Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1154

At the WP article

Then,

The argument the user seems to make for their restoration is that all information related to the subject are

The user also messaged me, stating that the articles were adequate articles and that the information removed were public domain information across the entire spectrum of Wikipedia's Discordian collection. They have also stated that doing numerous RfDs on the week end was to be avoided. They then asked me to revert all my edits and RfD nominations related to Discordianism.

All in all, it seems the user is simply refusing the comply with

• The editor is taking a WikiHatchet to not only that one book page but to Wikipedia's Discordian collection and time sinking a swarm of literally hundreds of edits and nominations on a two-day run of edits to the topic. Please check their history page for the last couple of days (April 5, 6) to see what I mean. I'm asking for a pause in these edits for experienced page editors and others to be given the time to have a reasonable conversation with the editor who (looking at their deletion nominations for dozens of perfectly appropriate and relevant redirects) seems to have little or no knowledge of the topic. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• What are my rights here? Can I ping other editors who've worked on these pages to give testimony that the edits are very much over the line of both not knowing the topic and overt focusing on the topic to dilute it? Not everyone reads this page, but many do read the articles that are being both deleted and edited of essential and appropriate information. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  @

  WP:CANVASSING or not, so I advise you wait for an admin to reply to this question. Veverve (talk

  ) 12:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Veverve, of course, but thanks for the reminder. I have mentioned this ANI attempt at one spot, don't know the fairness of putting up a topic such as this and then not discussing it at one of the relevant deletion attempts, but I'll restrain from further text mentions. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Swarming the zone. Since you are using my message at your talkpage as a talking point here, I just left this one which seems relevant in this discussion: You've taken me to ANI using the above message as one of your talking points, without answering it and having a reasonable conversation? More time sinking of both the topic and, apparently, of editors who question your WikiHatcheding of the topic. With your hundreds of edits and deletions and deletion attempts over the last two days or so you seem to be trying to guarantee that your edits stand using swarming-the-zone tactics. Not the way most Wikipedians operate, although I've seen it done a couple times (not many, literally once or maybe twice over the years, this tactic is actually fairly rare on Wikipedia). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Has admitted by Randy Kryn above, they have now claimed on my talk page that my edits are not done in good faith. Veverve (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Admitted (Jesus Christ on a pogo stick). As I said, you have chopped into the topic with obviously keepable redirect deletion attempts (dozens), have nominated easily kept images (dozens), and taken a WikiHatchet to the main articles of the topic. All in two deays (an accidental combo of 'days' and 'delays', but seems to fit). You are probably operating in good faith as you see it, and good faith has to assume that you are flooding-the-zone in good faith, which I guess is a thing, but not the way I've seen done before to this extent. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked 72 hours for edit warring to restore unsourced content. Also, there seem to be some issues related to article ownership and assuming bad faith. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  Oh come on! Really? EEng 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Randy Kryn shouldn't have broken the 3RR, but, equally, it would have been nice to add "citation needed" tags before progressing to wholesale removal of material. Those tags exist precisely to avoid this sort of blow out.

In discussion elsewhere, some of the points removed have proven easy to source, even for someone - like me - who knows nothing about the topic. Furius (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. The deletions were precipitate and ill-considered, and RK didn't break 3RR. EEng 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have a different take. That was a whole lot of (mostly speculative looking) content to be completely unsourced. Frankly a lot of it has the tone of meandering

WP:OWN / "I can't believe you took a hatchet to our beautiful work!" mentality on display in this very thread, I think it was a necessary reminder at the right moment. In other words: good (if unfortunate) block. SnowRise ^{let's rap}

08:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocks are supposed to be preventative, and if some other preventative will do the job, then that's what should be used. I'm sure a firm reminder from 3rd parties would have done the trick. EEng 17:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This type of behaviour regularly sees new or IP editors being blocked for short periods, I don't see how doing the same for a more seasoned editor is anything but a normal admin action.
I think it would be good if editors gave warnings to editors they have friendly relationships with when such things come up, but it's not possible to go back in time and do so in this case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention, they did just receive an edit warring notice for a different dispute mere days ago. Hard to believe a reminder would have done anything when it didn't days ago... Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm more suggesting that someone Randy Kryn respects giving them some advice, rather than a template. Anyone can get overheated and blinded to their own mistakes, a friendly word letting you know that you need to step back would likely be better received than a template.
But yes, at this point it's all a bit late. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you EEng but that isn't our policy. Wikipedia:Protection policy: Pages are protected when a specific damaging event has been identified that cannot be prevented through other means such as a block. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

other means (plural) such as a block. You seem to be saying blocks are the only means, or the preferred means; surely they're not. Anyway, why are you quoting a policy about when to protect pages, when what we're talking about is when to block an editor? But it's all water under the bridge now. EEng 19:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

