Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:24, 5 June 2023

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Shortcuts

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Incidents (archives, search)
1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146
1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Muhsin97233

Mushsin97233 indef blocked by Isabelle Belato. (non-admin closure) JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Muhsin97233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:SOAPBOX nonsense [7] [8] [9] [10]

. This has been going on since they first started editing, in February 2022.

~~Their talk page is also full of warnings~~ I have warned them multiple times, which they only addressed once with this comment (there's more in the diff); "...Conclusion We all know the English Wikipedia, most of them are run by racist Persians who falsify the facts in favor of their Persian nation..." --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofIran, I won't comment on this as I'm not well versed in the subject, except only to point out that it's pretty misleading of you to say that "Their talk page is full of warnings", when in fact all those warnings come from you yourself. To avoid creating the wrong impression, please use the active voice in such situations, such as "I have warned them many times". Bishonen | tålk 13:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

You're right, my bad. I have fixed it now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is classic extremely one-sided ethnic POV-pushing. Basically, everyone of any note is Arab, not Persian or Berber [11][12][13]; [14]; [15]; [16]; [17]; [18]; [19][20][21]; [22]; [23]. Don't say 'Persian', say 'Muslim' Even the cookbook is not Arabic (=language), but Arab (=ethnicity)! Any pushback against this must of course be racist [24][25].

Muhsin97233's disruption is sparse but ongoing since July 2022, with little or nothing else in between (diffed above is almost every mainspace edit they made). I think a

wp:nothere indef block would be helpful. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I've reviewed the last several edits from this user, and it's a mixed bag; though nothing to me that says they need a block as yet. Maybe a topic ban at best. I mean, most of the edits are to talk pages, which we encourage, and is not really disrupting article text. Some of the edits, such as this one seem fine; the source doesn't seem to mention "Arabian" at all (at least, the little bit available online doesn't). Perhaps a topic ban on adding or removing ethnic or linguistic labels from article text would solve the problem? --Jayron 32 17:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only their most recent edits are to talk pages. In mainspace, it's been almost all disruptive (see the diffs in my comment above; the Camel urine edits are one of the few exceptions). That said, I've encountered this user during patrolling but did not report precisely because their most recent edits did not disrupt mainspace. If that is taken as a sign that they might be willing to reform, then yes, a topic ban on adding or removing ethnic or linguistic labels from article text would certainly also solve the problem. But there clearly is a problem, and I think that now that we're here it would be helpful to do something about it. I therefore also support a topic-ban as an alternative measure. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhsin97233 hasn't addressed this report yet, and I highly doubt they will. Per the diffs shown by me and Apaugasma, I think that Muhsin97233 should be indeffed, but I wouldn't oppose a topic-ban. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Muhsin97233 doesn't address this report, I think the

wp:nothere POV pushing is clear. A topic-ban would help stop wasting more time with this in the future. ParadaJulio (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Considering the diffs presented here, it's clear to me they are here to right great wrongs instead of helping build an encyclopedia. As such, I've blocked them indef. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User: Dicklyon, behavioral issues on the topic of capitalization

I’m not heavily involved in the

close request after five days. Dicklyon lacks the temperament required to find a consensus on discussions about capitalization. I was pinged a few days ago when Dicklyon drafted a self report so I’ve decided to bring it here.[26] - Nemov (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, capitalization is a topic about which I have strong feelings, and yes I asked for a snow close of that RFC, and yes I drafted a self-report (aiming for AN, not ANI, since there's no ongoing activity of relevance). Just waiting for that RFC to close. If the decision is to grant a hockey-specific exception to MOS:CAPS, I'll chalk that up as a loss; but it looks to me like that idea has been roundly rejected. Dicklyon (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read over the Hockey RfC and I'm not seeing a problem that requires intervention, administrative or otherwise. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemov: This ping of yours is very non-neutral canvassing. If you'd ping the rest of the participants in that RFC, that would be better. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those were participants in the Project that were discussing bringing an ANI case who have a longer history on this topic. If you wish I can alert the entire project. That's within the guidelines. You pinged several of us with that draft. Nemov (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the participants in that RfC appear to have little to no prior contribution to WP:IH; it’s only natural that Nemov pinged those of us frequently involved in the project and as a result having to frequently deal with your overzealousness. The Kip (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We bar canvassing for the precise reason that it tends to be effective, and making consensus-based discussions a numbers game clouds the issue. Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then that list at the top of

WT:MOSCAPS needs to be removed permanently. It's clearly intended as soft canvassing. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

To the contrary, it's a neutral centralized listing for everyone (i.e. a noticeboard) of discussions involving the site-wide guideline in question, and it serves the excellent purpose of countering in-wikiproject groupthink that in previous times was abused to thwart guidelines applying to particular topics, sometimes for years at a time and to great deals of

WP:DRAMA which we now largely avoid. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Related thread from last year: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1094#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Dicklyon. Some1 (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is related in that I've been fixing over-capitalization for a long time, and every now and then someone (typically a topic-area fan, such as tennis in that case) objects to implementing what we have a huge consensus for, as represented in
MOS:CAPS. It did all get resolved in favor of lowercase, and I did the work to implement the decision after that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It's related because it's about your continued uncollaborative bludgeoning behavior. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nemov seems to have a bee in his bonnet. Dicklyon, in my experience, displays just the right temperament to shepherd through changes to capping in line with our style guides. He has long experience in the area, and approaches it professionally. This thread is entirely unnecessary and a waste of admins' time. Tony (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this makes sense why no one wanted to go through with addressing the issues. Might be more trouble than it's worth. Nemov (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we addressed all the relevant issues pretty thoroughly. I got accused of bludgeoning in the process. Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A shamelessly biased sampling of comments from that thread: ...the Tennis Project is not against
talk) 05:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
When a tiny subset of editors are willing to fight, fight, fight to the point of their own alleged demoralization, against the better judgment of the rest of the editorial pool, just to get their way on a capitalization pecadillo in a pet topic, then they need to re-examine their reasons for being here. WP does not exist as a forum for Usenet-style "somebody is wrong on the Internet!" deathmatch argumentation. If some fan of hockey or trains is actually convinced they have a good argument for capitalizing something that the guidelines say should not be capitalized, they can go make a case at
WT:MOSCAPS for a codified exception. What they can't do again is wage an 8-year disruptive campaign like the olden-days version of WP:BIRDS did. The birds fiasco is nothing at all like the example you imagine it to be. It should have resulted in a series of desysoppings and bans, and was actually a good argument to just end the wikiproject system entirely. (But this ANI isn't the place to get into the details of that sordid history.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
When a tiny subset of editors are willing to fight, fight, fight whenever the topic of capitalization — capitalization, for God's sake — comes up, consistently demeaning the opinions of people who care about the actual subject at hand, one subject after another, for years, then they need to re-examine their reasons for being here. Saying that it's acceptable to argue "for a codified exception" on a MOS Talk page rather than make a case at an article's Talk page is petty wiki-lawyering. Dismissing others' concerns as "somebody is wrong on the Internet!" histrionics while failing to consider the beam in one's own eye is... oh, what's the point?
talk) 13:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
"Whenever the topic of capitalization...comes up" simply is not what happens. Only a vanishingly small number of editors go into this "I'm gonna fight until I feel demoralized" mode, and they're almost entirely confined to sports and a handful of other topics that attract an obsessive fandom. If everyone who didn't get their way in some discussion or other could claim they were "demeaned" and turn it into another "pillory my evil enemy again and again until I finally get them censored" ANI, then WP would have imploded the month it began. PS: You're misunderstanding my point. I'll rephrase it: If editors from some topical wikiproject are tired of RMs that raise the same sort of capitalization issue, enough to go on yet another ANI witch-hunt, then they should seek a topical exception in the guideline and see if consensus agrees with them (e.g. notice how we have codified exceptions like capitalizing the names of standard chess openings, etc.). Of course I don't mean that RM should not be used in the first place; 99.9% of these kinds of questions are settled at RM. This "death to Dicklyon" shtick is in the 0.01% zone. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No action needed here. Dicklyon is consistently doing what he's supposed to do: engage standard processes like
WP:DISBELIEF. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The OP makes a number of allegations but fails to provide any substantiation and it comes down to We (the owners) set our own rules and don't like anybody else playing on our patch. Without substantiation it is easily seen as frivolous and vexatious. On the other hand, a number of threats have been made to bring a complaint.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33] The bulk of the participants in that RfC appear to have little to no prior contribution to WP:IH[34] - demonstrates ownership behaviour. I hate to break it to you, but MOS:CAPS was created after WP:HOCKEY.[35] - an argument that the local project consensus has precedence over the broader community consensus reflected in the MOS. ... but it appears as per usual we’re about to be overruled by the cavalry coming in to “correct” our methods.[36] - more ownership. Good luck to you all on this. There werent enough tennis editors to stop this at WikiProject Tennis.[37] - a rejection of the broader community consensus should have precedence. If there is battlegroundy conduct, it exists in the ownership exhibited and a belief that the owners are exempt from the consensus and scrutiny of the broader community. See also comment above by SMcCandlish, which also addresses where the problem lies. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And "I hate to break it to you, but MOS:CAPS was created after WP:HOCKEY" is doubly absurd. Pages are not magically immune to policies and guidelines based on their age, or we simply would not have policies and guidelines; they'd be completely useless. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see we're repeating
talk) 03:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, those are great examples of how I work. Sorry you had disagreed on some points. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those "great examples" sure look like trainwreck threads to me, no pun intended. It's hard for me to see why you would be proud of them. I know that just one of them was enough to convince me that there would be no point voicing my opinion on any capitalization matter where it might happen to disagree with yours, no matter what evidence I could bring to support my position. Congratulations.
talk) 03:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
This is just what I was getting at above. Every wikiproject "camp" that is an intense fandom of something (sports, train-spotting, anime, military, video gaming, etc.) thinks it should be able to do whatever it wants, and will sometimes go to great lengths to trainwreck any attempt to get community input that is contrary to the fandom's specialized-style fallacies. Dicklyon consistently presents well-researched evidence of what independent sources are doing in the aggregate (which is what we want to see), and is met with special-pleading exception waving drawn from sources that are not independent of the topic. This has been happening for a decade and it needs to stop. Fandom-internal sources (like "officialese" and other specialized types of writing) do not dictate how WP is written. Such "conversations are so unpleasant" not because of Dicklyon at all. He's almost unbelievably patient with the invective hurled at him. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this characterization of the dispute in which I was involved in just about every way. I'm not a part of mass transit "fandom", for starters, and the Boston Globe is not "officialese".
talk) 04:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
There's a reason that
MOS:CAPS opens with "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia", and doesn't say "...that are capitalized in a unanimity of sources". The fact that you can dig up an exception doesn't change the overall statistical picture at all. But a recurrent, small group of editors never seem to understand this (or pretend they don't). Every single one of these debates has "well, what about [example here]" comments as if providing one counter-example magically waves away the overall lower-case pattern. It's almost unbearably tedious in its fallaciousness, and is a stick that needs to be dropped. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The idea that Google n-grams survey only "independent, reliable sources" (emphasis added) is, in my view, highly dubious. Outsourcing our thinking to search engines is the kind of nonsense we reject in notability discussions, and it's not the end of the debate in style issues either.
talk) 04:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
They survey published books, which is as close as we can get, and it certainly beats people holding up one example of upper case here, and one example of lower-case there, until someone gets tired and quits. If the community did not consider n-grams valid tools for
WP:RM purposes, then they would not be used and relied upon at RM, yet they are, on pretty much a daily basis. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Not all published books are reliable or relevant. It's pretty clear that "the community" does not uniformly consider Big Data-type approaches the be-all and end-all answer for style purposes. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here. At some point, one ought to consider the possibility that if there is fruitless antagonism in one specialized topic after another, the common denominator might not be the specialist editors.
talk) 04:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Repeating the argument you already made isn't an argument itself. Anyway, at least we're getting back on-topic in the second part: These discussions and their results are not fruitless at all, but produce a more consistent reading experience for our readers, and an overall general reduction in the amount of "style fighting" over time because as each such discussion closes it adds to the precedent stack. What is actually fruitless is all the hatred hurled at Dicklyon, for simply using the process he's supposed to use and opening the kinds of discussions he's supposed to open. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a "precedent stack" has ever actually inhibited Wikipedia editors from sparring, I've yet to see it. And if that were an accurate description of his actions, many fewer people would have been exasperated over the years.
talk) 04:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
As you've only been here since 2017 and missed most of the "bad old days" of style-fighting, I'm not surprised. Anyway, we'll just have to see whether this ANI comes to your conclusion, or mine (and not mine alone) that the exasperation is self-generated by
WP:OWNish over-capitalization zeal. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

No surprise the usual suspects showed up to support. There must be off-wiki coordination between these guys. Frankly, their immediate jumping in to areas they've never edited before to support each others' proposals crosses the line into outright meat puppetry.

As for Dick, his constant failure to distinguish between uncreative proper names and mere descriptions shows a failure to grasp fundamentals of English grammar and shows he shouldn't be involved in this crusade of his in the first place. Not to mention the bludgeoning of discussions, inability to accept that others who disagree with him do care about articles (and thereby failure to adhere to the policy of

WP:AGF

) and practice of continuing to make edits and move pages even after objections have been raised and discussion is still ongoing are incredibly un-collaborative behaviors. He needs to learn that he's not automatically right.

Plus his "evidence" usually consists of an n-grams search. A product of Google. His employer. That's a conflict-of-interest issue. One that needs to stop. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I watch Dicklyon's activity closely, because he is so frequently attacked, along with all of MoS and the editors who work on it, by the same little

WP:OWN nonsense. Typographic cleanup across the entire encyclopedia, regardless of topic, is an activity for anyone, and it is precisely because of wikiproject-originating "special exceptionalism" that such cleanup is so often needed. PS: You clearly have no idea what "conflict of interest" means on Wikipedia. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The "jumping in to areas they've never edited before to support each others' proposals" is enabled partly by the sort of "notice board" mechanism at the top of

WT:MOSCAPS that we started several years ago, in an attempt to balance the WikiProject notification systems that brought so many topic fans to conversations. Yes, there are a few of us "usual suspects" that pay attention there; not very many, sadly. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, that thing is soft canvassing and should be removed. oknazevad (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat: [38]. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever been accused of "a failure to grasp fundamentals of English grammar" before. I actually write a lot, including a book and many peer-reviewed articles, and have been praised for how precisely I write. I just got a review back on an article I submitted, which included "The results and proofs are quite technical and the author is nonetheless precise in their treatment." Obviously, that's math, not English proper name issues, but still, I do know what I'm doing, grammar wise, and style-wise, too. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, unless you come here brandishing a hammer and nails, your not welcome. Sounds like more

WP:COI? Overall, this post is just saying, leave our patch alone, we know best. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not we'd go any specialist topic. I've had issues with Dick's battering ram approach in multiple topic areas. As someone said above, if there's constant conflict over this with many different topic areas and many different editors, then one only logically needs to look at the common denominator of the conflicts: Dick Lyon. Not everyone else. Maybe it's time for the MOSistas to realize that the tail doesn't wag the dog. It's not OWN to say that a small subset of editors on an obscure talk page (as all Wikipedia namespace talk pages are) don't get to dictate to the entire project how to write. oknazevad (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The actual common denominator is the

WT:MOSCAPS. Raging on about how you just don't like it, and casting aspersions at anyone who abides by it, isn't constructive. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Is there a Bing alternative? —Bagumba (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that all this reminds me of countless previous discussions about capitalisation - a proposal is made, it gets some pushback, and then Dicklyon and/or a few supporters (SMcCandlish included) turn up (if it wasn't them that made the proposal in the first place) and it descends into a war of attrition where n-grams are wielded as weapons and sources that present the opposing view are dismissed as "specialist" or otherwise unusable. This persists until the opposition gives up. Sometimes Dick et al are right about the capitalisation, sometimes they are wrong, but this is how almost every discussion in which one or more people strongly disagree with them (rightly or wrongly, whether policy or evidence based or otherwise) goes. Examples have been posted in this thread, anyone who cares can look at contested requested move in which they are involved to see plenty examples. As XOR'easter notes, it's pointless arguing against them because they care far more deeply about it and will not give up until they get the "right" answer. Don't bother pinging me here, I don't have the time or energy to fight (so they will just carry on driving people away from the project). Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personalized fingerpointing without substance. Why have policies and guidelines at all, since every line item in each of them is detested by someone, a fraction of whom will go into a rage when they don't

WT:MOSCAPS is. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This is getting too far into the weeds of a content dispute. My history with this editor was only for some page moves related to baseball. I don't really have an issue with the guidelines, but the suggestion that it's a simple black and white issue is a little misleading. Someone who doesn't follow baseball might not capitalize "Division series," but an argument can be made that it's a proper noun based on sourcing. The English language isn't a math equation. Treating it like one can lead to problems. Nemov (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The argument does get to be made, and is either convincing or it's not, to the community and then an independent closer. The
WP:WIN should be barred from ever using it again. WP does not work that way. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I had a paragraph and a half typed that said your final two sentences less well than that. The MOS:CAPS, and the manual of style as a whole, is a guideline. The guidelines are generally right, but they are guidelines not commandments, discussions about how to apply guidelines to specific articles are not battles to be won or lost (and SMcCandlish's comment above is a great example of the battleground attitude on display in many such discussions). Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Calmly explaining the holes I see in your reasoning is not a battleground attitude. But you not understanding that is closely related to your refusal to see that proposing moves, using the process for proposing moves, and opening discussions about article naming (often in the wikiprojects most apt to care about the naming) is not battlegrounding either, but pefectly reasonable. There's a Catch-22 you're not addressing here, too. It's clear that you and a few others are just tired of seeing capitalization-related RMs. But WP has millions of articles, thousands of them arguably mis-capitalized, across many, many topics, and this necessarily means many RMs to clean them up, because no one will accept a monolithic mass-RM that crosses numerous topics. Every cluster of similar articles has to be handled in a separate RM. This is just demonstrably how the process has to work. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is my main issue with editing in this manner. Attempting to boil grammatical discussions into a binary manner, throwing guidelines and ngrams around with disregard for experienced editors in the subject is, in my opinion, disruptive. To earlier points, I don't believe WPs should claim ownership of articles, but their expertise in the subject should not be dominated by those involved in MOS:CAPS. The singular discussion I was involved in related to Baseball has evidence of this type of disruptive, badgering behavior.[39] I think BilCat said it best:
Grammar isn't computer science. Real language is messy, especially English, and doesn't often follow contrived rules.
- Skipple ☎ 14:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Their expertise in the subject" = "Wikiproject members should not have to follow guidelines". It's just more
WP:CONLEVEL policy for a reason, and that reason is primarily that wikiprojects exerting control over content is inherently problematic. (And I say that as someone who participates in lots of wikiprojects.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm really on the fence on this one. On the one hand, I generally agree with Dicklyon's general position on each of these individual cases; the MOS in all of these cases was largely being ignored, and in most cases, it shouldn't have been. On the other, I find Dicklyon's behavior severely offputting. I find their
WP:INCIVIL tone to be so offputting, I've felt reservations in supporting them, even though I agreed with them. It really says something to me when I can't openly agree with someone because their behavior is so offputting, I fear some of the negative aspects of it rubbing off on my own reputation merely because I think they are right, despite their ugly behavior. On the one hand, many of the problems with this issue would not have been fixed had it not been for Dicklyon's attention to them. On the other hand, dude, chill. At some point, your behavior hurts your own cause.--Jayron 32 17:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I tend to agree with Jayron32, and said as much last year: I've often thought (and said) that Dicklyon is a bad advocate for his own case.... I would say that also goes for SMcCandlish, whose interventions on Dicklyon's behalf tend to raise rather than lower the temperature in a conversation. WikiProjects, and I speak from experience, can be clannish and internally-focused and don't appreciate externally-driven change. That's true for issues beyond capitalization. Aggressive behavior is probably the only way to get anything done, but it makes everyone upset and leads to unhelpful threads like this one. Mackensen (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On one point "Aggressive behavior is probably the only way to get anything done", I disagree entirely. One can be pleasant, civil, and not even come close to
WP:BLUDGEON, and still get things done. Even more so, I assert that better behavior would tend to get more done as it would avoid driving away people from your cause that would otherwise support it. --Jayron 32 18:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm tired of the "but we're just enforcing policy!" arguments. First of all, they're guidelines in this instance, and secondly it is a massive waste of editor time to argue over capitalization instead of doing something that actually improves the encyclopedia for readers. I don't buy the complaints about people "defending their turf". WikiProjects can sometimes engage in such behavior, and I've seen it myself, but it's much more that people don't want to spend hours arguing with a few people who will stop at nothing to push their interpretation of guidelines down everyone else's throats, especially over something so minor and inconsequential. It has and will continue to drive good editors away from the encyclopedia, which hurts us far more than something having the "wrong" capitalization. I agree with much of what Thryduulf says above.
MOS:CAPS is a guideline, not a policy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That's self-contradictory. If you've seen wikiprojects defending their turf yourself, then you can't reasonably say that wikiprojects don't defend their turf. If the matter is so minor and inconsequential and editors think it's a waste of time to argue about, then why do these few editors so unreasonably expend time arguing about it as if it's major and consequential? Can't have it both ways. The entire thrust of this ANI is "we really, really, really care about these capital letters and Dicklyon should be punished for getting in our capitalizing way." — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not entirely true. A non-negligible part of this ANI is "We agree with Dicklyon's general stance on capitalization, but we find his behavior to be problematic, and would like him to get better at that". See above, in case you missed it. --Jayron 32 18:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet there is no actual demonstration of Dicklyon doing anything wrong, and lots of diffs of his opponents doing things wrong, like engaging in a long series of personal attacks. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment because I really don't have an issue on the content dispute. There's a good faith way to go about making those changes. It's clear that a couple of editors are very difficult to work with when it comes to this topic and based on this ANI and the other one it's not getting better. Something needs to be done because the status quo doesn't appear to be working. Nemov (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nemov – if you'll allow me some words in my defense – I don't know how/why you stepped into this, or how you decided that what's not working is my fault. Take a look at where discussion started on May 4:
WT:MOSCAPS#Finals capping again, where I immediately started a discussion on being reverted. You can see that Deadman137 declined to explain why he wanted capital letters there, and instead resorted to personal attacks on me. I tried to stay as civil as possible, even after he forked the discussion to the project page and on May 8 canvassed editors to join in his ridiculous proposal (to "rescind the current horribly flawed and under scrutinized rule and replace it with a reasonable argument made by GoodDay in 2020..."). Oh, I see, you jumped in right after he pinged you. Downhill from there, and your involvement with the silly RFC and now ANI just fanned the flames. Why is this on me? (see also SMcCandlish's comments to that effect above) Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

As a general note, if an editor is about to bring themselves to ANI I think it would be courtious to wait for them to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After being pinged in the draft I waited a couple of days. It appeared that ship had sailed[40] and the behavior continued anyway. Nemov (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out; I probably would have waited a week and perhaps half way through mentioned to them that if they didn't open a discussion I would, but considering that response your decision to open this wasn't unreasonable. BilledMammal (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The real behavioral issue

The real behavioral issue here is that a handful of hockey fans resorted to threats of ANI after it was clear that their silly RFC was a snowball for just following guidelines. That's why I made the "self report" that Nemov refers to, to lay out the back story and their case against me for doing what I do (editing and discussing). Here, I copy it in since some of you probably haven't followed the links (I leave the dated signatures from the draft):

User:Dicklyon is lowercasing things like "Preliminary Round" in hockey articles

I am reporting myself because the handful of hockey editors who keep threating to haul me off to ANI or t-ban can't agree on who should do it. We've been in discussions for quite a while, and they started an RFC about whether whether hockey's "status quo" should be an exception, perhaps under

MOS:CAPS

. The response at the RFC overwhelmingly rejects that idea, but it's still open, and they want me to stop editing while it's open; my edits are not hockey specific, but some hockey articles are in the mix (I think it's probably mostly soccer, but plenty of other sports).

Relevant recent discussions include:

WT:MOSCAPS#Conference Finals and Semifinals capitalization
of Feb.
WT:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Round names capitalization – a hockey fork of the above discussion, with some explicit canvassing
WT:WikiProject Ice Hockey#RfC: NHL round names capitalization – an ill-formed RFC on the hockey project page asking for a hockey-specific exception to our usual capitalization guidelines. Roundly rejected by editors who are not such big hockey fans, but a few of those like to argue for their unnecessary caps.
A weirdly non-specific template warning from Deadman137, apparently about this revert of one of my JWB edits at 1981 Stanley Cup playoffs (in which I had lowercased "preliminary round" like in essentially all books)

Their "case" against me seems to be that

I ignore editors who disagree with me (not so; I discuss and elicit consensus when there's disagreement)
I've been called up on AN and ANI before (yes, I have, usually by an editor who wants special dispensation for capital letters in their area)
I've been blocked more than once (guilty as charged; but I'm pretty reformed in recent years)
I opened (and lost) an RM discussion at
Talk:1978 NHL Amateur Draft#Requested move 26 May 2020
after some of my moves were reverted (was that not the right thing to do?)
I've "edit warred" over the case of "Preliminary Round" (I did make a few such edits in hockey including one recently that Deadman137 reverted)
Another hockey edit of mine was reverted since the RFC started: "First Round" to "First round" on 17 May (that's 2 out of the thousands of edits I've done since then)

@

Sbaio, and The Kip: y'all wanted to talk about it here, right? Or is it just that you want to treat "Preliminary Round" and such as proper names in hockey? Consensus says no, so why keep threatening me? Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The Kip says I have a one-man crusade and that I should have a t-ban even though the RFC is in my favor.
Sbaio says at least a TBAN (on ice-hockey related content) is a very strong option.
Deadman137 says I should be banned from capitalization more generally, considering I lowercased "Preliminary Round" while the RFC is open.
Nemov says he'd take me to ANI himself, except he doesn't know the full history.

I ask two things: 1. Close the RFC in favor of no MOSCAPS exception for hockey. 2. Suggest editors stop threatening me when I'm discussing in good faith – if the occasional hockey page gets caught in my case-fix patterns, feel free to revert but not to threaten or template me. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not threaten you in any way. I just agreed with other editors that a topic ban might be an option, because you are running around with different editing gadgets (AWB, JWB, etc) and keep changing a lot of pages without even waiting for the discussions to finish. Therefore, that is disruptive to say the least and this is not the first time that you have done this (as can be seen in the edit link of mine). In addition, I am not going to waste my time here so you can just stop pinging me. – sbaio 15:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The real behavioral issue here is that a handful of hockey fans resorted to threats of ANI after it was clear that their silly RFC was a snowball for just following guidelines.

I created this ANI and I'm not a hockey fan or edit hockey articles. The outcome of the RfC is irrelevant to the behavioral issues discussed by myself and others. I know some would like to focus on the content dispute because it obfuscates the central issue of disruptive edits. That seemed to be successful in the last ANI, but Dickylon is making a lot of changes to articles where its clear they do not have full understanding of the context.

Nemov (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sbaio, you don't read this as a threat to take me to ANI? I'm not "running around using lots of gadgets". Just JWB. And since that RFC opened, I apparently got 2 hockey articles into the mix (that's all that got mentioned anyway, and I left them after they were reverted; I'll fix them after the RFC closes). I don't see what you mean by disruption, just because I'm doing a lot of case fixing (99% without any objections). Dicklyon (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nemov, what context do you think I don't understand? Dicklyon (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Path forward

Instead of repeating more wall of text

bludgeonathon that cover the same arguments about capitalization, is there a way to dial back the battleground nature going on here? It clear that even some of the editors who generally support Dicklyon and SMcCandlish's edits have expressed the problematic nature of how they're going about it. Capitalization isn't a hill to die on and there's more productive things that editors could be spending their time on than arguing about it. Does anyone outside the usual suspects on this topic have any recommendations? I'll gladly withdraw this if there's no way reduce the tension, I don't want to waste any more time if there's no path forward. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

How are arguments about capitalization even relevant here? The RFC has already shown that there's no appetite for a hockey exception to MOSCAPS. The path forward is to close the RFC, close this section, and get back to routine. I have no intention to pick on any of you or on hockey as we move forward. Dicklyon (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should withdraw this because there is no evidence of wrongdoing on Dicklyon's part (and because you blatantly canvassed a wikiproject to come and pile on). Using prescribed RM process and opening discussions (exactly what Dicklyon was told to do in a previous ANI, I might add), which other people then turn uncivil in when they don't think they're going to get their way, is not an actionable offense by Dicklyon. This entire ANI is vexatious, and very clearly not going to come to a consensus on sanctions, despite some people becoming self-irritated by their own over-investment in the most trivial of all sorts of content disputes then projecting their behavior onto Dicklyon. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemov I don't know whether I count as a "usual suspect" here or not (but I'm certain that Dicklyon and SMcCandlish do) and my comments are completely unrelated to the content dispute - I have no opinion about the capitalisation of hockey articles and before this thread I wasn't even aware that there was a dispute. My experience with capitalisation discussions comes entirely in different topic areas, but the behaviour is identical, and it is the behaviour that is the issue that needs addressing. My first thought is that either a topic ban for both Dicklyon and SMcCandlish from the topic of capitalisation would do a lot of good, but I'm not certain it needs to go that far (yet, and hopefully not ever) as restricting each of them to one comment (and up to one answer per direct question thereafter) per capitalisation discussion would allow them to contribute in an area they clearly feel passionate about without allowing them to continue bludgeoning. Thryduulf (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I be topic-banned from capitalization? Provide diffs that show me bludgeoning RM discussions. All you're doing is further demonstrating that you have an axe to grind against MOS:CAPS and those who abide by it. "SMcCandlish agrees with Dicklyon, so ban him too." Who is it again who has a battleground problem? PS: Maybe in this discussion I've commented more than I should have, but this is not a capitalization discussion, it's a thread about proposing sanctions against an editor, at a page that exists for vociferous discussion of such sanctions proposals. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All you're doing is further demonstrating that you have an axe to grind against MOS:CAPS shows that you have completely misunderstood the complaints here. Nobody here has an axe to grind regarding MOS:CAPS, the issue is the behaviour of Dicklyon and your endorsement and enabling of that behaviour. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A long response to Nemov

There is a social contract in editing on WP to follow P&G. What I am seeing in recent comments are sentiments that MOS:CAPS is wrong, there is nuance that only those that know the subject can deal with, it's only a guideline (we don't have to follow it) and its not that important so leave us alone. An interesting comment was Attempting to boil grammatical discussions into a binary manner ... Well, unless we have a middle-case, it is a binary choice. These comments are ultimately an expression of ownership. Caps are often used for emphasis or distinction of what is otherwise a descriptive noun phrase, which

WP:Specialist style fallacy). The capitalisation of such descriptive terms is then rationalised by [mis]labelling them as proper nouns|noun phrases - because they are important or significant things and not just any old generic thing. Capitalization isn't a hill to die on ... is a metaphor for the battle ground nature that can develop. I would agree; however, it only becomes a battleground when two sides contest the ground and the insinuation is that those holding the [moral] high-ground should be left alone and that it isn't important. If it isn't important, why should either side contest it? For those that would remove unnecessary over-capitalisation, there is a matter of improving readability (SMcCandlish

could probably add to this).

Let us look at this specific case. DL was downcasing terms like finals which are descriptive. He was challenged (reverted) on some edits and bought this to discussion at

WP:ASPERSION

.

If one writes for any organisation, there are editorial policies and style to abide by. WP is no different.
How is ensuring compliance with the established WP style wrong? If compliance wasn't expected, why was it written?
Given that compliance with style is a reasonable expectation, what is the source of contention and battle ground conduct? How is this remedied?
How has DL not reasonably followed process?
What specifically has DL done (evidence?) that is actionable at ANI?

WP:P&G. Potentially, this could be extended to the application of P&G to rope-in all of the afore events. What would be the consequences of this? I would look closely at the battlegroundy statements that have been evidenced. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Without wading into all of that (though I agree with your step-by-step summary of what happened), I do want to comment that the one name that comes up again and again and again in these discussions, not just the recent ones, as an uncivil battlegrounder is Oknazevad; this post alone is probably block-worthy. If any editor needs a topic-ban from capitalization discussions, it is that one. I've repeatedly been of half a mind to do a diff pile of all Oknazevad's attacks and take it to

WP:CTOP. But I have little stomach for "dramaboarding". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm going to ignore the content dispute because I'm not interested in continuing wall of text discussions about the capitalization of proper nouns. Let's go back to my original point. Capitalization is apparently a topic for which Dicklyon feels strongly. In my limited interaction with this editor, they're inpatient and

WP:BLUDGEON the process. Just review this ANI: Dicklyon and SMcCandlish have undoubtablty made my point for me. Nemov (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I will stipulate that I speak too much in my own defense. And maybe SMcCandlish speaks too much in my defense, too. What do you expect when you bring accusations to ANI? And why won't you answer questions directed to you above about clarifying vague accusations? Dicklyon (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nemov, am I to comprehend from your response, when you have said, I'm not interested in continuing wall of text discussions about the capitalization ..., that you have not read the response I made to you? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've skim-read it and didn't see anything of particular relevance to the behavioural issues beyond "it takes two sides to make a battleground" which doesn't help. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, my sense is that this is one of those situations where no individual edit is so bad that there is an easy-to-understand way of quickly describing (and proving) the problem. That makes the matter inappropriate for ANI. There is clearly a battleground situation here ("...to balance the WikiProject notification systems"). I don't have a horse in this race but, as an uninvolved editor, I think this goes to WP:ARB. It will be a very painful case to put together and, even with a few hours of work put into it, will quite possibly be rejected. But this issue is clearly long-running and needs folks with a longer attention span than ANI to deal with it. Note: I've not put in the time to figure out who is right. Merely noting that we all agree these types of disputes have been long-running and causing a significant degree of unhappiness. Hobit (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as another uninvolved editor, I'll add that this thread has suffered from the all-too-familiar problem of too many long-winded comments from the principals. Like you, I'm also not inclined to put in the time to dig through all those words. There's clearly a problem, and it seems unlikely to be resolved here.
LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

There doesn't appear to be anything to add to this discussion. The proposal below is closed and I don't think there's a proposal that can gain traction here. This can be closed. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonable for an editor to make a serious allegation of misconduct against editors with no attempt whatsoever to substantiate same? Is it reasonable to ignore actual evidence (provided by way of quotes) of clear battleground conduct or is it too inconvenient because actual evidence indicates misconduct by others and not the named respondent? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors (including those who support his position) expressed good faith issues with the Dicklyon. I don't really care about the content dispute. I just noticed a ton editors displeased with the behavior of the editor and saw the same type of overzealous activity. So I brought the behavioral issue here. You obviously don't see the problem, you've made your point, but I don't really understand what you're attempting to accomplish with your latest comment. Nemov (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raising issues of misconduct only falls outside of NPA if it is done at an appropriate venue and the allegations are substantiated with a reasonable case based upon evidence. At the start of this sub-thread, you asked: is there a way to dial back the battleground nature going on here? In response, I have provided quotes by editors that clearly exhibit battleground conduct. See also these.^[1]^[2] These edits (and more) do not contribute to a constructive discussion and a resolution of the content issue but create the battleground you seek to dial back.

