Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Jonharojjashi, part 2

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

TLDR: These past months Jonharojjashi has been making disruptive off-Wiki coordinations to disrupt Wikipedia together with other users, many being socks/indeffed due to their disruption.

Since I had a screenshot of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone into their Discord group for Wikipedia coordination (which they outright denied [1], not the best choice when I have a literal picture, makes you look even more suspicious) I took it to ArbCom per WP:OUTING. They recommended me to come back here to ANI. I believe all these actions were done through the Discord.

These past months there have been a surge of "new" users making the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, making use of the same (poor/misused) sources, all in India-related (generally war/battle) articles, many of them being the exact same topic, including poorly written *insert Indian victory here* articles. Because of this, I initially made two SPIs against Jonharojjashi's and co. [2] [3], but they were mostly fruitless.

Jonharojjashi and the indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699

1. Both accounts created roughly three months between each other. Their EIU [4] shows some quite suspicious stuff, including them edit warring together at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent and kinda repeating each other [5]. Another user who was edit warring with them in that article was Indo12122, a brand new user who is now indeffed (I'll get to that next sub-section).
2. Mr Anonymous 699 and Jonharojjashi also edit warred together at Kambojas in a WP:TENDENTIOUS manner [6]
3. At Kanishka's war with Parthia, Mr Anonymous 699 restored [7] the pov addition of Jonharojjashi.

Jonharojjashi and the sock Indo12122

1. As mentioned above, Indo12122 was also part of the edit warring efforts of Jonharojjashi and the now indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699 at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent [8] [9] [10] [11]
2. After I reverted one of Indo12122's socks, Mr Anonymous 699 randomly reverted me at Chola invasion of Kedah [12]
3. Jonharojjashi made a WP:POVFORK variant of Kingdom of Khotan [13], trying to push a legendary story obviously not supported by WP:RS to Indianize the Kingdom of Khotan. Just coincidentally not long ago one of the socks of Indo12122 also attempted to Indianize the topic in the article itself [14]. More proof that this can't all be a coincidence.
4. When multiple concerns were made over the article at Talk:Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh (created by Shakib ul hassan), Indo12122's sock Magadhan3933 suddenly appeared and started defending it. Whats even more suspicious, Magadhan3933 (Indo12122) also created literally the same article Draft:Campaigns of Chandragupta II Vikramaditya two days after Shakib ul hassan, which was even randomly edited by Jonharojjashi [15] [16]

Jonharojjashi and the sock Shakib ul hassan

1. Jonharojjashi has a history of making poorly made/sourced POV battle/war articles which conveniently result in the (often decisive) victory for an Indian entity. They initially made such a poor article Vikramaditya's west Oxus valley campaign, which not only use similar citations (Muzaffar and Fodor who are not even WP:RS) as Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh by brand new user Shakib ul hassan, but even another user noted that they were quite similar in the comment of the former article; "This seems quite similar to Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh, is it the same campaign?".
2. Like Jonharojjashi, Shakib ul hassan also misuses sources, only using the part that satisfies their POV and omitting the rest of what it says as noted by me here [17] [18]. They also both randomly requiested the protection of Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh [19] [20] under the false reason of "vandalism" (I'm not sure they understand what the word means).
3. Brand new and now indeffed user HistoricPilled, is a sock of User:Thewikiuser1999, and has a very similar EIA [21] to all these users. As seen in the edit history of Maratha–Sikh Clashes, HistoricPilled and Shakib ul hassan build on each others edits for example. At Bajirao I, they edit warred together [22] [23].

Jonharojjashi and the sock Melechha and indeffed user Aryan330

1. Melechha created a wikitable in Ahom–Mughal conflicts [24], which was some days after promptly edited by Jonharojjashi [25]
2. Same here; Melechha creates a Wikitable at Luso–Maratha War (1729–1732) [26], then its heavily edited by Jonharojjashi [27]
3. And the same here again, Melechha creates a Wikitable at Dogra–Tibetan war [28], then heavily edited by Jonharojjashi [29]
4. Indeffed user Aryan330 and Melechha's sock EditorPandit edited warred at Maratha–Portuguese War (1683–1684) [30] [31]. Guess who joined them later? That is right, Jonharojjashi [32]
5. Melechha's sock Msangharak trying to save the then POV infested Kanishka's war with Parthia by Jonharojjashi after it got nominated for deletion [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]

Jonharojjashi and the sock Rowlatt11

Jonharojjashi more or less restored [38] the unsourced edit [39] by Rowlatt11's sock Daayush.

Closing remark

In made response to my previous ANI [40], Jonharojjashi made a ridiculous SPI [41] of me and many other users who had called them out for their disruption. Instead of addressing the points, they simply dismissed the whole report as "WP:HOUNDING" and "biting newcomers", so I'm not going to reply to their incoming comments here unless an admin wants me to.

There is no way that these all coincidences, how many indeffed users/socks have Jonharojjashi interacted with in such a short time? Especially when I have a literally picture of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit members and denying it. These indeffed users/socks are no doubt members of the Discord. Jonharojjashi and the Discord they lead should not be allowed to edit here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

So this is the third time HistoryofIran has distressed me with his unfruitful SPIs and ANIs, these several attempts made by them to indef me, shows how much they are craved. If they can't prove me doing On-wiki canvassing then they are trying to get me blocked for doing alleged off wiki canvassing. Nevertheless I'll again refute all the points made by historyofIran for me doing any kind of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.

"I believe all these actions were done through the Discord. Yes, you believe, I don't know what you have got to prove me doing Off-wiki canvassing but feel free to show all of those unsubstantiated evidence to ArbCom. And they will just shut your case just like your other cases were closed as those were nothing but unrelated call and two different users.

Anyone can claim that they have got some literal pictures and screenshots of tagging/meatpuppetry even the nom can furnish such pictures because as we know you and ImperialAficionado have been trying to indef me and don't know how many newcomers have been indeffed because of your teamwork (not defending the guilty but have seen them tagging on multiple occasions). Note that HistoryofIran has got some personal issues with me in the past so it's obvious that he'd form a prejudice towards me even though he has been proven wrong and caught of lying just to demean me. According to them, every article made by me is poorly written/sourced but he has been proven wrong multiple times and as I said even caught of lying.

Now coming to the HistoryofIran's attempt to link me with these indeffed accounts and previously these accounts were proven to be unrelated with me.

1. HistoryofIran himself yelled that the difference between the creation of my account and Mr. Anonymous 699's account is more than 3 months, considering such a huge gap doesn't even call for a suspicion that this account is somewhat related to me moreover a check user will confirm this. Anyone can spy and can see others' activity so it's no surprise that they have been following me and indulged in any edit warring. And what is pov addition of Johnrajjoshi? It's clearly a sourced addition which is still present in the article body of

Kanishka's war with Parthia Why are you still lying?

1. 2 Indo12122 and Mr. Anonymous 699 could be a pair of sock but to say that just because a sock account is related to another suspect doesn't mean that they could be related to me. In fact I was the victim of unattributed usage of my contents in Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkha the creator of this page Shakib ul hassan copied my content without giving any attributions. This proves that these suspected users were spying on my works and even published their own article after copying mine without my consent and instead of grouping me with them, historyofiran should group these suspected users with themselves.
2. The wikitables created by Melechha were on the hot articles which means those articles are watched by hundred thousands per month so it'd be obvious that my and other wiki editor's attention would get there but to say that we are connected to each other through sockpuppetry is a baseless allegation and perhaps historyofIran has forgot about their tagging with ImperialAficionado and DeepstoneV and how they were tagging with each other on various occasions [42]. If I had done such coordinated taggings with these alleged suspected users then I'm sure historyofIran would have found more ways to get me indeffed. I had made a SPI on ImperialAficionado by showing how these users are tagging/allying with each other and have made a sect and group against newcomers.
3. more or less? Just stop suspecting me with some random sock users. There is a bold difference in these edits, in mine [43] I have edited it on the basis of Rabatak inscription whereas Rowlatt11 had cited a secondary source [44] I don't see any relation in it and besides Kanishka's religion is a hot topic of discussion so it'd be obvious that many user will do edits in it but that doesn't mean you'll now relate all of them with me, amusing enough that HistoryofIran is trying to relate me with any far distant user.

Jonharojjashi (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

A poor, cherrypicked response which barely addressed half the stuff I said. As I expected. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

And what's so cheery picked in it? Jonharojjashi (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Editing issues of Jonharojjashi

I'm not getting involved in the discussion of sock/meat issues or behavioral problems, but I've encountered issues with two of their articles I attempted to verify with sources. One article I submitted for AFD and it was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extermination of Nagadhatta. )Today, I examined another article created by Jonharojjashi, Gauda–Gupta War, and found significant issues within it. While I addressed some of these concerns during the AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauda–Gupta War), the problems extend beyond a few isolated ones. While I've found several issues just within two of their articles, I'm concerned that other pages created by them may follow a similar pattern. I recommend a review of their articles.--Imperial^[AFCND] 17:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I was not sure why Jonharojjashi restricted the timeframe of the Gupta–Hunnic Wars to 534, especially when there are sources (now cited by me) indicating that the conflicts extended until the fall of the Guptas in 550, largely due to White Hunnic invasions (with the result parameter likely favoring the Huns). It appears there may have been an effort to portray a "Gupta victory" by limiting the duration of the war, allowing the Guptas to appear successful in their final campaign up to 534. I have made a small major copyedit in the infobox section, by extending the duration to all the way upto the end of the war, and limiting the big list of the territorial changes to the final outcome of the territory. Issues have been addressed by tagging. Imperial^[AFCND] 18:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

A random user appeared at Gupa-Hunnic Wars, and reverted my edits; and replaced it with Gupta victory again [45], similar to Jonharojjashi, the user justified the reason by highlighting the upper hand of Guptas during an intermediate stage of the War [46]. Editor used poor sources; and ofcourse limited time period of the War, so it wasn't a heavy task to find a reason to revert. BUT! since then the user left, Jonharojjashi appeared the scene and reverted to his version (indeed time period limited to a definite time in such a way that could be counted as a victory for Guptas), and surprisingly made a request for protection of the page, accusing me and the above user being edit warred [47]. Made a comment on the talk section requesting us ro stop a non existing edit warring and didn't even give proper reasons for reverting to the version;nor said anything about the result parameter.[48]. --Imperial^[AFCND] 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Another brand new user appearing out of nowhere and doing the exact same as Jonharojjashi? Must be another random coincidence, and not anything to do with the Discord /s. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's first comment:-

• The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauda–Gupta War is still ongoing and anyone can see that you are either procrastinating or making excuses to provide proper reasoning that how the article holds weak sources, OR and synthesis.

Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's second comment:-

• I see no point in bringing this issue here when I have alr cleared all their doubts at Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars.

Instead of sticking to the topic, historyofIran and ImperialAficionado seem to be enjoying more in off-topic discussions. As we see ImperialAficionado first pinging historyofIran just to tell them see how funny he posted this on my talk page and disregarding sources provided by me. What is ridiculous is that one of the sources cited by ImperialAficionado (Dictionary of Wars) is now considered as unreliable by historyofIran but as per RSN it is reliable, I wonder why HistoryofIran then didn't oppose ImperialAficionado for adding this unreliable source (according to them). (Could be WP:TAGTEAM?) For the timeline of the War, I have provided them with Bakker's timeline of the Gupta-Hunnic struggle but they keep neglecting it and instead of focusing on the topic of the discussion they derailed it with useless laughable talks at the end. Note that the other sources cited by ImperialAficionado do not give a single reference for any involved belligerents victory and merely talk around the fall of the Gupta Empire. Again see Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars#Constant_disruption.

Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's third comment:-

• Strange how ImperialAficionado didn't bother to put the whole context here, alright I'll do this for him.

I have explained the reason for reverting your edits at Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars and placed warning templates on their talk page which was being removed by ImperialAficionado. They removed it not only from their own talk page [49] but they also tried to do the same from user Mnbnjghiryurr's talk page, which was later reverted by [50] Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thats not the whole context. And its still not a good idea to suggest that me and Imperial are tagteaming with all the evidence I have of you here - because if we’re tagteaming, we’re going to have to find a new word for you and your Discord group. You’re trying to shift the focus, and it’s not going to work. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Jonharojjashi and Malik-Al-Hind

Malik-Al-Hind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My god, can they make it less obvious?

1. Both Jonharojjashi [51] and brand new User:Malik-Al-Hind [52] use the obscure and poor source written by a non-historian Dictionary of Wars
2. Both fixiated on making poorly sourced WP:SYNTH war/conflict articles where the Indian part wins [53] [54]
3. Like Jonharojjashi [55], Malik-Al-Hind also tries to overinflate Gupta territory/history through source misuse (WP:SYNTH) [56] [57]
4. Both Jonharojjashi [58] and Malik-Al-Hind [59] are fixated on me not focusing on User:DeepstoneV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know much about Johnarojjashi but I noticed that he has similar edits like DeepstoneV (as they both edit around Ancient indian history). Since I don't know about him so I can only reply to the accusations on me.

Firstly, I'd apologize if the book I cited is not written by a historian but I found that cited in Afghan-Maratha War, so I thought it would be a WP:RS.

Secondly, my draft is well sourced, you can raise the issue at the talk page. I'll surely fix it.

Thirdly, you were extending the topic with different discussion but still I preferred answering your doubts instead of raising concerns of diverting topic, you even played the game of "response and skip" in the discussion and you only arrived there in the interval of 2-3 days (why?), I had quoted RS to clear your doubts, the other users (Flemish Neitz.. and Based Kasmiri) also supported my view so don't just accuse me of doing synthing.

Fourthly, Because of User DeepstoneV the Gupta Empire page was protected (requested by me) and they have removed several sourced contents from diff articles (reverted by me[60][61][62][63]) but instead of warning them you chose to support deepstoneV for no reason, even if they did disruptive edits. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, my “doubts” ended up being real, as you did indeed misuse WP:RS to overinflate Gupta territory, which Flemmish also ended up calling you out for [64]. But long live dishonesty I guess. The rest of your comment dont even deserve an answer, seems like you and Jonharojjashi are using the same poor lines to respond to me. HistoryofIran (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Here we go again, @Malik Al Hind If you don't know much about me then why do you want to link me with DeepstoneV? Just stop this nonsense. And why are you apologizing to Historyofiran for using this book? As per RSN it is a reliable book [65], we are not binded by their dictatorship but only Wikipedia policies and guidelines, (as expected historyofIran keeps biting newcomers). Interestingly they didn't oppose the addition of the same source by ImperialAficionado [66]. Tag teaming goes hard. Note that when I raised the same issue for defending poor edits of deepstoneV, they removed my comment from their talk page [67] because they don't want hear anything against their tag team members. Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The whataboutism resumes once again. This report is not about me, Imperial nor Deepstone, but your discord group. And please dont put words in my mouth, I removed you from my talk page because I dont want a meatpuppet leader in my talk page. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

They could in fact not make it less obvious. Malik-Al-Hind [68] [69] and Jonharojjashi [70] misusing the EXACT same uncertain quote by R.K. Mookerji to get more pride points by having their favourite Gupta Empire "conquer/win" against x thing. Can't wait for the excuse/whataboutism on this one - can we please just indeff this whole group? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Jonharojjashi and Sudsahab

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

1. Both Jonharojjashi [71] [72] and indeffed user Sudsahab [73] use the incredibly obscure and obviously non-WP:RS by a non-historian Bharat's Military Conquests In Foreign Lands
2. Both make poorly sourced WP:SYNTH war articles with no source for the date of when it started, heck the start date doesnt even appear in the body/lead of the article [74] [75]. Notice that there are only a few days between the creation of the articles 2 March 2024 9 March 2024, this is not a coincidence that they both create an article related to a Saka "campaign/war". --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Now this. Sudsahab has already asked me to help them improve their article [76] and as I said their, I was busy back then within working on my own drafts and replying to these ANIs. Beyond that I know nothing what happened to them or their sock, keep me outta this.

I hope historyofIran knows that anyone can see others contributions and edit history, so isn't it obvious that Sudsahab could be influenced by the source used by me? In fact the book Bharat's Military Conquests In Foreign Lands. is quite popular among South Asians. So I don't claim copyright of it, anyone can read it if they want. Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

At this rate you might as well give me an invite so I can craft a better excuse for you. The two articles were created BEFORE your conversation with Sudsahab, and I dont see him asking you to create that article either for that matter. And ah yes, the non-WP:RS by a obscure, non-historian is no doubt popular amongst South Asians, and who are more than 2 billion a that. Do you have a source for that? HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

A user Based Kashmiri is selecting articles for deletion that do not appear to have any issues. It seems that he simply dislikes these articles, which is why he is deleting them. Surprisingly, another user, Rawn, has voted for deletion on every article this user has selected for deletion.

DeepstoneV (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Bravehm

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

WP:TENDENTIOUS user that keeps attempting to remove/decrease the Mongol aspect of the Hazara (they even somewhat openly admitted it here if you ask me [77]), likely a sock [78], though the SPI might not come with conclusive results again.

1. At Talk:Hazaras, Bravehm blatantly lied that User:KoizumiBS removed sourced information [79], when they literally did the opposite, restoring sourced info (mainly about the Mongol aspect of the Hazara) removed by indeffed User:Jadidjw, whom I still believe to this day was a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad, who has a long history of attempting to remove the Mongol aspects mentioned at Hazaras. Notice that Jadidjw didnt even protest against their indef block despite editing since 2021. They no doubt jumped to another account.
2. After clearly trying to ramp up 500 edits as fast as possible to get access to Hazaras, they immediately started removing sourced information and edit warring [80] [81]
3. Bravehm also blatantly lied here to justify their removal of sourced info about the Mongol aspect [82]
4. Removed sourced info about the Mongol aspect again [83] ("According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.")
5. Same here [84]
6. And here [85]
7. And here [86]
8. And here [87]
9. And here [88]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've left a CT notice on the user's talk page, noting that we still haven't heard back from them here yet. I also glanced through contribution history; they did hit 500 pretty quick, however most of the edits appear to have come in good faith insofar as they weren't adding or subtracting one or two syllables consistently to get to 500, however that doesn't per se rule out revoking the EC rights or alternatively page blocking them from the Hazaras article. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Another removal of information about the Mongolian component - diff. KoizumiBS (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Because Babur never said those words in his Baburnama, but the translator added it and it should not be taken as a source. please see Bravehm (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  WP:CIR issues too. You've already been asked several times why the translators don't count as WP:RS, but you've been unable to, even changing your arguments as you please [89]. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Another attempt to minimize the Mongol aspect [90]. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  I restored some of those changes that KoizumiBS brought. Hazares also have Turkic and Iranic aspects, why KoizumiBS attempt to minimize the non-Mongol and Turkic aspect of Hazaras.[91] Bravehm (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  "HistoryofIran" wrongly and falsely considers my account to belong to "Iampharzad" while I only have this account and Iampharzad's account is not related to me in any way. Bravehm (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  • According to Encyclopaedia of Islam, Hazaragi is a Persian dialect, which is infused with many Turkic and a few Mongolic words or loanwords.
  • According to Encyclopædia Britannica, the Hazara speak an eastern variety of Persian called Hazaragi with many Mongolian and Turkic words.
  • According to Encyclopaedia Iranica, the Hazaras speak a Persian dialect with many Turkic and some Mongolic words.
  • According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.

  I only rm the last one due to repetition, incompleteness, and it only mentioned the Mongolian aspect. Bravehm (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This (According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.) removal was due to the duplication of info about Hazaragi, and its sources were not reliable as Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Britannica, and Encyclopaedia Iranica. Bravehm (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

My discussion with KoizumiBS on the Talk page of article caused him to correct the erroneous info he had added in the article about the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras. See [92] Bravehm (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: [93], [94]

They are not removal but restoration.

I don't know why you have taken a hard position against me and consider my every edit as something bad. As a user, I have the right to edit as you edit. Bravehm (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Bravehm once again being dishonest, removing sourced info while saying it is "unsourced" [95]. WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"More unsourced" not "unsourced"

I explained the reason: "No reliable census has been conducted in Afghanistan so far".

And there were no mentions of Aimaqs and Hazaras, which constitute the majority of Ghor residents but the majority of its inhabitants were almost Tajiks plaese see: [96] Bravehm (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It's still not unsourced though... And your explanation is worthless, we follow WP:RS, not your personal opinion - you've already been told this. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

So "www.biorxiv.org" and "journals.plos.org" are also not WP:RS for this content "the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words." Bravehm (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Request for closure

Can an admin please take a look at this case? Bravehm is disrupting more and more articles as we speak [97]. They are WP:TENDENTIOUS and have clear WP:CIR issues, exactly like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad and co., they even all have the same English skills! --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This (Iampharzad) account does not and does not belong to me.

User: HistoryofIran has taken a tough stance against me and wants to deny me the right to edit on Wikipedia. He reverses my edits and wants us to reach a consensus on the Talk page of the article, but when I am ready to discuss because of the consensus, he does not give me an answer on the page. Bravehm (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

They're still being disruptive as we speak, such as here where they manually reverted KoizumiBS and once again blatantly lied, accusing KoizumiBS of once again removing info but in reality due it themselves to decrease the Mongol aspect [98]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It was just a restoration of sourced info deleted by KoizumiBS.

This's how I did it (Restored revision 1219713481 by WikiDan61 (talk): Please do not delete previous contents [99]) Bravehm (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, everyone can see how you did it... I already linked the diff. And everyone can see your disruption through these diffs. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Their SPI has been up for a month, and this report almost a month. Can an admin please look into this case? Countless diffs here of them being disruptive. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Galamore, gaming the system

Having joined Wikipedia some 6 months ago, user Galamore has made hundreds of copy edits, in the span of 1 month, spamming categories to articles, in order to pass the 500 edit requirement for extended confirmed protection. And later, immediately started editing controversial, ECP articles after gaining the permission. Ceasing all copy edits involving categories. Ecrusized (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ecrusized, can you show diffs where they have used spamming categories. I just looked briefly on their contributions and I can't find much thread. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@SafariScribe: 130+ Category edits from 20 to 31 March 2024. Number of total edits during this period went from 300 to 500+. The last 300 edits are specifically made on ECP protected pages. Showing the user has no interest in editing non-ECP content. Ecrusized (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

JBW, you unblocked them a few months ago. What do you make of this, if anything? Drmies (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm someone who is very willing to revoke ECP if it is clear that somebody gamed it, but I'm not convinced that is what happened here. The category work looks pretty solid to me, I don't think I'd characterize it as spamming. They certainly did dive headfirst into controversial topics once they got the EC permission, but I don't think a solid case has been made for gaming the system. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  I thought basically the same thing. With the lack of concrete consensus on what amounts to gaming EC I let this slide without comment when I saw it. If there is any disruption in the ECR areas, WP:AE is the place to bring it up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  ScottishFinnishRadish Mmm ... removing sourced information with POV unsourced information? [100] and bit of an issue here too. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Black Kite, thanks for pointing that out. Galamore, this...well this is bad in many ways. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  The edit at Palestinian Political Violence was introduced by a confirmed sock-puppet [101] and that sock-puppet was later identified in part because a second of their accounts was pushing to keep it in the article after it had been removed. My understanding is that Galamore was deemed not to be a sock of that group during that SPI process, but I have to wonder if there is, at the very least, some off-wiki collaboration with the sock account going on. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  I enquired at CU, nothing turned up, more a case of aggressive (forceful?) editing, then, seems to be their style. Selfstudier (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Others who made that edit were part of the Arbcom motion on off-wiki canvassing/proxying, but there are even more that made the edit that weren't connected. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  While that isn't an edit I'd choose to make, it is a summary of (some of) the body. The Palestinian political violence diff is more concerning, especially with the sockpuppet issue. However, based on my literal minutes of research, it looks like it was edit warred over as far back as last year, so it's not like this is coming out of nowhere. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  ScottishFinnishRadish, I hear you, but they changed from "considered credible" to "others cast doubt on their reliability"; the body of the article does not bear that out: those "others" is one single man, whose arguments are countered in the article. So that's a pretty clear POV edit, and I'm also concerned that they haven't returned to discuss or counter these serious charges. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  There was also Biden and Kirby that cast doubt, so not quite as bad, but still not great. It's not outside of the norm of editing I see in the topic area. I'm more concerned that on top of the NPOV issue, it's also content we know has been targeted by socks and quite possibly off-wiki canvassing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Speaking as the administrator who a few months ago indeffed Galamore as a suspected UPE, after they wrote several extremely promotional articles about non-notable subjects: this doesn't seem like gaming the system. This seems like somebody -- I despise more than anybody for this to be true, but I must admit it -- editing in good faith, or at least not doing anything visibly wrong, along the rules that we explicitly tell them that they have to follow. At the

If we don't think that "500 edits and one month" is enough for someone to edit CT articles, we shouldn't have thousands of words of policy teling people, repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, that making 500 edits and having an account for a month is required to edit CT articles. jp×g🗯️ 18:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I frankly couldn't care less if someone is gaming ECP as long as their following CT edits are 100% productive and NPOV. That, however, is very rarely the case - like this example. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

How could anyone possibly know if it's rare or not? Anecdotal experience and confirmation bias are no substitute for data gathering and analysis. There have been thousands of new editors editing CT areas, and AFAIK no one has ever gathered data about or analyzed their productivity. Levivich (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's not what I said. I was talking about editors who had clearly gamed ECP to edit those articles, not "every new editor". Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Even so, I feel Levivich's point still applies. I mean if it's too blatant and harmful, people may catch gaming regardless. But for someone like the subject of this thread, I strongly suspect most of the time people only notice the gaming when they are concerned over their editing and investigate further. In other words, if an editor makes perfectly fine edits in the area it's never going to come up. So unless you've carefully looked at a large enough sample of editors who've just gained ECP and determined if they're gaming then whether their edits are problematic you have no idea if most gamers are really problematic. The fact that most gamers you've seen are a problem may simply be because gamers who are a problem are the main ones who's gaming comes under scrutiny. Personally I suspect gamers are generally a problem in part because I feel most people who are desperate to edit an area make bad editors in that area. And also because IMO the 500 edits isn't just a way to ward of all but the most committed socks and make it a little harder for even the committed; but also increase the chances the editor will gain some experience how things work here before they dive headlong into a such a problematic area and the chances of this happening go down a lot when the editor just games to get there. But I'll freely admit I have no good evidence that it's truly the case, for all I know gamers are actually better than the average existing editor in the area. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't have much to add but when I first signed up (my sign up was with the intention of fixing incorrect unsourced information in an article) I made very simple edits to fix common spelling errors to get 10 edits. The edit I made to a protected article after reaching 10 edits was uncontroversial: it was never challenged and still stands to this day. With this editor they are controversial (any edit to Israel-Palestine issue is) unless their edits were very obviously gaming the system (I've seen an editor who adds wikilinks then removes them, often resulting in disruption to an article, which is quite obviously gaming it because why would you want to reverse your own edits so often?) I don't think revoking access is proper. Traumnovelle (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, everyone, my name is Gal, Gal the teacher (in Hebrew with English letters it comes out GALAMORE). I entered Wikipedia because I wanted to write about technology, I wrote the article on Perplexity.ai (which received 568,902 views so far!!), after I wrote about a few more high-tech companies I was temporarily blocked and warned not to engage in business matters probably for fear of receiving money for it. Almost every morning, before I start teaching, I go to Wikipedia to edit and I enjoy it very much. I am Israeli, so the Israel related topics interest me. If it is relevant, politically, in Israel I believe in peace with our neighbors and want an end to wars. When I see something that is biased, I try to balance it and bring sources from both sides. Even if there is an Israeli editor who makes claims that are "in favor of Israel" but are not substantiated, I will correct it - because I truly believe in balanced coverage of topics. I am not obssessive to my edits, I just enjoy adding information and I think it is productive to humanity. On this occasion, may I ask where and when can I request that the prohibition to write on tech companies be removed? Galamore (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll @JBW: the unblocking admin who can hopefully say more about you editing tech companies. By my read, you weren't really formally topic banned, so technically there's nothing to appeal but JBW could clarify further. However I have to say since it's only been 3 months since you were unblocked and editors have expressed concern about other aspects of your editing since, I'm not sure it's a good idea to go back to editing areas where you got in trouble before, so soon. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Also @JPxG: the blocking admin who was concerned about your editing although I'd note the concern was over the creation of new articles generally, and what you said is "promise not to deal with commercial companies or anything related to that" rather than tech companies in particular. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

ok. thanks. The fact that the article I wrote, and remained even though they wanted to delete it, was very successful and received over half a million views, doesn't that reinforce the understanding that I am a capable editor? Galamore (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• When I unblocked, I said that I was doing so "On the basis of the assurances you have given about your future editing intentions", which appears to refer to "I promise not to deal with commercial companies or anything related to that, I will only edit articles related to education and education in Israel, maybe also about people from Israel's history". As far as I can see, Galamore has stuck to that undertaking. However, while not returning to exactly the kind of editing that they said they would continue, they have instead moved on to highly contentious editing in another area, and unconstructive editing practices, which I regard as if anything worse than the practices which led to the block. I therefore think that my unblock has turned out to be unhelpful to the project, and I will have absolutely no objection if another administrator decides to reblock the editor. However, since there have been no infringements of the conditions of my unblock, I think that any reblock should be regarded not as reverting my unblock, but as a totally new block, and I don't feel my opinion should have any more weight than anyone else's, just because I unblocked before. Pinging Drmies & Nil Einne, with apologies for not responding earlier to your notifications. JBW (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• I read the accusations and I do not understand what you want from Galamore. He contributes to Wikipedia, he came here wanting to write about companies and was blocked and then started to edit other topics and amongst other things started to edit articles on the conflict (which Israeli user who deals with Israel didn’t reach the conflict in the end?). Israel is a small country and half of what’s written on her in Wikipedia is considered “ controversial “. What is interesting is that he wrote on 4 companies in the tech sector, 3 Israeli and 1 international… Guess which 3 were erased… Eladkarmel (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I saw what BilledMammal wrote in the Arbitration request and what Eladkarmel wrote above about my case. This reading made me think that what I’m being accused of is unfair also outside my mind, because I don’t think I broke any rules. I want to make it clear I did not mean to hurt anyone. I apologize if i broke any laws. I want to contribute to Wikipedia and I truly enjoy writing. However, if you think i need to take a break to calm down I understand.Galamore (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Multiple rule breaking edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I don't see any reason for this to stay at ANI. I doubt any Administrator would block any of the participants and if there is a real editwarring issue, which I don't see, that can be taken to the appropriate board. This discussion is basically about original research/synth and this is definitely not the right place to discuss that. It needs to be taken to WP:NORN but please try to keep the discussion only about the use of sources, not other editors. That won't help and sours discussion. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

---

I have removed content from Siege_of_Güns that was unsourced. The claim, given within the page's infobox, gave an estimate for one side's force strength at a particular battle. This number is not mentioned in any of the source that were linked which is why I removed them.