What does page protection have to do with the discussion? Grandpallama (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t looked into the actual events in detail but I’m going to be blunter: not only is this whole situation displaying content ownership tendencies, Randy and his fans’ response to this situation and subsequent block is both immature and screams “I [still] think I’m untouchable”. In other words, not only was the initial response bad, but I personally don’t think Randy et al even got the message: a a 15+ year top 200 veteran should not be getting blocked period, yet here we are Dronebogus (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

These are some of the sources that

WP:RS. Goodreads, and personally posted pages are not acceptable sources. So, how are we supposed to maintain quality on Wikipedia when other editors engage in the same kind of behavior? This is disregard for policies and principles. So, Randy gets blocked and someone else takes over who promotes unacceptable sourcing. Lastly, on Randy Kyrn's talk page they say that Discordianism seems to be under attack here right now... [9]---Steve Quinn (talk

) 18:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@

WP:AGF

with me.

As a sidenote, Vajzë Blu's behaviour as described above is also not so great, so maybe an admin explaining this relatively new user what a RS is would be a good idea. Veverve (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I obviously already saw that because I left a warning. If people can't behave civilly and assume good faith in some topic area, the community can always choose to

topic ban them. However, it would take evidence of extensive disruptive. General sanctions are another possibility for topic areas that have long-running disruptive behavior in them. "Long-running" is months, I guess? I don't know, maybe you could get away with weeks. Don't jump the gun, is my point. Also, the secondary point is that I don't have to be the Discordianism Admin. The community can deal with long-running problems, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 21:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate, this is far from the first time Randy Kryn obstructed editing of esoteric topics. See the excessive discussions here (Randy and now-blocked user @.Raven were insisting, against broad consensus, that esoteric woo was not subject to FRINGE and that Wilson et al were mainstream secondary independent sources rather than in-universe fringe adherents). JoelleJay (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate and @JoelleJay. And here is a discussion [10] related to the discussion that JolleJay links to: (Eight-circuit model of consciousness talk page). This discussion takes place on my talk page. I invited Randy over to my talk page to keep the discussion at Eight-circuit model of consciousness from getting bogged down, or something like that. Anyway, this gives you an added view of Randy's views toward sources and maybe other things. I am afraid these views have not changed since that time. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I will add, regarding the first source I mentioned: [11]. It was written by Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst, Pvt., USMC (Ret.) on January 23, 1991 (see the bottom of the page). This is not a recognized expert who is able to g3ve a qualified critique of Discordia. Also, to me this seems like rambling about what ever comes to their mind. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@

Kerry Thornley in the first paragraph, so it is concerning to me that this seems to have escaped your attention. Skyerise (talk

) 19:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise:, I find it disconcerting that you are concerned ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Where or in what publications is this person discussed regarding their opinions or points of view? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: Quite a few, actually. More than I would care to list here. This person in discussed in all of the academic sources covering Discordianism. Of course, they are actually cited on the article as references or further reading, so I guess you could go count them yourself. Skyerise (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

OK I will take a look. Also, still I think the author of that rambling ramble can be deemed as affiliated. They are saying, "Perhaps the chief difference between the Discordian Society and Sump's outfit is one of style. We got it. They don't." and " We solicit no donations, demand no tithes, charge no admission..." So, he is a part of whatever this is. He is not offering an objective view or any kind of critique. He is one of the boys, so to speak. So, this is concerning to me that you didn't notice that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Please also see

WP:ABOUTSELF. Skyerise (talk

) 00:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

On the matter of the initial post, it seems to me that

WP:BRD had been respected. Skyerise (talk

) 20:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

There are so many things wrong with this post that I don't even know where to start.