Then we would have the serious allegations of misconduct leveled against editors without an attempt to substantiate. Specifically, there is the allegation of crosses the line into outright meat puppetry made herein. Where is the substance to this that would establish that there is meat puppetry rather than acceptable notification processes? Where is the substance to the allegations made at this ANI that would make this ANI other than a personal attack, a continuation of battleground conduct and an attempt to use ANI as a kangaroo court?

I do see the problem. It is unacceptable ownership conduct and a perception of certain groups that they are exempt from the social contract that binds them to abide by

WP:P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree with Cinderella. Tony (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Dicklyon and SMcCandlish each limited to one comment per capitalization discussion

Withdrawing. Clearly consensus is against this proposal. No need to let it hang open any longer. Ajpolino (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I see several editors above complaining of persistent battleground behavior from these two editors, and I can see above in both the number and nature of their comments an "us vs. them" mentality that frustrates the collaborative process. Perhaps we could try a relatively light sanction that Thryduulf proposed above: that Dicklyon and SMcCandlish are each limited to one comment per capitalization discussion. They're still welcome to participate in discussions of this topic that interests them, but in a way that prevents what other editors perceive as bludgeoning. Ajpolino (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may have over-posted in this particular ANI, because I see a lot of invective being hurled at Dicklyon without any supporting proof of anything. But there is no evidence of me bludgeoning "capitalization discussions". My usual input at RMs is a single post. However, some of these discussions become complex and require multiple rounds of sourcing and source analysis, which rather necessitates more than a single post. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is a really light sanction and if these editors are behaving normally as they suggest, then there shouldn't be an issue. This allows them to continue to work in these areas. However, the would help if they bludgeon future discussions. - Nemov (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for SMcCandlish; neutral (slight lean to support) for Dicklyon. - SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for McCandlish, support for Dicklyon; perhaps I'm not as nuanced as SchroCat (wholly likely in fact), but I don't see the former's behaviour as approaching the same degree of... shall we call it asperity? as the latter's. SN54129 19:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It's been a while, but I've had brushes with both editors over the matter and can't be considered unbiased, although my views on MOS:CAPS have changed since. SMcCandlish: I meant what I said earlier about your interventions raising rather than lowering the temperature. You give the impression of charging in to defend to Dicklyon, and your presentation is aggressive. The pattern hasn't gone unnoticed, and that's why this proposal is here, though it's unlikely to pass this time. You tend to be on the right side of the policy argument. That's not enough by itself. Please consider this. Mackensen (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I shall do so. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Anti-bludgeoning restrictions tend to be problematic; either they are too restrictive, as they are in this case (editors should have the opportunity to at least respond to responses made to them), or they are too open to abuse by both those who are subject to the restriction and those who are interacting with those who are subject to them. BilledMammal (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The OP has made broad allegations. Their only evidence is to a section where a snow close was requested and a link to
WP:CR. They have failed to make a case as to how these links show that DL is unreasonably bludgeoning the discussion. They have provided no evidence to substantiate the allegation of battleground conduct. They state: Others can speak more specifically. They are clearly not in a position to substantiate this allegation. Other editors may be in agreement but have not contributed to substantiating allegations with evidence. I don't see that DL's conduct at this ANI is exceptional nor that it extrapolates to catitalisation discussions. While SMcC acknowledges they "may have over-posted in this particular ANI", there is no actual evidence of misconduct in capitalisation discussions. There is however, evidece of battleground behaviour by way of quotes by those opposed to DL. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose: Neither editor has been uncivil and while I think maybe they could make fewer comments per discussion, I don't believe they're reached the level of bludgeoning. Their comments are typically rooted in policy and they provide relevant explanations and examples to back up their stances and Dicklyon does typically let things go after a discussion has concluded. I don't see this as being helpful. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Dicklyon, oppose for SMcCandlish ("raising ... the temperature" and giving "the impression of charging in", as Mackensen put it above, aren't sanctionable).
talk) 14:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose for both—Insufficient evidence of claims, which are selective of the truth over time and come from editors with particular biases. Not allowing these skilled and knowledgeable editors to refute false information at a thread is not in the interests of the project. Tony (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not exactly a neutral observer here, but Support for Dicklyon. Not voting on SMcCandlish as I’ve had no interaction with them and can’t fairly judge their actions as a result. The Kip (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been involved in disputes with Dicklyon in the past with regards to questions of capitalisation. The upshot of those discussions was, if I remember correctly, that Dicklyon was correct on the matter of which words should and should not be capitalised, and he was able to demonstrate that after discussion; the way he went about making mass changes without prior discussion got up people's noses however, leading to friction. In those situations, I think it would have been better if he had been more discursive, explaining the rationale and the evidence supporting the changes he wanted to make in advance of making them. A restriction like this would only serve to make it more difficult for him to explain himself, whether before or after the changes were made, which would be a move in the wrong direction in my view. I therefore oppose this proposal, and any sanction at all, for both of them - while urging Dicklyon to put a bit more effort into explaining and persuading in a collegiate manner. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposed sanction is ill-defined as it's not clear what a "comment" is. Does it mean one edit, one sentence, one paragraph, one bullet point, one !vote or what? Arbcom has a rule of this sort for everyone. To prevent endless threaded discussion, parties make separate submissions with a word count limit. Responses to opposing points are then made in sub-sections of these submissions. Is this what is wanted? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not seeing the evidence of bludgeoning that I'd need to see to feel that this restriction is necessary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for both, clearly). Persistence over particular principles should not be a punishable offence, and that is all I see here. These editors have been making valuable contributions and demonstrating diligence and insight. Their actions should be encouraged. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—I don't care enough about this issue to comment one way or the other beyond opposing such a topic ban for either Dicklyon or SMcCandlish. I agree with Girth Summit, who I feel phrases his sentiments tactfully and constructively. I don't think sanctions will help matters. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

WT:MOSCAPS
, which dealt with a related but quite different issue of capitalisation. While there is no link given, I doubt there was the clear consensus reported.

^ We've had this conversation before and you've had this same conversation with many other editors and yet you continue to persist because you refuse to accept the arguments of other editors that disagree with you. Perhaps you should find something else to do around here that would be less disruptive and provide more value to project than this. Stop wasting people's time with your nonsense. Deadman137 (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

BLP issues with User:HonorTheIsland

User:HonorTheIsland has had over the last few days many warnings about multiple issues, including the use of unreliable sources[41][42], general disruptiveness/vandalism[43][44][45][46][47], the claims that people won a football championship when they weren't even part of the team (either because they were out on loan for the whole season, or because they were part of the youth team instead of the senior team)[48], and other BLP violations[49].
Despite all this, they again moved
Draft:Tai Abed
, someone else's unsubmitted draft to mainspace.
Some help to get this user to change their approach, stop making BLP violations, stop using false claims in edit summaries, ... would be useful.
Fram (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I was looking at one of these page moves where the editor said to see a talk page discussion and, believe it or not, the article had no talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Liz for your misleading comments.

1. I was looking at one of these page moves again, and the draft:XXX, has a talk page. not the article:xxx.

2. Ilay Feingold is not different then any other soccer star playing currently in the U20 World Cup in Argentina. blocking israeli contributors and allowing argentinian contributors is just racism.

3. each wikipedia article, has a link to a wikidata. all those wikidatas have a legit TRANSFERMARKT section.

If
Leo Messi's wikidata has a legit transfermarkt link, than Tai Abed
can have a transfermarkt link as well.

please contact the wikipedia creator in order to remove the wikidata transfermarkt section from the wikidata template. if they will approve, then contact me again. until then, please stop BLP violate any of the soccer pages, and please do not remove the transfermarkt link from the article:
Leo Messi. cheers, User:HonorTheIsland

Comment: Liz's comments are not misleading at all and Fram's points are accurate.

Here is the move [50] and you wrote in the edit summary, "Perform requested move, see talk page". The article was redrafted after your improper move (BLP violation) and that there is no talk page or request to move can be clearly seen Draft talk:Tai Abed.

Here [51] you create an article which is moved then moved to draft (BLP problems) and here [52] you move it back [53] with the comment "Perform requested move, see talk page", this time there is only a blank talk page and no request.

Repeated again here [54], no talk page, and again [55] (no talk page) and again [56] (blank talk page).

// Timothy :: talk 06:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now.

just copy the current talk page of any other Israeli player to the ones that doesnt have it.

it should help you solve the problem. HonorTheIsland (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No clearly you don't see. The problem is you are using the comment "see talk" to seemingly justify problematic page moves, when there is nothing to see on the talk, usually because it doesn't exist. Creating the talk page doesn't solve anything, and is actively unhelpful when the corresponding articles don't exist. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And they continue to push the false claims of people winning the Israel Premier League to the main space[57], having apparently learned nothing from the above section or the countless previous page moves. Coupled with the 25 or so talk pages (and one mainspace page) they created the 28th, which all had to be deleted, this looks a serious
Fram (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I blocked the user for 31h. If administrative intervention is needed for deletion, I probably can do this, but I would need to do get a more precise instruction.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...and we're back to the "Perform requested move, see talk page" edit summaries, when no move has been requested, as pointed out above in this thread.[58] Can someone please stop them?
Fram (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Ah, I wrote this while Ymblanter blocked them and posted the above, so feel free to ignore the above "please stop them" plea of course. Thanks!
Fram (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I think this is an issue with the canned move summary. The "perform requested move; see talk page" summary at a glance probably looks like "perform move" to someone who is unfamiliar with the
requested move
process. I don't know if there's a good solution here, other than just warning people who use it when it's not necessary (which may be fine, it may not be a huge problem), but I doubt this is the only time we'll see issues with this particular move summary.
As for HonorTheIsland? Stop using this particular canned move summary for generic moves; its intended use is after a requested move discussion has taken place, which will be on the talk page. I would recommend never using it unless you're closing a requested move; you can maybe use it if there is discussion on the talk page, but even then, you're not necessarily "perform[ing a] requested move", but rather performing a move that had been discussed on the talk page. In that case, I'd write a quick custom move summary, something like "Discussed on talk page.". Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK guys,

lets try a different method. If you are so confident about yourselves.

create the following article: Anan Khalaily.

@
Fram and @Liz
will create the new article, make sure you use the footballer infobox.

@Skarmory, your role is to find all the places that have misspeled this player's name: Anan Khalaili (and replace the last "i" letter with a "y" letter, as in his official page: https://www.instagram.com/anankhalaily/

@Ymblanter - your role is to aid @Skarmory, and to find the users who wrote articles with the misspelled name, (probably other Israelis), and to make sure you find those BLP violations and block them for 24 hours from wikipedia.

@Sir Sputnik: you will improve the article: make sure you mention that Khalaily scored the most important goal of Isreal National team that qualified them to the quarterfinal of the World Cup.

also, @Sir Sputnik, it would be very cool to add data like: Khalaily's debut game, and the fact that he talked on a phone call with the Israeli president Herzog on 31.05.2023, (which is like receiving a medal of honour in some other countries).

Let's see how you 5 guys can make a new article, fix all misspells on current articles, and do it without any violations.

challenge starts on 02.06.2023, 00:00.

good luck (-: HonorTheIsland (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you are in a position to give us orders. Ymblanter (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This "challenge" by
WP:NOTHERE. Retinalsummer (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

This is really beginning to look like a
WP:CIR issue. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:14AE:B287:65C:D222 (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

User:GenoV84

Habsburg monarchy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
GenoV84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'll try to keep this short. In April, I made several changes to Habsburg monarchy and explained all of them using edit summaries. About a month later, User:Vichycombo abruptly reverted those changes and left an utterly unintelligible and inarticulate message on my talk, that didn’t explain what parts of my changes they opposed. I replied, they didn't respond, so I reverted, they didn't contest. About a day later, User:GenoV84 reverted my changes, calling them disruptive. They left a standard disruptive edits warning on my talk. I asked what aspects of my changes they didn't like, they said they were disruptive.
Despite a prolonged chat in which they replied three more times, GenoV84 did everything to not talk content and insisted that my changes were disruptive without offering a single explanation as to why that is. In my penultimate message, I asked them—again—as directly as it gets, what they didn’t like about my changes. They were—yet again—simply dismissed as disruptive. It was more than evident, at this point, that GenoV84 just loved
drop the stick
.
I responded with this and reverted. Three days later, when I thought we were finally done, they resumed their efforts, reverted and left a message on the article talk, labelling my changes as disruptive once again. At this point it was evident that this was gonna be a never-ending skirmish about something laughably evident. So I
WP:VALIDALT) and have some experience on how to deal with things like this. However, if GenoV84 had the same interaction with an actual newcomer, I'm fairly certain the newbie wouldn't have gone through the trouble and quit the project. GenoV84's actions are—ironically—the very definition of disruptive editing (and newbie biting). I believe conduct like this, warrants at least a sysop warning. User23242343 (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Due to the
WP guidelines ([63], [64], [65], [66], [67]
).

personal attacks towards me and other editors who have warned them before, first on their talk page and now here on ANI ([73]
), for the same reasons as I did: unexplained removal of relevant informations and sourced content.

Moreover, the issue regarding the content dispute
not here to collaborate and build an encyclopedia. GenoV84 (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

You mean the "persistent and unjustified removal of historically relevant informations" that an RfC just unanimously confirmed? Everyone can leave warnings. If I left you an unjustified final warning on your talk and you disregard that warning, does that give me the right to get you blocked? As I've said before: one warning is from you, one from the aforementioned editor Vichycombo, one from an editor that subsequently admitted they were wrong and the last one from a sysos, because my edit summary wasn't very elaborate and—admittedly—this one is on me. Anyways, before this becomes a never-ending ping-pong game, I invite editors to take a look at the relevant venues (it's not that much to read, believe me) and make an impression for themselves:

User talk:User23242343#Unexplained change of content

Talk:Habsburg monarchy#Habsburg Empire is an unofficial term coined by historians

Talk:Habsburg monarchy#RfC: was the Habsburg monarchy conterminous with the Holy Roman Empire

– User23242343 (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You keep talking about this content dispute as some kind of
battleground between you and me, but that's totally not the case and the RfC on the article's talk page
demonstrates that literally nobody was against me, they just expressed their comments about the question that you asked about the Habsburg monarchy in the same way as I did. Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear towards other editors. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against WP policies and goals.

You just admitted that you were warned 4 times on your talk page by different editors including myself, and yet you still don't seem to understand that they did so in order to help you, and warnings are not supposed to be taken so personally to open a useless ANI discussion as you did. Longstanding editors and newcomers are being warned for various reasons all the time, are they all supposed to come here on ANI and attack the editors that warned them because they feel offended as you because of a warning message? I have no reason to take your arguments seriously.

GenoV84 (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you claim the moral high ground and accuse me of making personal attacks when a quick look at your block log and talk page reveal that you have been sanctioned for just that on various occasions.

This isn't about revenge. I got a lot of unjustified warnings and never reported any of the warning editors to ANI. You did everything in your hand to stonewall your revision and dodged an actual conversation about article content countless times. This is the very definition of disruptive editing. Everything you said about WP policies and guidelines is true, so I recommend you actually stick to them. I reported you because this is no way to treat newcomers or any editors for that matter and is simple
WP:NOTHERE conduct. User23242343 (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
False,
bad faith, this grudge that you keep against me is a waste of time about a content dispute that you keep insisting upon while the discussion is already over, and you know it. Move on. GenoV84 (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Funny that you're accusing the other user of Wikilawyering, while literally filling your entire run-on sentence paragraph with links to policies & essays.

Your edits were found to be incorrect by an RfC. You lost. Time to back down. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
battleground between editors. In case you didn't notice or you didn't read the aforementioned RfC, the editors that commented on that RfC were themselves confused by the fact that nobody affirmed that the Habsburg monarchy and the Holy Roman Empire were conterminous ("It's not clear to me that there's any actual disagreement on this point, are there sources that claim that they were conterminous?"). In other words, the editor who requested the RfC was begging for a question that nobody asked in the first place
.

@
Drop the stick and move on. GenoV84 (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, I'm not going to be told to
WP:DROPIT
by someone with a chip on their shoulder, who seems determined to throw an alphabet soup of policy & essays at the wall.

You framed your earlier argument on the talk page to require User prove a negative to satisfy you: User23242343, please provide a further explanation for your edits and academic, reliable references which demonstrate that the Holy Roman Empire and the Habsburg monarchy are allegedly unrelated political entities.

That's not how it works here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
That's how Wikipedia works. GenoV84 (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
GenoV84 I asked you countless times what is it specifically you oppose about my edits? What specifically is disruptive about them? What specifically is it that you want to change about the article? I don't need to provide reliable sources for removing content that lacks just that. As you have mentioned, correctly, the RfC found it ludicrous that this is even a thing. So how on God's earth is it "disruptive" to change exactly that; especially, when I explained, in my edit summaries, that I was removing said part because the Habsburg monarchy was not conterminous with the Holy Roman Empire? User23242343 (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
in order to establish consensus with other editors, three times ([85], [86], [87]). I had to do it myself because you continued to revert my edits without a previous discussion on the article's talk page ([88]). That's all about it. And now that the RfC is closed and consensus has been established on the article's talk page (about a question that no one asked in the first place, but whatever....), what is the purpose of this thread which revolves around a content dispute that is already over and no one cares about? This entire discussion is pointless. GenoV84 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
You don't wanna answer the question, got it. User23242343 (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you won't drop the stick with regards to bludgeoning the discussion around policy/essay links.

And you completely ignored my point: there will not be sources that say something is unrelated to something else. That's why I linked "proving a negative," you're asking User to provide evidence something does not exist. You might as well be asking for sources to prove there's not an invisible unicorn in my backyard.

At this point, your continued insistence on arguing this topic is becoming disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
Drop the stick and move on. GenoV84 (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Quit telling me to move on. You do not get to dictate this. The aggressive party here is you. The issue of
WP:LEGITSOCK is for admins to deal with, you don't get to invalidate the entire report. Drop the stick yourself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Chill out and grow up. Bye. GenoV84 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Seems to me like you could do well to read over your last link and contrast its advice with your behavior here. JBL (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're resorting to insults, I'll leave it there. You're not going to last long at this rate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me whatever the legitimacy of this alternative account, this thread violates
WP:PROJSOCK. While you've disclosed this is an alternative account, you've not disclosed what your normal account is so it should be treated as an undisclosed alternative account as your history with the other account cannot be looked in to. And you're suggesting sanction against another editor, something which can't really be considered to "directly affect the account". Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I get very you're coming from and I'm well aware that alts are a sensitive thing. However, neither policiy nor guideline mandate editors to publically disclose their original accounts. This is a clean start account, that has never once been used abusively and any CheckUser is welcome to vet the veracity of that. User23242343 (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. I wasn't aware of
WP:PROJSOCK, sorry, but yes, I believe this very well directly affects the account. But if the community decides otherwise, I will withdraw this report. User23242343 (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: Commenting to prevent automatic bot archiving. User23242343 (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
you don't want to let it go despite the fact that this discussion is already over. GenoV84 (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

which evidently doesn't want to let it go; I just want to move on and consider these sanctions upon myself to be a viable solution for both of us. GenoV84 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Page blocks. GenoV84, a TBAN placed by the community is a rather slow and unwieldy thing: the thread has to be open for several days after the ban is proposed, there has to be a clear consensus for it, with plenty of people commenting (probably more people than are interested in the somewhat narrow subject of the dispute) — bla bla. Instead, much more conveniently, I will page-block you from those two articles and their talkpages. The way you argue in this very ANI discussion — for instance suggesting you needn't abide by the result of the RFC because "I didn't lose anything, because the RfC was a request for comments, not a battleground between editors" and other wikilawyering — shows me this sanction is appropriate. Bishonen | tålk 19:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Thank you for understanding that. I fully agree with you about the sanction that you suggested. GenoV84 (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock for HazemGM

Blocked user HazemGM (talk · contribs) is socking, they essentially admit so here, list of IPs used at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of HazemGM across two ranges - can we get range blocks please? Giant Snowman 17:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They have been editing within the last 20 minutes as 154.180.42.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Giant Snowman 07:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editing earlier today as 154.180.176.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Giant Snowman 18:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also editing today as 41.35.94.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Giant Snowman 18:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now at 154.180.194.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Giant Snowman 18:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editing in last 10 minutes as 154.180.99.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Giant Snowman 17:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should also consider a third IP range of HazemGM as well, this IP has began editing the day after GiantSnowman blocked the recently included IP. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we appear to have 1-2 different IPs a day, from two different ranges. Giant Snowman 17:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links: concerns over copyrights and genocide denial

Sabuhi from Baku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm concerned that the many external links recently added by Sabuhi from Baku to books available for download on https://www.avetruthbooks.com (e.g., [93][94][95]) may be in violation of
WP:COPYVIOEL. I asked them to self-revert but they seem to believe it's not a violation
.
I'm not really sure whether adding links to sites of this type are in violation of policy or not (Avetruthbooks.com seems to be similar to libgen, z-lib et al.; if these are a problem they should perhaps be added to the policy section), so I would like to ask other editors to weigh in and to revert if appropriate.
There's also a separate concern voiced by HistoryofIran that the owners of Avetruthbooks.com are Armenian genocide deniers [96][97], which was not well received [98][99]. It may be that Sabuhi from Baku only wants to provide links to full-text downloads (e.g. [100]), which would perhaps render this a secondary issue, though edits like this would tend to contradict that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Site administrators add tags that show what the post is about. The site itself does not impose its opinion in contrast to the user Historiofİran. Speaking about copyrights, you need to keep in mind tens of thousands of domains of similar placement, including archive.org, academy.edu and others. Why they can and this site can not. The owners of the site do not deny or promote anything. They host academic research (which is written in different languages and printed in different countries) in an electronic format. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Apaugasma beat me to it. I have great concerns about Sabuhi, who uses the cheap and classical “you must hate our people” card (
WP:NPA) because I’m against his addition of a genocide denying, pseudo-history loving, website. Not to mention his insistence/persistence on using this questionable website, going as far as adding it to countless websites and even edit warring. I’ll go into more details when I’m home. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I did not add anything pseudo-scientific: and added a link from where you can download or read the book that was listed here as a source. avetruthbooks - it's just a site that provides access to scientific literature, maps, old (printed) books and manuscripts. You fiercely hate Azerbaijanis. You simply can't provide normal arguments and decided to go through a play on words about the topic of the Armenian genocide. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sabuhi should be indeffedfor this comment alone. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Putting other issue aside it certainly looks like Avetruthbooks is similar to Z-Library and shouldn't be linked to as it's a copyright issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other problem simply does not exist (intentionally invented to remove the link). I agree about copyright. But what about equality before the rules? Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I explained the difference of archive.org and academia.edu on your talk page. Your answer there makes me wonder if you have the English skills necessary for editing enwiki. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can edit wikis in any language, I'm technically familiar with wikis. Registered here since 2009. I have been using archive.org and academia.edu for a very long time, I don’t need to explain what I know quite well. Is there a rule forbidding links to books or articles that have copyright, then they should be distributed to all sites. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I haven't tried to edit the Enwiki before (just didn't want to). And now I did not touch the text, I only added a link to the source that is indicated in the articles. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt you ability to edit a wiki, but that "English is not my native language" is very evident. I explained the difference on your talk page, your answer there is very confused and doesn't address what I said. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the books to which temporary access is provided: 1,242,425 results, and everything else is in full access, a huge part of these books have copyrights (which this site /archive.org/ does not have). At the academia.edu, there is a huge number of users (whether they are authors or not) who have uploaded thousands of works to which they are not related. And this is what I'm talking about. I understand what you wrote to me.Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you using Google translate to communicate? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I ask because the sentence Here are the books to which temporary access is provided: 1,242,425 results, and everything else is in full access, a huge part of these books have copyrights (which this site /archive.org/ does not have) doesn't actually make any sense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you trying to say that archive.org and academia.edu have issues with copyright, but that isn't their intended aim. Wikipedia has issue with copyrighted material, but unlike avutruthbooks it isn't it's basic function. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The number of posts (printed books, articles, maps, manuscripts, and so on) on the avetruthbooks.com website is more than 5 million; Absolutely majority (more than 95 percent) of the total e-books are not physically located on avetruthbooks.com but on archive.org + loc.gov + gallica.bnf.fr + davidrumsey.com, and so on. Not all material on the site is subject to copyright. The problem is that several users have become obsessed with precisely those materials (academic studies) that relate to the history / one way or another related to / Azerbaijan. In this sense, I am against his association with libgen, zlib (and similar sites).Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the works are actually hosted on another site, then that site should be linked to. If avetruthbooks is just a pass-through it doesn't need to be linked to at all, to do so does give the impression of trying to spam links to the site. However several of the works I checked are actually hosted on mega.nz a much less reputable site. Finally the fact that you against the association with libgen and zlib is of no importance, the site is obviously hosting or linking to copyrighted work and where it isn't the actual host should be linked. Either way links to avetruthbooks should be avoided. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am naive. I thought the rules were the same for everyone. I have nothing to do with the site. You can remove the links, I'm not going to wage an edit war (I don't have time for empty things). Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now removed the external links to avetruthbooks you added, per your comment and per a broad consensus here and elsewhere. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Norton also flagged up multiple intrusion attempts when I tried to access the site - so it looks like the site isn't safe.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pop ad. No viruses. Antiviruses block this type of ad: the site is completely safe. I don't use links without validation. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The site itself does not impose its opinion in contrast to the user Historiofİran. As ever:
📎 ”Clippy” appears. ‘It looks like you’re a new user trying to report HistoryofIran. Would you like me to help by closing your browser?’ — Trey Maturin™ 17:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you write this to me? I have been a registered wiki user since 2009. I didn't understand what you mean (English is not my native language). The user you are talking about wrote something to me on my page. And I explained to him.Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. No good will come of your personal attack on HistoryofIran and you should ~~strike~~ it. Your reply to their message on your talk page – which stopped -> . <- this short of outright genocide denial, will not do. — Trey Maturin™ 18:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is he who makes an attack on me, on the nation to whom I belong, whose personal opinion I have not demonstrated anywhere. Implants his opinion on another user (that is, on me). I do not care about him: he is not a problem for me, unless of course he himself stops. I don't know if it's correct to translate the translator: Это он делает нападение на меня, на этнос которому я принадлежу, моё личное мнение которого я нигде не демострировал. Насаждает свое мнение на другого пользователя (то есть на меня). Мне нету дела до него: он не проблема для меня, если конечно он сам перестанет. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an attack from HistoryOfIran there. You've suggested at least twice in this thread that he's attacking Azerbaijanis. There are a whole host of policy reasons why you shouldn't do that. Suggesting that a source, that is also Azerbaijani, denies the Armenian Genocide, does not amount to an attack on you, or the Azerbaijani people as a whole. Please either explain where the attack was, or strike your comments. I don't think you'll be asked again to do so. Mackensen (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired of long correspondence. I posted a link, but you did not check it. He wrote the following: rv, the fact that the owners are genocide deniers (hashtags such as "#ArmenianGenocideLie") and hosts genocide denial books? (I have already taken screenshots). And (only) uses #HistoryofAzerbaijan in their twitter when referring to the Safavids and even uses that hashtag along with others regarding the Adil-Shahis in India? Despite the fact that the Azerbaijanis didnt even form an ethnonym back then. It's also quite suspicious that you insist on adding their site to loads of articles. and this is my answer: Our name (endonym) is Türk. Not Azerbaijanis, not Azeris. We as a people were formed around the 13th century. We mostly is a mixture of various Turkic tribal: Oguzes, Kipchaks and Uighurs. The term Azeri was coined by the French scientist Charles Barbier de Meynard in 1885, and the term Azerbaijanis was forcibly introduced by Stalin in 1936. Both terms are exonym for us. No one has the right to deny our existence before 1936. + In addition, look at the correspondence on my personal page, despite the fact that I explained why admins use such tags, he thinks that he is a judge or prosecutor who can accuse others or judge, forgetting that this is a wiki, not a court or police. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So where's the attack from me? Seeing how this discussion has turned out, and Sabuhi making even more personal attacks towards me, it seems it's not necessary for me to go into details. I think Sabuhi should be topic-banned from Azerbaijan-related topics at minimum due to their egregious attacks and lack of
WP:OR ([101]). --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The only way you could have made a personal attack in that comment is either Sabuhi from Baku owns/works for avetruthbooks, is the one making the genocide denial tweets, or both. Given their edits I believe they likely have COI with avetruthbooks. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight: because HistoryofIran agrees with you that the term "Azerbaijanis" is relatively recent, and because he believes the owners of a website to be genocide deniers, he must "fiercely hate" the Azerbaijani people? You have two choices here: to apologize for your personal attack and withdraw it, or to give plenty of ammunition to HistoryofIran's assertion that you
lack the competence to edit Wikipedia constructively and collectively. Neither this website nor you are synonymous with Azerbaijan or its people. Ravenswing 12:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Do not try to act like a judge, this is Wikipedia, not a court. Until then, I had not engaged in vandalism and edits war, for many years I had not offended anyone, and I will not allow anyone to impose their opinion on me. He tried to humiliate me and my people. I did not start and did not offend anyone: therefore I am not going to apologize. And that is all. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, this is Wikipedia, and not a court. More specifically, it is a Wikipedia noticeboard where contributor's behaviour is discussed (in this case, yours), and if necessary sanctions may be applied. It is clear that you have not been subject to any personal attack. Nobody has humiliated you. Nobody has humiliated 'your people'. If that is all you have to say then it seems entirely reasonable to ask whether you should be permitted to continue to edit here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(shrugs) No one here can force you to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines governing acceptable and civil conduct, if doing so offends your pride. The remedies available to us -- as you are on track to finding out -- are limited to restricting your ability to use Wikipedia until such time as you do endeavor to follow those policies. Ravenswing 07:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just racked up 142 edits in removing the links to avetruthbooks added by Sabuhi from Baku. Given the fact that these were all of Sabuhi's 2023 mainspace edits (their last edit before that goes back to 2017), and given their sheer number, I understand that this must have been a little painful. This should probably be taken into account when evaluating Sabuhi's reluctance to comply with my request to self-revert and their generally defensive attitude. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated avetruthbooks.com for blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#avetruthbooks.com. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to tban Sabuhi from Baku

Due to there obvious
WP:IDHT issues I propose that Sabuhi from Baku be topic banned from Azerbaijan and Armenian topics broadly construed, and from adding links to avetruthbooks (This seems a minimum if they are not blocked for their persistent personal attacks against HOI). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Support – I'm a little disappointed that Sabuhi from Baku still does not appear to understand the problems that adding links to copyrights-violating websites can cause to Wikipedia, though perhaps they would have understood by now if their addition of such links had happened in a less sensitive subject area. Obviously, editing Azerbaijan and Armenian-related topics causes them a great deal of stress, and the way they immediately and repeatedly personalized a dispute with HistoryofIran about the subject ("You personally have a very strong intolerance towards Azerbaijanis" [102]; "Wikipedia is not the place to express your hatred towards other people or nations" [103]; "You can not express personal grievances and hatred on Wikipedia" [104]; "You fiercely hate Azerbaijanis" [105]) strongly suggests that a topic ban is in order.
I don't think that any kind of block should be in the cards, because there is no evidence of misconduct in other topic areas, and because some aspects in their handling of this stressful situation (e.g., their willingness to stop and discuss) suggest to me that they may very well be a constructive and collaborative editor in other topic areas. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - After reading through this discussion, I would have to agree with ActivelyDisinterested and Apaugasma. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Apaugasma. Sabuhi from Baku has shown that they either don't understand or don't care about copyvio policy. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far, the content problems relate to an odd promotion of the avetruthbooks website. While I can see the plain AA2 vibes here, I question whether a topic ban should be imposed given they haven't really edited in the area. CMD (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking exactly this after I wrote my !vote above. But the thing is that almost every time I've followed that rationale (this editor's conduct really looks problematic, but they haven't edited problematically so let's just wait and see) I have come to regret it later. Especially in
WP:AA2 alert if the tban is not enacted. That too would be a sensible outcome. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Support: per Apaugasma. If Sabuhi from Baku not only feels, as they indicated above, that the provisions of
WP:NPA do not apply to them, but that no judgment of their conduct can be tolerated, then it's plain that we should relieve them from the burden of editing in such a fraught topic area. Ravenswing 06:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Support Well, it goes without saying for me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three times Sabuhi has been asked in this thread to step back from accusations and unhelpful editing, and three times they have doubled down. A t-ban might get them back on track. — Trey Maturin™ 12:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn -
WP:IDHT
on edit warring and fringe topics

Randy Kryn has been insisting at
WP:FTN even after being told so by multiple editors, apparently refusing to acknowledge the concept of fringe, accuses others of edit warring while continuing to revert after multiple editors have reverted their edits 1 2, (apparently they didn't notice
I wasn't the only one who reverted their changes...)
I'm taking this to
failure to get the point
.
They've previously been at ANI, warned and blocked for edit warring before.
My previous interaction with this editor was them re-opening a closed merge proposal citing non-existent policy (or perhaps their own personal standards), then claiming they never read policies so this seems like a pattern of invention of non-existent rules or policies that fit their own personal standards while disregarding community concerns about their edits. - car chasm (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this might happen, because I had left a message at the fringe wikiproject notice board that I was signing off for the evening. So what occurs a few minutes later? This nonsense. The edit war being referred is entirely the editors, as I reverted and asked for a talk page discussion and then....whoo, right into an edit war. And the discussion being referred to is just beginning and has had few comments from other editors. There is way too much wrong in the above (i.e. just to start, my ANI excursion was closed quickly because...the person bringing it was mistaken, and my blocks with Dicklyon occurred in 2015 - maybe eight years of good behavior counts for something) but I don't have time for much more now. Please read the links provided above to see how they have been spun and misdefined. And if I keep typing I'd have less than good-faith things to say about this editor, so will now sign off for real for tonight. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@
☖ 05:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah, you must have missed the part in the previous edit where I cited the first sentence of
WP:FTN if they would like. Or perhaps you'd like to pop over to the page in question and look at it yourself? At any rate, as far as I can tell, I've done nothing wrong here, and so I have no concern about attracting further scrutiny. - car chasm (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
☖ 16:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Additionally, if it wasn't clear the issue I took with that previous edit was that they re-opened a closed discussion with the justification "Undid revision, closed too soon, not enough participation" which certainly seems like something you'd only do if there was an issue with policy. This is a pattern of tendentious and disruptive editing. - car chasm (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But, it is also less relevant, so I've struck it out from my report. - car chasm (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you striking that part at least. When it comes to
☖ 16:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Pinging @ජපස: and @Ad Orientem: as involved editors. - car chasm (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely something strange going on here. I am not sure it rises to a need for admin intervention quite yet, but
consciousness studies. That does not seem to be the case at all according to reliable sources that we have. However, I'm not sure there is much admins can do excepting that it is weird to have such an established editor making such a misinformed argument. jps (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Quite concerning that this has been brought to ANI. The edit war finished at the 3rd revert, and this wouldn't generally be the venue for that anyway. The rest of the complaint seems to consist of "user disagrees with me and I'm right". Well, I don't really care who is right here, but taking somebody to ANI for being politely wrong is a massive misuse of time, energy and policy. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Randy isn't really being "polite" here, but even so I think that if this ANI report is premature, it is perfectly fine to close this report. However, given that Randy is such a fixture at this place, it is somewhat understandable for a user to think that there is something off here when the rhetoric in the edit summaries and at the noticeboard is so absolutist. jps (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To explain further, the edit war in question (apparently
WP:BRD). As for bringing me to ANI over this, where are the coffee and donuts? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Yeah, I agree, "weird to have such an established editor making such a misinformed argument" is a good summary of why I brought this here. It's less over whether or not the topics are fringe (that's what FTN is for) and more about them engaging with the process in a way that's so
unconstructive. I mean, arguing on this very board that whether or not something is mainstream has nothing to with whether or not it's fringe? What's to be done about that? - car chasm (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The spin continues. If I was one of those editors who asks for a boomerang then I'd go full kangaroo on this fellow. But I'm not. They quote me above as "arguing on this very board that whether or not something is mainstream has nothing to with whether or not it's fringe?". Where did I say that? What I said is that Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert fit the description and wording: Category:American consciousness researchers and theorists. Twisting that around to mean something else seems political in nature. By the way, I've heard a rumor that this entire thing is being discussed off-site somewhere by at least one of the participants - but nobody involved has notified me. Not cool, and doesn't seem like Wikipedian fairness. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Mainstream or not has nothing to do with this." - this is a sentence from one of your posts above. And you appear to be casting
WP:ASPERSIONS now as well about some hypothetical off-site discussion? Either make a definitive accusation or don't. - car chasm (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
A sentence taken totally out of context. Again. Making me almost regret I'm not the kind of editor who asks for a boomarang (and if someone else does, I'll defend you against it, but you're stretching the limit of Wikipedian courtesy). I've heard rumors about the off-site discussion but haven't read it (seems you have to be logged-in as a member). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leary spread the concept of the important role of "set and setting", and that is still current, e.g.:
Set, Setting, and Psychedelics in 20th Century Psychology

Set and Setting: Why Preparation Matters

Set and Setting: A Randomized Study of Different Musical Genres in Supporting Psychedelic Therapy (at NIH.gov!)