User user:OrionNimrod has broken multiple editing rules in response. First, these sources which do not substantiate the listed claim, and have been continually re-added. I made sure to create a talk page heading in case anyone was able to find new information in regards to this claim, but the same user didn't seem very interested in engaging with the talk page and would simply re-add the sources. Again, these sources do not contain the information claimed.

Finally, after refusing to engage with the statement that the removed sources do not make the listed claim (which I continually asked them to address on the Talk Page) user:OrionNimrod proceeded to engage in WP:OR by using other sources (which were never ones that I'd removed anyway) that also do not make the listed claim, to speculate about figures. Whatever one speculates, reasonable or not, about a certain force strength based on a given number at some other time and place constitutes original research, as this fact is not stated by those authors and is entirely an assumption on the part of the editor.

This user also stated "the story is well known" as an revision explanation, which does not constitute a source, and also stated "you arbitrary misunderstand the sources because you dont like the numbers" which is both insulting and indicates their re-adding of the sources is strongly biased. (Lostsandwich (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC))

Hello, Lostsandwich,

Do you have any diffs to demonstrate these improper edits? It's important to provide evidence when you bring a complaint to ANI. You also posted a notice on their user talk page about a discussion about them on WP:ANEW but I don't see you started a discussion on that noticeboard. Maybe you could remove that message if you didn't follow through on that claim as it would otherwise be confusing to the editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Liz

These are the diffs where the current edit (my own, with the source material removed) is reverted to re-add the material (which does not contain the information):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_G%C3%BCns&oldid=1222668863

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_G%C3%BCns&oldid=1220849001

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_G%C3%BCns&oldid=1220709871

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_G%C3%BCns&oldid=1220511172

All 3 sources are easily accessible, but I'll past the most relevant areas to make it easier.

From the linked source: Conflict and conquest in the Islamic world : a historical encyclopedia, pp 151

"But Suleiman returned in 1532 when he led some 200,000 men from Constantinople at the end of April."

Which you'll notice, doesn't address this specific battle- but only the total force at the beginning of the campaign.

The linked source: "The Ottoman Empire, 1326-1699" pp 49-51 states:

"Suleiman the Magnificent launched his Vienna campaign on 10 May 1529 and reached Osijek on 6 August with an army of perhaps 120,000 men."

Which of course is 3 years prior to this battle, though it does mention the following on page 51:

"Suleiman was back in Hungary in 1532 for a second try at Vienna with an even larger army than he had brought with him in 1529"

Which is again, not an estimate for the size of forces at this particular battle.

The third linked source: The Enemy at the Gate: Habsburgs, Ottomans, and the Battle for Europe pp 59-60 doesn't give a numerical estimate anywhere and only mentions this particular battle in passing:

"In 1532, Suleiman attacked again, but by a different route. This time the Ottoman army began its march earlier, and, instead of heading north towards Buda, marched westward towards the uplands and the towns south of Vienna. En route the army had briefly invested and captured seventeen fortified towns or castles. On 5 August it arrived before the small town of Köszeg (Güns), south of Sopron and only a few miles from the Austrian border. The castle at Köszeg was an insubstantial obstacle and many stronger places had yielded without a fight."

That's why I've removed those sources, the simply do not state what the data in the infobox claimed. The editor in the talk page continually refused to address this point and then used a considerable amount of speculation, which I believe meets the criteria for original research to not only leave up the numerical figure, but also the linked sources.

As for the edit warring notice, I must have pasted the wrong notification template on the page. Will editing it to point to WP:ANI suffice or does it need to be added anew for purposes of tracking?

Lostsandwich (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the article Siege of Güns marked as good article since 2012, those Ottoman army numbers were there for 12 years long already, and Lostsandwich suddenly appeared and started an edit war, many reverts to remove arbitrary the numbers, and remove many academic historian sources. Me and Kansas Bear were involved in the talk page, where we provided many academic historian sources which confirmed those numbers: Talk:Siege of Güns#Ottoman force composition strength, even I provided several additional non cited historian sources which confirmed the same, even campaign map. We think with Kansas Bear that the sources and numbers are valid but Lostsandwich still deny everything as you can see on the talk page, as he want to remove the Ottoman army number at any cost from the article.

I do not know if I would break any rules if I restored 4 times (within 2 weeks period) the removed content and talked in the talk page about this. Morover other users also did the same as I did, so Lostsandwich did more reverts than anybody else.

Unfortunatelly we can see this tendency in Ottoman battle articles, that many users (mostly new users) are obsessed to minimze the Ottoman army, Ottoman losses and maximize the enemy army and losses and claim Ottoman victory where it was Ottoman defeat.

Lostsandwich started to do the same in other Ottoman articles: [102] OrionNimrod (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest taking this to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think this sounds pretty good. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 12:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The DRN isn't going to touch any dispute from these two until the behavioural issues (if any) are addressed here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the article Siege of Güns marked as good article since 2012, those Ottoman army numbers were there for 12 years long already,

The length of time an article exists is irrelevant. I'm not sure why you're making excuses or continuing to talk past the point, which is the linked sources not saying what the infobox claims.

many reverts to remove arbitrary the numbers, and remove many academic historian sources

They were removed for a reason, which was noted in every edit and in the talk page. The reason is that sources do not state what the infobox indicated. Making things up entirely is pretty strongly against what wikipedia is all about.

Me and Kansas Bear were involved in the talk page, where we provided many academic historian sources which confirmed those numbers:

The additional sources do not claim what the infobox does. You interpreted it as such, and this, are conducting Original Research. Similarly, "additional sources" were not removed by me. This was noted time and time again, and you continued to talk past this.

We think with Kansas Bear that the sources and numbers are valid but Lostsandwich still deny everything as you can see on the talk page, as he want to remove the Ottoman army number at any cost from the article.

For the purpose of this noticeboard, I even pasted the relevant areas of the linked sources (which I removed), they do not state what the infobox did.

I do not know if I would break any rules if I restored 4 times (within 2 weeks period) the removed content and talked in the talk page about this. Morover other users also did the same as I did, so Lostsandwich did more reverts than anybody else.

Using sources that do not make the claim that is being cited, and conducting original research very much are against wiki's editing policy.

Unfortunatelly we can see this tendency in Ottoman battle articles, that many users (mostly new users) are obsessed to minimze the Ottoman army, Ottoman losses and maximize the enemy army and losses and claim Ottoman victory where it was Ottoman defeat.

Your bias is affecting your ability to edit articles. Whatever historiography you believe is occurring is also irrelevant as wikipedia policy requires that claims match the cited sources, which the ones I have removed did not.

Lostsandwich started to do the same in other Ottoman articles:

You should probably review your own bias before making accusations. My removal of material was in concert with wikipedia's policies. The ironic part is that in the past I was in agreement with you over an article using inflated numbers.

Notice as well that two more users have agreed that the removed material does not make the claim that the infobox did, and also generally agree that interpreting total-force estimations at the start of the campaign as being one and the same as that at this battle constitutes original research. Lostsandwich (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

There's definitely merit to this. I read through this post, Talk:Siege of Güns#Ottoman force composition strength, and the sources mentioned, and I see no reason to keep restoring this version. The 3 sources for "100,000–120,000" simply don't verify the content. It doesn't matter if one or all of them were used when the article passed its GA review, because they don't actually verify the content. At the Talk page discussion, OrionNimrod found some entirely new (and possibly reliable) sources that give more estimates: "bulk of the army" (Banlaky) and "at least a hundred times superior force" (Rubicon). But then Kansas Bear and OrionNimrod discuss how to synthesize the original 3 sources with "bulk of the army" and "at least a hundred times superior force" to arrive at a brand new set of unsourced numbers. OrionNimrod, you've had 7.4k edits over almost 3 years. Kansas Bear, you're at 47k edits ove 17 years! Both of you should know you can't do this. If Banlaky or Rubicon are found to be reliable sources, then we should cite them instead. But we can't just multiple estimate A by estimate C and estimate B by estimate D and arrive at numbers that feel right. Woodroar (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was about to say. Lostsandwich definitely does have a strong rationale when it comes to disproving the sources provided. Reading through the entire thread was a hassle, but I know that the sources provided by the two do not directly mention a Siege of Güns, instead an army by Suleiman sent from Constantinople that could diverge, get lost in battles, retreat, split up, ect. "At least a hundred times superior force", even if this could be useful evidence, note how it says at least: it could be much more. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

I usually like and I suggested here also to separate the estimations by sources, so we know that more historians have more views, this is quite common that historian A estimate 10K army and historian B estimate 50K army regarding medieval battles.

The Ottoman army started its campaing from Istanbul against Vienna, (we can see the different historical estimations from that starting army), and Kőszeg was on the route to Vienna, that is why the city was besieged under the leadership of Suleiman the Magnificent. Of course it was raiding units for more directions (only light cavalry units), but I think this is the speculation to claim that not the main army led by the Sultan himself was not at the siege but just a small part, and those historian sources mention the campaign and starting army regarding siege of Kőszeg. It is not true claiming the number of army is unknow, that is why we have more or less estimations.

A Hungarian map about the campaing: Research Centre for the Humanities - Institute of History: Big line: main Ottoman army, dotted lines: raiding units [103] We can clearly see the main Ottoman army arrived at Kőszeg.

I found more Hungarian historian work about this: [104] here I can see, it mentions "entire army" even the army composition, google translate: "Seeing that the Turks were coming with their entire army, Jurisics set fire to the two suburbs, which were difficult to defend anyway, and moved the inhabitants to the city center. On Saturday, i.e. the 10th, Ibrahim raised eight cannons to the vineyards surrounding the city and fired from there throughout the day. The actual siege did not begin until the following day, the 11th; On the 12th, the battle was interrupted due to the arrival of Suleiman. Overlooking an army of 12,000 Janissaries, 20,000 Spahis, 26,000 Rumelians, 30,000 Anatolians, and 15,000 Tartars, the Sultan ordered a general assault on the following day, the 13th."

Another Hungarian history book, mention that contemporary Ottoman sources boosted how big was the army under Kőszeg: [105] page 296, google translate: "On August 10, the army led by the sultan arrived under the Kőszeg castle, which was already very close to Vienna, where the Glorious Padisah [the Sultan] ordered an encampment, thereby postponing the siege of Vienna until he made a decision about the campaign in the divan. Spies and travelers took the news of our huge army to the main enemy of Muhammad's people, the Habsburgs. It was very important to make our army's strength known, so that they wouldn't think of invading Hungary" OrionNimrod (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Please show where the (removed) sources state that 10,000 (or any other number of) Ottoman soldiers were present at the battle in question. You have, for the umpteenth time, refused to engage with this very basic requirement.

Any interpretation based on those (or other) sources that the force composition at the start of the campaign was present, in full or in part, at this particular battle is yours and yours alone, and unless cited in referenced material, constitutes original research. Wikipedia is not for guesswork or speculation. Lostsandwich (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:V, any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material (emphasis mine). There's also this clarifying note: A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source (emphasis in original). In order to us to give numbers for the Ottoman forces at the Siege of Güns/Kőszeg, the sources need to give numbers for the Ottoman forces at the Siege of Güns/Kőszeg.

Out of everything so far, the newest source seems to come the closest, giving a total of 103,000—though it's only part of the total and we can't combine it with any other sources. Woodroar (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Woodroar I’m not convinced this belongs here rather than NORN. The editor who bought it here has very few edits spread out over more than three years. I suggest this should be closed with the recommendation it be taken to WP:NORN. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Lostsandwich, those sources which you removed clearly write the army numbers of the campaign in the starting point, and the main army led by Sultan went againt Vienna and Kőszeg was on the way besiged by the Sultan, which was part of that campaign (and it was no battles before Kőszeg, the other castles on the way surrended whitout fight), why do you expect that all historians should say in every single sentences that on August 20 the army number was 10000 and on August 21 the army number was still 10000... anyway the numbers are just estimations, not strict numbers. The showed other sources also confirmed those sources that the main army arrived at Kőszeg. So why the numbers would be "unknown" as you claim? OrionNimrod (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, fair enough. Maybe the regulars at NORN can convince OrionNimrod that we can't use sources this way. But given the replies here, I feel like this is just going to get kicked back to ANI eventually. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Woodroar (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod because that would be speculation, assumption and/or interpretation. The article is about a siege, not about the "start of the campaign". If one wishes to discuss a fact about a particular instance, one must cite a source that references it, not maybe sort of kinda in a haphazard roundabout way sort of suggests it. That there were X people present at Y time and place, therefore X people were also were also present at Z time and place is completely immaterial unless that is stated in the referenced work. None of the removed sources do so. Lostsandwich (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Spamming multiple articles with The Famous Orpington & District Amateur Boxing Club

Box32 (talk · contribs) adding promotional content to [106]; [107]; [108]; [109]; [110]; [111]. Declined draft is here [112]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• This is why I have to bring crap like this here: [113]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That is appalling. I'll notify the contributor responsible, and ask them to explain here why they labelled your initial edit (more than adequately explained in the edit summary) as 'vandalism'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was something homophobic because I seen the revert summary "Stop with this gender bullshit", that was on my part i should of seen the other edits before reverting. ModdiWX (message me!) 15:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry--where did you see that comment related to this thread? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed for advertising/promotion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

By entering into this and by the confused explanation above, there may be WP:CIR issues at English Wikipedia regarding Lolkikmoddi. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be evidence that at minimum Lolkikmoddi needs to be a lot more careful with the use of rollback tools. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive, perhaps, but I'm not sure why this [114]] was considered 'homophobic.' Rollback privilege needs to be looked at here. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It was a mistake. Sorry for any ruckus I have made. ModdiWX (message me!) 15:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand. It looks like what we have here is an editor who has access to offline sources, but has no experience with something like Wikipedia. Is there anyone who has the time to help them out a bit? I think they're editing in good faith, but Wikipedia is quite a bit different than being a boxing coach. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe there's someone here [115] who'd be interested in helping. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't hit the right note, while this is unfolding, for the editor to restore unsourced content [116]. They've already earned their share of warnings for this since 2021. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Orpington & District Amateur Boxing Club has been re-created. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, I understood unblocking them, but COI and WP:OWNERSHIP are so deep that I'm requesting a topic ban at the very least. This could allow for uninvolved editors to determine whether the article was ready to proceed beyond the draft, and if so, begin the necessary clean up. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

IP talk page spamming, BLP violations

• 2604:3d09:927f:e900:c028:6865:a4e7:19ef (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:3d09:927f:e900:4d72:e68d:7730:97f9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:3d09:927f:e900:fd2e:ec13:175c:eace (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:3d09:6a86:f300:9d2b:614a:8093:3c (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:3D09:927F:E900:C:DC1B:8E8E:1B80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:3d09:927f:e900:34fb:baef:36b:88a5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

User has been repeatedly spamming Talk:Nikki Benz with unsourced/poorly sourced WP:DOB info. I have given two warnings after politely explaining WP:BLPPRIVACY and its applicability to talk pages. Nonetheless they say they "won't stop". A clear failure to WP:LISTEN, evidently WP:NOTHERE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That's right, I will not stop writing DECEMBER 11, in the TALK PAGE.

So do what you must to block, or I will continue. 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7932:A573:B23A:D0B1 (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The links posted at Talk:Nikki Benz do not satisfy reliable source. The birth date is not a big deal and it is standard to leave it out unless there is a good source. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

But will the whole Wikipedia project collapse if the words December 11 are left in the talk page? 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7932:A573:B23A:D0B1 (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant question. You say you are trying to "generate discussion", but to what end? There's nothing special about the date that I can see. Repeating it ad nauseam doesn't help us arrive at a decision to include it in the article or not. Honestly, it seems like you're just trying to get around the requirement for reliable sources by posting things to the talk page instead of the article. However, BLP policy applies to all pages, including talk pages. Your most recent comment dismissing all this as "esoteric terminology" suggests you're not interested in learning how Wikipedia works or collaborating with others. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC) edited 08:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

A hit dog will holler. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Your interactions with me have been poor and unprofessional, while the user ActivelyDisinterested «@» has shown cordial behaviour. 2604:3D09:927F:E900:C5AD:8DF:E02:753E (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

There's no hollering or admission of any guilt, that you are implying. You have been authoritative and trying to belittle with all your Wikipedia rules. There has not been anything professional of the way this discussion went. 2604:3D09:927F:E900:C5AD:8DF:E02:753E (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyways, I have come back here to end all of this. What has been said has been said. I hope the Wikipedia project can move forward with more cordiality all around.

Thank you. 2604:3D09:927F:E900:C5AD:8DF:E02:753E (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree that "I won't stop. Grow up" is not anything professional. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

That was in response to you authoritatively removing the words DECEMBER 11, like it was something cancerous, and then trying to throw your weight around with all your jargon.

Good bye 2604:3D09:927F:E900:A539:E4D4:908D:E115 (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes I think we should do the horse thing on here, where we just decide everyone's birthday is January 1 and get on with it. jp×g🗯️ 20:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Could we do something similar with ethnicity? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

like assuming everyone you meet on the internet is secretly a 60 year old hacker (or worse, brazilian)? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hokkien; not getting the point; off-site canvassing

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

---

User:Mlgc1998 is a major contributor to Hokkien. This isn't a content dispute, so I'll be brief.

1. The infobox on Hokkien was far too long, as to defeat the purpose of infoboxes. I try slimming it down some.
2. A month later I notice it's been reverted without explanation, and I restore the slim version while starting a discussion on the talk page pointing out the guidelines to Mlgc1998, trying to establish consensus. Unfortunately, during this discussion they do not seem interested in anything that involved the article shifting away from their personal preferences. They generally ignored all reference to site guidelines and norms, and their reasons terminated in their knowing more than me about the particulars of this subject. To wit, their instant assumption that I and others were lacked basic knowledge of the topic left a bad taste in my mouth early.
3. I ask for input from three relevant WikiProjects, and the five people who comment in some form generally agree with reference to the aforementioned guidelines. This seems to matter little to Mlgc1998. While I am irritated, it seems increasingly unlikely that they are arguing in good faith or are trying to get the point.
4. Meanwhile, there's a worrisome sideline about basic verifiability, but this isn't about that other than to better illustrate my concerns about their conduct.
5. This morning, I get a message on Discord from another editor who saw Mlgc1998 had asked for "reinforcements" regarding the article in a topically-related Discord server. I don't feel I need to name them, but I have permission from them to do so and provide screenshots if someone needs me to. Upon me confronting them on the talk page, Mlgc1998 plays dumb.

Could likely be briefer, but I tried. My apologies. Remsense诉 10:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

1. User:Remsense initially removed a lot of data/info on the Hokkien page here, which I later put back some vital info that was not specifically explained the removal of prior. The speaker population number was also generalized less than what the initial Ethnologue sources had mentioned here and here.

2. A month later, I was asked to join this discussion, Talk:Hokkien#Infobox,_etc._problems, I provided information that unfamiliar editors may not have known about nor knew access of. Initially, it was amicable, but midway User:Remsense started accusing me over some disbelief they held, which I replied with more evidence, historical context, and comparisons. User:Remsense decided to ignore this and somehow took it as an offense, doubling down with more accusations and ad hominem attacks on me. I replied with more information to clear up the situation. It was ignored again and more accusations and ad hominem attacks were levied. They chose to somehow transfer their frustration to me, who only willingly provided them contextual information and evidence to them. I asked what was their specific intent anyways, besides the rough idea of trimming down the infobox. It was ignored yet again. User:Remsense then decided to edit the page anyways with what they wanted and interpret their intent as the supposed "consensus". Another editor, User:Cinderella157, later came and started threateningly talking about "WP:NOTGETTINGIT", and "WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY", and "It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK" kind of language. User:Remsense later admits that they have asked to get more people's input. This other editor is currently repeatedly reverting any attempts at improvements to the infobox of the Hokkien page.

3. As can be seen in my past recent edits regarding the infobox of the Hokkien page, I have repeatedly tried to look for consensus and better the infobox section of the Hokkien page. I have reduced some redundant repetitions, putting some info in footnotes instead, and made it more neutral by splitting the speaker population again to per country and changing the "Region" field to the "States" field, that User:Remsense once spoke about, yet perhaps these helpful acts matter little to User:Remsense.

5. I have not asked anybody to do anything. It's natural some discord server about this topic or anywhere else discusses about happenings that take place in a widely known website that many people read. User:Remsense repeatedly talks about "canvassing", yet they themselves initially admit to it. I do not know why User:Remsense repeatedly accuses me of things they do themselves.

Apologies if there are anything of my words anywhere that may be seen as disingenuous. Mlgc1998 (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I have not asked anybody to do anything

  Remsense诉 13:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense I have not asked anybody to do anything.

That picture you posted basically just says that the 2nd user is asking someone what to do. And the 3rd user has simply informed them what they asked for. Perhaps, you can share a picture of your own "canvassing" yourself of other editors, since you like to repeatedly behave in a toxic manner. Mlgc1998 (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(To be crystal clear, this is Mlgc1998 asking another person to undo a specific edit on their behalf. If anyone else has any questions, let me know. I've paraphrased enough guidelines so far that I know my continuing to do so won't help them understand here.) Remsense诉 13:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(To be crystal clear, Remsense is repeatedly falsely accusing me again of acts they themselves admit to also doing. It is telling of their unchanging toxic behavior of accusations. The supposed screenshot merely cuts away the context of what those people in that discussion were discussing about. Remsense has set their eyes against me for some reason and resorts to using off-site tools like that just to frame people. If there was a screenshot posted here as well of their supposed off-site actions, would it do anything for their case? I do not know why this person keeps putting their frustrations on me and how this is any constructive to the website, with the destructive conduct they show.) Mlgc1998 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's be clear, if you continue to hurl accusations at Remsense without any supporting evidence (or if you accuse them of "toxic behaviour" and similar regardless of evidence) I will block you straight away. Now either provide diffs of your allegations against Remsense, or feel free to remove them. Choose one. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 14:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite Here are some of the relevant diffs that Remsense has done on the page with context to our discussion. I would like to mention to pls consider how these looked like from my shoes. I'm not sure as well if this is due to cultural differences.

• [Remsense-1] the initial edit that Remsense said they tried to slim down last April 2, 2024
• [Mlgc1998-1] I edited it back cuz the last user, Remsense, just said that it was "stuffed" but didn't explain more specifically why the specific data that was picked to remove is to be removed
• [Remsense-2] after we talked on the Talk page and Remsense decided to ignore what I've explained when it seemed the info infuriated them last May 7, 2024
• [Mlgc1998-2] the next day I saw it and reverted it because we werent done talking and they simply ignored what I've said. I have split the speaker pop to each country as well since there is some level of uncertainty with the data on one of the countries at least.
• [Remsense-3] a revert of theirs
• [Mlgc1998-3] I put it back, cuz their only argument is "no, we gang up on you". And, compared to my last edit, I have changed the "Region" field to the "States" field that Remsense initially was complaining about in the talk page
• [Mlgc1998-4], [Mlgc1998-5] I decided to cut down on some redundant repetitions and put some long text in footnotes in an effort to make things better
• [Remsense-4], [Remsense-5] Remsense added some tags saying that some parts are overly detailed, and changed the "States" field back to the "Region" field
• [Remsense:Talk-1] Remsense suddenly adds that they tried to recruit more people to help here
• [Cinderella157-1] Cinderella157 suddenly appeared and put everything back to what Remsense wanted
• [Cinderella157:Talk-1] Cinderella157 starts talking threateningly as well in the talk page
• [Programmeruser-1] Programmeruser suddenly appears to put back at least the speaker population field to show each country's speaker population
• [Cinderella157-2] Cinderella157 reverts it again

Now, I'd like to say that I'm all for reaching a consensus and improving that article, but after the time I explained to Remsense about the historical context, it was nothing but accusations and ad hominem remarks from them and they didn't really discuss much about what to do moving forward and that's what I was always waiting for, rather than them continuously pinning bad things on me. Mlgc1998 (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Some day, you will read literally the first paragraph of what WP:CANVAS actually says. Remsense诉 15:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been like this if you had read the books and website evidences I linked, but Idk maybe I assumed people I was talking to knew how to read Chinese characters. Mlgc1998 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I am positive they don't contain secret manuscripts of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE no Westerner yet knows about. Remsense诉 15:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend to learn the supposed "secret manuscripts" to better know how to deal with those "secret", cuz they're not that "secret" these days and they won't be "secret" if u know. Don't have to be a native speaker to know a bit on it. Before you call me smug, I have even expected you to know how to read them. This wouldn't have started if you hadn't started accusing me and doubting what I provide. Some of those info are free for you to see yourself. not even need to buy books. Taiwan ROC MOE has a website all about it but their real legit website might not be the most userfriendly but mirror sites exist like moedict and sutian. you wont find any mention of "Hokkien" there of course nor its counterpart in Chinese characters, 福建, referring to the language. ROC and PRC prefer "Minnan"/"Min Nan"/"閩南"/"闽南". If not sure how to read the Chinese characters, put them in google translate and press the listen button in "Chinese". "Hokkien" is a word that originated in Southeast Asia, such as Singapore or Malaysia. It is usually data from those countries who would readily use that word. Mlgc1998 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(I didn't post the preceding messages because I didn't want to appear like I was trying to make them look as bad as possible. First and final, them.)

