Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1111

The user has claimed to @

The user continues to revert and add the same content that had been removed by both me and @AukusRuckus: multiple times The user has provided no sources for the claims or have used

I have just awoken to this notification, and it caught me a bit by surprise. I was still in a process of compiling a wide index of edits by @Lmharding to show a pattern of behavior despite warnings. I am requesting a few hours to finish compiling said index and present it and thoughts in a more coherent manner than I am currently. Apologies for not replying chronologically, not sure what the correct procedure here is when another user doesn't tab out their response. LocalWonk (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I immediately reverted as I reverted in the heat of the moment only realizing what I dsid right after and it was undone. As for Tunisia, there are plenty of incidents of vigilante action but it was sourced as [1] does mention executions torture and other punishments. However, I will revert it. Small setback as a small slip-up. My apologies. Lmharding (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)~

Reply: Hoping that for now this apology is enough for us to move on and not continue bringing up the past as I putting a strong effort to acting better. As for those edits, I admitted my mistake and I undid them. Let's not make a bigger situation out it than we need to. Any past mistakes have been resolved with aukus the editor in question and other then this small slip-up I am doing edits in other categories of articles primarily and the articles have been brought back to any consensus edits. @LocalWonk: there is no need to bring up old edits as we resolved any edits your "compiling" with him being satisfied that I am cooperating so there is no reason to dwell in the past. Lmharding (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I motion to close this, as this editor LocalWonk is now bringing up old and already settling or in the process of settling discussions doing WP:FORUMSHOPPING in a WP:HOUNDING campaign without any context into the fact that they are already being discussed and are being done so civilly without any future edit warring or other guideline regulations other than the two edits I mentioned above which I realized were wrong and immediately self reverted. Please don't punish me for trying to do better WP:NOPUNISH. My WP:FRESHSTART does not mean I'll be flawless or perfect and I have apologized for it. I encourage WP:FAF and to WP:AGF as I am sincerely trying.Lmharding (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Lmharding, thanks for your response.

I find it a bit disparaging to refer to me as a 'random editor' — aren't we all? Also, we haven't heard from @AukusRuckus as to if this is their position on the matter, so please let them speak for themselves. Some of these issues persist on the latest revision of the pages, and the issue at hand isn't limited to interactions you've had with User:AukusRuckus. LocalWonk (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The rest of this message is addressed to everyone:

I share @UtoD's concerns. I’ve noticed that User:Lmharding has taken interest in editing various articles related to LGBT rights in various countries and administrative subdivisions. Overall, they seem to edit the articles to portray the situation as harshly and pessimistically as possible, even when that means flattening real nuance about the current reality, and compromising an article's factuality. I’ve organized some questionable edits by article:

• LGBT rights in Zambia (Removing information, flattening nuance, not providing new sources to support the change)
• LGBT rights in Sudan (Removing information, no change in sources)
• LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia (The use of the phrase “with certain death for those who participate” seems to stand in opposition to
  WP:CRYSTALBALL
  . We can write about legal penalties and nuance surrounding that, but cannot make such definitive statements about the hypothetical fate of people engaging in certain actions.)
• LGBT rights in Mauritania (Flattening of nuance without providing sources to support the edit)
• LGBT rights in Senegal (Changing information without providing a source to support said change)
• LGBT rights in Syria (Use of language that lacks precision and not fit for an encyclopedia (see WP:WORDS), with contribution “Vigilante executions, beatings torture, and vigilante attacks happen all the time in Syria, including by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham a rebel group.” — this goes without mentioning that the claim has no solid citation to back it — that would be impossible, as the phrase ‘all the time’ makes inferences about the future.)
• LGBT rights in Sierra Leone (Nuance completely flattened in this edit, namely that the has no recent history of being enforced, and provided no sources to support the edits. Another source, not previously cited on the page confirms the prior state of affairs described in the article.)
• LGBT rights in Eswantini (More nuance was flattened (including the non-illegal status of lesbian acts), and a sentence was contributed that goes against WP:CRYSTALBALL; “The only way to repeal the country's sodomy law is to go through the courts”)
• LGBT rights in Uganda (Edit warring against two other editors who raised valid concerns)
• LGBT rights in Morocco (Changed information, without citing a new source, that contradicts the original source which was left unchanged.)
• LGBT rights in Malawi (After being informed by another editor that they were flattening nuance and removing information that was factually true, they engaged in edit-war behavior, undoing the other editors reversion of your work, without addressing their concerns in any meaningful way. See edits relating to a disputed moratorium on 23 August 2022.) LocalWonk (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Lmharding has continued to put catch-all phrases referring to extrajudicial punishments in the penalty section of the infobox, which they have already received pushback on. This problem dates back as far as June of 2022. The mass of edits to comb through is so wide, so I apologize if I've missed anything.

