Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ad Orientem (talk | contribs) at 02:18, 4 August 2024 (→Disruptive editing by Sambenyoseph: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    User:Dimadick

    User:Dimadick has posted this antisemitic libel. How is such a thing still allowed here? --Gonnym (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You have got to be kidding. Which part of Zionism as settler colonialism was not clear to you? Dimadick (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where in Zionism as settler colonialism does it say that "the main purpose for Zionism's existence" is "genocide"? Rlendog (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to sound like devil's advocate but the article mentions stuff like this:
    "This perspective contends that Zionism involves processes of elimination and assimilation of Palestinians, akin to other settler colonial contexts such as the United States and Australia."
    That sounds like the definition of genocide to me.
    May not say it is the main purpose tho.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "processes" does not mean "purpose" Levivich (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention that according to the article this is just one perspective, hardly a definitive defintion. Rlendog (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I guess I should cross my comments.CycoMa1 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an editor trying to impose their own beliefs as fact and creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND environment, which is certainly an indictment on their ability to participate in this topic area (as is the case with a good number of people in this topic area). But that doesn't mean it's appropriate to take it straight to ANI with a single diff. If you have more diffs of the editor engaging in this sort of behavior over a longer period of time, then it might be appropriate to file at WP:AE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thebiguglyalien You are aware that the diff was a Support/Oppose vote on a move request from Palestinian genocide accusation to Palestinian genocide? How else could you support such a move request without claiming it as your belief that the other title was more accurate? Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The statement that is being objected to goes beyond saying that the editor believes that Palestinian genocide is a more accurate title. Rlendog (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest using sources and policy based arguments, not just your own belief on what Zionism means. It's also needlessly inflammatory so say that the main purpose of Zionism is to commit genocide, rather than establish a homeland for for the Jewish people. There is a wide chasm between something being a purpose and something being a possible result.
    We should really be clamping down on personal views as an argument in this topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me make sure I understand, if an editor says an homophobic, raciest, or other hateful speech, but only does so occasionally, it's ok? So saying something like <Hateful speech> followed by This is the main purpose for black people's existence, This is the main purpose for gays's existence, or This is the main purpose for women's existence is fine? Or if I truly believe it as Black Kite comments, then there isn't even an issue here? Gonnym (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that sexual orientation and race are immutable characteristics, while Zionism is an ideology or a belief. If someone said something to the effect of "the main purpose of communism is genocide", that's obviously inappropriate and raises questions about whether the person should be participating in the topic area, but it's not at the same level as making such generalizations against black people or gay people. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People who use "Zionisim" use it as a substitute to mean Jews, and it's plainly obvious. Gonnym (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a completely ridiculous nonsense statement. Zionism is not Judaism. Levivich (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Zionism can absolutely be used as a dog whistle for Jews, especially by people who deny that it's ever a dog whistle. But that's the point of dog whistles: they can also be used innocuously, so there's plausible deniability. Do you have any evidence that this particular use is meant to invoke Jews more broadly, beyond a hunch? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While this could be considered uncivil and inappropriate for the venue, labeling it as “antisemitic” is being downright deceitful. There is nothing even remotely anti-Semitic in the linked comment. Conflating Zionism and Judaism is a common way for Israel’s supporters to silence and deflect criticism and shouldn’t be humored by the community. Having said that, I can see how the contents of Dimadick’s could be seen as inflammatory and uncivil. Unless there are any substantial accusations of anti-semitism or further examples of incivility, then I don’t see anything that needs to be done here aside from maybe a warning for both users. Elspamo4 (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. Like you can be jewish and be anti-zionism.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was gonna comment the same thing but you commented it earlier . Even WP says it Weaponization of antisemitism AlexBobCharles (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just thought I should jump. Personally I think saying:
    "This not an accusation, this is a historical genocide. This is the main purpose for Zionism's existence."
    goes a bit too far.
    But I also think it's a stretch to go around accusing editors of having bigotted beliefs for a single comment that seems problematic.
    By any chance, can someone provide anymore diffs that may such suggest this user has bigotted beliefs? No, then I doubt this user is a nazi.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Behaviour is not binary between policy-compliant and demonstrating nazism, this Godwinistic jump does not help the discussion. CMD (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I know. Just coming in as an outside neutral force.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of policy. I have seen only one comment in this discussion link to any policy pages.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Maybe this kind of thing wouldn't happen if !vote arguments based on personal opinions rather than policy were treated like hate speech, or at least came with some kind of disincentivizing cost. Wikipedia editors don't need to know that Dimadick thinks Zionism is genocidal and Gonnym thinks this is antisemitic libel. Make a policy-based argument or say nothing seems pretty straightforward. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with you but substance-free !votes are a problem everywhere on Wikipedia. (I would love it if we started sanctioning people for it, though, right down to "keep, it's important!" and such, because substance-free votes are disruptive.) Levivich (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The opportunity cost of enforcing that is too high. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. We don't really need to sanction editors, what we need is to have closes that discount such votes, and close reviews that uphold such closes. The thing that everyone on this website can do, right now, today, to help improve the quality of discussion everywhere, is to vote in close reviews (e.g. at WP:DRV, WP:MR, and WP:AN) to uphold closes that properly discount bad votes, and overturn closes that don't. If enough people do that, things will change. Levivich (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Until that happens that's another huge opportunity cost. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you discount non-policy compliant votes then you're accused of "supervoting". You can't win. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe a swear jar-like thing. A personal opinion based !vote costs you your extendedconfirmed rights or 500 minor typo/gnoming fixes. Or maybe editors in contentious topic areas could be paired-up like couples to get helpful ego-crushing feedback from their partner. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Too punitive, and too hard to enforce. I agree there should be something to help this situation though - maybe something like how SPAs' comments can be tagged with {{spa}} (which looks like this — example (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ), maybe a different version could be created for opinion based voting - eg. {{opinion vote}} "— The previous comment seems to be based on personal opinion rather than citing Wikipedia policy". This in effect would act like a minor trouting, and an indicator to the closer. (Actual usage of this template would be discouraged unless the topic necessitates it - in the same way usage of {{spa}} is generally discouraged). BugGhost🦗👻 08:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is also this gem: Last I checked, I have never defended Zionism as an ideology, since I consider it to be a racist excuse to exploit the Palestinians. FortunateSons (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The longer quote is even worse: Since when do I defend child abuse? Last I checked, I have never defended Zionism as an ideology, since I consider it to be a racist excuse to exploit the Palestinians. Gonnym (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're misquoting him
    In response to this:
    1. Are you a zionist?
    2. why do you downplay child abuse through your edits?
    3. Why do you promote abortion so much?
    4. Are you related financially or work in a non profit organization that promotes abortion or downplay child abuse victims such as law firms that defend abusers?
    He answered
    The "Since when do i defend child abuse?" was related to question 2 and 4 , the "Last I checked, I have never defended Zionism as an ideology, since I consider it to be a racist excuse to exploit the Palestinians." was related to question 1 . AlexBobCharles (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it was in response to this [1] . AlexBobCharles (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The most serious thing in this thread is an editor calling this "antisemitic libel". You may disagree with it, and the comment in a move request should be backed by more than personal opinion on "I think this is true", but antisemitic it is not, and there should be some sort of sanction for the people throwing that accusation around. nableezy - 19:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based. --JBL (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so this doesn’t go nowhere, I would say that the rather poor heat/light balance warrants a short ban from the topic area or very stern warning about conduct (with the understanding that repeated behaviour will lead to escalating sanctions), just so we can close this and hopefully avoid future disruption. It has already taken up more than enough time. FortunateSons (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if filer is also sanctioned for the antisemitism slur. Else smack hands, back to work. Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming this is not typical commentary, I would say that my principal issue is that the statement is uncited and so it is OR, a little bit of which is permissible ordinarily but giving that as a rationale within an admittedly sometimes heated RM on a hot button topic is not going to make friends and influence people. So that's my advice, in future find a cite for things that you would like to say and if you cannot, consider whether or not you really want to say that thing.Selfstudier (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you really expect every person to cite their views in a talk page discussion? Also im pretty sure both sides of the conflict would find a RS to support their view in this topic area AlexBobCharles (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not what I said precisely. And if it is something controversial and one cites it, then one does not end up here, at least not for that. Selfstudier (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Their act does not interfere with the purposes of WP and it is in a talk page discussion which normal viewers dont see and if anything reporting and discussing things like this does interfere with the purposes of WP by spending editors times , also keep in mind that accusations of anti-semitism (similar to an accusation of racism but worse) and libel is in itself an accusation per personal beliefs (supported by many (and probably less sources than Israel committing genocide is ) and should have the same action taken. (if you said these things in arwiki they would probably ban you per your logic that you should ban User:Dimadick) AlexBobCharles (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dimadick could have !voted the same way with the use of less provocative words, and should have. However, the main issue here is with the reporter. Wikipedia must not buy into the notion that negative statements about Zionism are necessarily antisemitic. This is a false claim which is ubiquitous in the world today solely because it is an effective tool in defending Zionism. Accusing someone of antisemitism on this basis alone is a very serious personal attack, and in my opinion should merit an immediate block. Zerotalk 02:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not "solely" in the world because it is an effective tool, it's also in the world because the conflation is quite common with actual antisemitism. If we are trying to reduce sweeping statements conflating the two (and reduce less provocative language in general) we should not justify this with incorrect sweeping statements on other points. CMD (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The objective would presumably be to reduce personal attacks rather than reduce sweeping statements. Sweeping statements don't violate policies. Also, note the presence of the word "necessarily". The issue is the 'if-then-ism', if negative statement about Zionism, then antisemitic libel. No one is disputing that there are antisemites that make negative statements about Zionism. And "...is ubiquitous in the world today solely because..." != "...is in the world today solely because...". But for me, sometimes you can blame the victim too, Dimadick in this case. There is cause and effect here. The reporter is not going around making this accusation every time they see negative statements about Zionism. They were gifted the opportunity to participate in this effort to conflate anti-Zionism and antisemitism by Dimadick thinking that everyone who reads that discussion would benefit from reading their personal non-policy based opinion on the matter. I would challenge the claim above that this "does not interfere with the purposes of WP". If the policy-based arguments are the signal, the rest is noise, literally interference that has to be filtered out by participants/closers etc. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "necessarily" is not the part I quoted, although you are correct it was an odd contrast with the succeeding sentence, and correct on the cause and effect. The policy problem with crafting this about PAs rather than overall statements is that the initial statement was not what is usually treated as a personal attack on this board, as it was a comment specifically on a contribution rather than on a contributor as a whole. Not the clearest of lines, but usually one applied here to the usual WP:CIVIL discussions. CMD (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Charging someone with writing an "an antisemitic libel" is an assertion about their motivation and is thus 100% a personal attack. Nobody is suggesting that Dimadick typed those words by accident. As for what I wrote, you are partially correct and if I was going to do it again I'd write something like "ubiquitous in the world today primarily because it is an effective tool in defending Israel against criticism". Zerotalk 07:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This Special:Diff/1236241150 inflammatory comment warrants a warning as a breach of WP:SOAP. This Special:Diff/1236451797 false accusation of antisemitism warrants a block as a breach of WP:NPA. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Based . Also @DaringDonna should have the same WP:SOAP treatment per this section [2]. (It is not clear if "i will take further action" is a threat) AlexBobCharles (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote that before this ANI was created. So I withdraw the comment. DaringDonna (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is false you posted on 29 July and the ANI discussion was started on 25 July AlexBobCharles (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant to say "before I knew about" the ANI. Selfstudier alerted me to this discussion. DaringDonna (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was at my talk page but it wasn't me, it was ScottishFinnishRadish. Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 – the directed libel accusation is far more serious than the somewhat crude, but undirected comment. Ideologies are no more sacred than religion, and all and sundry can sputter disrespects at them, should they so choose – just preferably not on Wikipedia, and not least in places where it is bound to draw ire and see this sort of sorry proceeding. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please excuse my ignorance. What does the +1 mean? DaringDonna (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreement with the comment being replied to. Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per FortunateSons, I would endorse a topic ban for both the reporter and the person being reported. Furthermore, I would also be fine if the topic bans were indefinite; this topic area is way too heated already and the comments made by both the reporter and Dimadick are disruptive. Jdcomix (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I think a warning for the reporter (or honestly, a trout) is more than sufficient, and that an indef would be significantly exzessive for the reported person, unless there is some past conduct that I missed. FortunateSons (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm only talking about an indef A/I topic ban, not a block. And the fact that they have made multiple inflammatory non-policy comments in this topic area warrants an indef TBAN imo. Maybe it is excessive, but something needs to be done to improve the quality of A/I discussions, and TBANs for repeated opinionated !votes might be a way to do that. Then again, like I said, this might be too much. Regardless, I support at least some sort of TBAN for Dimadick. Jdcomix (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Andy Dingley