Constructing drug effects: A history of set and setting

... etc. – .Raven ^.talk 22:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And please have a look at the tags fringe project editors have added to the page about one of Timothy Leary's main works Eight-circuit model of consciousness since yesterday (notice that the title includes 'model', not theory - it is an encyclopedic article summarized a model about which several books have been written). The fringe wikiproject page is all aglow about how this article should be gone, and about the deletions they have done in categories since yesterday. One of them asked their members to watch for many AfD's. I hope administrators pay attention to the actions of those editors about these subjects. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This, and related issues are currently being addressed at the
Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which is the proper venue for handling these questions. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, so let's move it "in house" so the discussion is tucked away in the place which includes the home turf of the editors who brought this to ANI in the first place. Make accusations about what questions in particular, I really don't know what is being discussed or asked for here, and then only discuss things with the project where accusations are coming from. Sounds like a plan. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the idea that FTN could be a neutral venue for discussing this kind of topic is itself a bit of a Fringe Theory to my mind. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asserting FTN is not neutral in this area, you've got an uphill climb to make. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a clearly a sceptic magnet! Secretlondon (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there are quite a few users at FTN who seem to want to right the great wrong of people believing in woo. The practical effects of that are that posts there are the equivalent of a bat-sign. I was not the only user to point this out at the recent AfD on the Alderney UFO case. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a requirement to be provide verifiable facts, and not (intentionally or accidentally) push nonsense to our readers. Promoting woo is not factual, it's lying to people. So yes, FTN tends to be very critical when someone finds a thing saying "this woo is real."

On the flip side, you can definitely find discussions where someone asked "is this woo?" and the consensus was "no, just a notable minority view."

You act like people are on some grand crusade to eliminate wrongthink. That's not the case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My perception of this behaviour differs from yours. The Scooby gang all descended on the Alderney UFO article, which really did not say "the woo is real", and wanted it deleted, and this is happening again in this article. My impression is of users who want to restrict access to information as they fear it will lead the gullible astray. This often coincides quite well with
WP:FRINGE, but other times less so. Also, it would be good to know that the rumours of off-wiki organisation voiced in this thread are completely false. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Only fair to mention that there was actually a historical "grand crusade to eliminate wrongthink" waged by a paramilitary organization (Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia) against Wikipedia and that it was shut down by the community. To the best of my knowledge however no such disruption is ongoing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Boynamedsue's '
FTN is spot on. However, it's very important to point out that none of the individual editors at FTN are responsible for this. Wikipedia is inherently vulnerable to promotion of fringe ideas, and it's only natural that those most interested to fight this should often share a similar POV (scientific skepticism, which by the way is a very specific POV that in no way represents the general perspective of scientists and other scholars). Yes, this does put some pressure on NPOV, but 1) there is no easy solution to that problem, and 2) it pales in comparison to the problems that we would have without FTN and the editors who are active there. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Randy is now edit warring at
WP:V. No matter how prolific an editor he may be, he seems to be showing a complete lack of regard for any of our content policies whatsoever. - car chasm (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Carchasm, a single revert is not edit warring. Randy also immediately went to the talk page to discuss the revert, which Steve Quinn moved to its own section, which can be found here. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to correct the perception by Hey man im josh.

First I edited, then copy edited that edit, at the article Eight-circuit model of consciousness [106], [107]. Notice in the edit history one of the things I wrote was "Please discuss on talk before reverting per WP:BRD."

So rather than discuss the edit, Randy Kryn reverted my edit [108]. Notice in the edit history they are saying "reverted, please respect BRD and discuss on the talk page" as if they are taking the initiative on BRD or something like that. At the least it confuses the situation or seems to muddy the waters.

Then they come to the talk page [109]. Here they make an assertion that "Have reverted your overall full-scale deletion." This is inaccurate, an exaggeration, and not collegial.

Then I create a new section and reply [110]. The reply is at the bottom of the diff where I say, please revert your edit and so on.

Kyrn then replies, [111] saying in part what I did "was an entire wholesale deletion which gutted the article." This is inaccurate and an exaggeration again. This is not conducive to collaboration. In the same response he seems to say that my article edit "...presents the entirety of the page." Again if he is referring to my edit in the article then this is inaccurate and exaggeration.

My last response [112] recounted the three inaccurate statements he just posted. And I referred to them as exaggerations.

He replied to that [113] and then I didn't see any point in continuing the conversation at that time.

Also, in a separate Deletion discussion they appear to be engaged in bludgeoning Here. They also seem to go off the rails regarding my ivote [114] calling it wp:revenge and saying we had a "major disagreement" (at Eight-circuits). I didn't see it as a major disagreement nor do I see that discussion as productive. ---Steve Quinn (talk) Steve Quinn (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's still not edit-warring though, is it? Just seems a pretty run of the mill content disagreement. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was edit warring. Please read what I said. And it is not a run of the mill content disagreement. They do not like to cooperate and seem unable to accept other's contributions as valid. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear what perception of mine you are trying to correct. I was pointing out that a single revert is not considered edit warring. Your edit summary, which essentially stated "do not revert without discussion", does not automatically protect your edit from being reverted. They reverted to the
WP:BRD. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I never said it was edit warring. Please read what I said. And you're overlooking how they were exaggerating during the discussion, making that discussion untenable - that's a behavioral problem. And also, bludgeoning in another discussion. A behavioral problem. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Car Chasm did not adequately demonstrate part of the impetus for filing:
Here CC removes a parent category from another category [115]

Here Kryn reverts [116]

Here CC removes the category again [117]

Kyrn reverts [118] calling this edit warring.

Here the category is removed again by another editor [119]

Kyrn reverts that edit [120].

And the faldaral stops with the other editor [121].

I'm not taking sides on this other than to show how persistent Kyrn can be. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think this ANI isn't really going to go anywhere. I think it is probably premature and I support closing this thread. For my part, maybe I can think of ways I can communicate better. And my original edit at Eight-circuits may not have been the best decision and it caused upset. I take responsibility for that. I should have opened a dialogue first. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts. So, I very nearly took a leap with a NAC a couple of hours ago, because I really think there is very little more to be accomplished here at the moment aside from maybe a few more reminders about process. But I decided I wanted to look into the interactions at the affected articles a little more closely (having already checked up on most the above diffs and the FTN discussion as this thread progressed over the last couple of days. And I think maybe just some comments will suffice, especially in light of Steve's comments immediately above.
I'll start by being honest that I think this filing was a bit premature, as others have pushed about above. Car chasm, I'm not saying I don't think your concerns are all invalid, but honestly, you didn't appropriately avail yourself of community processes for establishing a firm consensus in favour of your preferred outcome, nor did you wait for the FTN discussion to conclude before coming here. And I again agree with others above that many of your reasons presented for doing so are a little exaggerated or seem to not imply as much AGF as perhaps you could. You're only maybe sufficient reason for bringing this to ANX is the initial claim of edit warring, but it's an edge case at best, and
WP:ONUS
/burden of proof is also on Randy to justify retention. Again, simple way forward here: RfC.
Which actually gives me a segueway to what I wanted to say next. I have some direct experience of Randy myself, mainly as a random respondent to a couple of RfCs on content disputes he was party too. I know he can me a little fullsteam-ahead and hard to move off his positions at times: as I recall, I had to join with sentiments from other respondents on at least a couple of occasions to get him to slow his roll just a little. On the other hand, the other things I remember about him are that he is a very skilled editor, generally makes a solid effort to justify his position within policy constraints, and respects consensus if he exhausts his opportunities to change it. I agree there might be a patina of OWN here, but I do believe that not only will Randy drop the stick if you put together a strong enough consensus, but that actually there's almost certainly a wide area of middle ground here that is not being explored as yet, and that this got a little more antagonistic than it needed to be kind of fast. There's clearly discussion to be had here (and again, I think Steve is pointing the way on how to accomplish that). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, some observations about the finer details of the underlying disputes. I'm going to keep these comments short because they get into content rather than behavioural areas (not the purview of ANI), but they do intermingle with the nature of the dispute--and as someone who sits at the intersection of having some background in cognitive science and having a lot of experience editing scientific/MEDRS articles in general on en.wikipedia, I think I might have some brief input that could be of some small value. First, regarding the question of whether Leary constitutes a "consciousness researcher". That is a very nuanced question for our purposes here, coming down (as it must) to an analysis of WEIGHT. On the one hand, absolutely the man has been described as such in RS. But honestly, even going back in time to the heyday of his notable activities (and notoriety), probably this label was used more so in mainstream accounts than in serious academic works: he is not really a serious researcher in the areas of cognitive biopsychology that relate to the exploration of consciousness or subjects like the study of qualia, evolutionary psychology, or computational models of the mind, all of which are topics that the pseudoscience contained in these articles touches upon. Nor is he even a particularly influential name in the serious exercise of the philosophy adjacent to this science.

Car chasm is certainly correct that there is a real concern here that association with terminology that today has a particular attachment to specific fields of inquiry in hard cognitive science runs a serious risk of bootstrapping this content to a status where it may be perceived by the semi-informed reader as something mainstream. When the reality is, most of it lands somewhere between "highly dubious" and "hallucinogen-inspired nonsense". On the other hand, the man is, in a sense, a major influence on the non-clinical discussion of these topics in the mainstream. How do we balance these factors? Well, again, pretty clearly and RfC issue. Or issues, rather, as I think this is, unfortunately, going to take a few sequential discussions to dial in all the language in dispute. Meanwhile, I personally think the content removed from/currently re-added to the Eight-circuit article actually serves to demonstrate how wacky these ideas are, and I think that probably comes across for a lot of readers who aren't already predisposed to psuedoscientific concepts of the mind. But I'm aware I'm not exactly a typical reader when it comes to these articles, and the influence this content could have on a subset of readers just barely into an exploration of neurophysiology and mainstream research models of perception might be greater than I appreciate. But again, consensus for those issues can be established in the relevant articles through normal process (and liberal notices at some relevant WikiProjects, if I may suggest).

Well, just as well I didn't NAC this: not even a fourth of that would have fit into a reasonably-sized results box! But my perspective in a nutshell: it looks like the parties here all have fairly reasonable perspective and a generally productive editorial style. They just missed the first boat on hammering this out constructively. Luckily there's as many of those ferries in the day as one is willing to give themselves. RfC, peeps! Or did I mention that already? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't looked at this discussion in a day, and it's like Jack and the Beanstalk, growing and growing. Thanks for the many comments. Now someone else has reverted my edit at the 8-circuit page and the article is back to being all but gutted of full-descriptor comment, so I've asked on the talk page for a fuller reason. The long-term language should be returned and then worked on from there, removing it to the extent its been removed is
WP:OWN territory (we all own the page apparently). As for the fringe theory project (and please take note that Leary's model exists as a model, and not a theory - big difference, so I don't know why the fringe project is so involved and afluffle about this), there is no woo in Leary's work being discussed. In the 1950s he was acknowledged as a pioneer in standard personality testing, and then he further explore personality and consciousness in his 8-circuit model. And in reply to the concern that I've accused an editor of revenge voting, yes, I did, and no explanation has been given for the coinkidink of the vote. Anyway, this gets long, so again, thanks everyone, pro and con, for expanding this into an interesting and probably useful discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you really arguing that, because the 8-circuit page says it's a "model", it doesn't fit the defining first sentence of FRINGE which says the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Does that mean you believe sasquatch, Ayurveda, indigo children, etc. are not under the purview of FRINGE because they aren't explicitly called "theories"? What do you think models are based on? JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 8-circuit model page is a garbage walled garden consisting entirely of an in-wooniverse description of the model sourced exclusively to its practitioners and bizarre 90s-HTML-coded new-age blogs like "Earth Portals". It should be TNT'd. JoelleJay (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding there is no woo in Leary's work being discussed.

The first four circuits concern themselves with life on
enlightenment, mystical experiences, psychedelic states of mind, and psychic abilities.^{[citation needed]} The proposal suggests that these altered states of consciousness are recently realized, but not widely utilized. Leary described the first four as "larval circuits", necessary for surviving and functioning in a terrestrial human society, and proposed that the post terrestrial circuits will be useful for future humans who, through a predetermined script, continue to act on their urge to migrate to outer space and live extra-terrestrially.
JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]
Thank you for not trying a NAC - I believe you've misunderstood the nature of this issue if you think this is about the content dispute, as explained in both my original report and below.
WP:IDHT is in the header, not sure how you missed that. - car chasm (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Request - Can someone uninvolved please collapse everything from this comment up to Snowrise's? This didn't go anywhere and I'm not sure why they wrote so much but I don't feel they've added anything new to the discussion. - car chasm (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why is this at
WP:ANI can sanction User:Randy Kryn, but that hasn't been proposed, and I don't think it is in order anyway. So why are we on this noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Answered above, and nothing so far from Randy on this topic has given me the impression he's willing to
WP:IDHT, and RfC or other process cannot resolve it, it is an issue of editor behavior and not about the content dispute. - car chasm (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
A bit unrelated, but this user is persistent and repeating their own views (by not following the policy or guidelines) despite what has been written about the discussion topic on another page, just like what you wrote above. ภץאคгöร 07:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now a further pile-on? The dispute at Some Like It Hot is that Nyxaros came by, removed two long-term images, won't allow me to put those back, and, even odder, won't allow the addition of the fair-use Some Like It Hot trailer - and I'm the bad guy? I've asked for help on this at WikiProject Film. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write you are the "bad guy". You recently added these "long-term" files and denied a valid refinement. Instead, you presented your own thoughts and how you think things should be. Although I showed the information page and the guideline, and offered improvement ideas for your additions, I have observed that you have been following a repetitive attitude similar to what other editors have mentioned here. I encourage you to provide reliable info (from a guideline or policy) that supports your views, and to re-read and re-examine the summaries and messages I (and others) have written on talk pages, rather than repeating your views. ภץאคгöร 18:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "... denied a valid refinement." – Does this translate to: "reverted a non-policy-based deletion of content"? – .Raven ^.talk 06:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear from this comment alone that you are not following the discussion(s) well and not doing much to contribute to this one's conclusion, so why bother with a snarky remark? No one has time for that. ภץאคгöร 11:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This section and the other page(s) cited above show why the user ignores the comments of other users and adopts a "my way or the highway" attitude, adding what he wants to pages when he could fix the problems. Partially reverted again, his reason is "no reason on Earth or Wikipedia not to include" and completely ignoring all the messages and discussions. In conclusion, these are just what I and other editor(s) here have observed. I hope the user will try to be more constructive and find common ground with others (for example, by reviewing the messages they received as I mentioned above). ภץאคгöร 11:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not going to happen. We don't hat comments just because you happen to disagree with the assessment contained therein. Nothing I said was not already told to you by at least two people before I commented (with the overall assessment that bringing it here was premature also being reiterated by Robert immediately above: the fourth editor to tell you that). Is Randy clearly wrong about some of the underlying content issues? Yes, I think so. Kind of profoundly, honestly. In fact, I've joined one of the discussions now to tell him as much and add a little bit of extra emphasis to try to get him to moderate his approach. But has he violated policies in such a way that he's going to get sanctioned just for sticking to his guns? No, not as yet. He's verging on tendentiousness, but he hasn't crossed that line. You can't just invoke "
WP:IDHT
" like a talisman at ANI and expect the community to rush in: editors are allowed to be IDHT with regard to content (i.e. have a different view of content issues and not concede to yours). Only where the IDHT relates to behavioural issues does it become a matter for ANI.

At the point that it was just you, Randy, and another editor (and Randy had BRD on his side, because the version he was arguing for was the longstanding, stable version of the article), your argument for "edit warring" was extremely weak (and involved you violating the policy at least as much as him, if not more). As of now, that has changed, because there are now five of us on the Eight Circuit article talk page telling him his views on the sourcing are not consistent with policy. So now, if he tries to add the content back in (without first forming a new consensus to support that approach), it definitely will be edit warring and tendentious on his part, and I'm sure more of us will be supportive of taking action. But based on what has transpired so far, I'm not sure what you think we would (or even can) do? Especially considering you played the edit war game with him at length to enforce your preferred version, rather than just taking the matter straight to AN3, our hands are a little tied. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. As for removing the long-term use descriptors from the page on Timothy Leary's model of personality development, Leary was a pioneer of 1950s personality tests and studies while at Harvard who then came up with the 8-circuit model for personality development and solidification on which full books have been written. Because Leary's fifty-year-old yet still-read and functional model is not being discussed in present-day professional literature doesn't seem to explain why fringe editors are trying to saddle his legacy with flat-Earth no-Moon-landing bigfeets to justify gutting the long-term use page descriptors. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FRINGE explicitly requires minority and fringe ideas to be contextualized with the mainstream stance on those ideas. You said it yourself: ...Leary's [...] model is not being discussed in present-day professional literature. Because Leary's model has only (according to the sourcing in the article) been reviewed significantly by other fringe proponents who subscribe to his beliefs (not to mention co-published with him), it currently fails independence and fails NFRINGE. That warrants at least a major gutting of the article, and if no mainstream academic sources discussing it can be found it should be deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, as noted above, the concept that "set and setting" matter (which Leary popularized) is still current. – .Raven ^.talk 22:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok? Is that an integral part of his 8-circuit model? JoelleJay (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No; that was in relation to the issue of Leary's ideas "being discussed in present-day professional literature", the criterion you just cited for not being FRINGE. And that in turn suffices to qualify him for the category "consciousness researcher"... though, BTW, where is it written that this category excludes FRINGE? – .Raven ^.talk 05:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
? Read the paragraphs above. We are discussing the eight-circuit model (...Leary's [...] model is not being discussed in present-day professional literature), not random other ideas from Leary. JoelleJay (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Insisting that Leary himself does not fit Category:American consciousness researchers and theorists is sheerly about the eight-circuit model? Then, my goodness, Einstein's putting down quantum physics (because "He does not play dice") should be enough to remove him from those "physicist" categories, right? We can disregard all the useful contributions if we can find one not useful, yeah? – .Raven ^.talk 21:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lol, Here's what the 8-circuit page looked like couple of days ago. Here's what it looks like now. Admins, can I revert yet? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is really just stealth deletion, isn't it? Quite concerning. Boynamedsue (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're basically oscillating between two different extremes as this point. Randy seems to lionize Leary and wants an exhaustive discussion of the topic, framing it as if it were a mainstream model built on academic work (it isn't). There is a clear consensus on the talk page that the article as written is far too based upon a couple of
WP:PRIMARY works produced by Leary and an associate, and that the content overall lacks perspective and appropriate contextualization. Some have called for TNT of the article, but I see no concrete consensus on the talk page for an extensive blanking, or indeed for any specific courses of action: merely an agreement that the sourcing is inadequate for the volume of the coverage and that there are issues with tone. Advocates on both sides should be showing a little more restraint, imo. My sense of the situation with the sourcing and the impact of relevant policies is that the content will ultimately be radically reduced. But I do believe the subject is ultimately notable, so I'm not sure what a temporary TNT really accomplishes. Far, far superior to have a more neutral article which accurately situates and contextualizes the subject as being the product of new-age psuedo-mysticism filtered through the a quasi-scientific looking framework. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
> "... the article as written is far too based upon a couple of WP:PRIMARY works..." – Are we discussing ~~Psychotherapy~~ [later correction: Psychoanalysis was intended, see below], which heavily cites WP:PRIMARY works by Sigmund Freud and associates? Should we blank that article as FRINGE? After all, as Joelle Jay quoted, "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." – and the only voices in support are thereby, ipso facto, "adherents". – .Raven ^.talk 06:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Psychotherapy is not a FRINGE topic as a whole, any aspects in the article that are both FRINGE and DUE are contextualized with the mainstream stance, and a scan of the first 50 sources doesn't show a single source by Freud or his associates and very few primary sources. Please familiarize yourself with
WP:PRIMARY. JoelleJay (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Please forgive my misnaming Psychoanalysis, which cites Freud as footnotes 3, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, and 50; leaving entirely aside his "associates" and/or "adherents". – .Raven ^.talk 08:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to read over that 135kb+ article, but if it indeed fails to describe Freudian psychoanalysis as a historical and largely deprecated system for therapy and cites only primary literature from proponents rather than critical analysis from mainstream academia, then yes those portions should be removed. JoelleJay (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After three medium-longish lede paragraphs, there's one 3-line paragraph saying in part: "Psychoanalysis is a controversial discipline, and its effectiveness as a treatment has been contested, although it retains influence within psychiatry." I'll await your having time to read it and comment. In the meantime, is Freud widely considered "FRINGE"? – .Raven ^.talk 16:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I won't pretend to understand the underlying content issues, but I can read diffs perfectly well and it seems quite clear that the OP's original case was incredibly weak, with a couple of clear misinterpretations being debunked by MJL very early in this thread. IMO, it's a bit concerning that the OP never acknowledged the problems with their evidence.
LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

More stuff

Kryn has a recent history of engaging in tendentious editing. This shows that last December's ANI (as posted by the OP above and here) had no effect on his behavior. The reason for posting this is I think sanctions are needed to interrupt this kind of editing. .

Most recently they removed the notability tag from "Eight Circuits" [122] which contravenes a strong consensus on the talk page here and here The consensus is that this topic is not covered by independent sources. I requested that he restore the tag [123] but this has been ignored. Also, on the talk page, it is clear he is trying to resist consensus[124]. Also after clear consensus is demonstrated on the talk page, even at this ANI he is asking the Admins if he can revert the page back to his preferred version [125] (in so many words).

Also recently he has been editing tendenitously at "Some Like It Hot." This dispute has been mentioned in this ANI [126], [127].

-Here User:Nyxaros edits out trivial images [128] with the rationale: "Both images do not contribute anything to the article. Just because they are related to the film doesn't mean they should be used (randomly, between paragraphs)

-Kryn reverts misrepsenting Nyxaros rationale in the edit history [129].

-Nyxaros reverts [130] pointing out that trivial images contravene
WP:IMGDD
, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative."

-Kryn reverts [131] trying to change the nexus of the issue without being grounded in
WP:PAG
.

-Here Kryn restores [132] image and trailer.

-Here [133] Nyxaros removes the trailer and writes "You forgot the talk page discussion AND added unsourced "Faro Island Film Festival" awards (+not notable)? Do not own."

-Here Kryn reverts again [134].

There is no reason for Kryn to keep editing this stuff back in without discussion, when it has been pointed out this is a policy or guideline issue. Obviously, Nyxaros is trying to keep this page in agreement with
WP:PAG. And for insight into this - see the talk page discussion Talk page discussion
. Also, Kryn does avoid the bright line of 3RR but edits the article to their their preferred version over the period of days.

As recently as May 18 he has engaged in tendentious editing at Witchcraft.

Here he takes it right up to the line with three reversions:

- First [135],

- Second [136], (Here he cites BLP, but not based on the actual guideline, rather based on knowing "many witches, all fine people [and]....and makes Wikipedia, in its voice, demean hundreds of thousands of individuals and readers who identify as witches.")

-Third [137]

Also, as noted on the talk page, apparently he was editing against consensus [138], [139]. :Also, it appears a group of editors keeps this article in agreement with policies and guidelines, according to those diffs. Here [140] he is admonished to "Read sources and seek consensus on talk. This is about the worldwide definition, not modern redefinitions as found in new religious movements like Wicca."

Regarding
WP:DISRUPTSIGNS
. This pertains to kryn's editing behavior on this article.

Here an editor adds a tag noting that only one source is used in the entire article ~~[title=Cliffs_at_]~~ [142] which contains sixteen images.

Here Kryn removes that tag [143]

here the same editor removes images from the page due to lack of reliable sourcing. [144]

Here Kryn restores the images in protest [145]

Here the editor removes the images again [146] and explains: I am saying it is wholly uncited, this is wholly
WP:BURDEN
, re-adding without providing a valid reference is disruptive editing.

And there it stops. However, this again shows behavior that is not collaborative.

I can't see going back further than this. There is also what has been posted above [147]. In any case, the reason for posting this is to show that Kryn unpredictably engages in disruptive editing. It seems from the above, there is no set pattern other than it happens. Hence, I am proposing a sanction of 1RR for a period of one month to dissuade engaging in this behavior over time. Additionally, they can continue focusing on regular editing that doesn't involve conflict. I am sorry to say that random editors should not have to endure this type of behavior.---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion (Randy Kryn - WP:IDHT on edit warring and fringe topics)

> "Witchcraft... " – where Kryn reverted the addition of "usually to cause harm" from "Short description|Practice of magic". For some reason I recall what Janet Farrar wrote in an open letter after she and Stewart Farrar had been resettled in rural Ireland for a while: don't worry about persecution, you'll be welcome as a healer and herbalist since doctors are distant and dear [expensive]... but you'd better know where the hemorrhoid-wort grows!
> "Cliffs at Étretat (Moscow)... Here an editor adds a tag noting that only one source is used in the entire article.... Here Kryn removes that tag...." – You omit what Kryn [correctly spelled] notes there: "removed onesource tag (visual arts pages reach notability on one museum source, and this is already covered by the refimprove tag)"; IOW, the tag saying "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." remains. He removed what amounts to either duplication of message, or misplaced message if it referred to notability. – .Raven ^.talk 05:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for your input. I think the other editor was emphasizing that there was only one source for the whole page - which consisted of a number of images not applicable to that one source at that time. So, I think it is important to note that the page was lacking sources at that time. Basically, it was Kryn's interpretation of the tags that "onesource" wasn't needed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the pre-existing refimprove tag already addressed that need, yes. – .Raven ^.talk 05:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Raven:: I don't think the existing reimprove tag already addressed that need. I think in this instance it was important to emphasize that only single source existed. And I think the reimprove tag doesn't clarify that there is only a single source. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pre-existing refimprove tag literally said, verbatim: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." If this doesn't address your "I think it is important to note that the page was lacking sources at that time", no number of tags could have done so. What the refimprove tag has over the onesource tag is that adding one more source, so now there are just two, won't make it obsolete and irrelevant. – .Raven ^.talk 22:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nuanced case and I'm inclined to agree it is weak tea to imply behavioural misconduct on. But purely for the sake of discussion, it is worth noting that whatever low bar the SNG may employ, said SNG only offers presumed notability/temporary obviation of the requirement to show significant coverage in reliable sources: every article must still establish compliance with
WP:GNG ultimately. And one short paragraph worth of discussion on the informal website catalogue for a museum is clearly not getting that job done, so just about any tag reflecting the shortfall of sourcing there would be appropriate, imo. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, then, isn't it nice that there already was such a tag, which wasn't removed? – .Raven ^.talk 05:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not miss the forest for the trees here: I think Steve's point in raising attention regarding this tag-removal behaviour is that (no matter how you parse the necessity for / possible redundancy of the tag) the removal feels a little reactionary, and possibly part of a pattern of defensiveness of certain content on Randy's part. Now, the reason I don't view that argument as particularly compelling is that we see evidence on that very same article of Randy giving way and ending the revert cycle once particular policy language is invoked. So taken together, the activity there is not great evidence of a behavioural issue that the community needs to restrain. That said, tedious and repeated nitpicking over the applicability of tags can be a sign of a deeper issue. I just don't think the case has been made here that the overall package of behaviours is problematic to the point of needing a sanction. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with much of your paragraph; I also agree with Randy on the redundancy of the 2nd tag. – .Raven ^.talk 22:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> "Eight Circuits...." – I especially enjoyed Joelle Jay's remark: "'The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.' I think Wilson, Alli, et al fall squarely in the realm of 'adherents'." The same argument could be made against the Theory of Relativity, or Evolution, or Plate Tectonics, etc.: everyone who supports them is an "adherent" and therefore not verifiable or reliable. What a boon to FRINGE!
> "Some Like It Hot..." - Pics were deleted without policy reason (
WP:TRIVIAL addresses other issues, not how many relevant pics belong in an article); Kryn restored them. This is the [WP] Way. – .Raven ^.talk 05:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I never cited
WP:TRIVIAL. Neither did the editor in that diff. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
You wrote, "Here User:Nyxaros edits out trivial images [209]" [underline added]; since
WP:TRIVIAL doesn't apply, on what policy basis were the pics of that film deleted from the article about that film? – .Raven ^.talk 06:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Raven's question answered here and here. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That section is closed, so I can't reply there. JoelleJay says: "Nyxaros reverts pointing out that trivial images contravene WP:IMGDD".

At the link cited (your "209" above), Nyxaros's edit comment was "Both images do not contribute anything to the article. Just because they are related to the film doesn't mean they should be used (randomly, between paragraphs)."

1) I don't see IMGDD mentioned in that.

2)
WP:IMGDD
says things like "Place images in the section to which they are related" and "Don't add images that are not relevant."

3) I don't see how that mandates the removal of images that ARE "related to the film" as Nyxaros admits, thus ARE relevant to an article about it. – .Raven ^.talk 17:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMGD is mentioned here by Nyxaros. And that would be diff 203 in my original post about this (not 201). I think it would be best to ask @Nyxaros: about this (I just pinged them). However, I will take a stab at this. I think "related" means peripherally, incidentally, or tangentially related. This does not mean they are necessarily relevant pertaining to the topic. To me, there does seem to be a distinction.

Also, WP:IMGDD discourages overuse of images in the article saying: "Don't use images or galleries excessively." Also, WP:GALLERY says "Wikipedia is
WP:PAG---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
So, not the original diff we'd been discussing. It sure would have helped to state or link that earlier, when the claim about the edit-comment was made. (This is on JoelleJay, not you.)
Over and over, Randy has tried to take issues to talkpages rather than to competing edits; is it just barely possible that if you folks had tried meeting him on that level and discussed what changes you wanted and why (in specific words, not just page-links which lead to multiple different statements of which most aren't relevant), you might have persuaded him rather than having such a conflict?
Successful attorney Gerry Spence wrote a book, How to Argue and Win Every Time, which suggests getting your opponent to want to agree with you. It's a great book, and I recommend it. For everyone. – .Raven ^.talk 22:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, this is the diff sequence in question:

-Here User:Nyxaros edits out trivial images [201] with the rationale: "Both images do not contribute anything to the article. Just because they are related to the film doesn't mean they should be used (randomly, between paragraphs)
-Kryn reverts misrepsenting Nyxaros rationale in the edit history [202].
-Nyxaros reverts [203] pointing out that trivial images contravene WP:IMGDD, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative."

And here is the dispute:
You inexplicably interpret Steve Quinn's use of the word "trivial" in diff 201 to be an (unlinked, uncapitalized) invocation of the AfD essay WP:TRIVIAL, which it seems you believe is a policy

You dismiss his argument on the basis that WP:TRIVIAL "addresses other issues"

When Steve Quinn says he never cited WP:TRIVIAL, you quote diff 201 to imply he is lying

When others explain to you that "trivial" is an English word and not just a wikipedia shortcut, you demand Then where's the policy mandating the "edit [ing] out [of] trivial images"?

I quote diff 203 two items down from diff 201, which helpfully not only provides the info page WP:IMGDD where relevant policy is linked, but also demonstrates that Nyxaros had referenced this page in their edit summary

Quoting two diffs from the same small subsection regarding the same edit series is apparently just too complex to follow along

JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Inexplicably you misstate your case: "3. When Steve Quinn says he never cited WP:TRIVIAL, you quote diff 201 to imply he is lying" – No, I quoted Steve himself, not (then) his diff of that edit by
WP:IMGDD... which was nowhere in that diff's edit. Then Steve said you were referring to a different diff, and I commented that it would have been nice if you'd so indicated at the time.
> "Quoting two diffs from the same small subsection regarding the same edit series is apparently just too complex to follow along" – Try, paraphrasing a different diff than the one being discussed, and not indicating the fact (as by attaching the link), makes it seem like a misquote or misattribution. The same would happen if the references were two different sections of the same article, two different areas of the same book, two different books by the same author, etc.
Failing to indicate a change of context or referent is a failure of the writer, not the reader; and mocking the reader for not reading your mind to realize your change (or know to which diff/section/area/book you'd changed focus) is an attempt at burden-shifting, with insults on top of it. Neither civil nor honest. How disappointing. – .Raven ^.talk 04:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
If you cannot recognize from context that "diff 201" etc. should be read as the item in the list quoted above with Steve Quinn's commentary on and link to diff 201 etc., then you lack the competence and collaborative capacity to participate here.

I did not say that Nyxaros had cited IMGDD, nor did I paraphrase anything; I quoted the item in the list with Steve Quinn's commentary on and link to diff 203. Your statement Then where's the policy mandating the "edit [ing] out [of] trivial images"? does not restrict citation of this "policy" to diff 201 itself, to discussion of diff 201, or to any of the diffs and discussions by Steve Quinn at all; I could have eliminated the green quoted text and my answer would have been just as appropriate (as further evidenced by @Redrose64's comment). My inclusion of the quote was a nod at how utterly ridiculous your question was considering the text *you* quoted was just two items above the answer to your question.

Stop wasting people's time with captious, misguided, and irrelevant sniping. JoelleJay (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"diff 201" is not mentioned at
WP:ICANTHEARYOU". – .Raven  .talk 01:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Your question was this: You wrote, "Here User:Nyxaros edits out trivial images" [underline added]; since
WP:TRIVIAL
doesn't apply, on what policy basis were the pics of that film deleted from the article about that film?

