Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1116

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

This user has openly accused a veteran editor of being canvassed to an AfD page [1], and has stated that everyone voting for delete because of a lack of notability, outside of potentially one editor, "isn't doing so in good faith" [2]. When I reached out to them about this on their talk page, they deleted my first attempt with no comment [3] and then deleted my second attempt [4] with the comment "I’m not interested in having this conversation with you so please don’t post here about it again." I'm not quite sure what should be done about it, I've never posted something like this, but I don't think it's acceptable behavior for obvious reasons and they probably need a cool off period. Wertwert55 (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

73 edits to your name and here you are at ANI accusing a veteran editor of canvassing and incivility. Sure. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:C59A:3763:53F9:C8B9 (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone of canvassing. Wertwert55 (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The spurious filing by this hardly used (

WP:BOOMERANG - GizzyCatBella🍁

01:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Spurious?

WP:BOOMERANG? Have I been uncivil somewhere? I don't like seeing editors accused of canvassing a page with no evidence. Wertwert55 (talk

) 01:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek is a veteran editor but is also a veteran of incivility accusations, so please no ad hominem - the number of edits of the filer is as irrelevant as the good/not so good standing Volunteer Marek. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

.. and now you Gitz6666 showing up - what a "surprise" 🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

... and @GizzyCatBella showing up, what a surprise Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

... asking for a boomerang without any attempt to give an argument on the merits🙂 my copied and pasted smile works well enough!

@Gitz6666 you forgot about a smile face - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

the thing is, I really don't know how to put them Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, can you remind me how many times I have no asked you to stop WP:STALKing me? You didn't even vote on that AfD! Yet you just can't help yourself and pop up here. I know I've asked you at least half a dozen times. This is getting extremely disruptive and frankly, creepy af. Volunteer Marek 02:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Funny how you never accuse GCB of stalking you, or any of the other editors who follow you around to agree with you; only the ones that disagree are stalking I guess. Levivich (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this suppose to be a serious comment? Yes, someone who follows me around with the purpose of trying to make my editing experience on Wikipedia as miserable as they can is different than a person who follows me around (or just participates in same discussions) in order to collaborate constructively. Is there anything other piece of obvious common sense you need to have explained to you? Volunteer Marek 05:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

That's is a ridiculous argument, and you are deliberately surrounding yourself by only those that think exactly like you. 168.91.237.74 (talk) 168.91.237.74 (talk) 06:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Come on now, this is a noticeboard. Some people frequent AN/I, and some people frequently get reported to AN/I (not just you, and not judging you) its inevitable that those two kinds of people are gonna bump into each other here. Lets not get nasty. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Once or twice can be “bumping into each other”. When it happens all the time regularly it’s a pattern which suggest specific purpose (WP:HARASSment) especially if the user in question has been asked multiple times to cut it out. Volunteer Marek 05:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 Don’t modify or add to your comments after the comment has been already addressed, okay? Start below the answer. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• I was considering saying something on Volunteer Marek's talk page for his blatant bad faith assumption not just at new accounts or IP addresses, but at anyone who voted a certain way on an AfD! But of course it was just going to be swiftly reverted, as it happens, and so I didn't. I'm happy Wertwert55 took the initiative to bring up this issue. It—the whole attitude of ascribing political motivations or "being canvassed" to editors who have been here for a long time—is disturbing to see. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  @TryKid That AfD is all over twitter, what are you thinking? - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  It definitely is, and I have no doubt that people who read about it on Twitter are in the AfD, but does that mean it's okay to openly accuse a veteran editor of canvassing on the page? Wertwert55 (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  at this point anyone who's trying to argue that this isn't notable with a straight face isn't doing so in good faith is a pretty serious assumption and accusation on Volunteer Marek's part, not justified by any amount of publicity the article might have gotten. That after individually accusing individual editors of being canvassed, some of them with years old accounts—is the simple notice at the top not sufficient? TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  Special:Diff/1128172190. this? 01:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  That, certainly, and also accusing an editor who's been here for years of canvassing with no evidence and no provocation. [5] Wertwert55 (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You want to explain why this "veteran editor" (who really hasn't been active since ... 2011) appeared to be unaware that the article name has been changed quite awhile ago while on twitter it's still being referred to and referenced and discussed and made fun of under the old name? The one they used? It's as if they didn't even bother looking at the article itself. Volunteer Marek 02:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That user is referring specifically to the line in the article where it's dubbed a massacre, which last I checked is still there. Bad reasoning? Sure, arguably. Evidence of canvassing? Not sure about that. The account was last active in early December and then May of this year: hardly a "sleeper account" that's been inactive for 11 years. There's a major issue with canvasing in the recent Musk AfDs, yes, that much is obvious, but it's still on us to

WP:AGF and not accuse people of canvassing as you did. Wertwert55 (talk

) 02:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

a "sleeper account"- wow @Wertwert55.. you spent a total of about 6 hours over the past few years editing Wikipedia, you learn fast all this local jargon. A sleeper account you meant a sock puppet right? - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

...No. I'm referring specifically to the idea that someone has been sitting on the account for 11 years doing nothing and then becoming active again just to vote on this issue. He edited an entirely separate topic from this just a couple weeks ago and then another one a few months ago. Wertwert55 (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You became active after 7 month to vote on this issue - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because I visit the site often, saw the main article, and saw the deletion notice on top of it. Am I supposed to prove somehow that I wasn't sent here specifically by Twitter to vote on the page? What would that accomplish? Wertwert55 (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• The AfD is on twitter - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  According to Google, the AfD has also been posted to 4chan more than once. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah and this is like the second time in two, maybe three days, that twitter canvassing, and the showing up of multitudes of SPAs, brand new accounts and reactivated sleeper accounts, has completely skewed and probably determined an outcome of one of our AfDs [6]. And it's not like I'm the only one who's noticed this (I mean, it's blindingly obvious unless you're TRYING not to see it) - User:SilverSeren has also pointed it out.

I don't know what we can really do about it. If I had my way (if I was to Wikipedia what Elon is to twitter) I'd semi protect every AfD and check user all accounts !voting. I realize that's not gonna fly, but semi protectin' is a good start. Volunteer Marek 02:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I may disagree with your position but respect the passion you edit with but maybe just lay off a little as

WP:BLUDGEON is a thing, though you already know that. I think your position is clear and brow-beating editors rarely has any effect on changing their !Vote. This thread should also be closed as no sanction is going to come of it. Slywriter (talk

) 02:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I am curious that there was an IP address (2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:C59A:3763:53F9:C8B9) that had come here to defend Volunteer Marek (73 edits to your name and here you are at ANI accusing a veteran editor of canvassing and incivility. Sure.), but that was the IP's only edit? [7] The IP was also skeptical that a relatively new user knew about ANI and canvassing and incivility, like Volunteer Marek was skeptical of those IP addresses on the AFD discussion that knew a lot about Wikipedia. It seems rather unlikely that the two accounts would not be connected somehow, and so, would that be a violation in terms of

ANI attracts trolls. Best ignored, more often than not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I still can't shake off the feeling that something's going on there (there are similarities), but I suppose so. Just thought that that might be worth bringing up.

