating an issue with your conduct, a failure to listen to other editors when you are advised that you might be wrong about something. Acroterion (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Attacking the complainant instead of the complaint is not good look. Jagmanst (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not obligated to obey you. If you think otherwise file a complaint. Jagmanst (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jagmanst When any editor opens a thread at ANI, their conduct is subject to scrutiny just as much as the conduct of the editor they are reporting is. It is not an attack to make a good-faith observation of problems with your conduct. —C.Fred (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only conduct that has been criticized is the making of this complaint. I am not withdrawing it, nor will be intimidated into doing it. Not when there are administrators taking seriously the merits. Jagmanst (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jagmanst, as someone with no dog in this fight I would like to tell you that every post you make in this section is making the already low chance that your complaint will be taken seriously even lower. It is also making the chance that you will suffer a WP:BOOMERANG sanction higher. MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I do think this one is a problem. TB stubified a (sourced) article, claiming on the talk page that the sources weren't good enough. Another editor quite reasonably restored the material, saying that a large change like this should be discussed first. TB then ignored WP:BRD and rolled the massive change back again. That's not good. However, is it part of a pattern of bad use of rollback? Black Kite (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a longstanding pattern of misuse of low tier sources to peddle drivel on articles concerning Sikh history. The edits on Battle of Kup had spiralled out of a discussion on User:Abecedare's t/p. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I am aware of this, but you don't use rollback to edit-war regardless of whether you believe you are right. That's a no-no. If you are removing sourced material you need to say exactly why you are are doing this on the talk page. The note you did leave on the TP was far too vague; you can't just say these suorces are no good, you need to say why. Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Point taken. I have published a detailed evaluation of the sources — almost everything is either from the British Raj era or panned by scholars or trade books or even, SPS. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For what it's worth, here is another example of TB removing sourced material by Rollback, without edit summary nor talk page comment: [47]. I wasn't impressed. Andreas JN466 13:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, that was a mis-click. If I apply rollback, I will always leave a note on t/p.
      Frankly, given that you believed — and perhaps still believe — that Grabowski, et al were unduly privileged and people like Berendt unfairly classed as the fringe, I do not see why you would take umbrage over the rollback which had removed a criticism of the subject by Grabowski! To summarize, a critical line was proposed by me, you agreed and included it, and I mistakenly rollbacked it. That is not me using rollback to win a content dispute, eh? As is always, the context is important — this could have been a case of tool misuse, if I was using it to tweak the article in my favor. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If I apply rollback, I will always leave a note on t/p. I am not so sure that is true. For example, did you do so in this case? I can't see it, and on the face of it, both of these lede wordings reflected views supported by the article's body text. Andreas JN466 14:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You did not answer the most important part — when I (mistakenly) rollbacked your edits, did I try to win a content dispute? Or was I effectively undoing my own edit? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      And, Andreas, I won't hear from you on content much less on S. Asian topics. I choose to note that Vanamonde93, a functionary and a long-standing editor in these domains, did the same edit as me noting "Rv unexplained modifications to sourced content". Maybe, we have some clue, that you don't? And maybe, you will also accept that unexplained modifications to sourced content in a highly contentious article equates to bright-line vandalism that needs to be rollbacked? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Woah, no. "Unexplained modifications to sourced content in a highly contentious article" does not equal vandalism per se. Come on, WP:NOTVAND is quite clear. Users may be sanctioned for disruptive editing or edit-warring but even if their edits fall into that category, it is still not vandalism and rollback should not be used in most cases. Just use manual revert and a summary. Black Kite (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I see that Bishonen blocked the editor, in question, for these very edits and categorized the rollbacked edits as opinionated editing which goes counter to sources. I wonder if editing counter to sources can be called vandalism but never mind. I won't be rollbacking anything in future perhaps except total blanking of content or replacement of text with dick-pics. That's my last comment in this thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • OP probably needs a boomerang but there doe appear to be legitimate issues with TrangaBellam's conduct here... Their belief that misuse of Rollback isn't misuse unless its used to win a content dispute is disturbing and raised serious questions about whether they currently possess the competence to use that tool. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which one of the rollbacks is a "misuse" except at the Battle of Kup — the one at the Hindu American Foundation or the one which I categorically said to be a mis-click? I raised the content-dispute-angle to justify that it was indeed a misclick; otherwise, it won't make sense to use the nuclear option on an edit that was actually proposed by me. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am new to wikipedia but I believe I am entitled to a presumption of good faith when I made this complaint, which at least some editors find merit. Jagmanst (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel somewhat confident that TrangaBellam's conduct has been satisfactory - their source analysis at Talk:Battle of Kup is quite convincing, although their reverts were questionable, especially with no explanation. Certainly troutable, however they haven't done anything that's sanctionable IMO. Jagmanst, however, definitely needs a boomerang. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced that we need to sanction an editor who appears to have made all of 264 edits to date. This said, I agree that TB's source analysis at Talk:Battle of Kup is valuable. Andreas JN466 10:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We sanction editors who've made that many edits or less all the time. And indeed, WP:BITE is an important rule. Equally important is the need for newcomers to communicate in a sober and collaborative manner, to learn how Wikipedia operates, to listen to the explanations that administrators and fellow editors give, and to avoid reflexive truculence, even if they don't like the answers they receive. The obligations do not flow only in one direction. Ravenswing 01:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it sober and collaborative to call an editor "shrill"? I want to know if that is acceptable conduct that is inclusive, for newbies to emulate?Jagmanst (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In a different context, it would certainly be a certain attack. However, since Ravenswing has otherwise been civil, and the comment that was made was somewhat true, it is not considered a personal attack. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give me more details on contexts in which it would be ok to call someone "shrill". Like if I subjectively think it is "somewhat true", its ok? I want to know when I can use it. Jagmanst (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You certainly seem very focused -- this is the third post in which you've mentioned it, haven't you -- on driving home the point that, if anything, I understated the case. Ravenswing 13:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is "shrill" has sexist connotations, so was surprised people think it is acceptable. But like you said I am not an expert on civil conversation and I am looking to your example and wisdom. So please let me know when I can use this language. Jagmanst (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dont use it.
    IMO, what you fail to grasp in this exchange is the grey area that lies between "good behaviour" and "completely unacceptable". Calling names is bad behaviour, but does not invite sanctions unless it is a pattern that is disruptive. Similarly, using rollback for normal edits is not the most appropriate, but it is simply a convenient way of doing something that would otherwise be done anyway; It is not sanctionable unless disruptive in a broader context. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, thanks. Understood. Jagmanst (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out I am new to wikipedia and when I made the complaint, I thought this was the correct forum to report misuse of Rollback. I didn't know the offence has to be a certain level of severity to be reported here. Jagmanst (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that we need to sanction them, although at the very least I think Jagmanst should receive a formal final warning for WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:ICHY behaviour. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would certainly agree with that. Their combative behavior here doesn't suggest that they will be any more civil going forward, though, and I suspect we'll be seeing them back at ANI before long. Ravenswing 13:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I might make a proposal for this so that we can close this thread. For an editor with only 264 edits, I don't think any form of block is constructive. Hopefully a formal final warning would sent the right message. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "Misuse of rollback" at ANI always feels like an easyish "gotcha" when there's not enough evidence/support for real offenses. A way to get some satisfaction against someone you're in a dispute with or a way to get something to stick to an unblockable (not saying Tranga is in this category -- it's just the context for when I see "rollback abuse" come up here). If misuse of rollback is the worst offense you're seeing, it's not really worth bringing here IMO. They could do exactly the same thing using Twinkle or another tool that rolls back without using "rollback". Part of the "anyone can edit" thing means anyone can undo an edit, too. In fact, we tend to make it easier for people who want to restore the status quo than those who want to change something. Trouts for TB for trying to force their changes (using rollback or whatever) at Battle of Kup, and for restoring purple prose in the Sengol article. I can't fault Jagmanst for reading guidance on rollback and thinking it's talking about reverts in general, but now that this mistake is better understood (i.e. "yes, if you make a change someone else can undo it and ask you to argue on the talk page about why it's an improvement"), there's probably nothing else to do here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldnt consider any misuse of rollback as a sanctionable thing, it is more or less just a de facto single revert. At the same time, the edits that were reverted do seem reasonable; would suggest a trout for both users, this case is going nowhere. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the rollback right could be revoked due to a misuse. However, per AGF I don't think this is needed in this case. --Leyo 14:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. I would also not suggest that in this case, but it could be reasonable if this becomes a common recurring theme. Still think trouts are sufficient. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Closure proposal

    TrangaBellam's conduct, while a poor use of rollback, especially without any explanation, is not worth sanction. In this thread, they have also been relatively co-operative and have acknowledged some of their mistakes. On the other hand, Jagmanst's conduct has been very poor, having engaged on WP:ICHY and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. That being said, they are a very new editor, so blocks are likely not productive. As such, I propose to close this thread with a WP:TROUT for TrangaBellam for poor use of rollback, and a formal final warning for Jagmanst for repeated breaches of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:ICHY. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JArthur1984 Hounding