In closing, though their desire to contribute to articles on this topic is appreciated, their edits are not improving these articles (if not violating Wikipedia rules), and they are not addressing concerns raised by other editors. There is also something to be said about their unwillingness to abide by basic Wikipedia etiquette, like tabbing their responses,

WP:CIR, "A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. For that reason, it can become necessary for the community to intervene when an editor has shown, through a pattern of behavior, the likelihood that they are not capable of contributing in a constructive manner." I would like for a topic ban relating to LGBT issues to be considered for User:Lmharding to protect the integrity of these articles and to give editors the space needed to begin to repair them. LocalWonk (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

As for mOst of this edits, they were shortened to clarify, be less wordy or list up to top punishments to get to the point nd to copy the style of other articles which took the same approach. It was not to "flatten" or erase any important information. Other details like id a punishment was "unenforced" was removed if there was no source to verify it Finally, for Malawi it was an editing battle that both sides both me and other editors edit warred and reverted rapidly so all parties involved are equally guilty of violatios there but I apologize for my addition to that situation. Overall, mpst if these are either misunderstandings or old behavior I'm growing out of. 12:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Lmharding (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@

LGBT rights in Eswatini, you removed sourced statements here which I restored

, with a better source. I thought perhaps the first removal of "unenforced' was due to lower-quality sourcing, but that can't be right, as you used the Beast cite to add "the only way to repeal the country's sodomy law is to go through the courts."

I posted on the talk page about this and received the reply from you:

It was reverted. I did that to try to shorten information down to not overkill in details but in this particular situation, I take my edits back. Disregard your version is more correct.

That was in June. By 3 September, you made nearly the same edit again. Following that, "unenforced" in the table and "female same-sex behaviour not criminalised" were restored, only for you to, yet again, on 29 September remove these points, saying in ES: "(removed original research and unfounded conclusions)". There's also the entirely unsourced "Penalty: 2 years" now added by you. Numerous sources state no penalty is prescribed, and no prosecutions have taken place under the criminalising law.

Normally this could all be hashed out in the talk page as a simple content dispute. But the type of editing detailed here is very widely distributed across the whole topic area, and contributions to talk page discussions only occur up to a point. They may degenerate in to long, drawn-out, somehow impossible-to-reach-common-ground back and forth, or you, LMH, simply abandon them, as here and as here

Talk:LGBT rights in Texas#Still waiting: "nullified" claim

. There are many other examples, but this reply is already too long. I can supply more if wanted.

I don't know if posting on this board is the right approach or not, but I do not think things can just go on in the same vein: the whole topic area is really poorly served. Your approach to editing and lack of consensus-building efforts do not help. I, for one, feel like I spend all my WP time putting out spot fires, rather than contributing substantive improvements, as I had hoped to. AukusRuckus (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Added dates AukusRuckus (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I cannot speak for that edit as I would have to research more into my reasoning as it was a while ago and I made 50+ edits since then. I doubt you compartmentalize all your edits. I do not have time right now, but as for the the longer disputes I did go back to the UAE discussion so don't pretend that I didn't. I discussed those edits a few days ago here As for the Texas discussion, I am still in the process of researching hence why I did not respond. There are a lot of nuances to Texan laws, and sadly there is a lot of information to sort to find correct information as you would know being WP:CAUTIOUS. Plus, I don't answer to you and I have a life outside of Wikipedia and you have been demanding of my time more ridiciously that any other user I have ever contribute and sometimes I don't want to WP:IGNORE you and you group of WP:TAGTEAM trying to WP:GRIEF me. I cant just have a day of peace because you continue to tag and pester me. But those are again, either old discussions I have responded to or or have been in the process of looking into t. You have reverted and 3RR'd me as well many times breaking your own rules with harassing and time consuming spamming on multiple pages often with your own personal attacks towards me as well, pestering and annoying me trying to prod me. Hypocrisy at its finest. Lmharding (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This kind of response makes it hard to believe that you've changed your ways. What do you mean by "you and you group of WP:TAGTEAM trying to WP:GRIEF me"? Lmharding, trying to collaborate with you has been very frustrating. Is there anything short of administrative action that could convince you to change your approach to content and conduct disputes? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Patience and understanding, I am trying to change but again the process is not straightforward, I am not WP:PERFECT and I again want to shed my past but with disputes like this you don't let me. It feels very much like a group tagteam in my perception, hence why he had followed my edits and watched me. I am free to have that opinion. That view has no bearing on the situation so let's get back on focus.Lmharding (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Either way, I have tried really hard to understand your point of view; I have been subjected to a fair quantity of what I would call less-than-polite responses from you. This is our very first interaction: [2] In addition to being a little unfriendly, it displays a mistaken understanding of