(talk)

05:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Checkuser away. Hell, checkuser EVERYONE commenting on that AfD. Volunteer Marek 07:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Truly

WP:DFTT is probably the most important unread essay on wikipedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 20:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump - A vet editor reported over nothing by an account with just a handful of edits who flawlessly understands his ways around here. What else is new? - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Very few new things ever happen at ANI. Or anywhere else on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"Nihil sub ANI novum." -ATG Probably, 2022 GabberFlasted (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• The AFD has clearly been posted all over Twitter and is attracting massive amounts of outside canvassing. It isn't an
  WP:AGF violation - it's a reasonable observation to make in the context of a highly-canvassed RFC. It's not an aspersion or a violation of AGF to suggest that someone may have been canvassed when you back your position up with relevant arguments; simply being a longstanding editor doesn't immunize someone from following our policies. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 14:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  Saying that editors (outside of one) can't possibly be arguing for a specific viewpoint in good faith isn't a violation of

  WP:AGF? Posting an abstract observation that there are people canvassing a page isn't the issue here and I didn't link to comments like that for that exact reason. Wertwert55 (talk

  ) 14:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• I agree. Apparently a deletion discussion being mentioned by a billionaire is enough to strike down any notion of civility, both here and in the relevant thread. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  I just read the AfD, the Twitter drama, and this ANI. To be frank, it's a cluster. I feel like this isn't going to be productive, at least not in the short term. I don't frequent AFD so I don't know if we have the ability to nuke that page from orbit and start fresh. Perhaps giving the discussion a week before voting would be the safest possibility. I wouldn't be surprised if we're looking at everything from

  WP:MEATPUPPET

  , nothing of substantive value will come from the current discussion. Regardless I don't go there often, not my wheelhouse, not my problem, just wanted to make an observation and concur with AJ29.

  Honestly, I wish we could that kind of turnout for the rest of AFD!!! Etrius ( Us) 04:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why; hasn't archived my page even though it should have already! About a couple weeks ago at least. Thanks, Altanner1991 (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe it's your archive settings, specifically "minkeepthreads=5" and "minarchthreads=2". That means Cluebot III will leave the 5 most recent threads but will only archive threads in groups of 2 or more. Since you have 6 threads, archiving 2 of them would leave you at 4—meaning it skips you. I'd suggest dropping "minarchthreads" to 1 and then change "minkeepthreads" to however many threads you'd like to see. Woodroar (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh thank you! Finally got it figured out. I'd like it to archive everything so I'll change minkeepthreads to 0 and minarchthreads to 1, hopefully that does the trick. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmor For almost a decade that page was maintained as the internet's most elaborate and accessible list of Sony sensors. It has been quoted, discovered and updated by many people. Recently a *number* of users decided to *abuse* the system, quoting misinterpreted guidelines to *delete* that list. I wouldn't be here if there was any civil resolution, because the article has been locked TWICE... in the VANDALIZED STATE. Almost like the admins\mods are either blind or... they approve of this vandalism. Now, obviously, anyone could have saved the page or used whatever time machines to keep the list. But this act of vandalism ensures that nobody can keep this article up. Because it's not the editors who decided to remove their contributions, it's these *out of nowhere* vandals. They didn't talk about it, they didn't suggest a solution, maybe moving the data, using some form of HTML edit, some kind of "hide" tab if they really wanted the page to be "compact". The page size was some 160kb. They deleted over a decade of edits, 150kb+ of data. If that doesn't count as vandalism - I don't know what is. The page is currently locked in the vandalized state and the only reason given is "editwarring" and "sockpuppetry". This isn't a dispute about sources or names, it's not that someone thinks that the sensor listing is incorrect. This is an issue "the page exists" vs "the page doesn't exist". It is virtually abusing the system to DELETE the page, because there is NOTHING pertinent there as of now. I'm not an editor and the last thing I want is to be one. But if these vandals do not want that data in the Exmor article, which had sections called LIST OF SENSORS. Then maybe they could've used their... editing prowess... to make a separate article? One for the literal purpose of listing the sensors? Because if that is "supposedly" against the wiki rules - then WHAT HAS IT BEEN DOING HERE for a DECADE?

Again, I'm not an editor. I don't know any pings or diffs. I have barely got to this page, looking for a way to report literal vandalism. Because, again, that page was the only list of Sony sensors on the net. In fact, Google still has the page cached and shows it as the first result, despite it... no longer having the list of sensors. Don't get me wrong, I have backed up the page. And anyone who cares will do their homework to access the data.

But I wonder... what does "pedia" stand for then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugoperdov (talk • contribs) 17:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Tugoperdov I'm not sure what exactly your grievance is or what administrator action you are seeking. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is indeed possible for an inappropriate article to persist for a long period of time without action taken.

Note that the word "vandalism" has a very specific meaning- an effort to deface an article. Disagreement with article content and removing it is not in and of itself vandalism(though edit warring is unacceptable). You should raise any grievances with the content of the article on its talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

This is related to the section above: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption_at_Exmor. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Nor do I. This place is as uncivilized as it could be. Editing some god forsaken page in a god forsaken way, because an article that countless people found useful has been DELETED by... pffft... some nobodies? Literally people who had no part of it? Because they think it's... excessive?

And, mind you, the "powers(apparently) that be" are locking the "empty article". It's almost like this is an orchestrated and approved assault.

I have checked the "Talk" page(and it took me a while to find it) and it's almost like an admission of crime. Some jerk came out of nowhere, using some obscure wiki terminology... I mean, "fancruft"... Who the hell makes a "fancruft" term on a, as you say, "volunteer project"?

And he deletes virtually the entire page. People even mock him with examples of pages way bigger than the list in question and all he says is "Wiki is not a webhost".

I repeat - "what does the PEDIA" stand for if you can not edit and maintain information?

He deleted ENTIRE sections. He didn't delete some old sensors or some data that he could, with due respect, find "useless".

He. Wasted. An article.

I don't know what actions can be taken. Maybe an admin could come in and say "Yah, wiki izn't a place for big data lists and things, the guy saved us 150kb of our 100mb hard drive we are using for storage". Yeah that'd do it, I won't have any more questions. Tugoperdov (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a catalog.

WP:NOTCATALOG. — rsjaffe 🗣️

18:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I take it that you, and the .... 331dot are... admins. And this is as close as it gets to a WP:NOTANENCYCLOPEDIA. Well, as 331dot said, I'll "take my grievances" to the Exmor page. Including the editing war. Unless I have no right to disagree - I disagree. I disagree that a decade of editing is NOTACATALOG. So feel free to ban me or something in advance. Or, I don't know, delete the article\erase the backups, the diffs and whatnot. I have "called out" the vandals and, maybe, who knows, they'll do something more than deleting the entire page. Maybe they'll work out ways to trim the 150kbs. But I doubt it. I hope Sony paid you well. Tugoperdov (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Characterizing people with whom you disagree as vandals isn't a good approach. Making accusations like "I hope Sony paid you well" is worse. Stop that. Wikipedia isn't a repository for detailed equipment specifications. If you can make a case for inclusion of some or all of the removed content (which remains in the article history), do it on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

An

WP:RFC might be in order - the long, long list of everything about Exmor is better-sourced than a lot of that kind of list, and a wider comment about the cruft threshold might help. Acroterion (talk)

23:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a RfC would make sense. Gusfriend (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Acroterion, broad accusations of vandalism and administrative corruption are often red flags. Per my original report at [8], an SPI would be welcome. There's been a host of disposable single purpose accounts, both registered and IPs, presumably intended to give the impression of a groundswell of opinion. If we're dealing with a single disruptive user, these discussions take on a different significance. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a lovely thing coming from an anonymous IP. An arsonist crying "fire!". If you had some common sense of a human being, you would notice that the edits and complaints were filed numerous times over two months. It's not a single occurrence. The moment the erasure of the data happened - people tried to amend it. Peacefully. If you want to go ad hominem and try to search for spies - then get through your head that there may be people who have NEVER edited a wiki. Never had to bother. Who thought that... well, wiki's wiki, wiki's useful, it's been around for a while. And then they see the information straight up disappear. No copyright claim. No verification claim. No constructive claim. Just some asinine rule made up god knows by whom, but more importantly - used as an excuse by people who can't even explain their actions besides quoting a guideline. This isn't a new article, this isn't some catalog for the sake of catalog. It's information that is constantly updated, relevant both now and in historical context and is almost EXCLUSIVE on the web. I can't believe the actual administration is fighting to LOSE this information. I mean, why did the people delete that data? On whose orders? On whose authority? According to that "dot-something" guy - on the "community's". What community? Point me. Because any law can be executed solely on orders. You aren't a nation, you don't have constitution. You are a freaking website parasiting off the contributors. You have GUIDELINES. The only community to whom the subject in question is relevant - has EXPRESSED it that they want it kept. And the only community that want it gone - are some shmucks copying capital letters and a colon. Who can't look at the situation, who can't understand the situation, who can't even attempt to approach it. Yhis isn't how COMMUNITY works. This is how BOTS work. They detect an anomaly and they execute it. They aren't programmed to think for themselves.