    User:JArthur1984, an editor who seems to solely be adding positive content related to China, got into an edit war with me and others at Qin Gang, then stalked us to Fu Xiaotian where he/she began a similar edit war. I warned the editor about hounding, but they persisted. Can we get admin intervention and possibly a topic ban? NickCT (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted that the disputed content relating to Fu Xiaotian is being discussed at WP:BLPN. [48] The disputed content (claiming 'forced disappearance') appears not to be supported by the sources cited, and is thus a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It should also be noted that sources claim/suggest a connection between Qin Gang's disappearance from public and Fu Xiaotian's disappearance from public. It's completely natural that an editor interested in one is interested in the other. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. Discussing the same subject in two linked articles isn't 'hounding'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude reverted Amigao on one page, then moments later, MADE THE SAME REVERT on a seperate page. You'd be crazy to think he wasn't stalking. NickCT (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If I want an opinion on whether I'm crazy or not, I'll look for someone qualified to give it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Way to address the point. NickCT (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NickCT has just made a gross personal attack on a contributor at WP:BLPN, for no better reason than said contributor pointing out that content needs to be sourced, rather than imagined. [49] Boomerang time, I think... AndyTheGrump (talk)
    A gross personal attack? I pointed out that organizations that "disappear" people like it when folks aren't willing recognize that people have been dsiappeared without proper sourcing. NickCT (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you ever read Law of holes? You probably should... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You should probably just read period. You appreciate the irony in demanding evidence that someone has been "forcibly disappeared", right? The whole point of disappearing people is that you don't leave evidence. NickCT (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia requires reliable sources. The absence of evidence for something isn't a reliable source... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This conversation is going to get circular. I've started an RfC on the topic. We should let that play out. NickCT (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An RfC on the content dispute would quite likely be a good idea. There are however behavioural issues that need to be resolved, in my opinion, and they need to be discussed here. Starting, it would seem, with determining whether the 'hounding' claim was justified, and continuing with aspersions being made on a contributor who did nothing beyond pointing out core policy, and an apparent inability to recognise that core policy precludes basing content on lack of evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I started a conversation about whether the hounding claim was justified.
    If went through your contribution history now, and visited all the pages you'd been to in order to enforce a policy, it wouldn't matter whether I was right or wrong about a "core policy". All that would matter was that I was hounding you. NickCT (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You started a conversation about supposed 'hounding'. So far, you seem not to have convinced anybody that it has taken place. And I sincerely hope you don't since the implications of such a broad interpretation of 'hounding' would be grossly damaging to the project, in my opinion. It is entirely normal and accepted behaviour to look at closely-linked articles when discussing a contentious matter in a specific one, and if doing so one finds the same issue in the linked article, to begin editing there. Not just normal behaviour, but best practice, where WP:BLP or similar core policy is concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You say "anybody" you mean two BLP people who were forum shopped?
    He didn't look at closely linked articles. He looked at contribution history and you know it. NickCT (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not hounding this editor. This is an attempt by the editor to turn a content disagreement where the consensus continues to form against the editor's unsourced contentious BLP edits into a series of personal attacks. Those personal attacks first came against me, and now they are coming against others.
    @AndyTheGrump refers to the notion of Boomerang and the Law of Holes. Those are apt observations. Early in the content disagreement, the editor who started this topic implied that I was a paid Chinese internet troll, writing, "Some 50 cent army types would argue that "disappearing from public life" is somehow meaningfully different from simply 'disappearing'."
    I wanted (and continue to want) to address the unsourced edits without personal contretemps. The editor has not produced a source for his claim. Instead of providing a source, he "warned" me not to hound him. That was nonsensical. Later, I began a topic at the BLP noticeboard, because the editor re-added the unsourced content, and I did not want to violate 3RR and indeed prefer not to have any further one-on-one interaction. My approach is exactly the right approach when continued back-and-forth is non-productive.
    I started that BLP noticeboard content topic at 15:06. I did not tag the editor or even identify them by their name. I added a template to the article talk page as required. At 15:58, the editor began this ANI.
    The editor is now engaged in other personal attacks against the other editors who disagree with the editor. On the BLP noticeboard, the editor told another person, "I imagine the Stasi would have liked you." On Talk:Fu_Xiaotian, the editor now says that @AndyTheGrump is stalking him.
    My editing is compliant with all policies and, as another user points out above, indeed the best practice where BLP or another core policy is inolved. I encourage anyone interested to review the relevant histories and talk topics. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You reverted someone's edit on one page, looked at their contribution history, followed them to another page and reverted them again. That's unambiguous hounding. When I warned you about it, you didn't stop. Instead, when I told you I'd take you ANI you pre-emptively tried to WP:FORUMSHOP on the BLP noticeboard.
    I don't know why you think I'm accussing Andy of stalking. I'm accusing you of stalking. NickCT (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reporting a blatant violation of WP:BLP policy on the WP:BLP noticeboard is not 'forum shopping'. Never. Not ever. Not under any circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:HOUND: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. and for such a normal editing practice to become harassment, it must be done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior. Many editors, on seeing a questionable edit, will check the contribution history to see if that editor is doing the same thing elsewhere. It's what we do. Schazjmd (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is pretty obviously a content dispute centered around the reading of sources. And edit warring seems like disruptive behavior to me. NickCT (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You started this thread alleging hounding. Now when editors pointed out that was absolute nonsense, you tell us it's just edit warring. But the editor you're complaining about quickly went to WP:BLPN for help, something you unacceptably claimed was forum shopping when it was nothing of the sort. It was an entirely proper way to seek help in a BLP matter, and indeed almost the antithesis of edit warring. Also per WP:BLPUNDEL, it's is also entirely appropriate to remove and keep out material where there are good faith BLP concerns while checking if there is consensus for inclusion. So from my PoV, the only editor who has been disruptive is you, and it's looking like you may need an indefinite BLP topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 to Schazjmd. I'm one of the many editors who examine contribution histories. For those participating at ANI, I'd say it'd near-to-mandatory if we're going to do our due diligence as to the rights of any dispute. There's a strong correlation between the vehemence to which editors object to this scrutiny and the degree to which there are things in that history said editors don't want the rest of us to see. Ravenswing 04:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had disagreements with NickCT and tried not to become too affected, but this is becoming difficult to watch. They are very attached to adding "forced" disappearance ahead of or without adequate sources. They threatened to report me after I removed and contested what they wrote at another BLP [50][51]. At the time I was unsure and thought perhaps they were following procedures, but eventually I realised they had bluffed me into backing down. Then they became defensive over just a tag and compared me to an animal [52], on top of a couple of aspersions here and there which I've lost track(something like below). Those who follow Qin Gang's story usually also know about the Fu Xiaotian rumor. I chose to steer clear so that Nick wouldn't feel uncomfortable, but unfortunately it appears they have not changed their own ways. CurryCity (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You could have steered clear Curry. Having an editor w/ a history of conflicting wih folks over pro-china edits coming to the aid of another who is now conflicting with folks over CCP apologism probably won't seem super convincing. NickCT (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I should have stayed away, because no one wants to be regarded as a China or CCP sympathiser, but that may not help with the issue here. If you already buy into certain views, even neutral facts and editors could look like pro-CCP/China. CurryCity (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As others have already pointed, out, this seems like an appropriate use of checking out someone's contributions history. But I also don't understand why we are even assuming that's what happened. This version [53] that people are linking to includes this text "Hong Kong reporter Fu Xiaotian, who also seemed to disappear around the same time.[24][25]". Any editor with any experience with editing Wikipedia should know that if you see a problem in one article, it's quite common that there will be similar problems on other related articles. If I saw a problem on Qin Gan article that I felt needed addressing, I wouldn't need to check out anyone's contribution history to figure the Fu Xiaotian article might have similar problems. I would just read the bloody Qin Gang article and then click the link. Of course, anyone already familiar with the case may not even need to read the article, they might already be well aware of which articles there might be problems. So really I don't understand why the hounding allegation has been raised at all. It's just completely silly when all we seem to have is an editor edited two highly related articles about what is essential the same issue when both the articles and the sources provide the link between these two articles and how the issue may arise in both of them. Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the next complaint going to be about how someone is "hounding" because they reverted an edit in Federal prosecution of Donald Trump or Donald Trump and then revert something on the same issue in Walt Nauta a few seconds later? Or heck, is someone going to say that the reason why I edited the thread at BLPN about this issue, checked out Talk:Qin Gang, expressed my deep concerns about NickCT's editing on their talk page and then came to this thread is because I checked out someone's contribution history? Hint: You can believe me or not but the first time I checked out anyone's contribution history in this dispute was checking out NickCT's history for the sole purpose of trying to find a case where they had reverted something in two highly related article to use as an example instead of the Walt Nauta one (but gave up without finding anything). As for how I'm at all four places, well the thread at WP:BLPN where I'm a semi regular as I'm sure several editors can attest to, links to all the other three in some way or the other..... Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I just remembered that wasn't entirely correct. I did check out NickCT's contributions to ARE before giving them a BLP first alert (as suggested by the edit filter). Also I remember now that something after posting on their talk page but before I noticed this thread mention on BLPN, I did check out NickCT's recent contribution history just to check if they might be still active and so I should hang around for a response or there was no point. However the core is still correct. I became aware of all these related discussions not from anyone's contributions history but from the discussions themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not previously familiar with NickCT, but he's made it 16 years and 18,000 edits with only 2 brief blocks over a decade ago, so I assume he is a generally constructive editor. The battlefield mentality being shown in this thread, though—particularly the above reply to CurryCity, Having an editor w/ a history of conflicting wih folks over pro-china edits coming to the aid of another who is now conflicting with folks over CCP apologism probably won't seem super convincing—and apparent willingness to disregard basic editorial principles to enforce what he perceives to be the truth, makes me think perhaps a topic ban from the Chinese Communist Party, broadly construed, would be the best way forward here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be inclined to support that, if we could have just a slightly more robust showing that this an ongoing pattern of behaviour in this area. Having read all of this thread and followed up on some of the related discussions, I'm firmly with the emerging consensus here that this filing, and much of Nick's rhetoric and implications/aspersions associated with it, constitutes an abuse of process. It's entirely plausible--likely even--that Nick believes that WP:HARASS actually applies here and that they've met the burden of proof to establish that Arthur's conduct fits the bill. But if that's the case, there needs to be a community response to discourage this belief just as much as it is necessary to discourage bad faith behaviour if Nick knows the policy does not apply but is trying to weaponize it anyway (the other, but I think less likely, possibility).
    Either way, the filing here, the invocations of the behavioural policy in question where it doesn't really apply, the general assumption of the worst possible motive and approach of the rhetorical opposition/ABF, and the timing and chain of events all add up to the feeling that (whether as the result of an expressly conscious effort or just a convenient application of the policy aided by a confirmation bias reading), Nick is attempting to leverage behavioural policy inappropriately in an attempt to stiffle his opponent's argument and chill discussion / criticism of his editorial arguments. I do think that, in light of the WP:IDHT to multiple uninvolved editors above trying to tell him as much, some action may be warranted here. I'm just not sure, on the basis of what has been seen through the narrow window here and the related discussions, whether this is a more general issue, or the result of particular blinders and/or strong feelings on this topic. As such, I'm not sure if a more general sanction like a short-term block or strong warning, or a more subject-specific option like a TBAN is the way to go. SnowRise let's rap 01:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this: I've given NickCT a logged AE warning under WP:NEWBLPBAN for the BLP aspects of this. If there's a recurrence, I am prepared to TBAN from CCP-related BLPs or BLPs in general, and/or block. And we can leave it at that for now. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, speaking just for myself, of course, that seems like a pretty balanced approach. SnowRise let's rap 07:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Merging deleted content

    Several years ago, per this discussion, a sub article was deleted. I would like to merge that content into the main article but, not being an admin, I don't have access to the deleted article. Would someone please be kind enough to help me get it? Thanks! --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems likely that the copied content's authors have not been attributed.

    1. The link to the deleted History of Dedham, Massachusetts, in television and film given in Special:Diff/1168071714 is insufficient per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material (guideline, shortcut WP:RUD). Since the history is not visible, the authors' usernames must be listed.
    2. Special:PageHistory/User:Slugger O'Toole/History of Dedham, Massachusetts, in television and film has only one restored revision from March 2020 and appears to be incomplete.
      1. Special:PermanentLink/944981704 includes an {{Article for deletion/dated}} tag.
      2. The WP:Articles for deletion/History of Dedham, Massachusetts, in television and film nomination mentions that the article was almost 13 years old. A participant – not the author of the revision – noted that they edited the article and provided a diff that is no longer accessible.

