Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Discussion (Comp.arch)

• I have not answered for all the untruths in the original unexpected ANI. I'm not even sure if I'm expected to answer here. And now for this Proposal from Nemov:

Nobody asked me to change behavior [EDIT: before the ANI, I though would be clear if full sentence read. See rest here:] (one allegation of not acting in good faith, then bam ANI; I assume good faith of all in 10+ years, and others of me until now)?! Is that implicit in ANI? Not sure what TBAN is.

2. No modifying of editor's comments; except that one time when you claimed BLP was a guideline, and I edited it to policy (I stopped even editing other's others typos, such as yours above [EDIT: My point was I would have, help others that way, no longer dare to even touch those]. That was the same edit I struck out your comment to make it obvious to you, and others, by notifying you so that you could simply fix it. I deleted one comment by honest mistake. If we're going to do an RfC (or ANI), bringing up policy then it needs to fair, not lies about it (I didn't claim you were doing that intentionally, but seems disingenuous what you're doing now). I've never participated in an ANI before, in my over a decade of very successful Wikipedia editing, let alone mine, so do I need to read those policies too, or get a lawyer to defend, or just abandon Wikipedia?

Your incredible Support comment in an RfC with untruth that I struck out is here. I.e. "

WP:NPOV

, others are, and people, not just me, claim that.

1. I've participated in RfC, that was started after ANI (and almost stopped editing the article itself after ANI), there was no RfC or consensus before, none to ignore, I read all edit summaries and in case I'm reverted. Should I read talk pages before anyone reverts me? comp.arch (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not really interested in further discussing your simple content dispute grievances. You're still justifying your behavioral problems which only strengthens the case for sanctions. Nemov (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pointed remarks such as I stopped even editing other's [sic] typos, such as yours above (emphasis mine) are very transparently bitter and serve no purpose other than to antagonize or insult other editors. This falls especially flat when that comment, pointing out the typos of others, has a typo in it. Someone proud of their over a decade of very successful Wikipedia editing should be aware how big of a no-no it is to modify another's talk page posts without permission. Without wanting to pick apart everything in this comment, I'd caution you that between your attitude and trying to get out of this squeaky-clean by only admitting the bare minimum fault, you're unlikely to get you the result you want. It's my belief that if you want to continue to constructively contribute to Wikipedia in the ways and places you want to, you would benefit greatly from a softened attitude and some humility. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will admit all of my faults here, if that's the point of the trial here. I want the trial to be fair, people not misrepresenting what I've actually done.

WP:NOT3RR also has other exceptions, e.g. for "bias". I believed I was doing a good job editing the article until LoomCreek stated he no longer believed in my good faith (in an edit summary). Have I done a single edit on the actual page since then, he (or others) disagree with? He followed up straight away with ANI. I believed he did that in good faith (and I thanked him for it), and I still believe he did that that. But I didn't see him bring up a point that is valid (at that time), me breaking a policy; or if he thinks so, which wasn't allowed by exception, so he was simply mistaken. I believe I've always backed down on editing the page. For the Talk page, have I bean obsessive, YES! This ANI didn't help with that. comp.arch (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

"Nobody asked me to change behavior" – I did, on 5/17. Nemov did, on 5/18. LoomCreek did on 5/18. PriusGod did on 5/18. A.B. did on 5/19.

After all of these requests to change your behavior,

hyperbolic misrepresentations of other editors' comments. 72.14.126.22 had to ask you to drop the stick again today. Combefere ★ Talk 21:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I am willing to believe that it was an honest mistake to remove the other editor's talk page comment, but comp.arch, if you, a veteran editor with a decade's worth of experience and good contributions to the project, are getting so worked up that you end up accidentally deleting people's comments in an RfC, I don't think it is healthy for you to continue to be a part of this discussion. You've cited enough policy and made enough arguments for anyone who comes to the RfC to be convinced, if they ever will be. Do remember that much of (I am aware that that there some cut-and-dry rules) WP policy is not set in stone and not to be obeyed as law, and that the specific content policy that is in dispute at this article has a long history of being hotly debated and recognized as ambiguously written from both people who want it to be stricter and those who want it to be more lenient. PriusGod (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, it might not be healthy (for my mental health), to discuss at talk, and well here. I'm thinking of taking a 3-4 week break from that article, and would request that nothing is decided on ANI, while I'm also away from this ANI. [I still feel I need to point out untruths about me here, at least if blatant/relevant.] comp.arch (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comp.arch, let me just say I think this is a beneficial idea. In many underlying substantive ways, I actually agree with you. But where I differ is that I believe many (if not most!) decisions on Wikipedia are not susceptible to a black-and-white, all-or-nothing analysis. Policies certainly exist, but there will always be differences of opinion on how they should be applied, and reasonable minds can differ in good faith. I try to always be clear about my opinions, but I find myself in the minority plenty, and that's okay. I have a certain level of faith that, over time, Wikipedia gets things close to right. That said, all the best to you and a Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Can we postpone this ANI (temp) block proposal? I've not edited that only page,
  censored" by someone not involved with me[40] and the lead "decidedly un-encyclopedic".[41], and I agree. According to HuffPo: "Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass said Friday in court that “several witnesses observed Mr. Neely making threats and scaring passengers” and repeats elderly person-of-color statement, from "the Post published the account of an unidentified 66-year-old who claimed Neely had said, “I would kill a motherf***er. I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet. I’ll go to jail.” The woman said Penny had asked her and another rider to give their accounts to authorities. Penny, the source said, “did not engage with the gentleman. He said not a word. It was all Mr. Neely that was... threatening the passengers.” so it's clear other people are "excluding" info and admitting to it. comp.arch (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]

Regretfully, I have opened a section on this page because User:MaranoFan has refused to retract lies they wrote about me and is falsely accusing me of acting in bad faith. I apologize for the length, but I need to clear my name.

23:19, May 14, 2023 MaranoFan opens Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Takin' It Back/archive1.

00:42, May 15, 2023 As I was on

07:31, May 15, 2023 MaranoFan addresses the comments.

09:59, May 15, 2023 I add two follow-ups.

15:47, May 15, 2023 MaranoFan addresses the follow-ups.

04:35, May 16, 2023 MaranoFan comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/My Man (Tamar Braxton song)/archive1 : "the Spotify/Apple Music refs do not seem to confirm to MOS:CONFORMTITLE. This should probably be fixed before an FAC, lest someone moan about it there, lol."

06:46, May 16, 2023 MaranoFan comments on my talk page: "Since your initial opposition to my nomination was strongly worded, I think it would be good if it was explicitly indicated in the form of a !vote that you are satisfied with the changes, so as to not turn away prospective reviewers. Thank you in advance."

To write on a reviewer's talk page asking them to !vote less than 36 hours after the review began is bizarre. I was about to support, but being basically guilted into making a vote offended me. There was never any indication that I wouldn't support, and I was mostly off Wikipedia at the time, so I really don't understand why MaranoFan felt the need to come to my talk page when the review was less than two days old and the nomination was less than two days old. It's not like my temporary lack of a !vote was "holding up" promotion. Again, there wasn't even an "oppose" to strike, and yet MaranoFan described my original comments as "opposition". I just hadn't written "support" yet because I hadn't come back to the FAC and checked if my follow-up comments were addressed. For that, MaranoFan felt the need to come to my talk page? No other editor has ever done that. This felt very over the top and points to their false belief that I have an agenda against them. I have never even opposed any of their past nominations, so I don't understand where their anxiety is coming from.

16:38, May 16, 2023 I had been tracking progress at

16:59, May 16, 2023 MaranoFan moves the entire review to the FAC talk page, writing in the edit summary: "Moved to talk to reduce page loading time as user has expressed wish to withdraw from the review process." Nowhere did I ever "expressed wish to withdraw from the review process". In fact, I said "Everything has been addressed", indicating that the review was complete, not that I withdrew. Just because there isn't a "support" vote doesn't mean the reviewer "withdrew" the review. MaranoFan blatantly lied that I "expressed wish to withdraw from the review process". I never said that explicitly nor implicitly. They moved the review to the talk page under false pretenses.

This is not the first time MaranoFan has lied that I have withdrawn from reviews of their FACs. 16:18, November 8, 2022 they accused me of "Abandoning completed source and prose reviews on my nomination". In fact, I had not come back to it (for one day... the horror) because they never indicated that my follow-up comment at 19:56, November 7, 2022 was addressed. In good faith, I then voted to support promotion and passed the source review after reviewing the nominated article's revision history. But nominators are supposed to indicate when changes have been made; it's not the reviewers job to go into the edit history for every comment and see what happened. Through their multiple lies about my "expressed wish to withdraw from the review process" and "abandoning completed source and prose reviews", MaranoFan has maligned my reputation at WP:FAC. They are implying that I randomly withdraw from reviews in bad faith, which is untrue. Their consistent language of "abandoning" and "withdraw" when I don't provide a !vote indicates that they fundamentally do not understand the WP:FAC review process. Nominations are not entitled to a !vote just because prose comments are addressed.

05:27, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan comments on FAC coordinator Gog the Mild's talk page, stating: "Hi, Gog! I wanted to ask if you could review my new FAC. I liked some of your recent reviews, and it would be a good confidence building measure after someone who seems to be competitive about Four Awards (my nom would be eligible for the same award) tried to derail it by starting political arguments." This is another lie and aspersion that I set out to ruin their nomination. They have a, quite frankly, worrying preconceived notion that I am out to "get them" and that my comments on their FAC are there to intentionally "derail it" because I am apparently in a Four Award rivalry with them and thus don't want it to pass. This is just so absurd. I have one Four Award, which I self-nominated two years after I was eligible (I would actually have two, but chose not to do a DYK for the other one). MaranoFan is casting baseless aspersions. Where is the evidence I am "someone who seems to be competitive about Four Awards" and that that influenced my review? They are apparently irked that I recently created and nominated Clown (Mariah Carey song) for DYK and GA (which they indicated they would review). MaranoFan is reading into things that are not there and are trying to create drama where none exists.

08:01, May 17, 2023 Gog the Mild comments on the FAC talk page.

08:32, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan replies, implying that I stalked them.

11:59, May 17, 2023 I reply, asking MaranoFan to retract their lies and aspersions about my edits and intentions.

13:29, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan responds.

14:47, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan comments on my talk page, saying I should defer to their talk page for comments.

14:50, May 17, 2023 I strike the comments implying a personal attack on me from the FAC review.

14:49, May 17, 2023 I indicate this on MaranoFan's talk page and ask that they reciprocate by retracting their lie about my purported withdrawal from the review and baseless aspersions about why I reviewed the FAC to begin with.

16:42, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan refuses and says that my actions "blatantly indicates malicious intent".

MaranoFan has put words in my mouth and refused to retract when given multiple chances, even when I did the same for them by striking certain comments. They have cast bizarre aspersions about me derailing their FAC nomination to win a Four Award competition to which I have no knowledge of. They seem to have preconceived notions that I continuously act in bad faith toward them as part of some secret agenda, which I find disturbing. Heartfox (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user was not active on

WP:FACGO and is amplified to the whole FAC community (pageviews: 312, 198). Pretending that this minimal amount of striking changes anything is ridiculous, since it is still clearly a bad faith comment. Yes, I have taken up a review of their current GAN because I wanted to thank them for their participation on my last few FACs. I took that up in good faith before they cast their aspersion on my nomination, not sure how that means I am "irked"... The above paragraph is just a bunch of random things thrown together to distract from their bad faith comment at my FAC, which they are fighting desperately to get restored for visibility at the main FAC page.--NØ 08:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Aspersions and bullying from User:Heartfox

Filing report I had been drafting as a subsection.