WP:BURDEN. This approach is one that continues to be shown in your editing to this day. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: To help me understand, would you be able to address your thinking in regard to the Eswatini edits that I detailed above, please? This may seem like a small matter, but as a representative edit of your wider patterns that I have found puzzling, it would be helpful to get your thoughts on it. I realise you have made many edits since, but those two I mention in particular were only done on the 3rd and 29th of September. If you click on the diffs I provided, which show the edits, that may help you recall. I'm especially at a loss to understand why they were made when you said you agreed with my restorations in June, but then apparently thought better of it, but without engaging in more discussion. The 2-year penalty addition is just plain mystifying.

(And, if you won't take it amiss from me, I'd like to suggest the consistent use of edit summaries; they act as record of your thinking as well as being helpful to other editors).AukusRuckus (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@AukusRuckus: None of the sources mention lesbianism being legal and but according to ILGA report (2020) there was a law pending that made homosexuality punishable by a minimum of 2 years, but does not mention a top penalty hence penalty of 2 years in jail.Lmharding (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@

Talk:LGBT rights in Eswatini; thank you for letting me know the reasoning. What I would like to discuss here in this venue, are the reasons you did not think it warranted talk page discussion before you made your edits—especially since you had earlier said on the talk page that you concurred with my view of the sources. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: Would like the record to reflect that Lmharding is editing the content of their replies after publishing them, here's an example where they referred to me as a "random editor" (not something I imagined, as I initially thought I did when I first refreshed the page). I am also not bothering to address the (newly) introduced accusations of me participating in WP:FORUMSHOPPING or WP:HOUNDING — a cursory reading of either policy reveals them to be irrelevant to the situation and my conduct, and a deflection from the issue at hand. LocalWonk (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I refer to you as a random user because we have barely talked before. That's not meant as an insult just a realistic observation. Now the hounding and forumshoping comes from the two of you seeming like you gang up on me by collecting up resources together against me might I add communicating outside of Wikipedia to do this which is also against the rules. You also bring the issue to other forums almost like it seems like your shopping to find admins that side with you You are breaking rules here. 13:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Well hey, I was wondering when I would see this here. So I would like to comment as the person who gave USPOL DS alerts to both AukusRuckus and Lmharding, and engaged a bit with both of them regarding this dispute, specifically on the Texas LGBT Rights article, a couple of months ago. I posted on the talk there after reading through the dispute with both of them, encouraging them to drop the stick and seek a 3O. I later noted that there did appear to be some disruption from Lmharding, and encouraged Aukus to see if there were other editors wiling to go to ANI with them, as the disruption and disputes were taking place across a wide variety of LBGT Rights articles. Given that, almost two and a half months later, despite assurances that an ANI would not be needed, we are now here, there may need to be some concrete action taken here. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

To your point FrederalBacon you said oth of us were typing paragraphs, and hat there was edit warring and 3RR on both sides, either both are guilty or neither. You don't get to pick and choose who should get action against them when AukusRuckus was doing the same thing. It wasn't just "my disruptions" so don't try to edit history. Lmharding (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the some of the edits of Lmharding I agree that concrete action may be required if only due to their behaviour on article talk pages where they often change what they have previously written without indicating changes. In particular Lmharding should :

• Not remove article talk page discussions as was done at [3] even if it has been "reviewed and handled".
• Use strikethrough and insert (i.e. <s> and </s> and <ins> and </ins>) rather than editing their previous entries as they did at [4], [5] and elsewhere including multiple times in this conversation.
• Not remove something of your own after it has been there for 4 days as you did at [6] as whilst people may not have replied it may have affected how someone edits or is planning to edit the main page.
• If they have concerns about what someone else has written on a talk page then they should raise your concerns to allow for retraction rather than removing it for themselves as at [7]
• Take some time to read up on talk page formatting as correct use of indents is important.