 Remsense诉 14:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(Would like to clarify as well for anyone confused. the picture with another screenshot of a picture above is a different person to the initial picture posted before it. Remsense is just showing some people's personal discussions and reactions on a matter for whatever purpose Remsense has in mind. Pls notice as well their very act of posting more pictures of different people, all for the point of framing someone and further antagonism. If that is not "toxic behavior", we might as well reevaluate the current definitions of "toxic" in most dictionaries. I do not know why disagreements about an infobox leads them to go to such lengths.) Mlgc1998 (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Mlgc1998 I asked you to show evidence of your allegations against Remsense (i.e. canvassing), or remove them. You have done neither. Indeed, you have done the opposite by continuing to accuse Remsense of toxic behaviour with no evidence whatsoever. My patience is not infinite. Are you going to do one of these things? You are on the edge of a block, and it won't be a short one. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite Hold on, alright. Which allegations are you looking for? Isn't this one and this one that I mentioned above. If you mean repeated accusations and ad hominem attacks, it occurred in this talk page. Is it not understandable that I'd have to clarify another picture they use to defame me? I'm sure if you were in my shoes, you'd understand why I'd reply to that one. If it's about using the word "toxic", I mean from my perspective, it seems that way, wouldn't it? Being repeatedly accused and being defamed and all. Mlgc1998 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those diffs shows anything like canvassing. Have you read WP:CANVASS? Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite What do you mean? I was talking about canvassing as a word itself and that was just a side comment about how ironic of their accusations to accuse that when they effectively do it themselves. The example that I've linked are but hints at their initial act. There's no telling if they had not done any canvassing off-site themselves as well. This part about canvassing is not the main thing being discussed anyways. It is just Remsense's way to try and find a way to have people banned, so they can get their way on the edits they intended. I repeatedly replied to them in the Talk page about the forward plans on the article, but from the past days, Remsense continues to choose to be antagonistic and disingenuous about it. They have threatened twice "to go to ANI" and from my perspective, I am not sure what troubles them on what I had said. In my culture, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with what I told them. Perhaps, the repeated accusations and threats are something of a norm in the culture they grew up with? I am not really sure and do not understand why they took lengths to to take things here on perceived offense. From my perspective, I have gladly provided info and been repeatedly ignored and accused of. Perhaps, I should have used emojis for my words to not be misconstrued? Mlgc1998 (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

When we use "canvassing" here, it is per a specific Wikipedia rule. Trying to use it in the general sense is going to muddy the waters. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I just want to say that, while I've not always agreed with Remsense, they have consistently been a constructive editor who operates within the bounds of good practice. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(Had to scroll back through your contributions. If the biggest thing we disagree about is whether it should be CCP or CPC, that's fine grounds for a working relationship imo. ) Remsense诉 14:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It should be CPC damnit. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Try again

@Mlgc1998, I really do not like being an antagonist for someone who is trying very hard to contribute about an underrepresented subject that is deeply important to them. I do increasingly feel like something has been lost in translation between us, and that's partially my fault. The last thing I want is to get such a contributor booted off the site, we have so precious few and I can't improve these articles by myself, nor do I want to. I understand how it seems I appeared out of nowhere and started ripping up work in an arbitrary manner. I don't know how to say this in the most elegant way, but it's because I really care, and I really do want these articles to be as educational and illuminating as they can be, like those GAs and FAs I tried to link you as examples on the talk page. That's why I think the infobox is so important, its design follows very particular principles meant to introduce totally new people to a subject at a glance. I want them to come away from the article knowing a little more about Hokkien and Sinitic topolects no matter how little time they happen to read the article, that's all. Can we try again? I'm sorry that my communication was not effective at certain points here. Remsense诉 19:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense Alright finally. :) I apologize as well if there are any words that seemed offensive from what I wrote before. Since, we are communicating via written word, it lacks a tone so one could read it in different ways. My realm is mostly in wiktionary anyways. I do not like arguments like this. I've poured a lot of time studying this language that has been in decline and often set aside even in my country all to help fellow learners of it and to understand the speakers of it around me. The books I have on it are things others have shared with me as well for me to continue with adding the data for the world to learn about. Not everybody knows how to read these chinese text in my country too, but I knew at least that some taught it could reach out and further learn how to grasp it. Chinese languages are daunting to learn, but it is what it is. This language has a saddening history and my contributions in wikipedia and wiktionary are my efforts to try and improve understanding about it, despite the different bad factors that have come to plague it. It is rough, but I know multiple native speakers of it and learning it opens the mind as well on understanding why the other chinese languages speak the way they do. I fear that continued lack of data or worsening quality of info on this language would later contribute as well to its future possible demise, but we work with what data is available and at least build on top of that, even if its a rubble. I've trudged through it for the past 6 years or so, all so it can be more accessible online and be easier to search up, especially native speakers often do not realize we do not 100% understand them or their logic of speaking sometimes, but anyways Thank you! Mlgc1998 (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Tendentious editing at String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn)11:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Ravpapa (talk)

User:Wikiwickedness has taken issue with much of the content of this article. He has recently twice deleted documented content that he disagrees with. I urged him, should he have reliable sources that support his view, to expand the article to include them, rather than merely delete what he disagrees with. When he deleted the material a second time, I restored it and opened an RFC to hear what other editors think. But then I discovered that I had created exactly the same RFC two years ago. Wikiwickedness's views in that RFC were universally rejected. So I now think that a second RFC is not the proper course, and this noticeboard is where the issue should be dealt with. Ravpapa (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not the same. This time it's specifically on the terms "Prior to opus 20", "This was virtually unheard of in Haydn's time." I only asked you to explain the terms with proper citations (from the authorities you seem to consider unquestionable), which you've failed to do. If you can't it's proper to just delete that section, cause the things said in them are debatable. The article would still be fine without that section. Wikiwickedness (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the RFC then was about @Wikiwickedness's deletion of the section "Opus 20 and the Development of the String Quartet". The current dispute is over his repeated deletion of parts of the same section. Ravpapa (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a little different from the usual edit warring in music articles. Though there aren't any diffs here, from the history I see exactly two removals of content and you starting an RfC. I'm not sure what admin action is required here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree. @Wikiwickedness has now, rather than deleting sections wholesale, made an edit to the section that is perfectly fine with me. I consider the matter resolved. Ravpapa (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

GoneWithThePuffery

User GoneWithThePuffery has been reported by me at SPI, the case was handled by Drmies and it appears that my suspicions of sockpuppetry were wrong (however, GoneWithThePuffery often edits Wikipedia while being logged out, which they confessed). Since Drmies asked me to do so, I apologized even if I was not convinced that GoneWithThePuffery is here to build an encyclopedia. From that point on, this editor has been actively aggressive towards every single editors they disagree with along with personal attacks and edit warring. Personal attacks : [117], [118], treating Hu741f4 and me of "muppets", reason of them being warned by C.Fred : [119], edit warring (before and even after having been told by Drmies that 2 editors disagree with them) : [120], [121], [122]. To make it short, I made a mistake by accusing the reported editor, not the first time I've been wrong about that kind of thing, probably won't be the last, but I don't think that this mistake of mines should bring such personal attacks and edit warring on GoneWithThePuffery's side.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you started this whole thing. Not only by accusing me falsely, but also by refusing time after time to talk about the content on the talk page. My very first post there was an invitation of discussion and reaching common ground. Instead, I was attacked, not only by you, but also by Hu74. Your assertion that I'm "not here to build an encyclopedia" is another attack on me (even though all my edits thus far have been constructive and substantiated by reliable sources).

Since that incident, I asked you multiple times on the talk page to explain your concerns, but time after time you refused to do so. My question: what exactly do you want? You reverted my edits now again, without going to the talk page to talk about it. Sorry, but you're the one who is consistently not willing to work this out in a constructive manner. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I tried to discuss with you, so did Hu741f4, but all we got in response were personal attacks and edit-warring. I rest my case.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You tried to discuss with me? Where? I can't find one instance where you even attempted a normal conversation. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

While Wikaviani was too quick to declare you were sockpuppeting and was in the wrong for that, an inaccurate accusation does not grant anyone a hall pass to act as hostile as they want. If the unfounded accusation has made it so that you cannot engage with people who disagree with you, then you ought to take a step back until you cool off, else an admin will likely institute a sanction that *will* be deserved this time. You even tried to bite the head off Drmies, the one who cleared you of sockpuppeting. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand Drmies, he noticed everything that went on, also noticed that I am on no way related to the user that was banned, and still he has apparently no problem with the hostile and aggressive attitude of Wikaviani and Hu74. Please note, it's not only about falsely accusing me, it's also the dictatorial and arrogant attitude Wikaviani and Hu74 occupy at that page (i.e. the complete unwillingness to engage in a discussion). I, on the other hand, was open to discuss and talk from the beginning. You can see it for yourself on the talk page. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

GoneWithThePuffery, do you understand that comments like Are you completely stupid or what? are utterly unacceptable on Wikipedia? Are you going to stop abusing your fellow editors that way? Cullen328 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That fully depends. If people are accusing and harassing me, then they can expect an appropriate response. You're now taking one sentence out of its context. I know I uttered that sentence as a reaction on Wikaviani's hypocritical behavior; he was falsely accusing me and then went to my talk page to complain about my reaction!

I really don't understand why you're asking this. How would you respond if you are being accused of something you didn't do. How would you react if the first response to a perfectly sensible edit you made, in good faith, with reliable sources, was one of suspicion and hostility? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

GoneWithThePuffery, I highly recommend that you drop this matter and move on. Your ongoing belligerence and combativeness reflects very poorly on you. Before you respond further, please read Assume good faith. As for how I would respond, I have been an editor for 15 years and an administrator for six years, and have had abuse hurled at me countless times. I ignore it. . Cullen328 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I already dropped this matter and moved on. However, Wikaviani is constantly bringing this up everywhere, which forces me to respond and defend myself. (If I hadn't defended myself in the first place, I would've been branded a fraud, because of Wikaviani's false accusations.) GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit-warring like you do right now at Snell's law ( 3 reverts of two different editors within less than 24 hours) and blatantly ignoring WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ONUS and WP:BRD is not "moving on", rather, quite disruptive.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, that does not give you a blank check to continue being hostile and rude. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, Wikaviani is bringing this matter up EVERYWHERE, which forces me to respond and defend myself. He's the one who can't stop talking about this, instead of going to the talk page to engage with me in a discussion on the content (to which I have invited him now ten times or so). If Wikaviani spend as much time on the talk page of Snell's law discussing the content of Ibn Sahl's manuscript as he has complaining about me, this matter would've been dealt with long time ago. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

How about responding politely that there must be a mistake ? you can see that when you interact politely with people without labelling them as "fucking stupid" or "ridiculous", things tend to run more smoothly ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Wikaviani, I DID RESPOND POLITELY THAT THERE MUST BE A MISTAKE!!! This was my response after you accused me of "evading a block":

"@User_talk:Wikaviani, I suppose WP:GOODFAITH is no longer used? So no, I'm not Casteiswrong. I don't know who that is, and up until now, I've never met him. I am, however, the person who made a substantial edit on 02:03, 7 May 2024, which has been reverted, then that reversion was reverted in turn, and then apparently an edit war broke out. I'm merely wondering what was wrong with my edit in the first place. An explanation is appropriate since I've supplied my edits with proper sources."

Now you tell me, what precisely is not polite here?!

After I wrote that, you still didn't believe me and then that guy from India started accusing me. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Accusing me again of not assuming good faith and this kind of response while you have been told by an admin that my suspicions about you being a sock were not made in bad faith shows again that you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, that's not contructive, can you understand that ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh my lord! I'm quoting (!!) the first remark that I made after you accused me of being a sock. And yes, you were clearly not assuming good faith, as you immediately said: "You are probably Casteiswrong, please keep in mind that evading your block will not help your case". How is that assuming good faith? You didn't even react to the legitimate points I raised.

I don't have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, but a WP:DEFENSE mentality whenever I'm unjustly attacked. The only person here who has a battleground mentality, next to Hu74, is you! I'm the one who constantly asks for a discussion, on the content, at the talk page. You keep ignoring that. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

So what's this ? Isn't it from an admin saying that according to them, I didn't act in bad faith ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

So if an admin says it, then it's true? The admin can tell me the earth is flat, I don't care, I don't believe it. If you accuse me of being a sock, without even checking who I am (which would already have ruled sock-puppetry out completely) then I'm sorry, that's simply acting in bad faith. I have to say, the complaints you're uttering here and on my talk page are also examples of acting in bad faith. Just like the way you and Hu74 are behaving on the talk page of the article is acting in bad faith; points raised by me or Casteiswrong are structurally ignored. Why? I thought you were here to "build an encyclopedia". You're simply ignoring people and reverting edits; that's acting in bad faith. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm baffled to see that despite all the people who told you that your are on a wrong path, you still don't seem to understand that your behaviour is unacceptable on Wikipedia.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Interaction Ban

Regardless of who started it, it appears that these two editors will not or cannot coexist peacefully. I propose that there be an interaction ban between the two of them.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Stop overreacting please. I can survive a false allegation and a personal attack. I just don't like it when people complain after they started behaving aggressively. Apart from that, I have no problem interacting with Wikaviani. And actually, there is not much interaction going on at the moment, as Wikaviani currently ignores every form of discussion on the content, and I am really only interested in talking about the content. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that would be helpful at all, for at least 3 reasons. Firstly, we are 3, GWTP, Hu741f4 and me, secondly, we will not be able to deal with the issue at Snell's law, and last but not least, you seem to put at the same level an editor who filed a SPI (me) which was declined and another who keeps attacking and edit-warring with fellow Wikipedians, including two admins with one of the admins being the one who cleared GWTP at the SPI case. 3 years ago, I was accused of Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry with no legit reason, I did not start attacking and being rude towards the admin and the user who baselessly accused me, rather, I responded politely and explained why I was unrelated. Additionally, I already said that I had no problem to discuss with GWTP if they are capable of bringing legit rationale instead of labelling as "stupid" and "ridiculous" every single editor who disagrees with them.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think it would solve the issue here. as far as I can tell, Wikiviani has been fairly civil, while GoneWithThePuffery has been uncivil to multiple editors [123] [124]. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  You must be joking. Fairly civil? So to accuse someone of "evading a block" and aggressively trying to get him blocked is "fairly civil"? And where have I been uncivil to other editors? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  you were shown not to be that editor, and he apologized. so why don't you just drop the stick? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  He apologized after he was being asked to do so, not because he wanted to. And I'm absolutely willing to "drop the stick", as long as my edits are being taken serious, which is not happening; they were being reverted without a proper argument, without having a discussion about it at the talk page. The same goes by the way for the editor that is now banned; he was raising some legitimate points. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I just gave you the "proper" argument below, the fact that you find a source that supports your POV does not mean it should be included in the article, inclusion requires WP:CONSENSUS. While WP:BOLD allows you to edit any article in order to improve it, WP:BRD says that you must not reinstate your edit when it is reverted, rather, you should seek consensus, which you refused to do properly since you attacked me and other editors instead.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't suppose something completely crazy like "you two got off on the wrong foot, let's start again, and everyone try to be nice to everyone" would have any chance? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I have no problem with that. As long as my edits are being taken serious. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  ~Your edit was made with no consensus and with a source that is contradicted by expert sources few lines after (Rashed, Smith), it has to be removed at least until a consensus is found on the talk page, but instead, you are engaged in edit-warring. So far, I don't see any legit reason for your edits at Snell's law to remain, but we're here to discuss your behaviour towards several editors, not for discussing the edits at Snell's law which should be done on the article's talk page.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, now who has the battleground mentality here? I said above that I have no problem with "you two got off on the wrong foot, let's start again" and again you started to complain about my behavior. My friend, I think I have more reason to complain about your behavior than the other way around.

  And again: I don't need a consensus for every tiny edit I make on Wikipedia, that would be absurd. And also again: how do I reach consensus if you're not even engaging in a discussion? For instance, you're saying: "a source that is contradicted by expert sources few lines after". What source are you referring to? Note that Rashed's work is controversial and that researcher do not always agree with one another. A reason more to explicitly mention Rashed in the light of his Ibn Sahl claim. You never explain yourself properly. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Here we go, that's exactly the problem, every time you disagree with an editor, said editor gets words like "stupid", "ridiculous", "absurd" and so on, don't you understand that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable on Wikipedia ? don't you understand that people don't want to discuss with someone who systematically insults them when there is a disagreement ? I already said that I had no problem to discuss with you if you were capable of a collegial discussion in which everything I or other editors say is not labelled as "ridiculous", "stupid" or "absurd".---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I really don't want to hear anything from you about what's acceptable on Wikipedia or not. Not after I've seen how you are dealing with people with whom you disagree. And where am I systematically insulting users after a disagreement? I indeed said a few things to you after you insulted me by falsely accusing me of something I didn't do.

  More importantly: saying that you want to have a discussion is one thing, but actually having a discussion is another. Instead of putting all your energy in complaining about me on these pages, you could've went to the talk page of the article long time ago; instead you chose the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to continue complaining about me to the admins. I'm sorry, but you're not really in the position of complaining after insulting me with your false accusations. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Everybody can see that I never insulted you, but you insulted me and other editors and you still sound like you don't get how unacceptable your behaviour is. Good night.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ah I see, you never insulted me, is that the reason why you apologized? A good night to you as well. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I apologized for the incorrect accusation that I made in good faith, not for insults towards you, I provided many diffs of your insults towards me and other editors, could you please provide diffs of so called insults I made towards you ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I thought you were already asleep. Accusing me of being someone who started an edit war, accusing me of sockpuppetry, even though you could have known I wasn't that editor. Saying that I'm not here to "build an encyclopedia", even though I'm only making edits based upon reliable sources. That is insulting! GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam I tried to suggest that at Talk:Snell's law (diff), but GWTP's response was to go right back to discussing, in their words, "two users who are not even focusing on the content, but rather engaging in an edit war and behaving like dictators of this specific article" (diff). GWTP might have worn out their welcome on the topic, if not sitewide, as a result. —C.Fred (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Fred, I'm perfectly willing to do so, I even said this right now to Floquenbeam. However, just as I wrote my comment to Floquenbeam, I was again confronted with another diatribe against me and what I did wrong etc. For the last time: I'm willing to end this entire discussion, if the discussion on the content of the law of refraction is being taken serious on that talk page. Now, is that a sign of not being willing to "build an encyclopedia" or what? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Sitewide block for GoneWithThePuffery

Since GoneWithThePuffery cannot disengage from discussing other editors voluntarily, administrative action is required. Recommend a one week siteblock to GWTP for continued edit warring and incivility, along with making it clear that if the behaviour starts back after the block expires, a longer block will be applied.

• Support as proposer. —C.Fred (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I really cannot believe this. Seriously? For what? Disengage from discussing other editors voluntarily? What are you talking about? Wikaviani started these discussions himself! I didn't start this. He started complaining on my talk page and now here! GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This is really disgraceful what you're doing here. I was falsely accused when I was making a perfectly sensible edit on an article, and after that I was being brought before the inquisition on this page. And now I'm the one who is getting blocked. It is really scandalous what you are doing! What is the matter with you? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This is triage. Yes, you were falsely accused; as you've noted myriad times, which has clearly been acknowledged by everyone in the discussion. However, being wrongly accused of something, again, does not give you carte blanche to act in a manner that would be completely inappropriate if that accusation had never happened. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• We've already spent far too much time on this user, and it's not getting better, but steadily worse. I've indeffed GWTP for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Good block was reading thread with a mind to do the same. Regardless of the sock accusations, they're not here to improve the project. Star Mississippi 00:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Support after reading the whole thread, and especially the responses in the proposed interaction ban. Wiki admitted they made a mistake filing the SPI & apologized; assuming there was enough behavioral evidence presented to warrant CU, that seems to be a good faith filing in my eyes. Judging by the response to every message critical of the behavior GWTP has shown, they're incapable of dropping the stick and admitting they could possibly be in the wrong. That's a mindset not suited to a collaborative environment. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

As I was writing this, two more comments from them still refusing to drop the stick. Nope. Thank you, Bbb. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support block - GWTP was not willing to drop the stick and was indignant to everyone here, including admins. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for handling this case. And now I really need to go to sleep or even coffee will not save me tomorrow morning.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block I encouraged this editor to disengage and move on. Instead, they continued ranting ad nauseum. Cullen328 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse indef block/community ban - If you're trying to domineer an Incidents noticeboard thread, you make it crystal clear you're not interested in collaboration except in the manner you dictate. That is not acceptable; you must be willing to both compromise and to leave the past in the past if you're to have any chance of being a productive editor. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block However, I do encourage that if this editor cools off a bit in a few weeks, there be an extra dash of liberalism in the unblock evaluation. As I've noted above, the behavior is inexcusable, but them losing their temper in this situation, while not justified, is at least a skosh more understandable than in most similar cases. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Good block - I wasn't sure what action needed to be done, but GWTP answered the question with a tantrum. It worked about as well as having a tantrum on WP:ANI usually does. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block - After reading carefully and passing through different links of this conversation, I decided that I will support a week-long block for the user. As it seems, the user does not disengage with the conversation and just ignore it, like the user has been told previously. GoodHue291 (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef block. GWTP's editing history shows that their mindset is hardly compatible with a community encyclopedia where collaboration is crucial. months ago, their interaction with other editors were already quite aggressive : "I think I explained my changes pretty adequately, why is it so hard for you to understand?", "Last but not least. I don't know if you do this to other users as well, but why do you feel the urge to bother me with your take on 17th century scientific practice and even quantum gravity(?!)? Not only are those matters completely irrelevant to this discussion, but what makes you think I'm interested in what you have to say about it?". Sounds like this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

A refusal to permit evidence to be discussed in a Wikipedia talk:Did you know thread requesting such evidence.

See here. [125][126] where User:4meter4 has twice hatted directly relevant on-topic comments I made in direct response to a good-faith request for evidence regarding DYK BLP-related issues. It seems apparent from reading the thread that several individuals wish to exert control over the discussion, and to prevent some issues being raised. If this is indeed their intention, the broader community might like to take into consideration whether it might be more appropriate to conduct such discussions elsewhere, where such questionable control could less easily be exerted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Andy, a person who has been murdered is not living. Once someone is dead, they are no longer a WP:BLP. We are specifically looking at living people because the focus of the RFC is on BLP compliance. A murder victim by definition is not living, so this isn't a usable or relevant example to this particular RFC.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you read what WP:BLP actually says. WP:BLP policy now, and WP:BLP policy back when the DYK you don't want discussed was posted on the main page. Policy then, and policy now, is equally clear that the recently deceased - and perhaps more importantly their living friends, relatives etc - deserve dignity. Not lurid tabloid headlines about someone who had been murdered and had their body disposed of in a canal only three weeks previously. My evidence was absolutely within the scope of WP:BLP, and absolutely relevant to any serious attempt to deal with what appear to be long-term systemic issues with DYK. If indeed this is to be treated as a serious attempt to do so. I believe that was the intention of the person starting the discussion, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to make the same assumption about some of the other participants there. They apparently aren't even prepared to wait for responses from other potential participants before trying to set arbitrary rules of their own over the scope of discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just going to point out there's some nebulous leeway at WP:BLP that can apply to persons who are recently deceased, should that be the point of contention:
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Italics mine, bold in original.

WP:BDP also covers the recently deceased in a bit more detail. That said, it seems like the subject died in 2012, to which I would expect any reasonable person to consider as not a recent death. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't a recent death now. It was when the DYK was plastered over the main page, three weeks after McCluskie died. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

A DYK that ran in March 2012, which was approximately 12 years ago. You were asked repeatedly to provide current examples, which you refuse to do. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I have already explained why I consider it relevant. I see no reason to repeat myself. As for being 'asked to provide' examples, the exact opposite is going on - as when people accuse me of 'sabotage' for even participating in a post below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

No explanation needed, your Majesty. Everything you say has the writ of royal prerogative and nobody should ever question you again. If you should have to repeat yourself again in any manner, I shall report the offending party henceforth. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Attempt to goad me into making the response that comment merits duly noted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Move to close this ANI report as needless, frivolous, and without merit. 4meter4 is trying to help, not hinder discussion. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Aren't you a little too involved to be making such a proposal? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: that or a BOOMERANG. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Andy, you're being disruptive. I'm having a hard time not seeing this as almost sabotage. 4meter4 is trying to fix something you have been complaining about for over a decade. Maybe you should consider taking WT:DYK off your watch. Valereee (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

'Sabotage'? For pointing out serious problems with BLP-related DYKs, in a thread asking for evidence about problems with BLP-related DYKs? The only 'sabotage' (or at least disruption) seems to be coming from those who jumped in as soon as I posted, trying to exclude my evidence. A sincere question was asked. I gave a sincere response. And now, rather than letting anyone else participate with their own comments on their own evidence, they are confronted with an ever-growing and obviously off-putting tangential mess. If my evidence is agreed, when all is done, to be of little concern, then why would it matter so much anyway? Why is everyone so concerned to exert control over the thread? And how is such control even remotely appropriate in the context of such discussions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Andy, you've indicated you're going to enter into evidence anything and everything from a decade+ ago. The discussion is about how to fix what's happening now. I've created(?) a sortable table. If you're intent upon entering into evidence everything from the past 12+ years, fine. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

No I have not indicated you're going to enter into evidence anything and everything from a decade+ ago. I clearly and unambiguously stated that I have no intention of bringing 'every DYK I've ever objected to in the past 12+ years' here. I brought up two, because they were clearly relevant to a discussion which seems on the face of it to be focussed around adressing systemic issues. Please don't make things up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Except most of the discussion participants repeatedly told you that old evidence wasn't relevant. Anyway, let's cut to the chase. I just proposed the "No BLP rule" on the DYK talk page you are working your way up to proposing. Why not just get down to brass tacks? Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

As of now, I have no firm proposals. Or none that would stand much chance of gaining community approval. And why exactly, if you consider a 'no BLP rule' to be appropriate, are you objecting to me showing why it is needed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's not what I wrote up above or on the DYK talk page. I said that the reason I added it for discussion is because it is the natural endpoint of your argument. You also have some unknown measure of support for it. My guess is that the reason you are waiting to do this is because you feel that you can work people up to it with some kind of persuasion campaign. On the other hand, I prefer to face reality head on, and think we should discuss it immediately. I have not expressed any support or opposition for the idea, other than a separate informal proposal on the DYK talk page that would allow reviewers to discard/reject so-called controversial nominations provided some kind of conditions are met. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

horse horse i love my station

I would very much appreciate it if you would stop trying to read my mind. You evidently aren't very good at it, but it is irritating all the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Please alert the Palace Guards when I will be allowed to discuss the proposal. I will be eagerly awaiting your reply in the stables where I will be tending your Majesty's horses, as befits my station. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Given your telepathic skills, you should already be aware of my reply. Feel free to report the breach of WP:CIVIL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

For using examples over a decade old in a discussion about current practices. Valereee (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This hatting is wrongly-justified - WP:BLP would absolutely apply to someone murdered only weeks prior. No comment on hatting due to being an 'old example', but to be 100% clear, BLP applies to recently-deceased people and would 100% apply to the Gemma McCluskie article/hook back in 2012. Daniel (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It does, and it did according to 2012 policy too. Which is why it took so little effort to get it pulled from the main page, once I'd raised it at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• I voted against sanctions on the last thread to appear on this board based on the assumption that a 24 hour block would be way too short to do anything preventative, and would thus be purely punitive. I am now forced to confront the fact that voting differently would have prevented this thread from appearing at ANI. I don't see how anyone could have expected a twelve year old example to stand uncontested in a discussion about what is happening on wikipedia now. The correct response to someone challenging you on this would have been to come up with an example within the last year or so, not to take it here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  The argument that events that occurred twelve years ago are of no relevance would be more convincing if anyone were to show that things have actually changed in any substantive way since then. I don't believe they have. The underlying causes have never been properly addressed as far as I can tell, which is why the discussion is taking place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  You posted examples of bad things that happened 12 years ago, and you think now it's up to someone else to demonstrate that those things are no longer happening? Seriously, this approach makes sense to you? Levivich (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  No, I posted evidence regarding events 12 years ago. People then claimed they were no longer relevant. I asked what has changed to prevent such things occurring again - in a thread started because there clearly are similar problems, even now. Nobody has answered my question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Nobody cares what happened 12 years ago at DYK. You cannot demonstrate that there is an ongoing problem by showing that there was a problem 12 years ago--you need to show ongoing, which means problems between 12 years ago and now--or really, like everyone is asking you, just show recent problems. I'm sure you understand this, which leaves me wondering why you would argue otherwise, to the point of taking it to ANI. It feels like you're trying to get yourself sanctioned, and trying very hard at that, and I don't understand why. Like you could not be less collaborative in this venture unless you started dropping slurs. 4meter agrees with you (on the BLP issues) if you haven't noticed, and you took them to ANI because... they collapsed your 12-year-old evidence? WTF are you thinking? If you've been drinking or something, walk away from the keyboard now. I'm at an honest loss about why you would try to disrupt the very process you tried so hard to start. It's just pure self-sabotage behavior at this point. Levivich (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Can you point to where everyone was asking me to submit more recent evidence? I don't see that: what I do see however is an attempt to stop me submitting anything. Including things I had no intention of submitting in the first place. And no, I'm not drunk. Been on the wagon since, um, 2012 or so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, let me quote some examples from the WT:DYK page:

  • "If it hasn't happened in twelve years then it's not a recurring problem. This is why 12-year-old evidence sucks." - That's me, and perhaps it wasn't clear but this was an implicit request for more recent evidence.
  • "Again over a decade ago. Let's focus on current issues?", "Andy, I don't think anyone would disagree these were bad. But let's focus on today's issues.", "Andy, I mean this absolutely sincerely: why? If we want to fix now, let's focus on now." - that's val asking 3 times
  • "Old evidence doesn't get us any closer to this answer. The majority of the respondents to this discussion have asked you to provide current evidence only. I'm asking you as well." - that's Viriditas