    I've spent the last few weeks on and off making edits to various pages, such as LNER Class A4 (diff) or BR Standard Class 9F (diff), with the goal of improving the way citations are laid out in older articles - a lot of such articles were a hotpot mixture of general citations, citations without templates, and manual citations with various formats (especially the A4 page, which had books laid out in multiple formats). As part of this, I spent time standardising them to make use of citation templates such as Template:Cite book, as well as removing the, in some cases, excess of short citations with single inline citations using the R template to differentiate the pages used. I've never had any issues doing this, until now.

    Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided that the most recent change I have made, at British Rail 10800 (diff), doing the exact same thing, is worthy of a revert and a rude message on my talk page. I will note here that I also got heated and accused him of bullying, for which I have since apologised on my talk page (as his forum of choice), so happy to accept a trouting there by all means. However, I simply cannot quite fathom why this user is owning this article to such a degree.

    As part of his talk page messages, he has accused me of houding, as well as making rude and inflammatory remarks such as "I don't expect much better from you, I've yet to see anything other than deletionism and pettiness from any of your edits". My response has been, and will always be, that I happen to edit the article after he does primarily because the article is on my watchlist - so if someone makes an edit, it springs to the top of said list, prompting me to look at it. I haven't been anywhere near any of the other edits this user has made in the intervening time.

    What I'm after at this forum is twofold:

    • Firstly an acknowledgement fromo Andy Dingley that talk page messages like the one linked above are simply not on - WP:CIVIL always applies. Again, I admit I wasn't civil this morning, and have already apologised as such ([3] - accidentally replied to the wrong comment on my talk page).
    • Secondly, some clarity as to what is the correct course of action here. I'm firm in my belief that I'm trying to improve articles by standardising how cites are formatted as I've described above. I am also under the impression that where possible, cite templates should be on a single line, not spread over multiple lines with linebreaks - this is something that User:Redrose64 instilled in me some years ago, but now it's being challenged to such an extreme degree, I'd like to get some more clarity on it.