Not much to add, Heartfox seems to have ran to ANI because I had indicated I will start a discussion about them here if their bullying continues. This seems like an effort to beat me in time to add some sort of credibility to their defense. And by bringing up some interaction between us from November 2022, that I had long forgotten about, they seem to have confirmed they were holding a grudge against me during their initial review itself. Given that they have now started a discussion to embarrass me here, after attempting this on my review page and by pinging FAC coords on its talk page multiple times (and now here), I am now formally seeking an IBAN as this has become too much to deal with.--NØ 07:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would appear that a two-way IBAN would be helpful for both of you. @Heartfox: Any thoughts? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is getting crazy. MaranoFan is mad that I had the audacity to refer to their previous nominations and how they are wasting reviewers' time with the same issues. I was involved in those past FACs and was one of the previous reviewers; of course bringing up previous nominations is relevant. I simply did basic research to get the exact number so as to not cast aspersions with no evidence, as MaranoFan has done repeatedly over the past few days. They continue to feel entitled to a support !vote and that its absence somehow indicates I had malicious intent going into the review and "concocted" a plan to embarrass them. MaranoFan has still not retracted the lies they wrote about my edits and intentions, and are now casting new aspersions. An IBAN because this user cannot take basic criticism, which, again, did not even involve an "oppose", seems like an attempt to evade any criticism of their FACs. Heartfox (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one is "evading any criticism of their FACs", all content-related comments at my FAC were met constructively and addressed. The last five paragraphs of essays

WP:ASPERSION intended to character-assasinate me to prospective reviewers is disruptive, it is not related to improvement of the article in question. I would be fine if they just did not support, but they left a comment to intentionally dissuade others from reviewing my FAC. If they had a problem with my comments at another PR it should have been brought to my talk page.--NØ 16:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Then what would you recommend? QuicoleJR (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That they be blocked for incivility unless they retract/strike their lie about my purported "wish to withdraw from the review process", their aspersion that I am "someone who seems to be competitive about Four Awards", their aspersion that I am "still stalking [their] contributions", their aspersion that "this seems like a dedicated campaign to embarrass [them], which [I] concocted", their aspersion that I am "bullying" them, and their aspersion that I "ran to ANI" because MaranoFan had indicated they might do so (As I said at the top, I did so because they refused to retract lies after being given multiple opportunities). I have now struck the entire "moan" comment. Heartfox (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very well. I will leave this to an admin to make a decision. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Striking seems random. FAC pages get a lot of views so I want the offtopic comment removed entirely. Once that's done, I am ready to hear what the other user wants me to delete.--NØ 17:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not random, I was following

WP:RUC. Nonetheless, I have removed the stricken text per your request. Heartfox (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

@MaranoFan: Is this an improvement? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QuicoleJR, thank you so much for following this so closely and talking to me respectfully. I have never needed this more than in the past two days. Anyways, I have the same position about the IBAN.--NØ 20:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are welcome, Marano. I know from experience how stressful the site can be at times, so I have been trying to counteract that for others. One question: Do you still support an IBAN? Your comment on that was a bit ambiguous. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. That is a necessary step to prevent disruption going forward in my opinion. I am firm on that stand. The fact that I have been badmouthed as much as I have been over here but a voluntary IBAN has been refused makes me seriously question what's in store for the future. I haven't slept at all since this discussion erupted, and I doubt anybody here wants a repeat of this. A long-term solution like an IBAN is necessary. This section is getting lengthy so I'll leave the discussion to third parties now.--NØ 22:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal for two-sided IBAN between Heartfox and MaranoFan

Starting a separate section to formally propose an IBAN, since above sections are too swarmed by long comments. The issues go further than just a few comments needing to be struck and comments from back in November 2022 have also been highlighted, indicating there are recurring problems with our interactions which are not bound to improve in the future. Voluntary IBAN has been rejected by the other user.

• Support IBAN as proposer.--NØ 17:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support for now. This seems warranted, and it does not look like the situation will improve, as they do not seem to be able to come to a compromise. However, the IBAN should exclude this ANI thread. All other ANI threads would be included, just not this one. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Temporarily struck because the situation may be improving. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  As there has been no visible progress since I struck my comment, I am restoring it. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I have supported every FAC MaranoFan has nominated that I made a review for, and was about to for the most recent one until they harassed me at my talk page. If MaranoFan does not want a frequent support vote at their FACs, that's fine with me. They are the one who always comes to my talk page finding something wrong with my reviews. I really do not think about them as much they think I do. Why would I spent an hour reviewing in order to embarrass them. It's because I think the article has merit, not because I have some grudge against them. If I didn't like them I wouldn't have reviewed in the first place -_- They continue to try and drag me into their own muck. Heartfox (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Seems intractable at this point. --Jayron32 18:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment If this proposal is successful, we will need to G6 this. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support: I was uncertain about participating in this discussion. I have immense respect for both of these editors. It is a shame to see things between them go into this direction. I believe this is the best solution for this issue. I support MaranoFan's proposal for a two-sided IBAN. Aoba47 (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Holy mother of pointless pettiness, did you two leap-frog eachother in making mountains of molehills, until an extremely minor disagreement about etiquette became a grudge match of wills. Even so, I have over the years become an extreme skeptic about the utility and wisdom of IBANs, believing that they are usually unnecessary and invite more problems than they solve, shifting responsibility from the users under the sanction to comport with basic behavioral guidelines and instead putting the community in the role of having to referee the bounds of their interactions. So I only support interaction bans where a fair number of criteria are met, and if it makes sense in the context of the volunteer workspace the two editors share. Here, I think it makes sense based on the context and nature of the underlying dispute, the distance between the two editors in coming to a meeting of the minds (as well some degree of intractability from both on just dropping the matter outright), the lack of other obvious community actions that can be taken under these circumstances, the impact of the IBAN upon each party (including the need of workarounds required to maintain the ban), and all other relevant factors.

Now, obviously MaranoFan has no objection to the IBAN. And HeartFox, while not all the blame for amping this situation up can be laid at your feet, I have to tell you that I view the filing here at ANI to have been excessive and unnecessary (if not outright histrionic) in the circumstances, so I'm inclined to say you're just going to have to live with this suboptimal outcome. I'm not really sure what heavier and unilateral sanction for MF you saw us handing out here on account of this whole tempest in a teapot, but I reluctantly have to agree that in this case the IBAN seems to be the only formal action that fits the disruption, such as it is. Both of you walking away voluntarily from this showdown over minor perceived slights to your honesty and reputation would have been better for everyone, but here we are. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I struck the comment MaranoFan felt was unfair, struck it more upon their request, and removed it entirely upon their request. They continue to do no such thing for their aspersions toward me, including lying about my actions (that I abandon FAC reviews in bad faith), lying about my intentions (They went to an FAC coordinator's talk page and said I concocted a plot to ruin their FAC because I want more Four Awards than them). They say I stalk them and have personal "hatred" for them. I do not consider accusing someone of hatred, stalking, and malicious intent "minor" slights. Why would I voluntarily allow myself to be maligned like this? I do not regret coming to ANI at all. Heartfox (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but I've reviewed every single page and diff you supplied above to support the conclusion you are being unduely maligned, and what I see is two editors who both failed to AGF at every possible checkpoint, and showed absolutely no restraint necessary to de-escalate at each point that one of you did take offense and decided you were being misrepresented. That's honestly my take on the way both of you comported yourselves here. And the statements that were made about you are so far below the threshold for a

WP:PA

that would benefit from community attention that I can't view your filing here as anything but an extremely poor use of community time.

But even if we were to credit you as the more aggrieved party here, and even if we agreed that you had done more to try to avoid aggravating the disagreement prior to bringing this to ANI, have you considered this tactic: just ignoring the comments? If nothing else, try to have some faith in your fellow editors here: we see hyperbolic complaints about being hounded, hurt feelings, needless personalization of routine actions, and the silly assumption of malevolent motives all the time here: no experienced community member takes these claims seriously without a substantial demonstration of real evidence of harassment. No one was going to walk away from seeing those comments on a random FAC and think, "Oh, that HeartFox person is clearly a right wanker, I'm going to pass word along!"

The stakes here were so incredibly low, and you could (and should) have just walked away at any number of points, but instead the two of you had to play nothing-accusation chicken until you brought the matter here. Seriously a very, very silly dispute over essentially nothing, and I wish the result had just been a trout for both of you. But each additional comment from either of you makes it clear you still cannot just back away from this nonsense. So I guess an IBAN it is. Believe me, not my first choice, but your mutual display of thin skin seems to make it inevitable at this point, so we might as well implement the ban to stem the waste of community output on this inanity. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per Snow Rise. Both editors had the chance to walk away and show their class, but instead actively sought out this lame grudge match. A pretty shabby episode in their histories, it must be said. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Iban because it is obviously needed based on the above. Lightburst (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ErnestKrause's poor behavior at GAN has been undone. I'd encourage EK to reflect on how this went, and to fully understand the scope of a given process before he re-engages (you're welcome to ask questions if you don't understand). Further disruption to GAN will likely result in a topic ban from the process. Ajpolino (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

---

Federalist Papers article. ErnestKrause then proceeded to make this absurd comment

objecting to the nominator changing the assessment for the article from start to B after massively improving it, inventing fake policy that says this is strictly forbidden, saying I'm noticing that you have 3 GANs in line and that you appear to have not been following Wikipedia policy for promoting articles on behalf of the project pages which provide ratings for the articles they cover. The Wikipedia policy is fairly direct in stating that "any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article...", can do the assessments but not the contributors themselves. You were the contributor and I'll be reverting your self-promotions to all three articles today; they appear to be start and stub articles to my reading and I'm reverting your self-promoting them to B-class which appears to be against Wikipedia policy.

In a clearly retaliatory act for the nominator refusing to bow to his spurious demands unrelated to Federalist No. 2, ErnestKrause immediately quickfailed Talk:Federalist No. 3/GA1 and Talk:Federalist No. 4/GA1 with a copy-paste message, full of absurdities. According to ErnestKrause, two articles over 1,000 words long and plentiful citations are still being start/stub articles with what appear to be poor lede sections, and very rudimentary contents barely covering material being useful. Both quickfails concluded with this statement, which I don't even need to explain the issues with: When I suggested that you consider pulling together the Jay letters together, then you appeared to reject the idea outright despite the fact that its the way text books normally would present and organize this material. Possibly you can re-nominate if you consider pulling these early Jay papers into a single article; that might move them further than being stub/start articles which do not appear to be either B-class or even C-class articles. This is a Quickfail according to Wikipedia policy and I'm requesting that you no longer self-promote article on behalf of Wikipedia projects without informing them of what you are doing. Article is Quickfailed.

When challenged at

WT:GAN#Problematic reviewer, six uninvolved editors (including myself) raised concerns and asked for ErnestKrause to self-revert, but they've doubled down and left walls of text [42] [43] which fail to acknowledge the massive issues with their reviews. In the first of those two diffs, they claim talk page comments made twenty years ago justify their actions, and also claim they are acting with the support of User:Z1720, who promptly completely refuted this and exposed it as a complete lie [44]. User:Mr rnddude pointed out [45] that ErnestKrause has recently engaged in similar disruptive behavior elsewhere on the project. Sanctions are clearly needed to prevent further disruption to the project. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Earlier today Ajpolino left a message on the GAN Talk page and below as to offer the best solution to restoring consensus to the GAN Talk page which I'm in full agreement with. I've previously stated that I did not know how to restore the internal GAN script queues for GANs, and Ajpolino was able to restore them with about a half dozen edits from his much higher experience level than my own at Wikipedia. I'm accepting Ajpolino's statement about the importance of preserving consensus on the Gan Talk page regardless of the number of books that I've read about the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. I'm accepting Ajpolino's comments and edits for assuming good faith and restoring consensus to the GAN Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noting Ajpolino's comments (and rightfully sharp rebuke of ErnestKrause's activity wrt these GANs) came over an hour after I opened this thread. Your wording here implies, whether or not that was your intent, that I made this post after Ajpolino's comments, when the reverse is true. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And what about your misrepresentation and fabrication of the words of other editors, ErnestKrause? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm concerned about Ernest's claim that The Wikipedia policy is fairly direct in stating that "any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article...", can do the assessments but not the contributors themselves.

It's true that any editor who has not contributed significantly to an article is welcome to review it for GA (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions), but every assessment rating below GA is open to anyone per the guideline at Wikipedia:Content assessment#Assessing articles. I and others have spent years reassuring editors that they really are trusted to rate all the way from Stub-class to B-class all by themselves, and it's really disheartening to have someone actively spreading misinformation and then basically punishing an editor who did the right thing. So just to make sure this is clear: Thebiguglyalien, you are allowed to assess any article you want, up through and including B-class, you are encouraged to assess articles that you have improved, and if you ever run into a dispute about this again, then the official guideline on Wikipedia:Content assessment says it's okay for you to assess articles that you improve, and if that's not sufficient proof, then there's usually someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council who will be willing to intervene (or leave a note on my own talk page, and I will). This kind of making up fake rules really has to stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ErnestKrause disruptive at

WT:GAN

and elsewhere

 I filed the below report shortly after Trainsandotherthings above, so am subsectioning this,

disruptive in the GA process in recent days. Their first actions were to fail a series of reviews on the Federalist Papers (Talk:Federalist No. 2/GA1, Talk:Federalist No. 3/GA1, and Talk:Federalist No. 4/GA1) with faulty, bad faith-riddled logic that baffled not only the nominator, Thebiguglyalien, but the four other editors (myself, Trainsandotherthings, Premeditated Chaos, and Chipmunkdavis

) who initially replied.