The quotation you provided is wholly irrelevant to answering the question you asked as the P&G basis is self-evident in the edit summary accompanying that quote. Everyone else understands that P&G-based edits can be made without explicitly citing the P&G shortcut in an edit summary, because long-term editors are expected to be competent enough to recognize P&G rationales without ALLCAPS links. If an editor does not recognize paraphrased P&G and requests the justification for an edit, it is assumed they want a link to the relevant page, not for another editor to point out precisely which word in an edit summary is intended to be a shortcut to that page. So your expectation that all subsequent discussion would be directly tied to that specific diff is nonsensical. It is no one's fault but your own that you decided use of the word "trivial" must mean the author is citing WP:TRIVIAL; and then when disabused of this apparently made the illogical leap to believing that a) some other word in that particular diff/commentary must be covertly citing a policy shortcut, and b) everyone would read your mind and realize you were expecting the policy justification to be from that diff.

That you also somehow failed to notice that an edit summary containing an ALLCAPS reference to P&G rationale, concerning the exact same content∆ as in diff201, actually was provided just two items below diff201 (which again, you quoted, so forgive us for assuming you also read the two sentences directly after it), is utterly beyond explanation. JoelleJay (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "an edit summary ... concerning the exact same content∆ as in diff201" – Was not, however, itself the 'exact same' edit summary as in diff201. Your argument presumes that if diff_A and diff_B both "concern" content_X, then anyone who has seen diff_A has also seen diff_B... perhaps through some same-'concern' auto-linking feature? This is clearly, obviously, blatantly not the case. So clearly, obviously, etc., that it takes a great deal of disingenuity to make (then keep making) that argument.
By the way, you seem not to have noticed that as old ANI sections with link numbers are archived, the remaining sections have their link numbers lowered; the Nyxaros diff links posted by Steve are now in the low 100s. – .Raven  .talk 08:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raven, first I am posting this link to the discussion page on "Some Like It Hot" [148]. This was in my original post. So I have to agree that discussion might have been better. But my experience of discussion with him on the "Eight circuits" talk page seemed to indicate he was not willing to move off his position, or compromise, no matter what. See the "Discussion" section on that page [149]. I'll have to go back and see if we had linked to too many guidelines and policies in that discussion - which I have recently noticed Randy does not relate to (after I posted this). I think it is important to be accommodating if that is possible. Also, a caveat. The discussion does not start out in a good way during mine and Randy's initial interaction. We have since mended fences about that interaction. So after this, a more elaborate discussion takes place. Notice there is a 10 hour passage of time between the initial discussion and Shibbolethink's comment. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, it seems difficult for editors to be "heard" in their interactions with Randy. So, this does wear down editors. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might have tried bringing THAT issue (too) directly to Randy before bringing it to 3rd parties. Tell me, if someone has a gripe about you, would you rather they tell you about it first, last, or somewhere in the middle? This certainly isn't an RfC, but
WP:RFCBEFORE has good advice. – .Raven ^.talk 04:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Raven Yes. Good point. I would rather someone tell me about it first. In light of this and other considerations I have withdrawn my proposed sanction. Also, I appreciate the conversations we have had. However, I think, for the most part, I will bow out of this section. Hopefully that is OK with you. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'm glad this was an educational experience! :) – .Raven  .talk 01:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is interesting how it didn't get past you that, for me, "this was an educational experience" without me saying that. Kudos! ---01:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs)

The same argument would have been made for all of those topics during whichever periods of time they were controversial minority views. They are currently mainstream and so we do not treat them as FRINGE topics. If you do not understand the definition of FRINGE used on wikipedia you can start a thread at the Tea House or FTN, but re-explaining it to you here is not productive. JoelleJay (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "The same argument would have been made for all of those topics during whichever periods of time they were controversial minority views." – IOW, following your preferred process those would have been declared FRINGE theories — although they were more correct than "majority" views, as showed by further research (and "paradigm changes" as the older generation faded away while younger, more flexible minds took over). Right? – .Raven ^.talk 08:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.....yes, if we were writing WP articles at the time those theories were considered by reliable mainstream academic sources to be fringe (or more correctly alternative formulations with minority support), they would be treated as FRINGE/given appropriate weight and context. As is prescribed by
WP:FRINGE/ALT. The ECM has at no point been supported by mainstream scholarship in the areas it purports to contribute, and in fact has been entirely ignored by it, so coupled with it clearly not being an alternative theoretical formulation it must be treated on WP as the pseudoscience it is. JoelleJay (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The point here is that nobody is asking for this article to be given any prominence whatsoever at the article on Consciousness. It is simply being suggested that enough coverage exists for an article to exist outlining the theory. These are quite different arguments. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Thankfully, it looks as if discussion on the talk pages is starting to turn towards an approach which accounts for that distinction. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe topics are not notable if they cannot be contextualized by mainstream sources, so the suggestion that "enough coverage exists" for notability is false. JoelleJay (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Joelle, but even as someone new to this discussion by way of this ANI filing, and who has thus only had a couple of days to look into the sources, I can see that this is plainly not true. There are at least dozens and potentially hundreds of
WP:FRINGELEVEL
) requires that they be. The closest anything in the policy gets to that assertion is "While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, there must be adequate reliable sources to allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research".

And aside from that, there are some academic treatments of this work, as google scholar reveals. I'm not saying that care will not be needed to keep the content tonally appropriate to prevent the article from presenting Leary/Wilson's ideas as legitimate consensus science--extreme care will be needed to that end. But there are far too many sources to credibly argue that this topic is not notable or can't be appropriate contextualized for the reader, imo. A significant reduction and restructuring of the content will be necesary, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not advisable here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear.

The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.

Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources.

The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.

Discussion of mainstream ideas should be sourced from reliable mainstream sources.

If we do not have independent non-FRINGE RS describing how ECM fits in with the mainstream, the article cannot possibly meet the requirements at FRINGE. JoelleJay (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the conclusion that you reach at the end there is just clearly not found in the policy itself, and is pretty massively inconsistent with the vast number of articles we have on psuedoscientific topics that can't be "described in terms of how they fit in the mainstream", because they have no proper role in mainstream science (and yet are still notable topics that it serves our readers to have articles about). If your rule were actually found in
WP:FRINGE
(and it isn't), then we would have thousands less articles on various types of snake oil, conspiracy theories, and psuedoscience. Again, FRINGE is express about what is and is not required: coverage in scientific literature is not mandatory, even for science-adjacent woo, but rather we are constrained in how we can describe such topics in Wikivoice. But the absence of such sources does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that we therefore jetison the entire article as impossible to write. That's just not how notability/inclusion criteria work on this project, even for controversial or fringe topics.

Meanwhile, as to all the portions of the policy that you selectively quoted, pulling them out of their full context, there's still not a single one of them with policy considerations that cannot be met with the substantial number of sources available in this instance. And with the exception of the sources Randy was advocating for (which we've now collectively pushed back against as the primary basis for the article), all of the sourcing is
WP:INDEPENDENT. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
How do you propose we neutrally cover a (hypothetical) FRINGE concept that is only discussed by FRINGE sources? We absolutely should jettison an article if it cannot be contextualized with the mainstream, I don't know how it could be any clearer from The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.

Note that I am not saying this absolutely is the case for ECM, I said if it is then the article should not be retained (and that the sourcing before @TrangaBellam's edits was severely inadequate). If you have found mainstream RS that discuss ECM in-depth and describe its level of acceptance within the relevant mainstream fields, then go ahead and post the links. What I got out of google scholar were some articles (in fields related to ECM only to the extent that the margins of any field can engage with any vague unempirical system of mystical precepts) providing uncritical coverage of the idea (like one in media ecology that seems to operate entirely within Leary's cosmology), and a good number of unreliable occult books from people who subscribe to such things. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked out Google scholar and came up with the same results as JoelleJay. There doesn't seem to be anything useful there.Steve Quinn (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> "What I got out of google scholar were some articles (...) providing uncritical coverage of the idea (like one in media ecology that seems to operate entirely within Leary's cosmology), and a good number of ... books from people who subscribe to such things." – Absent pejoratives, this seems to say "Yeah, GS had sources supporting Leary, but therefore I reject them." – .Raven ^.talk 03:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! Because that is what FRINGE tells us to do:
general notability guidelines: the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. emph mine JoelleJay (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
By that logic, Relativity, Evolution, Plate Tectonics, and the Heliocentric Model could never have become NON-Fringe, because "the proclamation of their adherents" would always have been dismissed out of hand, and they would have continued to be judged only by their doubters' statements. – .Raven  .talk 00:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you still haven't actually read FRINGE, in particular the section distinguishing it from alternative formulations. Or maybe you just don't understand how scientific consensus works. JoelleJay (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If every person/publication that "supported" or "adhered to" those theories had been disregarded under your proposed rule, that means they would not have been regarded as forming a consensus. That appears to be how you think scientific consensus should work. – .Raven  .talk 01:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a "proposed rule"; if you haven't caught on yet (and this would actually explain a lot), the green text indicates a direct quote. Anyway, you still haven't read fringe/alt, and you're seemingly unaware that scientific consensus changes based on mainstream publications demonstrating empirical evidence. A "fringe adherent" is defined based on how little their fringe idea receives critical support from within the larger academic field. If the fringe idea eventually receives empirical validation, there will be far more "adherents", resulting in the fringe idea being considered not fringe and consequently the "adherents" will just be "mainstream". JoelleJay (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'd said Relativity, Evolution, Plate Tectonics, the Heliocentric Model, would properly have been ruled "fringe" back when they had "minority support". The rule you're proposing is that a theory/model can be ruled "fringe" (and all its supporters and adherents likewise dismissed) before it has actually been debunked (which likewise requires reliable sources discussing it, and presenting factual disproof/s). That's how the Church treated the Heliocentric Model, hence Bruno's and Galileo's trials... but that's not how science works. Where are your RS citations of factual disproof? Waving your hands doesn't count. – .Raven  .talk 08:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should we also blank or delete
Ptolemaic astronomy? Astrology? Alchemy? – .Raven ^.talk 17:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Please stop playing (?) dumb. If you can't understand the difference between discussing a fringe idea in the context of mainstream and discussing a fringe idea without that context, you shouldn't be contributing to this discussion. --JBL (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "discussing a fringe idea in the context of mainstream" – But this is not what was done to the article. See above:
lol, Here's what the 8-circuit page looked like couple of days ago. Here's what it looks like now. Admins, can I revert yet? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is really just stealth deletion, isn't it? Quite concerning. Boynamedsue (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— and —
The point here is that nobody is asking for this article to be given any prominence whatsoever at the article on Consciousness. It is simply being suggested that enough coverage exists for an article to exist outlining the theory. These are quite different arguments. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a bit more attention had been paid to getting straight what the opponent's argument actually is, this wouldn't look so much like a collection of Straw Man fallacies. – .Raven ^.talk 22:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main person in need of the advice in your last sentence, is you. Also re: "opponents", please see
WP:BATTLEGROUND. --JBL (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
> "The main person in need of the advice in your last sentence, is you." – IOW, "tu quoque" ? Sure, I'll take that advice. Which doesn't in any way negate my point above. Let neutral readers decide.
> "Also re: WP:BATTLEGROUND itself refers to "those with whom you have a disagreement" and "if they hold a point of view with which you disagree" — but then advises how to behave toward them. That by no means denies the occurrence of opposition here, it just guides conduct in that situation. – .Raven ^.talk 03:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Not playing then, I guess. Please find something better to do with your time. --JBL (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I'm definitely not joining in the game. – .Raven  .talk 00:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Could everyone go back to following standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as BRD, dispute resolution, and avoidance of edit wars? And if problems arise the correct next steps are either
WP:ANEW if EW persists. Note that even a slo-mo edit war can be reported to ANEW.
Wikipedia is really very simple when those steps are followed. And what prevents all of this ANI reporting are article-talk discussions based on sources and wiki policies, and if stalemates are reached there then RFC.
I say all of this because what we actually seem to have in this entire thread are a series of content disputes in which a number of people (not just the named editor) are failing to do these very simple steps. Softlavender (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Support, per obvious. – .Raven  .talk 01:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Propose one month 1 RR for Randy Kryn~~

~~Please ivote "support' or "oppose". Also please see discussion section below. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

I withdraw my proposed sanction. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oppose The main problem here is the fact this even being discussed at ANI. I think that this a case of wikilawfare in a content dispute. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Content disputes, and Kryn seems to be following policy better than his accusers. – .Raven ^.talk 08:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this seems too heavy-handed for what appears to be a content dispute. Also, it's 'Kryn', not 'Kyrn'.
LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Support - I think this works, as it's a fixed time frame and addresses the issue of editor behavior, which seems to have persisted since at least the last time Kryn was brought to ANI. I don't think it's overly harsh either, most editors voluntarily end up abiding by a de facto 1RR almost all of the time anyway. - car chasm (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, torn between realizing that this editor doesn't think his edits stink while at the same time am kind of surprised that every one of the edits being pointed out are actually pretty good and have built the encyclopedia in a pretty good direction. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. There are definitely issues here, largely with regard to Randy refusing the drop the stick, which have the potential to become truly disruptive. But in the current cluster of content disputes over Leary, the mishandling of the situation cannot be put at Randy's feet alone: the edit warring in particular has not been unidirectional by any stretch of the imagination, nor has he been the only party stretching the reading of policy or indulging in an overly-simplified analysis of the sources. As far as I can tell, the entire set of disputes has been characterized by some gung-ho attitudes all around. Randy happens to be mostly alone on one side of the content end of those disputes, but the 'other side' hasn't respected
WP:LISTEN, they too are shared by both sides. I don't want to downplay Randy's behaviour here, either: while I don't think it's sanctionable, there are elements of his editorial approach to these facts that give me concern. But nothing here justifies the proposed sanction, when you consider all context and the actions of other contributors. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

USER: Ajeeb Prani is disturbing me with my private user page matters

@Ajeeb Prani is disturbing me on my talk page. Why he is asking me about my user page. And this user is doing something wrong or doing plan to do something. [150]. Please read whole messages why he needs to message me about my user page? why he needs to ask me that if I copied it from anyone. And why is he relating me to Amanheheh337's Sockpuppet if I was proved unlikely at previous. Why this guy is messaging me and disturbing me?
(contact) 08:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

If you don't want a particular editor to post on your talk page then simply tell them. However that doesn't stop anyone looking at your public contribution history and reporting anything suspicious to the appropriate noticeboard. If you have copied or translated anything from another Wikipedia page (in any language edition) then I would suggest reading
Phil Bridger (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Then why he is relating me with Amanheheh337's Sockpuppets.

questions is this he told me that I copied other's page means I'm sockpuppet.

Secondly he added me in sock investigation even we both never met each other before and I never saw this gut and then why he added me here [151] and I was proved unlikely then why he is calling me sock?
(contact) 09:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I suspect Ajeeb Prani simply missed that you were checked before but in any case, while I'm not familiar with the standards of SPI, I assume it is acceptable to ask for a second check on an editor checked before if there is sufficient reason for such a check and clerks then CUs will consider carefully whether there's justification for another check before running it. But putting the socking issue aside, why on earth are you adding links to videos on your own YouTube channel and with the edit summary "Added proper source"? You've been here long enough that you should be familiar with both
WP:RS by now [152] Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
OK Sorry, I added my video as a source there, I was not aware about some guidlines. Ok thanks I will give some to read wikipedia Guindlines.

ThankYou
(contact) 12:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 08:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I know all rules on Wikipedia. But I am sorry if you feel that I don't know simple rules maybe it is because of my ignorance.
(contact) 13:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I still believe that I will abandon that ignorance.
(contact) 13:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 13:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
(contact) 13:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
compliments are used as irony here. Please note.
(contact) 13:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 18:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

PamD and I'm feeling intentionally stalked

Hi I am starting to get quite annoyed with being stalked by @
WP:Respect
.
""For some reason I wondered what you are doing these days and this was the first edit I looked at. I hope you're editing carefully - I won't look further as I've got other things to do today." -
And
"This particular editor tends to remove other editors' contributions like this quite often."
On the pages User talk:DragonofBatley and Parade, Leamington Spa.
I really don't know how to feel about this but feel annoyed at being stalked by her and her trying to pick faults with me mostly then other editors. It seems to be only me they have interest in picking fault with on random.articles.and throwing the whole "Damaging the encyclopedia" term at me like I'm the main cause out of millions of editors. I'm tired of it and.just.want to be left alone and not bothered by them further..ive tried before to ask her to leave me alone but she carries on posting reverting and stalking me.
Please can other editors help me with being able to stop this stalking. I've made them aware of this and asked them to respond on this post. Thanks. DragonofBatley (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

CityOfSilver 00:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

There've been numerous times I've run into problems with one editor's contributions, then found another problem, and then another ... and so I've done a full examination of that person's editing history, and sometimes it turns up that the editor in question has committed pervasive errors needing correction. Many veteran editors have done similar examinations many times. Ravenswing 01:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, PamD has started 59 new sections on DragonofBatley's talk page since May 2021 (averaging more than two per month over the past two years), and made 158 edits to that talk page in total. I have no doubt these are all in good faith and in an effort to improve the quality of articles, but I think I'd also be quite annoyed if I was in DragonofBatley's shoes. It's not like there are major policy violations at play here that warrant this kind of monitoring – DragonofBatley occasionally might make a mistake when editing articles, as we all do, like accidentally swapping the units in the {{convert}} template, or omitting a single verb. This is normal. It is part of working on a collaborative encyclopedia. It will be fixed in time by other editors and readers. It does not require these bimonthly scoldings, put under section headings like "Carelessness", "More carelessness", "Careless edits", "Carelessness" (again!), and "Careless please do read". Sometimes these aren't even mistakes, like simply PamD thinking that DragonofBatley hasn't added enough links in other articles after creating a new one, or felt that DragonofBatley should have tagged unsourced text with {{cn}} rather than removing it (this is simply a matter of editing preference). Again, I fully believe PamD is attempting to be helpful here and ensure these articles are high-quality. But this kind of long-term observation of other's edits (and repeated talk page posts) only really works when it's a mentor-mentee relationship where both parties are willing, and DragonofBatley is clearly uncomfortable. DanCherek (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly very strange conduct to repeatedly leave comments at single editor's talk page over a longer period of time. I haven't looked through DragonofBatley's edits, but I agree that PamD is acting in good faith. I don't think much is needed at the moment other than to politely ask PamD to be more careful with her wording in the future. If there are major systemic issues in DragonofBatley's edits, that's a different issue that I am willing to discuss. @DragonofBatley: Would you be interested in a mentorship from @PamD: provided she is willing to do so? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How could PamD be more polite when responding to an edit (diff) which adds a blatant error to an article? Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. As I said, I didn't look through the edits by DragonofBatley. If there are long-term issues of blatant mistakes, than I don't think any action is needed. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I don't want a mentorship from PamD. I've already got one I feel with editors like Crouch, Swale, Eopsid and others who collaborate with me on geographical related articles. I'm sorry if others feel she is doing things in good faith but please try to understand that I haven't even been bothered by her in weeks and then out of the blue "Just thought I'd see what your up to these days and hope your not making bad edits". I'm not a petulant child 🚸 who needs an editor to hold my hand. I want to be able to edit on articles of interest to me. I admit I at times (not often) remove original research but normally it's the present tense or out dated articles. As wiki isn't written like advertising or storytelling in terms of a towns shops or influences without sources to back them up. Or a housing development was built on a Greenfield with no relevancy.

I challenge certain editors if I feel they make unfair reverts or completely trample over my contributions without a second thought. Most the stuff I remove is either subjective or irrelevant like for example. I removed United Kingdom from Hereford because we had Hereford Herefordshire and England for it's railway station article. No other city uses UK because it's England the country. And I always change the km to mi because we use miles.in UK and not km like in America or Canada etc.

I am careful with my edits but I'm being randomly monitored when there's no need for it and I don't see other new editors being as heavily monitored as I know a few new ones from before. Please just ask PamD to leave me alone and id rather not have a mentorship as I've been on here long enough now. DragonofBatley (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you acknowledge that your edit introduced an error into the article? PamD fixed that and alerted you so you would know for future edits. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with a revert + edit summary? JoelleJay (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I would understand the talk page notes if they were repeatedly inserting the mistake, or had been doing across multiple articles. However, I don't think that's happened. I think all that needs to happen here is that PamG is politely told not to pester him. Revert if they want, but just leave an edit summary. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer that in all honesty. I just want to stop the pestering it's not fair to me as I'm just trying to contribute to this site and work well with most editors but PamDs recent comments are just not on and I'll be glad if someone higher could tell her to please leave me alone. I asked her to leave me alone before but she's obviously ignored it and that last post was not on with Witney on Wye on my talk page or the language. DragonofBatley (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DragonofBatley, I appreciate that you're feeling harassed; is what you are saying that you'd prefer just a ping in the edit summary when PamD or someone else reverts you? Taken in isolation, that last section on your user talk was quite polite: you made a mistake, PamD reverted it and then went to your user talk to explain why it was wrong and what you can do in future to resolve the issue. They also fixed it in their next edit to the article, as they said at your user talk, so you can see how it works. A revert with a ping is the default output when using rollback, so is usually felt to be a bit brusque, but I do appreciate that PamD has posted rather a lot on your talk page. So would you rather just the revert ping? Unfortunately, it looks as if you don't understand what was wrong with that edit; by switching the "km" and the "mi", you changed the distance from 25 km to 25 miles, which is incorrect. Someone fixing that mistake, no matter who they are, is maintaining the encyclopaedia. And PamD tried to explain it to you. Please instead use the "order=flip" parameter next time you want to fix a convert template that has the km value first. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm expected to reply, but left it a day to see what other responses there were.

As far as I know I first encountered DragonofBatley (DoB hereafter) in May 2021 when

cn}} would have been more constructive. I posted on their talk page. It's difficult to trace the talk page history as they don't archive, but just delete, but this version

has the "Lincolnshire" post and a couple more below where I spotted problem edits and offered constructive advice.

DoB is an experienced and enthusiastic editor. All their edits are done in good faith, but it does look as if they don't check what they've typed, or check their links: garbled sentences, CofE churches in RC dioceses, that recent edit which moved Whitney-on-Wye by 9 miles because they didn't understand how the {{convert}} template works. They work mainly on English settlements and railway stations, and our paths cross quite naturally from time to time: see User_talk:DragonofBatley#Larry_Steinbachek and St Chad's Church, Rochdale. But as Ravenswing pointed out above, when an editor sees a pattern of problematic edits they will often look at the other edits made by that editor. I've used talk page posts rather than just reverting, in the hopes of helping this editor to improve their editing.

Yes, there were a series of talk page posts last year headed "Carelessness" etc, but "Careless please do read" was DoB's heading, and I backed off from pointing out so many careless edits: the problem has diminished, but it hasn't gone away. My recent posts on their talk page have included suggesting how to increase readership and pageviews of an article they had created, and pointing out (using a "boiler-plate" message I keep in my sandbox) the brilliant gadget which helps prevent one from linking to dab pages accidentally.

I still think that the habit of removing longstanding article content because it's unsourced, without first leaving a {{

cn}} template to encourage other editors to source it, is a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be discouraged. Doing so immediately before taking an article to AfD

seems particularly unhelpful. I still think that editors should check what they type to make sure it makes sense, and check their links. I wish DragonofBatley well with their editing but I wish they would, still, take a little more care. I have tried to protect the encyclopedia from some of their poor edits, and to persuade them to edit more carefully.

I probably shouldn't have added the second paragraph of my post about Whitney-on-Wye, though it explains honestly how I came across that article. The encyclopedia benefitted: I corrected DoB's mistake. I stand by the first paragraph: I found and fixed a factual error and explained how to achieve their aim (imperial-first measures) by using the "order=flip" parameter to the template, so that next time they find a similar situation they will know how to do it properly. PamD 12:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, and please be honest as I've no choice but to take you at your word: Do you ever check DoB's contributions "out of the blue?" Or do you only view their contributions after 'fixing' one of their edits or otherwise encountering them? In other words, do you ever initiate contact with them by checking their contributions. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:AGF. PamD 07:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

PamD is one of the most polite and patient editors I have come across, DragonofBatley is not. If you want to see why someone needs to correct his edits just look at the page history of any article he has created and the careless editing that has to be corrected after his initial start. He takes offence because he has not followed the advice offered. I am also persona non grata so I now avoid him as I really can't be bothered anymore.Esemgee (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Esemgee, I'm not a nice editor? Only you think that, doesn't make it factual. I'm actually a very nice.editor but I have had enough of being stalked. That's the difference. I didn't ask for a popularity contest. You've so far.broke. your avoiding me and you haven't only just now avoided me. You did so months ago and had a go at me for politely asking you to stop removing sourced articles on Dewsbury like minster town and having a go at me for asking you to stop removing sourced facts. Your language then was quite rude but I didn't make an issue of it cause I'm better than that. And you felt like getting personal on Skegness talkpage so I again did better by asking you and Noswall59 to stop engaging further with me because you got a bit personal and vindictive. but you still have now. So yeah 👍 nice try at trying to make me a vile editor by saying I'm not a nice editor. As far as I'm concerned your not a nice editor either. You were vile to me on many talk pages and didn't like I stood against you for it. ~

DragonofBatley (talk)

.

DragonofBatley (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've also worked with PamD a bit lot though not much recently. Pam has used the word "careless" with be in 2022 which involved adding a separate paragraph about a topic already covered above. As far as I'm aware its not a common mistake I make so it probably didn't even need pointing out per
WP:NOTPERFECT. I don't know too much about the problems with DB's editing but unless serious formatting or grammar errors are frequently occurring its just best to generally just quietly fix the errors. While I appreciate PamD's support/advice these kind of words may put some people off contributing, I don't find it offensive (though it do think its a tiny bit uncivil) but some users may find it offensive especially when Pam has made errors herself. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks fso much for your input, @Crouch, Swale. I have worked with you a few times before in the past on Districts, UAs for places like York, Middlesbrough, Blackpool, Warrington and Chesterfield among other articles. You know and I know, we both have helped to slightly strengthen the geographical sides of WIkipedia through creating more civil parish and district/settlement/ua articles. I also created articles for the likes of Borough of Chesterfield, City of York and City of Peterborough through thorough research and fact checking.
It is edits like this that get overlooked and editors like Esemgee choose to ignore in favour of calling me a very nasty editor but don't have the facts to back them up other then their own vendetta. I always welcomed editors like @PamD to help me improve on things and tagged them where relevant for their opinions. But lately, this WP:Stalking and their recent comments which I see above, she has accepted her second paragraph was a bit unprofessional but not the first. I welcome I made an error, which I have to keep saying ain't intentional and if I don't know how to fix it. I happen to leave it to fix later but then she or another editor even a bot fixes it so there is no point in faults being picked over each edit. I don't see this with many new editors or experienced/inexperienced editors.I had a rocky start at the initial beginning blah blah blah. All editors make mistakes from time to time, plenty I know have made errors or anons and resulted in me or others fixing them. Why not tell those anons straight?
They don't. I'm just sick of the stalking and having editors like Esemgee sticking their noses in business not related to them. I am sure PamD can handle herself like I can myself and I it was a case of asking other editors to step in and help alleviate this situation. Not to point the finger and play WP:Politics on this site. If one had autism like me and kept feeling watched and hounded. It be understandable but no one else is in my situation so I have every right to call it out and ask for it to stop. I am personally tired of it and want it to stop. I am not against PamD offering advice but not like her post on my talkpage of "I was wondering what you were up to these days for some reason" and such. I ain't a petulant child.
I have over 1000s and 1000s of edits and articles created under my alias for the site. But some don't care to think that but get all in my face for standing up to it and for being a human being who has his limits. As Crouch has pointed out, PamD has made errors before and had to fix them. Same with the unconcerned editor above and myself among others. I have respect for PamD as an editor and advisor but I don't appreciate being like a chew toy for them from time to time with nitpicking minor edits when others go on to remove counties for past counties like Oldham for Lancs then Mancs and editors removing sourced content for non sourced content. Like youtubers instead of authors and vice versa. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you acknowledged making a mistake regarding the 25 km versus 25 miles link above? It's a very minor point, but the fact that you have posted a lot of text here with no clear acknowledgement that I can see is worrying. Those suggesting that PamD has done something wrong totally miss the point that contributors have to collaborate and work together to improve the encyclopedia. This is more than a hobby where people can pass their time as they want while not caring about mistakes. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the edit to Whitney-on-Wye, he said I welcome I made an error right above, so I don't think it's fair to say that it's still unacknowledged. DanCherek (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m editing from a phone and it’s problematic for adding diffs. I suggest looking at the 26 April 2023 talk page edits at User talk:DragonofBatley. PamD’s behaviour on that day is sort of, well, odd. Someone posts something to Dragon’s talk page and Dragon just deletes it. PamD then appears from out of nowhere and politely berates Dragon about how to better handle their talk page. Some of the comments are valid but I kept wondering as I read them, “why are you involved in this, now?”, “who asked you?”, “are you just watching this editor all the time?” and “are you the mother-in-law?”

Check them for yourself and see what you think. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B. The talk page is on my watch list. A post was removed with edit summary "No idea what that's all about". I was curious, looked at it, and found a civil question from a sensible-seeming editor had been removed. I would have been interested to see DoB's reply to the post, as it raised the topic of removing untagged unsourced content, but despite having a talk page heading "Throw me your criticism in the section of the new tabs.", DoB had chosen to delete the post. This seemed discourteous to the user who had posted. I wasn't sure whether they genuinely couldn't work out that it related to this edit (the unlinked mention of Longridge was a good clue): I also pinged the poster to point out the importance of using diffs on talk pages. PamD 07:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So this explains why you made the choices you did, but perhaps it would be good to indicate whether you will continue to make similar choices in the future. (Personally I think it would help resolve this discussion if you would commit to stopping the busybodyish talk-page comments on subjects like talk-page etiquette where your input is not necessary or desired, while reserving the right to revert substantively problematic edits to articles.) --JBL (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon's talk page is on your watchlist, Pam? Uh huh. It might be better for everybody if that stopped being the case soon. Policing another editor's talk page is a often a good thing if they're a target of trolls or vandals or the like, but when it appears you're doing it in order to police the editor in question something has gone very wrong. — Trey Maturin™ 17:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're here, @PamD: in the middle of a discussion about how you appear to be reviewing every single edit that another editor makes, you make these two reverts [153] [154], the latter of which has an edit summary that could easily be read as outright obnoxious. Why are you doing this? — Trey Maturin™ 18:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, Trey, by the standards of incivility seen elsewhere on this noticeboard, those diffs are kind of a nothingburger. Not ANI-worthy. Admittedly that’s setting a very low behavioural bar.

To me, the issue is instead PamD’s overall pattern of edits and their cumulative effect, not any particular edit viewed in isolation. It’s as if she’s playing especially intense man-to-man defensive basketball. I suggest she just lighten up and let others handle things.[155]

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those diffs are a nothingburger by any standard. PamD was sourcing previously unsourced content instead of allowing it to be completely removed. And the edit summaries are completely inoffensive.

LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree, the stuff in article-space has been fine. --JBL (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take a dive on this. But, noting in general, having somebody focus on somebody under an ostensible "just enforcing the rules" situation which is actually a "just doing an unusually thorough enforcement of an unusually strict interpretation of the rules and concentrating on a particular editor" can be very destructive. Whether or not this is such, perhaps it would be best for PamD agree to generally step back from this editor let other wiki editors and processes handle whatever is needed with this editor. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. When you monitor a single editor's actions and constantly badger them for mistakes, more often than not valuable good-faith editors are driven away rather than improving. In some cases this can be warranted, but PamD is leaving talk page messages for minor mistakes that really could just be solved by a ping and explanation in the edit summary. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to defend PamD on this. This project is a collaborative effort. With exceptions including topic bans as well as rules violations, any edit any of us makes can be checked, reverted, folded, spindled, and mutilated by any other editor. Nobody's exempt, and we don't have designated moderators whose job it is. One reason nobody's exempt is that everybody sometimes makes mistakes, misunderstands, or writes something in a way that can be improved; the wiki way is that others fix and improve things. Another is that reasonable people can disagree, for example on whether (in a non-BLP) it's better to remove a slab of unsourced text or tag it as needing a citation. Most editors would agree that unless it's obvious trivia, best of all is to insert a source. If something is removed because it's unsourced, our advice on editing disputes is that an editor wishing to restore it needs to supply a source. That's exactly what PamD did in the second edit flagged above by

Trey Maturin. How is this edit summary explaining the action "obnoxious": Undid revision 1157950240 by DragonofBatley (talk) - sources found, one describing objections, one confirming that it is being / has been built? That's the rollback edit summary plus a clear explanation. The only way I can imagine softening it up is by not naming the editor. Harassment consists of following an editor's contributions in a hostile manner, but many editors check the contributions of someone who often makes problematic edits; and leaving notes on that person's talk page to explain reverts and other changes is part of doing that constructively. That is what user talk pages are primarily for. Sadly, DragonofBatley's edits here suggest there is indeed a bit of a problem. Some very unclear prose; two denials of being a "petulant child" (I think they mean a "foolish child"); in response to Esemgee making the comparison PamD is one of the most polite and patient editors I have come across, DragonofBatley is not, an explosion of hyperbole and what looks to me like a personal attack: I'm not a nice editor? Only you think that ... So yeah 👍 nice try at trying to make me a vile editor by saying I'm not a nice editor. As far as I'm concerned your not a nice editor either.; and it took two of us asking whether they understood the problem with the change to the convert template to get from And I always change the km to mi because we use miles.in UK to a concession in passing that I'm grateful DanCherek pointed out, because it's not at all obvious: I welcome I made an error. I note that DragonofBatley has said here that they're on the spectrum. But both a certain level of competence and readiness to listen are required to work here (both have policy shortcuts that I won't impolitely link to). Someone's entitled to blank their talk page (although like PamD I was surprised this removal was on grounds of not knowing what the query was about; the article was specified, just not linked), but not to refuse all criticism, or to demand to work only with their friends, and based on this page, it seems DragonofBatley is edging too close to at least one of those. A. B. and others suggest PamD should leave checking DragonofBatley's work to someone else, but who gets to spend the necessary time and get called a bad guy (or a mother-in-law if they happen to have a female user name)? DragonofBatley needs to up their game. This is the big league, publication, and we all look at and work on each other's edits. They do it themself: others go on to remove counties for past counties like Oldham for Lancs then Mancs and editors removing sourced content for non sourced content. Like youtubers instead of authors and vice versa. They see PamD as "nitpicking minor edits", but some of their errors aren't minor. (Some of mine aren't either, of course.) Be more careful—Pam's right, that's the fix—and realise that reasonable people can differ on what's a "nitpick". Otherwise, I'm afraid we will indeed have a problem editor here. (PamD has never dragged DragonofBatley to a noticeboard or templated them for unconstructive editing, am I right? Really, they do appear to me to have been making great efforts to be civil and constructive.) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Wholeheartedly agree! DragonofBatley seems (here and user page) positively proud of rebuffing and ignoring comments on their work, but given some of the example edits this seems misplaced. There may be a problem here & I don't think it's PamD causing it. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less concerned that Dragon's editing isn't perfect (or even necessarily very good) than I am with what seems to be prima facie harassment: Pam is giving the appearance of watching every edit Dragon makes, policing Dragon's talk page, taking pleasure in reverting reasonable edits with what can be read as obnoxious edit summaries, dogging Dragon's every step... and whilst this is being discussed here, continuing to do so unabashed.