Gusfriend (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Another running issue is that the user continuously claims that the user has changed behavior and will not repeat the actions when faced with the possibility of being reported but if you look at the edit history the user has made no attempts at making any changes and would simply continue with disruptive editing as usual. This comes off as taking advantage of other users' willingness to make a collaborative effort. Even now the user alternates between promises to change and throwing accusations of other users organizing off wiki against the user without providing any evidence for the accusations. -UtoD 18:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a lie I have been working on it, you don't know me personally? Can you read my mind? an you now my intentions in my head? No. The proof of talking offline has been sourced and mentions collection offline through email which is against Wikipedia rules as well as collaborating through the discussions I sourced to talk to only people they agree with and going to other forum to shop for moderators. Stop trying to deflect guilt of others who do wrong against me. I have been changing, other than the slip ups I reverted immediately I have been primarily not even editing LGBT articles temporarily and I have been successfully editing other topics. I take that as a personal attack, please purge your last acccusatory allegations. Lmharding (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have changed. Poland LGBT righ§ts state in the gender identity section that transition requires approval which only occurs twice a year and is often rejected. For Belarus,other than homosexuality being legal and gender changes being permitted almost no rights are offered in that country. The sources are all there. Nice try with your knitpick but there was no problem with it. Your knitpicking searching for miniscle reasons, albeit false and incorrect ones are enough proof for WP:HOUNDING for me.—Lmharding (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Lmharding: Who are you addressing here? AukusRuckus (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It was a reply to UtoD.Lmharding (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Throwing accusations of

WP:NOTHERE -UtoD 03:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about NOTHERE, but Lmharding does consistently demonstrate poor collaboration. The clear 3RR breach at LGBT rights in Texas happened over a individualized edit-warring warning and a request to self-revert. They called an obviously good-faith editors efforts "unconstructive". I get that this is a long filing, but it's disheartening to see a lack of input from uninvolved admins and editors. AukusRuckus' #Working rough summary below has a good encapsulation of the issues, to which I'd add these recent troubles at the Texas article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The edits in Belarus and Poland were not breaking dome promises, because I said I generally don't edit those articles, not that that I never do. Secondly, the information was the same and saying exactly what the sources say. 3. Nitpicking and semantics to target me. 4. Any recent edits in Texas were using the talk page for consensus but I don't know maybe you were aware of this IP and you were hoping it would disrupt me as you love to find reasons to hate me. firefangledfeather it was inappropriate to bring those up as you and I both know this IP was blanking and I reverted them so it was unconstructive. I'll come back to this issue in the talk page. Lmharding (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Again another random accusation, dismissive behaviour, and refusal to change. " maybe you were aware of this IP and you were hoping it would disrupt me as you love to find reasons to hate me". This is a continuation of problematic behavior and a serious accusation which you randomly keep throwing at other users. This is again a contradictory behaviour to your claims of having changed as you have consistently engaged in the same behavior across the entire page

1 ": I don't answer to you and I have a life outside of Wikipedia and you have been demanding of my time more ridiciously that any other user I have ever contribute and sometimes I don't want to WP:IGNORE you and you group of WP:TAGTEAM trying to WP:GRIEF me. I cant just have a day of peace because you continue to tag and pester me."

2 "Stop trying to deflect guilt of others who do wrong against me"

Continuously being dismissive and throwing accusations of users conspiring against you without any evidence of such is

WP:NOTHERE behaviour. -UtoD 18:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you you think redacting the comments of other users in in a noticeboard without any administrative authority to do so will not be noticed? Trying to remove complaints, throwing out random accusations without any evidence and claims like "Stop trying to deflect guilt of others who do wrong against me " don't really show you as putting any effort to changing or any intention of collaborating. -UtoD 23:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC).