    A possible approach is WP:Merge and delete#Paste history to talk subpage (essay). Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Dan Hornsby and Nikki Hornsby disruption / vandalism by IP user(s)

    Background

    On June 28, 2023, a thread was started on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1192#Legal threat? about changes made to the Nikki Hornsby article. She's the granddaughter of Dan Hornsby.

    Both articles had years of edits by IP users, that start out with 2600:8801:8104:DC00:, but then the following numbers change. The IP user(s) added a lot of content without citations and via copy-paste. There were also unhelpful edits by @FMSky: and IP user 68.7.39.189

    • 2600:8801:8104:dc00:4513:e4bb:34f9:34c3 - edits just to Dan and Nikki. one edit to Americana (music)
    • 2600:8801:8104:dc00:1109:3ff1:9f90:b385 - just one edit to Nikki's article
    • 2600:8801:8104:dc00:607b:2c3b:83cc:fe5d - edits just to Nikki's article
    • 68.7.39.189 - all but three edits to Dan and Nikki

    There had been years of attempts to clean up the article, but uncited content continued to be added.

    Cleanup of articles

    On June 28, Chubbles, returned the article to the cleaned past version here and he and I worked on cleaning up the article. It was correct to this version, where all content had a cited source and I found all the reliable sources that I could find on Nikki. I then cleaned up the Dan Hornsby article, with Chubbles starting off with some clean-up. The range of diffs for the article clean-up are here.

    Disruptive and incorrect edits

    Since then, there have been edits to the articles that are incorrect, as documented

    (I am not proud of the way I handled the potential threat made to a user - followed up by unhelpful comments made to another user. This is the User talk:CaroleHenson#Prodding, etc discussion I had with @Chubbles and Hoary: about that, which resulted me in backing out the unfortunate changes. It also has documentation of the changes made to cleanup the musicians' pages.

    Since the changes, as you can see, there have been multiple attempts to add erroneous information or uncited content. Is there something that can be done about this?

    Note re: notification of ANI issue: It's tricky because it's a changing IP address. I will post a link to this section on both of the article's talk page, FMSky and 68.7.39.189 and the IP addresses listed above. I think that's the best that I can do.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you got something mixed up. These were my edits to that page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nikki_Hornsby&diff=1164920673&oldid=1162953780 i just did some basic formatting. How is that "unhelpful" --FMSky (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I am so sorry, FMSky, I should not have included you in that notice. The IP addresses do apply.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    alright no worries --FMSky (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Options. I am wondering what the options might be,

    • Block IP users for a period of time
    • Block IP users with IDs that start out "2600:8801:8104:dc00"
    • Check for sockpuppets
    • Place a warning on the article talk pages that IP users could be blocked if the disruptive editing continues
    • Something else?

    I just pulled out the most recent IP addresses. Need more research on the editors of the page?

    I updated the background info to show the focus on Dan and Nikki's articles, which is underlined above. –CaroleHenson (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The more I think about it, "Place a warning on the article talk pages that IP users could be blocked if the disruptive editing continues" - does not have an immediate punitive action, doesn't involve protecting the article at this point, and overall has the mildest effect. Would that work?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: There have been three more attempts today to add uncited content here, here, and here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume this is related? Wikipedia:Help_desk#Why_is_there_someone_changing_or_removing_the_FACTS_on_the_artist_Nikki_Hornsby's_wikipedia_Page? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it looks to be. There seems to be an ongoing misunderstanding of the difference between "FACTS" (their caps in the other post) and use of Reliable sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unrelated to any of this. An IP recently left a bizarre edit on my talk-page [54]. I have never edited the Nikki Hornsby article. Not sure why I have been messaged. This is a case of WP:DISRUPTIVE Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And, I received this on my talk page that appears that is unsettling.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Very weird. Two other IPs left the same graphic on User talk:Engineerchange, so that's three IP editors spamming the same graphic on user talk pages, all from different geolocations. Off-WP coordination? Schazjmd (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea, but the user that posted on my page also posted the graphic on the talk page of a user who had posted at ANI recently / today.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Many instances of vandalism have been removed from this section. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 23:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't claim to know much about what's going on here, the instances of IPs spamming flags is something I would usually attribute to some random passing joe-jobbing troll, and so I'd exclude it from the topic in question. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another IP user posted another upsetting graphic on my and another user's page here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A Nazi flag.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what this is about but I blocked Special:Contributions/92.239.191.24 for a month as their only two edits were trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the key issue boils down to having reliable sources, I am okay closing this out based upon feedback at Wikipedia:Help desk#Why is there someone changing or removing the FACTS on the artist Nikki Hornsby's wikipedia Page?, specifically this version with this message:
    I hope you are not involved in the vandalism going on right now. Assuming you are not and you indeed work for CJP-NH Records you should read the following: WP:PAID, WP:COI, WP:V, WP:RS. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
    ...with hope that the addition of uncited content or use of social media as sources will stop.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since they use changing IP addresses and have self-declared conflict of interest
    • there are limited options
    • I am guessing the only viable option is to protect the page
    • there is generally reluctance to do that
    My thought is
    • that using that message or a similar message could be a warning.
    • if they keep making unsourced or social media-sourced changes, then I think the only other option is to ask directly for the page to be protected against IP addresses.
    Am I am missing another viable option?–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Protection is the only viable next move. 3 months semi on both, and we can evaluate from there. I made it long enough to encourage the IPs to talk, not just wait it out. Courcelles (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks, Courcelles.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion of Nguyentrongphu by using 2600:6C44:117C:0:0:0:0:0/46

    This user avoided the ban when he used IP addresses to discuss about Holocaust in the article Holocaust. Check his IP range here and what he revealed himself here. He tried to play a game when he forced everyone "My edit request should be a quick fix. If denied, I'm interested to hear a good rationale behind it". @Drmies and Deepfriedokra: Please consider to ban this IP range. We can not leave the Holocaust supporter break the Wikipedia policies. 1.53.113.236 (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    1.53.113.236 and @Đại Việt quốc: Your "Check his IP range" link goes to a list of contributions whose second entry, this message, got changed a few minutes later here, where User:TheScotch replaced the IP signature with their own. What exactly are you saying is going on here? CityOfSilver 14:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CityOfSilver: User:Nguyentrongphu has been blocked for "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, following ANI threads". From an earlier version of their talk page, I noticed that it all started from a conversation related to Holocaust (section "Refactored from ACN"). An IP has been making non-contributing discussions in the talk page of The Holocaust, which I am suspecting to be Nguyentrongphu evading his block, according to WP:DUCK. They also revealed themselves here. I think something has to be done about this, otherwise what's the point of the block? Đại Việt quốc (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Achar Sva editing restriction violation

    Editor Achar Sva has repeatedly violated their community-imposed editing restriction over several months without acknowledging these violations. The editing restriction is copied below:

    When Achar Sva removes sourced text from an article (including edits which replace sourced text or move it to another place in the article) and that removal gets reverted, they may not remove it again without gaining consensus for the removal at the article talk page or any other appropriate venue. This restriction may be appealed at WP:AN after six months.

    Despite repeated warnings that certain behaviors likely qualified as violations of their editing restrictions (prior warnings I left on Achar Sva's talk page on 28 May: 1 & 2), they again repeated this behavior on at least two occasions in the last two weeks. One occurred on Massacre of the Innocents on 20 July, removing sourced material that they had previously removed and been reverted on; there was no effort by Achar Sva to seek consensus before their reversion. Another violation occurred on Gospel of James on 27 July, reverting material that that was attributed to a source that they had previously altered and been reverted on.

    An earlier, previously unnoticed violation occurred on Genesis 1:1 on 3 July, removing sourced material that they had already removed several times (1, 2, 3) and been reverted on by multiple editors (they had also further modified the in-article context of the sourced material in between the initial removals and most recent removal). This is the same article that had resulted in the 28 May warnings; they did not open a discussion or achieve any form of consensus to justify this latent reversion. Achar Sva appears to have no interest in following their editing restriction and has refused to alter their behavior despite repeated efforts to warn them of the potential ramifications of violating the terms of the restriction. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CMD007's behavior is WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:TENDENTIOUS, stemming from a seeming personal hatred of the Filipino people and his insistence that we were just slaves. He specifically seeks out Philippine-related articles and changes them subtly enough for others not to notice, but significantly enough that they completely change the meaning.

    1. He removes or replaces words in existing text to say something completely different from the sourced original text (like this and this), resulting in contradictory or factually incorrect statements (like"Spain banned brandy" or that "fermented agave to be distilled into mezcal is still called pulque"). Then he arbitrarily adds on references afterwards when challenged which do not verify the claims made by his new edited text (like this or discussed by me in this), or are less reliable sources than the ones he replaced (like replacing academic articles with coffeetable books because he does not understand WP:DUE).

    2. His other edits consist of removing entire sections with regards to the Philippines in articles relating to its former status as a Spanish colony (like in Mestizo). And removing sections or paragraphs on the Philippines in shared subjects inherited from the Spanish Empire (like in Bread, Churros, Polvoron, Flan cake, etc.), regardless of the sources. He also curiously substitutes colonization with euphemisms like administration

    3. The underlying reason for these edits are again, not based on sources, but his insistence that the Filipinos in the Spanish Empire were just slaves ([55] [56] [57] [58] [59]), and thus could not possibly have been capable of contributions to Spanish and Latin American culture, emigrate to other Spanish colonies, or be discussed at all in relation to Spanish Empire. Like his previous edits, he uses one source repeatedly, which he did not read, because it does not say what he thinks it does from the title.