WP:PRESERVE, which does say to fix problems rather than delete content. However, if someone chooses to delete unsourced content, you must add citations before restoring it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 21:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope.

WP:BURDEN into account and not just cherry-pick that part that lets one editor (ab)use it in such a way as to bully another editor. Skyerise (talk

) 22:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but... BURDEN does say: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the contribution. and it says: Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. It doesn't say anything about starting an edit war via this process. If someone decides to edit war over this, then they are responsible. So, who is cherry picking? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring is choice and it can be avoided. One strategy for avoidance is avoiding ownership isues and trying to keep a preferred version intact. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Those are suggestions that only apply before the first deletion. As the content had already been deleted once, the burden was now squarely shifted to anyone seeking to restore it to provide RS. JoelleJay (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Technically, the person removing material who then reverts to keep it removed loses the edit war and should be the one blocked. The reason is that any removal is a revert of one or more previous editors who added the content. Thus the removing editor's fourth revert is the the third one after another editor restores the material. RK may have broken 3RR by making a fourth revert, but so did Veverve. Counting things this way used to be common practice and both editors would have been blocked. Intentionally driving or provoking an editor to a block under the assumption that your first edit isn't in itself a revert has in the past been considered a blockable offense, due to the fact that technically both editors have broken 3RR at that point. Skyerise (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Uh what?! No, removal of any content is not "technically a revert"; if that was true then we could never delete anything from 0RR topics. Sometimes removal can constitute a revert, if the removal is temporally close to and effectively nullifies a specific addition. That is not what happened here. JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Tell that to the admins who blocked me during the previous decade using exactly that argument, which was done several times, until I internalized it and always count my initial removals as a revert; this does not apply to additions. This is not a new thing I am making up, it's an old one that has been neglected and forgotten. Any removal is necessarily a revert. It takes two to tango, and Veverve was as much in the wrong as Randy. Skyerise (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Even if Veverve actually did revert as many times as Randy, their actions are decidedly backed by policy while Randy's are not.

And I don't see anywhere in your most recent edit warring blocks that an admin has said your removal of material, well after it was added, constituted a revert. Instead I see you getting blocked for the combination of incivility, harassment, fringe canvassing, and filing spurious SPIs, while edit warring. And remember that EW is not defined only as 4 reverts in 24 hours, so being blocked for edit warring after <4 reverts/day does not mean some other edit is being "counted" as a revert. JoelleJay (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I did say last decade. I am specifically talking about the blocks in 2013, 2014, and 2015. At least two of them counted a first removal as a revert. You'd have to find the actual 3RR reports to verify that, but I assure you that it is true. Skyerise (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the above is somewhat convoluted. Trying to change the focus on who made what edit and then saying one editor intentionally provoked or drove another editor to a block is deflecting responsibly here. Also, accusing another editor of intentionally leading another into an edit war is not AGF. I know that is what you intend by posting that. So, most likely what you have, is two editors with two different editing standards. One edits according to P & G and the other is much less concerned with P & G. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Bottom line is: it takes two to tango and they both should have been blocked. An editor may be deemed to have edit-warred even if they have not technically crossed 3RR, especially when multiple articles are involved. Consideration should be taken as to what's going on across multiple articles, and nominating more than a dozen redirects for deletion after gutting an article of the material that supports the redirects is in my opinion edit-warring. Skyerise (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Removing poorly-sourced dubious material from multiple pages is not edit-warring, even when someone reverts three times per page. Reinserting that material without improving the sourcing is tendentious and is definitionally edit warring at four reverts, and will frequently be considered EW even before that. JoelleJay (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

That is simply wrong. 3RR is very clear that edit-warring is disruptive editing, and it applies even when the editor in question is technically "right" - it's a simple count, not a judgment call: Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Skyerise (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is disruptive editing even when you're right, which is why I said it was not a violation of the three-revert rule to make only three reverts, while it is at four reverts; and that this is compounded by the four-revert editor also being tendentious. JoelleJay (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

This again? Randy Kryn tendentiously disrupted removal of trivia/non-reliably sourced content at another Robert Anton Wilson-adjacent page last year. I think @Snow Rise and @Steve Quinn were also involved in that one. Are we approaching a need for a t-ban from esoteric stuff? JoelleJay (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

JoelleJay, I have been thinking about that same thing that happened last year. It is deja vu all over again. I think a t-ban is reasonable given the current circumstances---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I was kind of trying to avoid bringing that up because I felt that since Randy had been blocked here, that anything that might lead to a second sanction was unwarranted. But yes, since the matter has been broached, there is a connecting theme here.