  Oh and here's a bonus:

  • "All BLP examples, regardless how old, will be accepted." - that's 4meter, the editor you've brought to ANI, and it directly undercuts your statement above that "what I do see however is an attempt to stop me submitting anything"

  Let it sink in: the editor you brought to ANI (1) agrees with you about a BLP problem at DYK, (2) has volunteered their time to start an analysis of said problem, and (3) explicitly said all evidence should be accepted regardless of how old, so they even defend your 12-year-old evidence. And you call this "an attempt to stop me submitting anything"? Because somebody hatted a part of that. I hope you can recognize how illogical this is. Levivich (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I'm not going to debate logic with someone who thinks that it is appropriate to make evidence-free allegations of drunkenness in an ANI thread. If that were actually appropriate, I could probably point to actual evidence that might suggest the same - regarding people complaining that I'd supplied evidence, people complaining that I intended to submit more, and then complaining that I hadn't submitted any more. If I wasn't firmly on the wagon, after all that I might very well see the merits of a stiff drink. If my head is going to spin, I might as well enjoy it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sigh, you know damn well that "If you've been drinking or something, walk away from the keyboard now" is not an allegation of drunkenness. And even if it were, so what? If somebody is inexplicably acting irrationally, impairment is a legitimate question. But I'm done spending any more of my time trying to save you from yourself. You want to be indef'd or TBANed DYK, have at it. Believe me, though, nobody is going to view you as a victim here. Levivich (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  The burden of proof for your own claims is on no-one else but you. Also, this is ANI, very explicitly not the place for you to litigate content disputes. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• @AndyTheGrump I'd like to know why this was taken straight to ANI? It seems unnecessarily combative. We could have talked about this civilly on my talk page, as this was simply a misunderstanding over the relevance of the evidence. I was unaware of the recently deceased portion of the BLP policy. Anyways, I have added the example to the table in a neutral manner, so the issue brought up here is no longer relevant. Please avoid editorializing evidence and simply present links and a short description of the problem in the tables that have been created. I know others may disagree, but for the sake of objectivity I think we should accept older evidence. As I stated at the DYK talk page, editors are smart enough to know how to weigh older versus newer incidents in their comments. My guess is some will question the relevance of the older evidence at the RFC, and others will not. I don't think it will derail the RFC to be more inclusive in the evidence gathering process. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  My edit summary, when I reverted your initial hatting: Read WP:BLP. Read WP:BLP from 2012. Both make it absolutely clear that this DYK was within the scope of policy. And note that when you hatted it, I had already pointed out in my initial post in the thread you hatted that WP:BLP policy, then and now, was clearly in scope. If you failed to read WP:BLP after all that, it is down to you, and I really don't see why I should have been expected to discuss anything on the talk page of someone who then hatted the material again with no edit summary at all. That looks like a refusal to engage, not a request to talk it over. As for your comments about the relevance of older evidence, I have already tried to make the same point. The decision as to what is or isn't relevant needs to be made collectively, after an appropriate time has elapsed, when people can assess submissions as a whole. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, I wasn't aware that you had removed it. I mistakenly thought I hadn't saved the page as I have been having internet connectivity issues, and was in the middle of trying to set some guideline for productive posts. But this is besides the point, ANI shouldn't be the first step in conflict resolution. Please assume good faith and try and work with others through personal messages first rather than going directly to ANI. You are much more likely to win allies that way. I will set up a discussion thread for evidence issues to keep it separate from the list section. One reason why I hatted that conversation is I felt it could persuade others to not post evidence. We really need to keep the evidence gathering section simple and discussion free in order to not dissuade people from participating. If the evidence gathering area gets heated it could stop people from wanting to participate and choosing to put evidence forward which would harm the progression and ultimate outcome of the RFC.4meter4 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  The evidence section was entirely 'simple and discussion free' until people objected to me submitting any. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well I have accepted that submission. It's in the table. Let's move on.4meter4 (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that this needs to be on ANI. OTOH, in an RFC of that sort it seems unhelpful for a involved editors to try to clerk in such ways, and especially to keep trying to clerk when there is dispute and where they clerking seems to be at least partially based on a serious misunderstanding of BLP. Also I'll be blunt that anyone who's understanding of BLP is so poor that they think it does not apply to the recently deceased probably shouldn't be so extensively involved in discussing the interaction of BLP-DYK anyway. Leave that for editors who actually understand BLP. Note also while there may be reasonable dispute over whether it's helpful to have such an old example it seems if the better solution if there is dispute over the hatting would be for editors who feel it's irrelevant to just say it's too old to be considered if needed and not participate in further discussion, rather than try and enforce a hatting. Ultimately the discussion would not be too distracting if editors do not participate. Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne I may not be a BLP policy expert, but I don't think there is anyone else willing to take this on. I don't think it would be happening otherwise. I don't generally coordinate group discussions, and I would hope making some mistakes along the way would be met with some grace per WP:AGF. I have participated in many BLP related disputes at DYK in the last year; none of them involving recently deceased individuals, which is why my working memory on BLP issues had a gap. This is also not an RFC yet, so please don't refer to me as an RFC clerk. It's a talk page discussion gathering input before an official RFC proposal is made. The whole point of it is to draw on communal input in framing an RFC discussion. Other editors at DYK who want to assist and take on a leadership role are welcome and encouraged to pitch in, and I am trying to respond and adapt to others input as I go with an open heart and sense of service. I hope I will not be the only one involved in coordinating the discussion. We now have a table set up in the posting evidence section, and I will have a separate place for discussion if there are issues with anything posted in the table. What I wanted to avoid was lengthy disputes inside what was supposed to be a list. That is disruptive visually to a working list, and makes it hard to locate listed items. It's my fault for not having anticipated a need for a place to discuss disputed evidence ahead of time that was in a separate location from the list itself.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is what it looks like when an editor has carte blanche to flip tables over and generally go nuts. I agree with Kusma who told ATG (paraphrase) help review or check prep sets - don't scare away the participants. I could hardly read the WT:DYK page as a result of foot stomping. It is not helpful or collegial. Lightburst (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC) my comments are not not needed.

1. AndyTheGrump opened a thread at WP:ANI referring to DYK contributors as "idiots".[127]
2. 4meter4 responded to the legitmate WP:BLP concerns in that thread by starting a discussion to list problematic DYK nominations and discuss common problems.[128]
3. AndyTheGrump responded by linking to discussions from over a decade ago where he called DYK contributors "halfwit"s and "morons".[129]
4. 4 different editors explained why this was derailing the discussion. ATG responded by casting aspersions about how "some would apparently prefer to exclude anything they would prefer not to get scrutiny".[130]
5. 4meter4 hatted that part of the larger discussion.

This is probably why we have Wikipedia:Civility as a policy. It's not realistic to expect editors to engage on preferred terms while insulting them, mocking them, and seemingly demanding that they post links to a WPO thread doxxing them.[131] I don't see an issue with 4meter4's conduct, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the 'doxxing' please note that it wasn't there when I asked that evidence being presented against me was backed by the links that are a basic requirement of ANI threads. How is anyone supposed to respond to claims not backed up by evidence? At no point did I dox anyone, and for the record, I stopped posting at WPO over a month ago due to what I consider to be entirely inappropriate behaviour in that regard. Given that WP:CIVIL shouldn't apply to comments regarding non-Wikipedia-contributors over at WPO, I feel free in stating that I consider the 'doxxing' in that thread to be a further example of the sort of fuckwittery that led me to stop participating there. It seems readily apparent to me that certain individuals there are using the site to massage their own egos rather than as a forum for legitimate criticism, and they do so without the slightest regard for consequences. External scrutiny of Wikipedia is an absolute necessity, and no external site is ever obliged to follow Wikipedia rules, but if a forum wants to be taken seriously, it needs to show some evidence of wishing to be taken seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

At this point it almost seems like ATG wants sanctions; I can't help but think of why they thought it was a good idea to do this again.wound theology◈ 06:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• ANI is for behavior that is urgent or that is intractable. Whatever one thinks of 4meter4's earlier hatting of a couple subthreads in a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Did You Know that wasn't something as formal as an RfC or such, I don't see the matter as having been so urgent as to require ANI intervention, since this discussion presumably will last for quite a while yet (multiple days at a minimum; perhaps weeks) and there was plenty of time to let moods cool and to work out what evidence should or shouldn't be included. It also doesn't seem to be or have been all that intractable, with how 4meter4 has by now apparently taken feedback on board by apologizing for misremembering how the recently deceased factor into BLP, creating a section for discussion of disputed evidence, and overtly stating older evidence can be added to the table now created in that talk thread. This ANI thread doesn't seem to indicate much at issue in 4meter4's behavior. Instead it makes apparent that by doing nothing about AndyTheGrump's behavior, administrators and the community have failed to prevent that behavior from continuing. AndyTheGrump's treatment of other users is an intractable behavioral issue. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Andy seems to have an overall issue with DYK and is throwing everything he can at the wall to see what sticks in an effort to get his way. It's absolutely disruptive and if he won't agree to step away & cool down, the community needs to enforce sanctions to stop the disruption. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

There have been three threads about ATG‘s behavior one of them boomeranged the other one had no action and this is the third one And they were all pretty recent I think the community needs to do something whether it be a warning a block a ban or whatever just something

ATG‘s behavior is unacceptable Maestrofin (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

We all know there were better ways for ATG to make a point or start a larger conversation. I am not sure that issues would have received the attention they have if ATG only whispered their concerns but I very much disagree with the way they started the conversation. I believe that ATG was right on BLP related hooks.

I feel like I can respond to the substance of ATG's argument now that the attack part of their message is over. I would be against sanctions for ATG at this point. I hope that ATG decides to do some background work at DYK as Kusma has suggested. There have been multiple conversations in the days after that first ATG post at ANI and some are not needed, like this one. Working in the DYK section of the project is difficult and stressful work at times - especially now. Lightburst (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

So, kick the can down the road until he does it again? And again? And Again? This is a repeat pattern, it's not going to get better. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Nothing in the way of sanctions to consider so far. Just a general feeling that the discussions started by ATG have been disruptive. I cannot disagree with that. I think DYK has been disrupted enough. The project's volunteers are self-reflecting and involved in multiple discussions about how to move forward. I am not sure what we can do here besides close this discussion as it has run out of steam. If you have a proposal about ATG I am sure editors would consider it. Otherwise we are just loitering here. Lightburst (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal of indefinite block for AndyTheGrump

• Support as proposer. As multiple editors have observed in this and a prior thread, AndyTheGrump's violations of Wikipedia policies on civility and his ongoing disruptive behavior are part of a long-term and intractable pattern which is unlikely to improve. This block is a preventative measure to prevent future disruptive and uncivil behavior from harming the project, as the probability is high that AndyTheGrump will behave this way again. Rather than kick the can down the road, the community should enforce sanctions in order to preserve a collegial editing environment and protect editors from harm. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support a t-ban from DYK. I wouldn't like to see an indef from everything. I even kind of hate to see it from DYK, as I think constructive criticism from people who aren't regulars there can be very helpful. But Andy's contributions are a net negative at that project. I would not object to a t-ban from DYK, broadly construed. If we can get Andy to recognize that his ongoing contributions aren't productive there, maybe they could be constructive. But simply allowing him to continue to disrupt there because in general we consider him a valuable contributor is not the answer. From his own diffs from twelve years ago calling people morons and halfwits to this week's posts here calling people idiots, it's been going on for over a decade without anyone taking action. Enough is enough. He needs to figure out how to contribute productively or walk away. Valereee (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with everything you wrote, but I'd say that he has walked away from DYK, at least for the last 48hrs. Right now -- today, yesterday -- there has been no disruption of DYK by Andy. If it happened again, yeah, TBAN, but it hasn't and perhaps the discussion so far has already been enough to prevent it from happening again. Perhaps if/when he comes back to DYK he'll be chill about it. If not, then TBAN, but for now, I gotta go with oppose TBAN, and because an indef proposal at ANI is equivalent to a siteban, oppose indef. Levivich (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  This happened on the 15th. That's three days after his previous disruption on the same topic. What we're seeing is already the "if it happened again". Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Only if you're use the word "seeing" to describe something you saw three days ago. What I'm seeing is that WT:DYK has continued over the last few days, Andy has continued editing over the last few days, but Andy has not participated at DYK over the last few days. I agree with sanctioning people if they don't walk away; I don't agree with sanctioning people as they're walking away. Levivich (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  So you're thinking not being disruptive for 48 hours is evidence he's finally after more than a decade straightened up and is ready to fly right? Well, obviously I'm very close to this discussion, but your opinion is one I trust. Valereee (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not exactly, but I think his non-participation for 48 hours (while the discussion has actively continued at WT:DYK; I'd feel differently if the discussion just dried up over those 48 hours, but they didn't) is evidence that he has chosen to walk away.

  I see it this way:

  • There was no participation in, and thus no disruption of, DYK in January, February, March, or April of this year (as far as I know, from looking at his contribs, didn't go further than Jan)
  • He disrupted DYK on May 12, 13, 14, and 15th -- four straight days of disruption. During that time he almost got sanctioned and bunch of people told him to cut the crap.
  • Then, he continued editing (again: I'd feel differently if he wasn't actively editing) on May 16 and May 17 with (so far) no participation in or disruption of DYK.

  So 2 days of non-participation, following 4 days of disruptive participation, following months of non-participation. I'd be willing to give him the chance to walk away from it. Maybe he'll never come back to DYK. Maybe he'll come back but not be disruptive. Maybe he'll come back and be disruptive (or be disruptive elsewhere). If either of those last two things happened, I'd be in favor of severe sanctions (TBAN, indef). But for now, if walking away works, maybe give it a shot? I'll note also that he removed the "idiots" rant from his userpage following people complaining about it during these recent threads, which I also take as some sign of progress. I can understand if others don't think any more WP:ROPE should be given here. Call me a softy? Levivich (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would also support a topic ban from Did You Know. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support a t-ban from DYK per Valereee. BorgQueen (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support a t-ban from DYK per above, this was started only three days after the previous DYK-related drama and a t-ban would clearly be preventing more in the future. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support for a topic ban, mild support for an indef. I do think that there are serious issues here but I would like to see whether or not a topic ban can remedy them before declaring them truly intractable. As a side note I think that AndyTheGrump's name has given them a massive amount of leeway to be grumpy in a way that would have gotten other editors blocked... Which is not necessarily their fault I must add, they likely did not intend that consequence of their name. I know when I first encountered incivility from them I was amused more than anything else, it was funny that the behavior matched the name... As a result I didn't handle it like I would have from another editor which probably gave the idea that it was OK. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't realize that worked; I should have named myself LevivichTheInsufferable (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  there is a bizarre logic to it... Its a camouflage of some kind, on the opposite end we are very quick to scorn and block accounts with names like "CommonSenseJoe," "Edits-in-Good-Faith" and "Neutral Point of View Upholder." If you point out that AndyTheGrump is being unreasonably grumpy you look like a pedantic asshole no matter how right you are. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I feel like Hydrangeans goes right to the nuclear option - as they did in the ANI about me (below). It is helpful to remember that we are all volunteers here. We should find the least restrictive way to stop a a disruption. I think as Levivich points out we are not stopping a (current) disruption with a Tban and a siteban is an overreach/nuclear option. I already made it clear in a previous thread/proposal that I was unhappy with the disruptions... but if they stopped we should get back to business. Lightburst (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  We are indeed on balance largely volunteers, and that includes the victims of incivility. An ongoing pattern of incivility is itself restrictive as such behavior affects many editors, chilling participation by creating an unsafe environment where editors are obliged to fear and tiptoe around harassment. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Editors who are eager to go for the nuclear option also create a chilling effect. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Indef. This is shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the message. In this case, the latter is that the project is not fit for purpose. Of all our main page projects, it is the one most consistently questioned at WP:ERRORS. It is the one that leads to most ANI threads regarding its members. WP:FAC and WP:ITN manage to avoid the repeated dramah. The question is, why can't DYK? What is there about the project that attracts such ill-publicity? I assume it's because it does not, unlike the other projects, have the necessary rules, and the concomitant checks and balances, to ensure the strict adherence to core policies and guidelines that the rest of the community expects. You see what happens; the walled garden that is DYK approves something, and the moment it comes under scrutiny from editors who neither know nor care about the minutiae of DYK, inherent failures are exposed.
  Incidentally, I feel a new-found respect, if not warmth, towards the editor Lightburst. ——Serial Number 54129 18:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  That question is easy to answer: DYK posts 9-18 8-16 new things per day; TFA posts 1 per day; ITN posts 1 per week. Just from this discrepancy in base volume, we can expect 10x or more WP:ERRORS reports from DYK than from TFA and ITN combined. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's not a numbers game. It's a matter of approach. Editors are not permitted to abrogate responsibility for the quality of their edits purely on account of their quantity. Do not talk to me again. ——Serial Number 54129 18:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Something that has been pointed out in multiple discussions, including an RfA. We can differ over whether DYK should exist, but the project produces 8-16 entries a day. AFIK it's the only place on the entire project with multiple deadlines every day. Valereee (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  A 9th list item has snuck in today! Levivich (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  It does that from time to time. DYK used to get huge criticism from not "balancing" ITN/OTD. Not sure whether this was an attempt at that. Sometimes it's that someone objects to a hook being pulled and not getting a "fair" time run. Valereee (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129, halfwit, moron, idiot, his own diffs. Some of which are from over a decade ago. Whether he's correct to be concerned seems like we're saying "It's okay to personally attack other editors as long as you have a point." We can criticize without becoming personal. Valereee (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Exposing this was indeed a good thing, but Wikipedia:Being right isn't enough, and Andy should learn to point grievances (especially important ones) without attacking and antagonizing other contributors. I also oppose indef for that matter, but a topic ban for DYK would definitely be a good thing (until Andy learns to work more constructively in a collaborative environment), because hostility is not counterbalanced by having an important message. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Chaotic Enby, that is true, yet I was referred to as a blatant homophobe, and transphobe but nobody suggested that is a PA. No sanctions. I am sure the editors who hurled the insults at me were filled with the same righteous indignation that ATG felt on this policy issue. Plenty of editors involved in the Tate discussion were prepared to ignore BLP in favor of a DYK hook that would portray him in a bad light. I am not saying the final hook reflected that, but the discussion was full of editors who felt like they had the moral high ground without consideration for WP:DYKHOOKBLP. Lightburst (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It is a cruel irony that the editors who aggressively pursue a narrow vision of civility enforcement are typically unwilling to reflect on their own behavior. In this community, double standards are the norm. Name-calling is easy to spot, but a lot of editors don't look deeper at the effects of the more subtle forms of incivility that savvy veteran editors can dish out without consequence. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't involved in the other discussions Lightburst referred to, so, unless I misread this and their own behavior wasn't referring to me, I am genuinely curious what you mean by that. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It was a general remark not based on any single editor. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the thread below, if that's what you're referring to, Liliana did not call you a homophobe, a transphobe, or "blatant" anything, but said of a comment you made that I can't read this as something that's not transphobic. Commenting on someone's character is a personal attack, but commenting on a specific action is not, and there is an important difference between both. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Chaotic Enby The title of the thread was something I took as a PA and it was only changed after I complained - you can click there to see the smear. Ironically the editor who made this very proposal (Hydrangeans) also attacked me saying, "...Lightburst makes Wikipedia less safe for trans editors". So yeah I see both of these things as a personal attack and uncivil. The irony is that Hydrangeans wants to indef ATG for incivility. Some PAs are more severe than others... I can take Andy's off hand idiots comment better than I can take a smear against my character or an accusation that I somehow threaten trans editors. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about the original title of the thread. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Indef I'm honestly quite sympathetic to an editor who has identified a core problem with how Wikipedia operates and who has got a lot of flack for passionately bringing it up. I'm neutral on the DYK tban. Might be good for Andy's blood pressure in the long run but an indefinite block is definitely too far. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Simonm223, identifying it and calling editors halfwits, morons, and idiots is two different things. Passionate does not have to mean namecalling. Valereee (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am not comfortable banning an editor from the whole project indefinitely over name calling. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Simonm223, indefinite does not mean infinite. An editor who is indef'ed can literally be unblocked five minutes later if they convince someone they sincerely mean to stop doing what they're doing. Valereee (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am perfectly aware of what indefinite means. However I don't believe an indefinite block is an appropriate measure for name calling. Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  For namecalling over a decade with no indication that they plan to stop? Valereee (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Generally speaking making four replies to every !vote that goes opposite the way you want doesn't persuade anybody. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Believe me, I get that, and I'm not happy that I seem to be the only person here who is willing to get into the fact so many opinions are completely out of policy. It's not a comfortably position for me to be in.

  What I'm trying to make sure is seen is that you and multiple others are misunderstanding major points here. Blocks are not punishment. Indefs are not worse than time-limited. Personal attacks are not okay just because you have a point. Valereee (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support non-indef block, weak support t-ban - Although Andy has identified a problem with DYK, calling the contributors "idiots" and the like not only violates one of Wikipedia's core pillars, but is actually detrimental to the progress he was trying to make by distracting people from the issue. As I stated in the previous 24 hour block proposal, Andy is still a respected editor in many areas of Wikipedia, but the incivility problem has been ongoing for many years with no signs of improvement. I don't know that an indef block is necessary, but a longer block (at least a week or two, maybe a month) to let him blow off some steam might be beneficial. If the incivility continues after the block expires, then I would support an indef. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would like Andy to be able to participate in the upcoming RFC. I suggest a formal sanction that he has failed to follow WP:CIVIL with a warning that future incivility at DYK (or elsewhere) will result in an immediate block. This should alleviate concerns over future behavior problems, and provides a quick pathway forward to solve any continuing issues quickly should they arise. It simultaneously allows Andy to continue participating at an RFC where I think his perspective may have value.4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  @4meter4, are you suggesting a logged warning? Valereee (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Valereee I'm not well versed in disciplinary proceedings on wikipedia. I was suggesting a warning with teeth where an admin can swiftly block without needing to discuss it first because of the prior warning. If that's done through a "logged warning" (I don't know what that is) then yes.4meter4 (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Any admin can actually block without needing to discuss it first. The issue is that if it seems to be unjustified, people will object, and in the case of well-respected long-term contributers such as Andy, many users want to give more leeway, so there may be objections. A logged warning can help provide rationale to allow an admin to take an unpopular step. It sucks that that is what's necessary to deal with behavior issues from otherwise positive contributors who have some area in which they are simply apparently unable to contribute constructively, but there it is. Valereee (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I would definitely support a logged warning then.4meter4 (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Me too. Levivich (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh wait, nvm, that's already happened. Levivich (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose When closing the previous thread calling for a 24-hour block I noted that "There is a general consensus, even among thos who opposed the block, that Andy's tone in opening the above section was uncalled for and that he be more careful with his words in the future." That was three days ago, it's still right up the page. Andy hasn't been an issue at DYK for two of those three days, but now we're going for an indef? I'm not excusing his behavior, phrasing things the way he did is not conducive to collaborative editing and is ultimately self-defeating (see my own essay on how I learned this lesson), but I don't see how an indef is caleld for at this time. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Just Step Sideways, Andy opened this. Valereee (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Absolutely not, this is nothing more than an opportunist proposal. There wasn't any consensus on a 24 hour ban, so an indefinite block is far fetched at this point. This comes across as a reactionary measure to issues ATG raised in the main topic here. Despite his recent actions, as well as unnecessary edit warring at Andrew Tate (as some sort of reaction to the controversial BLP hook issue), he just needs to take a break and get some more sleep in his life. He's already been officially warned it seems, and there's nothing between that warning and now that deserves further punishment. Resurfacing failed proposals usually doesn't get very far. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW, blocks are never punishment, and an indef is not somehow "worse" than a 24-hr one. Indefs can literally be lifted five minutes later if an admin is convinced the person is willing to stop doing what they're doing. Valereee (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose indef, oppose t-ban, support short disciplinary block at most. Andy's behaviour falls very far from my threshold of an indefinite ban. He also doesn't cause significant damage to the DYK section, although admittedly he brings a fair degree of disruption there. I could support a temporary t-ban if other folks on the DYK team confirm that no other disciplinary action is feasible. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  As above, blocks are not punishment. Indefs are not somehow "worse" than time-limited blocks. Blocks are to prevent further disruption, which in this case is the ongoing for now over a decade habit of calling people idiots, halfwits, morons. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I have a lot of respect for you Valeree, but I think your comment here points up the disconnect between how admins experience Wikipedia as compared to the rest of us. I suspect that most non-admins would strongly disagree with your statement that indefs aren't any worse than time-limited blocks. Sure, an indef block can be lifted in a short amount of time, but the blocked user has no way of knowing whether or not it will be lifted. And more often than not, the block will be reviewed by someone who has never been blocked themselves. Valeree, I note that you have never been blocked, so frankly you (and most other admins) don't know how it feels to be blocked, indef or otherwise. And again, I mean all of this with sincere respect because you are one of the good admins. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Lepricavark, thank you for your kind words. Many admins are reluctant to lift a time-limited ban. Many assume it should be repected. An indef, unless it's by the community and is specified as "can be appealed in six (or whatever) months" is generally seen by basically all admins as "use your judgement; if you think this editor gets it, lift it." In fact many of us specify that when placing the indef. I very typically note "This can be lifted by any admin once they believe the editor is listening (or discussing, or has convinced you they understand and are willing/able to comply with policy)". I do understand that this isn't well-understood by non-admins, and that "indef" feels like "forever". I wish it were better understood by editors. Indef is actually kinder. Valereee (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from DYK. With apologies to Levivich, if the best argument for not tbanning Andy from DYK is that he hasn't commented there in the the last two days, that seems like a good argument for a topic ban. For me, the question is whether Andy can still contribute without attacking other editors. It seems settled that he can't engage at DYK. Mackensen (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Way over the top based on evidence provided. Abstain regarding DYK tban. I didn't find Andy's arguments about Andrew Tate persuasive in the most recent go-around, and don't find other people's arguments persuasive this time (if you don't think evidence from ten years ago is relevant, you have the ability to just ignore it or note as much and move on -- it looks like it only sprawled into something counterproductive because of the back-and-forth after the old evidence was presented). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose both I don't see any new issue, and the rest is a re-do of the last ANI thread. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  You realize Andy opened this "re-do"? Valereee (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Is Andy suggesting these sanctions? If not then no he did not open this re-do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's fairly commonly understood that when you bring something here, your own behavior is also going to be looked at. I hate the concept of boomerang, FWIW. But don't try to say this is a re-do of the last ANI thread. Andy brought this here. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  But..... he did not suggest these sanctions which are a redo of the last ANI. Whether it's this thread or just this boomerang part is just splitting hairs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  He brought the last one(? can't keep up) here too. When someone brings things here, they're going to end up with their own actions looked at. That's just unfortunately part of the process.