For god's sake, is this the last 150kb on your servers?

I don't care what RFC or other KFCs you have substituted for common sense. People used that page. People quoted that page. People updated that page. It's not a fan fiction novel. It's not political propaganda(though you like as of 2022). It's content that has actual technical and intellectual value. Presented to you by whoever keeps editing it. Because, guess what, that's not whoever decided to go WP:NOT all over the place.

What do you get out of it? Do you pat yourself on the back? On some other place? Do you get paid for it? For every kilobyte saved? So, what, people would turn it into a public spreadsheet, host it on some website, move the information, but WHY would you want that? Can you be HUMAN for once and just explain this supposedly SIMPLE thing without quoting letters and colon. Why does an Encyclopedia want to LOSE information. Give me reason.

Because I'm trying to grasp it. I'm clicking your little WP:NOT, I'm seeing "Oh, so it's the authority of the "Wikipedia Community"". So I click it and I'm greeted with "This is an essay. It expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikimedians but may not have wide support. This is not policy on Meta, but it may be a policy or guideline on other Wikimedia projects. Feel free to update this page as needed, or use the discussion page to propose major changes."

Wow. Golf damn clap... The website is governed by an essay... Well that definitely explains a thing or two. Tugoperdov (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you should definitely keep talking. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Gusfriend (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I would love to(assume good faith). But at best I either get thrown essays at and at worst - directly accused of botting. And, again, as that IPv6 has said - this has happened before. Data was deleted. Data was restored. Data was requested to be restored or kept. And twice - the article got locked in the "empty" state.

I have run out of faith. I don't see any good in this. I don't see any valid reason to have this list deleted and the only counter-argument is to make ME give reason to keep it. Because I have to fight a WP:NOT wall. Tugoperdov (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tugoperdov: To address one concern you've raised, you can view the since-removed list at this link and can recover the source code by clicking "edit" there. Now, if you are here to try to constructively work to get the list restored, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. If you are just here to rant, well, this isn't really the sort of website where we do that; you're welcome to rant elsewhere though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, but, full disclosure, I was the IP who last tried to restore the list. And I did that at least in hopes of saving the page. Which I did. Since then the page got erased and locked again, so I "registered" and am trying to "talk" about it. If this is considered an admission of botting - shoot me dead, I am not hiding my intentions, and I said I would undo the edit the moment the block is lifted.

As for the constructive arguments - I have tried to express them. Both on the talk page and in this rant. I'm not sure how more constructive can you get besides common sense. I don't talk in letters and colons. I wish I had some kind of quote... from a bank.. or a university... or a website. Some "solid real constructive stuff" to present all business-like.

But I only have the arguments of exclusivity and of at least one website(reddit link is on the talk page) that quoted the list and found it useful. And comments from people in that same talk page, who have used that list for years.

If that is not constructive enough - I've got nothing. No letters and colons.

I do, somewhat, apologize for the rant, but I'm just shocked at seeing for the first time in my life the underbelly of wiki. I hoped to report what I... I suppose - "imagined" to be an obvious crime against an article - and looks like it's not a crime, it's public service! And I have to frantically remember all my technical pages containing lists of processors and whatnot, fearing that someone would come in, quote a WP:NOT in good faith and call it a day. I had no idea how exactly does wiki work, but I never expected this. Tugoperdov (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, you should expect this: that as in every walk of life, people on Wikipedia believe, edit, discuss and act as they think best, and not necessarily in lockstep accordance with what you think is proper. One of my longstanding WP catchphrases is that the nature of a consensus-driven environment is that sometimes consensus will be against you, in which case your only viable option is to lose gracefully and move on. Nearly eighteen years in, I couldn't count the number of times I was on the losing side of an argument here.

But that is the core of

assuming good faith -- that people will just sometimes not agree with you, and this doesn't make Wikipedia a seething pit of corrupt vipers in consequence. The editors you've been busy deriding and insulting have -- unlike yourself -- put countless hours of hard work into this encyclopedia for neither money nor glory, but simply to contribute what they can to the greatest encyclopedia in the history of the world. If you want to join in the effort, become one of those voices, splendid! dig right in. If you're just here to rant because we're not doing your bidding, though, take Tamsin's advice and take it elsewhere. Ravenswing

04:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• For a list that has allegedly been reported on, there is no one single reliable secondary source in that pile. I’ve gone through it and there is so many that don’t even mention the specific sensor that it’s waste of time to review and junk. The screaming rants from editors who keep popping up to just restore the list with zero other edits tells me someone is very passionate about owning this list. There hasn’t even one person arguing to spin off this list. It is entirely a “keep the list/don’t keep the list” debate linking to Sony’s website again and again. It being useful and hard to find are not reasons to have it. There is a permanent link that will show everyone the list of that is your concern. - Ricky81682 (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure if this is the best place to comment this, but i've seen several edits by CMD0007 focused on creating somekind of narrative related to Mexico and he has been erasing many references to Spanish people and the Spanish colonial time. Many users have reverted their edits but he insists on his position and he doesn't usually add sources to his edits, he just adds information without any criteria and when someone reverses his actions, he reverses them back and replies with things like "read some history" or starts arguments with other users. It would be nice if someone take a look at it to make sure everything is fine.216.147.106.108 (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

You are required to notify CMD0007 of this discussion. Please do so. Have you discussed your concerns directly with the editor? That should be your first step. Cullen328 (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328. Also, if you are the user:Rainier Blue, then I would strongly suggest engaging on article talk pages to discuss changes/additions to the article(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

86.139.216.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is continuing to edit through 86.177.202.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). – ².O.^Boxing 19:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Squared.Circle.Boxing is continuing to defy common sense and the manual of style by deliberately concealing the meanings of certain acronyms. They have stated that they are doing this because they, personally, do not like acronyms to be expanded. Why they do not like that, they have yet to say. 109.155.227.137 (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Is that what they actually said or is it your interpretation of it? Please provide a

Phil Bridger (talk

) 19:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

See their comment at the bottom of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Boxing/Archive_10#Sanctioning_bodies. 109.155.227.137 (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Over at this discussion, the IP(s) reported continues to engage in uncivil conduct despite other editors' best efforts to form a consensus which could potentially affect thousands of articles. Whilst it remains a content dispute in need of resolution, it's much more so a conduct dispute at this point. The IP also seems to have a personal agenda against a frivolous comment made three years ago by the report filer, which should have no bearing on the current discussion at hand. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Which comment from three years ago are you referring to? How would thousands of articles be affected by one article conforming to instead of violating the MOS? 109.155.227.137 (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Content disputes aren't dealt with on ANI. Continued disruption from block-evading editors, however, is something ANI is designed for. – ².O.^Boxing 20:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, dear administration, I would like to address the problem that I had with this user. The fact is that this person adds false information in articles related to the Ingush theme, and at the same time deletes the information along with the sources added by me, after all this, he also accuses me of Vandalism. this, this, this

This person ignores calls to discuss this situation in the "discussion" section, his actions will lead to edit wars. this

Not a little important point, this user has long been noticed in such violations, in the same article Ingush people, he repeatedly added false information, and entered a war of edits with other participants, in short, a very dubious user.this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyskho (talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Propose