    I lost my temper during this as is obvious by the template in my talk, after he again refused to read the sources and just reinstated his changes based on his reasoning that Filipinos were just slaves. I am Filipino. And it does make me angry when the same people who colonized us, now try to erase our links to them using the same racial bullshit we lived with for centuries.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The articles and your vandalism on them are plain to see. I have not done anything but add sourced information and historical clarification. This user seems to be obsessed with his Filipino identity and making every article point to it. The Philippines were not the only Spanish-ruled islands in Asia, and I have changed certain headings to reflect that fact. The Carolinas, Northern Marianas, and Guam are also included in everything historically related to the Philippines as they were all known collectively as the Spanish East Indies. As for changing certain wording, it is sourced only. An example is the article Mestizo, where I correctly add sources that define the word from the Oxford and Merriam-Webster themselves. How does he think he could just ignore the sources?? He cannot be let to just delete MULTIPLE sources at his whim. Also, about the Filipino slaves, I am again using SOURCED language. His feelings are hurt by what happened historically, but facts don’t care about feelings. This is an encyclopedia, not a love letter to his native country. It is documented Filipinos were brought as slaves[60], even stopping by California for the first time. He either pretends not to be able to read the sources or is just a plain vandal wishing to wreak havoc. In the Mezcal article you can see that even a day after I’ve engaged in conversation, he claims I am not. He is a gaslighter and a vandal. CMD007 (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes. I forgot you do that too. Change subtopic headings specific to the Philippines and conflate them under generalized headings like "Asia" and "Spanish East Indies", even when they are specific to the Philippines and do not exist in Guam or the Carolines. Apparently just to remove the word "Philippines."
    And no, I have never claimed Filipinos were not enslaved. I even expanded and sourced our article on it after you swept through it with your bullshit. The issue is your claim that ALL Filipinos who arrived in New Spain were slaves. Which is simply not the case. Your new Seijas (2018) source and Seijas (2015) makes that clear. In fact, Seijas discusses FREE Filipino immigrants to New Spain quite extensively. Your obsession with that one idiotic misconception is also irrelevant as a reason for your Wikipedia-wide changes.
    Mestizo literally just means "Mixed person" in Spanish, and is used as a legal racial category in the Spanish Empire. All of the Spanish Empire. Not just Latin America. It determined the status of a person and what taxes he has to pay. THAT is the context that matters. How it is used in English is irrelevant.
    My own editing history speaks for itself. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your deletion of multiple sources at a time speaks for itself. You have also already been warned not to use derogatory language and not to aim it at other users, which you promised on your talk page to not do. I don’t have any use for your feelings or your personal anecdotes, I merely stick to sources and what they back up. Anyone can see that you have great emotional turmoil with these subjects, but we are only sticking to sourced facts. Your constant reverting of sourced material is VANDALISM. Add in your source and be done, stop taking other sources out. You claim your one source is better than 10 others, yet they’re from Universities and scientific journals, which is exactly where you got your one-off source. Stop the multiple acts of vandalism. CMD007 (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also note that all of those articles are now in CMD007's preferred state due to the continued edit war; those with more knowledge of the subjects may wish to look at these articles and consider which version is more policy-compliant. Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess would be that none of them is policy (NPOV in this instance) compliant. Looking at their first diffs, it took me literally seconds to find this source (see bottom left section) about the introduction of distillation to New Spain. M.Bitton (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @M.Bitton: This isn't something you evaluate "in seconds." Please read all the text within this part of that WP:TERTIARY source: "How stills reached New Spain remains a point of contention... Pacific Port of San Blas (p.1262)."
    Then read the sources I used: [61] [62] [63]. 2 scientific journal articles, 1 secondary. Zizumbo-Villarreal et al. (2008) in particular, is the most comprehensive. Though the Hatchett article explains it better in layman's terms. The key points being what type of stills were used for mezcal, when, and where. Philippine-type stills (acquired from China in pre-colonial times) use a simple tree trunk with two copper pans, and is very different in appearance and use over Spanish-type stills (acquired from the Arabs) which is the much more complicated alembic type. Mezcal does not use the Spanish-type stills, which are difficult to make and hide. Critical because mezcal was banned along with coconut liquor (vino de coco) in its early history (1600s to 1700s) in New Spain, in order not to compete with imported Spanish liquor (which is made with Spanish-type stills and grapes, in Spain, though vineyards were starting to be grown in Peru by this time).
    I do not know of any comparable academic studies on the claim that Mezcal used Spanish-introduced stills. You're welcome to find one. It's easy enough to look up traditional mezcal stills and see they are most definitely not alembic stills. Though of course, alembic stills were probably also brought over by the Spanish, for Spanish use. It was clearly protected technology since again the sales of Spanish liquor was important enough economically to Spain to ban the indigenous production of cheap liquor for two centuries. That's irrelevant to mezcal. It's not like this is also even the only evidence for Filipino influence in indigenous alcohol production in New Spain. Tuba is another.
    The only academic source - Puche et al. (2023), spuriously inserted by CMD007 verifies nothing about Spanish stills, but is instead a paper on a possible pre-colonial production of mezcal based on the discovery of kilns (not stills) for cooking agave piña in Xochitecatl (summary here). An important thing to note here is that they do not have evidence of distillation (or even an explanation as to how they could have acquired copper pans in 600 BC, a thousand years before metallurgy in the Americas), only that agave piña were cooked (which is only the first step in making mezcal). They could be cooking agave piña for food for all we know. It is an extraordinary claim with little acceptance for now. As Zizumbo-Villarreal et al. (2008) pointed out quite cleary, there is NO evidence of pre-colonial distillation. But we can add Puche et al. (2023) to the article with WP:DUE considerations if you insist.
    All of these should be discussed in the article's talk. Convoluted enough as it is for passing editors. Which I have tried to do. Which CMD007 rejected outright, not based on evaluating sources, but again based on his repeated assertion that Filipinos in the Spanish Empire were just slaves.
    This is about his behavior, the problematic way he edits (by just changing what something says entirely), and the reason for his behavior. Not only in mezcal. If this was just a content dispute, I wouldn't take this to ANI.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support a WP:BOOMERANG sanction on Obsidian Soul for WP:BLANKING and WP:POINT DarmaniLink (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I see CMD007 has posted a second NOTTHEM unblock request. I'll wait for any other thoughts on the states of the articles and may consider rolling them back. A note to User:Obsidian Soul, don't do this yourself. The articles have been reverted by two other editors. Black Kite (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: -Just standing by as our own (sourced) history gets excised out by someone who insists we were only slaves isn't really an option. I appreciate not being blocked, and will honor that by not editing those pages further until this is resolved.- -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I declined the second request and attempted to explain the disruptive nature of repeating declined requests. I'm not sold on a promising outcome. Hopefully I'm just jaded. Tiderolls 13:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: After CMD007's block expired they proceeded to revert back to their preferred version of Manila galleon, Mestizo, Mezcal, Polvorón, Bread in Spain, Creole peoples, and History of Spanish slavery in the Philippines. There might be more articles they made reverts to, but because they resumed their reverting after being blocked for that exact issue, I have blocked them again. - Aoidh (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just close this. If you're not going to do anything about it. Let's AGF all the trolls. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Obsidian Soul blanking out whole articles, deleting sources

    We really need intermediaries on many articles which are being controlled by one user User:Obsidian Soul. He is deleting entire sources and sentences just because he doesn’t like what they say. These are historical sources and some scientific sources. I have left many of his edits and added to them, but he will not stop until every page is how he wants it to look. If you look at our edits, I am the one adding sources to unsourced information. He is deleting them. Im trying not to get into another editing war with him. CMD007 (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No I'm not. How dare you vandalize the articles, you vandal. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mass blanking of articles isn't a good way of resolving a dispute. Could an admin look at at this and give Obsidian Soul some time out to cool down. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh really? Tell me more of these so-called policies.
    Just ban me permanently. Almost 14 years of service. This would be my first and last ban. I hope that gives you all joy. Because you sure as hell don't want to help.
    As I've said before, I'm tired of how Wikipedia bends over backwards to accommodate the least helpful and most disruptive editors, many of them SPAs or ban evaders, and losing the older active editor population year by year in the process. I'm tired of the bureaucratic bullshit of AGF that refuses to call a spade a spade.
    Someone who is clearly doing Wikipedia-wide changes to label my people slaves and invalidate, minimize, or remove my culture and my country from any articles concerning our former colonizers, doean't seem to bother you. No one else noticed it for months. Why would me helping him remove our relevance bother you further?
    Ban me. Go back to bickering over western stuff. Maybe in 40 years someone else notices what he's done and fixes it. But probably not. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Obsidian Soul: I understand your frustration (I really do), but the mass blanking is clearly is a disservice to yourself and to the readers. Please reconsider. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no interest in the ongoing dispute, but your experienced enough to know this isn't the right way to go about solving it. I implore you to undo what you've done, getting blocked won't help to overcome the issues you've highlighted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This was filed as a separate complaint, I have merged this into the existing one. Notifying both users @CMD007@Obsidian Soul. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked Obsidian Soul for vandalism. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 11:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    BalticBowser: Weird Attack "Blog" on Talk Page, may be NOTHERE

    When reverting an inaccurate edit User:BalticBowser had restored, I went to their talk page and noticed with this weird content under and immediately above the heading "Blog" (talk page at time of my comment). All of it was added by BalticBowser and included in it are some apparent personal attacks on editors who have previously given them warnings and threats to edit disruptively and block evade/sock:

    • FUCK. YOU. Keep removing the images I upload on my Wikimedia account and I will eat your head. Fuck you.
    • What uneducated idiot would think that was 'disruptive' editing?
    • while I'm about to be blocked from editing any Wikipedia article soon, I have devised a backup just for the hell of it. So, good luck trying to find me, suckers. <3
    • At the top of the page they previously had the text Love placing facts, even somewhat disruptive., which they changed to Love placing facts on this retarded website. in this diff.

    Their editing history doesn't look exclusively non-constructive, but I'm concerned they're not here to be constructive. They also seem to think that their user talk page is an appropriate place to keep a "blog" with stuff unrelated to Wikipedia, but that was not my main concern here.