I restored your comment, and I agree this is additional troubling behavior from Lmharding. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

An administrator warned Lmharding "Don't remove other editor's comments just because you don't like them" earlier this month. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

That was an attack on character based on assumptions of my mind and process of thinking. Under NPA that was justifiable to be removed. Don't you dare accuse me of being a liar I have changed, tbut that was a personal snipe obviously against Wiki guidelines. Lmharding (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The only use of lie and liar that I can see, seems to be in your posts, Lmharding. It's understandable that you may resent someone saying they disbelieve your stated intentions; few of us would enjoy that. Still, UtoD is only stating how they view your behaviour going by your history. We are all entitled to make the case as we see it, using reasoned statements and evidence. How do you think editors here feel when they read unfounded accusations from you regarding quite serious WP policy violations? (I know you believe you have evidence of that and provided it, but an entirely appropriate discreet user talk post is in no way improper. Similarly unfounded are the HOUNDING and FORUMSHOPPING jabs.) Nobody redacted your posts. You make a plea for "patience and understanding": Would you please display some towards your fellow editors here?

The best and easiest way to overcome others' scepticism about your intentions is to engage in civil dialogue about their concerns, be open to what they're saying, and expressly state how you'll change your editing. It is not by being defensive, accusatory, and using their slipups against them, nor by insisting everyone believe you just because you say so. I genuinely hate to see anyone upset by comments made, but can't in all honesty read what you removed as a personal attack. You will find others more likely to be sympathetic to your attempts to change, if you show them you are doing so. AukusRuckus (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Lmharding, what the hell are you doing? You edited my comment in the midst of a discussion about your problematic editing practices, one of which is removing or editing the comments of others. Please stop! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

That edit referenced above just now pretty much declared a

WP:Battleground. Doesn’t seem promising. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:8BC:8C48:62A5:C5B (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Although quickly deleted by the user, I cannot but conclude that someone who harbours attitudes such as displayed in this edit

"4. Because of your lack of cooperation and attacking of me, I will be taking back my compromise edits in Texas, as you are not willing to see reason and see that I was trying in good faith to find a reasonable middle ground edit with this vandalizing IP so I take back any middle ground attempts and will be crossing out and taking back this attempt. uI'm playing hard ball now. Good luck with getting the article written as you like. You shouldn't have been difficult."

is less interested in collegial discussion and more so in ensuring their own viewpoints are not challenged. (And to think I've been ashamed of my less conciliatory posts!) AukusRuckus (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

This discussion rapidly became long and unwieldy − something I contributed heavily to. So, I hope it's ok; I've decided to make a summary list here, extracting everyone's main points from the above. If others think it's worthwhile and wish to, perhaps diffs or (very brief) comments could go under each category. (Feel free to improve these rough points, change, or add to them): Then, if warranted, proposals for specific action could be made. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Part of following discussion, a reply to Lmharding by AukusRuckus, moved to User talk:AukusRuckus

 – Added little to already overlong section

1. adds catch-all phrases referring to extrajudicial punishments in the penalty section of the infobox and summary tables in large number of LGBT rights articles
2. uses inadequate sourcing, SYNTH and OR for these additions, or even lacks cites entirely
3. continuously reverts multiple users who remove questioned content
4. when reverting others, often does not give any indication of reasoning for reversion, even in edit summaries:
5. alters own comments on article talk pages without indication of having done so [Altered for clarity AukusRuckus (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)]
6. alters and deletes others' posts
7. makes apologies and suggests intention to change, without noticeable follow-through, minimising extent of issues
8. removes maintenance tags without addressing problems identified or explaining

If okay, could examples or evidence be added under relevant point/s below in "Examples", with any discussion or responses added separately below that subsection? (Just an idea...) AukusRuckus (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

3. Reverting multiple users:

• Table of some diffs from
  LGBT rights in Texas
  removing and reinstating same material. An assertion added by Lmharding was removed by at least seven separate editors and reinstated by Lmharding each time:

This is a copy of a table I posted at a talk page that illustrates a pattern of reverting multiple editors; it also demonstrates lack of edit summaries used when LMH reverts. (If the table format is too cumbersome or disruptive for this page, let me know and I will remove or modify.) AukusRuckus (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