Wikipedia:BOOMERANG for this post. 2603:7080:8F02:2B11:D5C3:2AE:BC84:4A5E (talk

) 05:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The user to whom my complaint is set up is justified, he has been thinking of vandalism and slander against other users for a long time, and he also does not want to conduct a dialogue about this. Niyskho (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Niyskho: Remember to leave a notice at the user's talk page in the future. Both users should stop casting aspersions at each other and discuss things over the articles' talk pages. Also, you say Reiner Gavriel added false information to Ingush people, but they haven't added content to that article for almost 2 years, so this would seem very stale. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Could someone with a knowledge of Charollais sheep please take a look at the article. An IP user, and several registered users User:Bobjack tom andy and User:Bobjacktim seem to have added high-quality photographs of apparent relevance but with dubious captions. This seems to be a modus operandi often with summary "words". Doug butler (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Why not just edit the captions, Doug butler, instead of reporting this matter to a noticeboard that does not deal with content disputes? Cullen328 (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused as to whether the user's (I presume the same person) contributions are vandalism. The photos they supply are excellent but I don't know if the captions are a leg-pull. I can't tell a Charollais ram from a ewe; would you keep 15 rams together? Are they standing? It's not obvious. I'm not afraid of reverting vandalism — I've just done one of his/theirs that was blatant. Doug butler (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Bobjacktim's last edit was 2 June 2021 over 18 months ago. Bobjack tom andy made three edits on 28 November 2022 and their previous edits were October 2021. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Acroterion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

I started this at AE, possibly influenced by spending time figuring out how the new, improved AE/DS regime might work. Others pointed out that at AE it was likely to diverge into a tangent on whether the AE sanctions apply in this case, as things tend to do at AE, and recommended a move to ANI, so that's why it retains some AE formatting.

Eyagi appears to be a single-purpose account, dedicated to refuting or diluting the comfort women article. They appear to be trying to argue that they were licensed prostitutes, and were not exploited. Recently they've devoted themself to lengthy tendentious walls of text on Talk:Comfort women devoted to original research and selective analysis, with divergence into United States House of Representatives House Resolution 121, which demanded an apology from the Japanese government. I see no useful edits on any other topic, and their behavior has been that of a textbook tendentious SPA. They've graduated to a content fork at Draft:Licensed Prostitution System in Korea under the Japanese Empire. I have been involved in closing down the walls of text on the talkpage, and consider myself sufficiently involved to recuse from admin action. I've only hit the high spots with diffs, there are dozens of argumentative edits in the IDHT vein with several editors.

I'm OK with ANI, you're probably right that a discussion in this venue will end up wandering off-point into a definitional wrangle and never get around to the actual problem. I do think it's covered by GENSEX, but at its broadest stretch, using the simplest and most concise summary in the consolidated sanction statement. I'm about to sign off, I'll look in tomorrow morning and move it if it hasn't already been moved. Acroterion (talk)

1. 2022-06-05 First edit ever, pretty much summing up the entirety of their edits since then
2. 2022-06-12 part of the OR and discussion that followed the first edit
3. 2022-10-29 Lengthy OR analysis inserted into United States House of Representatives House Resolution 121
4. 2022-11-26 Draft of an article on licensed prostitution in Korea under the Japanese Empire, apparent content fork from the comfort women article
5. 2022-11-30 Extensive OR, links to primary sources
6. 2022-12-06 Return to argumentation and demands for attention
7. 2022-12-11 Expansion on OR on talkpage
8. 2022-12-18 Reinstatement of extensive OR, links to primary sources, and demands that they be "refuted"

• [10] Diff of DS notice

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [11]
• [12]

Discussion

• Though I'm not entirely convinced that this issue falls within the remit of Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions, it clearly needs addressing, if not here, then by a simple topic ban, per normal admin action. Acroterion has already laid down the evidence, and little more needs to be said. Even reading the last link alone [13] makes it abundantly clear that Eyagi is either unable to understand Wikipedia policy on original rresearch, or is unwilling to comply with it. Indeed, the section entitled 'Basic acknowledge' alone is enough to demonstrate the point. We are told that Empire of Japan was a country ruled by law. At that time, Koreans were citizens of the Empire of Japan. Under the law, Japanese, Koreans, citizens, soldiers and police were equal. We are told that Koreans were part of the Japanese military and police force. Rape, assault, threats, kidnapping and abduction, fraud and extortion of civilians, by soldiers and policemen were violations of the penal code. We are told that In Imperial Japan, licensed prostitution was legal. To obtain a license to engage in prostitution, her willingness to work, her parental consent document and a copy of their contract with her employer, and age for Koreans to be at least 17 years old were required. All asserted as if they were indisputable fact. And as if they refuted the many, many sources we have cited in our article on so-called 'comfort women', and on what actually occurred. And to back up such claims, we are directed to a website belonging to something calling itself the 'Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact'. They are, I suppose, as entitled to assert their hold on the 'facts' as anyone else, but being asked by a contributor to 'refute' such extraordinary claims (Which require us to believe that the entire Japanese military operated entirely according to law during the entire period in question, amongst other things, something which would surely make them unique amongst any military body, anywhere), is tendentious to say the least. We don't do that. We don't 'refute' sources. We cite them. When they are credible. In accord with relevant academic consensus.

Eyagi is clearly incapable of contributing usefully on this topic. Some form of sanction preventing more round-in-circles timewasting is required. AndyTheGrump (talk)

• Rather than get weighed down by the inevitable "is the really covered by GENSEX" debate, can I suggest an early move to ANI? I'd support a TBAN based on the evidence provided, no DS necessary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Just reiterating my support for a sanction, since this has now been moved. Quick admin action in the face of obvious partisan POV-pushing can save a lot of valuable editor time. I hope Eyagi finds and flexes their brevity muscles and puts them to use in another topic area. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Close with no action, continue to discuss, no TBAN In the evidence presented above, I see one instance of what appears to be a good faith edit to an article (which I assume was reverted). The rest are discussions on the talk page (where they should be). Primary sources are not an issue per se unless you are interpreting them in the article. There is certainly some good-faith disagreement on the subject of "comfort women" in public and a balanced view encompassing both sides should be presented in the article (and they are). It is without dispute that the Imperial Japanese forces engaged in abhorrent, reprehensible, and criminal behavior throughout the war to include sexual oppression. The article as it stands clearly makes it clear that some women were prostitutes, some were forced but were paid, and others were forced into sexual slavery; this is not in dispute. Likewise, just because they "followed the law" doesn't mean they followed the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit or that the laws involved were not sufficient to protect these women; many people have "followed the law" or were "just following orders" and committed unspeakable acts of barbarity. In general, Japan and others have admitted their complicity in such actions (to varying degrees) and they have given limited compensation. It is important to recognize the nuances of such behavior and the varying degrees of complicitness of those involved both from Japan and those who were potentially sexually abused and I see room to potentially incorporate some of the presented information in this article.