    I left them a message asking about this content ([64]) which they deleted ([65]) (edit: fixed diff) (edit 2: to be clear, they deleted the message I left; the concerning content remains live) without replying or addressing the issue, so I've brought it here. Thanks! Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 05:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC) (edited 05:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC) and again 15:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]

    Comment by an uninvolved user:
    Hi, I just had a look at this, and here's my observations:
    • This user's edits to Wikipedia do indeed appear to be constructive – even adding content to article with references, such as this, and this.
    • On 31 July 2023, they made some edits to Barbenheimer (diff), which were reverted by Dylnuge, and the creation of this ANI thread by Dylnuge shortly follows that.
    • This looks like a normal content dispute that can be resolved through talk page discussion and subsequentially dispute resolution options.
    • The statement on the top of their talk page about how "Fandom is better", was written on 17 April 2022 (diff), well before this latest content dispute began.
    • The 'blog' material is original – e.g. the statement from 5th October 2020 (the dates are in M/D/Y format) was actually written by them on 5th Oct '20: diff.
    So yeah. Overall, this user's displayed attitude is definitely of concern here, or at the very least, the material on their talk page goes against what users should be using their user talk pages for. But their edits on the surface level do seem to be constructive, and made with the intention to build an encyclopaedia. I would be more concerned if this user was edit warring and failing to discuss / actively avoiding discussions. I guess my take on this is wait and see, if the user's behaviour diverges towards being disruptive, then that's when actions shall be taken here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhh... Civility is a very major concern here. Probably atleast a 24 hour block, up to a week would be justified IMO. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is stale. The comments were from over a year ago. They've been (correctly) removed from the page. At most this deserves a warning. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They have not removed the comments from their talk page: User_talk:BalticBowser.
    I also am confused by @AP 499D25's "normal content dispute" comment. I didn't bring up the Barbenheimer edits here because the reason I wound up on their talk page was unrelated to my actual concern, which was what I found on the talk page. I agree that edit wouldn't warrant any action. It's the WP:POLEMIC material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws that concerns me. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 15:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I misread the diffs on the talk page. I've removed the "blog" portion per WP:UTP. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I'm feeling a bit drained by this whole thread; did I misreport this? Is there a better place to say "hey, I'm not sure what to do here, can an admin or someone else more experienced than me take a look at it"? Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 16:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User talk:Drmies, perhaps. --JBL (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I'll keep that in mind for the future Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 03:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dylnuge It was just my quick observations on this, I didn't realise this thread centred around the material that's on their talk page and wasn't at all about the Barbenheimer dispute. My mistake, sorry.
    Usually when I see such material (e.g. "love placing facts, even somewhat disruptive"), I would definitely expect the user to be disruptive or acting in bad faith of some kind, but I found no regular and concrete evidence of that from the article edits they made, that I have looked at. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries; I just wanted to get a sense of whether I should have done this differently. I tried to be thorough, which probably wound up being too verbose.
    FYI they're continuing to use their talk page weirdly ([66], [67] (current)), though I'm not sure if it's worthy of further attention. At the very least I'd say there's a communication issue here. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 15:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiTricky27

    User:WikiTricky27 has added an editorial about my edits to the page John Speed (Kentucky) multiple times. I attempted to start a dialogue on their talk page that adding criticism to the article is not the appropriate place for that discussion, but to no avail. The edits have been added back without any attempt of discussion. --Engineerchange (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a note on their talk page that this discussion should be had on the article's talk page. Also, they are over 3RR at the moment, any further reverts will result in a likely temp block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiTricky27 persisted after being warned, so I have given the editor a 31 hour block. Let's hope they learn the lesson. Cullen328 (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An additional note, a swastika was added to my talk page just a second ago (and quickly removed by a moderator). Another was added by another IP shortly thereafter. I don't know the rules here, but could an IP investigation/longer ban be considered given the nature of that level of offense. --Engineerchange (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just very tedious trolling, doesn't have anything particular to do with you. --JBL (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    CIR, SPA issues at User:MPMdsfbups

    This user started campaigning to remove an end date from Elinor Wonders Why about a month ago despite that it has not had a new episode in over a year and has not had confirmation of continuing (going against WP:TVPRESENT). Personal attacks (see edit summary) and persistent misunderstanding of how Wikipedia operates with little to no effort being made to do things properly. Reading through our conversation on their talk page should give an idea of what I mean. I had hoped they just dropped it but started again today. WPscatter t/c 18:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wpscatter: While their messages today certainly hasn't been productive, they haven't made any edits to actual articles or templates. Their most recent message indicates they'll hold off until they get a response on Twitter from the show's creators, something that almost definitely won't happen before some kind of official public statement regarding the show's fate. (And hey, such an official statement would almost certainly be the reliable source the article needs to make these changes or not.) I know this isn't how you'd want to handle this but if MPMdsfbups leaves the articles and templates as they are and just stays flailing at their own talk page, would that be enough for you to consider this settled? CityOfSilver 19:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CityOfSilver, thanks for responding. I suppose you're right that they aren't actually editing anything in a meaningful way and I could just leave it alone. Of course if an official statement is released that would be reason enough to remove the end date from the page (despite it being a primary source—I admit to bad phrasing on that point). I'm just struck poorly by the attempt to reach out to the creators in the first place considering it wouldn't help anything even if they did respond. Considering everything so far I just don't see this editor contributing positively now or in the future (mainly due to CIR), but that might be bias since I was the one most involved. WPscatter t/c 20:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wpscatter: That's fair. I believe this should just be left alone for now but if that attitude doesn't prevail (that is, MPMdsfbups gets blocked or otherwise sanctioned), that'd be fine with me. I've done my best to slog through that conversation and it's infurating how much of your time has gotten wasted pretty much entirely because this person refuses to comply with TVPRESENT. CityOfSilver 20:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have given MPMdsfbups a formal warning about making personal attacks. Cullen328 (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring, harassment by FMSky

    Before and after leaving this gem of incivility on my talk page, FMSky has been whitewashing a couple of articles related to Sound of Freedom (film) by removing sourced paragraphs over and over again, claiming consensus on the talk page where there is none. The same thing is going on at Operation Underground Railroad. Some of the controversy regarding the film and the organization has centered on the film's accuracy and the connections to QAnon, but everything that they're removing is extremely well-sourced. After the profanity left on my talk page, I don't see a way forward for this editor without admin attention. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems like you didn't notify them of this discussion. I have done it for you, but do note that it is required to leave a notice on the editors talk page. Deauthorized. (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is actually an issue. I am assuming FMSky is, when referring to 'talk page consensus', is referring to the RfC, which is ongoing and is definitely not going to WP:SNOW from a quick glance. The comment on Fred's talk page is definitely uncivil, and uncalled for. I'm not familiar with the dispute regarding the Sound of Freedom page, so there may be context I'm missing. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Fred Zepelin has edit warred and re(added) stuff to this section a total of 14 (!!!) times throughout the last month ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, i may have missed some), despite there being TWO talk page discussions/RfCs going on about whether to include it, that are currently leaning towards not including it. He has been reverted multiple times by multiple different users, not just me, and clearly doesnt grasp the concept of WP:Consensus. He has basically been doing nothing else the last month. The article's current version is a revert of Fred Zepelin's additions by another user: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sound_of_Freedom_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1168339873 Fred Zepelin should be blocked for longterm disruptive edit warring. Leaving two talk page messages is also not "harrasment" and saying "how many fucking times" isnt an attack or personal insult --FMSky (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I also just noticed a WP:Canvassing violation on the user's part: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dlthewave&diff=prev&oldid=1168309898 --FMSky (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so there's the context I'm missing. Just a question: you referred to talk page consensus in some occasions. Both RfCs are ongoing, so I don't think there is talk page consensus. The edit-warring is a major issue, which I completely missed. I'm still of the opinion that the talk page comment was unnecessary. Stern language sure, but swearing is not needed. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i didnt mean it like there IS consensus but rather that consensus SHOULD BE REACHED before adding the content. I used that language because i was pissed off and was mainly trying to understand his behaviour. -FMSky (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC) just as i'm typing this i noticed another user's complaint about Fred Zepelin's slow motion edit warring https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sound_of_Freedom_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1168316257 they also cited 9 reverts alone on this page and these weren't even all of them (+this is just one article, he has been doing it in multiple ones). maybe he intentionally waits over 24hrs for every revert to avoid 3RR --FMSky (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm one of the editors who's had multiple run-ins with FMSky, which I suppose is why I was notified. Looking through FMSky's talk page history, they've received a number of warnings over the past few months which they responded to by reverting and leaving uncivil/dismissive edit summaries. They're clearly not receptive to peer feedback about their editing habits:

    They're also one of several editors who's been repeatedly removing a paragraph from Sound of Freedom (film) with claims that it's "not related to film in any way whatsoever" despite being supported by sources that are specifically about the film. Of course these ongoing content disputes should be resolved on the article talk page, not ANI, but I don't think that FMSky's repeated reversions and slow motion edit warring are helping to work towards a resolution. I would also like to point out their awareness that BLPs and Post-1992 US politics are contentious topics, so any admin is free to warn or block as they see fit. –dlthewave ☎ 13:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "should i make a compilation about your history of edit warring and biased editing?" Please do, community feedback and opportunities for growth are always welcome. –dlthewave ☎ 14:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Half of these reverts are messages from you because of your failure to respect consensus, which you even acknowledged here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dlthewave&diff=prev&oldid=1167905632 , and good job digging out months old talk page edit summaries. should i make a compilation about your history of edit warring and biased editing?
    note that this user was brought here through canvassing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dlthewave&diff=prev&oldid=1168309898 by Fred Zepelin to sway discussion in a certain direction

    --FMSky (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    good job twisting the truth btw. one of the edit summaries you didnt even post in its complete form and two of the others i adressed on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FMSky&diff=prev&oldid=1167725240 --FMSky (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • information Administrator note. I have imposed a one-month consensus-required restriction at the article for changes pertaining to QAnon or other conspiracy theories, broadly construed. If participants in this thread could get back to working together toward consensus, rather than sniping at each other, that would be greatly appreciated. No one looks innocent here, so if this gets into editor-level sanctions I don't think anyone's going to like where that goes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, this should put a stop to the slow edit warring.
    Consensus Required restrictions always bring the risk of editors from either side blocking consensus via bludgeoning and/or non-policy-based arguments. I forsee this being an issue with including/excluding "alleged" in a subsection header, for example. In situations like this it's often helpful for admins to informally moderate the discussion and warn users who may be disregarding our guidelines or relying on personal opinion instead of what the sources say. –dlthewave ☎ 17:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fred appears to be adding material with a mostly indirect connection to the subject (only one of the citations in this block of text, Insider, is about the film), and should perhaps focus instead on the Ballard/OUR articles. Regardless, he should really stop adding the material since it has been challenged and is under discussion. Trout for FMSky for losing their cool with the talk page message and coming off broadly WP:BATTLEGROUNDy. I don't know that a consensus-required restriction is necessary beyond that one article, but that seems like a reasonable step given how much edit warring there's been. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued hounding by FMSky of my edits after he was warned

    FMSky is now following me around and undoing edits I make without regard for any policy. [75] [76]

    I'd really like this harassment to stop. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not aware of whatever makes this "continued", but the first edit is pretty standard CSECTION enforcement, and the second is a revert without an edit summary. That's...not much of a case for harassment. Sergecross73 msg me 02:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment was made prior to this sections merger to the discussion detailing other overarching issues. Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FZ, I do think that there are issues with FMSky's conduct (more on this soon), but i don't think it's fair to characterize those linked diffs as "following me around" or harassment. As the central content dispute at Sound of Freedom (film) concerned Jordan Peterson and Operation Underground Railroad, the AGF explanation is that FMSky found their way to those closely related pages. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    After I warned FMSky about edit warring once again at Operation Underground Railroad [77][78], they left an edit warring notice on my talk page [79]. I haven't been edit warring and they did not respond when asked for an explanation. They've already been warned about this spurious tit-for-tat templating and I would like it to please stop. –dlthewave ☎ 02:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Any objections to moving this up to be a sub-section of #Edit warring, harassment by FMSky? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Firefangledfeathers: I was thinking the same since it's a continuation of the already open thread, so I've moved it. No objection if my move to a subsection is reverted, but it seemed like a logical move. - Aoidh (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not seeing much here that's sanctionable other than Fred's edit warring. It wouldn't hurt if FMSky could be a little less blunt. Some of these examples it would have helped to AGF, but this seems like much ado about nothing. Nemov (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you comfortable with them leaving completely unfounded notices accusing me of edit warring and harassment [80][81] and leaving Contentious Topic notices without checking to see if I'm already aware? Does this not merit a warning of some sort? –dlthewave ☎ 04:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    you also left contentious topic notes on my page when I was already aware of them and you left edit warring notes when I was not doing that FMSky (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm currently being hounded and threatened by both DLthewave and Fred Zeppelin who bombard my talk page with tons of unwarranted notices and messages. dlthewave wasn't even supposed to be here and was brought here through canvassing FMSky (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Nazi flag