Mind you, I don't contribute to articles in this subject matter really. As with the present case, the issue last year was something I stumbled upon at ANI, and my joining the talk page discussion was an effort at trying to find a consensus between the two sides. If I recall correctly, the same was true of Steve (and others). Randy was not really the most problematic participant in the discussion that lead to the ANI (that I could tell, anyway), but he did have a specific issue that is present again here, and which, unfortunately, I have seen previously when bot-summoned to RfCs on other articles.

Said issue is that Randy, by his own disclosure, knew some of the people whom are the subjects of some of the BLP-adjacent articles he has himself developed, and he considers himself an amateur expert in the lives of some of these figures, and the mid-twentieth century counter-culture mysticism that they developed. Now, he may very well be every bit the expert he believes he is, and could potentially be an invaluable asset to work on these subjects, but he's not a published expert in this area, and thus his first hand knowledge and original analysis and detailed (but often unverified) descriptions drift deep into

WP:OR in places.

In short, Randy is way too close to the subject matter in question, problematically laissez-faire about sourcing standards when generating content about them, and then far too attached to his own prose after he has created it, often challenging large edits that cut out the significant amount of unsourced original research as if it is "hacking all his hard work to bits" (paraphrasing his general sentiment in each case) and initially edit warring to keep it in, until admins or uninvolved parties from ANI/RfC step in to stop it, rather than acknowledging that the issues was with his approach to the articles in question from the start.

Now, all of that said, I don't fancy a tban here yet. Mind you, I have never been a participant in any of these edit wars or even an original party to the disputes (each time I experienced one of this scenarios, I was present via an FRS notice for an RfC, or an ANI thread like this one). So maybe I'm more patient than others might be inclined to be who do work in these areas. But I think the block was valid, was served, and should suffice at this time. I've only written out the exhaustive observations above because I hope Randy will grant that there might be something to them. I don't have skin in the game, so to speak, when it comes to any of the affected articles, I have sometimes supported elements of his arguments as a third party opinion when I arrived on the talk pages, and I am not advocating for a sanction. But I do want him to recognize he has a blind spot for certain subject matter when it comes to straying into original research. SnowRise ^{let's rap}

08:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

So, what I hear Snow saying is that Randy doesn't know how to edit according to policies and guidelines or that he simply ignores policies and guidelines. And either way, the text or article he creates ends up being original research, which is then problematic. And here we are. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, sort of. I do think it's worth noting that Randy does tend to drop the stick when confronted with enough pushback. In my limited experience, Randy's not the sort to become super disruptive or hostile. He can be a little reactive to efforts to scale back his work, initially, but he's rarely what I would call tendentious. Mind you, all of my experience with him comes from some brief interactions via RfC and this and the Eight Circle ANI/talk page matter. But from those few interactions, I have the impression of someone who is not hostile in disputes. Just a little less cautious about sourcing standards than he should be, having his own idiosyncratic views about what is proper verification and DUEWEIGHT sometimes.

I'm not saying that's not a bit of a problem for an editor as prolific as he is (it clearly is). But he also doesn't go to the mat to push his preferred version if confronted with strong opposition. His initial reactions to his content being removed can lack perspective at times, but I think he operates in good faith and seeks to avoid prolonged conflict. You're rarely going to get him to change his mind, once it's set, but he'll usually eventually accede to consensus.