4. Reversions without edit summaries:

• Brazil nut reversions; diffs:
  • edit by LMH
  • LMH's edit reverted; edit summary supplied
  • LMH reverts reversion, without edit summary AukusRuckus (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• On various LGBT-related pages: [21]; [22]; [23]; [24] AukusRuckus (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

8. removes maintenance tags without addressing problems identified or explaining. For example see this series:

• LMH removed here at
  LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates
  and
  • a repeat of same removal of two {{
    fv
    }} tags the on same day; and
  • again, LMH removed one of the two tags)
• An editor added more tags {{better source needed}} for a Florida student newspaper article Lmharding had added to source the death penalty and soon after, Lmharding's
  • removal of those newer tags, also again deleting the older tags they had removed twice before. There was extensive
    explanation on the talk page from other editors about why the source/s were not sufficient, including linking to an older discussion
    about it on RS noticeboard.
• Discussion of this source, a
  WP:SPS
  which still exists on the article as source for execution as penalty, met with similar resistance from Lmharding regarding its unsuitability as RS:
  • removed by an editor, with ES explanation
  • Restored by Lmharding: "the source says in the line above for pride at ESUC that certain countries sentence LGBT to death including the UAE read the source first"
  • I objected: "ESUC source is a Washington State church page. Sure they're very fine people, but not RS for claim of death penalty in UAE ... (had enough of shenanigans now)"
  • Lmharding restored the ESUC Church source and again removed the maintenance tags for the Oracle student news source, and, perhaps because of my ES, said in their ES: "you alone don't have the authority to singlehandedly claim any source is not valid enough", which is strange as it had been first objected to by another editor, and had been discussed on
    talk, going back to 2021
  • a third editor removed the ESUC church source and returned the maintenance tags
  • Lmharding reverted, removing the "better source needed" tags for The Oracle again and restoring the Church website source AukusRuckus (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• removed notability tag AukusRuckus (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Response to point 1: I take offense to you calling my edits "catch call". If there is any source I find that can back it, whether or not you nitpick these sources and incorrectly call them "inadequate" according to Wiki standards, many of them are suitable. It does not matter if they mention these punishments in passing. Wiki standards are followed not your micromanagement or made up additional rules. If they are deemed as not enough according to community consensus, I can and have been looking for additional supporting sources to add.

To points 3 and 4: Many of your reverts were done too with you 3RR ing as well and not explaining your reverts ma good amount of the time either. When you have remembered to, I take them to the talk page and discuss them. Your false narrative is incorrect I have been doing what I needed to. I have been using the edit summaries but yes go ahead and pretend I haven't if you look many of them have explanations.

To 5 and 6: No edits of others have been edited, 1 was removed as a personal attack according to removal of personal attack policies. Go ahead and look at those, I did nothing wrong there. I have no requirement to explain or not remove things on my own talk page according to WP:DRC and WP:BLANKING.

Again, not sure if you read the top comments but I'll repeat for the last time I did and thern made 2 other edits which I immediately reverted to keep with my agreement which I have kept. No action is needed, stop wasting the moderator's time there have been no new edits since those self-reverts and the issue is taken caee of. Any new dispute s on content I'm dealing with in talk pages first.Lmharding (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Above numbering and paragraphing in Lmharding's response above added, by me, for ease of reading and navigating. AukusRuckus (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to cause anyone offence, @Lmharding: I'm trying to summarise everyone's discussion and I took "catch-all" directly from an earlier post (see 1st par in #Previous warnings section). AukusRuckus (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Have added an example, with diffs, above. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Cross that out, it was in the process of being repaired for some reason the edit summary was not showing up in the talk page due to a glitch. Lmharding (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, you search through my edits for small things, stop WP:HOUNDING. Lmharding (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no evidence for

WP:WIKIHOUNDING and you have clearly continued with the same pattern of adding uncited opinions in LGBT pages for Belarus and Poland. This is a clear contradiction of your claims of no longer editing LGBT articles and changing your editing behavior. -UtoD 06:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It is hard to believe that someone who leaves comments like this on the ANI board reviewing battleground behavior doesn’t get a topic ban.