If this was happening to me, regardless of the quality of my edits, I would get sick of it rapidly – as would most reasonable people.

PamD has never dragged DragonofBatley to a noticeboard or templated them for unconstructive editing, am I right? is a horrible metric, by the way. We don't measure harassment by the number of templates issued or how often someone is taken to a dramaboard. We measure it by how someone is editing and interacting. By that metric, Pam is on Dragon's case all of the time. That would drive me nuts and isn't fair.

It's not asking too much for Pam to disengage for a week or so – if Dragon's edits are as bad as are being suggested here, someone else (lots of someones else) will intervene. — Trey Maturin™ 12:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Pam is on Dragon's case all of the time.": Just a little analysis here of all of my 2023 comments on DoB's talk page (any omissions are accidental, one bullet may include more than one comment in a thread):

5 Jan: I can't remember what led me to User_talk:DragonofBatley#Vigo railway station (England), but the text I posted there is some standard boiler-plate advice I offer when I notice that an article has been created at a disambiguated title with no access provided from the base title([[Vigo railway station]). I also talked about church-name dab pages, having made links to some of DoB's articles. I thought we had a civilised exchange.
17 Jan: Can't remember what led to User_talk:DragonofBatley#Larry_Steinbachek but I'd been editing a related article and made what I thought were a couple of helpful suggestions about this one, and how to increase its readership.
6 April: Milnthorpe is on my watchlist: I live about 5 miles away. I noticed another removal of untagged unsourced content, including removing the mention of the local Dallam School which has an article, and commented. (I later found sources for much of the removed content).
6 April: I had created the redirect from St Chad's Church, Rochdale to the information on the church at Rochdale#Religion, (as it then was) so noticed, and commented, when that redirect was overwritten by an article on the church here which was mostly infobox and omitted all the historically interesting content, as well as having a few other problems. I then went on to copy that content, with attribution, into the new article to improve it, and found a couple more sources etc.
15 April: After seeing User_talk:DragonofBatley#St_Chad's_Church,_Chadsmoor_moved_to_draftspace I thought I offered constructive comments.
26 April: See above Longridge discussion. DoB deleted another editor's talk page post saying "No idea what that's all about": I clarified and commented.
29 May: User_talk:DragonofBatley#Whitney-on-Wye: I saw an edit which moved a town by 9 miles, corrected it, and explained how to avoid the problem (the useful parameter "|order=flip" in the {{convert}}, a template with more bells and whistles than most of us have learned to use) and, not having been scrutinising their talk page particularly carefully, I noticed User_talk:DragonofBatley#Disambiguation_link_notification_for_April_30 for the first time and offered my standard boiler-plate advice about the brilliant gadget which helps one to avoid linking to dab pages, as useful information.

Genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia by helping DoB edit better, offering constructive suggestions, and occasionally fixing errors they had left. It seems we will never agree on whether or not it is good practice to removed long-standing, uncontentious, unsourced content rather than tagging it with {{

cn}}. I think it damages the encyclopedia, DoB presumably sees it as helpful cleanup. PamD 15:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia by helping DoB edit better, offering constructive suggestions, and occasionally fixing errors they had left. And they asked you to stop in this thread. Your response was to continue to go through their edits looking for 'mistakes' and reverting things they did that you didn't like whilst they were here asking for help to try to get you to stop. Please stop. Stop. Stop doing this. Please. Stop. — Trey Maturin™ 16:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating 'stop' over and over accomplishes nothing except to raise the temperature of the conversation. It is clear that the OP wishes to be left alone. What is much less clear is whether the OP understands the problems with their edits. Continuing to point the accusing finger solely at PamD, which you have done in each of your comments in this thread, is not helpful. Please stop berating PamD so that the discussion may proceed in a civil, reasonable manner.

LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Trey Maturin: I don't think your reading or characterization of the situation is accurate (eg, labeling this edit-summary as outright obnoxious (!)) or helpful. May I request that you step back from this thread? Abecedare (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi PamD, apologies for repeating my point from above, but it seems to have been swamped and I think it's worth making again: Could you please agree to stop giving unsolicited and unnecessary advice to DoB, as in edits 5 and 6 on your list? Or, indeed, simply agree to leave their talk-page alone in the absence of an unusually strong reason to post there? (You should, of course, continue to make edits in article-space that improve or protect the encyclopedia.) If you would agree to that, I think it would do a lot to defuse this situation. --JBL (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: I second what JBL said above. Usually it is a good practice to guide users who make good-faith errors by posting on their talkpage but in this case, since the feedback is not being appreciated, it would be advisable to keep off DragonofBatley's talkpage unless necessary.

@DragonofBatley: Your conduct here has been really subpar, eg in comments like this one. Keep in mind that we are here solely to help build an encyclopedia and user talkpages is a resource that is provided to aid that effort, in part, as a venue for other editors to provide feedback. You cannot simply label editors providing that feedback (in polite, relevant and non-templated messages) "stalkers" and "harassers", as you have done repeatedly, and hope for your edit/conduct to escape scrutiny. While I have advised PamD to stay off your talkpage, they and others are still welcome to review your edits and report any grievous issues to ANI or other relevant boards. Abecedare (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should look at how that editor responded to me before and if you think being called not a nice editor is okay not to challenge. then your not offering a fair platform to challenge that opinion. Esemgee is a horrible editor towards me and I won't change my feelings about that. If they can say one thing, I can say another. He began it and I responded to it. "Your conduct here has been really subpar, eg in comments like this one". I thinks the other editors was subpar too. I'm allowed to defend myself aren't I? DragonofBatley (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's continuous disruptive image changes on tropical cyclones.

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

So this user was first reverted here and later here for changing tropical cyclone images without a discussion on the talk page. More with [156],

After another non-image vandalism edit, the user was given a level 3 warning on the talk page and the user apologized for their disrputive edits. However, since that, the user still keeps changing other tropical cyclone images. [157], [158].

After given a last warning, the user still will not listen. [159]. The user is clearly

話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 07:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

TyphoonLingling, what is the objective here that you have? You have gone through one month, but you will get indefinitely blocked forever if you continue like this. Or like this. Do respond urgently as this is not going to go down well if you don't. Lourdes 12:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My objective is not to “vandalise” pages if that’s what you think. I don’t have any intention of doing anything bad, I am just trying to help. You really think my edits are that bad? Every single edit I make is wrong. It’s always changed back to what it was before. I understand that you sent me warnings, but you guys really need to get your facts right before you send someone a warning. TyphoonLingling (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are the edits actually vandalism? I'm no expert on weather or on consensus around these images, but it seems like this user was changing one image to a different one he thought looked better. Doesn't seem malicious to me. I also don't see anyone talking to the user and explaining why the images were chosen that way or how to seek consensus. I see that Tails Wx did suggest talking about it in an edit summary, but with such a new editor we don't know if he even saw the edit summary. Rather than issuing a "final warning" and then going straight to the dramaboard, it might have been a better idea to drop a note welcoming a new editor interested in storms and explaining the process. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Severe
Fram (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I wasn't going to say that part out loud, but yes this unfortunately is the project I'm not surprised to see behavior like this from. Fortunately this one seems small-scale for now, it can probably be nipped in the bud. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tempest in a teapot, eh? E Eng 04:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that the regulars at the "weather / tropical cyclones projects" have WP:OWN issues. And in this particular instance, it is obvious that a brand new editor doesn't understand - and has not been made aware of - the underlying processes that a given project employs. Typhoon also obviously "heard" the other editors by acknowledging the warnings placed on the talk page. So, I don't believe this is a case of
Not Here. I think Wordsmith's suggestion of welcoming a new editor and explaining the process is the better option. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

This is good advise and all good with me. While I don't have an idea of weather/cyclone projects, am glad the regulars commenting here will help this newbie with comments on his talk page, guiding him appropriately. Glad to see this working out. Will keep a track of your comments on his page. Warmly, Lourdes 10:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Khirurg

I would like to introduce

User:Khirurg. I've added some historical context in the article of Albania. Namely, that Pyrrhus (who was of Greek origin) was raised in Illyria in the court of Glaucias of Taulantii [1]

which is located in nowadays' Albania).

However, the user does not seem to like this one (WP:IDL). He says that it is irrelevant to the article [2], thought the Taulantian kingdom exactly lies in the Albanian territory. He further explains that "there is a gap of some 23 centuries between the time of Pyrrhus and the creation of the Albanian state". Should every page about countries on Wikipedia remove content that "doesn't have to do anything" with their modern country? I do not think so. It's not only that, the user keeps reverting my edits and following me ([3] [4] [5] [6] (in less than 5 hours) without opening a discussion in most of the cases, except for Pyrrhus [7]. But that wasn't on the articles page either, it was on my talkpage. I responded with "Stop boming my talkpage and discuss on the talks of articles" he responded and accused me of "I'll stop when you stop the nationalistic POV-pushing across multiple articles.". It gets even worse, he's accused me of "crude nationalistic POV-pushing" [8]. Oh man. All of that in less than one day after he was inactive for a few days. This has been going on for a while. And yes, he has already been sanctioned [10] once.

The user is know for being "unwilling to reach a consensus" [9], as pointed out by RoyalHeritageAlb.

This report is about both reporting a user as well as a content dispute. -- AlexBachmann (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support procedural close Content disputes should go to
WP:DRN
.

81.214.107.198 (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained that this report isn't only about a content dispute. "This noticeboard is for content disputes only" (WP:DRN). Similar issues have been processed here, there's no reason to close it.AlexBachmann (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits adding

Khirurg (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

That's incorrect. The kingdom was located in Albania, why shouldn't it be mentioned? There is no nationalistic POV editing. You also said that I was "trying to influence the readers that he was Illyrian" which is false. This clearly rests on WP:IDL. I've contributed a lot on this project, I am (just as you) interessted in certain topics. If that's nationalistic POV, you would be doing the same. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is you who is incorrect, and I have explained this to you many times, including the article talkpage and your own userpage. Even a cursory glance at articles such

Khirurg (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

When we're talking here, you say Ancient Epirus was almost entirely in Greece, which is false. The territory up to Dhermi and the Ceraunian Mountains was Epirote. Apart from that, we're talking about the Taulantian kingdom that was completely in Albania. And that was where Pyrrhus was raised. That's a fact. But let's let someone else decide whether it is relevant or not. AlexBachmann (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is definitely a fact is that you are misusing this board to re-hash the same factually incorrect points you made in your talkpage and the article talkpage (i.e. for the third time).

Khirurg (talk) 02:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, let's let some else decide. AlexBachmann (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without regard to the question of whether this information is WP:DUE in the Albania article, all history of what is now Albania is relevant to include in sections about Albanian history, although the article could do a better job of citing sources that are explicitly about the history of Albania to ensure that all the content is relevant. I don't see evidence that OP is a "nationalistic POV-pusher", that type of accusation should only be made if there is abundant evidence to support it. (t · c) buidhe 08:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The history section of country articles is meant to provide a brief overview per
Khirurg (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Khirurg, I did not expect such weak examples. I provided sources to those claims and discussed in both cases; not to mention all the cases where you did not discuss but simply revert. Good idea to add Caesars arriving in Albania. Thanks for this one. I'll add the content as soon as this nonsense is over. AlexBachmann (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's also relevant to mention that you immediately reverted my edit on Albania without even finishing this discussion and ignoring the advice that was given to you above again. AlexBachmann (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you show that you have no understanding about Wikipedia procedures and policies. This noticeboard is not for content disputes. You cannot just add whatever content you like without consensus.
Khirurg (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, you are known for "unwilling to reach a consensus" It simply is impossible to add content that you don't like. That's why we're here as you've may noticed or not. Again, let's let someone else decide. And for the third time, this report isn't only about a content dispute. Similar cases have been processed here; that can't be used as an excuse to dismiss this report. AlexBachmann (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Unwilling to reach a consensus" according to whom? A user that has come within a hair of being blocked indefinitely for pushing nationalistic POV and socking? My contribs show perfectly well who is "willing to reach a consensus", as yours show who is the one pushing nationalistic POV.
Khirurg (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Don't get into that consensus thing, I have provided evidence that you (in the most times) don't discuss at all. The fact that RoyalHeritageAlb has been sanctioned doesn't mean his statements are malicious. Personally, I wouldn't use that as an argument because you have already been blocked too. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What? I "don't discuss at all"? Then what's all this [162]? Maybe you should be blocked for disrupting this noticeboard with blatantly false statements.
Khirurg (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
At first, you can't ignore the evidence that I've provided. Secondly, I've said in the most times. We don't need to discuss about this more, let's let a admin take a look in our discussion and decide whether there's actual malice in our statements. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't provided any "evidence", in fact the only evidence there is that of quite a bit of nationalistic POV-pushing by you. You have made numerous baseless accusations and now blatantly false statements.
Khirurg (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
We both know that we're not going to agree on anything. AlexBachmann (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snarcky1996

Since 2021, editor Snarcky1996 (talk · contribs) has been warned against content blanking ([163][164]), disruptive editing ([165][166][167][168]) and edit warring ([169][170]). Each time, they have responded by blanking their talk page, without offering explanations in their edit summaries ([171][172][173][174][175][176]). In addition to this, they moved an article without consensus, with a recently closed move discussion ([177]), and in recent comments in talk pages, they called an editor "grossly dishonest" in a clear instance against civility.

After warning today against the blanking of their talk page and that the behavior could be denounced in a noticeboard, Snarcky1996 doubled down precisely by blanking said message ([178]), saying that I was "polluting their talk page", that "Your threats are pathetic" and "i will call out a dishonest and obviously false argument when I see one". This behavior, alongside with other

WP:NOTHERE

.

Since there hasn't been violations of the three reverts rule (at least recently), I'm not posting this in the edit warring noticeboard, but since this has been a behavior that has continued for years it merits at the very least a notification to administrators, particularly when they might be patterns that I might be missing. NoonIcarus (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user @NoonIcarus took offense when I tried to edit a page (Operation Gideon (2020)) to add an information wich he did not want added, and when i conceded to not add it and instead went to the talk page (Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)) in the section where a vote is ongoing precisely to add this information, and that I voted against what he voted for, he initially posted a warning notice on my talk page, saying that I was initiating an edit war, despite the fact that by that time I had already began to take part in the debate in the talk page. He then went on to threaten me because apparently he didn't like my tone nor the arguments that I advanced. Snarcky1996 (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is about to whether or not to make a move (Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#Requested move 24 May 2023), which at any rate is pretty much ongoing and there's clearly not a consensus yet. You insisted in making the change despite it being disputed twice by two different editors ([179][180][181]), and it should be noted that this complaint is not only about these specific reverts, but also due to the fact that this is not the first time you have been warned against similar patterns, and that every time you have responded by ignoring the warnings and by blanking your talk page. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I see that said blanking has included, naturally, the notice that I left in your talk page regarding this complaint ([182]). --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are allowed to blank their talk page, you should read

WP:OWNTALK. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I am well aware of the policy, as well as

WP:REMOVED. The combination of factors, rather than only the blanking per se, is the reason of the complaint. Warnings removal should be interpreted as the user being aware of them (and preferrably avoiding said behavior), but in this case said patterns have continued. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Snarcky seems to find solutions during user conflicts on articles, which was appreciated the concerned user. This behavior in the article space is more important than talk page squabbles. The move after the discussion was a poor action, but this was reversed. It seems "snarky" is in their name, so I do recommend that they do be more

WP:PMWAR, however.--WMrapids (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Ayya Vaikundar

Over the years,

WP:OWNERSHIP of the article. The edits of various editors have been reverted to "his" version of the article [183], User:Dl2000 [184][185], User:Chronikhiles [186][187], User:DaxServer [188] [189]. Request a solution to the same. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

According to the article's talk page, it looks like Vaikunda Raja (VR) has shepherded this article for nearly 20 years. On the talk page, Redtigerxyz tried to explain how an encyclopedia article should approach the subject per

WP:NPOV to the "spiritual figure" article. VR seems to think that an article about a mythology should be wiki-voiced as if the mythology were fact. I'm not convinced that VR can approach this topic as an objective editor rather than as an adherent, and it might be more constructive if VR was limited to using its talk page to propose edits. Schazjmd (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I suggest you take this to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, a more appropriate venue for this sort of issue. It will save you the time and drama of a discussion here. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. B., I believe that the issue here is not the contributions, the contributor. Thus, Dispute resolution noticeboard is not the right forum IMHO. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corckett Peters

(non-admin closure) Corckett Peters has been indefinitely blocked by Spicy for abusing multiple accounts. SPI can be found here. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, I just noticed that User:Corckett Peters has been making disruptive and unconstructive edits on Troy Aikman by changing his middle name from Kenneth to Orson. I left a message on their talk page to stop this disruptive behavior, but I'm not too sure if they should be blocked or not for fear that they will do it again. What should I do? Thank you. 2001:569:507E:FB00:4D5F:4F53:9B87:33D2 (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They've stopped since their last warning, if they continue, give them a few more warnings and report it to

WP:AIV. Din oz1 (chat?) (he/him) 17:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, thank you. 2001:569:507E:FB00:4D5F:4F53:9B87:33D2 (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added Talk:Troy_Aikman#Middle_name_edit_warring with documentation that Kenneth is in fact his middle name. Added a citation to Encyclopedia Britannica to the article as a second source to reinforce same. Xan747 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wanting to assume good faith, but something about the overlap in the edit history between Corckett Peters and Saunter Into Work (see for example one's reversion of edits by the other to Adam Wainwright and Paul Pierce), along with their interest in Berkeley, California) suggests some possible shenanigans. If anyone else thinks there's something going on, feel free to SPI or CU if appropriate. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scottywong's bullying of ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

So I noticed earlier today that MalnadachBot hasn't edited in over a month, this seemed rather unusual to me because that bot is one the main lint error fixers on the site. Looking a bit further it appears the bot's operator hasn't edited in nearly the same time period, and one of the last things they did was engage in a talk page thread with Scottywong. It appears that Scottywong has bullied ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ off the site with some grossly inappropriate comments.

I include some of Scottywong's comments towards ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ here for context.

Extended content

[190]

== Please stop with the annoying useless edits already ==
Hello, user with non-English characters on the English Wikipedia. I don't even know what to call you. In my head, I just think of you as "Mr. Squiggles" because your username just looks like a bunch of squiggly lines to me.
You might remember me as the editor that has loudly complained about how annoying and useless I find your bot that fixes lint errors. I even started an RFC to determine consensus on whether your bot is in violation of
WP:COSMETICBOT
. Sadly, there wasn't consensus, so I decided to crawl back into my hole and shut up. I went through the trouble of hiding your bot's edits from my watchlist, in the hopes that I could minimize the annoyance caused by your fixing of trivial cosmetic non-issues on ancient pages that no human will likely ever view again for the remainder of human civilization as we know it. But today I opened my watchlist, and I find more lint error edits on some of my ancient user talk page archives. How is that possible if I've already hidden your bot's edits? Well, it appears that now you're making lint error edits from your main account, not your bot account. And you're not flagging them as bot edits anymore.

[191]

[192]

[193]

Why are you doing this? And why did you choose my user talk page archives as the target of your annoying edits? Are you trying to annoy me on purpose?
If these edits are automated, it's likely that they are in violation of
WP:MEATBOT. I would ask that you stop immediately, or explain why you're making bot edits from your main account. —⁠ScottyWong⁠—
20:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

[194]

The {{
WP:CIR
problem here, between your decision-making in this situation, to your bot's historical performance record, to your username that uses non-English characters, to the hideous font on your user page, to the annoying rainbow border on your user pages, etc., etc., etc. I would propose a third option for dealing with this situation: in the future, please do not edit any page in my userspace from any of your accounts for any reason, with the exception of my user talk page if you wish to send me a message. I don't know how I can make it any clearer than that. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

How on earth is this an appropriate manner for an administrator to be interacting with another user? Even more concerningly every single policy reference Scottywong gives does not support what they claim it does.

How is it appropriate for an administrator to be engaging in childish, purile name calling and refering to other editors with names like Mr. Squiggles or user with non-English characters on the English Wikipedia.
How on earth is "you have a username in a script other than Latin" evidence of a CIR issue? Policy explicitly allows for non-Latin usernames (
WP:NONLATIN
) and this editor is using their real name. Frankly this just comes across as racist - "your name is foreign so you're incompetent" is a grossly inappropriate thing to insinuate.
How on earth are three edits made over the course of an hour evidence of a meatbot violation? The edits were not being made at a rapid pace, were not made with an automated tool and the editor has repeatedly gained consensus for making them, including in an RFC that Scottywong started.
Why was Scottywong playing stupid, passive aggressive games with the nobots template instead of just asking the editor not to edit their archives.
- Why is Scottywong claiming that the fact that ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ didn't pick up on the fact that they were using the nobots template as passive aggressive nonsense as evidence of a CIR issue?
How is "you have a border on your userpage" evidence of a CIR issue? What part of policy would support blocking someone because they added a decorative border to their userpage?
How is "I don't like the font on your userpage" evidence of a CIR issue?
What on earth are they referring to when they say your bot's historical performance record is evidence of a CIR issue? The performance record that lead to MalnadachBot being given the go ahead to fix any lint error on the site?

Scottywong's messages seem completely out of line. The name calling and tone are extremely inappropriate, especially coming from an administrator, a position that requires that editors behave in a respectful, civil manner (

WP:ADMINCOND). It is deeply concerning that Scottywong doesn't seem to have read or understood any of the policies they quote, and misuses them in grossly inappropriate ways (how is it acceptable to threaten to CIR block a user for having a non-Latin name?). And how on earth is that first message a reasonable reaction to an editor making two edits in your userspace? 192.76.8.65 (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Mr. Squiggles or user with non-English characters on the English Wikipedia alone would make me question an admin's temperament to continue to be an admin. The fact that Malnadach's name is on his user page makes this even worse. Looking at Malnadach's page and contribtions, it seems he is one of the few people who has deep knowledge of html and does linting on this site. Their work makes converts what would be gibberish for those using screen readers and other alternative browsing methods into a usable site. spryde | talk 19:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that I was frustrated with the behavior of ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, and my messages to them expressed that frustration in a way that was admittedly a bit blunt. And for that bluntness, I apologize. The issue in question has a long history that I won't take the time to go into here, suffice it to say it wasn't just this single isolated incident that frustrated me. Contrary to the Oxford IP's claim, I never resorted to name-calling or personal attacks of any kind. Referring to the user as "Mr. Squiggles" or "user with non-English characters on the English Wikipedia" were not intended as name-calling or insulting in any way, but instead were simply my attempts to come up with a pronounceable moniker that I could use to refer to this editor, and a way to highlight the difficulties in both communication and relationship-building posed by choosing a username with non-English characters on a site that is dedicated to generating and maintaining English language content exclusively. Jumping to the conclusion that my messages triggered the user to stop editing is clearly not supported by any evidence, as they continued editing for several weeks after the conversation, and it has only been about 3 weeks since their last edit. People take wikibreaks. In my opinion, there was no reason to bring this conversation to the drama board. I won't be monitoring this thread, so please send a message to my talk page if there is anything else that urgently requires a response from me. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. It's increasingly hard to live with people like this. I guess the best I can come up with is that I will block you from editing if you do this kind of xenophobic mocking again. It seems silly to resort to threats, but you've made it clear you aren't interested in feedback. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've lost confidence in ScottyWong's judgement and temperament to be an admin.

Also, I note that ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ has 94,000+ edits on this Wikipedia plus more on others. In all this time, nobody's seen a need to block him for his user name, his user page or anything else. Perhaps he should be the admin.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we had a working community desysop protocol, this manner of belittling another user would be worth using it over. Seriously, SUL has been a thing for well over a decade. Courcelles (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

on a site that is dedicated to generating and maintaining English language content exclusively. The Wikimedia foundation runs projects covering 320 languages and ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ contributes to projects in multiple other languages. Why should they have to use an English/Latin name? 192.76.8.65 (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you contribute to multiple language wikis, there is no requirement that your username must be the same on all wikis. No one has to have an English/Latin name on the English Wikipedia, but it certainly facilitates communication to do so. If I can't pronounce your name, how will I remember it? If my keyboard doesn't support typing your name, how will I navigate to your user talk page? These aren't just issues that apply to me, they apply to all non-Kannada speakers on the English Wikipedia, which is likely more than 99.99% of en-wiki editors. Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to me that it's counterintuitive to create an account on the Japanese Wikipedia and choose a username comprised of Sanskrit characters. Is it allowed? Of course. Is it a good idea? In my opinion, no. This is not an inherently xenophobic viewpoint; if it is, then I guess xenophobia is enshrined in

WP:ADMINCOND), which reminds us that "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect." I'm admitting my mistake here, while attempting to explain the rationale behind my comments for the benefit of those that have misinterpreted them. If that doesn't do it for you, or if you believe you've found a pattern of xenophobic behavior in my editing history, then by all means, block me and/or ship me off to Arbcom immediately. Otherwise, there isn't much more to say. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Suggestion: for non-Latin names, I just copy and paste. For example, ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ. As for how to pronounce a word like that, I just don’t worry about sounding it out since I read silently.

English is definitely easier for me but this is a polyglot community. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And if you really need to know? just throw google translate at it, which has a pronunciation feature. In this case, I got this. Hi Malnadach! --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you don't want to use google translate, ask them! Redacted II (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the comments are unacceptable, but it's always been amusing to me how upset some people get about fixing LINT errors. If the edits are, seriously, "trivial cosmetic non-issues," then why get so worked up? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because of histories like these. It took us more than a year of begging to get this botop to even attempt to combine edits like (I'm not exaggerating here) fixing <font color="blue"> and <font color="purple">. Doesn't excuse making up belittling nicknames for a user one's in conflict with, but the bad blood here is fully justified. —

Cryptic 20:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I mean, I've had my own technical disagreements with Malnadach (which IMO we've resolved through collaboration) but this is far beyond that. I don't think it matters if the bad blood is justified or not, it's a recurring pattern that Scottywong ends up with grudges and then goes past the line of what is acceptable (see 2019 thread). Legoktm (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And Malnadach Konkno gives their transliterated name on their userpage. <facepalm>. Jahaza (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like it if people used pronounceable latin-character handles on here too. I'd also like it if communism worked in real life rather than just on paper and that homophobes had their pubic hair permanently itch. I'm not getting any of that in reality and I'm aware that my preferences in this regard are ludicrous, which is why I've never asked anyone to abide by them, on here or anywhere else.

But especially not on an international worldwide project like Wikipedia, for very obvious reasons. WTF, Scotty?

Also, to make such a weird posting to someone and when challenged in the place designated for such challenges to announce I won't be monitoring this thread, so please send a message to my talk page if there is anything else that urgently requires a response from me is conduct unbecoming. If that truly is your only response, then your resignation will be accepted

here. — Trey Maturin™ 23:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I just came across this thread while stalking ANI cause I was completely bored. I certainly agree that Scottywong's behavior here is absolutely unacceptable for an administrator and just plain rude, incivil and xenophobic. And what the heck does disliking another person's user page have to deal with

of the Starlit Sky 00:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Referring to someone with a non-latin script username as "Mr. squiggles" is grossly unbecoming for an admin. ScottyWong should do the dignified thing at this point and resign, and if he does not an ArbCom case should be considered. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good freaking grief. It's "hard" to use "ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ" as opposed to some insulting nickname? Hardly. I just cut-and-pasted it. Elapsed time: two-thirds of a second, or about a tenth as long as it took me to type this sentence. That's poor judgment for someone we trust to be an admin, and ScottyWong compounded it with that I'm-not-going-to-bother-with-this-thread response, something we'd consider misguided at best (and childish at worst) coming from a newbie with a hundred edits. Nor am I mollified by his pseudo-apology, somewhat negated by his if-you-don't-like-it-go-screw ending. "I had a bad day, I said some dumb things, I'm very sorry I did, I won't do it again. The end." Was something of the sort so very difficult to say? Ravenswing 01:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or, for that matter, click on the name/userpage-link, and copy/paste the Romanization (Malnadach Konkno) from there. (I'm sweating from the effort, I tell you!) – .Raven ^.talk 04:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty appalling communication, especially from an administrator, compounded further here by the "admittedly a bit blunt" handwave. At minimum, a blunt acceptance that this language is unacceptable and a similarly blunt (uncaveated) apology to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ would be in order. CMD (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scottywong may think that In my opinion, there was no reason to bring this conversation to the drama board, but literally everyone (12 editors) who has commented believes he was wrong, and I agree with them. The notion that your username that uses non-English characters, to the hideous font on your user page, to the annoying rainbow border on your user pages, is evidence of
WP:CIR is nonsense, and reflects poorly on Scottywong's judgment and temperament as an admin. A better apology is warranted. starship .paint (exalt) 05:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Scottywong should be ashamed. To refer to a constructive editor like ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ as "Mr. Squiggles" is very disrespectful, and definitely goes against

WP:ADMINCOND. I'm not impressed in the slightest with his half-assed apology either. He should resign to save ArbCom some time. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not yet prepared to call for Scottywong's resignation, but to say that I am appalled and deeply disappointed with this behavior is an understatement. Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation projects operate in hundreds of languages and with many different scripts. Editors are free to move from project to project as they see fit, especially if their preferred work is gnoming. An administrator berating an editor with such vitriolic contempt is never acceptable, but when the insults focus on irrelevant trivialities like signature scripts, talk page borders and fonts, that is beyond the pale. There is no policy, guideline or community consensus forbidding fixing lint errors. That's not how I choose to spend my editing time, but Scottywong, it is utterly unacceptable for you to go into an enraged full-blown attack mode against an editor who has chosen to work on fixing errors. Your response, in my view, has been inadequate to date, and I encourage you to engage in some serious self-relection, and then offer a more appropriate response to the community's concerns. Cullen328 (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original comment wasn't great, especially from an admin. But ScottyWong's 2 posts here are hard to read without cringing. A simple I'm sorry, frustration got the better of me etc would have fixed it. DeCausa (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has just been an impersonation attempt against scottywong see here. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Not surprised, trolls will do anything to mislead others. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The arrogance displayed in the comments that led to this thread and in the responses here are well below the standards we have for an administrator. The misreading of User:Floquenbeam's comment is amusing, the "confession" that their tone was "borderline rude" is revealing. Drmies (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have my reservations about Malnadach's editing style, and editing the userspace of an editor you've disagreed with (when they've explicitly prohibited your bot from doing so) is poor form, but Scotty's comments are disgraceful. I'm appalled that an admin would think that's an appropriate way to communicate and then just brush it off as being "too blunt". The berating tone I could just about look past with the half-arsed apology as long as there was an undertaking to bring issues to this board in future, but the borderline racism/xenophobia needs to be addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this is a one-off thing from ScottyWong, at least not the contention against Malnadach. This goes back for a while. ScottyWong has had problems with MalnadachBot since at least January 2022, when he proposed its removal as an active bot, per the
WP:COSMETICBOT policy. Most of his arguments were reasoned and in-depth, but certain comments may inform his current frustration (apologies for not giving diffs, the archive page
didn't retain them):
- If this bot operator claims that he is not capable of fixing all the errors on a page in a single edit, or that his code is so inefficient that it produces "false positives" and requires him to manually supervise every edit, then I think we should find a different bot operator.
- I realize I'm probably being annoying by continuing to complain about this bot operator and the tasks he's carrying out, but it really is supremely annoying to me.
- The vast majority of this bot's work is not worth the disruption it's causing to the project.

Of course, everyone has the right to be frustrated, and the point of bringing this up is not to say don't ever be upset about things. Rather this is to provide context as to how this confrontation built up to begin with. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could we close this thread now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With what action taken against whom? Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any action is needed. Everyone have learned something from the thread, so no need to prolong it further. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strongly. The admin behaviour decribed here is appalling, as is the "digging in" response we've had. I think we need to see some genuine reflection along the lines Cullen328 suggests, or I think further action is needed (by the community or by ArbCom). No way should this just be closed at this point. (And, I mean no offence CactiStaccingCrane, but I think you've misjudged it badly.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As much as it might be desirable to avoid building a mountain out of a molehill, closing this now would give the impression that a long-time admin can
shrug off complaints of uncivil behavior. That isn't the message we really want to send around here. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I also don't think it should be closed, at least while Scottywong is sticking their head in the sand, refusing to engage with this conversation and not admitting that their actions were not acceptable. I'm not calling for a desysop here, unless there is a complete and utter lack of awareness and actions (which while they refuse to engage is heading that direction.) I think Scottywong needs to reengage with this conversation and read the room. Canterbury Tail talk 13:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My question here is that is it really worth it to keep the ANI thread open though? Closing the thread does not mean "ScottyWong has a free pass on his behavior", rather it is giving time for everyone to think about the issue. I don't think that bashing on people's mistakes and then making use of their angry temperament (OooOoH they don't sorry about their bad bad behavior), accusing them of being incompetent and then ban them is helpful. If you want to sanction ScottyWong, make a separate thread about that. Otherwise, it's helpful for all of us to drop the stick and let ScottyWong take time to learn the lesson here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware that he is an administrator, but administrator are human too. Humans do make mistakes, lots of it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And if a person in a position of trust continues to make more than an acceptable number of mistakes, what should we do then? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take to ArbCom or make another thread. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another thread? That's what this is, after previous ones! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As difficult as it is to express contrition amongst the uproar of criticism here, and while I feel that I've already apologized twice in my comments above, it seems that my words aren't being interpreted as genuine, so I'd like to try one last time to clear things up: I'd like to formally retract the messages I posted a month ago on ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's user talk page. Those messages were written while I was in a frustrated state, and I said some things I shouldn't have. Particularly, the "Mr. Squiggles" comment about this user's non-English username, while not intended to be insulting, belittling, or xenophobic; was still insensitive and an unnecessary addition to the primary topic I wanted to discuss with the user. Therefore, again, I apologize to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ for the rude comments. I would post this apology on the user's talk page, but they've asked me to refrain from posting on their user talk page, and I've always intended to respect that request. If anyone else feels the need to link to or copy/paste this apology to the user's talk page, I'd be ok with that. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those half-arsed apologies above for being "a bit blunt" didn't come close, especially coupled with your digging-in on the username issue. And, I know it's not nice to be exposed in public like this. Now, this apology is a lot better, and a good start. But there's a few things that still trouble me. Firstly, one specific - I'd like to hear you fully accept that it's entirely acceptable for users to have usernames in any script that's allowed by policy on this multi-national project. More generally, you've had angry episodes like this in the past, and it's just not acceptable for the community to have such a hair-trigger potential anger response from an admin hanging over our heads. In between, you do some fine work, and you've made some great contributions - and I want to keep that. But we just can't have any more of these episodes. So, do you have any ideas of how you might try to manage your anger in the future? I do hope so, because I really do think we need to see some serious long-term reflection here. And sorry if any of this comes across as patronising. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're not helping the situation. Don't try to force an apology. It's better to respect a person's pride and let it be. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. If there was a simple way to de-sysop Scotty, it would be worth pursuing. But there isn’t. So we either go to ArbCom or live with Scotty. Either approach has a cost to the community in terms of time and tension.