Basically what I am trying to get at is that I don't think the label "disruptive" really fits in Randy's case. Personally, I kind of appreciate an editor who can be a bit out of step with community consensus on a major policy issue, but consistently avoid being nasty about it. But yeah, the cost-benefit outcome of his contributions would be improved considerably if he could permit himself to re-assess his understanding of WP:OR/V/RS. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Snow, thanks for the clarification. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Snow Rise, thank you for the WikiAnalysis, which is incorrect in several ways, but who am I to know better than you what I think and what my motives are. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Randy, I don't think your motivations are so much the cause for concern from your fellow editors here, but rather your objectivity and your willingness to conform with basic community consensus on fundamental principles of sourcing and original research. I continue to oppose further sanctions for you in this instance, but I'm not sure that my opposition alone is going to count for all that much, being rather in the minority in that respect--and even if you do manage to avoid a TBAN this time, unless you address the pattern being discussed here (i.e. start sourcing your content a bit better, stop placing in large sections based on personal knowledge and perspective when you can't source, and avoid the "took a 'WikiHatchet' to my incredible article" rhetoric whenever others remove said unsourced content) such a ban will become inevitable. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

After reviewing my reverts and the edits surrounding them, I would, looking at it objectively, not have imposed a block. My concern about the editor not being very knowledgeable about the topic (putting common terms up for deletion, nominating public domain images for deletion) while at the same time making well over a hundred edits to the topics over a two-day period (not sure of the exact number, haven't counted, but it was a large and sustained edit run) while not being aware that the topic's quotes were from copyfree books, seemed like an excessive amount of incorrect and unwarranted removals. I reverted, then a quick three-revert situation came into being (if you read the edit summaries the situation becomes obvious, at least from my point of view) then Ninja blocked me for three days and I went off to view the eclipse. Being in the middle of it I don't think the block was deserved, and experienced editors such as EEng agreed (thanks EEng, a picture of a Sacred Cod is worth 1,000 words), but could see Ninja's point of view just enough (although it was imposed as if I were a 500 edit noobie, thanks for the assume GF NRP) that I wasn't going to challenge it. So I hung Christmas lights on it. Then saw, after a couple days, that Skyerise had done their usual great job in editing and bringing the articles up-to-code - they are a Wikipedia treasure. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Just for the record, your honors, I would like to place this post into evidence. It further explains just one of the several reasons why I reverted the edits in what was called an "edit war": in order to slow down Veverve's edit swarm and go to a talk page to check if they knew what they were doing. NinjaRobotPirate might or might not also benefit from reading that linked comment, maybe to learn a little more about assuming good faith in long-time editors, or at least to encourage them to further research incidents next time to ascertain if maybe there were two sides to the doubloon. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

This argument that you can edit-war as long as it is to protect from what you deem to be an edit swarm shows you still have not understood what is reproached to you.

Also, one can open as many RfDs as one believes is needed, so long as one has legitimate reasons to do so. And one can remove as many unsourced/

WP:BURDEN). Veverve (talk

) 08:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course you can, within the rules (as I can revert within the rules). But maybe when first corrected as to copyright mistakes, common wording, etc. you can pause in your deletions and noms and choose instead to discuss the concerns and objections to find out if they have merit. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• All that stuff aside (and that's where it should be), and I'll get back to reading it more in-depth and responding later, the major problem here comes across from reading Skyerise's point of view. Seems there are two different understandings of BRD among Wikipedians. I would have hoped that, given the circumstances and my experience here, that people would have also given me some of that "assume good faith" business, and trust that my judgement and reasoning contained the "other side of the coin" (which I'll also get into above later). What we should assume is that many Wikipedians, myself included, understand the BRD process to be 1) a bold edit (or edit run) made, 2) then reverted, 3) well, maybe a second revert if you think you know your stuff, etc., that the talk page discussion should begin when asked for. Lots of editors use BRD. It's all over the place. How many editors have been blocked or banned for getting into what an administrator perceived as a one-sided bad-hat "edit war" and using the ban stick like a baton, when assuming good faith might tell them something different if deeply researched. I will bet Elon Musk's money that a huge percentage of Wikipedians trust BRD as the letter of the law and not just an essay. Maybe we should make clear to everyone that BRD no longer should be cited, as it really has no meaning in preventing an "edit war" if two editors understand it, or think they understand it, differently. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's the first time I've ever seen anyone state that not following BRD is a blockable offense.