ErnestKrause posted a long response to that section, arguing that he had acted with the agreement and consent of two other editors, Z1720 and Cecropia. The "agreement" from Z1720 consisted of absolutely nothing at all, a fact which Z1720 pointed out in this lengthy and precise response—every single mention of Z1720 in ErnestKrause's response was in fact either some sort of misrepresentation or an outright fabrication. The "agreement" from Cecropia consists solely of (and no, I am not joking) an example table outlined by that user on 10 Jun 2004. Shortly afterwards, Mr rnddude posted a comment explaining how ErnestKrause has done this before at this discussion.

In both of his responses in the above-linked section, ErnestKrause has declined to address any of the issues other editors have brought up—or indeed reply at all on

WP:CONSENSUS. I was reluctant to come here, but the constant stonewalling and disruptiveness has forced my hand. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

EDIT: Based on the above evidence, I would be in favour of a topic ban from the GA process and warnings for sealioning and assumptions of bad faith. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion

 Remark: I had originally replied to Trainsandotherthings' report, then AirshipJungleman29 made their separate report, demoted it to h3, and so, as my reply pertains equally to both, and as discussion should develop in a single thread, I have created the h3 'Discussion' and moved my comment under both reports—Alalch E. 20:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

ErnestKrause wants the Federalist Papers content to be organized in a certain way, i.e. for certain articles to be merged (for example, look at Federalist No. 5 in relation to Federalist No. 4) and this conflicts with his role as a GAN reviewer. ErnestKrause should have recongized this internal conflict and taken reasonable steps to avoid a non-constructive resolution of said internal conflict. Such as discussing. Maybe seeking advice. Maybe starting a merger discussion. ErnestKrause shouldn't be trusted to do more such reviews in the foreseeable future; at some point he should be able to demonstrate that he understands that these sorts of quickfails are the worst of several possible outcomes. One way to address the perceived problem could have beeen to accept the review, hypothetically pass, and then propose a merger. No big deal really. Surrounding conduct like the ridiculous wikilawyering about upgrading to B-class was bad. Therefore: ban ErnestKrause from reviewing GANs.—Alalch E. 19:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While the evidence is bad, I am holding out for a bit in case ErnestKrause responds. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although I would at the very least recommend G6 deletion of the reviews of No. 3 and No. 4 and renomination of them and No. 2 to fix the mess. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note I've restored the three GANs in question to the GAN queue at their original positions, collapsed/archived the EK reviews, and pulled them off the talk pages. You can still see them at the GA subpages 1, 2, 3 (or rather 2, 3, 4). Ajpolino (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I had hoped it wouldn't come to this: ErnestKrause is clearly a highly competent editor who has successfully nominated two articles for Featured Article and several more for Good Article status, and I was hopeful that multiple experienced editors explaining their concerns with his actions would prompt some self-reflection. His most recent response does not suggest that. Indeed his suggestion that he is in opposition to six of you who appear to love all the edits from BigAlien under any circumstances strikes me as an agressively bad-faith reading of the discussion. I hope that EK will take seriously the objections that have been made about his conduct here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The comment you highlight really was the single biggest thing that pushed me to start a thread here. I am not carrying water for anyone, and the suggestion that this is some sort of partisan act in opposing obvious misconduct and ignorance of the GAN process really shows continuing poor judgement and inability to accept ever being wrong. These are traits that are antithetical to both GAN and a collaborative project in general. You can disagree with someone without accusing them of conspiracy or bad faith, without any evidence. I've had precisely zero interactions with ErnestKrause before this as far as I can remember. I'd be objecting if anyone made this series of edits. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Just a note that if an admin decides this case is closed, I do think it would best if EK provides a response to the charges of misrepresentation and fabrication of the words of other editors, which they have declined to respond to on multiple occasions by this point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  As no such response seems to be forthcoming, mark me down as supporting a topic ban from GAN and a formal warning re sealioning and ABF. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose a GAN ban, given his previous good work and lack of serious problems in that area. Also, it's possible that some of his inaccurate statements, e.g. claiming that Z1720 agreed with him on the Federalist issue, are caused by honest misunderstandings. I'm happy to assume good faith in this case. Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you think it's fine that he tried to invent fake policy and has yet to admit doing so was wrong? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invention would suggest a deliberate act... he may simply have wrongly assumed that the prohibition against an editor elevating their own work to GA status also applied to B-class. He hasn't explained his reasoning so far. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's the problem, isn't it? He refuses to explain what he was thinking or made any assurances it won't happen in the future, instead disappearing. I did not support a topic ban until 3 days had passed with EK refusing to engage further here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, a simple "Whoops, my bad" could have gone a long way; perhaps still could, although I think by now more might be needed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. I really can't follow
  yellow card: you made a mistake, you're on notice that you handled this poorly, and if this comes up again something will actually be done about it (topic ban or what have you). Mackensen (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]

  I agree with this on all points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  If a warning will achieve consensus, I'll support that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I support this as well. I agree Ernest Krause has been uncooperative since the matter was brought up, but would like him to have a chance to show through his actions that he gets it. Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Thewriter006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am requesting assistance explaining to User:Thewriter006 civility norms. See the discussion here. I have also browsed their recent contributions and they appear out of the norm. 7d9CBWvAg8U4p3s8 (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The comment on his talk page isn't going to draw a sanction. You will have to link much better examples if you expect action on a civility claim. There is a difference in expressing one's opinion crudely, and attacking other editors. Nothing to see on that talk page, and I'm not likely to dig up a bunch of diffs, which is your job if you are making a claim against someone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked over the discussion and the two linked edit summaries, and they're both BLP violations. He also made a BLP violation on Talk:World Chess Championship 2021, today, which was reverted: [46]. @Thewriter006: you need to stop editing and read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons very carefully before saying anything else about Magnus Carlsen. Mackensen (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user clearly has maturity issues, and does not appear to understand the purpose of wikipedia. Their user page clearly shows they are treating it like a social media site.

WP:BLP, fast. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I've given the user CTOP alert for BLP. --Stylez995 (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somehow I don't think that is going to be very effective. An admin needs to take him aside and warn him about what wikipedia is and isn't for. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have any of their edits ever indicated that they know what Wikipedia is for? 50.234.234.35 (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears Thewriter006 has made several neutral to positive contributions since being alerted to this issue. Thank you for the help. It might also be worthwhile to keep an eye on Thewriter006's contributions given their sprawling off-site campaign to disparage Magnus Carlsen (which can be easily found by following the biographical information they have included on their userpage). 7d9CBWvAg8U4p3s8 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m not heavily involved in the

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then that list at the top of

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

]

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

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

]

• Related thread from last year: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1094#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Dicklyon. Some1 (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It is related in that I've been fixing over-capitalization for a long time, and every now and then someone (typically a topic-area fan, such as tennis in that case) objects to implementing what we have a huge consensus for, as represented in

  MOS:CAPS. It did all get resolved in favor of lowercase, and I did the work to implement the decision after that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  It's related because it's about your continued uncollaborative bludgeoning behavior. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

  I guess this makes sense why no one wanted to go through with addressing the issues. Might be more trouble than it's worth. Nemov (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I think we addressed all the relevant issues pretty thoroughly. I got accused of bludgeoning in the process. Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  A shamelessly biased sampling of comments from that thread: ...the Tennis Project is not against

  won. XOR'easter (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  When a tiny subset of editors are willing to fight, fight, fight to the point of their own alleged demoralization, against the better judgment of the rest of the editorial pool, just to get their way on a capitalization pecadillo in a pet topic, then they need to re-examine their reasons for being here. WP does not exist as a forum for Usenet-style "somebody is wrong on the Internet!" deathmatch argumentation. If some fan of hockey or trains is actually convinced they have a good argument for capitalizing something that the guidelines say should not be capitalized, they can go make a case at

  WT:MOSCAPS for a codified exception. What they can't do again is wage an 8-year disruptive campaign like the olden-days version of WP:BIRDS did. The birds fiasco is nothing at all like the example you imagine it to be. It should have resulted in a series of desysoppings and bans, and was actually a good argument to just end the wikiproject system entirely. (But this ANI isn't the place to get into the details of that sordid history.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  When a tiny subset of editors are willing to fight, fight, fight whenever the topic of capitalization — capitalization, for God's sake — comes up, consistently demeaning the opinions of people who care about the actual subject at hand, one subject after another, for years, then they need to re-examine their reasons for being here. Saying that it's acceptable to argue "for a codified exception" on a MOS Talk page rather than make a case at an article's Talk page is petty wiki-lawyering. Dismissing others' concerns as "somebody is wrong on the Internet!" histrionics while failing to consider the beam in one's own eye is... oh, what's the point? XOR'easter (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  "Whenever the topic of capitalization...comes up" simply is not what happens. Only a vanishingly small number of editors go into this "I'm gonna fight until I feel demoralized" mode, and they're almost entirely confined to sports and a handful of other topics that attract an obsessive fandom. If everyone who didn't get their way in some discussion or other could claim they were "demeaned" and turn it into another "pillory my evil enemy again and again until I finally get them censored" ANI, then WP would have imploded the month it began. PS: You're misunderstanding my point. I'll rephrase it: If editors from some topical wikiproject are tired of RMs that raise the same sort of capitalization issue, enough to go on yet another ANI witch-hunt, then they should seek a topical exception in the guideline and see if consensus agrees with them (e.g. notice how we have codified exceptions like capitalizing the names of standard chess openings, etc.). Of course I don't mean that RM should not be used in the first place; 99.9% of these kinds of questions are settled at RM. This "death to Dicklyon" shtick is in the 0.01% zone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No action needed here. Dicklyon is consistently doing what he's supposed to do: engage standard processes like
  WP:DISBELIEF.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]
• The OP makes a number of allegations but fails to provide any substantiation and it comes down to We (the owners) set our own rules and don't like anybody else playing on our patch. Without substantiation it is easily seen as frivolous and vexatious. On the other hand, a number of threats have been made to bring a complaint.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54] The bulk of the participants in that RfC appear to have little to no prior contribution to WP:IH[55] - demonstrates ownership behaviour. I hate to break it to you, but MOS:CAPS was created after WP:HOCKEY.[56] - an argument that the local project consensus has precedence over the broader community consensus reflected in the MOS. ... but it appears as per usual we’re about to be overruled by the cavalry coming in to “correct” our methods.[57] - more ownership. Good luck to you all on this. There werent enough tennis editors to stop this at WikiProject Tennis.[58] - a rejection of the broader community consensus should have precedence. If there is battlegroundy conduct, it exists in the ownership exhibited and a belief that the owners are exempt from the consensus and scrutiny of the broader community. See also comment above by SMcCandlish, which also addresses where the problem lies. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  And "I hate to break it to you, but MOS:CAPS was created after WP:HOCKEY" is doubly absurd. Pages are not magically immune to policies and guidelines based on their age, or we simply would not have policies and guidelines; they'd be completely useless.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ah, I see we're repeating
  MOS:CAPS should be ignored, but that its proper application would imply capitals where he doesn't want them. But the conversation was so unpleasant that I gave up... which seems to be how consensus about these (largely frivolous) matters is determined. My condolences to those reopening the old wounds. XOR'easter (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]

  Yes, those are great examples of how I work. Sorry you had disagreed on some points. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Those "great examples" sure look like trainwreck threads to me, no pun intended. It's hard for me to see why you would be proud of them. I know that just one of them was enough to convince me that there would be no point voicing my opinion on any capitalization matter where it might happen to disagree with yours, no matter what evidence I could bring to support my position. Congratulations. XOR'easter (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This is just what I was getting at above. Every wikiproject "camp" that is an intense fandom of something (sports, train-spotting, anime, military, video gaming, etc.) thinks it should be able to do whatever it wants, and will sometimes go to great lengths to trainwreck any attempt to get community input that is contrary to the fandom's specialized-style fallacies. Dicklyon consistently presents well-researched evidence of what independent sources are doing in the aggregate (which is what we want to see), and is met with special-pleading exception waving drawn from sources that are not independent of the topic. This has been happening for a decade and it needs to stop. Fandom-internal sources (like "officialese" and other specialized types of writing) do not dictate how WP is written. Such "conversations are so unpleasant" not because of Dicklyon at all. He's almost unbelievably patient with the invective hurled at him.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I disagree with this characterization of the dispute in which I was involved in just about every way. I'm not a part of mass transit "fandom", for starters, and the Boston Globe is not "officialese". XOR'easter (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There's a reason that