    I'm very much open to accepting I was wrong if that's the consensus, and would accept a thorough trouting - but as of now, I simply don't have any such clarity. Danners430 (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This reminds me of 1 2 -- I don't think there is any reason to suppose that there is widespread consensus about the relative virtue of putting citation templates on one line versus spreading them out. 134.147.24.39 (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some editors prefer the vertical format in citation templates vs. the horizontal format, some editors prefer the WP:LDR format over inline, some editors prefer the {{sfn}} format. At British Rail 10800, it looks like it is a mixture of sfn, LDR and vertical. Most importantly though, if someone objects to you changing an established style, then don't continue to change it to your preferred version, take it to the talk page and get consensus for your changes. As far as WP:CIVIL goes, yes, a reminder/warning to Andy to be civil, other than that, I'm not seeing anything actionable here. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On that article though it’s not really an established style is it - it’s a mixture of multiple different styles… as for taking it to the talk page, I did try (Andy immediately started a thread on my personal talk page) - but I’ve barely received any useful responses, it’s as if Andy simply wants it left and is unwilling to reach any agreement… Danners430 (talk) Danners430 (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A mixture of multiple different styles is still an established style, and it is not uncommon for articles to have mixed and/or multiple styles. The point is, if someone objects to your changes; don't revert to your preferred version; get consensus for your changes, and absent that, leave it alone. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that first sentence is correct; WP:CS says Each article should use one citation method or style throughout. Schazjmd (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should does not mean there is an imperative to change existing articles, though. It's more of a suggestion than a hard-and-fast "you have to fix this" rule. If no one objects to standardizing the cites, sure, go for it. But the minute someone does, BRD applies and it's time to talk it out. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that I’ve tried, and have been met by Andy’s rather uncivil ownership of that page Danners430 (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I was hoping you'd move on, but since you insist:
    You claim Andy is guilty of uncivil ownership, but after he reverted you on July 15, you reverted him here with the message:
    I'll bite - what policy. Each and every inline citation on almost every page I've read or edited is formatted like this - it aids reading diffs
    That was a failure of WP:BRD. Andy then took it up on your Talk page: User talk:Danners430#WP:CITEVAR. The accusation of hounding might be a bit much, but...
    Today you made similar changes, Andy reverted you, and you reverted him again here with the message:
    And here we go again. Take it to the talk page if you don’t like it, I’m finished interacting with bullies.
    That was an unnecessary escalation on your part, calling him a bully. So he brings it to your Talk page, where you both keep sniping at each other. Andy does explain why he dislikes your preferred citation style, but instead of discussing that you shoot back with:
    would you rather I just went to ANI instead of asking politely?
    This had no reason to come to ANI, period. You both got a little hot under the collar, but you chose to escalate this beyond necessity. As others have pointed out below, citation styles are a preference and it's seriously not worth fighting over when someone rejects your changes to the style. This isn't WP:OWN, it's just a disagreement over cite styles. Insisting on forcing your preference into an article is going to get some push-back, and dragging such a minor dispute to ANI just gets mud on your shoes.
    Neither of you look good here. I suggest you simply drop this matter entirely and move on to some other editing topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, been away working yesterday so only picked this up again today. I’ll take that onboard for next time and see where I go. Hopefully Andy takes on board the fact he’s being uncivil and this doesn’t happen again from his side, like it won’t from my side. Danners430 (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If an article uses list-defined references and inline citations in the body of the article, that is a mixed style, and acceptable from what I've seen, or an article uses sfn and cite book, that is a mixed style and also acceptable. I just don't see this ANI filing as an urgent incident with anything substantive that is actionable by the community or an admin. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I am a rather passionate advocate for list-defined references in vertical format, and find positions to the contrary unconvincing. The only actual argument against LDR is that the visual editor is incapable of parsing them -- the visual editor that's over a decade old, and was introduced at a time when LDR already existed -- that is to say, the visual editor was shipped broken, remains broken to this day, and the WMF has simply decided not to spend money on fixing it at any point in the last decade. It is a truly embarrassing state of affairs.
    However, the world we actually do inhabit on a day-to-day basis is rife with necessary compromise. Christianity and Buddhism and Islam cannot simultaneously be true, yet Christians and Buddhists and Muslims edit Wikipedia together in a way that is generally peaceful. Such as it is, WP:CITEVAR is a sort of Wikipedian "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", so I think that without a very compelling reason to act otherwise, we should respect individual preference. jp×g🗯️ 19:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CITEVAR doesn't say anything about vertical vs horizontal, possibly because the output is the same. It's a cosmetic change. There's a pretty strong norm against those types of cosmetic changes. WP:BRD applies there. If we're talking about an article that has a mix of citation styles with no clear established style, then WP:CITEVAR doesn't really apply. The absence of a style is not a style. Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has to be one of the lamest issues imaginable to fight over. Seriously? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While not related to the above dispute, Andy Dingley has recently showed up at this RM discussion, disrupting it by casting aspersions against the OP Dicklyon here. (N.b.: This was after this ANI thread had been opened.) After being cautioned to avoid ad hominem attacks, Andy doubled down on them here. This continued for some time, even after being cautioned by two more editors. Andy may have a point, but despite being directed to ANI, he has chosen to continue disrupting the RM discussion. These are fairly minor, but they are a pattern and Andy appears unable or unwilling to change it. I would like a commitment from Andy to abide by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. If none is forthcoming, a short block may be necessary. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, Andy has a long history of obnoxiously negative commets, especially (from my point of view) where I have stepped into things he feels ownership of. See his signed comments in this section he started recently on my talk page: User talk:Dicklyon#M40 Gun Motor Carriage. He's got an issue he wants to discuss, but just criticizes me instead. Dicklyon (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • EducatedRedneck, ANI is not your personal army to BLUDGEON a RM discussion! I can't believe you're seriously pulling a stunt like that, and then complaining, Oh, the civility!
    Firstly, you're required to notify people when you open a new thread on them here. Which you didn't, but you did take time to canvass Dicklyon instead.
    I did not 'recently show up' on the ALICE thread. I posted there last week, as soon as it opened. Prompted by my earlier post on their User talk: page re: the start of the GMC bulk moves.
    Please block this editor, they're disagreeing with me is not a good look. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s worth noting that this is the thread I opened, so you have been notified. Danners430 (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While not related to the above dispute, as Educated Redneck already put it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But definitionally related to the subject of the thread, User:Andy Dingley. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, EducatedRedneck wasn't threatening to take you to ANI, but rather was referring to this edit where they advised, "Andy Dingley, if you believe there are behavioral issues, I believe WP:AN or WP:ANI are the best fora. ...". Not that I want to be complained about at ANI, but complaining about me in the middle of an RM discussion I opened seems singularly disruptive. Dicklyon (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, 1) I did not bludgeon the discussion. Provide evidence or strike your WP:PA, please. 2) Per Danners, you were already notified. I notified Dicklyon (and only Dicklyon) because he is the victim of your aspersions, and thus involved in the case. I notified no one else in that thread. 3) Within a week is recently. You'll note I gave diffs, complete with timestamps. 4) I really don't care one way or the other how the RM closes. I started agreeing with you, was convinced to agree with Dicklyon, but am not invested. 5) Your response is a great example of the uncivil personal attacks I'm asking you to stop. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just found out about this discussion from a comment ("EducatedRedneck posts it at ANI") made by Andy in the RM discussion at Talk:All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment#Requested move 24 July 2024. I feel the need to say how I found out about this in case there could be some allegation of being recruited here by others. I'll just affirm my own impression of what has been said, which is evident from reading the record, that Dingley has been – shall we say – a distraction in the RM discussion by insistently casting aspersions about user behavior and refusing suggestions to focus on the discussion of the RM, seemingly expressing opposition to the RM based solely on a distaste for the nominator's behavior on other subjects rather than the question at hand. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this thread can be closed with no action at this time. While the behavior in the RM discussion did continue after Andy's responses here, it has since stopped since Dicklyon hatted the off-topic discussion. The problem is no longer urgent, and there is no compelling evidence for the problem being chronic at this time. Unless someone has evidence of a pattern of incivility, I request this thread be closed with no action. A close with a brief summary would be helpful if this thread needs to be referred to if the problems should reemerge. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That place is OK now. But at the two other places where he started conversations about my downcasing of M40 gun motor carriage (my talk page and the article talk page), he has ignored my attempts to move the conversation forward. He has instead started the most bizarrely malformed RM discussion I've ever seen, at Talk:M40 gun motor carriage#Requested move 2 August 2024. He reverted one of my edits where I made a mistake, with the insulting "WP:CIR" in his edit summary, as opposed to pointing out or fixing the mistake. He seems to think he's the only one competent, but that's not what he's demonstrating. It's a bit exasperating. If he could engage in civil conversation, we might get to a process that could lead to a consensus.
    As EducatedRedneck says, no particular action needed, but if he can't learn to discuss, there might be more trouble in the future. Dicklyon (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Far be it for me to second guess the involved parties if they agree there is nothing further to be gained here, but I'll add my voice to the record here (as someone uninvolved with the underlying disputes and without any significant interaction with any of the parties, but who read through the above and the related RM and user talk discussions) that I also think Andy's behaviour in said discussions has been problematic. There's just too much coming out, guns blazing, with unfounded (and dubious) aspersions, personal attacks, and just generally high conflict language, from word one of their engagement with particular users or disputes. Reading through the above and looking at those discussions, I believe the multiple users who have said that they may very well have been open to having their minds changed on the editorial issue (or at a minimum would have discussed those matters calmly and civilly) had Andy not made the discussions immediately acrimonious with needlessly personal and derisive commentary.
    The comments do fall a little short of that level of hyper offensiveness which (for better or worse) is necessary to block an editor primarily for incivility these days, but at the same time, Andy's approach to raising editorial concerns with other editors is clearly subpar, to say the least. Indeed, it's clear that it's raising to the level of WP:disruption in places. Perhaps it will suffice if this discussion is merely closed with the consensus that Andy is warned about their proclivity for amping up the level of conflict in discussions, but perhaps even better would be an admin or two being clear with Andy that they are pushing the line where an administrative block may occur for the aspersions and generally antagonistic approach to discussion alone. SnowRise let's rap 02:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no standard. Compared to my last block for incivility, he's been consistently way over the line. It's not helping that he's ignoring my advice on how to repair his RM attempt. Dicklyon (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TenPoundHammer incivility

    TenPoundHammer has often removed tags such as {{outd}} and {{+R}} without resolving all of the blatant issues that exist on the page, and recently made an uncivil comment in response to this. Basic research about the band will indicate that the lineup did in fact change. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I see nothing actionable or uncivil here. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - The manner in which profanity is used in "Reverting me over and over is just so much easier than fixing the fucking article, huh" is the incivility. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Dropping F bombs aren't inherently incivil. He's just expressing exasperation with your poor usage of tags, a feeling I completely sympathize with. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Dropping F bombs aren't inherently incivil. He's just expressing exasperation with your poor usage of tags
      WP:BRIE. You can’t just break WP:CIVIL because you’re “exasperated.” The Kip (contribs) 20:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm saying there's no ban on profanity on Wikipedia. There's a big difference between saying someone "is an effing moron", or say "come on man, what the ef". This falls more into the latter. As mentioned above, this is far from actionable. Sergecross73 msg me 20:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - I have been told, that it might be OK to say "have a great fucking day" in a friendly manner, but not in an uncivil manner. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The "fucking" was not directed at you. Therefore, it was not an act of incivility. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        While this is clearly a well-documented case of "your mileage will vary" in Wikipedia culture (and in this space in particular over the last ten years or so), I have to tell you, TPH, if I heard this in just about any context, not only would I perceive each part of the comment as unambiguously "directed at" the party being spoken to, I would find it aggressive, toxic, and problematic. Aside from maybe close friends with a history of superficially abrasive commentary who take such things in stride, this is very clearly uncivil behaviour. It's not the matter of the profanity itself: it's overall tone and what it says about your response to conflict. If I heard someone operating under me in a work environment say to another "Oh, I guess it's just easier to blame me than to do the fucking thing right in the first place." (or hell, even if they omitted the "fucking" altogether) and I did nothing to address it, I'd have to live with many potential consequences of fostering a hostile work place. Please remember, this is a workplace: a volunteer workplace on a collaborative project with a largely decentralized hierarchy for dealing with behavioural complaints, but a workplace all the same.
        So please try not to let your frustration get the better of you. From discussion here, it seems you may not be the only with issues regarding the OP's tagging habits, so for the sake of this comment, I'll presume your agravation is at least a bit justified. But that's still no good argument for a battleground tone. Look how much others have validated your approach on the editorial issue here. Imagine how much less ground to stand on you would have left the OP with if you hadn't lost your cool and made behaviour a tangential issue here. SnowRise let's rap 02:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, @Sergecross73:, just a polite reminder that I do use they/them pronouns. Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm so sorry, I had no idea. Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No worries. I don't emphasize it much (though it is on my user page), so I could see it being easy to miss. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Examples of removing tags without resolving the issue:
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kris_Kross&diff=prev&oldid=1233366327
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kris_Kross&diff=prev&oldid=1233366362
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kris_Kross&diff=prev&oldid=1232827894
    --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the Gina Rodriguez diff first. I have to agree that "more citations needed" at the article level for an article with 91 refs is basically unactionable. If there are any specific places in the article where a source is needed, an inline tag is helpful; the article-level tag is not. (editing my comment to add:) The Gina Rodriguez diff that I looked at has been removed from Jax 0677's comment; it was #4 (this one). Schazjmd (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything, I recommend a WP:BOOMERANG here. I've asked, and warned, Jax countless times about their tag usage. Many are unnecessary, or lack the context to make any sense. Exceedingly bad judgement in opening up this ANI case. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - The tags in question directly correspond to issues inherent in the article, which was easily visible by looking at the page. When dozens of parts of an engineering drawing are changed, detailing the revision as "Extensively Revised" is acceptable. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Another example of removing a tag without resolving the issue:
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gina_Rodriguez&diff=prev&oldid=1224666219
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messer_(band)&diff=prev&oldid=1236302982 (band member roles improperly removed with profane edit summary)