  WP:BRD is quite clear in it's first paragraph that it's optional and not mandatory. It's good advise and I would follow it as 'best behaviour', but unfortunately it's not enforceable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t

  ° 11:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Then you are still waiting. I did not say that not following BRD is a blockable offense. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry I should have been clearer, Skyerise suggested that. You were commenting on what Skyerise had said, and my reply was meant as a continuation of that discussion not as a insinuation against you. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. That is just an example of how BRD is used and remembered versus what it may actually say. BRD seems to be a "go to" guideline (even though it is an essay) and is used extensively by editors of all lengths of service. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

RAMSES$44932 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has vandalized Category:Al Jazeera, AJ+, Al Jazeera Media Network, Al Jazeera Arabic , Al Jazeera English . They added anti zionist, Conspiracist media, Antisemitic propaganda category into all these pages. Multiple attempts were made to vandalise. Please take appropriate action

Gsgdd (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

This user has made like over 4000 edits it’s hard to verify claims that they added antisemitic propaganda.

Can you provide to any links of them doing this?CycoMa1 (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

here they are

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Jazeera_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1196103736

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Jazeera_English&diff=prev&oldid=1196103708

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Al_Jazeera&diff=prev&oldid=1196103686

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Al_Jazeera&diff=prev&oldid=1217046201

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AJ%2B&diff=prev&oldid=1217046115

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Al_Jazeera&diff=prev&oldid=1215522058

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Jazeera_Media_Network&diff=prev&oldid=1215029098 Gsgdd (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gsgdd You are required to notify all involved editors of discussions at ANI. I have left a notice at RAMSES$44932's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, The user seems to have several other violation on thier talk page as well. Gsgdd (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

But Al Jazeera are self-declared anti-zionists. It is not something disputed. They are anti-zionists. Antisemitic is debatable, but anti-zionist is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAMSES$44932 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@

WP:CATV. Readers should be able to clearly understand why an article is included in a category by reading the article. Al Jazeera English, for example, makes no mention of zionism or anti-zionism. If it should, that's something you could bring up on that article's talk page, but until then, it should not be included in a category that the article doesn't support. Schazjmd (talk)

22:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd@CycoMa1Can we give an official warning to them. They have been using wiki long enough to understand the rules. They also have engaged in multiple edits violating copyrights , disruptive edits etc.. please read their talk page Gsgdd (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gsgdd, if there are other issues with RAMSES$44932's editing, you need to be specific and provide diffs to support the claim. Since RAMSES$44932 posted above, they have resumed editing but stopped incorrectly categorizing articles, which was the complaint raised here. Schazjmd (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Please review their talk pages, where numerous individuals have expressed concerns about disruptive edits and copyright violations. They have not responded to acknowledge these issues or committed to improvement. Their last reply—asserting that Al Jazeera is self-declared anti-Zionist, a point they claim is undisputed—exemplifies the problematic behavior in question. This is the basis for my request to take action against them. Gsgdd (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Please review their talk pages

That is not adequate for ANI. You need to find specific

WP:DIFFs of edits you believe violate the rules, and document them here. We're not going to go fishing to try and find the edits based on these vague assertions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

16:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

نعم البدل is engaged in edit warring and disruptive editing on the page Punjabi language. Even when I have stated a proper source by Britannica stating otherwise that Punjabi is not an officially recognized language in Pakistan, he refuses to believe so. He cannot even back up his claim on the talk page. He even goes further to report for me edit warring. This is blatant POV pushing and edit warring. UnbiasedSN (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I would like to mention that this was only made in response to User:UnbiasedSN being reported for Edit warring over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:UnbiasedSN_reported_by_User:نعم_البدل_(Result:_). I invited the user to discuss his removal over at the Talk page, back on 15th March diff, and he failed to do so. I asked to start a discussion again, yet his response was start the discussion diff] and proceeded to use a threatening tone on my talk page, and followed up with petty insults. diff1 and diff2. نعم البدل (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Even in the discussion you fail to make a case. You cite no sources. This is obviously POV pushing. UnbiasedSN (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

You are the removing the details, and no one else has had an issue with Punjabi being mention as an officially recognised language in Punjab, Pakistan. You also failed to start a discussion. I will leave this to the admins as clearly your attitude indicate this to be a

WP:Battleground issue. نعم البدل (talk

) 02:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It's obviously an issue to you that it's not recognized as an official language. While you're at it you should go ahead and argue with Britannica too.

"It is the official language of the Indian state of Punjab and is one of the languages recognized by the Indian constitution. In Pakistan Punjabi is spoken by some 70 million speakers, mostly in Punjab province, but official status at both the national and the provincial level is reserved for Urdu." Last Updated: Mar 27, 2024 UnbiasedSN (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I will leave this to the admins as clearly your attitude indicate this to be a

WP:Battleground issue. نعم البدل (talk

) 02:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

And you're clear bias is against WP:NPOV. You clearly have not shown any research done on the topic.