“I take back any middle ground attempts and will be crossing out and taking back this attempt. uI'm playing hard ball now. Good luck with getting the article written as you like. You shouldn't have been difficult.” [25]

For openness and clarity, I am an involved editor on LGBT rights in Texas disputes. 2600:1700:1111:5940:9DFD:661D:4636:AE91 (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

2600:1700:1111:5940:6981:4A73:C9A6:4D9B was the user in the Texas discussion. The above IP 2600:1700:1111:5940:9DFD:661D:4636:AE91 just admitting to be an alt. Please ban this user and cross out his comments from the record, no alts allowed. 05:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This amount of change in the IP address is common in IPv6 addresses. Nothing untoward has happened here. While you're thinking about the IP, care to apologize for accusing them of vandalism? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:VANDAL? AukusRuckus (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I have a general query about this process. Is it acceptable to notify editors who may have had past relevant experience, that this discussion is taking place? I do not want to make this more difficult, but I know there are a few other users who might like to know. They may be able to offer something constructive to the discussion, too.   AukusRuckus (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

2A02:A458:447B:1:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP range used by a single person was previously blocked for three months for "Nationalist disruption and anti-Persian POV-pushing.". With their block expired, they have now resumed their disruptive anti-Iranian/Persian activities, once again spamming talk pages with their personal

Blocked – for a period of 6 months. El_C 20:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

2A00:23C5:980:B601:9DC:6E1:DC90:F945 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This editor has been changing content without changing the sources for a while now. They are particularly active on pages regarding economy subjects ([29], [30], [31], and many others). They are also editing military-equipment-related pages, with the same modus operandi ([32], [33], [34], [35], [36]). On these pages, they also like to classify equipment by generation, with no sources as always ([37], [38], [39]). This has lasted for more than four months already, and the editor has already been warned several times, so I think it's time to put an end to this behaviour. BilletsMauves^€500 18:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Commenting so that this doesn't get archived BilletsMauves^€500 17:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@BilletsMauves: I've blocked the /64 range for a week for persistent addition of unsourced content. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Nikolas1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Desert Rose (Sting song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Alguem ai2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) If you see his contributions, they include some very strong-opinioned and not-sourced edits over and over again and now he's repeatedly blanking pages. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Alguem ai2022 has stopped blanking articles, and has even reached out to discuss the situation after I reverted and warned them.

From my perspective, they seem to be trying to

right great wrongs in a disruptive (but not bad faith) manner, and will hopefully approach things differently from this point on, if they take my advice

on board.

You also seem to have notified me instead of Alguem ai2022, so I've done the honours. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, major oversight. Sorry. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

WHEN YOU POST TO

@EEng: Why did you post this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm on a Burma-shave binge. See elsewhere this page. EEng 22:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:RMT...? El_C 20:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

After reading this I checked his recent contributions and reverted a few that seemed to be straight wrong (I have doubts about one or two more but I don't have time to devote to checking, sadly), but most were probably moved correctly from a transliteration that followed the rules of Russian to one based on Ukrainian. It should also be noted that in general the articles he moved are pretty peripheral and of a low quality which, on the one hand, makes it hard to go through a talk page discussion before moving (because there's noone to talk to!), and on the other it also makes it hard to see if the figures themselves have used a particular transliteration of their name into Latin script: while most articles he moved are about Ukrainians, it's probable that some are Russian speakers and thus prefer or preferred a transliteration from the Russian - in one case the article subject had posted articles on a website in English signed with his name transliterated from the Russian. If an actual Ukrainian could check at least the BLPs it would be great. Ostalgia (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking at a random example,

Oleksii Bessarabov, I was initially confused as one of the [Ukrainian] sources states his anglicised name as Oleksiy Bessarabov. Then I re-read the lead, he a Russian who is a Ukrainian journalist. His article should be at Oleksiy Bessarabov. It doesn't look like any care or attention was made to the moves. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Also Ranjith Apex (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Geniac, as blocking administrator, you might want to have a look. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

   Range blocked, anon only. SPI looks the place to take possible socks. Geniac (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  • An incredible amount of damage done in just the last day. I've spent too much time reverting a fraction. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the editor for promotional username, promotional edits. Cullen328 (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Is that article worth protecting/salting? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, salting is only needed if multiple accounts try to create articles about the same topic. Cullen328 (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)'7

YOUR CONTRIBS GIVE ME THE NOTION YOU'RE JUST HERE FOR

You have a template for these now? With a predefined "promo" parameter? Whaaat. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course we do -- this is Wikipedia! See Template:Burma-shave-notice/doc#Usage. EEng 19:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "we", EEng? Is yours a shared account? Cullen328 (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

That double-E is a dead giveaway. Levivich (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Royal we. EEng 11:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

this is peak "Wikipedia being Wikipedia" IMO

The Shamming Man has appeared. 00:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

This is clearly a content issue, discuss it on the article’s talk page. ANI is not for adjudicating these types of disputes.