But I see no evidence that this falls under Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions as it doesn't pertain to gender or sexuality, but criminal activity. While that criminal behavior involves sex, literally every person is involved by that standard (you were conceived and birthed somehow). It is only marginally/tangentially related and should not be applied here and certainly not without better evidence that a violation occurred. Nor do I see any justification for a TBAN. What I see here is good faith disagreement with a relatively new editor and I do not see the evidence presented here to support the assertion that he "is clearly incapable of contributing usefully on this topic". Buffs (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Whether this falls under gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions or not is no longer relevant, as the discussion has been moved to WP:ANI. As for the remainder of your comments, I'd have to suggest that your understanding of Wikipedia policy on original research doesn't concur with that of the broader community. Either that, or you have simply not looked at the walls of text, based on Eyagi's own interpretation of primary sources, that have been presented on multiple talk pages. This isn't about 'nuances', it concerns an attempt to contradict the multiple credible sources we cite in the article, using selective citation of primary sources, and of the citation of secondary sources that clearly don't meet WP:RS. An attempt to essentially deny the very 'unspeakable acts of barbarity' you yourself write of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The issue is not article edits, it's repeated bludgeoning of talkpages to demand a large-scale denialist revision to the article, using original research from an SPA that is entirely devoted to that cause, in an article that has seen perennial disruption from many similar agenda-driven editors.This is a favorite hobbyhorse of nationalist partisans. Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The issue is ongoing

See Eyagi's latest comment [14] at

Depending on how discussion here goes, it might also be appropriate to briefly and neutrally raise the broad topic at

WP:FRINGE. More discussion there might be needed to fully hammer it out but even beyond the issues relating to Eyagi specifically, it might be worth having more eyes experienced at identifying and dealing with fringe positions on that and related articles. --Aquillion (talk

) 14:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The POV being pushed by Eyagi is fringe, but the more immediate problem is the way it is being promoted. Eyagi has made it abundantly clear that either they don't understand

WP:OR, or that they don't consider themselves bound by it, which is problematic in any contributor regardless of what they are trying to accomplish. And the absence of any comment from Eyagi here (they are clearly aware of this thread, see [15]) suggest to me that this is a simple refusal to accept Wikipedia policies when it doesn't suit them. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 15:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Apparently Eyagi thinks that Japanese-to-English translations of police records are OK to host here [16] Acroterion (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

How exactly is this

WP:OR when done faithfully. While there is certainly some overlap with regards to comfort women, it certainly isn't a content fork. Likewise, just because there are only Japanese sources currently doesn't mean it can't be expanded. Plenty of articles exist and cover this topic in-depth: [17] [18]. Let me be completely clear: The Japanese enslaved women for sex (in Korea and other countries). This is an undisputed fact. But it is important to note that the Japanese actively engaged in other legal, semi-legal, and illegal practices vis-a-vis brothels and not all were unwilling participants. It is equally reprehensible to deem all such actions as criminal acts (which pretends consensual acts without coercion are the same as brutal rape) as it is to say they were all consensual (which would pretend that brutal acts never happened). I am not naive enough to try and claim that there are not far right wing attempts to whitewash the atrocities committed by the Imperial Japanese, but there is much more nuance to this and it's worth covering all the angles. This is a draft and there is certainly much more that could be included for clarity. Likewise, the title needs work. Buffs (talk

) 08:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

From WP:OR Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. An article which cited nothing but primary sources dating from between 1916 to 1944 would be problematic enough, even without being based on translation of legal documents in a language few of us are familiar with. Even if the translations are faithful, we have no way of knowing whether other relevant documentation has been omitted. And frankly it is ridiculous to cite only legislation and police records in an article on prostitution: we need secondary sources which assess how the laws were enforced, how reliable the records were, and to provide the broader context. The article is pure WP:OR. We leave analysis of 100-year-old primary sources to historians with relevant subject-matter expertise.

As for not all those working in brothels being unwilling participants, our Comfort women article does not claim that they were. It does however cite multiple sources which illustrate the scale of sexual slavery. The fact that some women entered voluntarily into prostitution does not in any shape or form justify the barbaric practices systematically carried out by and on behalf of the Japanese military. The creation of a draft article clearly aimed at presenting prostitution during the period as regulated and consensual is clearly and unambiguously intended to promote the systematic erasure of history that factions on the Japanese far right have taken as their goal. Eyagi is clearly and unambiguously attempting to use Wikipedia to further this despicable cause. Eyagi must not be permitted to succeed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Yet again, Eyagi is ignoring everything they've been told about policy, and engaging in exactly the same behaviour already documented above. [19] Note the (entirely unsourced) nonsense argument that All of the former Korean comfort women's testimony violate domestic law and military regulations at the time. Police and military police records confirm this fact. Yet again, arguments that 'it was illegal' therefore it didn't happen. This is simply too stupid for words... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

And once again, Eyagi is demanding further 'explanations' on the talk page, [20] while making no response whatsoever here at ANI. I see no reason why anyone should engage further with someone who simply refuses to acknowledge multiple Wikipedia policies, and instead demands 'rebuttals' for blatant WP:OR, ludicrous unsourced assertions to the effect that because something was illegal it couldn't have happened, and other facile argumentation in support of the erasure of one of the darker periods in history. If the community isn't prepared to take action here, I will instead have to resort to the simplest alternative, and simply ignore absolutely every thing that Eyagi posts on talk pages, while reverting any article edits on sight. And recommend that anyone else does the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Quondum (talk · contribs) is revert warring to remove a template ({{Bit and byte prefixes}} from it's sole article, Binary prefix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). We recently held an RFC on the makeup of these templates which only closed a few weeks ago. Quondum subst'd the template prior to the RFC closure, which went unnoticed for a short time. I reverted it once I saw the change. Now finally today, they re-add their work again and it did not generate a notification, but this time I saw the change on my Watchlist. An edit war ensued, and I've stopped reverting.

As I've repeatedly stated in my edit summaries today,

Quondum's edit was a good one and there was IMO consensus for it at Binary prefix. Locke Cole is a persistently disruptive editor who made no attempt to justify the reverts of Quondum's edits. Whether the template is or is not used by other articles is not an issue for ANI. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you're here.

WP:BRD to implore Quondum to discuss the changes they wanted. They refused (as evidenced by their repeated reverts). I would also be open to a topic ban for Dondervogel 2 as it relates to computing units. —Locke Cole • t • c

00:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

No case has been made. —Quondum 02:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for not denying anything I claimed, it will make the process go smoother. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Locke Cole, I can't see any evidence that you attempted to start a discussion at Talk:Binary prefix yourself. Am I missing something, or are you suggesting that people be topic-banned for not doing something that you have also failed to do? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

From

WP:BRD in my edit summaries while reverting. The onus is on Quondum to gain consensus for the change and they need to explain why the change is necessary (especially in light of the recent RFC that was in progress when they made their initial change, and was closed just two weeks ago when they made the change again without any further attempt at discussion). —Locke Cole • t • c

04:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

None of your edit summaries gave any indication as to why you reverted. What stopped you from attempting to start the discussion yourself, by explaining what the issue was? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

As I've explained elsewhere, this editor was ping'd repeatedly to a discussion about this very template and they declined to participate. The onus is on the editor wishing to make the edit to gain consensus. I had nothing to discuss as I was perfectly fine with the status quo. Stop trying to shift the burden onto me when it very clearly isn't. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

If you have 'nothing to discuss' after using

WP:BRD in an edit summary -twice - you have no role to play in a collaborative environment. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 06:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Buddy, if you had any idea how much time I've spent debating these two about IEC units, you'd apologize. Trust me when I say this, if I thought starting a talk page discussion would have worked this time I would have started one.

WP:NOTSUICIDE. —Locke Cole • t • c

06:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to assume, if the debate has been going on for years, that there isn't a consensus on the issue. Which makes coming to ANI asking for people to be topic-banned for editing against consensus, while failing to engage in any discussion over the matter, seem rather presumptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a consensus at

WP:COMPUNITS, but some editors like to ignore that and push their agenda anyways. This is just the latest example of that. —Locke Cole • t • c

07:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing in that guideline looks to me to represent 'consensus' that a table showing 'Binary prefixes for multiples of bits (bit) or bytes (B)' should not be included in an article on Binary prefix. Why the heck shouldn't we include information directly relevant to the article topic in such a form? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I feel like you're either deliberately not understanding me, or I'm just shitty at getting you to understand, but here is my final attempt: COMPUNITS is the current consensus, it describes when and where we use units like gibibyte/mebibyte/etc. that are, otherwise, discouraged from use. Quondum and Dondervogel 2 really really really want these units in use everywhere. Despite there being a long-standing template that has been in that article for I think over a decade, and a discussion on it's layout/naming recently concluding, Quondum elected to basically subst the template, remove the column they think doesn't belong (even though the units they removed are used the the lead of the article). It was reverted a short time later (a few weeks ago). Then they reverted again today, but in such a way as to not trigger the revert notification. This time I caught it on the same day, and an edit war ensued. Despite being ping'd to other similar discussions, they either ignore them, or the drop off, and they made no effort to gain consensus for their change.