    --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    These examples are awful. They only show your incompetence with adding tags. Either fix the problems yourself or be more clear on what needs to be fixed. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - There were so many references missing at Gina Rodriguez that it would have taken a long time to add {{cn}} tags to them all. I was once told by TPH not to add too many {{cn}} tags. The roles of the band members who did not leave were completely removed from Messer (band). I think that update band members is perfectly clear. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looked at the Gina Rodriguez article. I have no idea what you are missing there, so a big fat tag on top is just overkill. Messer--is this edit the start of some campaign against TPH? I'm sorry but that is a ridiculous edit, and this made it worse: you're complaining about "no reason given", when your first reversion of the "unnecessary purple prose" only said "WHY". Drmies (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gina's article is massive, and has 91 refs. It's too vague to just plaster a vague request for sources at the top of the page. It's not helpful. If you're not willing to tag more specifically (or fix it yourself) then at least outline issues on the talk page (You've never done this either.) You're not accomplishing anything if no one can understand what you're getting at. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - OK, perhaps I should have tagged the section as well, but if that is the case, people need to stop complaining that there are too many {{cn}} tags. I have been specifically asked not to use too many {{urs}}, {{+rs}} and {{ods}} tags. If I should not use {{+R}} nor {{outd}}, the tags should maybe be deleted in their entirety. Don't the writers have a burden to add references to articles that they write? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, of course there is a burden on writers to add sourcing to their own writing. I regularly warn and block editors for unsourced content additions. Report them to me and I'd do the same. You don't need to be an Admin to warn people though, so feel free to jump in and start warning editors you observe failing to add sources. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've also told you many times:
      • Biographical articles should use {{BLP sources}}, not {{refimprove}}. I've told you this countless times, and yet you've given no reason why you refuse to comply.
      • Certain things within an article only need to be sourced the first time they appear, not every time (e.g., the members of Vended, which were already sourced earlier in the article and didn't need to be sourced a second time)
      • Using {{better source needed}} if a Billboard chart source is not up to date, which gives the implication that you somehow want a more authoritative source than Billboard for Billboard content.
      • Being excessively vague in your tagging, making it unclear to other editors why you're even tagging the article
      • Track listings and label names on album articles do not need a citation, as the source is understood to be the album itself
      In particular, you kept failing to clarify why Messer (band) needed an "update" tag even after re-adding it, and then claimed that your reasoning was "it's fewer keystrokes". Is there a reason you can't just fix the problem yourself (the membership being outdated)? I know you know how to add sources, I've seen you do it. And just saying "but it's fewer keystrokes" makes you look lazy.
      The examples above prove that you were unable to elucidate why Gina Rodriguez needed better sourcing, and none of your reversions justified adding a sources tag. You do that all the damn time and it's infurating not just to me, but to other editors.
      The most egregious of late is tagging Kris Kross with {{cn}} in their discography... when the album you were claiming needed a citation to prove its existence had an article. By no means do you need a source in Article A to prove that Article B exists, and I cannot fathom the logic behind such a move. By what logic should the source go on Kris Kross and not the album's page if the latter exists? This edit makes literally no sense, and your excuse was "the fact that the remix album didn't have any sources just proves my point". That still doesn't mean that Kris Kross needed a source; it means that the album's article did (at least before someone else redirected it). Does Garth Brooks discography need a citation to prove that Scarecrow (Garth Brooks album) exists? No, because Scarecrow (Garth Brooks album) has its own article.
      You have a long, long history of making extremely vague tags that no other editor can seem to decipher, and then edit-warring and wiki-lawyering to try and justify their existence. It was only natural that I got frustrated. Your edits frustrate me a lot, and no matter what, you try to weasel your way out of it every time. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply -
      1. WRT {{+BLP}}, sometimes I forget, but I don't think that this is a big deal.
      2. Vended was an oversight
      3. People need to change the date on billboard chart listings
      4. I will work on clarifying tagging
      5. I will work on avoiding tagging "Track listings and label names"
      6. The Messer (band) members were obviously outdated, as evidenced by their internet page (perhaps I should have said that "the lineup has changed", which is an honest mistake after all)
      7. Scarecrow (Garth Brooks album) has cited chart listings at Garth Brooks discography
      I have read somewhere, that if one does not have time to update an article, that they are welcome to tag it. First I get flagged for too many tags spread out within the article body, then I get flagged for too few tags within the article body. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Sometimes"? Not once have I seen you use {{blp sources}}. You've said for years "I'll work on it", yet you never do. I doubt that you "don't hve time" to update an article, because you certainly have time to spam as many maintenance tags on it as humanly possible. Not once in the many years of your problematic tagging have you shown any proof of actually trying to improve. And that's why you keep ending up at ANI. I know the focus was on me in this post, but as Sergecross73 pointed out, me saying "the fucking article" is not incivil because it was not directed at you; instead, the problem is clearly on your end for the millionth case of being sloppy and unclear with maintenance tags. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      ETA: Also, using {{blp sources}} on a biography article is a big deal. Biographies of living people are held to higher standards, which is why they have their own template. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • TenPoundHammer, it's probably a good idea if you, how do I put it, keep a little clear from Jax 0677. Jax 0677, it would be VERY ADVISABLE for you to NOT revert TenPoundHammer in this matter of tags. It seems to me that your understanding of when and how to use which tag is growing, and that's a good thing, but it is also obvious to me that it's not perfect. And I think the last thing you should be doing is picking a fight with an editor whose experience with and understanding of such tags is probably superior. Don't edit war with such an editor, don't drag them to ANI. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • From User_talk:Jax_0677#Messer_(band) I'm seeing this strongly as a BOOMERANG. If you have time to complain about someone else's fix being only a partial fix, you had time to fix it properly instead. But this reflex reversion? That's just going out of your way to deliberately annoy another editor, even if you skirt round CIVIL. And that's the most toxic thing on WP these days. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That right there proves that Jax 0677 would rather wikilawyer and mass-revert than fix whatever problems may be present. If you have the time to click the undo button over and over, you have time to add a source. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • My only previous interactions with Jax 0677 have been at DRV, where over the past two years they have submitted 4 reviews —all four resulting in the original closure being endorsed, with two so obviously correct (and therefore Jax's filings so obviously incorrect) that they were SNOW-closed (1 & 2). At the time I put this in the back of my mind as an unusual strike rate for an editor with over 140,000 edits — and I'd argue the above conduct shows ongoing issues with their understanding and judgement around article content & internal Wikipedia processes. I do not have any resolutions to propose, but just wanted to note my ongoing concerns given the issues highlighted as a result of them filing this misguided ANI complaint. Daniel (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm just frustrated that Jax 0677 has been a thorn in people's sides for so long, yet never quite egregious enough for anything to actually be done. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, these sorts of scenarios are a regular occurrence with Jax. Bad judgement calls and WP:IDHT responses when they're confronted. I would have taken action long ago, but I feel there's too much overlap in our editing in the music content area for me to take an uninvolved action against him. Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jax 0677: after placing a tag on an article, how often do you go to the talk page of that article in order to start a discussion regarding that tag? I'm not seeing much in your edit history that would indicate that you do this (but to be fair, I'm not interesting in going through that many edits right now). I don't think TPH is wrong to remove the tags if there is no discussion outlining your concerns that lead to the tags being placed in the first place. For full disclosure, I also believe that a BOOMERANG is much more likely to come out of this than any sanctions against TPH. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Fully agree that the onus is on those doing the tagging to open a discussion explaining what issues they see. Drive-by tagging is unhelpful and I myself have often removed tags when there has been no accompanying discussion explaining the issue more fully. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - I guess it is time for me to start more talk page discussions then, though i am not sure how many people will look at the talk page. I did not know I needed to start a talk page discussion. However, which do I need to do? Add more cn, ods, +rs tags, or add fewer of them? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        You should be more discriminating with when you add tags, and if it's not abundantly clear why you are adding a tag, explain it on the talkpage. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        May I also propose not knee-jerk reverting if someone else removes the tag? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I can think of countless times where your tags sat in articles unaddressed because seemingly no one understood what they meant. That's equally bad (maybe worse?) than no one seeing them on talk pages, so I wouldn't worry about that. I also still don't understand why you don't just fix the issues yourself. While your tags are vague and confusing, you often provide a detailed description of what's wrong when pressed on it. If you already took the time to understand what's wrong, why not just go the rest of the way and fix it? Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I think preventing Jax from tagging at all and forcing them to bring concerns to the talk page would not be a bad idea. It's clear they have a knowledge of what is wrong with an article, but would rather spam the article with vague tags and then wikilawyer, argue, and mass-revert when challenged than just, I don't know, fixing the damn article. I've seen that Jax can add sources and make other fixes when needed; they just choose not to 90% of the time, seemingly out of laziness. (As evidenced by the "it's fewer keystrokes" comment and the constant shortcuts to make adding templates consist of few characters as possible -- e.g, {{+R}} instead of {{refimprove}}, laziness seems to be a factor on Jax's part.) The whole mess at Messer (band) could have been avoided if Jax had just said "the members list is outdated; see this source as proof" instead of awkwardly reverting me and refusing to elaborate beyond "it's outdated". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I was thinking about this yesterday, but I'm not sure how an editing restriction could be worded without obliterating Jax's ability to add any tag to an article. And that seems overly restrictive. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        What concerns me is that Jax has been here nearly as long as I have, and actually has 40K more live edits that I do, but somehow in all that time and experience hasn't learned something this simple. I admit that way back when I did drive-by tagging as well, but I figured out it was unproductive a very long time ago.