If we’re going to live with Scotty as an admin, I think we’ve collectively made our point here.

if we’re not, then take it to ArbCom. Further discussion in this venue just degrades the community zeitgeist. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CactiStaccingCrane, Again, I think you are misreading this badly, and you have completely failed to understand my points. I am not trying to force an apology - I never would, because a forced apology is not an apology at all. But we absolutely should not "respect a person's pride and let it be" in a case like this. If we have serious reservations about someone's aptitude for a role, how can you even think that's a remotely acceptable approach? The community has a concern with an admin's attitude, and you think we should priortise the admin's pride? I'm almost speechless. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reservations I'm seeing here—and one that I share—is that you haven't shown an understanding of why this is a problem. At the top of the post, you seemed to indicate that this was a trivial or harmless matter, and that you thought that this was within acceptable limits of admin conduct. It's this dismissiveness that brought it from an unfortunate mistake to a question of whether you understand the issue. It was only after a strong negative response and threats of desysopping that you gave the issue any attention. Whether this is the case or not, it may give the impression to the community that you're just "going through the motions" of expressing remorse without actually taking into consideration why messages like this are unhelpful in a collaborative environment, let alone from an admin. There are venues for solving disputes with editors like this. Going to their talk page and calling them incompetent (for any reason, let alone for having a foreign username or a customized userpage) is not one of those venues, and we should be able to take it for granted that admins know this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was only after a strong negative response and threats of desysopping that you gave the issue any attention As much as I believe this demanded a response, you can't move the goalposts and insinuate that a now-given apology doesn't matter because it wasn't given prior to all of the criticism. That's unfair and you need to give someone a chance to properly atone and reflect on their own actions. If that's unacceptable, then A. B. is right that there's really no choice but to close this down and make an ArbCom request. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I mostly agree with User:WaltCip here. We can't demand that someone respond to feedback, and then condemn them for not responding before we made the demand. We really should allow time for cooling off and thinking - the proper response should not be judged on how quickly it was or was not made, but on how sincere it is in the cold light of time. Saying that, I don't think we're at "ArbCom or nothing" yet. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The gist of my comment is this: "your initial response doubled down on the more problematic behavior, and you recanted that after the non-apology was heavily criticized, but you still haven't shown an understanding of why it's an issue, which is what we actually wanted." Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Boing! said Zebedee, "I won't be monitoring this thread, so please send a message to my talk page if there is anything else that urgently requires a response from me"--like this isn't important. *sigh* Drmies (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect I would be indeffed without a conversation if I called another editor Mr Squiggles because of their name. Do admins get like 3 free racisms before other admins act? Very Average Editor (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I've refrained from commenting since this morning hoping Scotty would come back with a grovelling sincere apology .... Indeed their latest apology is sincere however in that apology they state "Particularly, the "Mr. Squiggles" comment about this user's non-English username, while not intended to be insulting, belittling, or xenophobic; was still insensitive and an unnecessary" which to me is utter bs.

You don't take the mick out of someone's name unless you're intentionally trying to be insulting, belittling, or xenophobic ? (Of course friends can have a laugh over each others names but these 2 aren't friends nor quite clearly was it intended as a joke). Maybe I'm reading it wrong but their apology also reads like they're sorry they got caught out not sorry for what was said but again maybe I've read it wrong.

Either way Scotty should resign or this should be sent to Arbcom, Not that I ever would but if I made such a comment like Scottys I would expect a very long block for it. –Davey2010^Talk 16:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scotty's comments were stupid, and so was his "I'm not monitoring this thread" (ANI flu?) And then non-apologies, and then an apology sandwiched with sniping at the uproar of criticism here (so criticizing an admin for calling a constructive editor "Mr. Squiggles" is uncalled for, but said admin's comments aren't?) I say give him one more chance at an apology that addresses the inappropriateness of his comments and acknowledges why the uproar, and otherwise take it to ArbCom for a desysopping. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 03:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed Malnadach's and their bot's lack of editing and wondered why that was. If it really is because of Scotty's comments that is not only sad but a loss to the project. Scotty has for a while now tried to stop or block Malnadach's bot in everyway possible and when after each one failed, tried from a different angle. That lead to childishly reverting edits that fixed lint issues on their talk page. Even if Scotty's admin isn't taken away, they should at minimum be banned from anything Lint related as they've clearly shown this issue is too much for them. And yes, that also includes no reverting Lint fixes. Gonnym (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although Malnadach's departure from the project is definitely coincident with Scotty's abusive message, it's hard for me to

preponderance of the evidence standard if brought before a judge, but it's not proof. This is notwithstanding the remainder of the content in your message which I feel is absolutely correct. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Scotty should be ashamed of his comments and actions, and his insincere apologies only make things worse. He also doesn't seem to recognise exactly why this is an issue. Scotty should resign as an admin lest he face an ArbCom case. Frankly if this wasn't a tenured admin I think the punishments for making such comments would have been far more severe. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 09:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are, frankly, absolutely disgusting and entirely unbecoming of any editor, let alone an admin - regardless of your opinions on linting fixes (in my opinion they're fairly useful but still), this kind of attitude and behaviour is deeply offensive and concerning.
^(talk) 13:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Just a question: can ADMINs be blocked indef? Cause Scotty needs to be.

I'm 100% not an expert with Wikipedia policy, but I've seen people be banned for less. Redacted II (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in practice an admin wouldn't get blocked indefinitely unless they're community or arbcom-banned. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 20:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the community is not happy with Scotty's comments or his string of apologies. No further point is served by the continued pile-on of angry rebukes. Either propose a sanction below or take it to ArbCom. This venue does not exist for the purpose of letting y'all get in your free shots at this week's latest target, no matter how guilty they are. It's time to move this forward with an aim toward a constructive resolution.
LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Scotty having (as multiple people indicated) lost the trust an admin/sysop is expected to keep, hia resignation or removal as sysop would seem an obvious step. Unfortunately the "removal" process appears to have become "broken" (as also indicated here). I don't know what it would take to fix that, but the idea that admins/sysops can go bad without anyone being able to take that bit away strikes me as frightening. – .Raven ^.talk 02:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is the removal of adminship "broken"? Not one editor in this thread who thinks Scottywong should not be an admin has filed an arbitration request at the time of my comment. No one has even tried to remove his sysop bit. Lightoil (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect many editors would like to see a case request filed, but really don't want to be the one to do it. —
talk · contribs] 04:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Does Scottywong have a history of these sorts of comments, or is this a one-off? BilledMammal (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's this 2019 thread about this comment and this edit summary, and this uh 2014 thread. So, kinda? Other editors may have more examples.
I like to believe that if an editor whose million-edit bot I found annoying and useless, which I had tried multiple times to get consensus to shut down, and which I specifically ignored by name on my watchlist and tagged my talkpage archives to skip, had decided to edit those talkpage archives with their main account, I would at least have deleted that first paragraph that comes off as super racist, and not called their competence into question over their userpage aesthetics, but I would imagine myself feeling deliberately provoked (and probably would passive-aggressively revert my talkpage archives to their prior, lint error generating state).
Scotty has said some dumb and mean things, and doesn't appear to grasp why people are so upset about them, but I don't believe everyone here grasps why he was so upset in the first place. I don't believe ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ was deliberately baiting Scotty, but given their history the choice to edit Scotty's talkpage archives was certainly an audacious one, and I am curious as to why he felt it necessary.
Not excusing Scotty's comments or his evident inability to realize that unintentionally racist still counts as racist, but ignoring the context and history here doesn't seem like the route to the right outcome. Kindly, Folly Mox (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion

'Wong' is not a common English surname. Scotty should be made to change his name to 'ScottyKing'. Tewdar 12:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly a lot to be said about how reprehensible Scotty's behavior is, but
let's not go further down this path with sort of tit-for-tat ad hominem. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, you're right, someone might notice that 'Tewdar' is not a very common English name either. Tewdar 14:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for a one-way IBAN for Scottywong with ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

While, from ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's tone, they were not driven off the project by Scotty's comments, as some above have postulated, the comments are no more acceptable for it. This is basically the bare minimum action, and I would advise Scotty to agree to a voluntary one-way IBAN and avoid ArbCom (or a CBAN, even?) Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nom. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(If you didn't see the middle of the discussion and think an IBAN is not warranted for a supposed lack of long-term problems: Special:Diff/1158020095.) Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 23:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IBAN is Indefinite Ban, right? (I really don't know the acronyms)

If so, then,

SUPPORT Saying such xenophobic statements as Scotty used is unacceptable for even the newest editors. For an ADMIN, it's just indescribable. Redacted II (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, IBAN is

interaction ban. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Then:

OPPOSE We can't let Scotty get away with how they treated ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ. The bare minimum is an indefinite ban. Just because Scotty is an ADMIN doesn't mean that they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. Redacted II (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, an indefinite ban is the maximum. I don’t know what more you could do anything more to him after banning him from the site forever. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, a community ban isn't as bad as someone taking away my right to eat cookies. BTW, the proposal for an IBAN is pretty silly.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, but in a case like this, the minimum "sentence" (in lack of a better word) is the maximum sentence: indefinite ban. Redacted II (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Bbb23's sentients - ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ was driven off the site and is very unlikely to ever return, Again either Scotty should resign or we should all take a trip to Arbcom. In my humble opinion IBANNING doesn't even scratch the surface here. –Davey2010^Talk 01:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Scotty's comments are horrible, and an IBAN is not enough. At the very least, Scotty should lose his admin status. I'm pretty sure ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ has been driven off the site, as they haven't edited since early May. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a bare minimum, without prejudice against more severe sanctions and/or an ArbCom case request. I agree that this is insufficient given the severity of the PAs, but that doesn't strike me as a good reason to oppose this sanction. Sanctions are meant to be preventative and it seems to me that, should ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ return to editing, this sanction would provide such a function. —
talk · contribs] 03:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

An IBAN for a single interaction seems unnecessary. BilledMammal (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What is the point of banning any interaction between two users when their only interaction (written interaction) involved ScottyWong posting two comments at Malnadach's talk page? What is this supposed to achieve? Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nythar, it is a one-way IBAN on Scottywong, first off. While the incidents mentioned here are not in themselves particularly uncivil, they show Scottywong has an issue with ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, and the comments which are the focus of this discussion show he will make offensive comments to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ and only sort of apologize. Ergo, it seems reasonable to expect further disruption from such.

And then again, the IBAN was proposed to encourage movement towards sanctions of some kind by presenting the bare minimum option. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 06:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose seems pointless to me. The prior interaction from 2022 shows that Scottywong didn't like how ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ operated their bot, but that's hardly grounds for an iban. If a sanction is appropriate, this is not the correct one.
LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

SamX understood this. Additionally, ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ could have temporarily stopped editing for any number of reasons, this incident being one. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 05:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
In light of my comment that preceded this proposal, I do appreciate your rationale for proposing this sanction even if I don't agree that this is the correct path forward. I'll admit that I'm conflicted as to how this should be handled. I understand the calls for Scotty to be desysopped, but -- unless I'm missing something, which is certainly possible -- this doesn't seem to involve his use of the tools. I'm aware that admins can and have been desysopped in cases that did not involve misuse of the tools, but in this case I feel that the calls for desysop have an unattractively punitive flavor. While it is natural to be angered at boorish behavior from an admin, I'm not comfortable with the mob mentality that I've detected here. We don't desysop people to punish them or to get our pound of flesh. If we want to desysop Scotty because we've genuinely lost faith in him after this one incident that was reported a month later by an IP who made no effort to address this with Scotty before escalating it to ANI, then fine. Perhaps we are right to lose faith in him. And perhaps we are right to judge his apologies harshly, even if it is probably true that most of us would respond poorly if we were ambushed by an ANI thread like this one. When I reread Scottywong's comments, I see very little to defend. But something about the way this thread has been conducted just doesn't feel right.
LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I just want to add a comment here (not sure if there's somewhere better, but
LEPRICAVARK's comments do strike a note) "But something about the way this thread has been conducted just doesn't feel right": Yes, for sure, I feel the same way (even though I also see little to defend in Scottywong's comments). Trial by ANI is a horrible way to deal with issues like this, and it can make it sound like the accused is the devil incarnate. An angry outburst in public is really a very poor thing by which to judge a fellow human - and I say that after having met people who I like a lot in real life, but who have been excoriated here at ANI (and even blocked/banned/desysoped). When does community discussion and concensus become a knee-jerk baying mob? I'm not saying that's happened here, but I've definitely seen occasions when it's come too close for comfort. So what should we do about a contributor who, with hindsight, might not be a good fit for admin after all, but who is fundamentally a decent person who just has too many off days? I really don't know. I just wish there was something better than this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose - I am satisfied with Scottywong's latest apology and I am sure he will not try anything further with ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, as obviously, harsh consequences await there. starship .paint (exalt) 07:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since IBANning against someone who appears to have left the project is pointless. Contrary to the half baked apologies above, Scottywong has said in Wikipediocracy today that there is no evidence that Malnadach was "sufficiently offended" by their messages. This indicates to me that Scottywong doesn't really understand the problem with their comments, which would cause them to behave the same way with other editors. This IBAN does not address the core problem, which is Scottywong's
WP:ADMINCOND failure and behaviour which is unacceptable in a diverse project like Wikipedia. Send this to Arbcom please. 58.182.35.249 (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Oppose~~ as insufficient. If an admin needs an IBAN from someone, that just shows they should not be an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC) -- Switch to Support per Tamzin's reasoning below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Boing! said Zebedee: Makes sense, but I would like to point out Ritchie333 received a two-way IBAN with Praxidicae from ArbCom (when already an admin). So it's not unprecedented. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I do not see how any further communication from Scottywong to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ could be constructive. — Freoh 15:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support,
without prejudice against further sanctions. I dismiss out of hand any opposition based on the fact that Malnadach currently isn't editing. Maybe they'll return tomorrow, or in a year, or in 10 years. Whenever they do, maybe Scotty will still be editing then, and will have still not put the stick down about these linter fixes. (FWIW I've shared some of those concerns, but the point is that Scotty isn't able to express that without getting incivil, it seems.) Or maybe an IBAN would hasten Malnadach' return. It's the latter possibility that drives me to support more than anything, because I think that, as a practical matter, if Scotty were to say anything remotely incivil to Malnadach in the future, there are a number of admins who would be willing to make that block, with or without an IBAN. But in terms of signaling to Malnadach that the community won't ignore harassment of them, and signaling the same to all editors who might be in a similar situaton, I think an IBAN is more powerful than a mere lurking block threat. If further community or ArbCom sanctions are warranted, so be it, but that's never been a reason not to take the first step. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Rosguill's concern below is reasonable. I'd have no problem with a provision that Malnadach can unilaterally terminate the IBAN at any time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm on the fence about what sort of response this warrants, and I think both the "this is unacceptable" and the "avoid an angry mob" camps have good points. But I find Tamzin's argument convincing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1-way IBANs can often be burdensome even for the person "benefited" by the ban, as they would now have the burden of not acting in ways that could be interpreted as griefing against the IBANed editor. IBANs are only called for in cases of protracted harassment, when the affected editor is themselves in favor of the arrangement. I don't think imposing this with Malnadach in absentia is appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Send to Arbcom [Result: Sent]

WP:VPP. starship .paint (exalt)(non-admin closure) 01:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

In the main thread above, more than two dozen editors have criticised Scottywong for his comments and there is unanimous agreement that his comments are incompatible with how admins are expected to behave. This indicates that Scottywong has lost the trust of community to continue to hold adminship. Since desysopping someone is not within the remit of AN/I, the thread should be closed and an Arbcom request should be filed. 58.182.35.249 (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. Since his last comment in this thread on June 1 and claiming to not monitor this, Scottywong has continued to discuss this on Wikipediocracy (members only thread) and making comments which are contrary to his apologies above. He has claimed in Wikipediocracy that there is no evidence that Malnadach was "sufficiently offended" by his comments, that it is "pure bullsh*t" that anyone would infer his comments as racist or xenophobic. This shows that his apologies above are not sincere; he is just pretending to show remorse onwiki to escape sanctions. If we had a community based desysop procedure, this would have been more than enough to invoke it. However in absence of that, we should file a formal request for arbitration. 58.182.35.249 (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I do actually think Scottywong's apology is sincere, at least in part. I think he does feel remorse for the way he spoke to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (whose name, incidentally, I copied and pasted in just a few seconds). But I don't see a full appreciation for how unaccpetable his conduct was, and continues to be, as an admin in response to criticism. So I think this should go to ARBCOM, for a couple of reasons. One is that we've seen a problematic aggressive attitude from Scottywong a number of times now (which can be brought up in evidence if there's a case, I don't want to relitigate them here). We've seen some sort of regret/apology in past cases too, but I see a repeated anger/aggression issue. That aggression, even if it shows rarely, is not compatible with being an admin. Also, Scottywong is still railing (at another site) against Wikipedia's policy of allowing multiple scripts/alphabets in usernames when communicating on the English language project. Now, he can dislike it - I'm sure we all have policy aspects that we dislike. But unless he can change it via consensus, he has to accept it. In fact, I'd say he committed to upholding it by accepting the admin role - or, at the very least, not openly attacking other editors for doing something ~~perfectly~~ in line with that policy. That his dislike for a piece of policy can trigger such anger (and more than a hint of arrogance) also makes Scottywong unsuitable for admin, in my view. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, perfectly in line with is an overstatement.
WP: LATINPLEASE (in Wikipedia:Username policy) does say To avoid confusion and aid navigation, users with [usernames that are not spelled using the Latin alphabet] are encouraged to use Latin characters in their signature. Policy "encourages" a lot of things that are considered best practices, and it's a vague term that covers varying strengths of consensuses, but my reading is that User:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ would need to add a transliteration of his username to his signature in order to be perfectly in line with policy.
I'm also minded of a courtesy blanked RfA from a few years ago where about half of the opposers took issue with the candidate's non-Latin username, so I'm feeling what Scottywong attributes to accessibility concerns may have some level of community buy-in. I disagree cos I can copypaste. Respectfully again, just in case it got lost in the nitpick, Folly Mox (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, perhaps not "perfectly", fair enough. But if something is allowed by policy, attacking people for being in line with it like that is just not acceptable, in my view. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Emotions inform our actions, but cannot excuse them. Folly Mox (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're in tangent mode here, but FWIW, IMO the main accessibility issue with non-Latin names isn't addressing them in conversation, it's finding them when you're trying to look for their edits or ping them. It's all easy enough to do a 2 second copy-paste or type out Malnadach in this conversation, but if I'm trying to find their user page next month to follow up with them on something, it's going to take me a significant amount of scrolling through page histories to find them even if I can remember how to say their name out loud. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Non-Latin name users should not suffer discrimination (especially due to SUL) let alone being driven out of the project. ibicdlcod (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Referal to Arbcom is not merited for this, very poor, interaction between and Admin. and a user. FWIW, I am opposed to non-Latin user names but the frustrated interaction here was out of order. There has been an puerile outburst of frustration and a largely defective apology. In the wider scheme of things, while sub-optimal, it is more of a strike along the lines of 3 strikes and you're out, rather than an gross violation requiring immediate action. On balance, warnings given, acknowledgement of the errors and assurances for the future seems an appropriate way forward. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One doesn't need permission to send a request to ArbCom, because in the end, the ones granting permission will be the arbitrators and not the community. The Wikipediocracy comments disturb me, at any rate. I now no longer feel the apology has any standing. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I hold no trust or confidence in this admin and if what the IP is saying is true then his apologies really do mean nothing, Given he seemingly doesn't want to resign, this should then go to Arbcom. –Davey2010^Talk 13:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't understand why we allow IPs to make proposals such as these. SN54129 15:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't we? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am extremely disappointed to see Scottywong's xenophobic comments at ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's talk page. Comments like those are unacceptable, and Scottywong has lost my trust as an admin. People are right about their reservations of the apology above. Repeated emphasis on his intention, and how he wasn't "trying to be racist or xenophobic" didn't help a bit in making him come across as being genuinely remorseful. That kind of logic is equivalent to saying "it was a joke guys" after making racist remarks. The issue is not on whether he meant it as insulting or not, it is about whether he had the slightest idea on how his comments are seen as such. The comments at WPO continue to show his inability to get the point. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wikipedia administration is a privilege, not a right. Scottywong has demonstrated that he has never fully grasped Wikipedia's five pillars. — Freoh 15:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You realize that this is not a way to send anything to ArbCom? The next person coming here to post a meaningless "Support" in boldface should instead file a case request. CandyScythe (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with checking to see if there's a consensus first. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus for what?—Alalch E. 17:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus, or general agreement, that this needs to be taken to Arbcom - what else did you think I meant? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing else, I just wanted to be sure as it didn't quite make sense. Basically, I disagree that there's nothing wrong. That decision is not subject to consensus under arbitration rules. Anyone can submit this request and a plurality of editors can't decide about that on another's behalf, so as to prevent or dictate that it be done. This discussion creates a distorted image of how the process operates. It could actually prevent someone from filing a report because they are waiting to see what the outcome could be and the outcome could be procedural. This should probably stop.—Alalch E. 19:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further, this is basically a list of people who would like someone to submit a request but don't feel confident writing it themselves, so it evokes the question of why are they not confident. If so many people appear reluctant, it could influence someone who otherwise would have done it to also become reluctant.—Alalch E. 19:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got you, I understand what you mean now. I can see why someone might want to check if there's support first - but yes, anyone can just go ahead with it. (And I suspect there might be an element of "I hope someone else will do it to save me the effort" ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: But I still think no one should oppose the IBAN because it "doesn't go far enough" — the arbs may reject this case, or they may choose to simply warn Scotty, but we can always have the IBAN as a safety net. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 17:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support that it is the rough consensus of the community that ArbCom should consider whether Scottywong should be desysopped. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I think I generally agree with Leaky caldron's analysis here, but the continued whingeing at the other website (which I have not read myself) appears to be giving a lot of people pause. If editors genuinely feel that they have lost confidence in Scottywong's ability to use admin tools, an ArbCom request is the correct path forward. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ScottyWong has lost the confidence of the community in his admin abilities. They have bullied an editor off the project. Why should they still be an admin? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and filed - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Scottywong ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, GhostOfDanGurney, for doing this. This ANI thread has long outlived it usefulness especially since there's no provision for community desysopping. ArbCom's a more appropriate venue for deciding if that's called for. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Policy Suggestion

It is pointed out that the community doesn't have the authority to send a case to ArbCom. The community only has the authority to state that it requests that ArbCom take up a case that the community is unable to resolve. There are at least two types of cases that the community is unable to resolve. The first is loss of confidence in an administrator. Although the administrator is an administrator because the community had confidence in them, the community does not have the power to withdraw that confidence. The second is editors whose conduct divides and polarizes the community. I suggest that the community, which elects the ArbCom, should have the authority to instruct the ArbCom to take up a case. I am mentioning this here, and am aware that

WP:ANI isn't the forum to act on this idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This seems similar to the recent RFC at

WP:VPP, now at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 181#RfC on a procedural community desysop. It's not a complete match but seems somewhere between the second and third alternative proposals. The only proposal that passed was the first alternative, which doesn't seem to apply here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

There's no reason why it can't. ArbCom members needn't give any special weight to a 'community consensus' requesting a case be heard, aside from any normal weight they would give to statements made on the case request. The main benefit of this 'referral' is really that a neutral closer would be filing the case request, which immunises any single person from the difficult position of being the case filer. There's not really a policy issue with that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that ArbCom members are all volunteers, I don't see any way to compel them to do anything. And I really don't see any need anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) I'm not sure a policy change is needed. The community can propose and enact a motion to call for anything. We could have a community motion that dogs are better pets than cats, if we wanted. And if the enactment of a resolution would involve notifying some other body, that's something that can be done by the closer, with a link back to the discussion. "I am filing this arbitration request as closer of an AN/I discussion, which resolved that $issue merits ArbCom attention to look into <claims of admin misconduct|an intractable dispute>. Here is a basic summary of the facts..." The only issue would be if the receiving body sees a problem with that approach, but I don't think that's very likely in the case of ArbCom. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Scottywong. I recommend closing this thread now that this ArbCom request has been made. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Noahawaii and links to their own blog

Banned by StarMississippi (

talk to me! 14:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

This user began inserting links to his personal blog back in March 2022, which were reverted (some examples: [195][196][197]). The user was given two warnings during this period.[198] In September, the editor wrote an article, Boehmeria grandis, that included links to their personal blog. The links were removed several times, but the editor kept re-inserting them.[199][200] After some back and forth on their user talk page where the editor insisted that their blog constituted a reliable source, the editor was directed to WP:RSN to determine whether their link constituted a reliable source or not. The discussion can be read at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 384#https://noahlangphotography.com/blog/native-hawaiian-plant-guide. In short, I don't see any consensus in that discussion that their blog was exempt from the reliable source content guidelines.

After a few months away, Noahawaii began editing again today, trying to add text with an embedded external link to their blog into an article.[201]; after being reverted, they re-inserted it twice more.

Based on the most recent exchange on their user talk page, I don't think this user understands or is willing to understand that their insertions of links to their own blogs is problematic. I already reverted twice and don't want to take any more action on this, so I'm posting this here for further review. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add the blog to the spam blacklist, problem solved. They're not a recognised expert so it'll never be a reliable source or an appropriate external link. Canterbury Tail talk 01:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist . A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given (a) the level of

WP:IDHT I see at User talk:Noahawaii and (b) the percentage of edits made by them that attempt to include links to their website, I've added their website to the spam blacklist. Enough is enough. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Kinu, A. B., and Canterbury Tail: Thank you very much for your help. And thanks for bringing the spam blacklist to my attention—I have that page on my radar now, I'm sure it'll come in handy in the future. Thank you again. Aoi (青い) (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly only here for one purpose. I've indeffed. Star Mississippi 22:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi, Aoi, Kinu, and Canterbury Tail: -- I recommend you unblock Noahawaii. He does know his plants and he added content in addition to links. I've worked on and off with the blacklist for 15 years -- he will no longer be able to spam his links but he can still add useful content which we can always use. There's no gain to blocking him. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B.: I'm happy to discuss it, although I'm about to hop offline so my response will be delayed. I don't see a single edit that didn't involve him also linking his own site(s), which he frequently doubled down on despite being told why it wasn't acceptable. I'd prefer an unblock request from the editor where they show a willingness to edit without self promotion. Star Mississippi 23:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi:, fair enough -- the ball's in his court. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disruptive editing by Mitrayasna and Ashkan3de

WP:CIRCULAR

) source, and a misrepresented source: [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] etc.

They mostly responded

WP:Listen to my and 3 other users' comments about this text and related illustrations on Talk:Animation, and to my comments, suggestions and questions on User talk:Mitrayasna, User talk:Ashkan3de and Talk:Early history of animation

.

Also note behaviour that seems to indicate:

WP:SOCKPUPPETRY

): Ashkan3de only started editing on the English pages after a dispute about Mitrayasna's edits, and mainly kept placing the disputed text and related imagery. While Mitrayasna has stopped this after a 24h block, Ashkan3de continues.

WP:NOTHERE apart from insisting on inclusion of obvious interpunction errors, from glancing over Special:Contributions/Mitrayasna

, this editor seems more concerned about a nationalistic/ethnic agenda than about proper encyclopedic information. Much of this gets reverted back and forth and causes disputes, see for instance: [209] [210]

WP:PLAGIARISM see [211]

Misrepresentation of discussion: [212]

Joortje1 (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is about the difference of images on a cup. There was information about this on this article's Wikipedia page before my edits, I just expanded it. And I cited a book by Giannalberto Bendazzi, one of the most famous researchers in this field. I find it very strange that he is determined to exclude the views of one of animation's greatest historians.

I hope they have no racist motives.

Mitrayasna (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually used Bendazzi's work as a source for several contributions to Early history of animation, while the disputed misquotation seriously misrepresents his view, as explained to Mitrayasna multiple times by at least 3 others (see: [213]). The suggestion of racist motives is strange and quite offensive imho. Joortje1 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my NOTHERE suspicions: almost every contibution by Mitrayasna that I checked is about Iran purportedly having pioneered whatever an artcile is about, e.g. trousers [214], the necktie [215], or even ice hockey [216]. Nationalistic pride isn't necessarily a problem and Iran is actually home to one of the world's oldest civilizations, but it seems this editor's claims are seldom backed up with proper sources and are thus not easily accepted by others. Mitrayasna seems to find it rather difficult to accept contrary claims, and thus repeatedly ends up edit warring (for instance [217],[218], [219] and [220], [221], [222], [223] and [224], [225], [226], [227]). An ethnic element seems to have played a role in banning a Kurdish name from an article [228], as now more clearly dicussed on [229]. When asked why this name would be controversial, Mitrayasna just deflected the issue by maintaining that this name has no place outside her biography [230].

Problem with user

I need to raise an issue with

duplicate categorization rules. Even more importantly, they've now ignored three prior requests to stop doing that — they stopped for a while after I threatened to take it to ANI the third time, but then they started up again yesterday. In addition, they're sometimes also adding films to questionable genre categories that aren't properly supported at all, such as filing Comedown in Category:Comedy films and Lead Me Astray in Category:Fantasy films

even though neither the articles' text nor their IMDb profiles suggest that those genre labels would be accurate in any way.

Basically, it's becoming tiresome to have to clean up after them, but asking them to stop clearly isn't making them stop. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a topic ban on categorization is warranted. CugaD seem to be an otherwise productive editor who just cannot grasp categorization guidelines.

talk to me! 14:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Cyber harassment of a living person

Page deleted (

talk to me! 13:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Please speedy delete the article on the person who is AfDd and I just reacted to the procedure. I do not want to create extra links. It's bad enough as it is. Can the AfD page also be removed? gidonb (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entirely clear to me that the page was intended as harassment, but I've deleted it under

WP:A7 as it made no credible claim of significance. Spicy (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you,

WP:SKYBLUELOCK may also assist. gidonb (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I've gone ahead and

problem solving 20:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Makes sense, User:ONUnicorn. Thank you for salting! gidonb (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn, I noticed that you applied semi-, did you mean to apply extended confirmed instead? Semi- is currently redundant to ACPERM. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, yes, I did. Thanks. ~ problem solving 10:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Cheers to all who who worked and commented on this article, including to
Fram for getting the deletion rolling in the first place! gidonb (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

A less narrowly focused block for this IP range?

Per [231], already partially blocked by Zzuuzz, is continuing to move across some of the standard vandalism magnets like Thomas the train and comic book articles. Are any of their edits constructive or ought they be reverted an masse, is a broader block merited, and is protection a proper response for some articles? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have an opinion on the Thomas Tank editor, so will leave others to opine about that. What I will say is that this is not the block you're looking for, and it should be left alone. You'll probably want to include 2600:1001:B114:51D::/64 and 2600:1002:B141:9C4A::/64, for example. These ranges are normally around /40 or /41 in size so have a good look around before doing anything. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1.5 year long edit war - plagiarism - glorification of terrorism - user "Militaryfactchecker"

INDEFFED

Militaryfactchecker has been
dishonorably discharged from Wikipedia Corps. (non-admin closure) Comrade a!rado🇷🇺 (C🪆T) 14:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

In my three years editing on wikipedia this is my first time submitting an incident to this noticeboard so please be patient if I'm not using it correctly. I'm no angel myself so this is my first experience being the person to make a report.
For almost two years I've clashed with the user @Militaryfactchecker on the pages British Army Training Unit Kenya and Duke of Lancaster's Regiment. I made extensive edits covering the reaction by British politicians & newspapers to the death of Agnes Wanjiru, a Kenyan woman who entered into a hotel with soldiers of the Lancaster Regiment and was later found dead in a septic tank. Militaryfactchecker often accused me of using wikipedia to attacking the reputation of the British military, and we would often be in conflict.
Earlier today I found that User:Militaryfactchecker had been plagiarising from the articles they were citing, making little attempt to paraphrase. I brought up the issue on Talk:British Army Training Unit Kenya. His response was to go to my talk page and post a song glorifying the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force, two organisations which in my country are designated terrorist organisations.
I felt this crossed a line and so I'm here asking more experienced editors for advice on what to do next. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"For almost two years" I have only been editing on wikipedia for 3 months...? Militaryfactchecker (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posting lyrics to "Bring back the Black and Tans" to the talk page of an editor involved in a dispute definitely crosses the line into personal attacks and harassment, and for that alone I have imposed a 48hr block. This does not preclude further discussion or sanctions for other problematic behavior identified in this report. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary here also seems to cross several red lines (and that's ignoring the fact they are deleting cited content).Nigel Ish (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, comments below notwithstanding, that edit summary crosses into NOTHERE territory for me. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I am not comfortable working with anyone who thinks it is okay to describe a fellow human being like this. That isn't "censorship" or "thought police" or "woke"-ness: it is basic human decency, and a matter of professional social competency (and we volunteers are "professionals" in this context). It's bad enough to think that way about another soul, but to actually say something so dehumanizing, degrading, and reflective of thinking of other Homo sapiens as less than human "out loud" (in this context) reflects a lack of ability to understand and abide by generally accepted social principles that is not compatible with staying employed in almost any large professional workplace, even very conservative ones. I'd have indeffed: that edit summary is "HR has packed up your office; you will now be escorted out" time to me. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I agree with an indef at this point and would have started with the indef if I had seen that edit summary at the time, but given that MFC is already blocked for the next day or two and that the matter is already under discussion, I think it would be better to come to that conclusion as a community, rather than have me slap an upgrade on this unilaterally. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No argument. I should have been clearer that I don’t have any issue with your judgment! Julietdeltalima (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have also presumptively nominated the revision with the lyrics for
RD1, as it is impossible to locate any information that could determine the copyright status of this song. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Apparently the second occurrence of "years" (in ¶2) was meant to be "months", but instead echoed the "years" in ¶1. – .Raven ^.talk 23:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, @Militaryfactchecker:, I've looked at all the warnings you got and deleted from your talk page. I also looked at your contribution history - 565 edits.[232]. Looking at List of equipment of the British Army , the article you edited the most, you made 152 edits, usually consisting of one word to several sentences. While none of those involve big 10,000 word additions, your pattern reflects how much of Wikipedia gets built - lots of small edits over time. At the same time, you also got edits reversed and even had 4 edits deleted from some page; they must have been pretty nasty to be deleted from the record.

So what do I see? A presumably knowledgeable editor adding content but also breaking our quality control policies and insulting other people. Censoring unfavorable but reliably sourced material such as the painful stuff about the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment and the Kenyan woman -- that's totally verboten. The British Army has 114,000 members and several times that many veterans. The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment presumably has several thousand veterans -- so we could get by fine without you if we had to.

Your choice - do you want to keep working on military articles at Wikipedia? We are one of the first places folks go to find out information about military topics, so they're definitely important. But you can't stay part of this project if you keep up with what you're doing. If you won't toe the line (i.e., being nice - pretty simple for most people), you should go find another hobby; we don't need jerks -- that editor category is full and we're trying to cut back.