  Seriously all Andy needs to do is acknowledge their behavior was problematic, apologize, and promise never to do it again. That would completely be good enough for me and probably 99% of people here. Just say it, Andy: "I was wrong to call people halfwits, morons, and idiots. I apologize, and I won't do it again." Just say it. It's not really a huge ask. Valereee (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes I understand what a BOOMERANG is, but technicalities don't change my point. I also understand that you would like to see something done, as does everyone that has stated their opposition. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I actually don't want to see anything done. That's actually the last thing I want in this kind of situation with a productive, useful editor who is exhibiting disruptive behavior. What I want is for Andy to recognize the counterproductiveness of his strategy and change it. Only if he refuses do I think something needs to be done. Valereee (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes you have said so in your reply to his comment (I have read the thread), it doesn't relate to my point. Personally ATG could absolutely do with dialing down the grumpiness from 11, but I don't see anything here that wasn't in the last very recent thread (or the thread about that thread being closed) and continuing to press the same point isn't productive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  He. Brought. This. Here. If you think it wasn't worth bringing here, it's disruptive. Valereee (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  (Note the comment above was only He. Brought. This. Here. when I posted this reply.) To be polite this back and forth obviously no longer has any worth. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't change you comment after it has been replied to.(This has been explained as an edit conflict, so I've struck my request.)
  It wasn't disruptive to bring this here as ATG's post about the DYK that was pulled was valid and shouldn't have been hatted, yes it was old but it still fits the criteria.
  What has come of bringing it here is a rehash of the recently closed ANI thread, who brought it here in no way changes that fact. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Taking this to user talk. Valereee (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Too severe. Maybe a temporary block or temporary restriction as a wake-up call. Something needs to change. And there are other reasons for block besides just preventative and punitive. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support (temporary?) T-ban I think I was pretty clear in my comment above, I opposed the last 24h block on the grounds that it wouldn't prevent anything, only to be confronted by another ANI case less than 24 hours later. Even some of the opposes here acnowledge that his behaviour is currently disruptive at DYK. I think some kind of timeout from that topic area is in order here. I hope a Tban appealable at the earliest in a couple months will achieve that. An indef is obviously excessive here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Response from AndyTheGrump. If the community considers it necessary to topic-ban me from DYK for submitting evidence of clear and unambiguous violations of WP:BLP policy in regard to DYK content in a thread that asked for evidence on the same subject, and then objecting when attempts were made to remove such evidence, then so be it. While I have in the past considered it my moral duty to draw attention to incidents such as the one where unconvicted individuals (easily identified from the article linked in the proposed DYK) were asserted as fact, in Wikipedia voice, to have 'cooked in a curry' an individual who has never actually been confirmed to be dead, never mind been murdered and disposed of in such a manner, I am certainly under no obligation to raise such issues here. I just hope that there will now be enough uninvolved contributors paying attention to proposed and actual DYK content to prevent such things happening again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Andy, I hope there will be, too. And I hope they can do it without calling anyone a halfwit, moron, or idiot. You know, it would probably go a really long way here if you'd just say something like "I was wrong to call anyone a halfwit, moron, or idiot. I sincerely apologize, and I commit to never doing that again."Valereee (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Unless you have anything new to say here, please just get over it. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ugh. I really feel like I would like to stop responding here, but this makes me think I need to. Why should we not deal with namecalling? Valereee (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Genuinely, I don't think responding to every single person in this thread is a good thing to do. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. I'm responding where I see someone misinterpreting policy, and when they respond to me, I'm again responding. It sucks. Valereee (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I get it. Sadly, while I agree with you that Andy has been disruptive and that an (appealable) topic ban should be a good thing, it's too easy to get stuck in these back-and-forths about policy, that ultimately lead to more heat than light. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Because I suggested you get over it, you think you need to keep responding to most of the opposes here? The reason why we might not deal with someone who's called others an idiot, in certain circumstances, is being there is no consensus to do so (see previous discussion). It might be because despite the poor choice of words, the decision to approve that DYK, with that hook, with clear overwhelming objections, was clearly idiotic (the decision was very stupid). Even if the person who suggested the hook (you) or the person who approved it isn't an idiot. I think many people saw the personal attack of "idiot" and translated it to "idiotic", even if for those who are called an idiot it doesn't "hurt" any less. Sometimes it's also better to call out idiotic behaviour, even if done so in an awful manner. That's just my take of the situation at least, I hope you can accept that criticism. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's junk logic. It's the kind of argument that makes me want to support sanctions, just to rebut this way of thinking. I won't do that, though, but I will speak up to say: no, nope, no. We can say something is a BLPvio without calling editors idiots, morons, halfwits, etc. There is no way in which the heading of that ANI thread was justified, excusable, understandable, or otherwise okay. Levivich (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm pretty convinced ATG wasn't capable at the time of bringing it up in a civil manner (potential insult alert), not that this justifies his insults. I understood his anger, even if I don't find it particularly excusable. Maybe he will be able to again raise issues in a civil manner, in the future, like he has in the past. If not, then he'll end up getting banned. Overall I don't see petty name calling as being any worse than the vandals and disruptive editors that get warned before getting blocked, in fact I find it much less offensive personally. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose both I'm not impressed with Andy's decision to open this thread, but as Levivich noted the disruption at DYK is not ongoing. While Andy should do a better of job of assuming good faith on the part of DYK regulars, I believe we are too hasty to talk of bans these days. The indef block proposal is well out-of-order. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  He opened this two days ago. His response above shows zero indication he recognizes his personal attacks are an issue at all in dealing with his concerns about DYK. How is this not ongoing? Valereee (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  LEPRICAVARK clearly referenced that the disruption at DYK isn't ongoing, nothing else. Clearly this discussion is still ongoing, because users such as yourself expect an apology, which you're almost certainly not going to get. Maybe give the badger a rest? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I hate to keep answering here, but because you asked...why should we not expect an apology, @CommunityNotesContributor? I mean, we got called names. Why is an apology something we shouldn't expect? It's a pretty minor request. Valereee (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  The exact same reason as my previous wikilink for you. Because no one is obligated to satisfy you. In summary; you're not entitled to an apology, even if you deserve one. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Taking to user talk. Valereee (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I would have supported this the day ATG posted that thread, but now it's stale and there has been no further offense that I'm aware of. I do support doing it right away the next time it happens, if it does happen again. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I definitely support giving some sort of final warning to put ATG on notice. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  For reference sake see BLP incivility warning that was given. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• oppose This isn't timely, and besides, the "shooting the messenger" angle on this has dominated the thread from the start. When Wikipediocracy can sustain a 19 page thread consisting mostly of untrue DYK hooks, it's obvious that the process is failing, and I say this as someone who, back in the day, submitted several dozen DYKs, so it's not as though I haven't been there. The hook in question was baldly pulled out of context, and should never have been promoted; whether or not one wants to call this "idiocy", seizing on AtG's choice of derogation plainly turned onto a way of ducking the issue that this hook and many others should have been caught and kept off the front page. I am not bloody-minded enough lacking in the kind of emotional emotional energy and the time to deal with DYK's problems, but they are obvious, and it is apparently fortunate that those who complain eventually lose their tempers over the frustration of dealing with the various enablers, lest something be done about it. Mangoe (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Christ on a cracker, Mangoe, would you get the facts straight. Levivich (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose At the top of this page it says, "include diffs demonstrating the problem." Instead, the proposer opened this thread by saying, "As multiple editors have observed in this and a prior thread, AndyTheGrump's violations of Wikipedia policies on civility and his ongoing disruptive behavior are part of a long-term and intractable pattern which is unlikely to improve."

The lack of information in the proposal means that only editors familiar with whatever lead to this will know what the issues are. This discourages uninvolved editors from commenting which can adversely affect the outcome.

TFD (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The punishment seems disproportionate to the offense, though it may become proportionate later if the behavior continues. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Close reading of this thread reveals a link Levivich provided: Special:Diff/1223676400. See also the exchange beteen Andy and ScottishFinnishRadish on Andy's talk page here. The warning has been placed and logged, and Andy has acknowledged it. As such I think this entire thread is moot and I oppose further sanctions (including sanctions dependent on whether an apology is given). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  The warning (on 13 May) was for the previous incident, while this thread is about more recent behavior (more specifically, the thread that Andy opened on 15 May). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose indef. Was his first logged warning for incivility this week? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  No, I believe he's had a number of temp bans before. wound theology◈ 13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose indef - I do not see any argument that AndyTheGrump is a net negative for the building of an encyclopedia. He has both positive and negative impact on DYK, by objecting to BLP violations, and by objecting to BLP violations uncivilly. He has both positive and negative impact on normal editing, by building the encylopedia, and by being uncivil. I don't see an argument that the negative outweighs the positive. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon the thing about the "net negative" analysis is that assumes that the editor in question is more important than the editors on the receiving end of the negative behavior. Put into words it seems less noble: "AndyTheGrump is more important than Valeree, so they'll just have to deal with his behavior, sorry." Inevitably, this is also a situation where the editor could modify their behavior to remove the negative aspect, but won't, which leaves this: "We think what AndyTheGrump does is more important than treating Valeree with respect, sorry." Note that the "sorry" isn't actually an apology, but more of a shrug of the shoulders, as though there's nothing to be done. Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  User:Mackensen - No. I didn't say or mean that, but that does imply that I wasn't clear in what I was weighing against what. It appears that you are saying that the harm that Andy does by being uncivil to other editors outweighs the benefit to the encyclopedia, and we can disagree civilly (since neither you nor I are editors who have a civility problem.) I never meant it to be a matter of weighing editors against other editors, but of saying that ATG has a beneficial effect on the content of DYK and of normal editing. I would also add that I am less worried about treating an established editor like Valereee with the respect that she deserves, and has from the rest of the community, than about treating a new but useful editor with the respect that is due to any human. If you are saying that he does more harm by being disrespectful than the benefit of his editing, then we at least know what we disagree about. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  I never meant it to be a matter of weighing editors against other editors I think this is the nub of our disagreement. An editor's negative contributions don't take place in a vacuum, and they aren't borne by the encyclopedia writ large, but by individual editors. Sometimes those are experienced editors, sometimes not. Whether you mean to or not, I think if you adopt the net-positive/net-negative framework you're choosing one editor over another. Mackensen (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Also, I didn't make a statement about a topic-ban from DYK, and I am still not making a statement about that, so I don't think that I am disagreeing with User:Valereee. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  FTR, again: I really don't care that Andy called me an idiot. I'm sure I'm often an idiot in multiple ways. What I want is for him to stop calling people idiots, period. That literally is all I care about. If he'd just say, "I will henceforth stop namecalling", I'd be happy to move along. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Having seen the inflammatory heading in which ATG started this discussion, before he changed the inflammatory heading, I have stricken my Oppose, because I can see the argument that he is a net negative. I have not !voted on an indef block or a topic-ban at this time. I probably won't vote in this section, because the combination of !votes on indef and !votes on DYK ban will confuse almost any closer as it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support non-indef ban and perhaps a topic ban based on the above. Warnings clearly aren't doing the trick. wound theology◈ 13:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• This thread is aimed at banning or blocking ATG because he is being perceived as being disruptive on the discussion about DYK - the disruption appears to be complaining here about his points being removed from that discussion because they referred to events that were too old. I strongly hope that is isn't what was intended by anyone, but it looks like that this is an attempt to shut down opposition to the status quo. This is not a good look for Wikipedia and does encourage others to take part in the discussion.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  No, this not an attempt to shut down opposition to the status quo. The way we know this is that the person who was reported here by Andy agrees with Andy about problems with the status quo, as do many of the people supporting sanctions. Levivich (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Prefer T-ban from DYK but block if necessary. The unapologetic and ongoing personal attacks, battleground behavior, and disruption, are the problem. We shouldn't censor the important underlying discussion of DYK vs BLP but AndyTheGrump is doing a great job of effectively doing that himself by making it all about his grumpyness instead. Getting him away from the issue is the first step in shedding light instead of heat on the issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. An indef is a silly overreaction, and a TBAN doesn't seem reasonable either -- where is the long-term and/or ongoing disruption there? Andy is kind of an asshole about perceived incompetence in general, but the community has repeatedly concluded, including in an earlier 24-hr block proposal, that his behavior doesn't rise to the level of offense or volume to necessitate a block. So if his comments aren't "bad enough" for an acute block, and there isn't a sustained pattern of harassing DYK in particular, I don't see how a TBAN benefits the project. JoelleJay (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef block also fine with DYK topic ban Like my oppose in the last 24 hour block proposal, there's no evidence that the editor is going to change how they treat their fellow editors here. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: to make everybody happy, I support a three months block from DYK. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

A Contrarian Thought: Send to ArbCom

I think that we are looking at two overlapping issues involving conduct that the community is unable to resolve. The first is the conduct of User:AndyTheGrump, and the second is conduct and interactions at Did You Know. I am aware that some editors probably think that we are about to resolve these issues, that this thread is about to be the last thread, and that if repeating oneself four times hasn't been persuasive, repeating oneself six times definitely will either persuade or exhaust others.

I am aware that I am often in a minority in thinking that such recurrent issues should be referred by the community to ArbCom, and in thinking that ArbCom should accept such recurrent issues on referral by the community. I am also aware that in modern times, as opposed to the twenty-oughts, ArbCom normally does not accept cases about individual users, which is one reason why there is the concept of unblockables, who are misnamed, because they are actually editors who are often blocked and often unblocked, and are not banned. Well, AndyTheGrump has actually avoided being blocked for a decade, and so maybe really is unblockable. In any case, the community has not resolved the issue of this editor. It also appears that the issues about Andy at DYK may be the tip of the iceberg of issues at DYK.

I will throw in an observation that the arguments offered in the above thread about whether the biographies of living persons policy trumps or is trumped by the civility policy are erroneous. One is a content policy, and the other one is a conduct policy, and both should be and can be non-negotiable. But if a conflict between these policies is perceived, it may be a symptom of something that is wrong. I would suggest that what is wrong is using biographies of inherently controversial living persons to be used in Did You Know, but that is only my opinion. If a case is opened by ArbCom, ArbCom should state as principles that the biographies of living persons policy is non-negotiable, and that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, because those principles apparently need to be restated.

It is my opinion that the issues of interactions at Did You Know and the conduct of AndyTheGrump are not being resolved by the community and should be addressed by ArbCom. I don't expect consensus on my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It probably isn't in my best interests to comment on whether my issues with civility (Yes, I know I have them, I have acknowledged the fact) merit an ArbCom case. As for whether ArbCom is the appropriate venue for tackling some of the ongoing issues with DYK content, with the flaws in process that creates said content, and perhaps with the behaviour of some contributors there, I suspect most people will suggest that those involved should be given a chance to tackle the problems themselves first. Preferably taking input from the broader community, which has sometimes appeared reluctant in the past to get involved, but clearly ought to. If, however, ArbCom is to become involved, I would strongly argue that it needs to look into it in its entirety, starting from no premise beyond that there have been recurring issues with content of all kinds, and that the appropriate way to proceed is to ask for evidence first, in an open-ended manner, and only then to attempt a resolution. Attempts to frame problems narrowly in advance tend, even if done with good intent, to mask deeper underlying causes, making a permanent resolution impossible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with devolving to ArbCom. These discussions regarding DYK are getting nowhere. There is lack of clarity over how BLP policy interacts with DYK, if it does at all, with the ambiguous wording: "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided" being the biggest problem and interpreted in multiple different ways from users at DYK. One interpretation is that if the negativity is due, then hooks can be negative, and therefore can "override" BLP policy. The other is that negative BLP hooks shouldn't be used, regardless of being due, or otherwise controversial figures shouldn't be featured at DYK at all (with a neutral/positive hook). Clarity needed. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Isn't this jumping the gun? I would think the RFC that is currently being constructed would directly address many of the problems being raised here, and would provide for a much wider range of community participation and comment to solve these issues. It would be in the community's best interest to allow for wide community comment and participation rather then to limit the investigation to a small ArbCom panel. I would say we give the RFC a chance to do its work before determining whether going down the ArbCom path is necessary.4meter4 (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no appetite for a restriction on ATG based on multiple discussions. Taking this to the next forum after the community votes seems like a forum shop. And about DYK: if you want the editors to get the message and work on tightening up reviews, BLP issues and other DYK related criteria... that is happening right now. RM, I do not think arbcom is the place for this. Nobody is saying what you have said lack of clarity over how BLP policy interacts with DYK, if it does at all. See our DYKCRIT and BLPHOOK guides.

There are issues with - as I said in the Tate discussion... "the politics of whomever happens to be editing". One administrator in the discussion rejected the premise of that statement and so did other editors. It felt like politics because as I said in the discussion, Tate is a sort of anti-woke figure. Many editors were announcing their dislike of Tate. An admin said we had to protect children. See for example, Theleekycauldron (TLC) - most would agree they are a DYK expert, but they decided to push very hard for a negative hook as did many other's who called for Tate to be "taken down". At the time I pushed back as did a few other editors, but we were outnumbered, Honestly it was many editors including TLC and most of them are MIA from this discussion and others. I sarcastically asked TLC if they were playing a Jedi Mind Trick when they said a "neutral" hook would actually be unduly positive.

It felt very bizarre to be in that discussion and have seasoned editors demanding negative hooks about a blp against our very clear DYK guidelines. The hook that was run, while negative, was Tate's own words and it was written by an Arb member. An admin added it to the nomination so we went with it. Kudos to EpicGenius who wrote a good neutral hook that was not added to the nomination. If you have not read the discussion yet, please do!. It is a must read if you want to see how the sausage is made. Lightburst (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I checked your DYKCRIT and BLPHOOK guides. So negative hooks can be run, based on DYKBLP then right? Why was there even an issue in the first place, can you address that question? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• ArbCom would likely only rule on editor conduct. I'd be very surprised if they did anything about the DYK process itself. That kind of change probably has to come from the community, and the RFC that is in the process of forming seems like an ideal place to do it. The only reason to request an ArbCom case now instead of after the RFC would be if we think that there are conduct issues at DYK so severely entrenched that even the RFC would not be able to stop them. I'm not quite sure we're there yet. Pinguinn 🐧 03:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  User:Pinguinn - I agree that ArbCom is unlikely to rule on the DYK process. I have not studied the DYK process, but it is my non-expert opinion that the process is broken partly because of underlying conduct issues. For that reason I am pessimistic that a viable DYK reform RFC will be launched in the next few weeks. I know that other editors are more optimistic than I am, so that efforts at a community solution will continue. If an RFC is assembled and launched, I will be glad to see it run. If the RFC development process bogs down, I will see that as further evidence that ArbCom investigation is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think ARBCOM will want to rule on the questions at hand regarding DYK. How NPOV, BLP, and really short-form entries on the Main Page (the same issues apply to ITN) interact is a community matter. If there are issues in the actions of editors besides ATG, they have not really been fully discussed by the community. CMD (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Kingsif

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

---

• Kingsif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Follow my dreams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has reverted edits I made to Follow my dreams on the basis that they are not referenced or unsourced. At no time have I removed any references or added any information that is not in these sources. I have simply specified that this work was modified in 2023. Also on the Talk:Follow my dreams I made a proposal to make two separate pages since the modified 2023 work is very different from the 2022 original work and I have also made an explanation to WikiProject:Arts explaining the problem. This user is constantly threatening to block me as well as instructing other users to do so, as can be seen on the Talk:FC Barcelona Femení and my Talk page. According to him, I make only vandalic edits. This user is making me feel that I am not capable of contributing to any page to this shared project. These are all arrogant comments. As a new user I don't think this is a pleasant situation. Need help. Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Blow.ofmind78 when you report editors here you need to notify them on their talk page as it explains at the top of this page. I've done that for you. Shaws username . talk . 21:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and help Shaws username, I didn't know how to proceed correctly. Just wanted to point out the problem and if anyone could help to resolve it. Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

OP blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. I'll look into this a little more. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - Blow.ofmind78 now confirmed to be sock of a disruptive agenda account, not a shock based on their behaviour. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You made changes based on your opinion about the subject, even though sources (including the artist himself) said otherwise. This, after you had been told multiple times by multiple users to learn how sourcing works.

And reporting someone for reverting - with reasonable explanation - your unsourced edits is just trying to bully your own way. Kingsif (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments by Lightburst on WT:DYK

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

---

On WT:DYK, Lightburst referred to nonbinary singer Nemo as a man in a dress. I can't read this as something that's not transphobic. This is unrelated to above discussions about WT:DYK. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment This is the second time LilianaUwU has taken me here, this time with a deplorable label. History, I referred to LilianaUwU as they as it is my practice to use they instead of he or she. LilianaUwU came to my talk page and requested I use she. I told them I refer to everyone as they out of caution. LilianaUwU was preparing to get me in trouble over not using he or she. So I came to their page and apologized and said I would try to use she when referring to them. Since then LilianaUwU has had it in for me. Took me to ANI in the middle of the night over my participation in an RFA. I trouted LilianaUwU after the discussion was closed. And now LilianaUwU takes me to ANI in the middle of the night again , this time by referring to me as a blatant homophobe. I call it aPA and an aspersion and I ask that LilianaUwU strike it. Regarding blatant homophobia I thought I saw a man in a dress like when Harry Styles wore a dress on Vogue. I used the image of Nemo to illustrate how we make editorial decisions at DYK and elsewhere by choosing what to promote on the main page. I did not read the article and nobody corrected me until now... at ANI of all places - like gotcha! Here I am told I did not see a man in a dress. So after looking at the article I see it is a non-binary person in a dress. I stand corrected. I do hope LilianaUwU can stop following me around to try and get me in trouble. Lightburst (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I really appreciate that you're trying but homophobia =/= transphobia and I don't find LilianaUwU's characterization of your comment to be unjustified. Can you explain what you mean by "how we make editorial decisions at DYK and elsewhere by choosing what to promote on the main page"? What editorial decision was made in regards to that image? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Editors select the image they want to promote and the image of NEMO was a provocative image. It was an editorial decision and that was the point I made. HEB, you also did not tell me I was mistaken. I really do not have anything more to add and so I will do my best to observe WP:COAL. Lightburst (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying an editorial discussion was made to promote a provocative image and that the image is provocative because it depicts the event its about? I will also point out that someone did correct you [132] (I was trying not to get sidetracked... Not that it mattered, you didn't respond to me anyways), if not in the nicest way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Man, if the thing you're trying to say is, like, "some proportion of Wikipedia's readers will think that's what the pic is and find it offensive" -- then for Christ's sake, say that, and clarify that this is what you mean, rather than the thing it sounds like you said, which is stupid and cruel. jp×g🗯️ 06:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It feels combative when you communicate with me. I even saw that an hour ago you reverted my collapsed section at DYK and you left a snotty edit summary. So I am afraid to answer your questions because you throw the answers back at me daggers. Also, I did not see that comment, the thread is a mile long and they did not ping me. That is why I collapsed it. Nearly all DYK is tied up with these discussions all over the project. Lightburst (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I assume you mean HEB or Liliana and not me, because I don't think I did any of that stuff (?) jp×g🗯️ 07:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

HEB did open the section back up, yes. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get you in trouble. I saw a comment that seemed to be out of order and went to ANI. I should've discussed it with you first, yes, and I tend to pull the trigger on the CESSPIT a bit too fast, but to me, transphobia is a bit of a hot issue - whether it's an experienced editor or a newbie, I don't feel safe when people have comments that sound like that, because they directly concern me. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, you opened an AN/I thread titled "Blatant transphobia about a BLP subject by Lightburst on WT:DYK", seemingly without any attempt whatsoever to communicate with them or ask what the comment meant or clarify it or etc - I mean of course you are within your rights to do that, but... jp×g🗯️ 06:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I can say that I don't feel safe. Lightburst (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, Lightburst did get called out on it. He gave no response to that specific callout, but he collapsed the discussion despite being involved. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

That discussion is a mile long as I said above... it is you assuming bad faith because you can see they did not ping me. And I collapsed the discussion because I started it and it ran its course. I actually closed two discussions but first I posted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ADid_you_know&diff=1224082792&oldid=1224074294 this message saying I would close a few on WT:DYK. The Tate thread was not a vote it was a discussion so I was not involved and I only hatted it to make room on that page which is now full of long threads. Lightburst (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what specific image Lightburst was talking about, because she he messed up the diff link to the Main Page (i.e. it transcludes everything, so I can't see what was there, or what the hook was). Was it File:Nemo PreparyES 01 (cropped).jpg? What was the hook? I don't see anything at Talk:Nemo (singer). jp×g🗯️ 06:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This one JPxG File:Nemo Eurovision Song Contest 2024 Final Malmö dress rehearsal semi 2 06 (cropped).jpg. Lightburst (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it was that picture on the ITN tab, as they won Eurovision. Also, AFAIK Lightburst uses he/him. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Lightburst, I have been trying to come up with a word to describe your a man in a dress remark, and I am stuck between "catty", "snide" and "obtuse". So maybe all three. Your usage twice of in the middle of the night is also bizarre. Surely you know that Wikipedia is a worldwide project operating in 24 time zones and what is the middle of the night for you is breakfast time, lunch time or party time for many other editors. No editor is expected to take your personal sleep schedule into account. You can reply or not reply as you see fit the next time you log in. Now, let's take a look at I would try to use she when referring to them. But in that very statement, you used "them" instead of "her". Why did you choose "them" in this specific context? Your "trying" meant very little when you were discussing that issue right here. It seems to me that you have difficulty with word choices when discussing certain topics, and I would advise you to be more cautious and thoughtful. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Then again, Cullen328, it's 3am where I live. I really shouldn't be up this late myself. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

LilianaUwU, it is "round midnight" here in California so I might make a few more edits before turning off the lights. Cullen328 (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh hell I will fix it. jp×g🗯️ 08:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I get the point LB was making that Wikipedia will publish content even if "some readers may find that offensive." I get that if a person didn't know that the subject was non-binary, they might misinterpret the pic as being of a man in a dress. I also get that "man in a dress" is a common pejorative aimed at non-binary and transgender people, likely to spark a strong reaction. Seems like this was a misunderstanding or unintentional faux pax that could be rectified by striking/correcting the comment at issue. Then maybe we can all have a laugh at the irony that in trying to make the point the Wikipedia publishes content that might offend some readers, an editor inadvertently published content that offended some readers. Levivich (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Despite Lightburst's backpedaling in this thread and claim that nobody corrected his misgendering of Nemo, as LilianaUwU has pointed out, Lightburst was informed that Nemo is nonbinary, and he hatted that discussion rather than acknowledge this. If this was an unintentional faux pas, why didn't Lightburst apologize then rather than obfuscate this feedback about the misgendering? Rather than laugh about transphobia and misgendering, I think we should be strongly committed to creating a Wikipedia where there is no queerphobia. I'll add that I find unpersuasive Lightburst's claim that being called out for transphobia constitutes a PA ([personal attack]) and an aspersion. I place a very high value on our policies on civil behavior and prohibiting personal attacks, but they are not a self-destructive pact that requires the community to simply take transphobic slurs like "man in a dress" on the chin. Rather than just wait for the next time Lightburst makes Wikipedia less safe for trans editors, the community would be better served by taking action to prevent such behavior in the future. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Hydrangeans really sorry you feel this way I put down some links and timelines above. And I announced that I would be hatting threads to make room on the page - link above. I hatted two.
• I have now struck the comment that LilianaUwU referred to. Lightburst (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I would strongly echo Cullen's suggestion that you take more time to consider your word choices: I would struggle to characterise that comment as anything other than intentionally provocative. While we're on the topic of word choices, "I'm sorry you feel this way" is about the worst apology possible, so you might want to reconsider that too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

    Accusations of gaslighting, implicit or explicit, should not be made lightly. I thought that Lightburst's tone in the comment was genuine, and I would suggest that the pile-on stop now. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive article creation by IP

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

This IP is disruptively making unreferenced stub articles on motorsports topics in disregard of sourcing requirements and WP:TOOSOON. Talk page is full of recent warnings on the matter, but today this user tried to create 2025 IndyCar Series, 2025 MotoGP World Championship, 2025 Moto2 World Championship, and the bizarre Draft:Draft:2024–25 Liverpool F.C. season. Suggest this user take some time out. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on their edit history, this is almost certainly an IP hopping editor that I reported here once before. They make unsourced edits to motorsport and year in music articles, never make edit summaries or respond to warnings, and when their current IP is banned they wind up finding a new one. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Doc Strange, I think you're right. Another IP (180.74.68.219) made the same edits as 180.74.216.10. Both IPs are in the same IP range and same geographical area so pretty sure it's the same person (or group of people). Annh07 (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like ScottishFinnishRadish blocked ....68.219. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  20:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Vulgar language usage and personal attack

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

---

These 5 users were socks (Ubishini (talk · contribs · logs), Naughty Nightingale (talk · contribs · logs), Sanuthi Aahidya (talk · contribs · logs), Chilli Soonyam (talk · contribs · logs) & Veraswini (talk · contribs · logs)) The main ID is Neoshine (talk · contribs · logs) which is blocked and its continue via these IDs, Neoshine K.Sreeram Official (talk · contribs · logs), Neha Xorg (talk · contribs · logs), Shanvika Drake (talk · contribs · logs), Wikishini (talk · contribs · logs), VAW 2404 (talk · contribs · logs) - Many IDs are blocked in Commons, ta.wiki as well as here in en.wiki too.