        I'm not sure how we could word a restriction to require talk page discussions in certain cases but allow tagging only in more obvious cases. I generally don't post on the talk page when adding {{cn}} inline because it should be obvious that the tag is attached to the unsourced statement. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        My concern is that Jax constantly adds [citation needed] in cases where it blatantly isn't needed. Such as the label, personnel, and/or track listing of an already-released album [4], the members of a band in the "Members" header when all of them are already mentioned in the article, the name of a single in the "Singles" header when it's already verified two lines up in the main body [5], a charted single when there already is a verified source indicating the chart position. This is sloppy, lazy, and pedantic all at once. It's clear Jax doesn't bother to read the entire article and verify that a piece of information might already be cited elsewhere than the tables, or understand that certain things like track listings generally don't need citations in the first place. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Looking at Jax's most recent work, this edit and the previous one are both adding "citation needed" tags to the "Title" heading on tables. I don't understand how a prolific editor could think that's a productive thing to do. Above, Jax asks, "which do I need to do? Add more cn, ods, +rs tags, or add fewer of them?" The answer is fewer. Toughpigs (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        With that said, should I add {{cn}} to each and every one of the works for Chuck Woolery that does not have a reference? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        No, you should not. That would be unnecessary and unproductive. Please do not add cn tags to everything that you look at; it litters the article without providing any benefit to anyone. Toughpigs (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Therein lies the problem. I can throw something on the talk page, but people might not look at it. I have one person telling me one thing, and I have another user telling me something else. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Long ago, I provided guidelines on my talk page for my tagging of articles, and few disagreed or provided better guidelines for me to follow. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        This is a toxic level of WP:IDHT. Everyone is telling you not to tag articles. Toughpigs (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Just Step Sideways just said "I generally don't post on the talk page when adding {{cn}} inline because it should be obvious that the tag is attached to the unsourced statement". --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Everyone is telling you not to tag articles. Toughpigs (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        What kind of ban restricts specifically tagging? As an outsider looking at this thread, it seems we are headed towards that restriction given the OP's lack of judgment in these use cases. Conyo14 (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jax 0677: and could you please stop prefacing your replies with Reply, we are not morons and can work out perfectly well a) what a reply is, and b) when you are actually replying. Also advice: it draws attention to the quality of your own replies. This may not necessarily be to your advantage. ——Serial Number 54129 21:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just another example of the pointlessness of maintenance tags in most cases. We have talk pages for a reason. We have maintenance tags for those, like the OP, who don't seem able to properly use talk pages. Let's get rid of the tags. DeCausa (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds like more of a reason for getting rid of editors who don't seem able to properly use talk pages, really  :) ——Serial Number 54129 22:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, Jax took the suggestion of using talk pages, and did this: "Woolery's filmography needs more citations." If that's the level of insight Jax plans to bring to talk pages, then that's unnecessary as well.
      I think the basic problem is that practically anything on Wikipedia could use more citations; everything that isn't currently cited probably should be. That doesn't mean we need someone scattering unhelpful "X needs more citations" notices on random talk pages. Toughpigs (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Given the above comments by Jax today, I think we've hit the WP:CIR threshold. It looks like the only option is to either restrict Jax from adding any tags to articles without discussing on Talk pages first, or an outright block for being a complete time sink here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I support a block; I think this is trolling. Toughpigs (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I posted on the talk page as suggested, and got flagged for it. I guess it is "No tags or suggestions to add references for a period of time". --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jax 0677, what about finding sources and adding them? That would be really useful! Schazjmd (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have found sources and added them on many occasions, and have made sure that sentences in articles that I write are well sourced. Other editors should do the same with the sentences/articles that they add, and no, I am not trolling. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I apologize for being unclear; I meant, instead of tagging. Schazjmd (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess it is high time for me to take a long break from "+R", "CN" and "NR" tags for a while. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You posted that, and then added "1R" tags on five articles. "This article relies on a single source" is the same as the tags we've been talking about. This has got to be trolling. Toughpigs (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The {{1r}} tags are not excessive, as most articles should have at least two references. Those pages only have one source, but I can cease adding {{1r}} if desired. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If an article is only one sentence long to begin with, {{1r}} is redundant and actually bigger than the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The article was more tham one sentence long, but i can refrain from using 1r if needed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I also support a block per WP:CIR. The above comments show literally zero self-awareness by Jax doing the very thing they said they'd stop doing. We've been down that road many times. Jax can add sources, as I've seen Jax do it -- but it only happens about 5% of the time, and the other 95% is template-spamming way beyond a degree that is necessary. It's clear that not a single word of this discussion has gotten through to Jax despite years of grief over it -- just more WP:IDHT level attempts at weasling out of what they're being called out for. I know I've brought Jax's behavior up at ANI before, yet nothing ever came of it. Add onto this their behavior at DRV, their constant spam of unnecessary redirects, and behavior in this very thread, and I'm convinced Jax has no desire to change and has completely spent the community's patience. Everyone seems to be fed up with Jax's behavior, so at this point, what other action can be taken? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am agreeable to a well-defined ban on certain templates related to sourcing and/or a ban on my complaining about sourcing. However, I do not feel that a block is in order. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose block' Jax has indicated they can listen to criticism and adjust to it. ——Serial Number 54129 11:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      He's shown the same tendencies over and over again in this very thread, even after claiming he'll adjust. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I also oppose a boomerang at this time. Let's at least give Jax a chance to improve... Hey man im josh (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      He's had like a thousand chances to improve and blown them all. How many more does he get? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. A block, a topic ban, something else...something more is needed than just another talk about this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The fact that discussions can go around in circles for ages yet nothing happens is one of my biggest frustrations with Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just in the course of this discussion, Jax has slathered Chuck Woolery in [citation needed] and [better source needed] tags despite multiple warnings. The latter makes no sense, as there is no real source in the first place, so how can there be a "better" one than one that doens't exist? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The "better source needed" tags are just ridiculous, as is the fact that this discussion has gone on and on with Jax implying he'll stop the problematic edits while continuing to make them. I'd support Jax being topic-banned from adding any tags due to demonstrated incompetence in that area and unwillingness to stop of his own accord; if he thinks a specific tag is important to be added, he can propose it on talk pages. Schazjmd (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd suggest both a ban on adding tags and posting on talk pages about sourcing. If his addition on the Chuck Woolery talk page is anything to go by, it's likely Jax will spam "this page needs more citations" notices on talk pages. Practically everything needs more citations; announcing it on talk pages just adds clutter. Toughpigs (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Good point. Schazjmd (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me that Jax 0677 has exhibited a willingness to avoid an explicit, enumerated set of behaviors, but unwilling to recognize a general principle that might bind those behaviors together. That's not okay, because it seems pretty clear that Jax 0677 will happily perform activities not explicitly listed that violate the general principle in exactly the same way. It's hard to think of a solution for this short of an indefinite block that doesn't involve some very careful anti-wikilawyer tailoring. Perhaps a "final warning, any uninvolved administrator may block without warning if the principle is violated"-type thing? --JBL (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is like the thousandth time Jax has been warned for bad behavior. I think it's time to stop mincing about and do something. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary section break: What should be done with Jax?