. UnbiasedSN (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit Warring Issue has been resolved with page locked. Page was locked as it was before نعم البدل initial revert on March 15th. Props to Admin for doing through research on the matter. UnbiasedSN (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that this user in particular has been reported previously for his disruptive edits. نعم البدل (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

And you were previously banned. Your point? UnbiasedSN (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven't been banned previously. If you're referring to my appeal on my talk page, that was an issue with an IP/Proxy ban that is unrelated to me, that I was somehow temporarily affected by. نعم البدل (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• To OP, I won't comment on anything else, but please refrain from writing edit summaries like "[..] Punjabic isn't a real word, whoever wrote this needs to get a brain"(
  personal attack, even if you didn't identify who wrote it. – 143.208.238.195 (talk
  ) 03:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I apologize. Punjabic is definitely not a real word, but I should've worded it better... Didn't know it was the person aforementioned. UnbiasedSN (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ironically, you have also accused me of linguistic gatekeeping (among other things). And yes, rare it maybe, "Punjabic" is indeed a real word, used in academic papers [12]. It is used to distinguish the Punjabi language from the various other Punjabi dialects (not dialects of the Punjabi language), either found or relating to the Punjab(-speaking regions). نعم البدل (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  I like how you cite 3 sources as a claim that punjabic is a word, but you discredit Britannica as a proper source in the discussion page. The irony is unreal.. UnbiasedSN (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Britannica contradicts itself, I have shown you this, you have acknowledged this – yet you are not even prepared to accept that. You also discredit the Punjab government which passed a law for the Punjabi language. You are literally beating around bush. Go search the term on Google for all I care. نعم البدل (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  I literally refuted every single argument you have brought up in the discussion page. Stop coming here afterwards to stoke the fire after you have claimed

  Wikipedia:Battleground. UnbiasedSN (talk

  ) 03:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Another note for admins:

  The reference presented was an act passed in the Punjabi Assembly of Pakistan, and the user has equated the Punjab Government to a "chinese cultural society" diff. نعم البدل (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Just stated above how you should keep the discussion on the discussion page, but yeah go off.... without context... UnbiasedSN (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also... [13] Admins... This is not a how a user should conduct himself on wikipedia. The use of curses should not be allowed at all. I understand my words have been rude and condescending but it has never broken any rules for bullying or against civility. This is a blatant infringement on Wikipedia:Civility. UnbiasedSN (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  This seems to me to be a content dispute. The page is semi-protected, so the edit warring has stopped. I've seen a few other editors on the talk page, so you two no longer need to engage with each other; you've both made your points, other editors will come in and help establish consensus. I think the best thing is for you to just stop talking to each other for a bit and let tempers cool. Also, UnbiasedSN, my experience has been that while it's not great, cursing is not prohibited. My read of the comment you linked is that it's expressing frustration, and bordering on uncivil, but hasn't crossed that line. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  Wouldn't their comment fall under Rarely acceptable uses of swears? The example the article provides is Ex: "What the h*** are you trying to accomplish?" What نعم البدل posted was "What f****** source are you demanding?" Feel like it's the same, but I could be wrong too, it does say rarely so I guess there's exceptions.

  Also thank you for your clear and concise response in the discussion page. It was very informative and it shows how well versed you are when it comes to these issues. UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

As an uninvolved third-party, might I suggest that both involved users

WP:ANI as well as the Talk page for hours is not conducive to getting this resolved. Give it time, let outside parties take a look. Q ^{T C}

04:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it did end up getting heated in the end on the talk page. Will let admins do their work. UnbiasedSN (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Can we bang these two editors' heads together? This is petty and will be a time sink going forward. 2001:4430:50FD:968D:444:B105:9220:FFE4 (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2001:8003:5C28:8200:E5BA:1C33:8C41:C3E6 has repeatedly added Tik tok links to the 2024 Bondi Junction stabbings article. The edits were reverted, and person then added the link again. Ryan Watern (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

User only has 3 edits, two of them being vandalism. Ryan Watern (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)