The person uses very vulgar words and uploads some images and write to attack some people. Last affected page is Thangamagal (TV series). I request admins to take appropriate action and be cautious since the scammer active from February. The main edit pattern is this. AntanO 13:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Cicihwahyuning6

Probably a sockpuppet of User:Cicihwahyuni6 just banned, doing the same disruptive edits: of adding Nordic languages to the pages of Turkic countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cicihwahyuning6 a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Clear duck sock Maestrofin (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

aggressive revert by user as if vandalism on dab linking and refusing to answer a contradiction?

originally Running water redirected to tap water with no dab links put in tap water for other terms referred with running water. so i create running water (disambiguation). then i find out that dab exists in Running Water (see difference in case), so i move it to running water (disambiguation), add link to it in tap water. @Bkonrad reverts the edits at with no reason given. at first i thought they mistakenly did it in the middle of the move so i just revert their revert, which you can see in the 3 pages history and my contrib. then i find out that they revert constantly with no explanation. so i ask them in User_talk:Bkonrad#why_revert_dab_referencing_of_running_water?. notice their attempt to avoid answering specifically why the page with sentence case should be redirect but the one with title case should not and persistently sticking to reverting. i am requesting admins to look into this matter and see the validity. who is right in here and how so? Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute and the user is engaging with you at their personal talk page. Nothing to do here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

aggressive unexplained reversion and avoiding explaining. where to report? can you explain why Running water should be redirect but not Running Water and running water (disambiguation) should not exist as dab? admin response wanted Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This does not require administrator intervention, I recommend discussing the matter further with the editor you disagree with. Remsense诉 14:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot is also incorrect that I gave no reason for the revert. My main objection was performing the move by cutting and pasting and secondarily without providing any sort of rationale or consensus for the change. older ≠ wiser 13:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Anthony Hudson (soccer)

Is it me, or is there a clear case of WP:COI with the user Katieklops specific edits directed to the article. I found the last edit rather odd, [133], Govvy (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Also baring in mind that wikipedia does not censor. Govvy (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I also replied the following to Bgsu98 when my edit was flagged: I follow soccer and obviously have my more favorite managers/coaches. When coming to this page for updates, I always feel that there is a clear agenda by certain disgruntled fans, especially from Colorado Rapids, that seem to constantly edit the page to highlight any potentially negative information about Anthony, which I feel is very unfair. Is trying to remove content that is clearly added to show a person in a negative light considered Conflict of Interest? I obviously want to adhere to the rules and guidelines, but also feel that the addition of specific information on a constant basis should also be scrutinized and the agenda of that addition should be questioned as well.

I'm all for non-bias and transparency, which is obviously the whole purpose of Wikipedia, but seeing constant addition of information and some "information" is clearly a smear campaign. Katieklops (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Katielops: Since you created your account all you have done is edit and only edit the Anthony Hudson article, this is not normal editing behaviour! This suggests that there maybe a conflict of interest. What's your relationship to this person in terms of editorial? Govvy (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

As I've said to Bgsu98, I follow soccer and have a few coaches/managers' pages that I always look at, and his page is the only one that seems to have edits that are constantly added to put him in a bad light, which seems like a smear campaign to me. I've never felt the need to edit any of the other pages that I've visited, but these blatant edits feels very unfair to me. So yes, you're right, I've only edited his article, because the added edits always seemed off and unfair to me. "Normal editing behaviour" implies that it's my hobby or focus in life to edit Wikipedia pages, which it's not. I constantly came across something that felt off and bothered me, so I felt the need to "speak up" by submitting edits. I'm sorry that bothered you so much. Katieklops (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Katieklops, in this edit, you said in the edit summary "Took out references to being officially born in US (although raised in England), as he's currently receiving death threats working as coach in Qatar." Where did you learn that he is receiving death threats? I have not been able to find any information about this. CodeTalker (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone mentioned it on a message board - can't remember where. Just sounded serious enough to make me nervous about potentially endangering someone with information that, in my opinion, doesn't really need to be on there. Does is really make a difference putting a birth place on a Wikipedia page when it could potentially endanger someone? Katieklops (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Yasuke is a complete dumpster fire

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

---

Personal attacks flying left and right, vaguely racist comments, all-caps shouting, ... I suggested WP:DRN at first but I'm realizing this is far from sufficient and the behavioral problems alone mean someone should definitely take a look at the page. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, what in god's name is going on on that page? And who made the racist comments, User:Chaotic Enby? I have a hard time sifting through the disorganized and verbose comments by these new users. And what am I doing here? Drmies (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry for the ping, I tried to notify everyone who commented on the talk page and accidentally also notified a few people (including you) whose comments were much older than today's drama, as the threads were often all mixed up. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  No idea, I saw someone asking a question about it on I think Yamla's talk page and went to look. Evidently Yasuke is featured in a recently announced video game and <insert typical Gamergate bullshit>. Favonian protected the article a little while ago, and I've been working through the threads on the talk page responding to edit requests, removing personal attacks, and have blocked a few IPs. Probably could use more eyes (since I'm about to go do something else) but it does seem to be more or less under control. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  WakandaScholar could probably do with a block as a troll/WP:NOTHERE, noting the edit that got blocked by the edit filter. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Just finished pinging everyone involved, hope I didn't mess up too much. Comments like this one (alluding to a racist dogwhistle), and the dozens of removed personal attacks that litter the conversation. I'm honestly having a hard time following too, so that's why I hoped someone more experienced could take a look. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  The edit I was repeatedly removing yesterday was originally made on 15:21, 15 May 2024, pretty obviously done by (Personal attack removed) people upset at the new Assassin's Creed video game featuring Yasuke as one of its protagonists. The fact that I wasn't even adding stuff explicitly referring to Yasuke as a samurai despite the consensus from multiple historians that he was one, but merely removing a biased statement claiming that he explicitly was not one and that any categorization of him as a samurai is a myth I think speaks to the (Personal attack removed) that were invested in diminishing the historical of a black person in Japanese history.

  Like even Japanese documentaries refer to Yasuke as a samurai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#Japanese_Documentaries/TV_Series_that_talk_about_him_being_Samurai Theozilla (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Also thank you to Ivanvector for finally removing the original unnecessary addition that was added At 15:21, 15 May 2024‎, also I would personally recommend keeping the Yasuke page locked for more than three days. Theozilla (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Theozilla: while we appreciate your contributions, please familiarize yourself with our edit warring policy. Repeatedly restoring any edit is not allowed, even if you think you are right. The policy explains how you should respond if you find yourself in an edit war. Also, please find a way to express these sentiments without the personal attacks. We normally don't protect pages for any longer than needed to resolve the immediate conflict, but there are lots of admins watching the article now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't "restoring" an edit though? I was doing the opposite, i.e. removing an new unnecessarily added edit (though yeah, it still definitely devolved into an edit war). And I don't believe I personally attacked any other users. Unless noting the fact that the Assassin's Creed video game reveal is what attracted racist reactionaries to the Yasuke article somehow qualifies as a personal attack. Theozilla (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, calling someone or a group of people "racist reactionaries" is a personal attack. You can say things like "this edit should be removed because it does not accurately reflect the sources cited", or even "because the source cited promotes a racist point of view" although you should support that with evidence. You can't say things like "this edit should be removed because it was added by someone with a political agenda". I hope the difference is obvious, but the policy summarizes: "comment on content, not contributors". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, but I was never directly calling a specific person or group "racist reactionaries", I was stating that racist reactionaries got attracted to the Yasuke article, which seems pretty undeniable as even Chaotıċ Enby noted how there was racist comments abounding in the Talk section or comments in the edit history. Theozilla (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Oof, yeah that IP was definitely dogwhistling there. Might be time to semi-protect the Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  HandThatFeeds, it was semi’d a little while ago by Drmies. Hopefully everything will calm down now. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) (Very Busy) 16:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Oh thank goodness. That was probably the messiest talk page I've ever seen. Glad something was done eventually. Zinderboff(talk) 18:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hello and thank you for the ping. I am a Japanese and was concerned about the discussion regarding the article and previously commented on the talk page.

  I feel that there is a very western-centric narrative being pushed on the page, by users such as Theozilla and Mmsnjd, that edits regarding Yasuke not being a samurai are by racists. By doing so the concern of Japanese people, who know more about this topic given how it is about Japanese history, are being silenced by western people who seem to be trying to push an agenda.

  Yasuke is sometimes depicted as samurai in fiction, because it is more fun to do so. He is sometimes called samurai by internet articles, because ignorant people spread false information. But all Japanese historical records show that he was not samurai. Why should badly-written internet articles by Americans who did not do research and do not cite reliable sources be taken as fact over real Japanese historical records in a topic regarding Japanese history? This in itself feels extremely racist to me.

  Furthermore, Theozilla says that this is racist backlash because it happened in response to the announcement of a video game. This is nonsense. This announcement brought attention to the topic, so of course people would discuss it. I have no interest in this video game, but I am concerned with non-Japanese people appropriating Japanese culture and warping Japanese history.

  The fact that these users are attacking anyone who does not share their point of view as racists shows that they have no impartiality and I believe that, if possible, they should be removed from editing the article.

  Thank you.

  27.84.15.217 (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I do not claim to speak to Admins, but no, WP:NOR, and WP:PA, moreover, your fundamental thesis is incorrect, as there does exist japanese sourcing to indicate the at minimum possibility that the article's subject was infact either a samurai or conferred a similar social status. There is apparently little controversy to apply the title of retainer, a title most often given to samurai. 2601:190:402:BFA0:94B4:D71D:BECD:7695 (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I was tagged mistakenly, but I'm glad to know the page's long-term issues are finally getting some daylight. natemup (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed that the Talk:Yasuke page is a bit of a mess.

I do take issue with the statement above that there is any "consensus from multiple historians that he [Yasuke] was one [a samurai]". From what I've read so far, I see no such consensus among historians, and instead I see a preponderance of pop-culture publications that describe Yasuke using the word "samurai", but without any clear sources, and without defining how they are using the word "samurai".

As detailed in older threads at Talk:Yasuke, and as currently described over at Samurai#Terminology, "samurai" referred historically to a hereditary social class of Japanese nobility, something one could be born into or marry into. Meanwhile, "bushi" referred historically to something more like a job or profession as a soldier / warrior, regardless of family connection. There were samurai who served as bushi, and there were non-samurai who also served as bushi. These are two distinct categories.

There appears to be a lot of confusion in English-language texts, especially outside of academia, where "samurai" is used with a sense more like "any warrior in pre-modern Japan", which is decidedly not what "samurai" was used to mean historically. For any source describing Yasuke as samurai, we need to be clear (both in our understanding, and in how we edit the article) about how that source is using the word "samurai". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

However, so far the strategy has been for POV editors to just delete all references to him being a samurai in any sense of the word, leaving the article somewhat pointless in its focus. natemup (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Natemup — Why would omission of the word "samurai" make the [[Yasuke]] article "somewhat pointless"? I'm afraid I don't follow. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the entirety of his significance, as evidenced by the original version of the article, was that he was a samurai, in at least some sense. If in fact he was just, as the article states now, "a man of African origin" who served a Japanese ruler, it's easily arguable that there is little warrant for a Wikipedia article on him at all. (Save for his now ubiquitous pop-culture presence as—you guessed it—a Black samurai). natemup (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that Yasuke is potentially less historically significant as a non-samurai. Given the pop-culture interest, I think Yasuke as a topic is probably noteworthy enough to merit an article, not least to portray the actual historical picture, as opposed to the romanticized vision of an active warrior. If I've understood things correctly, we only have historical evidence that Yasuke fought in the Honnō-ji Incident and its immediate aftermath, which is quite different from the armored and fully armed popular image. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke was not a samurai in any sense by Japanese standards. I feel that claims that he was are attempts at historical revisionism by western people who are purposely ignoring Japanese historical records. The Yasuke discussion has a lot of such people who argue what samurai means, even though it is clearly defined. Western people trying to warp the definitions of Japanese words and culture to fit their own feelings feels extremely racist to me. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That's nice. The article should reflect the sources, however, per Wikipedia policy. Currently, it does not (and may be one of the single worst examples of such on the entire site). natemup (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

While this IP does show up as resolving to japanese, I do think it is worth making clear that despite these claims of racism in following vetted research, WP:NOR applies and that claims that pre May-15 versions of the article that described the subject of the samurai as some western invented myth are flatly untrue. The japanese article calls him a samurai and many japanese sources, both primary and secondary, give credence to accounts that grant cultural status similar to if not exactly that of a samurai, as has been discussed and cited numerous times here and elsewhere. 2601:190:402:BFA0:94B4:D71D:BECD:7695 (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This user's statements are false or intentionally misleading. There is no historical sources that state Yasuke is a samurai. There are Japanese theories and fiction that state Yasuke is a samurai but it is generally not accepted as historically accurate. This user is applying original research and using pop culture and non-academic entertainment internet articles as proof that Yasuke has "cultural status similar to a samurai" while arguing against actual facts. The fact is there are no historical Japanese sources that definitively state that Yasuke is a samurai, and rather the wording used regarding his serving as a servant to Nobunaga would suggest otherwise, which is why he is considered to historically not be a samurai. If a Japanese news article about an anime calls him a samurai, it is because the anime shows him as a samurai and it is more catchy to call him samurai in the title to gain attention, rather than not. It is not a western invention, but many westerners purposely warp these inaccurate depictions. Furthermore I am very disgusted by this statement "While this IP does show up as resolving to japanese" for it feels like racist gaslighting where this user is trying to cast doubt on my ethnicity. WP:NOR and WP:PA 27.84.15.217 (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore I wish to point out that even this user says "similar to a samurai" meaning not a samurai. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That talk page clearly needs that template warning people about how it's bad if someone told them to come here. I suggest leaving the semi protection on for at least a month until some of the more persistent SPAs get tired of arguing and either leave or get blocked. Jtrainor (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: As some people are discussing article content in this thread, I'd like to remind everyone that ANI is for discussing behavioural problems, not just content disputes. In the interest of not getting too far off-track in this thread, I would like to direct everyone interested in discussing Yasuke himself to head back to Talk:Yasuke and follow content dispute guidelines from there. There is clearly a legitimate discussion to be had regarding Yasuke's status within Japanese society during his life, but we're here at ANI to discuss the behavioural issues at Talk:Yasuke, not to debate the content of the Yasuke article :P

Moving back to the main topic of this thread, the discussion on the talk page seems to have calmed down since it was semi-protected, but I am a bit concerned that trouble will continue to plague it, either by disruptive users waiting for autoconfirmation or when the protection period ends.

Worth noting that an online gaming news publication by the name of Niche Gamer has covered the "controversy" that seems to have brought attention to the Yasuke article[134]. I'm not sure if a media outlet covering this constitutes as canvassing (though I imagine this has also circulated on sections of social media in a way that likely would be considered canvassing), but I must note that Niche Gamer appears to have a particular political slant and seems to have played a role in drawing WP:NOTHERE users and IPs to the discussion. In particular, I have noticed that several of the IPs and users involved in discussion of the talk page are recently created accounts or IPs with few or no other contributions, some of which consist solely of involvement in discussions on the talk pages of other "gamer culture war" type topics (such as Sweet Baby Inc). This indicates to me that some individuals have come to the Yasuke article purely in the interest of pushing their particular views, not in the interest of making the article more historically accurate. I see that some of the more disruptive accounts have already been dealt with, but I believe further scrutiny of new accounts and IPs involved in this talk page is in order - some appear to be sockpuppets, others are simply NOTHERE. I won't point out the specific accounts I have concerns about in this comment, but if any admins think my concerns are warranted I am happy to discuss further.

Many thanks to the editors who stepped in to try to control this dumpster fire - hopefully my concerns are misplaced and all further discussion on this talk page will be respectful and evidence based :) Ethmostigmus (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The trouble is also spilling over into the Talk:List of foreign-born samurai in Japan with some edit warring and not so subtle trolling if someone can take a look. Yvan Part (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Kind of a side note but this does create a weird scenario where the article/talk page is very clearly something that would normally fall under the auspices of Gamergate related sanctions; but does not clearly fall under the WP:GENSEX sanctions.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The end of the first paragraph of the motions in WP:GENSEX states For the avoidance of doubt, GamerGate is considered a gender-related dispute or controversy for the purposes of this remedy so it would fall under WP:GENSEX, even though this incident has nothing to do with gender or sexuality. I do think it was a mistake to merge Gamergate into WP:GENSEX though, as gamergate has grown to encompasses all kinds of stuff (race, religion, politics...) and as a result the warning templates and notices and so forth don't really make a lot of sense in some situations. We saw this a few months ago with all the disruption around Sweet Baby Inc. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's that simple. My plain reading of that line is that is saying that the original GamerGate controversy is considered a gender-related dispute, which was true; however that does not mean that *all* GamerGate-related (or inspired) controversies are considered gender-related. Those that are not, could quite easily and reasonably be read to *not* be independently covered by WP:GENSEX. Regardless, it's at the very least an area of ambiguity.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The funny thing about all of this is that the Japanese Wikipedia article on Yasuke very clearly defines him as a samurai, how that came about, and what that meant for the period. With proper references and everything. So all the claims of "Japan doesn't consider him a samurai" is nonsense on its face, without even considering the massive amount of Japanese cultural and media depictions of Yasuke going back decades considering him a samurai. But hey, Gamergate bigots are gonna bigot. Silverseren^C 01:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This seems pretty bad faith given that there are legitimate objections, and not all the people making them are new/IP users. I've been looking on scholar, and basically none of the scholarly sources by authors specialising on Japanese history explicitly call him a samurai (e.g. [135]), the exact objections Eiríkr Útlendi made above. Exaggerated portrayals long after his life do not make one a samurai either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The objections are by people who very blatantly don't know what they're talking about and are at odds with numerous Japanese historians that have already spoken up and confirmed that Yasuke was a samurai (resulting in aforementioned Gamergaters then harassing the historians for saying that). There's even a response over on AskHistorians with a detailed answer specifically using the Shinchō Kōki as a source. I notice that there's also someone named EirikrUtlendi over there in that very thread very poorly arguing against the clearly more educated person on the topic. Our EirikrUtlendi will have to let us know if that is indeed them or someone else with their username. Silverseren^C 03:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Having seen that thread already, I was just about to link it here. (You saved me a trip! :D) Loki (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

So your "reliable source" is a Reddit thread by an anonymous user with no clear subject matter expertise, basing their claim on their own interpretation of primary sources in a language that you do not understand? I'm not necessarily saying they're wrong,

but I would want verification by someone fluent in Japanese. I'll let @Eirikr:'s elaborate on their arguments. Reddit upvotes/downvotes do not necessarily indicate the intellectual merit of the posts. It seems to me that a lot of this is mostly about the vague way "samurai" is used in English (and probably why the term is avoided in scholarly literature about Yasuke) an is therefore to a degree a semantic dispute Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if you are familiar with r/askhistorians, but it and answerers are not anonymous randos but infact actual vetted historians who have verified with forum admins their expertise. In this case the user is listed as an expert in Sengoku Japan, and if you bothered to read it you would know it actually cites japanese sources 2601:190:402:BFA0:94B4:D71D:BECD:7695 (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This has been the issue for some time now. The English article previously reflected this scholarly consensus, but a few users (and one in particular) deleted a bunch of content and effectively blocked effective corrections throughout 2021, IIRC. I'm hoping it will finally get resolved. natemup (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

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

WP:FRINGE and POV pushing on Talk:Attempted assassination of Robert Fico

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

---

85.67.101.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has done nothing but make POV, WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTHERE arguments based on personal biases and utter misinformation on Talk:Attempted assassination of Robert Fico, including this edit: [[136]]. Borgenland (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Sure, but you've done nothing to explain to the editor what they're doing wrong. I warned them. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Apologies. However, I am uncertain as to whether directly communicating with them given such odious fringe promotionals could contravene WP:DENY. Borgenland (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Establishing trollness after four edits is a bit quick, to my mind. If they come back, feel free to report at AIV, with an explanatory note, and please mark the edit summaries when you revert--NOTFORUM would have been legitimate here. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

      Thanks for reminding me of WP:FORUM. I do have forgotten to use that keyword lately. Borgenland (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

      @Drmies their reply to your warning: [[137]] is clearly proof of WP:NOTHERE, WP:NPA and WP:IDNHT. Borgenland (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yet another example of why we should leave breaking news to news outlets, and start the article no less than a week after the event, when the dust has at least started to settle. EEng 18:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • If only admins could get a mandate to enforce NOTNEWS, User:EEng. For shits and giggles, look at Yasuke and the talk page. Ha I bet that talk page is bigger than yours! I was way ahead of you. You might think that a 300k discussion about whether a guy in a video game was or was not a samurai couldn't get any more ridiculous, but actually it can: there's someone there was someone there speculating about whether the guy was gay -- a black gay samurai. Now I've seen everything. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Bigboss19923

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

---

Bigboss19923 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A new editor clearly determined to edit-war a grossly-excessive level of plot detail into The Day Britain Stopped, after multiple warnings, links to policy/guidelines, and requests to discuss the matter. Almost all of their few remaining edits have been reverted, and none to appear to make any attempt at sourcing.

This may possibly be a sock of a blocked contributor - the behaviour seems familiar - but regardless, WP:NOTHERE would seem to apply, given the total refusal to communicate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This was reported to WP:AIV, but WP:EWN also would have been appropriate. I've issued a pblock for the moment. Izno (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Their contributions are suspiciously similar to 82.22.120.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who was blocked for 6 months. The user also requested the page's protections be removed when they created their account (incidentally, this is within the block range of that IP), and now... this. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Protection from me, requested by Tencerpr

A bit of background: the Tencerpr account is 10+ years old, but having made a dozen or so edits early on, has been dormant for a long time. They have now become active, editing what I would describe as a promo piece with no evidence of notability, at Draft:Rebecca Grant (TV host).

I declined this at AfC and tagged the draft as possible UPE, and also posted a paid-editing query on their talk page, because of the edit history and their user name (the 'pr' bit at the end made me do a quick Google search, and turns out there are a couple of PR agencies by the name Tencer out there). They deleted the query (as is indeed their right) from their talk page without responding to it, and also deleted the UPE tag from the draft (whether or not that's their right is probably debatable).

But then they decided to up the ante and accuse me of paid editing (paid to do what, exactly, I don't know?), and also call me a liar and a vandal "with zero credibility". And, as seems only reasonable by this stage, they're now requesting "protection" from me, and that I should be blocked from editing the Grant draft/article. So I guess that would be an IBAN and TBAN, respectively.

Could someone please look at this with fresh, objective eyes and tell me where I got it wrong. And BAN me as appropriate.

Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Well, before anything else, "Tencer PR" is pretty clearly a username violation. Hard blocked, given the clear evidence of UPE as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• I don't understand why the article's lead photo shows a wax-museum replica of the subject. EEng 18:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This may be relevant: a Tweet [138] from 2019 by Rebecca Grant, retweeted by Become Famous aka. "rob tencer pr" [139]. Still, could be just a coincidence, of course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

They've now changed their name, but the rest of their unblock request shows the same very combative attitude as the previous remarks. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Declined the unblock but gave them the OK to make a case for what else they'd like to edit about. Not inclined to unblock to edit about Grant Star Mississippi 01:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Lonermovement Investments / 41.115.23.137

Greetings from Commons. I just zapped the User:Lonermovement Investments's uploads as spam over on that project and see they're trying to plug their brand here too. The IP came in right after the account and added more spam, with a fake edit summary. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Reported to UAA. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked Lonermovement Investments for promotional username/promotional edits. Thank you, The Squirrel Conspiracy for bringing this to our attention. Thanks also for the 105 million media files that Commons hosts. Cullen328 (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

User:204.69.3.4 and transphobia

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

Yet another IP at Talk:Moira Deeming to argue against what reliable sources say. Won't be the last.

As part of their rants against reliable sources, they've commented at Special:Diff/1224210575 and Special:Diff/1224211713, writting "... steal credit from women for who is actually trying to push back on trans identifying men (XY) from stealing women's rights" and "Women are waking up. Peak trans I just found out they called it. Liberal women. Yes, they are waking up. We go all our lives being warned and SEEING the nefarious, creepy things men will do to have access to us, but we are not allowed to notice all the straight men (who have no macho aversion to wearing a dress) waltzing in to our spaces?" respectively.

This sickening display of transphobia should not be tolerated per WP:NOHATE. TarnishedPath^talk 00:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Concur, and I also suspect they are a sock puppet of SkyfoxGazelle, who was recently banned for extremely similar editing on the same page. GraziePrego (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for six months. Star Mississippi 01:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

SPA removing sourced and due content from Edcel Greco Lagman

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

---

• Edcel Greco Lagman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Gabnaparato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an SPA account with a possible undisclosed COI, has been reverting sourced and relevant information about Edcel Greco Lagman despite repeated warnings. I had filed an ANI report three months ago but was advised to warn them off first about COI and SPI and WP:OWN. They have not provided any explanation and clarification as to their activity, have not bothered to respond to warnings and have resumed wiping off data from said page after a hiatus. Requesting for definite action to be taken on this. Borgenland (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The previous ANI was here on March 11, where the only admin comment was from User:Dennis Brown. To stop the removal of sourced content we might consider WP:ECP. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Can this be filed to the requests for page protection page? Borgenland (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Unless there is disagreement here I can apply the EC protection myself. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

None on my part. Appreciate this remedy. Borgenland (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• ECP sounds good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

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

5ive9teen, ownership behaviour and possible competence issues

• 5ive9teen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shōgun (novel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe 5ive9teen (talk · contribs) is exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour on the article Shōgun (novel). In a month's time, starting April 16, they made 300 edits to the article (see its history). Over those 300 edits, they repeatedly made unnecessary additions. I have told them this several times. See diff, it includes unnecessary piped links, stylistic errors, incorrect curly apostrophes, grammatical errors, factual errors (Dutch and English people are not considered Northern European, while the Portuguese are considered Southern European) and more. This discussion went on their talk page and later on Talk:Shōgun (novel)#Premise. Sergecross73 edit protected the article. In response, 5ive9teen workshopped the premise section on the talk page, in 40 revisions.

On May 15 I edited the article. I strongly urged them to read, check and double-check my edit before reverting again. Instead, 27 revisions later, they mostly undid my edits again.

Perhaps it's a WP:COMPETENCE issue, but it's definitely WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour. I have repeatedly stated I do not agree with their edits. They utter hollow words, stating they want to establish consensus, here for instance, without actually taking the time to discuss the article.

They have also been recently warned by FlightTime and Anachronist for edit warring on two separate articles. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Also notifying CapnZapp, HiGuys69420, Areaseven, Wikipedialuva and Aoidh, who also recently edited the article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi guys is there a problem, I have no idea what is going on HiGuys69420 (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but you're not directly involved and don't need to participate here if you don't want to. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

User:MarsVHS

Recent time-limited block for disruptive editing. Is now issuing legal threats on their Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking funny to me, I can't get what she wants to say, she said "You guys are interrupting my business", "You're impeding on my business." How can Wikipedia interrupt business. Lol GrabUp - Talk 17:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

My interpretation was "Wikipedia won't publish my article --> my business gets less business --> I get less money --> this is legally actionable". Which, seems like a bit of a stretch. I'm not a lawyer, though. 142.245.193.2 (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I've removed email access now. No comment on someone else deciding this account has no future here. Izno (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I've indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible UPE/socking

• Lakasera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bamalli01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Onoja1
• Yahaya Bello (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not sure if this might be better suited for SPI but figured with potential UPE as well I'd bring it here. User:Lakasera is continuing to restore content at Yahaya Bello added by a different user, User:Bamalli01, and both have ignored questions about paid editing (even though it's obvious they have seen them as they have removed warnings from their user talk page). Both have had similar issues with copyright on the same pages (see Draft:RanoGaz Company - LPG). No opinion on the content dispute at Yahaya Bello because I haven't looked at the content itself very hard, mainly concerned about the very similar issues between the two accounts. Tollens (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Stumbled across the very similar Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onoja1 which has had issues on Yahaya Bello with identical content to what's in dispute right now (Special:Diff/1164476122). I can take this to SPI if that would be easier. Tollens (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a fairly straightforward sockpuppet of User:Bamalli01; likely also be connected to the blocked User:Onoja1, User:Ogoos11, and User:Kwaro1 as the accounts are adding the same text and have similar mannerisms. On the content, this seems likely to be a very biased group of accounts or (more likely) a paid editor due to their other aggrandizing edits and article creations. The accounts blank the well-sourced and previously-discussed Controversies section then add biased and unsourced puffery. Watercheetah99 (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

how could I paid in free encyclopedia was not like you I don't know any user ogoos11 and kwaro1. Bamalli01 (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

There's sufficient evidence that you have other accounts. One other account made a very similar edit like yours on the article. GoodHue291 (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know the other account what I know is that I am editing in Wikipedia I don't when last I contributed in Yahaya Bello article. Bamalli01 (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The edits and mannerisms are very similar between all five accounts, it's possible you have no connection but that wouldn't be relevant to the POV violations and section blanking that all of the accounts do — that's still inappropriate behavior. Watercheetah99 (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know any user with like that I have right to contribute in Yahaya Bello watercheetah99 don't have any right to stop me. Bamalli01 (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked both users as socks of Onoja1. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Ingenuity: Looks like there's an IP to block back on that article again. Maybe page protection would be useful too. Tollens (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I've protected the page for a month. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Langalakh

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

The only edits this user has made have been to my personal talk page. They asked me some questions about desertification and tungsten carbide which are easily answered by reading those articles. They said this was for a school assignment. They have repeatedly jumped into conversations on this page with other users in unhelpful ways. I asked them not to do this and said they might be blocked from editing if they aren't using talk pages to help write articles, and they said they understood but then did so again anyway. Previous jumpings-in:

• Special:diff/1223834172
• Special:diff/1223668700
• Special:diff/1223557584

-- Beland (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Sass (style sheet language)

• Sass (style sheet language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article should be a nice, sedate one about a technical topic, but one of the software's authors expressed an opinion about geopolitics, so now a rotating series of IPs are adding stuff like this diff to the page. When citations are added, they are links to github histories / issue forum posts and used as a launching point for OR. I think the article could do not only with protection, but someone willing to go through and revdelete BLP violations. - MrOllie (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The article has already been semi-protected. I partially blocked the IP for a bit longer than the page protection will last. It seems this person has decided that Wikipedia's reliance on secondary sources is stupid and was only invented to stop people from righting great wrongs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The recent addition would seem to be covered by WP:ARBECR so the IPs are not allowed to touch that whatever their sources. Same if they try to complain on the talk page now that it's been semied, just warn and revert IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I get that it is sometimes obvious what the contentious topic is, but why do so many people revert or talk about it by saying only WP:ARBECR?