I've already said below I'm fine with being rolled up in this TBAN. I'm that serious about thinking the project would be better with Dondervogel 2 and Quondum removed from this topic that I'm willing to take the L on this and walk away from the topic if it means it doesn't turn into a protracted edit war (which is where it's been the past few years). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion about units being used 'everywhere'. It is a discussion about edit-warring, with no attempt at proper discussion by any of the parties involved, over an article where the distinction between two differing types of units is central to the topic. If you had restored the original table (showing both types of units) and then attempted to start a discussion on the talk page, you would be in a good position to call for a topic ban, if the two contributors then refused to discuss, and reverted you. What stopped you doing that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Two reasons: 1) they've been ping'd to prior discussions on this very topic and ignored them, and 2) I believed the burden was on them to gain consensus for their change and that if they were serious they'd make the effort to discuss it and explain why their change was so important. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

So why, if you wanted them to 'make the effort to discuss it' did you not give them the opportunity to do so? Your last revert of the article (with the edit summary 'WP:BRD') was at 23:57. Quondum replied 'So, discuss. My rationale was at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Binary_prefix&diff=1126731358&oldid=1126728654' at 00:02. You started this thread at 00:15. Without discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

TBAN discussion (they've already participated above, but just to be certain they don't miss it I felt a notification was warranted). —Locke Cole • t • c

07:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

One thing that clearly needs to be noted here is the lack of tangible evidence that either Quondum and Dondervogel 2 have done anything sanctionable that Locke Cole hasn't also done. We seem to be being asked to topic ban people for taking part in an edit war that Locke Cole was also engaged in, and for nothing else beyond unverified claims about past undesirable behaviour - a part of which apparently involves not participating in yet another round of a long-running dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome to review the last time we were here back in September, or June/July 2021 where I bring more diffs of their behavior. And maybe you missed it below, but I support an admin's idea to TBAN all three of us. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, after a quick review I can confirm that there were a couple of inconclusive discussions on WP:ANI. If you don't want this to be a third, you will have to convince people that action needs to be taken. Which will need clear evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to topic-ban Quondum and Dondervogel 2

Per my statement above (and Quondum's failure to answer any of the allegations made), I propose indefinitely

• Support as proposer. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, as there seems to be no obvious difference in behaviour between any of the parties involved (none of which seem to have use the talk page), and because 'failure to answer... allegations' isn't legitimate grounds for a topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  @AndyTheGrump: It's not at all concerning that they are trying to side-step the RFC which had a half dozen participants (and Quondum has participated on that same page, and was ping'd not once, but twice, by Dondervogel 2 to participate there) and ran from September through the end of last month? Clearly editing against consensus and not re-engaging in discussion when reverted aren't behaviors we should tolerate. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  No, what is 'concerning' is the way you seem to be suggesting that an inconclusive RfC on 'column headers' for a template provides sufficient justification for calling for topic bans. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, this seems like a normal content dispute. Removing a template from an article is fine even if it orphans the template.
  WP:TFD#REASONS doesn't give removal from an article as a reason to propose a template for deletion, rather the other way around, it suggests that one might nominate for deletion templates that aren't being used and have no likelihood of being used. Jahaza (talk
  ) 03:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Jahaza: I think you're missing that we just had an RFC to settle the layout of the templates, one that Quondum was ping'd to repeatedly (and they ignored), and they chose to side-step those discussions and unilaterally remove the template from it's only mainspace use when that wasn't even an option under discussion at the RFC. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  No, I didn't miss it. If you'd had an RFC on whether to include a template in the article, that would have been more important though. Also, the RFC closed as no consensus as to "what replacement header(s) should be (if any)."(talk) 04:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  There was significant discussion prior to that RFC as well that was open for really any type of proposal. I'm trying to grapple with how any editor could see other editors discussing layout and content so deliberately and at length and think "yes, they probably just want me to

  subst and change it to whatever I prefer instead". —Locke Cole • t • c

  04:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  Them's the breaks with BRD. Jahaza (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: The "discussion" part of BRD does not mean "I wrote an edit summary." To quote from BRD, "Discuss on a talk page: Don't assume that a re-revert edit summary can constitute "discussion": There is no way for others to respond without risking an edit war." Beyond which, news flash: BRD is explicitly optional, and remains an essay, no matter how widely quoted. Failure to be the first ones to open a talk page discussion is scarcely valid grounds for a tban. Ravenswing 05:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone else. As I've basically said many times, please don't come to ANI to complain about someone else not discussing if closer examination reveals you did the same thing. With very rare exceptions, anyone who comes to ANI about something which is at its core a content dispute and can't point to a talk page thread preferably a page rather than a user one, where they tried to discuss, automatically fails the basic test of ANI in my book. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Pinging professor of computer science David Eppstein. EEng 06:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but only if it also includes topic-banning Locke Cole, another long-term participant in this dispute. IEC units are a waste of time, but these disputes are even more of one. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  Mm, a tban's harsh. Giving the OP a modest

  trout slap is more like it. Ravenswing

  07:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  Just to point out there's a Template:Infobox unit, so conceivably we could turn this into an infobox battle as well. EEng 08:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  @EEng: Please don't give anyone any ideas... —Locke Cole • t • c 08:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  I would Support this as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  In that case you should just take the page off your watchlist and walk away from it, thereby saving everyone the trouble of litigating a dramafest. JBL (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  Or, this can get resolved here and now so the disruption doesn't continue. I'm sad to see that you're fine with disruptive behavior being allowed to continue though. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  You, personally, have it in your power to end the disruption by walking away from the dispute. This method is easy and foolproof. JBL (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not the one editing against consensus... but yes, if I wanted to throw up my hands and walk away, this would stop it. But it rewards bad behavior, so I say again, you're fine with this? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  You notice how this thread is not full of people accepting your framing about what consensus is, whether other editors are editing against it, or whether either of the editors you're attacking are engaged in worse behavior than you? Because I notice that. Moreover it seems to be a common feature of all the ANI discussions on this topic. JBL (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  David Eppstein, considering that no links or evidence to anything less than 2–3 months old have been presented and my username is at the top of this ANI thread, do you stand by your topic ban support point, or perhaps you were a little hasty? It should be noted that the edits that triggered this ANI, i.e.:

  • Q (rm decimal prefixes from table: these do not belong in this context; adding full values)
  • L ()
  • Q (Decimal prefixes have no place in this article)
  • L (
    WP:BRD
    )
  • Q ()
  • L (
    WP:BRD
    )
  • Q ()
  • L ()
  • Q (We can continue your unmotivated revert until you it the 3RR limit if you wish. My change was motivated.)
  • L (
    WP:BRD
    )
  • Q (So, discuss. My rationale was at [21])

  were been dropped as a reason given that they were simply to remove an inappropriate decimal prefix column from a table in a binary prefix article (which, incidentally, no-one has voiced any explicit objection to), and that my reverts were only to revert the five unexplained reverts by Locke Cole. Also, and Locke Cole would realize this if he started thinking straight, I do not object to the use of decimal-as-binary prefixes being used in WP and largely avoid the topic. —Quondum 13:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for proving you didn't read what I wrote initially above. I linked to multiple diff's in my opening which are, functionally, identical to what you just listed. 🤷‍♂️ —Locke Cole • t • c 20:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support IEC units are universally disruptive. Here and everywhere, they are not used. Pushing them nonstop is exhausting. Andothegrump, please don't cast aspersions about me trolling Rodeoaches (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  It'd be more likely someone would cast aspersions about this being your first Wikipedia edit. Just sayin'. Ravenswing 07:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  (struck !vote of checkuser banned editor —Locke Cole • t • c 18:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC))