    Collapsing to make just the useful info visible — Trey Maturin™ 18:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure what the protocol here is, but anon 213.121.189.138 just vandalized my talk page with a Nazi flag. Anon is clearly WP:NOTHERE. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a new one. Apparently this random IP from the United Kingdom placed a swastika on my talkpage with the caption "The chungus impostor is sus." I'm not sure what those words mean or why I was targeted... but anyway, is this a new form of trolling? And shouldn't that image be on the bad image list? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 02:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, "chungus" is a meme and "imposter is sus" refers to Among Us. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 15:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I got one of those too. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    check AIV I'm reporting as many as I can Knitsey (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. A different IP put one on my talk page too and on another users page as well. I just deleted them both. Here's a link to their contribs page. This IP only has the two edits so far [82] EEBuchanan (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My talk page was vandalised several times too. First, it was the Nazi Swastika flag, then a different IP came in and changed random words throughout my talk page to bad words. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    188.74.100.3 posting a swastika on my user talk

    I've obviously annoyed someone because a IP user has just posted a swastika on my user talk. This is obviously unacceptable behaviour. AlanStalk 03:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. That's the third one in a row. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit filter time? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a lot, see also WP:AIV. Might be worth a brief block on any AS belonging to Hutchison 3G UK Limited/Mobile Broadband Service, which seems to be the originating AS? Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 03:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit filter is way smarter, ignore me. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 03:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IPs were from the Netherlands and the UK. Netherzone (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Star Mississippi and Acroterion's talk pages just got hit a few minutes ago from 3 different IPs. I think an edit filter was requested, but someone should double check.Netherzone (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder what their motive is. Seems very juvenile. AlanStalk 03:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's one of our frequent fliers, I can't be bothered to figure out which one, using proxy IPs. I've asked for an edit filter, since the image is widely used and hard to blacklist. Acroterion (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They're going nuts on my user talk at the moment with Geni reverting the edits and blocking different IPs over and over. AlanStalk 03:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    My page was also vandalized in this way. I have reverted. The IP which left the hate symbol on my page is: 88.202.157.204. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple IP Addresses spamming Nazi flags on many user's talk pages

    Can I request any admins to help clear the backlog at WP:AIV? 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 03:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No point. The vandal cycles IP after a couple of edits regardless of if they have been blocked or not.©Geni (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes a very good argument for requiring registration for any form of editing. AlanStalk 03:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or just a good argument for having better IP abuse tools. We can WP:DENY and not let a vandal decide our editing policies; wouldn't be shocked if the whole "point" was to get people to react, and they'll get bored before we do. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 03:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Best we can do is require IP address masking" -- WMF. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    46.20.220.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    188.222.180.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    81.130.142.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    81.56.152.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    80.14.119.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    My god when will this stop....
    These IP addresses have replaced most of my decorations with images of Hitler. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 04:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we please stop reporting these IPs, both here and at AIV? It is clear that the vandal is quick about hopping to new IPs after making a single edit, and unless there is evidence that they like returning to a particular IP, I really don't see what WP:PREVENTATIVE benefit there is in playing whack-a-mole with the block button here. I'm afraid the edit filter and patrolling recent changes are just going to be what we have to do. Mz7 (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I was reporting them because I figured they were probably open proxies that should be blocked anyway, but I'll remember that next time I'm cleaning up after a similar attack. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The particular kind of proxy they are using is very difficult to detect because they could be a mix of legitimate and anonymized traffic, and they often don't last very long. In other words, we can block these IPs in the short term (e.g. for a few days), but anything longer could result in collateral damage. Mz7 (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, my opinion at this point is still that it's not worth blocking at all, but I recognize it is within discretion for another admin to make blocks. Mz7 (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    100% agree with AlanS. Registration should be required. If someone really gives a hoot about editing a certain page in good faith, they surely could spend two minutes creating an account. Imagine the headache this would spare everyone. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The flaw in your logic is that most editors don't start out really giving a hoot about editing a certain page -- they just see a way they might contribute, and take the opportunity, and then 1 in a 100 of them gets hooked and become long-term contributors. I can personally attest that if I'd had to create an account before making my first edit, I never would have, and WP would have to have somehow got along without me all these years since. (Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing I leave to others to decide.) EEng 05:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The flaw in that logic is that for everyone like you who states they never would have bothered if they had to make an account, there's at least one editor who isn't building the encyclopedia because they're too busy whacking IP vandals.
    And with that, seriously? Everyone on Reddit's made an account. Everyone on Discord's made an account. Everyone on Facebook's made an account. Everyone on Twitter's made an account. Everyone commenting on a Disqus forum's made an account. Most forums require accounts. Pinterest, Instagram, Tumblr, YouTube, accounts all around. The notion that Wikipedia would be shunned if registration was required flies in the face of 90% of the Internet. Ravenswing 12:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When Wikipedia was in it's infancy, anonymous editing was still a big thing I would say. Now? It's an outlier. I've been on the bandwagon of no longer having logged out editing for sometime. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I highly doubt blocking anonymous edits would do much to deter this type of attack in the long run. Since enabling captchas stopped the current round, that demonstrates it's likely automated. In that case, they could still do the same thing if anonymous editing were disabled simply by adding a few steps in their attack script to create a new throw away account with a random username and automatically create a new account after a few edits and/or when the current account gets blocked. AI enhanced tools have gotten rather good at solving captchas too. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:E06F:6EFC:616E:44FE (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • They have now moved on to inserting random words into articles. I've done my bit by reverting 100+ of these today (as have others). A filter for the flag would help. Knitsey (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think given the timing, the nature of the edit, and the fact that it is the only edit in the IP's contrib log, I think my talk page got hit by this vandal as well. And yet, for some reason, instead of a swastika, I got a random photo of some polish boxing commentator? 🤔 I don't know if this data point is at all useful to those addressing this disruption, but figured I'd mention it here just in case someone is compiling all the utilized IPs. SnowRise let's rap 10:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just got hit, and they changed out the about 10 images on my user talk page to pictures of Hitler, and added text. IP from South Korea. Netherzone (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Defacement of talk page by 37.210.128.134

    37.210.128.134 (talk · contribs) defaced my talk-page with disturbing images. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChaipau&diff=1168411340&oldid=1168391998

    I have reverted it but request some action.

    Chaipau (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This is related to the above Nazi imagery LTA attack. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I should have checked. Thanks for mentioning it here. Chaipau (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chaipau Fyi, I have reported to WP:AIV for you. This is related to #Nazi flag above. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could potentially be the same IP as 50.86.121.146 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its an LTA automated attack. See the above Nazi flag section. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    EmergencyCaptcha mode in effect

    EmergencyCaptcha mode is in effect as of a few minutes ago. It applies to all unregistered and non-autoconfirmed users. Disruption has stopped for now; if that holds for a few hours, someone should reach out to a dev and ask to have it turned off. The task to reference, even if you can't view its contents, is T343294. Longer-term, a relevant task is T303433 (allowing stewards to enable EmergencyCaptcha). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    From what I can tell, this measure appears to have been highly effective. Thanks for your work on this! Mz7 (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Hopefully this fixes the problem. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 05:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we think we're ready to revert this? — TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • they/them) 09:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheresNoTime-WMF: I'd say so! -- RockstoneSend me a message! 10:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My take is that if there is no evidence of disruption for the last 1-3h, it's worth turning it off as long as we have a reasonably quick way of flipping the switch again if needed. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rockstone35 and Blablubbs: Reverted, thank you — I am monitoring this thread, so please ping me (or any other sysadmin) if this level of disruption resumes — TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • they/them) 10:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheresNoTime-WMF: We might need this back on again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ack, are filters ineffective again? — TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • they/them) 14:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The vandalism hasn't resumed yet - but they just threatened on SFR's talk page to start vandalizing again, so we might need the captchas soon. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There were a number of now revdel'd post with the same type of message here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheresNoTime-WMF: It'd be for the best to wait until it actually resumes to enable it as it's a rather disruptive mitigation. Deauthorized. (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deauthorized: Understood — other mitigations are being reviewed — TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • they/them) 15:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is best practice the next time this happens? I responded to this incident last night and blocked probably a score of IPs, maybe more. I wasn't sure what the best route for escalation is. Feel free to reply by email if you don't want to, erm, spill any beans. —C.Fred (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @C.Fred: when things get "bad enough" that community-based mitigations are no longer effective, privately asking for SRE/Security assistance (ideally via a Security Task on Phabricator) is the best course of escalation, as Tamzin did in this case — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) @C.Fred: I think this much ought to be said publicly, to increase the bus factor of admins who know what to do: My approach and others' in these cases is increasingly aggressive filtering of IP edits (or new-account edits, depending on LTA M.O.), up to an extreme of disallowing or drastically limiting all IP edits outright. (Granted, not all admins are edit filter managers, but all can monitor private filters and discuss with EFMs as needed—or self-grant EFM and make limited changes to the extent they feel competent to do so.) When one is in the territory of those extraordinary measures, that's the time to talk about EmergencyCaptcha. There's a few sysadmins I'm friendly with who I'd normally reach out to in such a case; in this one, they were all offline, so I dropped a message in #wikimedia-operations connect and got a response after about 20 minutes. If things had been a bit more acute, I might have requested a Klaxon blare, although in practice finding someone with Klaxon access can be just as hard as finding someone with access to do the needful in the first place. I'll note that, while antivandalism work is usually below our devs' paygrade, I've found them uniformly enthusiastic about it when push comes to shove. They also have other interventions they can use, such as removing limits on AbuseFilter hits and some other stuff I won't get into. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin advice for "ordinary" editors who spot an outbreak

    I missed yesterday's main drama, so apologies if this has been discussed. If this can be done without spilling stuff... what should "ordinary" editors like me do if we spot another outbreak of this sort? I've seen admins asking for and recommending against reporting the IPs to AIV, for instance.