ARBECR is a remedy, the starting text says "The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas." and does not mention what the topic is at all, shows no evidence that the area being reverted is covered by the remedy at all and is usually not the only remedy applied to a topic. – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:90E7:C193:821D:E8C2 (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for others but I'm fairly sure whenever I've reverted I've always gone to the editor's talk page and at least given them a CTOP alert for the Arab-Israeli topic area. Alternatively if I'm closing a thread on a talk page I might explain when closing. IMO in a case like this it should be standard practice. I mean an edit summary is probably okay to provided you link to the A-I case or similar. That said I can understand editors feeling it unnecessary if the whole page is so clearly in the topic area e.g. an article directly about the current war that the talk page has notices and there's maybe even an edit notice. Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, in such cases the article is unlikely a problem since it's already EC protected. But the talk page can be when editors try to do stuff besides edit requests. Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

User:CastlevaniaWriter

Apologies in advance if this is the wrong section. Please redirect me. I would like the adminstrator's guidance in this matter. Alucard (Castlevania) is an article about the character's appearance in the Castlevania franchise, and not exclusively the video games he first appeared in. The character was confirmed to be bisexual in the animated series by the producers, Sam Deats. Reliable source: https://x.com/SamuelDeats/status/1237933897687740417

User:CastlevaniaWriter has consistently removed the categories Fictional LGBT characters and Fictional bisexuals from the article, their argument being that Alucard is not LGBT+ in the original video games. I reiterated the article covers Alucard in all media, even in the lead summary. When they said Iron Man from Marvel was not tagged as such, despite being bisexual in a spinoff, I thought the category Fictional LGBT characters in animation was still warranted - Alucard was confirmed as such in the animated show. CastlevaniaWriter then reverted it without explanation or offering another argument.

I noticed from User:CastlevaniaWriter's edit history they have a fixation with what they personally believe to be fraudulent categories of LGBT+ characters. I posted a warning on their talk page because I at least find their edits to the Alucard article to be disruptive.

Why? Correct me if I am wrong, but none of these categories were invalid, and they are backed up by a reliable source. At the very least, the category Fictional LGBT characters in animation cannot be disputed. I also know Wikipedia generally allows these tags in articles about fictional characters, even when their original incarnation is not LGBT+. Harley Quinn is a noted example. My question for the adminstrators: is this correct? What does the manual of style say? MailleWanda (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @MailleWanda. I suggest you try the various suggestions at dispute resolution. Admins don't mediate content disputes. Schazjmd (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks. MailleWanda (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested block of non-communicative unregistered editor adding external links to articles

Can an administrator please take a look at the actions of User:2a02:587:a13:3600:15ca:6f11:362d:ce16 and their previous IP addresses 2a02:587:a13:3600:e9a1:caf7:86f9:ab37 and 2a02:587:a13:3600:8ad:a8ea:6792:9bea? Many of their edits added external links to the body of articles (e.g., [140], [141], [142]). I have asked them to please stop and they have continued. They have not replied to any Talk page messages or ever used an edit summary. I'm afraid that the only way to get them to stop violating WP:EL is to block them. ElKevbo (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

IPs belonging to the range 2A02:587:A13:3600::/64 are all used by one person; there are actually a few more than the three you give, User:ElKevbo, also with similar contributions. (All contributions are here.) This is not a good reason for the person to ignore the warnings at the most recent IP, User talk:2A02:587:A13:3600:E9A1:CAF7:86F9:AB37. I've blocked the /64 for 72 hours. Bishonen | tålk 00:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thanks for blocking the IP addresses. But it appears they either had an account this whole time and they're now logged in or another editor is making the exact same edits - 15mav0. I'm happy to open an SPI but I think the behavioral evidence is strong enough to warrant a block for block evasion. ElKevbo (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@ElKevbo we can’t do an SPI to identify an IP address with an account due to privacy issues. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

A CheckUser can't link an IP to a named account. Anyone else can, and an SPI can certainly be filed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

An SPI is unnecessary - there are clear behavioral grounds to link these accounts. They edit the same articles over the same time spans in the same ways - it can't much clearer. They're continuing the same behavior that led to their IP addresses being blocked. ElKevbo (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I considered a hardblock (="apply block to logged-in users from this IP address") when I blocked, suspecting this might happen. I've changed to that now, as well as lengthened the rangeblock to a week. And blocked 15mav0 for a month. Bishonen | tålk 20:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC).

User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist and User:Licks-rocks civility concerns

Both of these users have raised serious civility concerns on Wikipedia_talk:No_queerphobia#Replies_to_Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist. YFNS made a pretty blatant personal attack, saying I will say it plainly, stretching the absolute limits on assuming good faith, that was stupid and raises serious WP:CIR concerns. If I was a little less inclined to assume that what seems to be constant dogwhistling from you is genuine concern, I'd say you were a queerphobic troll. Licks-rocks is constantly assuming bad faith from me and making false statements about my edits, such as repeatedly saying that I removed a bullet point when I had actually merged it for redundancy, and later for saying that I had speculated on YFNS's competency to edit in this topic space based on her age at transition, something I did not imply. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• For clarity: I said this briefly before in a comment below, but I think this info should be at the top for clarity since I'm potentially/partially withdrawing one of the two users from this report. I think I can safely drop the WP:STICK against specifically Licks-rocks (the report stays up for YFNS though, I'm not letting the personal attack nor the disruption slide). Maybe a warning could be issued for me and Licks-rocks because of the conduct Licks-rocks and I had with each other, but I don't think there needs to be anything further for Licks-rocks. During the 7 hours so far Licks-rocks has been either asleep or busy, I discovered a diff (listed below in one of my comments) where they seemed open to discussion. It appears the false accusations were from good faith misunderstanding, not from malice, with the misunderstanding and frustration going both ways between both of us. It's annoying that the two of us had to go through this, and I apologize; arguing with two editors simultaneously frazzled me, and I had initially missed the diff that solved many of my civility concerns for Licks-rocks, even if we still disagree on the content. I think the Licks-rocks conflict can easily be reduced from a civility concern to a content dispute, which, while not ideal, is no longer serious enough for ANI. If something new comes up with Licks-rocks, I may reinstate my report against them, but so far I believe I can come to an understanding with Licks-rocks. As I said though, my report against YFNS remains due to the severity of her personal attack. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Just in case anybody is wondering what context UA is neglecting to mention, that comment was in response to the fact they removed That accepting transgender youth is a slippery slope toward putting litter boxes in schools or other strange beliefs about identity. from a list of queerphobic beliefs in an essay - stating that Anything regarding transgender youth is too controversial to be here (emphasis mine). [143] . Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

A content dispute is not a good reason to call me a troll, bad faith, or incompetent. You're also neglecting to mention how you started the whole argument with a sarcastic Non-Endorsement, which was extremely disruptive. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, this goes beyond "content dispute", which I assume is why you took it here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It goes into user conduct dispute once YFNS made the very blatant personal attack, and I was also sick of you saying that I said things I did not do, and yours' and YNFS's latest comments on the essay talk page were the last straw. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I think it went into user conduct dispute when I told you to stop repeatedly trying to delete content from that essay. The rest happened because ANI cases are a hassle and I was hoping you'd have stopped by now. If you have, I can't tell, because you're too busy arguing back and filing ANI cases against me --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you remember how several editors retracted their !delete votes to get rid of the essay because I was deleting content that was found to be problematic, and they cited the deletions as overall improvements? I figured it would be fine to keep trying to improve the essay, but then you accused me of disruptive editing because according to you, I shouldn't edit a page I voted to delete on. I also didn't want it to come to an ANI case, but once you said I was questioning YFNS's competence because of her identity rather than her behavior, as well as her name-calling me, those were the last straws. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a diff on questioning YFNS's competence because of her identity rather than her behavior? You can't just say someone said that without diffs. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is the diff where I felt Licks-Rocks was accusing me, and here is the diff where YFNS made a very blatant personal attack. I'd also like to mention that I just discovered a diff showing that Licks-rocks is able to discuss civilly, finally realizing that I had merged a point instead of deleting it, although it came after these two diffs of false accusations. I apologize to Licks-rocks for not finding that first diff before making this ANI. My conflict with Licks-rocks hasn't disappeared fully, but my trust has been partially renewed after reading the diff where they said "fair point", as it seems like a lot of our dispute was founded over miscommunication. However, the issue with YFNS remains fully intact, and I can not in any way trust a user who will blatantly call another user a "queerphobic troll", cast aspersions of incompetence and dogwhistling, threaten to take me to AE over a content dispute, or in general say something as hostile as cry as much as you want, or make it extremely clear she's not open to discussion by saying the essay isn't going to change for you. Saying "I would call you a troll" is essentially the exact same thing as "I am calling you a troll right now". am aware that YFNS has had a GENSEX TBAN before; should her TBAN be reinstated if she will behave with such hostility towards a conflict dispute? In fact, for good measure, here's her sarcastic Non-Endorsement that I found to be disruptive, and the additional comment that made it confusing if she was being serious or satirical, furthering her disruption. I don't think there's any specific policy against sarcastic/satirical comments in talk pages, but they're not helpful and only make things confusing. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

?

YFNS had a GENSEX TBAN because admins refused to close the discussion when the filer was revealed to be a sock. It was illegitimate to begin with. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC) This time, it isn't a sock filing. Also, even during that prior discussion, many legitimate editors came forth with actual problems against YFNS. As the closer stated, It might make or break in a close discussion, but this was not close… Even though the filing was in bad faith, once the issue was up, it became apparent that there was indeed problem's with TheTranarchists editing. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Really LilianaUwU? You think I'm a sockpuppet because of beef with one user?. I just checked the supposed sock master's edits, and I don't have any other edits in common with the supposed sock master, especially not any of the pages tied to locations I have no familiarity with nor have I ever been to. Go ahead and check our IPs, unless the sock master is by some chance in the same area as me they'll be different. I would, however, like to report LilianaUwU for the unfounded aspersion that I could be a sock. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Yeah, and I withdrew it when I realized I'm horribly wrong. Apologies for the aspersion casting. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC) I apologize for blowing up at you. I'm glad you understand that I was frustrated at a false accusation. I'll strike my above comment. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Nah, it's fair to be mad at me for such a big mistake. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Also, since we're here... might as well put this up here. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Casting of ass Persians

I am open for a two-way interaction ban between me and both of these users, though I would still like for their behavior to be examined, as the name-calling and assumption of bad faith are both very uncivil in my opinion. I am also open to examination of my own behavior. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

See also the conversation I had with anon at his talk page. Also, take a look at the conversation mentioned above, and anon's general editing history since that MfD. Something something doth protest too much. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Your most recent edit to my talk page still falls under my civility concern. You accused me, again, of obviously disagreeing with the premise of the essay, when I had literally just explained that I do think queerphobia is hate, and that the disagreement was what the essay considered queerphobia. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Your interpretation of what the words "the premise" mean is very narrow here, to me. All in all, you've been pretty vocal about disliking what amounts to the vast majority of that essay, so I don't think what I'm saying is an unfair characterisation. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that this reply was made to the initial post(diff), the OP wrote the text this is currently a reply to 5 mins after the reply was made(diff). – 2804:F1...1D:E8C2 (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Crazy thought. Stop arguing with each other here before anyone else has a chance to chime in. You both look bad. --Onorem (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator, I have been watching discussions about this essay for a while. Things are getting nasty and it must stop. All editors involved with this essay pro and con should be advised that false accusations, snide remarks, personal attacks and slow motion edit warring are unacceptable. Be on your best behavior, or be prepared to accept the consequences. Cullen328 (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

yeah, uh, what he said jp×g🗯️ 07:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Unnamed anon's contributions in this area have been disruptive and it is far past time that he dropped the WP:STICK. His comments in the essay's MFD consisted mainly of soapboxing about his own personal views of what is and is not queerphobic instead of making policy-based arguments, he edited an archived deletion review after it was headed for a unanimous endorsement to suggest yet more discussion should be held, and now he bring this dispute to ANI after he chose to escalate it at seemingly every turn (ex. suggesting YFNS remove the "friendly" from her username). It's just an essay! Hatman31 (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I can see your point about my comments on the MfD being soapboxing and not policy-based, but I can explain the edit to the archived deletion review. YFNS sarcastically wrote a Non-Endorsement and this additional comment made it confusing if she was being serious or satirical. My thought process was that she wouldn't reply to her original endorsement if she wasn't at least somewhat serious. It turned out to be sarcasm, but it was legitimately hard to tell until she replied later, so I requested to reopen the Deletion Review now that new info had supposedly come to light. Did I write it in the wrong place? Yes. I had no idea where to write it, and because I didn't know if it was sarcasm I didn't want to waste a page on new info if I didn't know it was serious or not. As for saying YFNS should remove the word "Friendly" from her username, I'll admit I did step too far and my comment could be interpreted as a personal attack, but I had felt she made a personal attack towards me first by misinterpreting my replies on the talk page and by saying that my agreement with her disruptive sarcasm was a stupid bar, before of course she made a more blatant personal attack. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

If the people who write an essay want to avoid arguing about it with others who want it to say something else, why not just put it in userspace to begin with? That's what userspace is for, after all. This kind of thing is why I said it ought to have been userfied in the first place... jp×g🗯️ 07:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, uh, what is this -- "In any case, cry as much as you want" -- it's great that you have good opinions and etc etc, but I do distinctly recall a person being indeffed some years ago after repeated ad-hominems about other editors "crying"/having "cried" -- so maybe less of that. jp×g🗯️ 08:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that the next diff was the one that proved that Licks-rocks (who I also initially reported but have mostly dropped the stick towards by now) can actually be reasonable, with a statement like Fair point on the first removal. However, because YFNS blatantly called me a troll at the exact same time, I was more focused on that, and didn't discover that Licks-rocks even made that comment until a few hours after filing this ANI, and ended up wasting Lick-rocks' time. While I can only speculate, I do think the conflict between me and Licks-rocks would have reached a more natural conclusion if I wasn't also dealing with YFNS's disruption and general incivility at the same time. Unnamed anon (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• It is unfortunate, if unsurprising, to see UA at AN/I. But the signs were there from the start. It is worth noting that they registered this account for the sole reason of continuing an edit war which they had waged as an IP, intent on restoring unsourced cruft material to an already-swamped fanboy page, even when advised against doing so (e.g. by Drmies, and Ad Orientam). This led them to forum shop in excelsis, and saw them file in rapid order at WP:AE, the Teahouse (!!!) and WP:ANI. They accuse others of lying (noted GorillaWarfare). I note that little seems to have changed. While it might look as transphobia is their latest POV to push, they have had similar gender-based problems previously (Claiming someone is gay because of a Twitter post, or advice from Tamzin in which she notes a degree of offensiveness in his treatment of transgender people); before which their previous behavior pales. But the side issues brought up—here and on UA's talk page—demonstrate that the lessons of a few years ago have not been learned. Edit warring (and the continuing misunderstanding of what constitutes it), bludgeoning, aspersions of trolling and edit warring (result: No violation: and the closing admin told UA they were basically throwing anything to see what stuck), and a basic IDHT unwillingness to be counselled are all old behaviors not yet unlearned. To quote Eggishorn to UA:

  You will, of course, dispute every characterization of your edits I've made above and defend yourself from these "accusations". Your statements at the Teahouse and DRN and AE all demonstrate that, no matter how many editors have told you this approach is mal-adapted for this website, you are going to insist on your righteousness. Please: you really, really need to slow down and read instructions and the feedback you've already received before you keep going. You are treating the entire project as your personal WP:BATTLEGROUND.

  That warning was from nearly four years ago. plus ça change, and four years later, we are having almost exactly the same conversation. Such recidivism suggests that they are a net negative and continually soaking up editors' time and energy requires a preventative block. ——Serial Number 54129 12:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: While I hate to bring up an entirely separate discussion into the mix, if you're going to bring up that one from 4 years ago, I can't see how you reverting to your preferred version of a page every month or two could be considered anything but slow motion edit warring, especially since three of the people who reverted you were not me (the first was an entirely different user and the other two were separate IPs who were not me). Only these two IPs editing that page were me, with a third one briefly rotated to here (and the first one was a temporary one as I was editing while not in my hometown), before I made my account in August, as I wanted to avoid the aspersion you cast that any IP reverting your edits to that page was me. In addition to the aspersion that every IP editing that page was me, and another aspersion of "bullshitting innocent admins", you publicly stated my location at the time, something I really do not appreciate, as it comes very close to doxxing. Calling me a "crufter" in that same edit where you stated my location at the time also comes close to being a personal attack since it's immature name-calling, but I'll let that slide for now because doxxing me was so much worse. Even after reverting your edit I had tried to find a compromise by removing said cruft without entirely removing the article's substance and tried to add sources (examples of both). I'm not going to pretend I'm blameless in that situation for a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that I admit I still have, and forumshopping that I have mostly stopped doing since that discussion with you, but it seems like you still believe you were entirely in the right even four years later, when what you were doing 4 years ago couldn't be described as anything but the exact type of slow motion edit warring that I'm (probably correctly) at stake for right now, and you're completely blowing off my attempt at cooperation. I hope anybody else reading can understand that I was frustrated at clear slow-motion edit warring from SN54129 being called "not warring" and especially towards being doxxed, even if my response to edit war back or forumshop wasn't appropriate. As I was a new editor back then, I did not know how to describe slow motion edit warring, and as I said I have not continued forumshopping. You're also claiming that Ad Orientem had told me to not edit the page; he never did that at all, and specifically said that In this case I am now satisfied that there is nothing malicious going on here when I raised my concerns. You linked GorillaWarfare, who said you were discussing on the talk page; while you were doing so properly in January, when the discussion resurfaced in August, your only substantial edit to the talk page was the aforementioned doxxing. You are also leaving out GorillaWarfare's next comment suggesting what I should do, and me properly following her advice. While I appreciate constructive criticism (Hatman31's criticism was constructive, for example), Serial Number 54129's criticism is not constructive at all, as it appears that you still believe you are blameless, when that clearly is not the case, and are completely ignoring instances where I showed that I was able to properly come to a compromise and consensus. I also can't trust how the discussion below started by Kcmastrpc was initially collapsed by you, when another user is bringing up issues with Licks-rocks. I hate to WP:BOOMERANG to a user that was initially uninvolved, but I feel I have to when said editor is misconstruing facts of a prior debate to get me blocked, whether intentionally or misguided. Unnamed anon (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Did I mention walls of text, anyone? That's another favored technique, and comparable to the AN3 report where an admin said they are basically throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the report.

But while it's true I was involved in that case, I deliberately didn't personalise it by adding my opinion. I did not even mention the causes of the dispute or the original page it revolved around. That's because it's irrelevant. What's relevant is you are showing the same behavior here as you did four years ago—as indicated by your immediate attempts at diverting the discussion into rehashing and relitigating an argument from four years ago. Anyone clicking those links will see my involvement and judge as necessary. But the important thing in these discussions is not to personalise them, as that generates more heat than light. Unfortunately, you have proved Eggishorn's point for them: you immediately personalize the discussion, go on a battlefield attack, while accepting no responsibility. You should remember, now, that it's not about me, and more to the point, it's not about defending yourself to me—you must defend yourself to the community. I imagine a little self-reflection and consideration for others might go a long way towards helping your case; I hope it's not too late.

Feel free to cry boomerang all you like; I do not feel such chill on the back of my head to necessitate wearing a helmet.

PS I've re-hatted that extraneous section, as it clearly would have been undone by admin if it was out of place. It was not. That essay has enough discussions on it already if you want to join one of them.

I expect there will be further walls of text to enjoy; I doubt I will avail myself of the opportunity to do so. ——Serial Number 54129 18:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hatting the below discussion is still not appropriate if another user is bringing up concerns about Licks-rocks, whose user conduct is also being judged. And I feel I do need a wall of text if you're going to be casting aspersions by saying I have a misunderstanding of what constitutes [edit warring] or blatantly misrepresenting admin statements. You're also either lying or not reading carefully that I am accepting no responsibility, when I had literally just said I'm not going to pretend I'm blameless in that situation for a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that I admit I still have. I have no desire to sanction you for a discussion that ended long ago, but aside from the BATTLEGROUND problem I realize I have, your argument to block me is misconstruing the facts. Also seriously, another user saying Feel free to cry? Didn't JPxG literally just say that was a uncivil? Unnamed anon (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: What does a random BNHA argument from 2020 have to do with an AN/I now, other than strongly imply that everyone here has a tumblr? Is the idea to just get us to start arguing about whether BakuDeku is a bad ship?? Be still my dash... jp×g🗯️ 18:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Re. What does a random BNHA argument from 2020 have to do with an AN/I now: Nothing, as I said JPxG; but the similarity of the behaviors demonstrated then, with those demonstrated over this essay, are clear. This recidivism—a long-term failure to abide by community norms and expectations—has resulted in this thread. You agree, of course, that a pattern of behavior needs to be proved. I give you UA's own history. Anyway, please focus on UA's current transphobia and consider my input as background to the current complaint.

  Re. the rest of your message, I have no idea it relates to or what answer is required, apologies. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 19:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  As I stated, most of the diffs you linked were things that were either before I came to a proper consensus and abided by community norms and expectation, or things I haven't done since I was new. Only the BATTLEGROUND complaint was valid. It appears you believe I don't abide by the community norms because you didn't participate in the discussion to resolve the edit war you were a part of. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I'm just some guy online, but if I were trying to get someone to stop posting huge walls of text, I would try to find some way to criticize their behavior without making repeated vague accusations of bigotry, something which necessarily requires them to type out gigantic reams of text to respond to and deny et cetera. jp×g🗯️ 20:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  @JPxG: Thank you. Both SN54129 and YFNS have shown why I write these walls of text in the first place. I'd like to mention that, while I was editing as an IP, SN publicly stated my location at the time with a whatismyipaddress link and used immature name-calling, the former of which comes dangerously close to doxxing. Frankly, now that this is the first time me and SN have interacted in years, I'm open for a two-way interaction ban between the two of us as well, because he can't respond to me civilly, or criticize me without outdated information (seriously, why bring up forumshopping if I haven't done that since I was new?), and I can't WP:DROPTHESTICK towards his incivility. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  @JPxG: SN54129's argument was to prove that I have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset, which I'll concede he is correct about. Unless somebody else beings up a new issue with me, I think only BATTLEGROUND issue remains though; the rest are pretty egregious aspersions. The edit warring he's accusing me of was primarily from him, several admin statements were misrepresented as those statements were before I came to agreements with them, and the rest of the diffs represent things I haven't done since 2020. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG aside, that doesn't really negate the WP:BATTLEGROUND that is emerging on the recently created essay. There's no easy solution to that, honestly, and the controversy surrounding it's creation, deletion proposal, and subject matter in general is indicative of the broader culture war that naturally coexists on Wikipedia. I see general incivility around, and I was accused of WP:ASPERSIONS by Licks-rocks regarding the MfD when I explicitly avoided alleging canvassing was deliberate.[144] Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  The easy solution would have been to delete the essay but the community missed that opportunity and now nobody is surprised it's a battleground. Levivich (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  I know I haven't been involved much in this discussion, but maybe a rewrite of the essay might do something.CycoMa1 (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  I also explained my reasoning for that on your talk page. I'm glad that you're making the distinction between accidental canvassing and intentional canvassing now, but I'm sure you'll forgive me for not divining that from your initial comments, where you referred to the extremely standard issue notice placed at WP:LGBT as seeming, quote, "quite partisan as it didn't even attempt to include any potentially dissenting voices.". --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• WP:PG allows essays in project namespace that are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. It follows that editors who fundamentally disagree with an essay should just leave it be (short of taking it to MfD, which we have been through). There is no reason to continue this escalating conflict. Trying to achieve consensus on something that by definition expresses a view that does not have widespread consensus is impossible. Now if you will excuse me, I am off to rewrite WP:MANDY to match the infinitely wiser WP:NOTMANDY.--Trystan (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Licks-rocks has given me new info that I was legitimately unaware of, to which I replied that I'm open for compromises. If other editors have problems with Licks-rocks, go ahead, but I no longer have problems with them outside of a minor, easily solveable content dispute. YFNS struck her "cry about it" comment, which I'm glad for, but she did not strike the dogwhistling/compotency/bad faith aspersions nor calling me a troll, which is still a concern since those were more blatant personal attacks.

Additionally, SN54129's faulty and outdated evidence against me makes me distrust him further, he's also given the uncivil "Feel free to cry" statement that, unlike YFNS, he has not struck, and I still haven't forgiven him for doxxing my location four years ago. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that he's acting in bad faith. Dishonest use of "diffs". Making a claim, then providing a link in a form of a diff which supposedly supports the claim when the diff actually shows nothing of the sort, and if you go the the next diff in his "unwillingness to be counseled" aspersion, you can see very well my willingness to be counseled. I'd like for two-way interaction bans between me and both SN54129 and YFNS. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Wrt WP:CIR, you admit just above that you were editing an article and removing mentions of trans kids because you didn't realize genital surgery isn't done on elementary schoolers. The text you removed and are saying this about didn't even mention medical transition.

If I was a little less inclined to assume that what seems to be constant dogwhistling from you is genuine concern, I'd say you were a queerphobic troll - this is me saying that I was interpreting your behavior, that came off as queerphobic, as genuine concern, as opposed to trolling. Stop trying to twist that into you are a queerphobic troll because that's not what I said. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll trust that you think I had genuine concern, but saying "I'd call you a troll" is pretty easily read as "I am calling you a troll right now". Unnamed anon (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I issued a warning nearly a day ago, and Unnamed anon thanked me for my warning and then proceeded to disregard my warning. Unnamed anon continued with battleground behavior, which, strikingly, the editor themself acknowledges as battleground behavior, and yet continues even after being warned at this very noticeboard. On to the repeated mentions of "doxxing" based on another editor saying that certain IP edits were made from California, which any competent person could confirm with a handful of keystrokes. California has 39 million residents and who knows how many visitors at any point in time, and is by far the most populous state. California is the third largest US state by area, stretching 950 miles from Crescent City to Calexico. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have lived in California for 52 years which simply informs my analysis. So, this ongoing "doxxing" complaint is entirely without merit and should be dropped completely . WP:TLDR is another aspect of my block. The unpaid volunteer competent labor of productive editors is by far our most valuable resource. Disruptive editors who repeatedly waste that precious time have two choices: Stop it or get blocked. Accordingly, I have blocked the editor for a week. Cullen328 (talk)

I don't have enough energy to compile diffs and detailed timelines, but one pattern of behavior from Unnamed anon is that they often make changes that are disputed but fail to engage on discussions that follow. For example this section was opened after UA had made 10+ consecutive edits removing a portion of the essay content. A part of those removals saw some discussion before UA made those edits, with no apparent consensus. Despite that, UA went ahead and implemented those, along with some additional content they thought warranted removal, which I disputed in another section. This time UA only engaged after someone suggested CBAN. At the history page of the essay, you can see how UA has on multiple occasions did this:

1. makes a change that was disputed/considered problematic
2. when others bring the issue to talk, refuse to engage or minimally engage with the consensus building process, with other editors having to make reverts.
3. after discussion for that dies down, UA goes ahead and makes another edit that is problematic/disputed, perpetuating this pattern of behavior.