I'm not an administrator but I expect that if they don't hear from you either here or on your talk page, your answer will be assumed to be "no".

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Militaryfactchecker has another 46 hours left on his current block so we won't hear from him for awhile. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that we must be quite firm in dealing with ethnonationalist extremism. There is an ongoing pattern with this editor, but in this particular case, Militaryfactchecker posted song lyrics on another editor's talk page, glorifying the Black and Tans, who are described this way: The Black and Tans gained a reputation for brutality and became notorious for reprisal attacks on civilians and civilian property, including extrajudicial killings, arson and looting. This is intimidating harassment of the worst kind, and accordingly, I have adjusted their block to indefinite. Cullen328 (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good block. Someone who thinks this sort of conduct is okay now will also think that in 48 hours. (Not meant as a criticism of Rosguill's tempblock, which I think was a reasonable initial action.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly worry about reprisal and have contemplated deleting my comments. I have zero faith that WMF will provide any protection. Julietdeltalima (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thiago Seyboth Wild article being attacked

(non-admin closure) ScottishFinnishRadish has protected Thiago Seyboth Wild for 48 hours. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

IP 2605:A601:9135:1400:A8B7:16A6:DF55:7D0F acting as the owner of the article Thiago Seyboth Wild and reverting everyone who edits, taking down information and vandalizing. Please block the IP. Hgarraminhavara (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected and watchlisted the page. Please discuss on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Titus Gold - Civil POV Pushing and Disruptive Editing. Possible Sock Puppetry

We need to talk about Titus Gold.
Yesterday he moved the page
WP:POINTy
and disruptive.
It is by no means the first disruptive page move, though. So far this year Titus Gold has moved 113 pages plus their associated talk pages, and this year is not unusual. Very many of these have been reverted, For instance, this one from earlier this month.[233]. Some of the page moves are uncontested, but even then, disruption arises, for instance, where a whole RM is required some time later to put back an unnoticed problematic move.[234].
The theme of contested moves (and many are contested) is usually separation of mention of England alongside Wales, as the editor has clear issues with
WP:NPOV
on this point.
NPOV behaviour is not limited to page moves, and Titus Gold has tested limits of editor patience, e.g. in this discussion:[235]. A very clear case of
Civil POV Pushing
.
There have been many informal attempts to address this behaviour. On WikiProject Wales, there is this thread which raised many serious issues, and in which Titus Gold appeared to be engaged: [236]
Yet problems persisted, and calls for a topic ban were reiterated: [237]
Indeed, a tour through the WikiProject Wales archives has a litany of threads dealing with issues arising from this editor.
He does not archive his talk page, but there have been many attempts to engage and assist on that page. This snapshot [238] is typical, and has three of the issues that keep arising, being:

Undiscussed page moves (despite him saying he will take it into account, he continued to make such moves)

Neutrality of articles (and his repeated acting without establishing consensus - in that case in removing a maintenance template)

His attempts to remove any mention of “England & Wales” together on Wikipedia.

Another talk page snapshot [239] shows examples of other problems: recreating pages that were recently deleted at AfD, the fact that many of his creations have to be taken to AfD, creation of categories that also need addressing, etc. All of these issues arise from a transparent Welsh nationalist POV.
On Talk:Water supply and sanitation in England and Wales he attempts to relitigate the exact same proposal that was declined just 2 months ago, eliciting the same answers but consuming more editor time. On this occasion, though, he appears to be socking (see below).
He edits disruptively. Just one example: when he created a POVFORK of a page and it was taken to deletion, he attempted to move the page to draft, removing the deletion tag and placing it on another page. See that deletion discussion. [240] , and the other page he attempted to delete, by later replacing the moved template with a proper one: [241]. Socking
In an RFC which was clearly going against his preference, a new user suddenly arrived, ProfBlue12, to support Titus Gold.[242]. This was a brand new user whose first edit was to join WikiProject Wales [243], which Titus Gold has also joined. They then somehow found and !voted on this RfC. They then went away to do nothing until suddenly, yesterday, they returned to !vote on the relitigated split proposal mentioned above. [244]. I tagged the comment as an SPA, and only after I tagged it did ProfBlue finally make a (single) mainspace edit [245]. Those edits were at 19:29 and 19:51. Titus Gold had been active earlier (14:08) and returned to editting at 20:18[246].
After the !vote on the RFC, I opened a sockpuppet investigation.
Duck test
at that stage, was content to let it go, as hopefully a single abberation that would not change the outcome of the RfC. This second !vote, however, is clearly the duck quacking again.
I should say, however, that I am not looking for short bans for this editor based on socking, and if admins still feel the evidence is not conclusive of socking, that is not really my concern. I do not want Titus Gold banned from Wikipedia, but I do think that the protection of the encyclopaedia demands that we address the core issue: Titus Gold is a civil POV pusher with a non neutral point of view on all articles relating to Wales.
I therefore propose an indefinite community topic ban be imposed on Titus Gold from articles relating to Wales, broadly construed. Should the community agree, he would be in a position to appeal such a ban in 6 months, but would be required to address the problematic behaviour.
A second ban might also be considered from conducting undiscussed page moves. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that bold moves are permitted by Wikipedia.

The feathers are referred to as the "Three feathers" usually in Welsh media and recent research by myself have found reliable sources showing that the feathers are technically those of the heir apparent, not the Prince of Wales, although in my edits I recognise the association of course.

The Water split proposal is not the same as the page move proposal previous to that. They are different proposals although albeit similar in some ways.

I'm not sure why you're referring to another user. Are you suggesting this is another account made by myself? If so, I can assure you that is not the case although I don't know how I could prove that.

With regards to claims of civil POV pushing or POV because I have made edits and contributions of differing viewpoints. It's unclear what is being suggested here. I do not at all dispute the fact that I have made a number of edits separating England and Wales. This is merely updating Wikipedia following the extensive change in the structure of the United Kingdom over the last 25 years with devolution in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Note that I have not at all changed pages such as e.g England and Wales, Green Party of England and Wales etc. because there is clear evidence to support these pages staying as they are. Justice is not devolved in Wales and the Green party remains an England and Wales party.

I'm happy to learn or improve as an editor and acknowledge that I have made occasional mistakes. Titus Gold (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to add this, but editors had replied so, adding as a new comment: Titus Gold also edit wars continually for his POV, without waiting for any consensus. Just one example, these are all reverts to re-assert something he wants in the article: [247], [248], [249], [250].Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think someone with two blocks for edit warring on their account already would know about edit warring by now, seems like a
WP:IDHT and the rules don't apply to me because I'm right attitude. Canterbury Tail talk 14:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Support a topic ban as per the nominators proposal. I come here very reluctantly because my strong preference is to welcome all sincerely felt views when appropriately supported by RS. In this case however, I have felt unable to continue contributing to many pages dealing with Wales or Welsh issues because of the persistent strong nationalistic editing by Titus Gold. Wales is my home and I am personally a strong supporter of matters Welsh, but I try my best to steer a POV free line in my editing. Many of the edits by this editor do poor service to the country and misrepresent the wide view. Whether this is intentional or unintentional I cannot guess, but the outcome is undoubtedly detrimental to Wikipedia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support admin intervention. I too come here very reluctantly, as I am concerned about the non-neutral point of view of Titus Gold, and having to closely read all of their edits for PoV is in effect disruptive. I don't see that a ban is necessary, but some form of administrator intervention must be. Perhaps Titus Gold should take a voluntary break to consider whether they do have a nationalistic bias, and if so, what they should do about it in relation to editing on Wikipedia. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban per proposer...Oh please yes. TG has wreaked havoc in Wales-related articles for over a year now. The proposer has outlined some issues. Moving articles and creating
WP:BLUDGEON thrown in. It's just exhausting trying to keep up with his tricks. I was going to pull together some diffs, but I think I need a good night's sleep before attempting. DeCausa (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Footnote: I'm wondering if theres some sort of CIR issue involved. A minute ago he's just made this edit which is smack in the middle of the issue that prompted the opening of this thread.
WP:IDHT, just doesn't get it or the middle finger. I don't know which. DeCausa (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

And he's also just gone 5RR so I've made a report to AN3 here. DeCausa (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban This is a quite clearcut
WP:CFORK existing ones.
To my memory I first encountered TitusGold at Talk:Wales/Archive 18#Recent edits in May 2022, which followed a slew of bold and in many cases quite blatantly POV edits (eg. removing main and see also links that mentioned the United Kingdom). This conversation stretched across multiple subsequent sections in that archive, and resulted in all their edits being rolled back. Despite this, they continued with the same sorts of edits, and even edit warred them in. It's hard to go diff by diff, but the edit history shows how overwhelming and relentless this was. In July 2022 I brought up some of the repeatedly edit warred parts on Talk:Wales/Archive_18#Recent insertions, which had not gained consensus in the previous discussion. In August 2022 TitusGold raised exactly the same things again in a new section Talk:Wales/Archive_18#Police and Military. Having not obtained consensus there, they raised in again in December 2022 at Talk:Wales/Archive 19#Armed forces and veterans in Wales: should be mentioned. The same things were then raised, again, in April 2023 at Talk:Wales#Potential to add some sections similar to Scotland. Each time it was raised at if it was a new issue.
Another article I interacted with them on was International relations of Wales. This was created by them on 13 April. This was moved back to draft on 15 April, with many issues being pointed out at Talk:International relations of Wales. After a period of inactivity and the issues with the page not being fixed, TitusGold unilaterially moved it back into mainspace on 8 May. In both of these cases the clear pattern can be seen of pushing a POV, and then when there is pushback and it is clear there is no consensus, simply waiting and then trying again.
Their statement in this report of "I was under the impression that bold moves are permitted by Wikipedia" is entirely disingenuous: they are perfectly aware their moves and edits are controversial. It is, as with the repeated Talk:Wales posts, a pattern being deliberately presented as discrete and unrelated acts. It is also concerning how these pushes are often hidden behind innocuous edit summaries. Take the most recent move, the Prince of Wales's feathers article Sirfurboy opened this discussion with. The change of that article name was slid into the Wales article with the edit summary "slight re-word to sentence".
If it was just the POV that would be one thing, but the clear lack of care for community consensus or any sort of collaboration has made all these edits utterly disruptive. After responding to this AN/I report, TitusGold has gone straight back to editing the page the prompted the opening of this AN/I. Edit warring with multiple users, ten open talkpage sections, and an open AN/I report are all apparently not enough to bring about even a moment of pause. A topic ban is needed. CMD (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
To clarify topic ban scope, I would support UK-related articles, broadly constructed. The problem extends beyond Wales-related articles, although they are the clearest example. CMD (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Support admin intervention, it was only a matter of time before this was raised at ANI. A very large amount of time has been spent by several editors, including me, unpicking and repairing (and sometimes deleting/redirecting) TG's edits. TG has largely been civil since I've come across them last year and promises to take advice on board, but the problematic behaviour usually continues i.e. constant moving and renaming of pages, often whilst they are under discussion, as well as creation of content forks, POV "Controversy about..." and "Campaign for... " articles and large scale duplication/copying of info across Wales topics. Depending on the outcome of the sockpuppetry allegations, maybe some sort of break from editing Wales topics would be beneficial for reflection. Sionk (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support topic ban, as per nominator. As a follower of Welsh-related pages, I have watched TG’s activities with some dismay for some time, and have previously called for some community sanction. They edit with a strong POV and are not interested in Neutrality. They are incapable of/unwilling to understand/take on board other views. They are incapable of collaborative editing, although they pay lip service to it. Sock puppetry would not surprise me at all. In short, their passion to promote a Welsh nationalist POV far, far outweighs their wish to build a neutral encyclopaedia. KJP1 (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've just blocked Titus Gold for one week purely for the current active edit warring they're performing on the Prince of Wales article. This is purely for that specific edit warring, and does not prevent further sanctions from the outcome of this thread, though they will be no longer able to participate in it directly (not that they were showing any inclination to do so really anyway.) Canterbury Tail talk 17:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban and suggest that it be extended to cover pages broadly related to devolution and nationalist movements in other UK nations as well as Wales. I've observed similar civil POV pushing behaviour on pages such as
Potential breakup of the United Kingdom, Proposed second Scottish independence referendum, United Ireland to mention but a few. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Support topic ban on Wales broadly construed. Unlike many of the editors commenting above, I have no special knowledge or interest in the Wales topic area, but the ongoing disruption must stop. Titus Gold should be warned that any tendentious editing related to Scotland or Ireland will lead quite quickly to additional sanctions. Cullen328 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on whether a topic ban is justified, but I wasn't impressed with their editing in Welsh fiscal balance. I do get the feeling that this editor has a pro-Wales POV and sometimes it interferes with editing according to policies and guidelines. (t · c) buidhe 23:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Support topic ban on Wales broadly construed, per KJP1 and others - which is a pity as I think this is the only area he is interested in editing. He seems to be getting worse too. Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban extended to cover pages broadly related to devolution and nationalist movements in other UK nations as well as Wales as suggested by Rosbif73.SovalValtos (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Someone has today left some rather nasty porn on my Wikidata talk page. The user, created today, is [251]. I have reported on the admin noticeboard there. However, this has never happened before, and the user's only edit is on my page. I rarely upload there, so I doubt this is random. The timing is such that I would like to know whether a sock puppet investigation is possible across Wikis. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy - Sorry about that and hope it wasn’t too unpleasant. The timing makes it unlikely to be coincidental and with luck some cross-Wiki investigation will be possible. KJP1 (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy: I wouldn't jump to conclusions. If there is a connection with this thread (and there may not be a connection) I know from previous experience that LTAs target participants here for reasons best known to themselves. DeCausa (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes.. True. OK so probably no need for an investigation. Sorry. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no need for an apology. And personally I doubt it is coincidental. But, unpleasant though it was, it is entirely secondary to the key issue that you have raised. And for which there is complete consensus that action is needed. KJP1 (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: Funnily enough - I had the exact same thing with a brand new user on my Wikinews talk page a couple weeks ago despite not editing there for months. I also haven't been involved in this discussion, so I don't think it's about this. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Admins at wikidata also suggested it happened before too. Odd timing, but happy to accept there is no connection with this case. No need to investigate that further nor take it into account. This case stands on its own. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User Stariq436

User:Stariq436 talkpage abuse by advertising on talkpage after being blocked for being an advertising only account. Would recommend revoking talkpage access 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a great problem. They've just posted the URL and said they're the owner of the domain. Seems like a question by someone not quite getting things rather than deliberate attempt to circumvent a block and perform advertising. Canterbury Tail talk 19:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This seems like someone who doesn't understand what has just happened. It's not really disturbing anyone; if they were pinging admins repeatedly or filing unblock requests with the same statement TPA may be revoked, but they haven't done either of those things yet. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklist bestbillingsoftware.shop if not already done.
bestbillingsoftware.shop: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to assume good faith

This message by User:BilledMammal has been sent in bad faith. Is he saying that guest editors who use the site for research do not have a right to express their opinions on how the site may be improved?
Earlier, I posted a proposal at the village pump forum which several other editors have chosen to discuss rationally – some in favour and others opposed, as I would expect. BilledMammal appears to think everyone must comply with his views. 92.30.240.106 (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they're saying the complete opposite of what you think. They're saying that if you have an account, you should make such edits while logged into your account as it allows greater attribution, continuation of conversation and doesn't come with revealing personal information as could be gleaned if your IP address is visible and you may not want that associated with your logged in account. Additionally that is a 100% standard template used thousands of times. Guests and people without accounts are absolutely allowed to chime in and make suggestions, but if you have an account it's better to be logged in. Canterbury Tail talk 19:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further, your edits with this IP thus far suggest a deep knowledge of past personal disputes Wikipedia, while itself displaying what is arguably a lack of assumed good faith on the part of editors who disagree with you about sports biographies. It's quite reasonable to suspect that you are in fact an editor with an account, in the absence of editing contributions on this actual IP or a clear indication of what your past activity has been on Wikipedia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you two should discuss this between yourselves. See the note at the top of this page that starts with:
“This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.”

It goes on to give practical alternatives.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've CU-blocked the IP for block evasion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NSPORTS proposal and outcome should be null and void. There’s a collateral issue of private group behaviour that’s not exactly collusion or canvassing - more like “light” collusion regarding another round of mass deletions.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also:
User talk:BilledMammal/Mass Creation Draftification

I understand this was flagged by a socking IP; I encourage looking beyond that to this other concern. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Collaboratively crafting a proposal/idea/rfc/discussion has never been considered canvassing, and is completely unproblematic. If anything, it's good practice, more eyes is a more sensible proposal. CMD (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this had taken place off-wiki before being presented as an RfC how would you have felt about it? When I first read it, there was maybe just a hint of a stitch up. Now, because other people have gotten involved, we're perhaps making progress. Perhaps that would have occurred anyway, but - as I said there - I think we might be better off with the process being more open for a longer period of time Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's changing the parameters of the scenario. Yes it would be different. SWinxy (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of my (very minor) concerns is that a user page can be gone in the blink of an eye, unquestioned, never to be seen again by anyone - no REFUND etc... applying. I hope that wouldn't have happened, but transparency is probably a good thing in cases like this were some editors feel, for whatever reason, like their project's are being attacked or whatever Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst appreciating that the edit is by an editor with an active block in place, it seems fair to point out that there are editors who do use Wikipedia without choosing to create an account. Posting as an IP is in lots of ways more honest in this case than creating a sock account to do so. Although I may not agree with the claims of bad faith above or with the way that the points have been made at VP, IPs can make useful contributions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who editted as an IP for quite awhile before making an account I was well aware that some of the issue I ran into was because of bad faith editors misusing the anonymity that IP editting allows. It was just something you accepted, certain articles couldn't be editted and you couldn't take part in certain discussions. It's unfortunate but it's necessary to have some level of scepticism with IPs reporting in contentious areas, this isn't the fault of IP editors but more usually due to editors with accounts evading scrutiny. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get that. In this case, however, I don't believe that this is an editor with an account that they could even vaguely hope to get re-enabled seeking to evade scrutiny - there was no attempt to hide location etc... and they would have known that it was obvious who they were. But that's academic anyway - this particular ANI case is unwarranted Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree on the latter point. It's not like the discussion was off wiki, editors should be allowed to discussion matter in they userspace without being hounded about it. Any resulting proposal would still be discussed at an appropriate forum. I do suggest any RFC proposal goes through
WP:VPI before being launched though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm a bit concerned about the extent to which BilledMammal is getting stalked here. I don't see a canvassing issue because in my view WP:CANVASS applies to discussions meant to reach consensus for change -- RfCs, AfDs, AN/Is, or RMs. I can't see how WP:CANVASS applies to a discussion about how to structure a future RfC. But I can see clear violations of
WP:HOUND.—S Marshall T/C 08:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

User:Elelch

WP:NOTHERE
. They edit only a limited number of Peru-related articles.
Their first editing conflict occurred on the
WP:IPSOCKs to place the information back, though they were reverted by a different user. The user was then warned that they would be blocked for their edit war and sock behavior
.
The user again engaged in edit warring behavior on the controversial
WP:CIVIL. They continued to place the messy edit into the article
and accused me of misrepresenting the sources (which I can easily disprove).
In summary, this user does not appear to be here to construct an encyclopedia and is instead participating in
WP:BATTLE behavior.--WMrapids (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I haven't looked at the civility issues, but a block for edit warring is definitely warranted. They used sockpuppet accounts and continued edit warring even after being warned.

Also,

talk to me! 13:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Carpimaps: Yeah, I’ve reached out about the username and heard nothing. Thanks for bringing that to attention again. WMrapids (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

A suspicious edit that may have been performed as a

WP:IPSOCK. WMrapids (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikiproject Terrorism and discrimination links falsely attached with Hindutva talk page.

Completely biased. considering the fact that islamic counterpart of actual terrorist, discriminatory and fascist ideology

Iskandar323 is disruptively undoing the categories again and again. 2402:8100:39CC:6C20:DC62:1943:E6FF:1298 (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

So this chap appears to bouncing around about IP-wise (there are a several IPs with the same first 10 numerals at the relevant talk). A range block might be in order.

Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Also strangely coincidental activity from this IP too.

Iskandar323 (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

does it make any difference if IP of my device changes? the real question is why are you promoting your personal interests on here by glorifying islam and defaming hinduism??? comment on the topic dont divert. 2402:8100:39CC:6C20:DC62:1943:E6FF:1298 (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

wikipedia:BOOMERANG for OP and /32 block is needed -Lemonaka‎ 09:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

block that man instead of me. clearly the one promoting his islamic ideology here. 2402:8100:39CC:6C20:DC62:1943:E6FF:1298 (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why are you all not talking about real topic here 2402:8100:39CC:6C20:DC62:1943:E6FF:1298 (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. That being said, Jihad is an ancient, broad and somewhat vague Islamic concept that includes benign aspects and extremist aspects. Groups advocating Jihad as an extremist, violent ideology are described that way on Wikipedia. Hindutva has a narrower and more precise definition. It is an extremist ethnonationalist ideology that was founded exactly 100 years ago by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. He was not a religiously observant man. In fact, he was an atheist. His vision of a Hindu identity was rooted in ethnonationalism and the separation of people into "us versus them" , rather than any universalist religious teaching. The two concepts are so dramatically different that valid comparisons are almost impossible. Being friendly to Hinduism and opposed to Hindutva is an entirely reasonable proposition. Cullen328 (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the reason for narrow and precise definition of hindutva is because people from west only entertain certain ideologically inclined sources when something relates to India and well they accept every source when it is related to islam as they fear the results. Well if you look up for indian writers or news sources from hindupost, opindia, swarajya mag (which people in Wikipedia has declared unreliable), you will find definition like "ideology formulated to protect hinduism after years of exploitation from outsider" or sources like Hindu American Foundation.

lets just leave it all and tell me even if we go by your "definition" of hindutva, is it justified to tag it as terrorism or a form of discrimination? 2402:8100:39CC:6C20:DC62:1943:E6FF:1298 (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a particular editors definition that matters, only what is reported in reliable secondary sources (the further detached the the matter the better). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's not entirely wrong that the Jihad page should have a link to wikiproject terrorism. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:197F:F3F3:EFFF:449C (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like there would be a huge amount of collateral on the 2402:8100:39CC:6C20:DC62:1943:E6FF:1298/42 range, so have given it a couple of weeks off for repeatedly assuming bad faith and directing invective towards anyone who disagrees with them on this contentious topic area. Come back if it starts up again when the block expires, or if they find a new range to edit from. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit Now comes another one in @2603:7080:8F00:49F1:197F:F3F3:EFFF:449C -Lemonaka‎ 14:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to think that that is the same person - the IPs are completely different, and geolocate to different continents. It's not too much of a stretch that two people could agree on that point. I blocked for the personal attacks and ABF commentary, plus a bit of what I took to be trolling, in their contribs - not for holding that view. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sanalchalil

I would like to report User:Sanalchalil for persistent disruptive editing on various pages. This user has been consistently removing references and changing the names of organisations and political parties to abbreviations, as seen in this edit. Additionally, there have been instances where the user has added malicious content, as seen in this edit. The user's edits consistently follow a similar pattern, which includes removing sources/sourced content, changing names to abbreviations, and at times, engaging in evident vandalism. I have reverted most of their recent edits and have warned the user twice about their disruptive editing behaviour but have not received any response or improvement in their actions. I would like to bring some administrator attention to this. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second edit's much worse than the first. The first edit that you report doesn't seem disruptive to me because the reference he removed was a broken link. I don't agree with the change from full names to abbreviations, but to my eye it's ill-judged rather than disruptive. The second edit should never have been made and a sysop should visit this editor's talk page to offer support and direction.—S Marshall T/C 10:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing rollback permission from User:Hammad

Probably a retaliatory filing because of the content dispute. Even if brought in good faith, there's insufficient evidence to justify removal of Hammad's rollback permission. There's nothing more to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is quite clear that this user does not understand the

original research, as being explained in the article's talk page. (Here) he attacked me personally and inappropriately by saying that I am "making fool!". (Here) he deleted several reliable sources, because from his point of view they are biased! Accordingly, this user does not know the difference between reliable and unreliable sources, and have a poor ability to discern between good and bad faith edits.--Leopard72 (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it worth looking in more depth as this users contributions as well as their rights on the English Wikipedia. In particular the early version of their User page contains some very problematical content revealing a deep-seated POV against non Muslims. With these sorts of attitudes it would be surprising if their edits were not reliant on their own POV. There may be wider issues requiring more forceful remedies. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Leopard72: Can you please provide some diffs of improper use of Rollback? The ones you provided are not Rollbacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:RFR: "...Users who do not demonstrate an understanding of what constitutes capable vandalism fighting, either because they have no or little history of doing so, or show a poor ability to discern between good and bad faith edits will not be granted this right." In addition, this user is not a professional at all. And I totally agree with what User:Velella said above. At least you should keep your eyes on his contributions. Thanks anyway and sorry for any inconvenience.--Leopard72 (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You have 20 edits, are reporting an experienced editor to ANI, and are asking for a right to be removed as a punitive measure? Doesn’t sound fishy at all… 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:5982:9FEF:A48A:62A1 (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No casting

WP:ASPERSIONS, thanks. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 16:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This is ANI, the reporting party’s behaviors are subject to review. This is sketchy at best. Editors in good standing should not be subjected to aspersions by blocked users. Thanks! 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:5982:9FEF:A48A:62A1 (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What blocked user?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IP 2604: Much of your editing here seems to consist of commenting on this noticeboard, and participating in

WP:VEXBYSTERANG, which you may fall afoul of at some point if you proceed in this fashion. (See contribs for 2604:2D80:6A80:0:0:0:0:0/41 (talk · contribs)) And yes, users have been blocked for "too much ANI" before. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 16:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

the issue with the report is the lack of diffs, saying “this user is inappropriately using rollback” and then providing no evidence of this and saying they will not be doing so, the number of edits of the op has nothing to do with it. 2605:8D80:602:11DF:8570:506F:202A:1C5C (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IP 2605: Leopard72 never claimed that Rollback was being misused, only that Hammad didn't seem fit to have the tool. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 16:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a content dispute. This has nothing to do with rollback permission; Hammad's last visible revert tagged rollback is from August, 2022. There is a content dispute between Leopard72 and Hammad on Abdul Qadir Gilani. Leopard72 started a vague accusatory thread on the article's talk page but didn't ping Hammad so Hammad might not have been aware of it. DMacks just locked the article down to admins only. The discussion needs to continue there. Schazjmd (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

General battleground and incivility from an otherwise productive editor

Recently @Tewdar:'s contributions at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory have become disruptive, they have a long history of editing the page (140 edits, #2 in terms of editors by edits) and the talk (over 500 edits, again #2 overall) but over time they've become less and less collegial. Recent edit summaries and comments include:

"Better? Let's have a ****ing RfC..."[252]
"what a fustercluck" [253]
"I suppose we could say "Jérôme Jamin, a researcher in Political Science at the University of Liège, Belgium" too, but that would just be stupid. Why the **** do we need to say which university Braun works at? "Academic philosopher" or "fully-qualified academic philisopher" or whatever would be fine if you think we're leaving off details from her CV here..." [254]
"This complaint is easily fixed in like 10 seconds, no need to revert, you could do it yourself if you weren't making POINTs all the time..."[255]
"Consult your optician please"[256]
"If you "can't find any support", you must be having vision trouble again. That's the entire point of the fucking chapter!!! Do you have a PARITY source that says this is wrong? I could dewikivoice it for you, if you ask nicely" [257]
"Now don't change stuff that I'm guessing you didn't even read." [258]
"Actually, fuck this. Not debating sources with people who don't read the sources." [259]
"I don't believe you read the source. You just can't have!"[260]
"You just DONTLIKEIT because the source says "cultural Marxists", no?"[261]
"Attempt to fix ridiculous repetition caused by earlier 'contribution' that fucked everything up for ideological BATTLEGROUND reasons without even reading the source"[262]
"This conversation is shit, so I'm going to do something else." [263]
"Actually I fucking hate discussions on this talk page" [264]

There are also bludgeoning and edit warring concerns but they appear co-morbid with the battleground behavior, I don't have much experience with Tewdar on other pages but from their edit history this does not appear to be a widespread problem they otherwise appear to be doing great. To prevent further disruption I am requesting a formal warning and if that does not straighten out this otherwise productive editor a page/talk page ban from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I first came across Tewdar at Cornish language a couple of years ago when they were new to WP and noticed them at various venues here since. My take, FWIW, is that their communication style is somewhat immature/crass but, in a British context, is harmless. I don't think it "travels". I suspect in the global context of WP (if you're not a Brit) it comes across a lot worse than intended. Which is not to say that Tewdar shouldn't modify it. DeCausa (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it's Americans that are immature and crass. E Eng 22:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really? DeCausa (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I thought it's Americans that are immature and crass." From the people I noticed on the Internet over the years, I got the impression that Americans are humorless, prudish, and easily offended. Crass is not what comes to mind about them. Dimadick (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, who you calling easily offended? I ought to give you a punch in the nose! E Eng 19:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to engage him about this, and persuade him that his behaviour was counterproductive, back in February. (diff) --DanielRigal (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if responding is such a great idea but here goes anyhow; so hi! 😁 I'm Tewdar. I've written a few articles here of quite variable quality and viewership. I like writing articles. My favourite part is finding out that I got something wrong and having to rewrite everything. I contribute to articles I didn't write too. Most of the time my editing is unproblematic. So I'll do an edit, and someone will say it's crap and revert it, and sometimes I think someone else's edit is crap and I'll revert it, and sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong and sometimes it's a bit of both and we come to a compromise and yadda yadda ya. Usually not a problem.
One of the few (?) exceptions to this pattern is the
Cultural Marxism about a year and a half ago and being redirected to some crackpot conspiracy theory that I had been dimly aware of. I was pretty surprised by the redirect. Even more surprising was the quality of the article, which was in quite a sorry state
(B-class my ass). Not that I'm taking all the credit for the improvements since then - lots of people have made changes since- but I must have done a significant amount of the restructuring, content addition, and source checking.

There certainly is a battleground there, but it was like that when I got here. Statements that any L1 English speaker could see were a grotesque distortion of the sources required an RfC to remove. Pointing out false quotations were met with insinuations of being a fascist sympathiser or believer in the conspiracy theory. Questioning source accuracy got me called a racist troll. Nobody on that talk page gave a flying fuck about any of the personal attacks.

Moving on to the last few days, I pointed out that the phrase used in the lead, 'culturally liberal values', was not found in the sources and, in my view, a questionable summary for what sources described as 'atheism' and 'socialism', among other alleged goals. Apparently it was pedantry to point out that this phrase was not found in any of the sources used in the article at the time. Well, there was certainly a lot of sarcastic pedantry in response. Perhaps my own responses were not perfect, but I don't think I was particularly rude to anyone. Now, on to yesterday, when I made this addition to the article from a new book. This was, to no surprise whatsoever, near-instantly purged of the phrase 'cultural Marxists' (the term used in the source) and any reference to the appropriation of Gramsci's 'war of position' by the New Right, on the grounds that 'can't find support' for the claim. Well yes, it must be easy to 'not find support' if you can't access the bleddy chapter. Now, my one-man edit war (I was having trouble deciding whether to just revert or not, since they obviously hadn't read it) and accompanying summaries were not my best work here, but Trudgeon on his tractor, you can't just go around reverting stuff because you guessed that it isn't in a source that you can't actually read! Anyway, I left it pretty much as it was, with a bit of copy editing because the removal buggered everything up, so I don't know where the claims of edit warring are coming from, unless you mean against myself.
To be honest most of those diffs above are a bit daft. The "Consult your optician please" one, about Newimpartial's inability to read italic font, even got a thankyou from NI if I remember rightly. "what a fustercluck", well, yep, that's an accurate description of the structure at the time. And yeah, 'Dr Professor Joan Braun, of Gonzaga University' vs. 'some dude called Jérôme Jamin' requires some sort of piss take for sure. And finally, I really really do fucking hate discussions on that talk page. Sorry about that, but at least that one was accompanied by the blanking of the section I created so we didn't have to talk about it.
I could probably manage to tone down the swearing and (what people seem to be perceiving as) battleground behaviour a bit if people really think it's disruptive or problematic. Tewdar 02:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unusual for him to engage in troll-like behavior towards people who hold opinions contrary to his. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:8C5A:D5BC:5164:18C0 (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What, like this sort of thing? Tewdar 03:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, I'm a bit torn. On the one hand, some of those comments clearly violate

WP:CIV

, as it seems Tewdar acknowledges. On the other hand, Tewdar has given a cogent accounting and seems genuine in presenting an explanation for these behaviours that is based in the principle that "context is king". For what it's worth, I have been summoned to that article more than once over the years by a random FRS/RfC notice, and it must be said, it is truly one of the worst perennially toxic experiences on the project: a true mixing pot of fringe conspiracy theories (of political and racial dimensions), NOTHERE motives, tendentious editing, and policy violations. I can see where even a usually reserved community member might occasionally lose their patience if engaging there over an extended period.