    What would you lot with the mops and big red buttons like us to do? Is it just revert and ignore, knowing that others will see the issue and do the revdeling and blocking as and when? — Trey Maturin™ 16:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If it continues it might be worthwhile setting up something (another type of AIV?) somewhere (I'm still a noob so I've no idea where) to request rev/dels maybe? I don't know if that's a possibility? Knitsey (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's of this severity, then Tamzin's writing above is the reasonable solution. Due to it being a security task it's unfortunate that 191 people can know whether the process has started without asking, but it comes with the territory. As Ingenuity said below, there's not much point in reporting (and by extension blocking) since they hop around the IPs on speeds that make it unviable. Reverting and ignoring is indeed the way to go, with RD being applied when appropriate, although I don't believe adding photos of Oswald Mosley and replacing random words rises to that level. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, there's basically nothing you can do except revert the IP edits. Each IP is only used for one edit, so there's not much use in reporting them to AIV. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was more about asking for rev/dels after reverting. In this case it might be there are too many though. Knitsey (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The insane attack took place in the early dawn in UTC+3, it just like block numerous IPs and cleaning up the clutter. My talk page is protected already but will end on August 5, but the logic is, the numerous anons claim to be from the UK and Netherlands as stated above when it was dark then. If this persists, other than the filter created fails, it would be a problem to all non autocomfirmed users. Too odd that all affected versions are hidden from view. ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 17:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly speaking, simply patrolling recent changes is a truly big help and is something anyone can do. I think some of us who have been around for a while like to roll our eyes at the banality of this work compared to other things we could be doing on Wikipedia, but the less editors doing it, the likelier it is that vandalism will slip through and be seen by readers. Mz7 (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Dedicated filter for emergency mass IP block

    Well that was... something. Since it's suboptimal to have a massive IP block be logged on whichever more specialized edit filter was in use before then, especially if the filter is private, I have created filter 1263 for such (hopefully extremely rare) cases going forward. It is disabled by default. For any admins reading this in the future: to use, select all, IPv4, or IPv6; select namespaces if applicable; enable; notify AN or AN/I; and request EmergencyCaptcha if it has not already done so. The filter uses the custom MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-emergency-IP, newly created by DatGuy and Reaper Eternal. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That seems like it'd be instantly throttled. Unless the configuration for throttling has changed. Deauthorized. (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure. 684 wasn't throttled (although it was flagged) in the 2 minutes it blocked all IPv4 edits. Either way it'd be better than nothing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, there really needs to be better tools for these types of mass attacks. Deauthorized. (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: Will it also affect new users? ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 17:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It could be easily modified to do that, but—at the risk of tempting fate,  Kinehore—that's a significantly less likely scenario, since account creation is a bottleneck. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ABSOLUTELY don't prevent edits by new users, it's disruptive enough when IP editing is disabled. Deauthorized. (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Note of appreciation

    I just wanted to take a second to thank all of our admins, functionaries, and patrollers who so quickly and diligently moved to effectively address this disruption, and who did so with an eye towards minimizing the impacts on good faith contributions. Unfortunately, for reasons I'll BEANS past, I feel like these kinds of attacks are probably going to be occasionally with us, for at least this immediate forthcoming era of the project, so it's good to know that our response mechanisms are so adept and well-crewed. Three cheers for our response team here: you're too numerous for me to track you all down and give you barnstars for your work, but please know you are noticed and appreciated, during larger scale disruption, and generally. SnowRise let's rap 22:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    And while I'm at it, an inquiry too. Per Mz7's comments above, I'm going to make an effort to over the following days to lend some extra eyes at RCP. And I wonder if maybe it wouldn't be the worst idea to have a mass-message subscription that could send up a quick flair to regular patrollers to let them know when one of these attacks is happening, and extra hands on deck would be appreciated? Maybe also some notices to some high traffic spaces, or a reserved space/template/notice so that editors such as myself who do not regularly volunteer as new page patrollers, but would be inclined to do so under the circumstances, can be aware of the temporary need?
    Of course any amount of adjustment that requires mobilizing additional editors risks becoming the kind of reaction that only encourages this sort of thing. And vandalism busting is not my area, so for all I know CVU already has some tools in this area, which might be perfectly well supported by sufficient numbers of volunteers to respond to these issues. But it seems like mobilizing enough extra rank and files on short-to-immediate notice timelines to squash these kinds of attacks flat as instantly as possible might be useful thing? I don't know, I'm a little out of my element, so maybe I'm only talk about obvious stuff that already exists. SnowRise let's rap 22:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. — Trey Maturin™ 22:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SnowRise, my impression is that those who are interested already have ways of notifying each other off-wiki. But in any case, the less edits that are made over this sort of thing, the less happens on-wiki because of it, the better. One of the initial vandal messages here on ANI was that they want 'war'. The obvious answer is WP:DENY. I think that actually, we handled this case particularly badly on that front. What we're doing here with the barnstars, and my very comment (also acknowledging I actually read their trolling message), runs directly contrary to good practice. Don't get me wrong, I highly appreciate the admins working on this. I also appreciated them the last time I witnessed a similar display by another hopelessly pathetic proxy-wielding vandal. But at the time there was almost no fuss about it on ANI, and it seems that 'fuss' is all these trolls are really looking for. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough as to most of that, but I actually think the barnstars and general expressions of appreciation to our anti-vandalism volunteers runs in the opposite direction: it's a healthy response as an internal matter, and even if the LTA does see it, all it shows them is that they are only bringing us closer together and making us more committed and organized.
    Mind you, I can understand the BEANS and DENY arguments for keeping the community response small and discrete on the whole, and hiding community organization and response "under the bonnet", so to speak, but celebrating our hardworking volunteers at the gates in good cheer feels appropriate and if anything makes it clear to the vandal that we are largely unfazed by their nonsense. SnowRise let's rap 04:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Silence is the best response to this kind of disruption, but in a case like this where it's not entirely an option (some public coordination that needs to be done, plus the inevitable influx of "what's going on??"), I do think wholesomeness is the second-best response. I think trolls like this often have an image of hyper-intense admins seething behind our keyboards, obsessing over their next move. During the first wave of this, I listened to Yo-Yo Ma and Alison Krauss' rendition of "Simple Gifts" on repeat while I blocked IPs and then had a good night's sleep; I handled the second wave while chatting with friends and listening to "House Atreides" from The Dune Sketchbook, and then signed off for a boardgame date with my polycule. The most stressful thing that's happened to me today has been trying and failing to win as the traitor in Betrayal at House on the Hill. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A little shameless self-promo: User:Giraffer/Sworn enemies. But on a more serious note, I agree with what most of the above are saying; it may not be the ideal scenario (or necessarily the most comforting), but for most patrollers, using our standard processes for vandalism should be a good solution in incidents like these. I don't think a massmessage or anything of that form is really needed at this stageknock wood -- it takes a surprisingly low number of patrollers to deal with something of this scale, and I think the DENY-violating aspects of sending a message out heavily outweigh whatever positives may be gained from having a surplus of users ready to revert. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 07:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for providing that perspective, Giraffer. Seems like everyone familiar with the area is convinced our current wo/manpower is more than sufficient to the task of restraining even the pronounced spikes of vandalism quite easily and that, as you say, any benefits of extra hands on deck are outweighted by the troll feeding it might enable. SnowRise let's rap 13:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    so that's who outed me as the Sussy impSuster from among Sus while i wasn't looking? cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 11:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Barnstar_of_Reversion_Hires.png File:No_Spam_Barnstar_Hires.png File:WikiDefender_Barnstar_Hires.png
    File:WikiDefender_Barnstar_Hires.png File:Technician_Barnstar.svg File:The_Patrol's_Barnstar.png
    		The Multiple Barnstar
    To all those above represented and those behind-the-scenes.
    Your vigilance and diligence serve to keep the Wiki working and thriving.
    ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What does this person even want? Or are they just bored and pissed? Any idea? --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't know, don't care, WP:DENY. Deauthorized. (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any page to co-ordinate the clean-up so cover everything once rather than duplicating effort? Obviously ANI isn't the right place for it, but it would be good to have a link here. Certes (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • My two penn'orth, an anecdote. I was a mod on a site (now shuttered) on which the main problems were commercial spam and to a lesser extent trolls. We were hit by a Chinese spambot, making 8,000-10,000 junk posts per hour. After some initial confusion, it was dealt with in a couple of hours. The second attack was handled more efficiently. When the third struck, there were three mods in our chatroom: the rough equivalent of a steward and 2 CUs (a veteran and the office junior (me)). I was monitoring the equivalent of recent changes, sounded the alarm, and volunteered to sit on the head of the queue (a task which included advising honest users what to do). The veteran took the tail and worked up towards me, both of us reporting new IPs to the steward as they were found. The latter used mass-deletion tools and applied blocks (at one point, she proudly announced that she'd just blocked one-third of mainland China). The rubbish started disappearing as fast as it was posted, and within an hour and a half they gave up and never came back.
    Obviously, this recent idiocy was a very different type of incident; but the way editors came together to counter it was familiar. I am confident that the public and behind-the-scenes channels set up because of it will make for an even more efficient response next time. Well done, all! Narky Blert (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you search for instances of that image?
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you know the filename (please do not post it here), then https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=20&offset=0&profile=default&search=insource%3A%22FILENAME%22&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 replacing FILENAME with all or part of the filename should do it. But... it's a commonly used file with many encyclopaedic uses, so each and every article would need a check – no blind reverts. — Trey Maturin™ 17:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several images; one edit I reverted introduced three and I've seen others elsewhere. Unfortunately, an insource: search is likely to time out unless accompanied by an indexed search term, and I can't think of one. I'm currently working through a list of changes from relevant time ranges which are by IPs and still current, but thankfully finding very few edits of concern. Certes (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll start watching RCP with Huggle and AV a little bit more than normal, at least for the next week or so. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 22:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuous racist POV vandalism

    WP:BOOMERANG, reporter blocked for being a sockpuppet. Heart (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    The Kifri page has been vandalized by Semsûrî. The town is located in Iraq’s Diyala province, in Kifri district. This information along with the respective sources was removed and the user has changed it to being part of Sulaymaniyah governorate in Kurdistan region, which is not true and has no sources. Attempts to revert this historical erasure and vandalism by other users is swiftly reverted by said user with no reasonable explanation. The page should be reverted from his edits and locked from his use. RightLeftUp2003 (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a sockpuppet of Kurdiyate352 thus their edits are reverted. Semsûrî (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Confirmed, I'll go block. --Yamla (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have semi'd the article for a while as they've been using IPs as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Dollarsign14

    Dollarsign14 blocked for a month. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Dollarsign14 (talk · contribs) has been blocked twice (March & July 2022) before - once by me - for repeatedly adding unsourced content to BLPs. This conduct continues and so I think a longer block is merited. GiantSnowman 15:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked them for an additional month. Clearly they aren't interested in learning. --Jayron32 15:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. GiantSnowman 16:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Anon making disruptive comments violating GS

    70.115.27.99 (talk · contribs) is violating WP:GS/RUSUKR by making personal comments on pages subject to the sanction. The sanction provides several remedies: I suppose protecting talk pages is not the best choice. Would an uninvolved admin please take an action? Thanks.  —Michael Z. 21:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not a recurring problem with other IP editors, right? It would probably be better to just block this IP editor than semi-protect a talk page. I think it's kind of silly to warn people not to troll and insult others, but a level 3 warning should suffice to let them know that intolerable behavior is not tolerated here. I'll warn them, then we can block them if they keep it up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you.  —Michael Z. 04:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bowlakemusic123

    Promotional-only account. After being blocked, it still abuses the user's talk page to advertise. Recommend to revoke TPA. --Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit was reverted two minutes after it was made, an admin warned Bowlakemusic123 not to do it again, and there hasn't been any activity in over 12 hours. If they do it again, that would probably be time to take action. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User Chaitanya kalra continues disruptively editing articles after their temporary ban ran out

    User Chaitanya kalra has been disruptively editing Wikipedia, with a specific focus on Sikh articles, for a few months now. They were temp. banned but their ban expired and now they're back to their old behaviour: [83], [84], [85].