WP:CIR also appears to be relevant. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:18D1:FBAE:22D:4993 (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll go with the above IP saying that the article's talk page is best for this. ANI is for more severe violations. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Did anyone notice

Our basic classes are designed for the student to learn the art. Anyone can train.

? That looks like

promotion. Recommend a block of the OP/IP. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, see their draft at

MrOllie (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

We are trying to put in the theme "MARTIAL ARTS" the following:

Pangration is the first historically documented martial art. The first mention of Pangration was made in the Orphic texts between 12,000 – 4,000 BC! (verse 586 Orphic Texts):"This Pangratio gave to old Heracles, a silver krater as a prize for Pangration, a silver krater of many varieties". In Ancient Greek: ”Αυτάρ Παγκράτιοιο δωκεν γέρας Ήρακληι, αργύρεον κρητηρα ως βραβείον δια το Παγκράτιον, κρατήρα αργυρούν πολυποίκιλον“. According to the verse, Herakles was therefore given a silver prize for his performance in the Pangration. This report certifies that at that time the Pangration did not simply exist, but high performance in it could be evaluated with specific criteria and awarded with a prize of monetary value. Orpheus lived before the Trojan War which dates back to around 3000 BC. So the text is considered more ancient. Based on these reports, Pangration is the oldest scientifically recorded martial art. Pangration was considered the best competition in the ancient Olympic Games Philostratos describes it as "the best in Olympia" («το εν Oλυμπία το κάλλιστον») Pictures A, Book B. It was introduced to the Olympic Games in the year 648 BC. The numerous ancient vase paintings suggest a complete martial art, with kicks, holds, punches, wrestling techniques, boxing, throws. Many of Pagratio's techniques are similar to techniques found in today's martial arts. Aristotle said: "Good for wrestling is he who is able to squeeze and hold his opponent; good for boxing is he who can repel his opponent with blows. Anyone who is capable of both is good for pangration " ("ὁ δὲ θλίβειν καὶ κατέχειν παλαιστικός, ὁ δὲ ὦσαι τῇ πληγῇ πυκτικός, ὁ δ’ ἀμφοτέροις τούτοις παγκρατιαστικός"). The sources of the historical times mentioned in the pankration cover the period from the 8th century BC to the 12th century AD. The army of Alexander the Great practiced Pangration, as ancient Greeks used to do. During his campaign in the depths of Asia to India where Alexander the Great arrived, in the 4th century BC, in addition to the many Greek cultural elements and sciences that he spread in the areas he conquered, he also spread Greek sports and Greek games. Among these games was the Pangration which was used not only as a sport in the games but also as a martial art during the wars."

What is the problem and you delete it? 79.167.195.6 (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

We have discuss the matter repeatedly. We have set historical events undeniable by worldwide historians. We don't know what is the problem and our text is being deleted. The argues that MrOllie says don't have a historic base at all. So we don't know the motives that he delete our text. Wikipedia is a very serious organization and democratic too. It must avoid such behaviors by some editors not allowing others to put historic facts about Greek Ancient History, like Alexander the Great's expedition. 79.167.195.6 (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I've left notes on the IP's talkpage concerning their apparent COI and an admonishment to stop pasting walls of content here. Acroterion (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

NEW AN/I THREAD PROBLEM ACUTE! CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION "CONTENT DISPUTE" Burma-shave EEng 16:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

My eyes! The goggles do nothing! El_C 20:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I've partially blocked the IP from editing the articles they have been targeting to prevent further edit warring. (I thought I had posted this earlier but apparently not.) --Kinu ^t/_c 21:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

new term: "certified Burma-shave moment"

The Shamming Man has appeared. 00:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)