  MOS:CAPS opens with "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia", and doesn't say "...that are capitalized in a unanimity of sources". The fact that you can dig up an exception doesn't change the overall statistical picture at all. But a recurrent, small group of editors never seem to understand this (or pretend they don't). Every single one of these debates has "well, what about [example here]" comments as if providing one counter-example magically waves away the overall lower-case pattern. It's almost unbearably tedious in its fallaciousness, and is a stick that needs to be dropped.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  The idea that Google n-grams survey only "independent, reliable sources" (emphasis added) is, in my view, highly dubious. Outsourcing our thinking to search engines is the kind of nonsense we reject in notability discussions, and it's not the end of the debate in style issues either. XOR'easter (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  They survey published books, which is as close as we can get, and it certainly beats people holding up one example of upper case here, and one example of lower-case there, until someone gets tired and quits. If the community did not consider n-grams valid tools for

  WP:RM purposes, then they would not be used and relied upon at RM, yet they are, on pretty much a daily basis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  Not all published books are reliable or relevant. It's pretty clear that "the community" does not uniformly consider Big Data-type approaches the be-all and end-all answer for style purposes. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here. At some point, one ought to consider the possibility that if there is fruitless antagonism in one specialized topic after another, the common denominator might not be the specialist editors. XOR'easter (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Repeating the argument you already made isn't an argument itself. Anyway, at least we're getting back on-topic in the second part: These discussions and their results are not fruitless at all, but produce a more consistent reading experience for our readers, and an overall general reduction in the amount of "style fighting" over time because as each such discussion closes it adds to the precedent stack. What is actually fruitless is all the hatred hurled at Dicklyon, for simply using the process he's supposed to use and opening the kinds of discussions he's supposed to open.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  If a "precedent stack" has ever actually inhibited Wikipedia editors from sparring, I've yet to see it. And if that were an accurate description of his actions, many fewer people would have been exasperated over the years. XOR'easter (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  As you've only been here since 2017 and missed most of the "bad old days" of style-fighting, I'm not surprised. Anyway, we'll just have to see whether this ANI comes to your conclusion, or mine (and not mine alone) that the exasperation is self-generated by

  WP:OWNish over-capitalization zeal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

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

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

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

]

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

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

]

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

Repeat: [59].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

]

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

The actual common denominator is the

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

]

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

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

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

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

]

• This is getting too far into the weeds of a content dispute. My history with this editor was only for some page moves related to baseball. I don't really have an issue with the guidelines, but the suggestion that it's a simple black and white issue is a little misleading. Someone who doesn't follow baseball might not capitalize "Division series," but an argument can be made that it's a proper noun based on sourcing. The English language isn't a math equation. Treating it like one can lead to problems. Nemov (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The argument does get to be made, and is either convincing or it's not, to the community and then an independent closer. The

  WP:WIN should be barred from ever using it again. WP does not work that way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  I had a paragraph and a half typed that said your final two sentences less well than that. The MOS:CAPS, and the manual of style as a whole, is a guideline. The guidelines are generally right, but they are guidelines not commandments, discussions about how to apply guidelines to specific articles are not battles to be won or lost (and SMcCandlish's comment above is a great example of the battleground attitude on display in many such discussions). Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Calmly explaining the holes I see in your reasoning is not a battleground attitude. But you not understanding that is closely related to your refusal to see that proposing moves, using the process for proposing moves, and opening discussions about article naming (often in the wikiprojects most apt to care about the naming) is not battlegrounding either, but pefectly reasonable. There's a Catch-22 you're not addressing here, too. It's clear that you and a few others are just tired of seeing capitalization-related RMs. But WP has millions of articles, thousands of them arguably mis-capitalized, across many, many topics, and this necessarily means many RMs to clean them up, because no one will accept a monolithic mass-RM that crosses numerous topics. Every cluster of similar articles has to be handled in a separate RM. This is just demonstrably how the process has to work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I believe this is my main issue with editing in this manner. Attempting to boil grammatical discussions into a binary manner, throwing guidelines and ngrams around with disregard for experienced editors in the subject is, in my opinion, disruptive. To earlier points, I don't believe WPs should claim ownership of articles, but their expertise in the subject should not be dominated by those involved in MOS:CAPS. The singular discussion I was involved in related to Baseball has evidence of this type of disruptive, badgering behavior.[60] I think BilCat said it best:

  Grammar isn't computer science. Real language is messy, especially English, and doesn't often follow contrived rules.

  - Skipple ☎ 14:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  "Their expertise in the subject" = "Wikiproject members should not have to follow guidelines". It's just more

  WP:CONLEVEL policy for a reason, and that reason is primarily that wikiprojects exerting control over content is inherently problematic. (And I say that as someone who participates in lots of wikiprojects.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

• I'm really on the fence on this one. On the one hand, I generally agree with Dicklyon's general position on each of these individual cases; the MOS in all of these cases was largely being ignored, and in most cases, it shouldn't have been. On the other, I find Dicklyon's behavior severely offputting. I find their
  WP:INCIVIL tone to be so offputting, I've felt reservations in supporting them, even though I agreed with them. It really says something to me when I can't openly agree with someone because their behavior is so offputting, I fear some of the negative aspects of it rubbing off on my own reputation merely because I think they are right, despite their ugly behavior. On the one hand, many of the problems with this issue would not have been fixed had it not been for Dicklyon's attention to them. On the other hand, dude, chill. At some point, your behavior hurts your own cause.--Jayron32 17:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]

  I tend to agree with Jayron32, and said as much last year: I've often thought (and said) that Dicklyon is a bad advocate for his own case.... I would say that also goes for SMcCandlish, whose interventions on Dicklyon's behalf tend to raise rather than lower the temperature in a conversation. WikiProjects, and I speak from experience, can be clannish and internally-focused and don't appreciate externally-driven change. That's true for issues beyond capitalization. Aggressive behavior is probably the only way to get anything done, but it makes everyone upset and leads to unhelpful threads like this one. Mackensen (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  On one point "Aggressive behavior is probably the only way to get anything done", I disagree entirely. One can be pleasant, civil, and not even come close to

  WP:BLUDGEON, and still get things done. Even more so, I assert that better behavior would tend to get more done as it would avoid driving away people from your cause that would otherwise support it. --Jayron32 18:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  I'm tired of the "but we're just enforcing policy!" arguments. First of all, they're guidelines in this instance, and secondly it is a massive waste of editor time to argue over capitalization instead of doing something that actually improves the encyclopedia for readers. I don't buy the complaints about people "defending their turf". WikiProjects can sometimes engage in such behavior, and I've seen it myself, but it's much more that people don't want to spend hours arguing with a few people who will stop at nothing to push their interpretation of guidelines down everyone else's throats, especially over something so minor and inconsequential. It has and will continue to drive good editors away from the encyclopedia, which hurts us far more than something having the "wrong" capitalization. I agree with much of what Thryduulf says above.

  MOS:CAPS is a guideline, not a policy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  That's self-contradictory. If you've seen wikiprojects defending their turf yourself, then you can't reasonably say that wikiprojects don't defend their turf. If the matter is so minor and inconsequential and editors think it's a waste of time to argue about, then why do these few editors so unreasonably expend time arguing about it as if it's major and consequential? Can't have it both ways. The entire thrust of this ANI is "we really, really, really care about these capital letters and Dicklyon should be punished for getting in our capitalizing way."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That's not entirely true. A non-negligible part of this ANI is "We agree with Dicklyon's general stance on capitalization, but we find his behavior to be problematic, and would like him to get better at that". See above, in case you missed it. --Jayron32 18:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yet there is no actual demonstration of Dicklyon doing anything wrong, and lots of diffs of his opponents doing things wrong, like engaging in a long series of personal attacks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I appreciate your comment because I really don't have an issue on the content dispute. There's a good faith way to go about making those changes. It's clear that a couple of editors are very difficult to work with when it comes to this topic and based on this ANI and the other one it's not getting better. Something needs to be done because the status quo doesn't appear to be working. Nemov (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Nemov – if you'll allow me some words in my defense – I don't know how/why you stepped into this, or how you decided that what's not working is my fault. Take a look at where discussion started on May 4:

  WT:MOSCAPS#Finals capping again, where I immediately started a discussion on being reverted. You can see that Deadman137 declined to explain why he wanted capital letters there, and instead resorted to personal attacks on me. I tried to stay as civil as possible, even after he forked the discussion to the project page and on May 8 canvassed editors to join in his ridiculous proposal (to "rescind the current horribly flawed and under scrutinized rule and replace it with a reasonable argument made by GoodDay in 2020..."). Oh, I see, you jumped in right after he pinged you. Downhill from there, and your involvement with the silly RFC and now ANI just fanned the flames. Why is this on me? (see also SMcCandlish's comments to that effect above) Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

• As a general note, if an editor is about to bring themselves to ANI I think it would be courtious to wait for them to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  After being pinged in the draft I waited a couple of days. It appeared that ship had sailed[61] and the behavior continued anyway. Nemov (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thanks for pointing that out; I probably would have waited a week and perhaps half way through mentioned to them that if they didn't open a discussion I would, but considering that response your decision to open this wasn't unreasonable. BilledMammal (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The real behavioral issue

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

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

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

Relevant recent discussions include:

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

Their "case" against me seems to be that

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

@

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Path forward

Instead of repeating more wall of text

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

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

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

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

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

A long response to Nemov

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

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

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

]

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

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

]

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

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

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

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

  Speaking as another uninvolved editor, I'll add that this thread has suffered from the all-too-familiar problem of too many long-winded comments from the principals. Like you, I'm also not inclined to put in the time to dig through all those words. There's clearly a problem, and it seems unlikely to be resolved here.

  LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

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

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

• Support - This is a really light sanction and if these editors are behaving normally as they suggest, then there shouldn't be an issue. This allows them to continue to work in these areas. However, the would help if they bludgeon future discussions. - Nemov (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose for SMcCandlish; neutral (slight lean to support) for Dicklyon. - SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose for McCandlish, support for Dicklyon; perhaps I'm not as nuanced as SchroCat (wholly likely in fact), but I don't see the former's behaviour as approaching the same degree of... shall we call it asperity? as the latter's. SN54129 19:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Neutral. It's been a while, but I've had brushes with both editors over the matter and can't be considered unbiased, although my views on MOS:CAPS have changed since. SMcCandlish: I meant what I said earlier about your interventions raising rather than lowering the temperature. You give the impression of charging in to defend to Dicklyon, and your presentation is aggressive. The pattern hasn't gone unnoticed, and that's why this proposal is here, though it's unlikely to pass this time. You tend to be on the right side of the policy argument. That's not enough by itself. Please consider this. Mackensen (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. Anti-bludgeoning restrictions tend to be problematic; either they are too restrictive, as they are in this case (editors should have the opportunity to at least respond to responses made to them), or they are too open to abuse by both those who are subject to the restriction and those who are interacting with those who are subject to them. BilledMammal (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose The OP has made broad allegations. Their only evidence is to a section where a snow close was requested and a link to
  WP:CR. They have failed to make a case as to how these links show that DL is unreasonably bludgeoning the discussion. They have provided no evidence to substantiate the allegation of battleground conduct. They state: Others can speak more specifically. They are clearly not in a position to substantiate this allegation. Other editors may be in agreement but have not contributed to substantiating allegations with evidence. I don't see that DL's conduct at this ANI is exceptional nor that it extrapolates to catitalisation discussions. While SMcC acknowledges they "may have over-posted in this particular ANI", there is no actual evidence of misconduct in capitalisation discussions. There is however, evidece of battleground behaviour by way of quotes by those opposed to DL. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]
• Oppose: Neither editor has been uncivil and while I think maybe they could make fewer comments per discussion, I don't believe they're reached the level of bludgeoning. Their comments are typically rooted in policy and they provide relevant explanations and examples to back up their stances and Dicklyon does typically let things go after a discussion has concluded. I don't see this as being helpful. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support for Dicklyon, oppose for SMcCandlish ("raising ... the temperature" and giving "the impression of charging in", as Mackensen put it above, aren't sanctionable). XOR'easter (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:HonorTheIsland has had over the last few days many warnings about multiple issues, including the use of unreliable sources[62][63], general disruptiveness/vandalism[64][65][66][67][68], the claims that people won a football championship when they weren't even part of the team (either because they were out on loan for the whole season, or because they were part of the youth team instead of the senior team)[69], and other BLP violations[70].