• Oppose banning blocking etc. Seems the disruption is stopped for now and all parties are on notice. I propose warnings and then Trouts all around. Lightburst (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Maybe it would be easiest to start smaller, an indefinite page block from this specific article for some set of the three users. Then the article disruption here stops and can be used as further evidence if it goes on elsewhere. Yes, I'm aware this dispute is much longer than that in time, but if editors are edit warring here (and going by the story, that's what is occurring), that is one solution that does not toss babies with the bathwater of whatever other positive/negative contributions may occur elsewhere on the topic. (I haven't fully assessed the specific dispute on account of travel, just suggesting another solution that might be palatable.) --IznoPublic (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose everyone seems to have stopped now and appropriate warnings issued. Talk it out. Any further disruption can be dealt with via escalating blocks. A topic ban is unnecessary/too extreme at this point. As for IEC units, yeah...I can see a use case for them (I have a comp sci degree), but the fact is, we've decided not to use them on WP for general usage as the public is not familiar with them. Buffs (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  That decision remains a problem for some editors. The text of

  MOS:COMPUNITS upholds it but the transcluded table there contradicts it when editors who don't accept the decision change the template. NebY (talk

  ) 20:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, Jahaza, Ravenswing, Nil Einne, JayBeeEll, David Eppstein, EEng, Izno, and Buffs:

Dondervogel 2 (talk · contribs), being fully aware of this conversation and the closure of the RFC at Template talk:Quantities of bits has just reverted an edit made to bring the table at Binary prefix into compliance with that result as determined by a neutral closer. This is continuing evidence of disruption from these editors and needs to stop. What is the point of holding a months-long RFC if a pair of editors who are very much against including any of the everyday terms we use in articles can just upend the table and throw away the work whenever they feel like it? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright. Maybe I'm being dense here, but I'm looking at your link to the RfC in question, and lo and behold, the close result is "No Consensus to change header - There was consensus for better clarity over the issues of standards, and industry usage, but not as to what replacement header(s) should be (if any)," so I'm at a loss to identify a consensus result to the RfC which anyone is defying. Would you care to point us to one?

With that being said, you have already failed (by a fairly wide margin) to secure support for a tban. Several editors believe that you are at least as liable for sanction as anyone else. The definition of "disruption" is not "

Edits I don't myself like." Do you see a wave of editors/admins agreeing with you here? It's about time for you to drop the stick and move on. Ravenswing

02:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm beginning to consider the merits of a topic-ban on Locke Cole confined solely to the use of the word 'consensus', given the way this word is being repeatedly used in a manner not concurrent with any reasonable interpretation of it I'm aware of... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. JBL (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Template:Bit and byte prefixes is the current template, at the RFC there was NO CONSENSUS to change from that header to any other header per the neutral closer. What has happened here is these two editors have, despite not gaining consensus to make the change, gone ahead and made the change. That is disruptive. @AndyTheGrump: When there is a lack of consensus to change something, then going ahead and changing it anyways is literally going against the consensus. Computer memory was one of the options in the RFC that DID NOT GAIN CONSENSUS. The consensus version is JEDEC. Do you understand me now? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

A 'no consensus' closure of an RfC is a statement that consensus could not be found. If it can't be found, it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, it isn't possible to go against it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

So in your opinion if there's "no consensus" for a change, then it's perfectly fine to make the change? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

There was no consensus for not making a change either - and as far as I can see, all the participants in the RfC supported changing the wording in one way or another (you yourself seem to have supported changing it to 'Computing'[22]). What they couldn't agree on was what to change it to. Which is why there was no consensus over anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, let's set aside the "So when did you stop beating your wife?" style of questioning. Is it "perfectly fine?" Beats the hell out of me; I am not an engineer, and I have no dog in the fight. But what it is is a CONTENT DISPUTE (if you insist on bolding and capitalizing statements which we are perfectly capable of reading without either). As such, it is neither an appropriate matter for ANI, nor have your foes violated any policy, nor is there a consensus to violate if there wasn't any consensus to begin with, nor are there grounds for sanctioning those who dare disagree with you on the change, nor are we likely to change our minds and agree with you if only you shout shrilly and stridently enough at us.

You have been on Wikipedia far too long to be incapable of grasping the precept that sometimes it's not that people don't understand what you're saying, it's that they don't agree with what you're saying. The only consensus in play here is the one in this ANI thread that your charges are without merit. Drop the damn stick already. Ravenswing 04:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"just reverted an edit [that you, Locke Cole, made, and that does not appear to have any consensus in its favor, either]" oh okay then. JBL (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTANARCHY is that way. There were multiple proposals, there was ultimately no consensus. This does not mean "go ahead and act as if you have consensus anyways". I am shocked at how many people here are just fine with edit warring over something without any attempt at discussion, especially something that was previously discussed at length with no consensus for a change reached. But sure, I guess I'm the bad guy here expecting us to be able to have some stability after a months-long RFC. —Locke Cole • t • c

19:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Truly, it is a mystery why uninvolved observers can't understand that your edits with no consensus and failure to discuss are good whereas their edits without consensus and failure to discuss on the talkpage is tban worthy. -- JBL (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Might've been the months-long RFC that preceded it that I participated in at length and Quondum did not, even after being ping'd twice, then taking unilateral action while that RFC was in progress. But sure, we can ignore all of that. Certainly a large group of editors here appear to be. And if that's that the consensus, that consensus doesn't matter and protracted disputes are fine with no good-faith attempt to participate in discussion, I'm here for it. Frankly I get tired of discussing things, it'll be so refreshing to just edit as I see fit and ignore everyone else. Y'all have been great, thanks for this cathartic experience! /s —Locke Cole • t • c 19:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

There is pretty clear consensus here that no one finds your protestations convincing. You should take my advice, and apply it double to this discussion. (This is my last comment here.) JBL (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Locke Cole cracks me up. How can he say with any seriousness "I am shocked at how many people here are just fine with edit warring over something without any attempt at discussion", when this ANI thread started due to his (or our) edit warring with no attempt from him at discussion other than "

WP:BRD" (see the five links to reverts labelled "L" above which (I inserted a bit ago. Who will ever be able to take anything he says seriously? —Quondum

20:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad that my participating in a months-long RFC (which you ignored, and tried to undermine by removing the very template under discussion from it's only article-space use) is something that brings you amusement. That was my small attempt at "discussion", and it preceded your edit warring. It's disingenuous to act like I haven't tried to discuss any of the issues/concerns with that template. And it's disruptive to act outside of that framework on your own because you choose not to engage in discussion. It looks like you've lucked out Quondum, and drawn a crowd that apparently is willing to overlook this completely for reasons I can't comprehend and just let you plow ahead against consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

For the record, where is this mythical consensus, and where does it say anything about subst'ing templates? —Quondum 20:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

At the RFC: "no consensus" is not carte blanche to take a wrecking ball to the work done so far. The subst'ing of the template is simply disruptive as it (not your subst'd revision) is the most stable version of that table that's undergone widespread scrutiny by editors. That you chose to undermine that process and the work involved with it is the problem here. It's disruptive. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

You said: "against consensus". So now you are suggesting that it was "no consensus". Evidently, you cannot point to any discussion of replacing template transclusions. You never seem to point us to where consensus that you claim is, and you never seem to point us to the non-consensus you claim is. You simply made five reverts without any relevant discussion whatsoever, and now you are condemning doing just that. I take my question answered, thank you. (Incidentally, if there was discussion in your mind, then why are you complaining that there was not discussion?) You keep claiming "consensus", and "no consensus", and then claiming no-one should make changes from your preferred version in either case. I suppose because one of these these always applies, I suppose no-one is allowed to edit anything in WP by your book (until you personally okay it?). I asked you for a link to justify that the template transclusion replacement was discussed. You have not provided it. —Quondum 21:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The proposed changes to the table had no consensus. The same changes you chose to not involve yourself with, where you could have discussed the changes you wanted to make. You know, the one large discussion you were ping'd to