    So it looks like a few options are being floated here. Should Jax be:

    1. Indefinitely blocked for constant disruptions, given other problematic edits such as DRV, redirect-spamming, etc. that fly in the face of WP:CIR
    2. Topic-banned from adding any maintenance templates (and optionally, from bringing up maintenance issues on talk page) but allowed to edit otherwise

    I'm inclined to say the former, given their behavior at DRV, confrontational and argumentative behavior across all discussions, and constantly saying they'll change but never doing so. But I will also support the latter if the consensus leans that way. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support indefinite block' per their IDHTness, problematic DRVs etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic Ban Jax has shown very little remorse in his usage of these tags. Experiencing how to source and/or fix the issues ought to be the very first step to take. Given their contributions show mostly good edits, I'd say an indefinite block is a bit harsh. If anything, a month block with an indefinite topic ban might be a better punishment and can use the free time to find better ways to be a cohesive editor. Conyo14 (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should be very reluctant to issue indef blocks. I do not see Jax as near justifying that in terms of the problems they cause, although the IDHT is strong. So topic ban from adding any maintenance tags. Maintenance tags are hardly a crucial part of the project (they barely work at the best of times). So this is hardly onerous. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, indef seems harsh for someone who does a lot of gnoming work in mainspace Mach61 21:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban per my previous comments. Schazjmd (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic ban on tags + posting on talk pages with "X needs citations" messages, broadly construed. As others have noted, Jax seems willing to follow direct instructions, but has demonstrated no understanding of why people are objecting to their edits. Toughpigs (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from adding any maintenance templates to articles. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the topic ban from tagging and from any activities that are essentially equivalent to driveby tagging. --JBL (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban as instigator, and per above consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • What tips me over into supporting (either proposed sanction) is just how very littered his deleted contribs to the Template: namespace are with idioglossic redirects to maintenance templates. Not only are this user's taggings unhelpful, but the cryptic abbreviations make it impossible to tell what the tags he's adding are if first viewed via a diff (say, from a watchlist or RecentChanges), and unnecessarily laborious to remove if your first view is from the rendered page. {{+l}} (RFD) is typical. —Cryptic 21:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban - I apologize for placing {{+R}}, {{+RS}}, {{urs}}, {{nr}}, {{cn}}, {{bcn}}, {{outd}} or {{ods}} on too many articles. I realize now, that if I say/write the same thing to a dozen people, that those individuals might hear/see a dozen different things. I realize that in some cases, it can be difficult to find the exact part of the article that is either outdated or missing references. I would be agreeable to refraining for at least 6-12 months from adding {{2p}}, {{ic}}, {{+Li}}, {{+R}}, {{+RS}}, {{urs}}, {{nr}}, {{cn}}, {{bcn}}, {{outd}} or {{ods}} tags (if I think of more tags that I should not add, I will list them here or somewhere else), or even making statements on talk pages to either get references added or information updated. I hope to continue to add productively in other ways to the encyclopedia, to allow users other than myself to worry about adding tags about references and to add citations on my own. I hope, that if I am editing from a mobile phone, that I will be allowed to place a bare URL between the "ref" tags containing slash and greater than/less than symbols until such time that I or someone can format them properly. I also hope, that I will still be permitted to remove obvious vandalism. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support of topic ban - per my comments above. I'm sorry, but I don't believe he's able to exercise reasonable decision making on tags based on my prior interactions. Sergecross73 msg me 00:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban: The topic ban on maintenance tags should be indefinite. There’s no good reason to tag bomb articles instead of fixing the issues or at least making a minimal effort to do so. Jax seems to be owning up to his mistakes, though, so I wouldn’t support any other actions against him. And I’m sure most of us would appreciate improperly formatted references over a ‘citation needed’ tag. Elspamo4 (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Colman2000 and close paraphrasing

    User:Colman2000 has received some warnings for copyright violations close paraphrasing, but the latter issue persisted, as outlined at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Colman2000. They have not responded to the most recent warnings nor the CCI notice, but have continued editing in the same vein. Basically, they take text from (mostly) the Texas State Historical Association Handbook of Texas online edition, following it line by line, but either using synonyms or somewhat changing the word order to avoid direct copyvios. E.g. today they expanded Lake Creek, Texas in this fashion[6]. I'll post some clear examples, but everything else is closely following the original as well.

    Three examples, many more can be provided if necessary
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Article: "More people came to farm the fertile ground beside the creek after the Civil War. Among them were Sarah Ann and John W. Wilson, who came in the latter part of the 1860s. Wilson was a Methodist cotton farmer and circuit rider who quickly constructed one of Delta County's first gins."

    Source: "After the Civil War more settlers arrived to farm the rich land along the creek. These included John W. and Sarah Ann Wilson, who arrived late in the 1860s. Wilson was a Methodist circuit rider and cotton farmer, who soon built one of the first gins in Delta County."

    Similarly, yesterday, they expanded Enloe, Texas. Again, an example of the long close paraphrasing:

    Article: "The population was 400 in 1914. Residents had access to a phone exchange and may attend either the Methodist Episcopal or Baptist churches. There were two banks, a bakery, a telegraph office, two general stores, a café, an apothecary, and a seed store among the businesses. The town also housed the headquarters of the Carson Lumber Company. The main industry in the area was cotton shipping, which employed two gins and seven cotton buyers."

    Source: "In 1914 the population was 400. Residents could attend either the Baptist or Methodist Episcopal church and had access to a telephone exchange. Businesses included two banks, a telegraph office, a restaurant, two general stores, an apothecary, a seed store, and a bakery. The Carson Lumber Company was also headquartered in town. Cotton shipping was the major industry, and the community supported seven cotton buyers and two gins."

    Third and final example, from yesterdays expansion of Ben Franklin, Texas:

    Article: "Isaac B. Nelson opened the first post office in 1853 in his one-room cottage at the intersection. At the time, the Wynn and Donaldson distillery, the Greenville Smith sawmill, and cotton gins were all supported by the locals in Lamar County. Taliaferro B. Chaffin gave a Methodist Episcopal church two acres in 1854. Smith's sawmill supplied the materials used by the citizens to construct the building."

    Source: "The first post office was established by Isaac B. Nelson in 1853 at his one-room cabin on the crossroads. The community, at that time in Lamar County, supported cotton gins, the Greenville Smith sawmill, and the Wynn and Donaldson distillery. In 1854 Taliaferro B. Chaffin donated two acres for a Methodist Episcopal church. Citizens built the structure from materials provided by Smith's sawmill."

    I don't know if a final warning from someone here would suffice or if a block is needed to stop this. The actual cleanup can be done through the CCI, but making sure that the list of articles needing cleanup doesn't get longer would be appreciated. Fram (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As those examples have been written with exactly the same number of sentences, and that the context of each sentence doesn't differ, these are fine examples indeed. It doesn't help that the History section of Lake Creek, Texas is written in one long paragraph either. Maybe just mention to Colman that simply rewriting the sentence is still regarded as close paraphrasing? They really need to write like they know about the subject themselves. A♭m (Ring!) (Notes) 10:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He's ignoring notices and doing the same thing again the following day, particularly on Kensing, Texas. @Diannaa I hope you don't mind being pinged here, but I know you're an expert on handling copyright and plagiarism. Would you mind taking care of this matter? A♭m (Ring!) (Notes) 20:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the editor. Hopefully the CCI case will be opened soon. — Diannaa (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, both. Fram (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally like to distance myself from ANI, but... As a courtesy note of related discussions for anyone following here, a CCI has now been accepted, the user submitted a successful unblock request, and they have started a related Teahouse thread. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 23:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban threats from User talk:Graham87

    NO ACTION NEEDED
    I've read this over and I think the OP has realized their errors. The ArbCom case filing was an additional error, and I expect it will be rejected out-of-hand soon. I would hope and expect that Wikieditor662 will be more thoughtful and willing to listen to more experienced users in the future but I don't see cause or consensus for any sort of formal sanction at this time. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Recently, I linked the word composers to a timeline of classical composers. On some composers' pages, I linked the word composers.

    Before seeking to resolve the issue with me, Graham87 and another person reverted all the edits. This was frustrating but not the end of the world.

    (The following happened on my talk page).

    However, Graham87 then said "have you previously had an account here? Your editing pattern is ... interesting; let's leave it at that. " Suggesting that I am creating multiple accounts to break some rule or something.

    I told him this was my only account and reminded him to assume good faith.

    I just found out he told me he thinks I should be banned. His words were "I'm struggling to think of a reason why you should be allowed to continue editing here", and his reasoning being that reverting the changes was too much work.

    There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with my edits. However, if he spoke with me before reverting (ask Wiki suggests) and got me to agree I would've reverted it myself. The only reason he had to do the extra work was because he did not follow the Wikipedia policy.

    I don't want him banned or to get severely punished or anything like that, I just want an administrator to talk with him about this. Is this possible?

    Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor662 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The entire discussion is at User talk:Wikieditor662#Composer is a common word. I'll notify the other participant, Gerda Arendt. I maintain that, while Wikieditor662 has made some useful edits, an alarming number of them are relatively useless discussions like this one at Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven and this post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music (where I first encountered them, but didn't make the connection until later). Their general editing pattern is ... bizarre for a supposedly new user. I won't say why as to not give them ideas, but it is. Also, its well-known here that AGF is often invoked disingenuously and when asking if people have previously had an account, those who say they haven't are often lying. However, I may be wrong; their edits today show that they might be a new user after all (not signing their comment here and not notifying me properly of this discussion are clues). Also, I've noticed they've never been told about or shown the Manual of Style or the subset on linking, so that might be helpful. Graham87 (talk) 08:10/08:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also a quick explanation probably wouldn't go astray either: Wikieditor662's been making edits to various lists of composers. They changed the target of the composers redirect from the Composer page to the List of classical music composers by era article in this edit, then went to articles about many prominent classical composers and linked the word "composers" to their new redirect (relevant contribs link). This bold/reckless action would have hit many people's watchlists (including mine). Graham87 (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I changed it because I found that linking "Composers" to a timeline of composers instead of the word "Composer" would be more fitting. I don't understand how that could be Bold/reckless Wikieditor662 (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graham87 Do you believe {{checkuser needed}} if you suspect this is something related to sockpuppetry? -Lemonaka 08:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, but I don't have the foggiest idea who the sock could be and I wonder if this is just a younger editor (as I mentioned on their talk page). I'm getting more and more convinced I'm wrong about them being a sock, but a checkuser *might* be able to shed some light on this. Graham87 (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have to say, your [7] example looks like a reasonable newbie-question to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was pinged. (Otherwise I like to ignore this noticeboard.) For context: I noticed Wikieditor662 (WE) before, with plans to bring Bach to higher quality, - so I have now problem assuming they are a newbie. I have a Bach cantata on the Main page, 300 years on this day, btw. Now to the series of edits: I noticed a link for the word composer for several composers - I have probably hundreds of composers on my watchlist - and reverted because it's a common word. No I had no time to check where it was linked, and that WE had changed the redirect. When I noticed that the series was continued although I had reverted the first two with an edit summary I left a message on WE's talk (linked above) explaining. I reverted others per rollback afterwards, and left for real life. When it had still continued after I was out for hours, I left another message for WE about being disappointed. I had seen that Graham87 had reverted many cases. I don't think that he - whom I met here 14 years ago and always found both kind and efficient - should be blamed for feeling frustrated. It seems rather WE who should learn a few things, including simple WP:BRD: when reverted discuss, - not repeat the same thing on more articles. Assuming good faith goes for both sides. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read what I wrote again. Yes, you did revert the changes, but, like I said, if you spoke to me first (again, like wikipedia recommends) and got me to agree I would've done it myself.
    Also, there's no way that that I did this anywhere near hundreds of composers. I doubt I even have hundreds of edits in general.
    Thinking I was here for a while because I want to improve composers' article qualities is... Well... Interesting, as Garam would say.
    Another thing I would like to ask you is to give me the benefit of the doubt. Yes, while I can't improve this is my first account, the burden of proof relies on you. For example, I could say that you and Garam87 are the same person operating on two different accounts, and while I can't be proven false, I can't be proven true either. It wouldn't make sense for me to accuse you of this, unless I had evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt it was true.
    And yes, assuming good faith does occur on both sides, which is why I'm not calling for you to be punished. I just want this situation resolved as being accused of something you didn't do or being told you deserve to be banned is not a pleasant thing. Thanks. Wikieditor662 (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read what I wrote again. When I revert with an edit summary, that edit summary is talking to you, giving an explanation. When I noticed that you didn't get that, I talked to you on your talk. - I didn't say you changed hundreds of composers, only that I have so many on my watchlist and therefore noticed several changes of the same kind. - Sorry to inform you: the burden to justify an edit is with the one who makes it, not with the one who returns to the stable status. - Please try to understand WP:BRD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I can see why Graham may have found some of the stuff "weird" (esp. those condolences), it would appear to me to be the kind of weird that one should keep to oneself. If you don't know whether it's the editor's age, or socking, or a lack of competence in a new editor that may or may not get better with experience, it's just poisoning the well, isn't it, to mention it at all? Nowadays, it's considered generally unacceptable to mention socking when you don't know the master and the editing is otherwise clean. The change is recent, last 2-3 years at most, but the community has done away with labelling editors as socks just because they demonstrate too much competence early in their editing history or because they dive early into internal areas of the project making weird edits that LTAs or banned trolls might make. I would say it was too hasty of Graham to bring up a block. New editors usually get more leeway before they are sanctioned. Best I can tell, OP made a couple edits of the same kind after they received the original warning but did not persist once it became clear the edits were controversial beyond a simple disagreement with Gerda. So, Gerda's expression of disappointment came a bit quick too, in my opinion. I can see how OP might have felt cornered. That said, OP should listen to experienced users when they tell them how a certain thing is done over here. I still wouldn't blame them too much though; things might have gone different if someone simply pointed them toward MOS:OVERLINK. OP appears to be the kind of editor especially inclined to follow the rules. Oh, and OP, there's no policy that says talk to the editor before reverting their edits. And, you should not make too many edits or very large edits when you're new, without making sure they're okay. One way to make sure is to ask, another way is to make a few of them and wait a couple days to see if it gets reverted. Graham may not have come down so hard on you if you'd made four edits instead of forty. Anyway, I don't see anyone receiving a formal warning here, let alone a sanction. I suggest all parties withdraw and wait for this to be closed. The longer back-and-forths go on on this noticeboard, the worse everyone comes out looking. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, good advice all around, and for me as well. The classical music area has had some ... rather unusual and ultimately disruptive editors over the years and I probably reacted too strongly because of past experience there. Checkuser (matching users' IP information and behavioural similarities are the only ways we can tell whether a user is a sockpuppet. Gerda and I recently had a great time meeting in person so that should be all the proof you'd need. Also checkuser evidence would show that I'm in Australia (apart from my recent trip) and she's in Germany. And as for behavioural/editing similarities, we have our own overlapping niches and that's more than a good thing ... though I've probably become less kind to some newer editors over the years due to bitter experience. Graham87 (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you so much for this. I couldn't have put it better myself. If you don't mind, what about my condolences were weird? I saw someone on the talk page said someone died and I thought it would be weird to just make a new post right after it without addressing it. I did then mistake the person who died for Graham87 as an accident, and if I remember correctly I apologized after it happened.
      @Graham87 I do swear that I'm newer here (even though I've probably editing on this account for like a few weeks or something, idk if that still makes me new) and I never had any intentions of breaking any rules, although I can't prove it. I suppose proving your identity is easier when you don't mind sharing your personal information, so I can't do the same. Also, I'm sorry about your harsh experiences with other newer members, whatever they may have been. I'm glad you enjoyed your meeting with Gerda. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah this is pretty much resolved, as far as I'm concerned. Re the condolence being weird: I'm not Usedtobecool but mostly on talk pages, sections are supposed to be about one topic and one topic only. I had noted on my post announcing Hyacinth's passing that condolences should go on the user's talk page, where you were and still are most welcome to post, because otherwise condolence messages can be scattered all over the place and aren't easy to find. Graham87 (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In the month he has had this account, Wikieditor662 has become a timesink (and is shaping up to be a major timesink), and someone who does not listen to experienced editors, even highly experienced editors. I'm struggling to find more than one substantive mainspace edit of his that was truly helpful (the majority of his mainspace edits -- 48 out of 94 -- have been reverted); his edits to the color-coded timelines of classical music composers were both undiscussed and seemingly not the edits of a brand-new editor; and his talkpage threads and inputs are generally timesinks as well. I'm not sure exactly what is going on or why, but he often seems in a sense to be almost trolling classical music on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I hesitantly agree with Softlavender: Wikieditor662 needs to slow down in many fronts. Wikipedia is a unique place in which it takes time to adjust to; if they want to have valuable contributions, they should really focus on targeted tasks and not immediately go challenging a bunch of status quos. Obviously consensus can change, but I'm just not seeing this current route as a path forward—it would likely result in more conflict or simply burnout. I can still appreciate what seems to be their genuine enthusiasm. Aza24 (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      At a glance, the numbers are being skewed by the last week which is 40 out of 46. Ignore that and it is 19 out of 60. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Wikieditor662 has taken this to ArbCom. I doubt it lasts long there, but figured I'd let everyone know. [8] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  22:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - As I said at ArbCom, ArbCom is the only conduct forum that does not have a boomerang principle. However, we should consider whether a competency block is needed for an editor whose edits are largely bizarre and ignorant. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing and edit warring by Krimuk2.0

    Krimuk2.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They are repeatedly engaging in disruptive editing, removing notable, sourced content from the lead of Aubrey Plaza. They've refused to listen and engage in the talk page discussion. And have since harassed me on my talk page with a nonsense accusation of "personal attack" because I told him to stop making disruptive edits, as evident on the talk page and edit summaries. Their block log (and likely, naturally, their talk page history) shows they have a history of edit warring and disruptive editing.