Despite all this, they again moved

Some help to get this user to change their approach, stop making BLP violations, stop using false claims in edit summaries, ... would be useful.

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

thanks Liz for your misleading comments.

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

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

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

If

Leo Messi's wikidata has a legit transfermarkt link, than Tai Abed

can have a transfermarkt link as well.

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

Leo Messi. cheers, User:HonorTheIsland

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

• Here is the move [71] and you wrote in the edit summary, "Perform requested move, see talk page". The article was redrafted after your improper move (BLP violation) and that there is no talk page or request to move can be clearly seen Draft talk:Tai Abed.
• Here [72] you create an article which is moved then moved to draft (BLP problems) and here [73] you move it back [74] with the comment "Perform requested move, see talk page", this time there is only a blank talk page and no request.
• Repeated again here [75], no talk page, and again [76] (no talk page) and again [77] (blank talk page).

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

Oh, I see now.

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

it should help you solve the problem. HonorTheIsland (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Dear Wikipedia

I have been making small but hopefully valuable edits since I started this year and my reason for doing these edits is that it keeps me busy and helps me feel connected due to my disability which is fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome.

I have come across something very interesting which I hope you will also find useful.

With reference to Adam Leitman Bailey - [[78]]

I recently removed part of an article relating to a suspension which ended in 2019, I then received a message from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Orangemike stating that my edits constituted vandalism and that they have been reverted. On the same day I noticed that another user left the following comment:

04:00, 29 April 2023‎ Iloveapphysics talk contribs‎  14,813 bytes +725‎  Undid revision 1149354607 by Bijou1995 (talk) Why does this keep getting removed? Is this another sockpuppet? undothank Tag: Undo

Normally I don’t mind being reprimanded for my edits if they are wrong but I don’t feel on this occasion that it was or rather ‘the reversion with no communication’ didn’t sit right with me. I normally thank people for their help as I find it constructive and useful.

I have contacted iloveapphysics today after speaking with Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team. When looking over the history etc I found that there appears to be an ‘edit war’ going on so as a newcomer I thought it best to seek help.

The reason I removed the suspension was because I felt it had been spent, the suspension was for four months and ended in 2019. The old information appeared to overshadow the positive aspects of this business owner. I also found it to be grossly unfair on the subject. I didn’t think too much of it hence the small explanation on minor edits. I can assure you that my edit was incidental and I knew nothing of the subject or the history before I edited the page.

I started looking into Iloveapphysics and noticed that the user has reverted the suspension previously and seems to enjoy defaming and harming other Wikipedia subjects. I tend to have a more positive approach and enjoy adding awards etc but I do understand that information must be truthful however here is the problem. Iloveapphysics appears to have it in for politicians and businessmen. I noticed that he/she enjoys adding very negative, scandalous information about subjects, whilst the info may/may not be factual it seems vicious and deliberately added to cause harm to these people. Another point I have noticed from I loveapppysics list of edits is that three of the people she edited appear to be high profile New York City politicians or lawyers who have sued politicians. Sheldon Silver, Alesessandra Biaggi and Adam Leitman Bailey. Could he/she be getting paid to support a political party or issue and that is why he/she possibly created an attack page and keeps protecting it and reverts it without a talk page. There seems to be a pattern of behavior here. If the negative information is old or spent is it fair to leave it on? If the information is about another family member, is that fair? Surely the info harms the reputation of the living person especially if that person has a long list of accomplishments. Having done some research since the reversion doesn’t the above constitute attacks on subjects? Maybe they have a personal vendetta against them or they are attempting to damage their career, name or character or is it a competitor? Perhaps that person has multiple accounts? Here are a few victims of iloveapphysics but there may be more:

Alexander De Croo

Marianna Madia

Sheldon Silver ‎

Alessandra Biaggi

Adam Leitman Bailey

I am a newcomer here but shouldn’t Iloveapphysics have discussed it with me on my talk page? I found being called a sockpuppet (whatever that is) to be rather rude, hence my investigation. I also believe that ‘reverting’ my edit like that WAS hostile and from what I have been reading ‘clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia’ let alone the essay on ‘encourage the newcomer’

The talk page on Adam Leitmans account also aroused my interest.

Firstly there is a protection on the subject's Wikipedia account in the history, is this person the victim of attacks?

Other users on the subjects talk page make some valuable points:

WP G10 - this section constitutes an attack page

WP BLPCOI - Wikipedia pages for living persons may not be used ‘for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities…

The language in this section is biased, which explicitly violates WPBLPBALANCE, the phrasing “undignified conduct’ is slanted and goes against Wikipedia's policy that @the overall presentation and section headings should be broadly neutral”

Next you will see that another user has made some more interesting points:

Fourth, based on the conduct in April and May of 2019, which can be found in the talk history of this page, the person who is banned because the page was created by someone that openly swore to bankrupt and defame the subject, this Suspension from this page as per WP:G10 – as this section constitutes an attack page. It is clearly written by someone who openly has a personal vendetta against Adam Leitman Bailey. Per WP:BLPCOI, Wikipedia pages for living persons may not be used “for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities' '. The person who rewrote the entire Wikipedia page and this section received a discretionary sanctions alert and caused "past disruption in this topic area", causing this page to be a semi-protected page. Fifth, the phrasing “undignified conduct” is slanted and goes against Wikipedia’s policy that “the overall presentation and section headings [should be] broadly neutral.” I do not know any of the parties involved, but it is a shame to include these numerous attacks in April and May of 2019 and this alleged event in this Wikipedia page based on the importance of his work and the lack of information and proper Wikipedia etiquette followed when attacking Adam Leitman Bailey.

From my humble investigations I do think that these users make some really good points and the fact that iloveapphysics seems to want to bring down others surely this warrants an investigation on Wikipedia’s part.

Summary

On a personal level please consider these points so that my edit on Adam Leitman Bailey's page is reinstated or if it has to remain then perhaps it could be in the document but not under an aggressive heading. The reversion wars should be stopped once and for all and that other subjects won't fall victim to iloveapphysics. The edits on the other people are of concern to me but as I did not edit them there is nothing I can do about them.

I feel the information on the subject is not a fair representation.

The information is old and suspension has been lifted 4 years ago

The serious defamatory comments should be oversighted/deletion by suppression

Edit warring make the page history less useful

The suspension information is not encyclopedic

The heading and information on the suspension is aggressive, bold and detracts from the rest of the page.

It could be possible that the Wiki author of the suspension has tried to directly assault the subject and others because of a personal vendetta, be a competitor or someone with a grudge against politicians and successful business men/women

Iloveappphysics does not have a user page which I find suspicious, is he/she out to discredit others?

The fact that someone received a discretionary sanctions alert by vandalizing the subject's Adam Leitman Baileys page is also very concerning and the history of the edit wars should be investigated.

There is a pattern of behaviour with iloveapphysics in reference to politicians, business men and possibly lawyers in which case is there an interest in favouring one political party over another? making his/her interest interfering with being unbiased.

Here are some points I read on reverting

Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favour of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing.

Reverting drives away editors - Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose or the inexperienced. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia. Thus, fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above.

High-frequency reversion wars make the page history less useful, make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists.

I apologise for this being so lengthy but as you may have noticed I haven't been contributing to Wikipedia as I have been busy collating all this information and trying to understand it for over a week. I also hope you will consider my points and take my contribution seriously. I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes

Bijou1995 (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Marnie - Bijou1995Reply[reply]

Bijou1995, I have some questions for you: What is your connection to Adam Leitman Bailey? Did he or someone else ask you to edit this page? What is your connection to the other people who have commented at Talk:Adam Leitman Bailey? – bradv 12:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello

There is no connection, nor is there any connection to the other people I mentioned. I live in the UK. I believe all these people are in the USA but I can't be sure, I'd have to look at their pages again.

Bijou1995 (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's weird, since you are making the same edit and the same arguments as all those other accounts. What led you to this article? – bradv 12:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I came across the article when trying to find something to edit ( sometimes I do a search for certain things) and took out the information because it was old (spent as we say in England) I didn't think anything of it really, I found it very negative and thought it was spiteful so I removed it. As for the arguments I mentioned other people's arguments which I found when I did some research, they are not mine . I only added them to give a clearer picture of the edit wars Bijou1995 (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

No I'm not saying that, I don't know if its been overturned or not my point is Illove physics seems to want to defame others, he called me a sock puppet but maybe he is. My edits are positive and I understand that if things are true then they should be on there but surely when the info is old or not directly related to that person as in one of the others I mentioned ( iloveapphysics adds info about crime in the family on another account) it just doesn't seem right because the info detracts from the rest of the article like defamation and these people suffer I imagine, it just doesn't seem fair and if ilovephysics has a Vendetta then shouldn't that be investigated? Bijou1995 (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I empathize with your position Bijou1995. I honestly do except Wikipedia isn't about being fair. It's not even about being right. It's about reporting what is found in reliable sources. This is a typical position most people would take on various topics so don't feel bad or feel like anyone is trying to come down hard on you. I imagine people do suffer from things written on Wikipedia but not solely because it is on Wikipedia because Wikipedia only states what is found in those reliable sources. I think it can feel that way because of the extremely biased nature of what Wikipedia will allow to be included and because the encyclopedia coalesces all these sources together on one page. Wikipedia has to be biased to a degree because we can't allow just anything to be included and we are to take care to not include minority views on subjects just because they are there, especially when it comes to BLP's. It becomes problematic to start removing things from articles that we may not agree with simply because we think it isn't fair or we think that another editor may have a vendetta. It then becomes a slippery slope because what about the potential victims of said alleged crimes? This is why Wikipedia has rigid policies on notability and verifiability. I can appreciate where your heart is coming from and your concern for other people. I don't think someone should be accusing you of sockpuppetry without solid evidence to back that up. If they think you may be a sockpuppet then they should file an SPI rather than make accusations and cast aspersions. --ARoseWolf 18:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello thank you for your very kind response, it's refreshing to receive a nice message. Sometimes I get scared when reading messages from other editors telling me I've done an edit wrong as they can be a bit rude but now and again I receive a kind message, so thanks again.

I do understand what you are saying but the rules of Wiki seem a little bias, for instance I did Google Mr Leitman Bailey yesterday as these conversations sparked an interest in me, I found this https://www.buildingfoundationsanddreams.com/ so he's obviously a good person despite that suspension, would it be ok if I added that if its not already on there? Although I feel for the others that iloveapphysics has attacked, they are not my edits so I cannot do anything about them apart from support them and try to get justice on their behalf. Do you not think that the heading of the suspension is a little brutal? If I cannot get my edit reinstated then perhaps the info could still be in there without that ugly heading. Or can the info be removed permanently at some point? I think what I am trying to say is that although the suspension is true, the article is not a true representation of that person, it is only a small part of their life but yet so damaging and could potentially hurt them and may have a negative effect on the good work they do as in the link above, ultimately aren't children especially 'children in need' more important than someone's ego of reverting an edit. I do feel like I'm on some sort of crusade for all of these people and its not my intention to hurt iloveapphysics I just find their intention rather hostile and it appears they deliberately want to hurt others. I'm not sure how things work in other countries but kindness should be at the heart of everything we do. I am a Christian lady which is probably why i find iloveapphysics edits offensive. Please consider removing all of the negative information for all the people I have mentioned especially my edit and please look into iloveapphysics account to check it is an authentic one. Please be kind when replying as stress flares up my fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue.

best wishes

Bijou1995 (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue? Oh, you poor, poor, totally real, not-at-all-pulling-the-exact-same-shtick-as-the-dozen-other-sockpuppets-this-guy's-made British Christian lady. 2603:8001:9C00:F4FE:AC8B:C2A5:264F:4354 (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Face it, Adam. Your Wikipedia page has a self-inflicted blot that won't be going away. No amount of SEO-optimized "charity" websites can fix it. Accept it, my dude. 2603:8001:9C00:F4FE:AC8B:C2A5:264F:4354 (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mr. IP, read

WP:NPA. Personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I'm sorry, but you appear to have a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is. It's an encyclopedia. Information doesn't appear and information isn't removed based on what a subject "deserves" or an informal system of rewards and punishments. Nor do we seek out additional information for the specific purpose of rewarding people based on their virtue. Entries reflect the weight of the reliable sources covering the person and there are a lot that talk about this professional suspension.