WP:SILENCE is also relevant here, as the template you're edit warring to remove has been present in that article since 2010 (in a sandbox copy because it was protected due to a dispute, shocking I know; it was folded into the article-proper the same month). "My" consensus is the status quo, the over a decade of silence around including that template that you've unilaterally decided (in the face of repeated reversions) to force through the removal of. —Locke Cole • t • c

05:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is this not being discussed on the relevant article talk page? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Presumably because some sort of consensus might actually be reached that way. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the no-consensus RfC regarding the disputed 'Quantities of bits' template was held without even bothering to inform anyone about it on the talk pages of the few articles it has been transcluded to: Bit, Kilobit, Megabit and Binary prefix. I get the distinct impression that the purpose of this RfC wasn't so much to determine article content as to continue a long-running dispute amongst contributors about the relative merits of various names-for-numbers systems. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

An article talk page is hardly the correct venue to discuss editor conduct issues. What a silly question. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

It is, however, the correct venue to discuss content disputes. Granted, I can appreciate, judging from this thread, that you may just be unwilling to engage in consensus building there, given your demonstrated unwillingness to drop the stick even in the face of near-unanimous opposition. Ravenswing 07:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

That's adorable. I guess it's also entirely possible the group here is wrong, but that's hardly a possibility I guess. We'll ignore the months of discussion on this issue I've participated in, the RFC on this very template that I participate in at length. Quondum didn't participate in the latter part of those discussions despite being explicitly ping'd there. I suppose if we ignore the facts, I'm certainly totally out of line in someones fantasy-land version of events. In the real world, the one we're all in together, I've engaged on these issues. The onus is on Quondum to gain consensus for their changes, so far there's 3rd party agreement that there's no consensus for any of the changes we've discussed, and clearly no consensus for Quondum's changes. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Seeing as
  by way of a trout slap at the OP), can we get a close? Ravenswing
  13:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Why not a TBAN for all three, as suggested above? Dondervogel appears to be practically an SPA, and the other two aren't exactly innocent either. A simple close is just going to lead to another ANI thread, sometime in the next few months, with disruptive editing from both sides in the meantime. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be tempted to topic ban anyone who has a damn opinion on the matter being disputed, on the basis that turning an argument over such a trivial matter into the sort of long-running edit-warfare saga one might expect to see on articles concerning Balkans history is incompatible with creating an encyclopaedia. Or doing anything else useful on the internet. This is an article about how we use numbers, and label them. It isn't complicated. Those who wish to make it so are acting against the best interests of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem continues

See the recent edit history of Talk:Binary prefix, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kbrose reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: ). Not content with endless bickering about articles, templates and imaginary 'consensus' derived from inconclusive RfCs, we now have edit-warring over talk page posts. In an article over the use of binary prefixes. Binary fucking prefixes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

In the discussion above, the discussions linked from above, and specifically the discussion ATG mentions here, it seems to me consistently the case that Locke Cole's behavior has been at least as bad as that of anyone else in the discussion. For that reason, I propose Locke Cole be topic-banned from binary prefixes (or whatever the correct locus of argument is) indefinitely. --JBL (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Support: Locke Cole is seemingly neither one

dropping the stick, and his contempt for those who oppose him isn't so much plain as being trumpeted. Ravenswing

13:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem with such discussions, from my point of view, is that joining them feels useless. There are a few editors with extremely strong opinions throwing incivility at each other ([23]*) and I'm simply not interested in trying to determine who of them has the most convincing arguments. It would thus probably help the encyclopedia to remove them (not referring to just Locke Cole specifically) from the topic area so that less loud (and less extreme) voices are not longer discouraged from finding a solution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC) (*note: I rarely need only one diff to illustrate incivility from two editors...)

Indeed. This isn't an issue with a single contributor. There are multiple people involved, more concerned with arguing over the relative merits of alternative number prefixes than over actually imparting useful information to readers. The binary prefix article itself is hopelessly bloated with what appears to be WP:OR, or at least cites no clear source. Compare it with our article on Roman numerals, which manages to more than adequately describe a much more complex system, in less words. I suspect that much of the bloat may result from the endless squabbles over the article. The talk page archives seem to confirm this, given the number of threads referring to 'POV' issues. In an article on binary prefixes. An article that fails to demonstrate that there is any significant external controversy over the issue at all - which might at least explain the endless battles, if not justify them. It is impossible not to come away with the impression that people are using the article as a battleground almost for the sake of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

(participant) In part, it's an argument about whether our articles on computers, mobiles etc should use MB/GB or MiB/GiB (or both, or with equivalents in bytes, or with footnotes for every number, and so on). The conflicts are in articles about devices and at

MOS:COMPUNITS might help too, I don't know. NebY (talk

) 20:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

NebY I was thinking along the same lines. We need some disinterested editors to slice through this infinite cycle of bikeshedding. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To illustrate AndyTheGrump's point, for a great comparison, look at how Kilobyte addresses it. It explains the two competing definitions in half a page, compares units for both the decimal and binary bases and points to fields where they are used. This is the reality we can have if humans and fish can coexist peacefully. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Acebulf: Sadly, the template used in that article is a different kind of good example - see edit history and talk page. NebY (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support wider topic bans The article has turned into a battleground, to the detriment of the article itself. As AndyTheGrump pointed out, the article is a mess, and this dispute is not about making the article better anymore. Ideally, we would want the debate to either be carried out by people who aren't part of the dispute, or, where no actual controversy exists, is left to fade into obscurity. I support a topic ban, kind of like what ToBeFree has suggested, where we give people who have participated in the debate in a non-civil way a topic ban narrowly defined to binary prefixes. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  It is pointless to suggest a topic-ban of an unspecified group of people. --JBL (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I added content to an article, but User:Adikako disagreed and decided to use rollback on my edit and give me a level-2 warning for vandalism. After I asked for an explanation, I was told something that showed that this user didn't consider it vandalism. Aside from vandalism and one's own edits and userspace,

Just so you know, you were meant to notify Adakako of this discussion - don't worry, I've done that for you. MiasmaEternal☎ 23:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Drama, drama. An experienced editor edit warring with people who have voiced their disagreement in a technically incorrect way.

Regarding the personal attack warning, the discussion in question was at User talk:IlIlIlIIIIIlI (permanent link); all that has been removed so far is an automated warning by Cluebot ([24]). Looking at it, I see a slightly inadequate yet understandable response to edits such as Special:Diff/1128251410 and Special:Diff/1128252213.

So no, that alone doesn't demonstrate a pattern of behavior that immediately requires removal of rollback. Asking for permission removal is best done with clean hands;

WP:ONUS may be worth a (re-)read. ~ ToBeFree (talk

) 23:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

The diffs you provided don't support your statements, IP editor. Your edit was reverted with Huggle, and har an edit summary, and you did not get a warning for vandalism but for disruptive editing. --bonadea contributions talk 23:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to say if I was in the right or wrong, but threatening to report me to ANI for "being reckless" is not a good move. In my case it was a misunderstanding from their edits, but their edits seemed like vandalism to begin with. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the assertions that Adikako has a "pattern of problematic behaviour", if you go and check out any RC patrollers talkpage, there will inevitably be plenty of complaints, unless they remove or archive them. Most editors need a BITE warning now and again, it's not that unusual. Making a single personal attack is hardly grounds for removal of rollback permission.

On the other hand, you didnt even wait for a response to your query on their talkpage before reporting them. Within 5 mintues of starting editing, you were (ironically) threatening to take someone to AIV. Within 10 minutes of starting to edit you had already decided to take Adakiko to ANI. If your IP wasn't an Australian Vodafone address, I'd think you were

WP:BKFIP. Mako001 (C)  (T) 

 🇺🇦 06:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)