    I have tried to engage them on their talk-page ([86]) requesting them to stop and warned that I would report them if they didn't but they haven't replied to me. Can something be done against them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThethPunjabi (talk • contribs) 03:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    ThethPunjabi, can you please explain in more detail what the problem is with those edits? Were they reverted? Was there discussion of the edits anywhere? Fences&Windows 19:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fences and windows: If it's not obvious from the edits themselves, this reply by User:MrOllie to a completely outrageous rant by Chaitanya kalra is a pretty good summary. CityOfSilver 19:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That was about edits in May they were blocked for so can't apply now. It's not obvious from the linked edits. Explain it like I'm five! Fences&Windows 19:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In May, MrOllie told Chaitanya kalra "You must cite sources for your additions, and you must make some effort to format them correctly." This applies to their most recent additions to Hinduism and Sikhism, all 3 of which came after they were blocked. Their first edit from August 1st is a major change that didn't include additional sourcing, is really badly written, and has an aggressive edit summary that all but declares it's original research. The second, which introduced a typo, has an edit summary that says "fixed typo." The third is, just like the first, a really substantial, badly written change that didn't include new sourcing but did have an argumentative summary that strongly indicated the new text is original research. All 3 were reverted by User:DeCausa per, you guessed it, WP:OR. This person isn't citing sources, they're banging out text with next to no consideration for how it'll look to a casual reader, and they're preemptively picking fights in the edit summaries. User:ThethPunjabi hasn't explained why they didn't try to discuss this before they came here but I bet it's because those two edit summaries show that Chaitanya kalra hasn't learned anything from their block. CityOfSilver 20:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ivanmaldonado1985, POV/profanity

    User:Ivanmaldonado1985 blocked by User:Oshwah. (non-admin closure) Heart (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User:Ivanmaldonado1985

    POV here.

    Personal grudge against an online forum for being banned here.

    Resorts to profanity after two reversions, here.

    Ivanmaldonado1985 was given a level one warning by User:Oshwah after making he last edit, but this repetitive disruptive behavior merits at least a long ban of some sort, if you ask me. Kire1975 (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Kire1975 - Blocked indefinitely. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    BLP Violations by IP

    The uesr got the SmackDown™ by Johnuniq. May God have mercy their soul....... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    All additions today have been unsourced BLP violations, some of which speculative and adding unsourced information. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked the IP for 48 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Gaming the wiki via title and search formatting

    I was searching up some info on a season of The Big Bang Theory and came across a strange titling - [87] - which redirects to [88]. Neither the band, the album nor any of the predominant marketing for the band's label utilized a spelling that includes extra spacing. I get that everyone wants an article to be read more than others, but I am not sure the method of formatting the title of the article and then using that tricky titling to serve as a redirect for the actual article is a valid method of using the Wiki. Its skews search results, artificially altering a reader's search pattern. Wikipedia is not a marketing tool. And if it is somehow okay to do this, steps should be taken to effectively stamp out any future efforts to do so in other articles. before the slippery slope of creative titling interferes with the Wiki. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, that's a lot of redirects for one small album: B I G B A N G 03 (Big Bang album), BIGBANG 03, Third Single, Big Bang Third Single Album and Bigbang 03, not to mention the title for one of the individual tracks, Good Bye Baby (Big Bang song). Someone's a huge fan. — Trey Maturin™ 15:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, this doesn't require sending up the batsignal or anything. Just tag the inappropriate redirects with {{db-r3}}, or take the whole batch to WP:RFD and it'll be taken care of. --Jayron32 15:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I've R3-tagged all of them except the individual track (a redirect from a track title like that to the source album helps prevent non-notable tracks gaining their own articles and disappointing new users when they get deleted). Now in the hands of someone with the big red button to do the business. — Trey Maturin™ 16:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and I'm not totally sure that it's gaming of the system to be honest, @Jack Sebastian: the album article has been repeatedly moved from place to place as editors have failed to come to a consensus on what the title was going to be/now is. These seem mostly to be redirects left behind from the moves. — Trey Maturin™ 16:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    CSD tags all removed by <checks notes> 2601:5cc:8300:a7f0:11e3:8bd7:7cd2:f31b. So that's nice then. — Trey Maturin™ 16:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is correct, though, I hadn't checked the dates (my bad), but these are all 8+ year old redirects. They aren't eligible for R3. WP:RFD is still a thing that exists. --Jayron32 16:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, my interest in this only goes so far (ie, not that far). — Trey Maturin™ 16:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, maybe I overreacted. I kinda thought that this was one of those sitches where someone plays a little fast and loose with the rules, and then a little later someone else plays a little faster and looser, and pretty soon, its spaghetti all over the walls and three nuns are pregnant. I was completely unaware of all of the other redirects. I know you guys see a much larger picture than us comparatively occasional editors. Thanks for addressing it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • And all that for an article with three lines of prose and no sources whatsoever apart from chart placings. Perhaps some of the editors who argued about what it was called ad nauseam could have spent five minutes actually writing an article... Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Future Perfect at Sunrise

    The user Future Perfect at Sunrise should NOT have administrative privileges. If you look through his edits it's clear he has a pro-Turkish agenda and distinctly edits articles related to Turkey, or former Ottoman territories in order to glorify Turkey or give a pro- Ottoman bias. This completely goes against Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. At the least he should be barred from editing Ottoman/Byzantine related articles. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What specific diffs can you provide? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    :Not to put too fine a point on it, but wasn't this the same sort of problem that saw this same user indef'd less than years ago? i wasn't even aware that they had been allowed to return, or - in a Bizarro-World tweest - was an admin again. Strange days, mama. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Sebastian (talk • contribs)

    Who exactly are you referring to? Who was indef'd less than years ago? Future Perfect at Sunrise was accidently indef'd about 9 years ago by mistake and was unblocked within 60 seconds of being blocked, as it was a mistake. Do you have diffs for whatever you're referring to? - Aoidh (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SouthernResidentOrca: This looks like a content dispute limited to a few edits over a couple of days on a specific page, and it doesn't look like you've tried to discuss the dispute with Future Perfect at Sunrise in any way, either on their user talk page or at Talk:Byzantine Empire. I would suggest using the article's talk page to try to get a consensus for your proposed changes, and using dispute resolution such as WP:3O or WP:DRN if the talk page discussion stalls, but this doesn't seem to be an issue that warrants WP:ANI or the duplicate AN discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Religious based disruptive editing by an IP

    (non-admin closure) IP blocked for two weeks by said admin. ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 06:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    103.59.178.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been editing religious based articles since December of 2022, and recently they have blanked portions of an article (see 1, 2, 3, and 4). They have not responded to warnings received on their talk page. 64andtim (chat) 00:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 2 weeks by Cullen328. Deor (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked the IP for two weeks for edit warring. They have been blocked for one week a few times already, presuming this is the same person, which seems likely. Cullen328 (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Rollbacked edits and blocked the spam-only account. --Leyo 08:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sahiltopmychart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adding a link to a website to multiple health related pages, repeatedly, without relevance, and in a form that indicates advertising. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    SPECIFICO issue at Julian Assange

    SPECIFICO Article: Talk:Julian Assange, specifically Talk:Julian_Assange#Lead_-_Manning_documents Issue(s): defamation on WP:BLP specifically WP:BLPCRIMINAL in which the editor twice refers to the article subject as a thief. Article subject is not a thief. The subject has also not been in prison for a decade.

    • Specifico states "he published illegally leaked, stolen documents that landed the thief in prison for nearly a decade." 15:20, 2 August 2023
    • I noted it was probably a BLP violation to call the article subject a thief saying "SPECIFICO, above you call the article subject a thief. I think we can stop the discussion here, this is a WP:BLP violation" 06:57, 3 August 2023
    • Specifico denies it: "No, I did not. Please review this thread and address the stated issue. Assange is the one who associated himself with a criminal. Others, including the US, claim that he too is a criminal due to having published stolen information. Also please review WP:ASPERSIONS." 08:25, 3 August 2023
    • I seek clarification: "@SPECIFICO: I read you say "landed the thief in prison for nearly a decade." Apologies I thought you were saying landed the thief. Is that a quote of Assange or someone else? I am unable to find this quote in google. Did that article subject call himself a thief? Thanks!" (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Specifico doubles down confirming he is accusing the article subject of a crime and adding emphasis to that claim: "@Jtbobwaysf: Bob, I am going to AGF and respond to you this one more time before seeking outside assistance: Those are my words, italicized for emphasis after various unresponsive replies in this thread. There is no quotation, and it's hard to understand the purpose of googling a just-written WP talk page comment. So please consider the issue raised above and respond to the crux of the issue, per WP:TPNO. Thanks." SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
    • I reply: "It seems problematic that you are referring to the article subject as a "thief" additionally "italicized for emphasis". That appears to be a BLP violation, as I would think these talk pages are also covered by that policy." Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

    -Specifico no longer responds at this point. It seems to me that if the editor cannot control his/her emotions sufficient to stay away from making false accusations about the article subject, that the editor should refrain from editing that particular article (or be prohibited if the editor cannot control himself/herself).

    Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think SPECIFICO is referring to Chelsea Manning as a thief, not Julian Assange. Manning was convicted of theft in 2013, and spent seven years in jail. BilledMammal (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to post the same comment, this appears to be a misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1168697552"