Now, negative information should be weighed appropriately and very well source, per our BLP policies. However, accurate, well-source factual information is *not* "defamation" as you call it and your attacks here are largely without merit. Like, for example, your reference to Sheldon Silver. The poster in question simply added one sentence detailed a change in Silver's prison.

Frankly, there is a lot about your complaint that raises alarm bells, but even taking it in the best of faith, it's a complete stretch and certainly no conduct violation, and the charges you throw out are far closer to breaking rules than anything you actually allege. This ANI should end with a boomerang and at least a warning to you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Warning. Bijou1995, your attacks against other editors above ("seems to enjoy defaming and harming other Wikipedia subjects", "enjoys adding very negative, scandalous information about subjects", "Could he/she be getting paid to support a political party or issue ", "Maybe they have a personal vendetta against them or they are attempting to damage their career, name or character or is it a competitor? Perhaps that person has multiple accounts?", "It is clearly written by someone who openly has a personal vendetta against Adam Leitman Bailey") are completely unacceptable. Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. One more and you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 08:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

PS, since the existing semiprotection has not been effective against some obvious socking, I have applied

ECP protection to the article. Bishonen | tålk 08:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply

]

• Hello- I'm kind of shocked to be dragged into this. I am definitely not being paid by anyone and am surprised anyone would accuse me of defamation. Many of my edits have been to add reliably sourced and encyclopedic information, many have been to revert vandalism, and a few have gotten involved in edit/sockpuppet wars. In the past, when I have dealt with edit warring/sockpuppetry, I have consulted and abided by the appropriate authorities (as with the De Croo page). When more experienced editors have disagreed with my edits, I have not protested and abided by the consensus (as with the Biaggi page). I have never made any defamatory edits. What could the user possibly be referring to? I am not even the person who added the suspension to the Adam Leitman Bailey page, I simply added it back when it was deleted by a user subsequently banned for sockpuppetry. Because of this history, I thought it was appropriate to at least ask the question (not make an accusation) of whether another sockpuppet was responsible for the deletion again. I am just an ordinary Wikipedian who occasionally edits pages as a hobby (for zero pay), so I would appreciate any advice or suggestions for improvement, but I don't see how any of my edits constitute defamation. Thank you. Iloveapphysics (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Iloveapphysics, I'm sorry you've been subjected to this. The aspersions against you are completely unreasonable, I agree. That's why I warned Bijou1995 to cease and desist. If they hadn't been new, I would have blocked as soon as I saw the stuff about "defamation" and "vendettas". They haven't edited since my warning. Bishonen | tålk 18:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Imamul Ifaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today, Imamul Ifaz posted a uw-unsourced1 warning on my talk page. David Gerard had given him this same warning, with the same custom line (Please review WP:RS and WP:V before continuing to attempt to edit-war WP:GUNREL sources into the encyclopedia) prior to that. This shows that the editor copied it from his talk page onto mine. He did this in reply to a request I made in an edit summary that he first discuss his desired changes, and explain what the problem with the sources is, at Talk:Sheikh Hasina (an article which some will be familiar with). There, where he could have provided a meaningful reply to my question, he copy-pasted another message that he had received on his talk page (diff), from Nomian. The reply thus produced makes zero sense in context, which should be plain for everyone to see when looking at the history of Sheikh Hasina. Of course, he reverted back to his preferred version using a summary of "Last good version" which he picked up from his previous reverter (diff), which is more evidence of emulating other editors to cover for non-constructive edits. This means that the editor refuses to engage in collaborative editing, and is edit warring.

Further, such misuse of warnings means that the editor is not learning from the warnings. Perhaps he thinks that warnings are rocks that editors throw at each other: duck, pick up from the ground and hurl back. Perhaps, due to English proficiency limitations, writing authentic replies may be too burdensome, so he's parroting back what he's told to hide that fact. Probably, he understands that he has been disingenuous. Ultimately it doesn't seem that the editor is

BTW, this is the edit that he started out with at Sheikh Hasina, with the following summary: expanded the intro of the political person for brief summery. WARNING!! Don't vandalize or remove anything without adequete reasoning. All the informations provided where written from massive research and trusted sources only. Thank you. Let me know in the talk page if anything needed. This was one of his sources: Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina deserves Nobel Peace Prize. When his positive-POV changes were reverted he pivoted to removing negative information.—Alalch E. 17:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further, at FC Barcelona

• [79] adds content
• [80] is reverted once
• [81] top tags the FA-class article with "citations needed" (not necessarily a problem in itself, but it is a bizarre turn), while recycling the same David Gerrard's custom addition to a warning template, mentioned above (... Also I noticed that a user added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. Please review WP:RS and WP:V before continuing to attempt to edit-war WP:GUNREL sources into the encyclopedia) . . . yet, there was no edit warring

I think this more clearly points to

Update: Imamul Ifaz is now using ChatGPT. He made one revert, and when he complained about being reverted back, he replied with ... I agree that the intro could be shorter, and I've made some changes to make it more concise. It is for giving the readers basic understanding about the article. ... But he did not make anything more concise, he just made one revert that restored the lead to a less-concise form. LLM detectors detect that his message was machine-generated ... this is obvious, under the circumstances (As for the paramilitary forces, I thought it was important to mention them because they play a significant role in Bangladesh. They're responsible for a variety of tasks, including border security, counter-terrorism, and disaster relief. I believe that understanding the role of the paramilitary forces is essential to understanding Bangladesh as a country.)—Alalch E. 10:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And now he is reporting another editor below for the mess at Bangladesh. Wow. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He saw me start an ANI about him, and is now emulating this by starting an ANI about someone else. But he doesn't understand what it's for, just as he doesn't understand what the warnings he had used are for, or how to generate replies using ChatGPT that are relevant for the conversation.—Alalch E. 21:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He assured me he does not use an LLM, said it was offensive, then accused me of using an LLM. He said that it could offend people and did it in the same breath. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's impossible to collaborate with this editor if he should keep making comments like @Alalch E. is not the representative of Bangladesh. I will not be convinced by his particular argument as he has been accused of being biased before. —Alalch E. 15:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block per

If anyone is still on the fence, I'd say this diff is pretty incriminating. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• WP:ANEW and done without reading this ANI thread here. I wouldn't object to anyone converting it to a sitewide block of any duration if that seems more fitting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]
  • Drmies upgraded the block to a sitewide block (also two weeks) and CU-blocked Imamul H. Ifaz.—Alalch E. 23:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The situation seems to have begun with this edit on 13 May, where ජපස blanked the page (against
  WP:HQRS
  such as the BBC, the New Yorker, The Times and The Daily Telegraph.
• ජපස made this edit and this edit on 15 May, tag-bombing the article with misused tags: using {{Dubious}} to dispute (without sources) the factual accuracy of an eyewitness report, tagging a direct quotation from a source with {{Peacock inline}}, and using {{too few opinions}} while simultaneously arguing on the Talk page and AfD that the opinions sought could not be found in HQRS.
  WP:PEACOCK
  was almost identical to that used as a good example in the associated guideline.
• On 15 May, in a discussion on the Talk page, I made this comment that saying that facts stated in
  WP:OR
  ). ජපස responded to call that standard "paraphilic and bordering on the idolatrous".
• This edit on 18 May removed a further quotation, from a
  WP:HQRS (The Times). I reverted that removal here, explaining that The quotation has considerable value in establishing the interest of the article to the reader, and including the judgement of HQRS on a person or event's significance in the lead follows well-established practice. ජපස then reverted that reversion
  without an edit summary.
• This edit later on 18 May removed two quotations from well-established reliable sources (The Times and the Daily Telegraph), on the grounds that "no outside attestation to their importance is given". It is not required in any guideline or policy that an third-party source also quoted a HQRS's comment on a subject for that comment to be included.
• This edit by ජපස on 18 May removed cited material from The Times, on the
  WP:HQRS
  , and that the only objection raised to that journalist on the Talk page (about his Twitter feed) had been shown to be a case of mistaken identity.
• On the 19th, ජපස reverted my reversion here. User:Boynamedsue restored the deleted material here, pointing out that it had been removed for no good reason, and pointed to the ongoing discussion of the quotation on the Talk page as to the credibility of the source and to the inclusion of the quotation. In both cases, there was and is no way of reading a consensus to remove into the discussion.
• In this edit on 24 May, ජපස removed one of the same quotations from from the lead, with an edit summary arguing that the quotation needed to be mentioned in an additional secondary source to be included. This has no basis in any policy or guideline. I reverted that removal here, referring the user back to the Talk page discussion, which still showed no consensus to remove it.
• In this edit, ජපස undid the reversion, dismissing the opposing (policy-based) views raised in Talk as "prejudice". I reverted that here with the summary that dismissing opposing views as "prejudice" is not a substitute for consensus. The editor removing cited material has the onus to demonstrate that the removal is in line with policy and an improvement to the article; there is presently an ongoing discussion and no consensus behind either of these suggestions.
• In this edit, ජපස once again removed the quotation, along with much of the surrounding information, citing
  WP:SENSATION
  advises against the use of low-quality journalism to establish facts or notability, and is not an appropriate way to dismiss statements of opinion or uncontroversial facts in high-quality publications. Both the list of perennial sources, Talk page discussion and the AfD make clear that there is community consensus behind the reliability of The Times.
• There is also a broader pattern of less-than-collegial comments on the Talk page: see for instance here, here and here.

ජපස appears to be editing with the agenda of removing anything from the article which draws attention to the interest of the subject matter, or indeed which does not approach it from the perspective of "debunking" it. There is a clear pattern here of non-constructive edits, and no sign of this behaviour changing in light of discussion and explanations from multiple users that these actions are being taken unilaterally, against

A pro-fringe editor annoyed at jps? Must be Thursday. 2601:18F:107F:E2A0:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see anything in the article that says that it's an actual UFO (ie aliens) as much as an item reported as a UFO, as they exist in society. Secretlondon (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The tendentious editing looks to have been most vigorously carried out by

WP:CONSENSUS was explained to them. Despite this unpleasantness, they seem to have the makings of a good editor, and with a bit less impulsive action and a bit more experience, might turn out to be an asset to the project. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Also, a bit more reading of pages like

WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I would appreciate an admin's eye on the talk page: I don't see that consensus has been established for the quotation's removal, within the meaning of

WP:CONSENSUS. If they take the view that it has, I'd be happy to accept that. However, the reason for opening this issue is the behaviour of User:ජපස in editing and discussing, not the underlying disagreement as to the article's content. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

You've been editing here 6 months. It makes sense that you're not familiar with stuff like

WP:BOOMERANG. But please, familiarize yourself now. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

This is a 19kb UFO sighting article wherein the only secondary content (derived from discussion of the event from people other than the witnesses) is:

By 25 April 2007, the Ministry of Defence had stated that it would not investigate the reported sighting. Approximately a week after the reported sighting, the MoD stated the incident had taken place in French airspace and so was outside its responsibility.

According to The Times, Bowyer's report is "regarded as one of the most impressive and perplexing testimonies to have found its way into MoD archives". In 2008, the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported on the incident in connection with what it called a "huge rise" in reported UFO sightings in the United Kingdom.

A local astronomer, Michael Maunder, attributed Bowyer's report to sun dogs, an optical phenomenon caused by the refraction of light through ice crystals in the atmosphere. He described the weather during the flight as "just right for setting up sundogs and similar phenomena". Sundogs appear at 22 degrees relative to the direction of the sun from the observer, and Maunder noted that at the time of Bowyer's sighting, the lights he reported seeing would have been approximately 22 degrees from the sun.

Modern studies of reported UFO encounters generally approach them as what the folklorist William Dewan has called "a modern dynamic legend". In particular, the content of these sighting and the meaning ascribed by them to those who experience them is understood as an intersection of direct experience, individual psychology and the cultural background of the observer.

That is to say, >75% of the article is derived directly from primary descriptions from the witnesses ("[Newspaper] reported Bowyer said..." does not make a statement secondary), with the remaining material sourced to a "credulous New Yorker article" said to amplify the voices of two "UFO lobbyists"[87], a Times "investigation", a passing mention in the Daily Telegraph, a few sentences in a BBC piece, a report in a hyperlocal newspaper by an amateur astronomer, and two books that don't mention Alderney. We get just ~3 sentences of secondary analysis of the event, all from the local newspaper, to contextualize ~40 sentences of UFO witness testimony. This is not how FRINGE topics should be handled. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yikes. This is a lot of text.