That said, I suspect Tewdar could really anticipate what I am going to add here: context is king, but that particular king is not above the law, in the land of the Wikites. Which is my messy, mixed metaphor way of saying that we only excuse so much bad behaviour, in terms of brightline behavioural policy violations, on the grounds that others set the table for the disruption. At some juncture, you bear the responsibility for pulling yourself out of a content dispute or a given space if you are feeling

incapable of controlling your frustration and keeping comments within certain bounds. All factors considered--including especially that I don't think the OP was looking to get Tewdar sanctioned, but just wanted an acknowledgment from Tewdar that this was not the best way forward (and/or a nudge from the community along the same lines)--I think that all that is warranted here is said nudge. Tewdar is clearly not in IDHT mode, so I hope they will take it to heart when I say the following: please just dial back the sarcasm, frustrated swearing, and undertones of long-suffering exasperation, and take breaks as necessary to avoid personalized commentary about any other community member's eyeballs, and that sort of thing. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

If Tewdar was more civil with his interactions then he would be far more successful as an editor here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does look to me like Tewdar is bludgeoning that discussion. We all get a bit heated sometimes, I think it's probably wise to deliver a trout to his address and tell him to limit himself to a normal amount of messages on that page. Which I know he knows how to do.--Licks-rocks (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would make a change from mullet. Which discussion are you referring to? This one? To be fair, they were just repeatedly asking me for never-ruddy-good-enough sources over and over again. So I just kept giving them what they were (quite rudely, imo) asking for. But meh. I suppose it might look like bludgeoning. Anyway, SnowRise (and DeCausa) have given me some excellent advice above, which I intend to take, along with the trout. Also, I plan on staying away from that article, at least until the forthcoming peer-reviewed study, Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of Cultural Marxism is published, so that should free up editor resources over there for reverting bulk replacement of the article with the circa 2014 version and allcaps additions of "THIS IS ALL LIES WE KNOW THE MARXISTS IS IN CHARGE!!!". Also I apologize for any personal attacks I have made in frustration. So... is that good enough, or is some sterner punishment required? Tewdar 12:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Also I apologize for any personal attacks I have made in frustration." Tewdar, there are plenty of things in Wikipedia that I find frustrating and counterproductive. But to start exchanging insults with other editors is not going to magically fix these problems. Perhaps you should take a break from interactions on certain talk-pages, if they are affecting your mental state that much. Dimadick (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I should probably just stick to articles that nobody else edits. Tewdar 18:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the sentiment, ANI of this collaborative project is maybe not the best place to express it. Cf my first post in this thread. Less is more. DeCausa (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Themanoflaw049

Themanoflaw049 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On 12 May, Themanoflaw049 made this

WP:BURDEN as they've added the unsourced claim). The discussion could've ended here, but no, Themanoflaw049 proceeded to ask me questions unrelated to their edits, so I thought that it would be good to bring this up here. I don't see the point of continuing the discussion if they're ignoring the recommendations that I've given to them and trying to sway away the discussion towards something else. I want to abstain from edit-warring, therefore I won't edit the Centre-left coalition article until I hear third-party opinions about this. --Vacant0 (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Open up discussions on the article talk page and perhaps articles supporting the other editor's contentions might pop-up. For now, it's disruptive editing from Theman... I have given you a week of ec protection on the page... See where it goes from here. Lourdes 07:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've opened discussions on both the Centre-left coalition and Centre-right coalition (which the editor only mentioned in discussions). Vacant0 (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY of User:The Mathworld Sock

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

The Mathworld Sock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to edit his talk page after being blocked as a sock puppet. I have no idea what he is trying to do, other than to glorify his own sockpuppetry. I am requesting the TPA be removed from this sock. Heart ^(talk) 04:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Euryalus (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Nowakki

This new user

Fram (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

it should be taken under consideration that Blockleiter and Blockwart is not used to refer to somebody or an action somebody took regarding the breaking of the law, the murder of innocent people or other depravities but rather to the meddlesome enforcement of petty rules. I also talk like that to amuse myself, i don't even know the guy who made the edit. And i also do not like flags and have no objection to less flags. Nowakki (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nowakki has a history of personal attacks, including comments on the neurology of other users:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships&diff=prev&oldid=1135381847#ship_launches

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships&diff=next&oldid=1135405571

The user was warned about NPA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nowakki&diff=prev&oldid=1135535070

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nowakki&diff=prev&oldid=1138748238

Kablammo (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

also, Glengarry Glen Ross is one of his favourite movies. Nowakki (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nowakki: You do know that aside from anything else, you do, at least occasionally, sound like a troll, e.g., your comment in this thread about "amusing" yourself. More examples. What does the reference to the Glengarry film mean? Also, on your Talk page, in response to some advice about List of blast furnaces, you stated "if it gets deleted i will just reintroduce it in a slightly different shape and form. My actual worries at this point are: China and (even worise) pre-glasnost Soviet Union. I don't really have a plan for either." What does that mean?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

reintroduce it as "List of United States blast furnaces (20th century)". The main point of disagreement in the deletion discussion was to the scope of the article.

Soviet union blast furnaces are more difficult to find sources on than United States blast furnaces. I do not speak Russian. Nowakki (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block indefinitely
WP:AGF astronomically fast. Dronebogus (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
incredible. i don't even remember interacting with you. what did i do to you? Nowakki (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this user needs to be blocked; judging from their posts, they seem to be quite young, and may benefit from some mentorship. Being a goofy kid does not mean that someone is out to destroy the project, it just means that they are a goofy kid and need someone to tell them to calm down every once in a while. jp×g 19:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've indefinitely blocked Nowakki.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: For what??? jp×g 21:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

331.dot, who turned down Nowakki's unblock request, wrote of "personal attacks and lack of collaboration". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which, btw, is noted in the block log, and it's 331dot.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UGC

Daeva Trạc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Daeva Trạc has been alerted by multiple users about adding badly sourced or unsourced content, particularly flags and maps, in the past few months without changing their behavior.
Problematic additions mentioned in Talk as follows:
- Neo-Nazi Flag of Vietnam
- New page on the Kingdom of Luang Prabang without any sources
- Re-added content with incomplete citations, surnames and page numbers but no title, no page numbers for a text over 200 pages long
- Map of Greater Turkey with a failed verification source
- Map of a legendary kingdom based on blogs and Wiki pages as sources
- Another map of ancient polities based on blogs and Wiki pages that don't even agree entirely with the map
It has been explained by each user that they need to adhere to
WP:RS
to support their content.
They deflect from
WP:UGC
and RS by ignoring and implying that Wikipedia, blogs, or primary sources are legitimate:
- [268] - No mention of
  WP:RS
  , tries to legitimize using Wiki as source, if the subject is legendary in nature then all content can be or the article should be deleted.
- [269] - Admits that they cannot find a reliable source and used a blog instead.
- [270] - Deflects from lack of RS by stating I haven’t add any unsourced flags despite adding fictional flags to infoboxes. Says that since the subject of the page is legendary, then the whole article should be deleted if they can't use "legendary" sources. Does not understand
  WP:PRIMARY
  . Repeats that the maps are based on Wikipedia sources. The sources are never given.
- [271] - More deflection from lack of RS based on
  WP:OTHERCONTENT and primary source "arguments" at Baiyue and Hồng Bàng dynasty
  .
- [272] - Starting to become a bit unintelligible plus previous behavior
- [273] - Deflection from RS and OTHERCONTENT
- [274] - No mention of RS
- [275] - OTHERCONTENT
- [276] - primary source
- [277] - blogs
- [278] - primary source
- [279] - I'm not sure what they're talking about
- [280] - Facebook
They tried to enlist the aid of another editor User:Donald Trung: [281]
Continued to add the same maps ([282] [283]) without reliable sources after discussion:
- [284]
- [285]
The user is either
WP:COMPETENCE
issues

Qiushufang (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. About Talk page:

First section: I did about an internet-based, self-claimed Nazist party, but had to delete due to unnecessary

Second section: have you even read? I literally copy down from Wikipedia and that guy claimed I made things up, which then I added sources that come from the exact Wikipage

Third section: as I mentioned, nationlists don’t care about spreading there ideas in English on a “reliable” website.

Fourth section: you deleted names (that have been written in various sources included in Wikipedia) and maps (that have more sources than those maps here. Then attacked me for some things I did in the past.

2. Call for help

Since you have known, why don’t you read more carefully. I don’t want my account to be banned by a “Trust me bro” user 3,4, attacks me and claimed the sources I added are not at best at his 1. If even Lĩnh Nam chích quái and Đại Việt Sử ký toàn thư are unreliable, then what else are? Why do I have to believe in a guy who made maps with no sources?

3. This user keeps using my old “flag adding” mistakes to attack me in an argument that don’t even related to the subjects. In

Hồng Bàng, he deleted a map that I drew based on ^[1]^[2]^[3]

.

With an arbitrary admin like this, how can Wikipedia be neutral. Daeva Trạc (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And not sure why most of the accusations, you only pointed out what I did in the past instead of present

The Kingdom of Luang Prabang (Japanese puppet state) is literally just separation out of French protectorate of Laos (During WW2 and Puppet state) (as the contents and title doesn’t really match).
Flag, again, comes from an internet-pased party that I mentioned here
Ah, the double standards as I mentioned above. I wondered what would have happened if I just didn’t put any sources like Qiushufang here (not sure if this is you, but this user’s files, although unsourced, are still being used).

— Daeva Trạc (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of this addresses the concerns raised by editors on

WP:PRIMARY. Qiushufang (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Examples of :

Im also pretty confused because they use the first edit version during the making process of the article to attack to me.

My first revert at Baiyue was disputing the accuracy and sources of the map they added. At Hồng Bàng dynasty I was not the first editor to remove their map nor did I attack them.

deleted the map that I made based on the information I have gathered (I even have sources why there are at least 2 maps in the article don’t. in the Hồng Bàng one, I again, based on a website that have an online version of Lĩnh am chích quái to draw my maps and he again deleted them (like if the sources in maps aren’t valid, what made the article as a whole?) -

Lĩnh Nam chích quái is a 14th century primary source.

Yes, but if Chinese/Japanese wiki and other nonWiki sources (usually in Chinese or Vietnamese) said the same things, I think they would be more reliable.

Immediately after Donald explained that Wikipedia should not be used as the source, they argued that having Wiki pages as support adds additional legitimacy.

I only used Wikipedia as summaries though. Other sources from nonWiki sites and books from different languages have been provided.

Does not mention that these non-Wiki sources are PRIMARY and UGC.

Qiushufang (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the names I added should still being kept (I have compared with Chinese versions and after doing some results, the names of Yue tribes I added are not fake).

Of the three names they added to the list of Yue polities here, only 東越 appears in the body of Chinese version, the other names do not appear in either the Chinese or Vietnamese versions. They are from the unsourced Cantonese and Gan Chinese versions they listed in the description of the map they added. There is no way to know if they are real without further information since they are not mentioned in the English version of the page nor are there sources provided. There are Chinese and Vietnamese versions for for 干越/Cán Việt with no reliable sources, only dead links or UGC.

Qiushufang (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Disruptive editing by Chile-based dynamic IPs

This is a Chile-based dynamic IP who for many months now has been changing details in many film articles against consensus, despite advice and numerous warnings. They change billing block and cast list entries; change the title/headline of citations/references; change wikilink targets; over-link (etc). By the time action can be taken against them, pages are semi-protected, or a proxy bot blocks them, they've already moved on to another article or another IP address, then they return to repeat the same reverted edits over and over and over again, denying the charges against them, even when presented with diffs as proof.

You'll see that the majority of their contributions have been reverted by other editors, and yet they persist with making the same or similar changes. Latest response to another editor's level 4 vandalism warning: "Yeah yeah, whatever you say."

I do wonder if this user is on the spectrum, and I appreciate that allowances are made for such users.

Latest incarnation: 201.188.149.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Example Edit difference (reversion by another editor of multiple edits: "Stop redoing the same edits over and over when they are reverted for a reason").

Example Edit difference (reversion by another editor of multiple edits: "Also unreliable, now considered intentional disruptive editing as previously reverted changes were done yet again").

Previous incarnation: 201.188.143.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Example Edit difference. Incomplete and deceptive edit summary "Fixed". Actually changes citation/reference titles/headlines.

Previous incarnation: 190.21.163.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Previous incarnation: 190.21.168.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Example Edit difference (reversion by another editor of multiple edits: "rv disruptive editing". Repeated changes to citation titles, followed by increase in page protection).

Many incarnations before this, especially editing four Fantastic Beasts film-related articles.

Some (but certainly not all) earlier incarnations are here: Edit summary search.

Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time and consideration. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a block should be placed. Whether on the spectrum or not (personally it doesn't seem like they are), the user is being repeatedly disruptive, ignoring consensus, and being dismissive, with comments such as Dude stop with your drama ([286]) in response to your ANI notice. —El Millo (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the edits are film-related, and it's like playing whack-a-mole with so much IP hopping. Would a topic ban be appropriate, and would it span across future IPs, making it far simpler to pursue as block evasion? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the course of action is with disruptive dinamic IPs. Range block? Temporary individual blocks for these specific IPs? So far, it seems those IPs have only been used by the same editor. —El Millo (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of reversion by multiple editors, gentle advice, increasingly stern notices, range block, increased page protection, waiting for proxy bot to block have been used thus far, but the user still persists. Your

WP:AIV went stale before it was even looked at. That's why, not knowing myself, I brought the issue here. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

User:AsbjornSigurdsson — Long-term NPOV editing related to
single-purpose account

This report was automatically archived without any discussion or action. Consequently, I am resubmitting it.

Subject of report: AsbjornSigurdsson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Reporter: Greentryst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have notified this user about this report. I also warned this user about this behavior previously.

To the best of my understanding, this is a

NPOV policy

, rather than a content dispute.

This user's

sole contributions to Wikipedia have been related to Shetland. Shetland is one of the 32 council areas of Scotland

.

Each edit has been an attempt to do one of the following:

Impose their own unsourced definition of folklore related to Shetland while deleting other users' contributions:
Trow (folklore) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2023-01-26 — Removed some existing content and added their own.
2023-01-30 — Reverted by Ghmyrtle as "ungrammatical and unsourced."

2023-02-07 — A similar edit, but removing more etymological information.
2023-03-02 — Reverted by me.

2023-03-11 — Two intervening edits were made by User:195.194.8.230. This IP address appears to be a shared IP of "Shetlands Islands Council" per its talk page. It has had repeated warnings for disruptive editing. Its overall history is outside the scope of this report, but these two edits appear to share content and style with the previous edits by AsbjornSigurdsson.
IP userlinks: 195.194.8.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2023-03-11, 3 hours later — Further deletions and additions.
2023-03-20 — I reverted this and the two IP edits while keeping the most recent edits by User:BoonDock. Looking now, this appears to have inadvertently kept the deletion of two references from the Etymology section, "kvam" and "UIB troll", which likely should be restored.

2023-04-28 — Yet more variation in deletions and additions.
Reverted immediately by ClueBot NG.

2023-04-29 — Addition of further unsourced content.
This remains on the page.
Purge Gaelic terminology from an article related to Shetland:
- Foula (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - 2023-01-30 — Removal of Celtic name. Edit by User:86.148.173.22. This is the sole contribution for this IP. The edit summary: "There is no Gaelic or Celtic name for Foula. Gaelic has no place in Shetland or on Shetland." AsbjornSigurdsson uses a nearly identical summary on 2023-02-04, shown below.
    - IP userlinks: 86.148.173.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  - 2023-01-30, 4 minutes later — Removal of Scots name.
    - 45 minutes later — Reverted by Ghmyrtle, but the IP's edit remained.
  - Intervening edit — Bruce1ee removed the remainder of the Celtic name tag to fix the resulting tag error.
  - 2023-02-04 — Removal of Scotland from the intro and the Toponym section, leaving malformed text in the process.
    - 1 minute later — Reverted by Yoshi24517 because of the malformed text.
  - 2023-03-20 — I re-added the Celtic name and the deleted remainder of the tag.
Divorce Shetland from its subordinate relationship to Scotland, instead trying to present it as an independent territory:
- List of Shetland islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - 2023-02-16 — Dissociation from Scotland.
    - 2023-03-02 — Reverted by me.
- Shetland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - 2023-02-28 — Dissociation from Scotland.
    - 2023-03-02 — Reverted by me.
  - 2023-03-08 — As above, but with further excisions.
    - 2023-03-20 — Reverted by me. (Two unrelated intervening edits by others canceled each other out.)
- Funzie Girt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - 2023-03-08 — Three revisions. Dissociation from Scotland and other unsourced changes.
    - 2023-03-20 — Reverted by me.
- Out Stack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - 2023-03-11 — Dissociation from Scotland and the UK.
    - 2023-03-20 — Reverted by me.
- MV Hjaltland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - 2023-05-17 — Dissociation from Scotland.
    - 2023-05-19 — Reverted by Finavon.
Assert their POV regarding Shetland and their intent to continue pushing it:
- User talk:AsbjornSigurdsson (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
  - 2023-04-28 — Response to my NPOV warning on their talk page.

I am unsure what should be done at this point, but I believe that my involvement should be limited to the two days in March shown above. Please note that Trow (folklore) appears to have outstanding issues, as discussed above.

— Greentryst ^T_C 13:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a simple final warning is required here, that if the user persists in trying to claim that Shetland is not Scottish, they can be blocked. Black Kite (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility from Gwillhickers

I would appreciate some guidance in dealing with some chronic

bad faith

.

In March, he engaged me in a long discussion about how to present the Constitution of the United States.^[1] After I argued that we should avoid the phrase the people without qualification,^[2] he said that I was bent on the effort of casting aspersions on the U.S.^[3] (I am not.) After I said that the United States was not the first democracy in America,^[4] he repeated that I was bent on slighting American history.^[5] I asked him to assume good faith and stop making personal attacks.^[6]
On 22 March, in Headbomb's AN/I thread,^[7] Gwillhickers referenced what he called my obvious SJW behavior.^[8] I asked him to stop calling me names.^[9] His response doubled down on his social justice warrior comment, arguing that it did not count as a personal attack.^[10]
In the same conversation, he described my apparent attempt to obscure the discussion and ward off any newcomers to the discussion.^[11] and my hope that we will forever be going over these things^[12] (Neither of these characterizations are accurate.) I reminded him to assume good faith,^[13] but he responded that good faith went out the window sometime ago.^[14]
On 27 March, in an unrelated discussion at Talk:James Madison, he tried to canvass more editors into the AN/I discussion about me, describing me as an editor who routinely tag bombs articles, and then follows up with reverts, multiple proposals over menial items in the middle of unresolved discussions, with pages of endless talk.^[15] After I warned him to stop canvassing,^[16] he deleted the warning without responding.^[17]
On 6 April, I argued that
tendentious
, suggesting that Wikipedia should take sides on controversial issues and prioritize the "accurate" point of view.
On 25 April,
harassment.^[24] I eventually convinced him that he had deleted the comment.^[25]

On 17 May, I suggested that we should not limit the scope of Constitution of the United States § Influences to Gwillhickers's European examples, citing a source about Indigenous democracies that served as an inspiration for U.S. government.^[26] He accused me of making content decisions on the basis of race.^[27] (I never make content decisions informed by racial discrimination.) I reminded him that Wikipedia considers an accusation of racial discrimination to be a personal attack.^[28] He replied that his characterization of me was an academic criticism rather than a personal attack.^[29] I tried to clarify my position, citing another source about Indigenous influence on the U.S. founding.^[30] He repeated his accusation that was making decisions based on race.^[31]

As you can see, I have repeatedly confronted

WP:RUCD policy, but it has been exhausting and ineffective, and our interactions continue to be unpleasant. I would appreciate any help, whether it is something more that I can do, a second voice that Gwillhickers might listen to, or a good reason for me to simply suck it up. — Freoh 16:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I see repeated longstanding disruptive behaviour, but I looking at the actual diffs and not the cherry picked quotes, I don't see that behaviour from Gwillhickers. Being criticized is not the same thing as being subject to uncivility.
b} 17:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"His response doubled down on his
extremist of some kind.Dimadick (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Why in the world have you formatted the diff links in this way? It makes them nearly impossible to follow. jp×g 19:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't yet looked is to the rights and wrongs of this post, but I see nothing wrong with the way diffs are presented, which looks clearer than in most reports.
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments from Gwillhickers

As one can hopefully see, the above claims made now by Freoh are tainted with a lot of opinion. While the discussions in question are not of a friendly nature they do not involve outright incivility or "personal attacks", or anything that amounts to disruptive behavior, for which I have been repeatedly accused. The latest issue began on the U.S. Constitution Talk page where Freoh said

If we are including influences that are not universally accepted, then we should include non-white influences as well.

To which I replied — "Seeking other such political philosophers simply on the basis that they may be "non white" is not the way to approach matters".

For this Freoh came to my Talk page and accused me by saying "I do not appreciate your accusations of racial discrimination"^[32], and for "systemic bias" on the Constitution Talk page. No one ever said that we must only include European, or white, influences only, and in several instances I invited Freoh to provide content on any "non-white" influences if such content was covered in reliable sources.

Freoh has engaged in similar matters on the Constitution Talk page, once accusing Allreet of presenting a "nationalist point of view", in spite of the fact that numerous reliable sources were cited, historians Freoh also accused of having a "nationalist perspective".. Freoh has had every opportunity to include other perspectives in the article if they are cited in reliable sources, and has never even attempted it. Instead he engages in endless talk for which he has been taken to task for here at ANI, by numerous editors in the recent past. In an RfC which began on Feb. 2, lasting approximately six weeks, he made numerous and ever-changing proposals and again filled the discussion with endless talk involving spurious POV's for which he received no consensus by the time S Marshall closed that RfC. Now it seems he is about to make the same attempt here with lengthy talk, as his claims above are highly exaggerated or simply distort what has actually happened.

If there is anything that can be considered truly uncivil or a personal attack, I apologize for that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freoh mentions an ANI discussion in which he feels he was mistreated. That discussion was started because of his penchant to misrepresent interactions and to "warn" editors for things that they have not done. It then expanded in scope to several different conduct issues, including the ones that Gwillhickers has described in their disputes with Freoh. I have not seen any evidence that Freoh has learned from that discussion, and if anything it appears that the behavior for which Freoh received a logged warning has increased. The worst offense committed by Gwillhickers here is that they have been far too patient with an editor that has wasted an inordinate amount of other contributors' time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was the uninvolved closer of the well-attended
WP:Civil POV pusher). Based on behavior raised in that ANI and the OP's behavior since the resulting warning, it seems likely the clean start agreement (if any) has been violated many times. In my opinion, this contributor (whatever their current username) has abundantly demonstrated themselves a net negative to the project and should be indefinitely banned from Wikipedia for regularly violating the civility policy and the terms of their clean start. BusterD (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I did not violate the
WP:CIVIL quotation) how I violated civility policy? — Freoh 00:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Having a legitimate reason for creating a second account (no matter that reason) doesn't excuse the contributor from violating the parts of CLEANSTART I quoted directly. I contend the behavior of this new account has told me all I need to know to make an informed decision about the contributor. As to diffs (even ignoring everything linked in the ANI thread) let's just observe two threads on your current talk, shall we? First, we have a thread in which admin Doug Weller tells you he should have blocked you for making personal attacks on Headbomb in the ANI thread. Then we have a thread in which I try to explain that accusing an editor of not getting the point (by misleading piped link in your edit summary) is a personal attack. I'm finished answering questions from this editor. BusterD (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Proposal - User:Freoh is banned from Wikipedia for violating WP:Civility and WP:Clean start

Support as proposer BusterD (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Freoh is a persistent timewaster whos sole purpose appears to be to tendentiously argue on talkpages, wasting the valuable time of other Wikipedia contributors. They are therefore a net negative to the encyclopedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The misuse of a clean start is sufficient in itself to ban this editor. By allowing the possibility of a clean start, the community extends AGF to the maximum, trusting that the editor will no longer cause the previous disruption, and the encyclopedia will retain a valued contributor in return. Violating a clean start is therefore a very serious offense against the entire en.wiki community, worse than mere vandalism or disruption: it is a gut punch that rewards a magnanimous gesture with total disdain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support a cban for civility and clean start violations, but also more generally for
disruptive editing. I think the close of the previous ANI discussion was reasonable at the time, as it gave Freoh an opportunity to reconsider his approach and become a more constructive editor. Unfortunately, Freoh did not take this opportunity. He has engaged in the same behavior that resulted in a formal warning, in some cases continuing the same disputes for which he was warned. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Support enough is enough. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:F58A:A000:66B7:FFE6 (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I remember watching the previous ANI discussion unfold. This pattern has to stop. I'm unsure on the clean start question; we don't know the circumstances of the previous identity. Mackensen (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support regardless of the clean start, Freoh is simply too combative. From their own presentation of diffs, it seems clear that they frequently twist or distort comments from other editors and then follow-up with condescending warnings.
LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

SUPPORT. I still maintain that this is the same sockpuppet account that I mentioned the last time this user appeared at ANI. Tamzin, perhaps you remember this discussion from last time? He should have been flushed the first time. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
casting aspersions about me in a post about incivility. I do not have time to respond to all of the falsehoods right now, but will try to do so within the next 48 h. — Freoh 01:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose - From my observations, Freoh is not disruptive. He displays a creditable degree of curiosity and eagerness to examine potential biases. Although some might perceive these as real, and others imagined, I see Freoh approaching it with brazen determination, and I would never say he wields force or disruptive tactics. While there is a degree of stubbornness, I do not believe he has ever sought to scourge or lame pages and discussions after a consensus has gone against him. I cannot view every alleged attack Freoh has supposedly made. Even in the material linked that is supposedly against him, I don't see anything stand out as being particularly "disruptive". From General Ization in the canvassing link: Sorry, I'm not a party to this debate, and I agree with Freoh it was inappropriate to try to draft me into it based on my contact with that editor concerning a completely different issue in August." This one example suggests, to me, that his accusation was not bad faith and appears to be founded in some logic or evidence. Again, I cannot view every instance of this, and I am not exactly a judge on this or anything. I cannot in good conscience puff and trumpet to others that Freoh's comments and approach are from malice or ill will, and such a declaration on my part would, I feel, be an unwarranted condemnation. In the other example provided (no personal attacks regarding ErnestKrause), Freoh had left the comment because he was called an SJW and had SJW opinions. Let any charge that Freoh is against the spirit or goodness of the project be carried out with the same verve to the peers who make comments such as these. — Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕

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

^talk_contribs 19:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The diffs you've linked do not smell like much of anything to me; it's a Rose Mary stretch to claim that some guy saying an article is wrong and he wants to edit it to be correct is

WP:RGWing by reverting that jp×g 19:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Nope, certainly not - but then again, accusing me of "abuse of power" wasn't the best of things to do, IMO. --

^talk _contribs 19:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think we can expect everyone to be completely familiar with our bizarre and obsessive jargon. Sure, calling it an "abuse of power" is gauche, but Wikipedia nerds would take it seriously if he said "failure to

WP:RBK use". This seems like a content issue at best. jp×g 19:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Surely, pointing out abusive and irresponsible parties in power is well with Wikipedia rules. And the conversation I joined seemed to be entirely related to the edits I appropriately made and you quote inappropriately undid. It also points continuing irresponsibly behavior on your part. Rickmoede (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not describe these reverts as an "abuse of power"; Prodraxis does not have any more right to edit the page than you do. On the purely content-based side of this issue, I think that your objection to the passage (that it's overly biased) may have some merit, but removing it entirely seems like an unpromising approach; surely some of that stuff should be mentioned. While the ANI filing seems unwarranted, I think that if you keep pursuing this line of inquiry the way you are, it is likely to result in some sort of sanction; you would probably be better served to try and copyedit what's there, or start a

RfC if you feel very strongly about taking it out. jp×g 19:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@JPxG: Yeah, I agree on that - instead of complete removal maybe rephrasing for neutrality would be a better choice to do. I do have to admit, Rickmoede's statement that the Enneagram article does need to be more neutral certainly has merit. But then again, I initially reverted their edit due to it appearing to be unexplained content removal as there was no edit summary.

@

^talk_contribs 19:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Libel

User:N0Brainergmg, among other presumed sock accounts, have been repeatedly adding defamatory unsourced content to Vikki Breese-Iverson. With no sign of this stopping anytime soon, I would recommend a block of all three users adding the information, and semi-protection of the article. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concidering, its public information, and another further attempt to silence the truth will cause further issues. I suggest letting the truth set you free and stop hiding behind your ip adress N0Brainergmg (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for

WP:NOTHERE. Will protect the page now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Disruptive editing by Modern peter

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

Well, another day, another problem on a political party. This time the user called

WP:ADVOCACY. [296] Obviously not willing to discuss his changes, he instead just leaves me a message that "I am a vandal" [297], and that presents with me with the only option to report his disruptive editing as these violations along with the attacks towards me are unacceptable and tragic. Thank you. BastianMAT (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

There are multiple false assumptions made here either due to trying to feel a power over others or something else silly. Any and all sources provided considering “Far-right” were already on the same page in a different section. No new outside sources were brought in. If you want to undo the section of the page that already had said source that are ALREADY considered

WP:VD of taking down an edit of an already reached consensus. I then warned you as so for vandalism as it is considered. Again I feel the need to repeat myself, if you want to dispute the sources that have been on the page for months now, I suggest bringing it up in Talk rather than wasting the administrator’s time. I would consider this user to be quite agressive, it is sad to see an “experienced” Wikipedia editor fall into this path. Modern peter (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This user has proceded with reverting the ANI warning on his user page and he has no activity in talk which raises questions in his response to this thread: [298]. None of the "far-right" sources were on the page until yesterday where his comment says "months", which is evident in history [299], and he removed the

WP:ADVOCACY and accusing me of being a vandal, there is no mention of far-right under political position in talk which makes me wonder where he thinks he has the consesus. Unserious response and action by the user to this matter, which should give ANI everything it needs to know. God damn lucky that we have edit history. I feel like everything has been said, so I’ll leave this here now. Thank you and have a good day. BastianMAT (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I keep my Talk page clean because I am a perfectionist, not that I need to explain that to you. As for the continued false allegation of these sources not existing before, I would direct you to

WP:VD Modern peter (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

_{For what it's worth, reverting comments and especially templates on your own talk page isn't generally an issue. How editors archive their page is their own business.} --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:SYNTH too. Two other users have also told him off now; [310], [311]. I have to admit, pretty hurtful comments too of the user calling me a vandal. BastianMAT (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Reading Page History without any knowledge of this current thread means nothing and is irrelevant. Regardless of this outcome from admin: From my understanding, the sources are considered agreed upon which you have DENIED this whole thread as them even having EXISTED before until this very point and removing sources and edits with a consensus would be considered vandalism. Although now we also have a disagreement about it being

WP:SYNTH as all the sources are very straightforward and you don’t need to connect any dots to get to a conclusion. Modern peter (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

[1] WT:MOSCAPS
, which dealt with a related but quite different issue of capitalisation. While there is no link given, I doubt there was the clear consensus reported.

[2] We've had this conversation before and you've had this same conversation with many other editors and yet you continue to persist because you refuse to accept the arguments of other editors that disagree with you. Perhaps you should find something else to do around here that would be less disruptive and provide more value to project than this. Stop wasting people's time with your nonsense. Deadman137 (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

[3] Lĩnh Nam chích quái

[4] ĐVSKTT

[5] An English version of ĐVSKTT

[6] Talk:Constitution of the United States § Beard v. Brown...or 160,000 v. 560,000

[7] Special:Diff/1144040967

[8] Special:Diff/1144098203

[9] Special:Diff/1144634720

[10] Special:Diff/1144644185

[11] Special:Diff/1144689802

[12] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1123 § Consistant gaslighting behaviour by Freoh

[13] Special:Diff/1146095367

[14] Special:Diff/1146104558

[15] Special:Diff/1146109137

[16] Special:Diff/1145575391

[17] Special:Diff/1146260897

[18] Special:Diff/1146303365

[19] Special:Diff/1146307924

[20] Special:Diff/1146246205

[21] Special:Diff/1146881117

[22] Special:Diff/1148387144

[23] Special:Diff/1148433200

[24] Special:Diff/1151377154

[25] Special:Diff/1151704747

[26] Special:Diff/1152483125

[27] Special:Diff/1152507446

[28] Special:Diff/1152846267

[29] Special:Diff/1152847364

[30] Special:Diff/1153234465

[31] Special:Diff/1155272069

[32] Special:Diff/1155845871

[33] Special:Diff/1157418760

[34] Special:Diff/1157488556

[35] Special:Diff/1157418780

[36] Special:Diff/1158374258

[37] 1

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

@@ Line 1,666: / Line 1,666: @@
 *'''Support''' regardless of the clean start, Freoh is simply too combative. From their own presentation of diffs, it seems clear that they frequently twist or distort comments from other editors and then follow-up with condescending warnings. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 01:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 *'''SUPPORT'''. I still maintain that this is the same sockpuppet account that I mentioned the last time this user appeared at ANI. [[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]], perhaps you remember this discussion from last time? He should have been flushed the first time. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 01:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
-*{{Comment}} It surprises me to see so many people [[WP:CA|casting aspersions]] about me in a post about incivility. I do not have time to respond to all of the falsehoods right now, but will try to do so within the next 48&nbsp;h.
+*{{Comment}} It surprises me to see so many people [[WP:CA|casting aspersions]] about me in a post about incivility. I do not have time to respond to all of the falsehoods right now, but will try to do so within the next 48&nbsp;h. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp;<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User talk:Freoh|Freoh]]</span> 01:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 *'''Oppose''' - From my observations, Freoh is not disruptive. He displays a creditable degree of curiosity and eagerness to examine potential biases. Although some might perceive these as real, and others imagined, I see Freoh approaching it with brazen determination, and I would never say he wields force or disruptive tactics. While there is a degree of stubbornness, I do not believe he has ever sought to scourge or lame pages and discussions after a consensus has gone against him. I cannot view every alleged attack Freoh has supposedly made. Even in the material linked that is supposedly against him, I don't see anything stand out as being particularly "disruptive". From General Ization in the canvassing link: {{TQ|Sorry, I'm not a party to this debate, and I agree with Freoh it was inappropriate to try to draft me into it based on my contact with that editor concerning a completely different issue in August."}} This one example suggests, to me, that his accusation was not bad faith and appears to be founded in some logic or evidence. Again, I cannot view every instance of this, and I am not exactly a judge on this or anything. I cannot in good conscience puff and trumpet to others that Freoh's comments and approach are from malice or ill will, and such a declaration on my part would, I feel, be an unwarranted condemnation. In the other example provided (no personal attacks regarding ErnestKrause), Freoh had left the comment because he was called an SJW and had SJW opinions. Let any charge that Freoh is against the spirit or goodness of the project be carried out with the same verve to the peers who make comments such as these. — [[User:Maxxhiato|<em style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting;color:#FF6699">Maxx-♥</em>]] [[User talk:Maxxhiato|talk and coffee ☕]]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 01:24, 5 June 2023

Muhsin97233

User: Dicklyon, behavioral issues on the topic of capitalization

The real behavioral issue

Path forward

Proposal: Dicklyon and SMcCandlish each limited to one comment per capitalization discussion

BLP issues with User:HonorTheIsland

User:GenoV84

Rangeblock for HazemGM

External links: concerns over copyrights and genocide denial

Proposal to tban Sabuhi from Baku

Randy Kryn - WP:IDHT on edit warring and fringe topics

More stuff

Further discussion (Randy Kryn - WP:IDHT on edit warring and fringe topics)

Propose one month 1 RR for Randy Kryn

USER: Ajeeb Prani is disturbing me with my private user page matters

PamD and I'm feeling intentionally stalked

This user's continuous disruptive image changes on tropical cyclones.

User:Khirurg

User:Snarcky1996

Ayya Vaikundar

Corckett Peters

Scottywong's bullying of ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

Proposal for a one-way IBAN for Scottywong with ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

Proposal: Send to Arbcom [Result: Sent]

A Policy Suggestion

Noahawaii and links to their own blog

Disruptive editing by Mitrayasna and Ashkan3de

Problem with user

Cyber harassment of a living person

A less narrowly focused block for this IP range?

1.5 year long edit war - plagiarism - glorification of terrorism - user "Militaryfactchecker"

Thiago Seyboth Wild article being attacked

Titus Gold - Civil POV Pushing and Disruptive Editing. Possible Sock Puppetry

User Stariq436

Failure to assume good faith

User:Elelch

Wikiproject Terrorism and discrimination links falsely attached with Hindutva talk page.

User:Sanalchalil

Removing rollback permission from User:Hammad

General battleground and incivility from an otherwise productive editor

Themanoflaw049

WP:DENY of User:The Mathworld Sock

User:Nowakki

WP:UGC

Disruptive editing by Chile-based dynamic IPs

User:AsbjornSigurdsson — Long-term NPOV editing related to single-purpose account

Incivility from Gwillhickers

Proposal - User:Freoh is banned from Wikipedia for violating WP:Civility and WP:Clean start

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

Libel

Disruptive editing by Modern peter

Randy Kryn -
WP:IDHT
on edit warring and fringe topics

User:AsbjornSigurdsson — Long-term NPOV editing related to
single-purpose account