This is disruptive editing with the time wasting, combined with some WP:TEND as well. WP:GENSEX is already a contentious topic, and UA's behavior is subpar. Combined with SN54129's background above, my preference would be a CBAN. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I know he's magnanimously decided to let me off the hook if I don't do anything further to offend him, but sadly, I have to agree with this assessment. Something else I've noticed is that UA also frequently uses individual comments by users on talk pages as a cue, where someone will say something negative about a part of the essay as an aside, and two minutes later I'll see a "per the talk page" removal of the entire thing from UA. See here and here. Neither of these were preceded by actual discussion, just off-the-cuff comments by single editors. I should note that since the ANI discussion, he's started adding stuff instead, using the exact same "one talk page comment as a cue" MO, see here. I'm accepting the new additions under AGF, but they do leave me scratching my head. The quality issue should be obvious, but even when done in good faith, interrupting talk page discussions like this makes carrying out those discussions properly more difficult, and is tiresome to deal with. --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

After Cullen328 made the temp block and explained in the comment above, there is a response at UA's talk page. The part that specifically addressed this ANI thread is copied here.

As for the discussion at ANI, I have no more interest in editing the No Queerphobia essay, as I fully realize that, regardless of my intent, it is clear I do have a disruptive editing pattern there. I fully understand 0xDeadbeef and Licks-rocks' points that I added content way too fast after seeing it on the talk page. It would be better for everybody's mental health, including mine, for me to outright ignore the essay. I would prefer not having an official page ban, at least not an indefinite one, as the block notice on my contributions list will remind me of the page's existence and defeat the whole purpose of me ignoring its existence. This talk page section serves as a good reminder for me without being the reminder being constantly everywhere, but I will promise to never touch that essay again. If I do edit that essay again, especially in the way the users are concerned about that adds talk page input immediately after hearing it, then an official page ban can be in order. As you can see with my edits since the MfD ended, I can make constructive changes to other pages, mostly small changes that fix things like grammar.
— User:Unnamed anon

0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

user:elshadabulla1954 accussing of supporting not good people

so recently i was discussing with user:Elshadabdulla1954 about the importance of citing sources since they attempted to just claim on the elshad abdullayev page that elsha adbullayev was performing some crimes related to fraud. I of course reverted these edits since they were unsourced, however quickly I was accused on my talk page of "supporting a fraudster" and "defending a criminal" by user:Elshadabdulla1954 even though all I did was request for sources to be provided. I'm not entirely certain what my best course of action should be in this situation so if someone could help me out it would be greatly appreciated! ps: the comments are still on my talk page if you want to take a look at them Gaismagorm (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

alright the user has been blocked, so the issue is now resolved Gaismagorm (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There should be a username block here sine the account is editing the relevant page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:b1c8:b754:6106:ae10:b44d:ecfc (talk • contribs) 11:29 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I don't want to be too hasty before reporting them to the username board Gaismagorm (talk)

Elinruby and BATTLEGROUND

Elinruby is currently involved in the broader, generally good effort to address the hard POV shift that occurred recently at Canadian Indian residential school gravesites and is being separately discussed at RSN. The Canadian article needs fixing and the edits earlier this month that suggested the gravesites were somehow fake are extremely bad. However, Elinruby's conduct has demonstrated the same BATTLEGROUND abuse of procedure and accusations/aspersions that have resulted in them receiving previous reports ([145]), warnings ([146]), and a block ([147]).

• Accusations of another editor whitewashing mass murder: [148]
• Accusing me of inserting fake news and then removing reliably sourced material, followed by refusing to engage in discussion when more recent reliable sources were presented: [149]
• Adding numerous spurious tags despite citations and relevance been immediately present (the tag if these are all arsons, say that. Stuff burns all the time in British Columbia is especially bizarre because the next paragraph explicitly discusses that these were largely arsons): [150]
• Saying they don't need to engage in discussion and suggesting that I'm racist for quoting a CBC News investigation that determined a link between outrage with the gravesites and a rise in arsons: [151]
• When asked to refrain from this behavior, they declared their talk page out of order for the next 24 to 48 hours and presented a list of Q and As, apparently gloating about having triggered other editors: [152]

Look: a different editor did heavily maul the article to suggest the gravesites were fake and that's bad. But Elinruby's longstanding pattern of unsubstantiated personal attacks has been particularly hurtful for me when, for the last two months, most of my time at my real-life job has been helping Native high school students establish action plans for their nations to take in addressing generational trauma caused by the boarding school system. This behavior has to be stopped. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150 § Elinruby’s conduct. Northern Moonlight 22:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week: User talk:Elinruby#Block. El_C 22:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

apparently gloating about having triggered other editors: On reading the diff, something seems taken out of context. The text is Q[uestion]. But this Wikipedia article says it didn't A[nswer]. IF/ELSE branch triggered, return to GO [line break] Q. Why are you editing that article? A. IF/ELSE branch triggered, return to GO. I'm not 100% sure what it is saying, but I don't see a plain read where it constitutes gloating about triggering editors. "IF/ELSE" seems to refer to some abstract situation (possibly saying ElinRuby themselves is being 'triggered', as in prompted/motivated, to edit an article?). If there is some reason to 'translate' "IF/ELSE branch" as meaning people, I'd be interested in knowing.

By way of context for different editor did heavily maul the article, there is an RSN discussion (permanent link) about the use of unreliable sources in Canadian Indian residential school gravesites. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Computing pseudocode. If else is a common conditional; they're just sending the reader back to the top of FAQ with the "return to GO". Pretty sure trigger here is the general trigger, not trauma trigger. The two questions for which the answers are of that form are pretty basic "don't ask" questions on Wikipedia, so I don't see any problem specifically with those. I don't see a problem with the FAQ at all, unless the doubling down on the "whitewashing" claim is baseless, which I have not checked yet. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a mistake to get caught up in the granular details of the items I collapsed. Because this happened in the midst of and seemingly in response to a related dispute (and a discussion a few sections up), it comes across as WP:BATTLEGROUND. Also in tone and tenor. And since it happened less than a day after a warning from another admin, I stand by the action. El_C 05:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The "trigger" aspect that was brought up which I worried could derail discussion over a misunderstanding is what triggered my comment. Your block notice says a lot more and describes a long-term pattern (in fact, kudos to you for completely skirting that detail in all your comments), so indeed the granular details of that one thing are otherwise largely irrelevant. Except for the diffless doubling down on "whitewashing" accusation, the FAQ probably didn't need to be collapsed, would be as far as I would go based on what I know so far, if I were to challenge your actions, which I didn't, and don't, because the whitewashing accusation is grave, and diffless. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

CLIQUE-like behavior at Elephant article

Certain users (User:Wolverine XI, User:LittleJerry, others) are behaving like a CLIQUE at the Elephant article. Making false edit summary/talk page claims of unsourced changes, barereflinks, and, certainly subjectively, unhelpfulness. Refusing to even look at or address the issues/errors raised by outsiders (myself) -- from minor grammar issues to incomprehensible arcane jargon that need clarifying to incorrect adverbs. Then, they tell me to get lost. (See [153],[154], [155]). Notifications to follow this posting. Zenon.Lach (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zenon.Lach: Your edits to the article have introduced a number of grammar and spelling errors that had to be fixed, as well as replacing sourced content with unsourced statements. While I think you have the right to be irritated that another editor told you to try your hand at articles not listed as featured (I'd say that's the mildest sort of biting), I really have to echo their sentiments. The editors replying to you have been fairly patient in explaining the issues with your edits and proposals and your use of bolded text comes across as aggressive. You may have better luck working on articles that are more clearly in need of improvement. If you need suggestions, feel free to ask. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Untrue. I removed an incorrect adverb ("possibly"), fixed basic grammar ("rhinoceroses" not rhinoceros) and removed arcane text which makes no sense to non-zoologists. There was no painstaking fixing of errors just wholesale reverts and a refusal to even address points which I raised. Zenon.Lach (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There's no need to carry on with this conversation if this many people concur that your revisions were unhelpful. Your refusal to accept your mistakes, as well as your need to win this argument, are counterproductive. Wikipedia isn't a combat zone. Though you have my patience, this is starting to irritate me. Why you go to such extreme measures to demonstrate that you are "right" and everyone else is wrong is beyond me. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) incomprehensible arcane jargon that needed clarifying, removed arcane text which makes no sense to non-zoologists. No, you removed the clear and interesting explanation why elephants have so many parasites, an explanation that this non-zoologist wouldn't have thought of but is pleased to have learnt. And you just deleted it. NebY (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

And on such things as basic grammar we go by what reference works say (which are nearly all in agreement that the plural of "rhinoceros" can be either "rhinoceros" or "rhinoceroses") rather than what one Wikipedia contributor says. You are not always right, and a failure to realise that will lead to your Wikipedia career being very short. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I am more than willing to admit when I am wrong. I acknowledge not knowing that rhinoceros is a zero plural noun. But that's the point. Why did it take going to this point to get an answer? Why didn't anyone in the clique respond to any of these points instead of being dismissive and chauvinistic?

Far more important, however, are the following:

• "Elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals. This is due to them being largely immune to predators, which would otherwise kill off many of the individuals with significant parasite loads." -- my bachelor's degree notwithstanding, this clunkily arcane claim (likely copied and pasted from the reference source) makes no sense as written. I doubt I am the only one who would feel that way after reading it. I do not see why requesting a rewording is beyond the pale.

• "the population in Sri Lanka appears to have risen" -- this is false. It is rebutted in the very reflink to which it is attributed ([156]) as well as [157].

However, since I am blackballed from the Elephant article, and would get no satisfaction or response there, anyway, I will raise these issues here. Zenon.Lach (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The reflink states exactly "In Sri Lanka, the population has increased." So you're wrong. LittleJerry (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Although efforts to map the current range-wide distribution of the species are afoot, evaluations of elephant presence in some range countries suggest a declining trend: elephant distribution is estimated to have reduced by ca. 20% in Sri Lanka between 1960 and now (Fernando et al. 2019);..." Zenon.Lach (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"The Sri Lankan elephant population has fallen almost 65% since the turn of the 19th century.

(https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/sri-lankan-elephant). Zenon.Lach (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"The government estimates the population of Sri Lankan elephants, a subspecies of the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), at about 7,000. But wildlife conservationists suggest the real number may be far lower, given the rapid loss of the animal’s habitat and the rising death toll from conflict with humans." ([158]). Zenon.Lach (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

(likely copied and pasted from the reference source) No it wasn't, stop making false claims. LittleJerry (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals. This is due to them being largely immune to predators, which would otherwise kill off many of the individuals with significant parasite loads" -- then what was the original wording? Whoever reworded it rendered it unintelligible. Zenon.Lach (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You can continue at the talk page. But the book is available here. LittleJerry (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It still makes no sense. It needs rewording or just copy as one quote without cutting anything because something is being lost in translation. Zenon.Lach (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It's clear what it means and you're the only person who doesn't understand. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it's relatively hard to understand. I've made it easier (I have the book). See Special:Diff/1224543588 —Alalch E. 00:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This is okay too: Special:Diff/1224530808/1224547147. —Alalch E. 01:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Zenon.Lach (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for bringing this up, but you should have done this yourself by simply reading the source, understanding what it says, and coming up with a better way to present what it says in the article. You were right that the sentence was not so good, but there was no need for this much contention, and no need for this ANI thread. —Alalch E. 01:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Untrue. Check the article edit history and other links/diffs above. They kept wholesale reverting my edits, accusing me of unsourced edits, barereflinks and unhelpful editing all while refusing to even discuss the individual points I had gone to the trouble of separating and explaining my position on, one by one. Zenon.Lach (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

If you aren't willing to take a step back, and learn from the more experienced editors, then there's no reason I should be talking to you. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 06:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page and see discussion from the editors you're saying refused to discuss which predates this thread. So it's quite difficult to accept the claim about people "refusing to even discuss". Also as I said below, you stated that the predator thing was confusing but did not propose any alternative wording or even explain why it was confusing. If other editors felt it was understandable and clearly they did, ultimately it's quite difficult to actually deal with your concerns if you're not willing to articulate further. Definitely removing it wholesale was not acceptable. So if anyone "refusing to even discuss" it seems to be you since you tried to remove text wholesale then just said it was confusing but did not explain further and then came to ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

As someone not involved in this dispute, the sentence appears perfectly understandable to me. Elephants are too big for predators, so even the (weaker) elephants with parasites don't get killed by predators, so we end up with elephants that have lots of parasites. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I had the same thoughts. Maybe it's because I have a biological sciences background or something I don't know, but it seemed understandable. I mean personally I wouldn't use the word immune, but it was still understandable. If the OP felt it was confusing, it was fine to try and re-word if, but not to remove it outright. And once there was dispute, the solution was to discuss on the talk page rather than just push ahead. From what I see at Talk:Elephant#My edits, the OP said they found it confusing but I do not see any proposed replacement or suggested rewording. If they'd done that, maybe they would have been able to come up with a better wording which dealt with their concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The OP rightfully felt it was hard to understand and we should be extremely receptive to such complaints, especially in a featured article. Yes, it was understandable, but it wasn't easily understandable, as it was extremly terse while dealing with multiple concepts at the same time, such as predator pressure and parasite load, and hinting at natural selection, positing a relationship between these concepts that isn't obvious without an adequate, sufficiently explicit, explanation. (Presented as an unqualified statement of fact, the claim was also not carried over from the source faithfully, as it needed either attribution or a construction such as the currently used "may be due to"; in the source, the claim is a hypothesis/conjecture.) The OP was correct to seek for this sentence to be changed, but they should have been able to do it themselves, based on the source, and the source is, in fact, very understandable (also showing how the sentence wasn't very good, because why should an academically written monography on a biological topic be easier to follow than an article in a general-purpose encyclopedia). It was changed subsequently and is better now.

Hopefully, Zenon.Lach you can finally agree now that, yes, you identified a problem, but you didn't address it completely constructively. In the future, you are very welcome to identify problems, but then you must also do a reasonably good job at addressing them. If you can't agree to this, and intend to keep making such edits, that remove legitimate information from an article, where the correct solution is simply to rewrite a sentence based on the provided source, it could be the case that you can't function that well as an editor. —Alalch E. 11:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Alalch E.: I don't object to your re-wording but mostly I don't find any wording particularly clearer or easier to understand. I mean I do agree with you that the original wording was too definitive but that could have been fixed without needing a wholesale rewording and that doesn't seem to have been the OP's concerns. The only other thing I dislike in the original wording was the word "immune". While it's fairly obvious it doesn't refer to any form of biological immunity, personally I'm a stickler to avoiding words which have a distinct in the subfield of concern when possible. But I understand many may not agree so it's not a big deal to me. If you or the OP feel the original wording was a problem, it was up to you to come up with a better wording, or at least better articulate why you felt the wording was a problem. You've done both things, and I congratulate you from that and hope it's a lesson to the OP. However I don't think you can fault others for not seeing the problem when the OP failed to explain their concerns, and at least I (so I expect others too) still don't share your view even after you explained and re-worded. Since putting aside fixing the definitive issue, the generally wording is no worse, and you feel it's clearer, it's clearly better to use your wording. Likewise if the OP has come up with a wording that they felt was better and I felt was no worse, I would have supported the OPs wording. But again, I don't think you can fault others for not seeing fault when in their eyes their is none. That's the beauty of Wikipedia, if something works for some people, but doesn't work for others through the collaborative process we can improve it so it works for more people. But this requires people who see a problem to either fix it or at least better articulate the problem when others don't see it. I mean it's possible some might see it the same way, as you did, and some problems are so obvious that anyone should see them. But we have to be very wary of blaming others just because they do not see things the same way, when they're very likely perfectly willing to accept changes if others are able to explain why they feel they're needed even if they don't share that view. If an editor fails to do anything other than just say it's a problem and other editors don't see it the same way, it doesn't mean they're not taking the concerns seriously. It may just mean they do not share the concerns and cannot do anything when the editor just randomly says it's a problem, tries to remove it wholesale, the comes to ANI because people aren't wiling to discuss. Other times of course, other editors may not see a problem when the editor says it's a problem but then when they articulate why it's a problem or come up with a different wording, they may agree actually you're right, there was a problem. Again I don't think you can say editors weren't taking the concerns seriously. I mean perhaps if they'd spend 10-20 minutes thinking about it and reading, they would have noticed the problem. But this seems excessive when the editor who saw it was a problem could just have said more than it's a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Drew1830 and personal attacks

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

---

Not for the first time, Drew1830 has used "school marm" to describe an editor (myself) who reverts a MOS:ACCESS-breaking edit to content they seem determine to own. This comment was made after reverts to this table and this table that removed MOS:DTAB-compliant captions and other work that was explicitly recommended for an FAC. This is not a new behavior, as evidenced by this discussion at WT:FOOTY, but I think intervention is needed. It's clear that previous blocks and warnings aren't working with this user. SounderBruce 20:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It never ends with this guy. I've been standardizing the MLS season pages for months. He randomly picks certain years to throw hissy fits and revert all of my edits without consultation. If he does it to mine then I'll do it to his. Simple. He contributes nothing and all he does is go around trying to be a mall cop. I agree that intervention is needed. His rampages need to be stopped. Drew1830 (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

SounderBruce has explained their position clearly here, and provided diffs to back it up, and your reaction is If he does it to mine then I'll do it to his. Seriously? I haven't taken a deep look at this but that attitude is very troubling. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Turns out one doesn't need to dig that deep to determine that this person has an attitude that is an extremely poor fit for a collaborative project, and has had numerous "warning shot" blocks that should have clued them in that they needed to tone it down and not weaponize their editing. Indef blocked. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Anonymouselz777

New editor making repetitive, large text removal from a CTOP article. See:[159] O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah surprised to see this account still kicking. Arkon (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I corrected article bias, which was complained about by others in the talk page. Articles should not contain political bias leanings. They should only state the facts. Objective3000 tried to keep the left leaning bias in the article. Sadly, this behavior makes people believe that Wikipedia is a liberal website. Every Wikipedian should be working to eliminate article bias. I still left many of the negative statements about James O’Keefe; I simply removed some of the bias in the article. Unless such changes are made to all articles, Wikipedia will continue to be regarded as a liberal website. This should not be a political battleground but a reference for people on all sides of the political spectrum. Anonymouselz777 (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Your edit-warring was reverted by four editors including an admin and you have not discussed on the talk page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia’s edit warring policy, I am not edit warring because I am stopping vandalism to the biography of a living person. Anonymouselz777 (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You have now tried to force this change for the fifth time. [160] O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Anonymouselz777 for 72 hours for edit warring. They can use that time learning what vandalism actually means on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah after the block they have continued to accuse O300 of vandalism. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me. Let them vent a bit. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

New user is turning redirects into unreferenced articles. Not responding to reverts or talk page comments

Selamsize (talk · contribs) has so far turned several redirects into articles that are completely without references. I and several other users have reverted these edits only for them to revert back with no edit summary. I have placed a couple warnings on their talk page but this user has not responded. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours (article space): User talk:Selamsize#Block from article space. El_C 22:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: thanks for reporting this. The behaviour actually began with Sevgilerde (talk · contribs) (created 18 April), first creating similar articles about DCi and CRD, then Selamsize (talk · contribs) (created 18 May) creating them more aggressively. Might be a forgotten password, or might be SP/MP.

Worth mentioning that newer account Selamsize's persistence also extends to at least twice creating their malformed list articles at talk pages: article attempts at Talk:D4-D were twice moved to Draft:D4-D 2 and Draft:D4-D 3, the first by User:Liz and the second by me. Wikishovel (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. Those pages may eventually require long-term protection, but I guess we'll see. Feel free to keep me updated. El_C 06:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Ali00200 inserting copyrighted material past 5th warning and prev ANI report

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

---

User:Ali00200 Previously reported at ANI, but they ceased editing for three days and the thread was auto-archived. User then resumed editing, initially not performing copyvios, and then has preceded to add more copyright violations post-warnings. I don't know why they're not responding, or understanding that you can't just copy-paste things into articles, but they're not and this is an issue an admin needs to solve.

Copyvios since last warning:

[161] from [162]

[163] from [164]

[165] from [166]

GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Ali00200#Indefinite block. El_C 05:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Researcherofgreatness

For a substantial period of time, the user Researcherofgreatness (talk · contribs) has made questionable edits and blanked content on dozens of pages related to Nigeria. There appears to be a concerted effort by this WP:SPA to remove or diminish notes of non-Yoruba ethnic groups and their languages while falsely amplifying Yoruba groups; this has now escalated to an ethnic-based attack on another user.

To cite a few examples of Researcherofgreatness' conduct:

1. South West (Nigeria): For context, the South West is a "geopolitical zone" in Nigeria that roughly lines up with the Nigerian section of Yorubaland but includes many other ethnicities. Researcherofgreatness was first brought to my attention when they removed most non-Yoruba languages without reason from the South West page. This is a tactic that has been employed several times before on geopolitical zone pages, with ethnic jingoist accounts associated with major ethnic groups removing the languages of minorities (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). It is a good mark for a user that is not here to build an encyclopedia and was a key piece of evidence in the eventual blocking of a similar user. However, it had not occurred on the South West page yet so I reverted and went to Researcherofgreatness' talk page. In the replies, the account somewhat reveals their motivations, falsely claiming that the Ewe and Gun languages simply are not spoken in Nigeria and dismissing non-indigenous languages as languages for "migrants" that do not count for whatever reason. In a move I just noticed today, Researcherofgreatness actually went to the Ewe people page to remove southwestern Nigeria from its lede. Clear attempts to remove non-Yoruba groups and languages from pages relating to southwestern Nigeria.
2. Agbada: For context, Agbada are a form of popular Yoruba robes. Researcherofgreatness created the article for Agbada in 2023; however, the account has spent the last few months engaged in a dispute. Like other flowing robes in West Africa, most historical accounts (that I have seen, I'm not an authority on this topic) categorize the agbada as a form of boubou (a West African kaftan) which was adapted from clothing brought from North Africa through trans-Saharan trade networks. A user — Oluwafemi1726 (talk · contribs) — has attempted to add this history to the Agbada page, but Researcherofgreatness has repeatedly removed the section without stated reason. In line with an ethnic agenda, it appears as if Researcherofgreatness does not want such an iconic Yoruba garment associated with a foreign origin regardless of factual accuracy or the literal millennia that may have passed since the kaftan first arrived in Yorubaland. Moreover, the account clearly has issues with WP:OWNBEHAVIOR on the page, regularly referencing that they created the page as if others need approval to edit it and threatening to "lock" the page if others make edits (despite not having that power).
3. Cannibalism in Africa: It appears one of the only times that Researcherofgreatness has edited something about a non-Yoruba group and not mass removed information was when they added "reports of cannibalism in post colonial Igboland" to this page. The source was flimsy at best and appears to be self-published, so it looks like an attempt to disparage Igbo people — another large Nigerian ethnicity.
4. Yoruba people: One of Researcherofgreatness' most recent inappropriate edits was to entirely remove the "Names" section from the Yoruba people page, claiming it was "lies and antagonistic" that wasn't on the Hausa or Igbo pages. This again shows that the account has no interest in building an encyclopedia as they are entirely willing to blank well-sourced sections purely because they are here to wage ethnic disputes. Like with the Agbada page, it appears as if Researcherofgreatness did not want evidence that Yoruba is a relatively recent ethnic identifier on the page regardless of factual accuracy.

There are many other examples throughout their editing history, some relatively banal (like a penchant for adding "of Yoruba descent" to pages without sourcing) and some pretty obviously rule-breaking (like implying that I have no right to edit the South West (Nigeria) due to their perception of my ethnicity). There needs to be some form of action against this user, this is a clear and concerted campaign of ethnically-biased edits — which are not common but have plagued some Nigerian pages (I reported a similarly biased account last year). Researcherofgreatness' focus on Yoruba food and clothing seems genuine and would be a well-needed addition to Wikipedia; however, they seem incapable of being objective and their conduct towards other users is very worrying. Thank you, Watercheetah99 (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

There are definitely some troubling, consistent patterns with that editor. Constant hostility, edit-warring, opinion-pushing. The Agbada diffs are particularly bad, not just from a content standpoint, but the WP:OWN and strongly implying in the edit summaries that they have administrative powers if people don't cooperate [167] and [168]. Whether WP:NPA, WP:NOTHERE, WP:EDITWAR, or WP:FAKEADMIN (and on and on), there's a smorgasbord of things to choose from for a justified indef. This is an area that needs fewer battlefield generals, not more. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Urgent clarification on advertorial/PR puffery sources on suspected undisclosed paid editing

I am at a loss whether this is the right venue for this, but if not please pardon and help take this to the right venue. My question is that is it right to remove unreliable sources before nominating articles for deletion or remove them after being nominated? I recently nominated three articles Gbenga Adigun, Tony Edeh, and Jom Charity Award for deletion due to their clear lack of notability. The articles are clearly standing on advertorial/PR sponsored articles masquerading as reliable sources. Now some editors are commenting keep with the sole reason that those articles have enough sources to pass notability guideline. If I remove those unreliable sources I may be guilty of edit warring which I do not want be involved in. Please review sources in those articles as uninvolved editors LocomotiveEngine (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Once a deletion discussion has been started, there should be no need to remove sources from the article while it is ongoing. Indeed, it is usually a good idea to keep them in full view so that commenters can easily access and evaluate them. Any keep or delete conclusions made in the discussion should be reached on the basis of the quality of these sources, and presence of plenty but bad sources should thus not unduly enable a Keep outcome, if things go as intended. Time enough to cull the list (or the entire article) based on the eventual outcome. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

User: Hopefull Innformer

There have been numerous instances of User:Hopefull Innformer seemingly violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks onTalk: Yasuke. Specifically, User:Hopefull Innformer has made multiple disparging comments about others who disagree with them on the talk page, with multiple instances of them accusing other Wikipedians of being "From twitter", inferring other editors aren't sincere, and inferring that other editors are obsessed and/or pushing an agenda.

I approached them here User_talk:Hopefull_Innformer#Talk:_Yasuke to post a reminder not to engage in Personal Attacks, User:Hopefull Innformer accused me instead of violating WP:GF, and stating that "If a moderator thinks "Okay you clearly come from twitter" believes that is in any way a "personal attack" by any means I'll edit that part out and apologize", which I can only assume means to bring it here, as Wikipedia does not have moderators. X0n10ox (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

As you were the last person to reply on their talk page, saying The point of bringing the point to your Talk Page is to attempt a resolution without having to bring the Admins in on it, I believe it would've been wiser to wait for a reply of theirs before directly bringing the topic here. (Yes, the talk page got in my watchlist automatically as I was technically the one to create it...) Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I had considered waiting to see if they replied, but my understanding of their initial response was to get higher powers involved and so I made my reply and then came over here to pop off the request for an admin. I apologize if it's deemed too hasty of me to do so. X0n10ox (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not that big of a deal, it's more of a question of etiquette but you're right that it would probably have had to be discussed here sooner or later. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Vandal is back yet again with disruption, stalking and harassment

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

---

Following on from this and this, the same vandal has returned under the new name DiddyDidIt2ya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), reverting a string of my recent edits, again with uncivil edit summaries. As before, that account has made no constructive edits to the encyclopaedia. – SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

indeffed. Rack 'em jp×g🗯️ 10:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

These British LTAs need to write me a guide to their weird insults. What the hell is a "plonker"? What's a "wittol"? Is that RD2? I know calling somebody a "nonce" is RD2. jp×g🗯️ 10:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

A plonker is either a part of the male anatomy or a man who consents to let his friends sleep with his wife/partner. It can also mean fool. 2001:4430:4175:F3BF:81EB:595:63D6:6A92 (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I did ask directly, so thanks, I suppose. jp×g🗯️ 11:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• JPxG Given the initial vandal from the first thread was operating from a South Korean IP address, and given this (incorrect) comment is also from an IP in the same region, I’m inclined to think there may be a connection. - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Somewhat bizarre. That's the only contribution from this IP, whereas the /32 has many hundreds across different articles, including some quite arcane discussions on back-office drama boards such as this one. I don't know exactly how these subnets work, and should probably leave this to somebody more capable of not blocking an entire ISP, although I guess bro here can catch 12 hours. jp×g🗯️ 11:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

BTW, a plonker is a dick. Same meaning - both as penis and acting like a dick. The IP was wrong on the rest. - SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is definitely a mild insult meaning "fool" ("Rodney, you plonker"), but I've never heard the other definition; however a "wittol" is a cuckold. Black Kite (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Wiktionary says plonker means fool, penis, and cuckold all in one. wound theology◈ 11:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, 'cos Wiktionary is about as reliable as it gets...not. - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The old OED thinks it comes from the onomatopoeic verb "plonk" and describes something dull or thick, including in a nineteenth-century example, cloth. I've often heard it used that way, including in polite company, but not anatomically. NebY (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

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