Look, UFO sightings are a fairly ridiculous topic, I hope we can all agree. Most of them are so poorly attested to as to make it nearly impossible to write a standalone article on them and adhere to

Not to get all

jps (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's been some pretty serious

• I would also add their behaviour at the deletion discussion on this article and a recent ANI thread where they were advised by several users that they were required to leave neutral messages when posting discussions to FTN noticeboard in order to avoid breaking
  WP:CANVASS. They simply argued that the rule was wrong[88], [89]
  .

I would also add the

WP:BATTLEGROUND Boynamedsue (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Accusing someone of being incompetent, as you did above with the reference to CIR, is also a personal attack. I have a bit of sympathy for jps here, as it is a little ludicrous that we have a long and detailed article about an incident which in the end is "some people saw an atmospheric anomaly". Also, the bit about credulous reporters does stand up a little if you search Matthew Campbell's pieces for the times (i.e. [91]) Black Kite (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Half of my editing is resolving and removing tags, the use they made of tags was either incompetent or malicious. It should be understood that the

WP:AFG. I personally think misuse of tags should carry the death penalty, but I would settle for the user re-reading the policies in this case. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

If we are going down the

WP:NPA violations, Jfs made the following personal attack on this page [92].We absolutely know what happened at Tunguska. Bizarre that you would claim otherwise (and concerning since competence is required). This was due to the poster being unaware of the current majority scientific position regarding the Tunguska event, rather than any deficiency in their editing. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

btw, I have now struck the

WP:CIR claim. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I would also say that accusations against living persons need to do more than "stand up a little" based on our interpretations of the headlines subeditors put on their articles.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:BLP) to justify a negative comment about them (particularly one with potential implications for their professional credibility): any contentious judgement on a living person needs to be cited or removed: contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies in AfD and on this page. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I would suggest adding User:Boynamedsue as well, both for his conduct on the talk page and here at ANI. 2601:18F:107F:E2A0:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request close (ec) What the OP describes here is not an urgent, chronic, intractable behavioral problem, but rather good faith attempts by an experienced editor in good standing (now a couple of such editors) to prevent, in Wikipedia's voice, the promotion of sensational, pro-fringe content. This complaint seems merely an attempt to silence an "opponent" in a content dispute. The OP has already been appropriately sanctioned (see above) for tendentious editing related to the page/topic. Before they receive additional sanctions I request that this discussion be closed, with a request that going forward the OP consider

I disagree, precisely because they are an experienced editor. They should know better than to make personal attacks, BLP violations and to tag-bomb articles. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As an aside, there's an AFD discussion about this very article that could use to be closed; it's been open almost 2 weeks, and there's plenty of comments from plenty of people that leaving it open any longer is just providing yet another locus for this silly dispute to take place in. I'd close, but I've also voted, so cannot. Kthxbye. --Jayron32 18:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'd love to see this revenge post by a relative newbie closed with a little word to them. - Roxy the dog 19:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know, I'd perhaps like to see some recognition from jps that they should avoid BLP violations, tagbombing, personal attacks and non-neutral notifications at project noticeboards if this is to be closed without sanction. Otherwise this behaviour is likely to recur. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should we ask for you to be topic banned from UFOs? That would solve a lot of problems. jps (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be unlikely to affect my editing very much as I have no interest in UFOs whatsoever and IIRC my only main space edits ever on the topic were fixing your tagbombing. I honestly think you should ask yourself if you could have handled these discussions in a less confrontational manner.

Anyway, that's all I have to say on the matter, if the rest of the community see your behaviour differently to me then a close would be warranted.Boynamedsue (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool. Then we can go our separate ways. jps (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Likewise, if the administrators feel that everything in the report meets the site's norms and rules (especially

WP:CIVIL), and that no action should be taken, I'd be completely happy with an explanation from one of them of how that's so, or what the preferred system for handling this situation would have been. The aim of making this report was to raise and hopefully fix what I saw as a problem, not to see that fixed in any particular way. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Proxy IP vandalism

Before replying here, please remember that the vandal being discussed is probably reading this thread. Do not publicly suggest "clever" solutions. Thank you. Suffusion of Yellow (talk)

Can we disable IP editing for a while?

This is a crazy idea, but this is ridculous. Mori Calliope fan talk 01:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is never going to happen. Disruptive IP's should be individually warned on the talk page and eventually reported to AIV as needed. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is multiple IPs actively vandalizing articles. It is not a simple situation, considering the amount of reports there are at AIV right now. Mori Calliope fan talk 02:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect these are open proxies - similar edits are being made from IPs in the Dominican Republic, Spain and Slovenia. There are probably more - those are just the ones I checked.

This is a serious attack.

I’d be wary of shutting down all IP editing. Even if you did that, this person will keep doing this whenever it’s turned back on.

For now, I suggest tuning the edit filter such that rapid IP editing is not just logged as it is now but the IP also blocked after 5 edits. I don’t know how hard this is to do.

I expect we’ll see more of this in the future now that someone’s figured this out and developed a taste for it. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have set 1199 to throttle. Will self-revert in 30 minutes max. This should not impact normal IP editing in the vast majority of cases. CC Ingenuity. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin: See also 1253. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leaving 1199 on throttle a while longer, still almost all true positives. If this is still going by the time I go to bed, I'll either turn it off or hand off to another EFM. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Wikimedia ever goes through with removing IP addresses from being publicly visible on edits, we may very well have to permanently disable IP editing. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur. I have supported permanently disabling IP editing for over 15 years, and still do. Every day, I see more evidence that convinces me of this. IP editing enables too many bad actors to game the system for little gain in return. Wikipedia is no longer a new thing that needs to encourage "anyone" to edit. We've been here long enough to have a reputation, and, quite frankly, that reputation is bad enough without allowing all crap and drama that IP editing brings in. BilCat (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, at the risk of canvassing and/or shooting myself in the foot - have you (@BilCat and @Rockstone35) seen this at VPP? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. It does mention privacy, which is a much larger concern than it was 20 years ago, and which I didn't mention here, but should have. BilCat (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WOW, I strongly advise noticing stewards ASAP, as they can edit like bots on our project, they can also do the same things on small wikis. @Vermont, will you take a look on this situation? -Lemonaka‎ 04:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lemonaka Squirrels are usually asleep at this time of the day. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I was sleepless recently and didn't find it was so late. -Lemonaka‎ 04:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately not on this day :p Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 04:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is nothing stewards can do locally to deal with vandalism that admins can't, Lemonaka. That said, stewards are aware and have made global blocks where appropriate. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, maybe they will be aware on time, anyway... -Lemonaka‎ 04:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This rapid disruption is not ending. See here and here and here. Can't this be stopped? Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here and here now. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On a related note, can we start a LTA investigation for this vandal (I'm almost certain this is the work of one vandal with dozens, if not hundreds, of throwaway ips)?$chnauzer 07:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is someone going to do something about this? I can't stay here all day (or night). Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Crboyer That's a good idea. We'd have a specific place to discuss this. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is the work of a single vandal who's been active for quite a while. Rest assured, stewards, admins, and CUs are well aware of them. — SamX [talk · contribs] 07:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this is being handled, and will go to as high levels as it needs to. There's not much left to do but play Whac-a-Mole, which I appreciate from the other side of the fence looks pretty similar to doing nothing (right up until it doesn't), but just please know, Nythar, that this isn't being ignored, and I thank you for your efforts in reverting and reporting the disruption. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeeah, they stopped? -Lemonaka‎ 15:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relating to

I did not expect this thread to take off while I was away for a bit. It appears this vandalism is still going on unfortunately. Mori Calliope fan talk 22:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:186.44.236.157

The user at User talk:186.44.236.157 is randomly putting Names on articles, like he did at Margetuximab and Mount Browning and among alot of other articles, if you look at his contributions User101FrOas (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm noticing a large influx of IP users inserting random names in random articles, using also-random names as the only edit summary. They're everywhere on Recent Changes. What's going on? WhoAteMyButter (🌴_talk│☀️^contribs) 20:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I belive they have some sort of bot they are using to automate this User101FrOas (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked for a day for DE. Courcelles (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For reference, this is a short list of the IPs I've encountered:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/156.226.5.144
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/41.188.51.99
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.219.232.17
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.54.90.74
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.218.75.86
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.217.113.79
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.196.10.95
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.83.222.61
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/196.191.49.24
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2803:1500:1202:7AD1:E1C1:D7EB:787B:BD33
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2407:5200:400:9483:1D46:3FEE:F66B:3AEA
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/196.191.144.13

The list goes on and on. WhoAteMyButter (🌴_talk│☀️^contribs) 20:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being discussed above. — Trey Maturin™ 20:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe this is some organised group of people who are all vandalising, the ip ranges are different so I don't belive this is the same person, and most proxies are detected User101FrOas (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope. It's one person. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whackamole played with that list. Courcelles (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's another one. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Get your own mop. (Blocked). Courcelles (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I might just do that. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will, do you want an RFA for you? -Lemonaka‎ 23:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nah, not yet. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up with that mop, @Courcelles. :) --ARoseWolf 20:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shameless plug. If you have private filter access, please install User:Suffusion of Yellow/abusecontribs.js, and go to [93]. Click "Check for edits" in the sidebar, click on the contributions of the users highlighted in red, and rollback or undo anything problematic. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just cleaned up after an edit by this vandal that slipped through recent changes patrol at 1928–29 Luxembourg National Division * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I checked all IP's that I had reverted and only found this one that was missed. There may be others from IP's that I did not revert. --ARoseWolf 13:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A couple of Wikipedia editors usernames ElKevbo and username MrOllie have been harassing me and my family and various other celeb friends and colleagues at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts archives talk page, The Florida Institute of Technology talk page and even an obscure religious tv show The World Tomorrow talk page, as well as at the Wikipedia page for our uncle Melvin Wine. User MrOllie has visited all those pages today in violation of Wikipedia guidelines pertaining to harassment WP: HA which enjoins any editor from harassing a private person of the general public. In one instance editor MrOllie makes note at the edit he made at Melvin Wine Wikipedia page in February of this year, in his comment he wrote the individual is non notable. That individual is me. I want my name removed from All of Wikipedia. The posts and blogs made by your editors are completely fabricated and false, largely 90 percent total utter nonsense. For example in the Wikipedia talk page at The World Tomorrow (TV and radio) editor MrOllie visited this morning to revert previously redacted name(s), and he reinstated my name there this morning, just out of spite evidently, years after it had been redacted, well I have nothing whatsoever to do with the production of this religious tv show. It went off the air when I was in high school. Otherwise I did attend the colleges but I only work behind the scenes in film and tv and I’m not famous like a few of my family members who do have Wikipedia pages. NOR do I ever want to be! Please won’t someone here remove my name from these talk pages and simply leave me alone.

I believe ElKevbo and MrOllie have worked together to harass me, for some strange reason, and this has been going on for many months, if not years. We assume they just don’t have any other hobbies or anything better to do with their time other than editing Wikipedia, and they appear to be enjoying focusing on me and tormenting and harassing me reverting and adding my name to this crap!

A review of their combined edits and contributions pages will prove that are engaged in not just violating your three revert rule, but also directly harassing me by continuing to add my name to those pages - with the sole purpose to harass me.

Nobody is searching for my name at Wikipedia, or Google or anyplace else for that matter. Most people cannot even properly spell my name. And I do not even go by my given name, so why are these two Wikipedia editors and other editors harassing me in this absurd manner? It’s perverse. And it IS harassment of a private anonymous person.

I am asking for anybody’s assistance to redact my name from these pages and just asking you to please, leave me ALONE, in accordance with the WP: HA policy.

I believe these two editors MrOllie and ElKevbo should be sanctioned for their tag team effort to harass me by continuously adding back my name, to these articles, when they have repeatedly been asked nicely to redact it and to stop reverting (adding it back again).

Thank you for your time, understanding and assistance

Respectfully

~ Ted

ps My friend actress Lacey Chabert and I have a joint restraining order which never expires against a fan of hers who stalked she and I for over a decade in person and online. We believe he may be behind all of this, or perhaps he has reached out to certain other Wikipedia editors to aid in is ongoing efforts to circumvent the court order by cyberstalking she and I. The judge attached a big list of URL to his court order. We may need to add the aforementioned Wikipedia URL’s webpages to that order as this man describes himself as a hacker and computer expert, if you are unable or unwilling to abide by the WP: HA policy and permanently redact my name from Wikipedia as requested. 2600:1009:B160:D70B:1AE:7E39:6AD2:14AD (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A long and confusing text, providing absolutely no diffs, will convince nobody of anything. And I'd strongly advise you to read Wikipedia:No legal threats. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging Ingenuity, ScottishFinnishRadish, and Courcelles. As they appear to have been dealing with the issues at American Academy of Dramatic Arts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Already blocked for block evasion, and I guess we could throw some NLT in there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're curious about what's going on here, you can see

MrOllie (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I'm not seeing any edits by MrOllie or ElKevbo that aren't reverting the edits of a

thrice-confirmed sockpuppeteer at any of the pages mentioned. Frankly, if OP wanted to be left alone and anonymous, he'd do himself a world of good by not relitigating the same thing ad nauseam on a public-facing noticeboard and clumsily breaching his ban to make edits that make it all the more obvious who he is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 01:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

They won't be on that IP address long enough for it to matter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Courtesy link to what I believe is the same person as above: Missuslulu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Jayron32 18:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

112.200.9.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'm not sure what's the story here, but this IP has seemingly added a fake radio station on

LilianaUwU, thanks for hitting me up regarding this issue. For a very long time, I've been encountering this kind of issue where various IP users add hoax/unconfirmed stations in articles of various radio networks/companies like the one you mentioned above. These are also the following targets of various IP users:

• DCG Radio-TV Network
• Global Satellite Technology Services
• Eagle Broadcasting Corporation
• Rizal Memorial Colleges Broadcasting Corporation
• Sagay Broadcasting Corporation
• Kaissar Broadcasting Network
• Apollo Broadcast Investors
• Rajah Broadcasting Network

I've reverted their edits several times, but they still keep on persisting. I suggest those following pages mentioned, including Ultrasonic Broadcasting System, to be semi-protected from IP users indefinitely, similar to Brigada Mass Media Corporation. That's the only way to solve this problem. ASTIG😎🙃 01:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unarchived this from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127 following the response above. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know it's frustrating dealing with this stuff but before I did anything I would want more explanation regarding how it is known that the IP's additions are junk. I can't see any HTML comments in the wikitext at Ultrasonic Broadcasting System and the talk page is blank. What is the "hidden note" in the OP? I had a look at Apollo Broadcast Investors from the above list and the last IP edit there was in October 2022. Johnuniq (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a hidden note at Ultrasonic Broadcasting System#UBSI radio stations that says "PLEASE DO NOT ADD NON-EXISTING STATIONS! AVOID PLAGIARISM!". LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ouch, I missed the fact that the IP removed the comment and I must have been searching the IP's version. Now all that's needed is a brief explanation, preferably on article talk, of how it is known that the IP's edits are wrong. I'm not looking for absolute proof, just an outline. For example, is it merely unlikely and we correctly require the IP to produce a source to support their addition? Or is there a reason to believe it's made up? Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what makes it a hoax, hence why I pinged Superastig. I happened to notice the note and assumed it was, in fact, a likely hoax due to that note. Perhaps Astig knows how to tell? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last time I ran into a Philippine radio station hoaxer (which are surprisingly common), Sammi Brie was able to clearly show why it was a hoax, and I blocked accordingly. Sammi, around? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin Short answer is that the NTC does maintain a list of radio stations (though people keep having to file FOIA requests to get them on a regular basis). That list is the definitive list of currently authorized stations. So if it's not on there, it's either defunct or provably nonexistent. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sammi Brie: Any way to know here whether this was a hoax or an honest error? Energy FM La Union does get a few (non-RS) Google hits, although with a different frequency. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's definitely hoax. Google and FB yield no results about it. It's not even on the recent NTC listing. ASTIG😎🙃 00:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the latest FM listing from NTC. AFAIK, the AM and TV listings are given separately. We use them as proof for the list of stations of every media company, whether every station has a designated call letter or is given a provisional authority (PA). Adding to what Sammi Brie said, if it's not in the listing, it's either defunct or probably nonexistent or unlicensed. If ever it's licensed, it may be reflected in the next NTC listing. ASTIG😎🙃 00:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately the best way to handle this is for someone who understands the topic to post on article talk with that link and a statement to the effect that anything not on that list and without a very reliable source is likely to be a hoax. Admins can then feel more relaxed about blocking whoever adds them. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Checkout removed controversies section: link

Requesting users to have a look @ the article

• WP:NPOVHOW
  :

  .. Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. ..

@Kridha isn't replying in consensus.he didn't participate in DRN consensus also.checkout discussion on talk page and DRN request.

@Kridha is removing controversies or negative parts from the article and he is giving reason for removal is general format of article for politicians.

He is trying to justify again and again. there are many criticism section examples of politicians like

Public image of Narendra Modi#Criticism and controversies, Amit Shah#Criticism, Lalu Prasad Yadav#Criticism, Mamata Banerjee#Public profile and controversies, Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar#Controversies, Abhishek Banerjee (politician)#Controversies, T. Rajaiah#Controversies, Mulayam Singh Yadav#Controversies, Manohar Lal Khattar#Controversies, Pinarayi Vijayan#Controversies, Yogi Adityanath#Controversies, Himanta Biswa Sarma#Controversies. 

And @Kridha's past activity in this page also mostly removing negative views. checkout edit history of user kridha

• edit 1 - in which he removed from lawsuits section on 06 September 2022
• edit 2 - in which he removed on 6 September 2022
• edit 3 - in which he removed on 16 September 2022
• edit 4 - in which he removed whole criticism section on 4 may 2023
• edit 5 - in which he remove whole lawsuits section on 4 may 2023
• edit 6 - in this he remove
• edit 7 in which he remove

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view (NPOV) policy that requires all content to be written in a way that is unbiased, accurate, and free from personal opinion or advocacy. This means that controversial or negative information about a subject should not be removed solely because it is unflattering or inconvenient.criticism with various different sources and if it is notable, it shouldn't be removed. Nyovuu (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I, along with other users, have been witnessed to a series of micro-editing in various articles done by NeoBatfreak. Other users who also witness this include Doniago, AJFU and InfiniteNexus, maybe more. In NeoBatfreak's talk page, you'll find that there are sections that list a bunch of orphaned image links and such on it. Below is the the userlinks of NeoBatfreak and pagelinks of article he had micro-edited.

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

2012 (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Maisie Lockwood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Owen Grady (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

List of Jurassic Park characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rupert Giles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Emperor Gaozong of Song (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

BattleshipMan (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the issue? A series of small constructive edits? What do you think needs admin attention here? Courcelles (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link to discussion at Project Film on NeoBatfreak's editing pattern, which they participated in. Schazjmd (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please provide us with diffs of problematic behaviour. So they spread their edits out over multiple edits instead of doing it all at once, big deal. It's easy to select multiple edits and see them in one go so it's not preventing or hiding anything. That's not inherently disruptive or problematic. It would be nice if they left edit summaries though. Canterbury Tail talk 14:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's how I came across the project discussion, trying to figure out why this was brought here. But I can't see anything other than an editing pattern that sometimes irritates other editors. I've unwatched articles at times because someone else is doing a huge number of tiny edits, then rewatch it after they're done, so I get that it can be annoying but it isn't wrong. Schazjmd (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I invited the other users I mentioned so they can discuss this. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If someone wants to make a case (as suggested in the Wikiproject discussion) of OR? Make it, that's at least reasonable to bring to ANI. But this filing is... not. Courcelles (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly. There is absolutely 100% nothing wrong with someone making lots of small edits if that's their choice to make (unless they're trying to game something which the user in question clearly isn't.) If another user is unaware of how to select multiple edits for viewing in one go in the history browser, we can help show you how to do so, but otherwise it's not an issue. (I will note that the OP here also makes some small edits from time to time without an edit summary, though not to the same extent.) Canterbury Tail talk 14:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue is that NeoBatfreak has been continuously making micro-editing and constantly changing wording on those pages, causing massive irritating and annoyance to many editors and also on his page, there's a long list of sections of orphaned images and such on it. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again there is nothing wrong with them making lots of micro-edits, that's what we're trying to tell you. You choosing to get annoyed with it we can't help you with. I see no reason for it to be irritating and annoying and it causes zero operational or history reading issues. The absolute only issue it causes is you can't hit the diff button on your watchlist, you need to go to the page history. Hardly an issue. If you wish to talk about the orphaned images (not putting the rationales on them may be worth a discussion) then please state the complaint about that. (Oh and if you notice, I tend to make my comments in a serious of micro edits rather than one large edit.) Canterbury Tail talk 14:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chiming in a little reluctantly here...I'm really not interested in getting into a debate about this, especially given the direction in which the wind clearly seems to be blowing.

I don't care about a series of small edits in moderation, but, as an example, the edits to 2012 were dozens of edits over a span of days. Maybe this is a Me Problem, but I was afraid to "butt in" because I couldn't tell when Neo intended to be done making their changes, and given the lack of edit summaries, it was also challenging to determine their motivations. Given that all of these edits were to the Plot section of the article, it's unclear to me why Neo couldn't have consolidated them, if not into a single edit, then at least into a smaller number of edits. When I left them what I thought was a pretty gently-worded note at their Talk page asking them to

WP:SLOWDOWN, they didn't acknowledge it.[94]

.

If Neo wants to keep micro-editing in the style they've been exhibiting, then I acknowledge that the consensus is that that's a non-issue, but it would be helpful if they could at least be encouraged to provide edit summaries so their goal is less opaque to their fellow editors. It does look as though since 2012 their micro-editing hasn't been quite as plentiful (I probably wouldn't have issues with what I'm seeing at a glance), but they continue to neglect to leave summaries. DonIago (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look, I just edited things whether it seems relevant or having some grammatical errors such as 2012 film when I started, which was what caused the microedits. you can bet I will stop later due to me being busy with job interviews anyway. NeoBatfreak (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Here's my 2 cents: Do their edits introduce errors, problems, mistakes, or other issues in the reader-facing text of articles? If the answer is "yes" please show us those diffs. If the answer is "No, but..." you can delete the "but" from that response, and every word that follows it. I'm not interested in stopping a person from doing good work merely because the manner that they do their good work is mildly annoying to someone. --Jayron32 17:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• (Non-administrator comment) In regards to making a numerous amount of small edits in a given span of time, I'm unaware of any existing policy that forbids users from doing so. It seems NeoBatfreak is desisting from this behaviour in the meantime if what's being said in the other thread is true. Suggestion: If this does happen in the future, perhaps any editors who take issue can leave a message on NeoBatfreak's user talk page to ask them to use {{in use}} if they're planning on going on an editing spree on a page? NeoBatfreak isn't obliged to use the template, but they shouldn't be shocked if they start running into edit conflicts with other users contributing at the same time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Tenryuu, {{inuse}} is an excellent suggestion! Schazjmd (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Agreed. I had intended to say something to that effect in my post but it slipped my mind. Thank you! DonIago (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One thing I would recommend out of this is that NeoBatFreak starts using edit summaries, or at least massively increases their usage of them. Canterbury Tail talk 21:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would definitely be a help, at least to me. DonIago (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The insinuation that making lots of little edits is bad and NeoBatfreak should consolidate them or face admin punishment really ticks me off. I'm neurodivergent and across my 18 years here my editing pattern has been to make multiple small edits that add up to major improvements to articles. That's simply how my brain works and how I prefer editing Wikipedia. Other editors consolidate their edits into a few major revisions and guess what, that also works and is likely how they prefer to edit. There is no wrong way to edit Wikipedia as long as you follow guidelines and policies and work to improve our articles. --SouthernNights (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thanks for the support. NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  And frankly, I am upset of people making accusations of me causing problems when I was just trying to edit in peace. NeoBatfreak (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• (non-admin comment) I sampled some of NeoBatfreak's edits, and they all struck me as perfectly good
  WP:WIKIGNOMEing
  . I might have done a few of them differently or not at all, but that's nothing more than personal taste. Small edits enhance the encyclopaedia, and should be encouraged and applauded not complained about. As a practical matter, it is often much easier, and clearer, to make such improvements as-found rather than all in one go.

@

WP:EDITSUMMARIES. They help other editors understand what you've done. They often need to be only one or two words. My browser prompts me to use one of my stock ones after I've typed a letter or two. Narky Blert (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

• I have been pinged here. @BattleshipMan: I don't recall giving NeoBatFreak the warning you mentioned at User talk:Doniago#NeoBatfreak's mirco-editing, could you please post a link here? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DeadlyRagDoll (talk · contribs)

This editor has been making personal attacks [95] [96] and been generally uncivil [97] [98] [99]. Now they're flooding school shooting articles with nonconstructive changes that they provide no reasoning for (see their recent contributions). ––FormalDude (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]