    May I add, for further context, that this article is being improved and expanded to meet WP:GA and later WP:FA standards, which includes comprehensiveness, and this editor is actively impeding such progress by unconstructively removing notable content and repeatedly reverting. In an edit summary, in which they again removed notable content, they said "In this state, it would fail GA/FA reviews". They are being actively, deliberately disruptive. Lapadite (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly, I'm the one who started the talk-page discussion, not you. Secondly, calling people ""nonsensical" is a personal attack. Thirdly, warning you on your talk page for said personal attack and for edit-warring is not harassment. Fourthly, a refusal to accept your WP:OWNERSHIP issues and ignorance of WP:BRD policy is not "disruptive editing". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You posted on the talk page (with condescension and an inaccurate depiction of what the lead is) after you removed notable content twice, which is disruptive and for which you have no WP:PAG basis. Your unconstructive edits go against the purpose of Wikipedia, and against the goal of growing articles to WP:GA and WP:FA standards. If a newbie was doing what you're doing, their edits would be called vandalism.
    My edit summary clearly says "nonsensical, unconstructive edit warring". And once again, your nonsense accusations, now of WP:OWN, are a projection of what your behavior is. You're being disingenuous at best. Here's another example of how your behavior disrupts what we're editing WP for: I've been working on another article, improving it to nominate it for WP:FL and I've had to stop to my work on it to tend to your disruption on the article in question, to your harassment on my talk page, and forced to make a report here which I now have to waste more time on responding. Lapadite (talk) Lapadite (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to update that the page has been fully locked now. A♭m (Ring!) (Notes) 07:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. And I think it needs to be said that this isn't a content dispute. This is a report on Krimuk2.0's pattern of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing, being combative and unwilling to compromise or engage in collaborative discussion. I specifically asked them on the talk page to "discuss on the talk page what specifically you think shouldn't be in the lead". Which they ignored, and continued removing notable content from the lead. Lapadite (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never seen an editor throw this much of a tantrum because "their" version was challenged and they were asked to maintain WP:STATUSQUO while other editors can chime in. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments sound like you're very well-practiced in distracting from your behavior issues on WP and in baiting others into your projections and false characterizations. Think again if you think that'll work on me. Lapadite (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Knock it off. This is just antagonistic and not helping your report. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like both parties are edit warring and are largely ignoring the advice in WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. I'm also concerned about ownership behavior from Lapadite on the article, the aggressive user talk page warnings from Krimuk2.0, and this ANI report which seems retaliatory based on the timing and progression of the dispute. To be clear, edit warring has been an ongoing issue for Krimuk2.0, but it still seems like this could have been avoided and previous blocks don't grant a carte blanche to refuse collaboration. I fully protected the article due to the edit warring, but after reading this exchange, I'm less certain that protecting the article is the best option here. I would generally recommend dispute resolution for this type of disagreement, but we might be past that point. It would have been better if both parties had stepped away from the dispute to take a break long before now. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, ownership behavior based on what exactly? My reverting his deletion of multiple sentences of notable career content from the lead, including the subject (who is a producer) having produced a notable film for which she received major coverage? Any editor would revert such an unconstructive edit. Or, ownership behavior based on asking Krimuk2.0 on the talk page to discuss and say what he thinks shouldn't be on the lead instead of continuously disrupting the article, which he ignored? Those are the two things I did pertaining to article. So, it escapes me how those two actions could possibly amount to "ownership" behavior. My reverting his multiple baseless deletions several times did further contribute to the edit warring, and my mistake for that; at the same time, removing such vandalism-like edits from an IP user would be seen as a proper response to it.
    Is improving an article to bring it to at least a GA quality and disliking Krimuk2.0's blatantly unconstructive WP guideline-violating edits - which he seems to have a history of getting away with - that impede article progress, a problem? That notion seems antithetical to WP:HERE. I think calling my ordinary response to disruptive edits from Krimuk2.0 "ownership" is an inaccurate characterization, one conveniently promoted here by Krimuk2.0 as his behavior, a long pattern that didn't pop up now, is questioned. Krimuk2.0 has shown in those edits, on the article's talk page, on on my talk page, and here that, apart from his combative attitude and deceptive argumentations, he himself has determined that his recent disruptive edits must now be the "status quo" (the phrase he used here), discussion and compromise be dammed; that and his lack of discussion displays ownership behavior. That's why I mentioned his immediately disingenuous comments and his projecting accusations that are his own behaviors as a distraction from the problems he starts and perpetuates, which he is admittedly effective at. Lapadite (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    aggressive user talk page warnings Daniel Quinlan, I'm not sure I agree that dropping a 3RR warning on an editor's page should be categorized as aggressive. Reports at WP:ANEW are frequently rejected if there was no 3RR warning given, so being sure to drop a warning is an encouraged behavior by the community (from my perspective). Even more so when things are heated, and even experienced users can lose track of their reversions and cross the brightline. I wouldn't hold that against Krimuk2.0, though YMMV on the second warning. Grandpallama (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking a second look at this, to put static warning templates on an experienced user's talk page, which was what Krimuk had been doing, is not only helpless as it violates WP:DTR, but a great way to get under another user's skin, which from then on the post was created. I hope he finds a way to change that approach, or risk getting banned. A♭m (Ring!) (Notes) 10:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't ban editors for using warning templates, and you can't "violate" an essay. That's not a helpful suggestion. Grandpallama (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I'm on Krimuk2.0's side, considering comments made by the proposer (Lapadite) and the "accusations" made by Lapadite, I'm on Krimuk's side, again, It's still wrong to remove content from the lead, so the edit was rightfully reverted, but other than that, Krimuk was the bystander. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The histrionics here and the ranting at the article talkpage point to Lapadite as the issue. Krimuk started a talkpage discussion and Lapadite's participation was to just rage. This ANI filing (which does look incredibly retaliatory) is largely making an argument based on past behavior from Krimuk rather than anything in this incident. If anything, the exchange here reinforces a pretty real ownership problem. Grandpallama (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds a like when a bud sticks up for a bud regardless of what the bud does. I genuinely chuckled at how comically bad-faith and false your comment is against the person who dared report Krimuk for multiple unconstructive behaviors. Talk about histrionics. That you having nothing to say on Krimuk's several recent offenses, which are related to his past ones as he clearly did not learn from being repeatedly warned and blocked, speaks volumes. In truth, your comment implies you condone or at least excuse Krimuk's behavior and in turn berate the person who reported it, which is what ANI is for. Contrary to your categorically false allegation, I reported his behavior after his multiple disruptive content removals, after his lack of discussion, and after his harassing me on my talk. I'm sure you know the purpose of ANI is to report such behaviors. It's up to admins what they do with it. Lapadite (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    categorically false allegation Not sure which of my observations is the "allegation" referenced here, but they all look pretty accurate to me.
    Sounds a like when a bud sticks up for a bud regardless of what the bud does. I'm not aware if I've ever interacted with Krimuk, so that's some crazy bad faith.
    multiple disruptive content removals You mean the removals they explained in their edit summaries, and which they started a talkpage discussion about?
    after his lack of discussion Again, Krimuk started a talkpage discussion, where, by my count of posts, they have participated more than you have.
    harassing me on my talk Placing two justified warning templates about your behavior does not constitute WP:HARASSMENT.
    the purpose of ANI is to report such behaviors At ANI, the OP's behavior is open to just as much scrutiny as any reported party's.
    Just from your interactions here, I'm ready to propose sanctions. At the very least, you need a pageblock from Aubrey Plaza and some stern warnings about personalizing disagreements and attacking other editors. Grandpallama (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said sounds like, literally, not "this is". Your comments here are very angry and accusatory toward someone you've never interacted with, I've never even seen your username, so it very much sounds like you having a bone to pick due to the report. Your comment about me was and continues to be blatantly bad-faith, to put it mildly, perhaps sounding worse than Krimuk's. That you think you can and should get away with bad-faith accusations and not receive a response defending myself from that is beyond me. There has been disagreement here, yet, aside from the user reported, you're the only one here who's made such incisively bad-faith comments toward me.
    Also, my comment on that article's talk page clearly asks Krimuk to engage in discussion and even involve related wikiprojects, and it's clear he ignored it and continued his behavior. It's also clear that you chose to mischaracterizing everything against me and in favor of Krimuk, who btw not once even acknowledged his behavior much less apologized for it. I'm here only to help improve WP articles, not be dragged into distracting, disruptive issues. I'd appreciate it if you cooled it down, your attitude from the jump is incredibly hostile. Lapadite (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never even seen your username, so it very much sounds like you having a bone to pick due to the report I'm an uninvolved editor at ANI, commenting on the behavior I see. Why does it matter if you've seen my username? Why do you keep personalizing comments?
    bad-faith accusations That's the second time you've claimed I made an "allegation" or "accusation", and for the second time, I'll ask what you're talking about.
    my comment on that article's talk page clearly asks Krimuk to engage in discussion Except your comments there are not content-based, good-faith attempts at discussing content. They are a bunch of behavioral accusations. This is not trying to get Krimuk to talk to you: "And yes, for as long as you keep deliberately disrupting an article and being combative and unwilling to listen, I'll suggest you focus your energy on WP on being constructive, as opposed to continuing your pattern of forceful disruption that's wearing thin."
    he ignored it and continued his behavior The page was blocked from editing before you made that comment. How, exactly, is he ignoring it or continuing behavior? Why do you keep making claims like this?
    I'd appreciate it if you cooled it down, your attitude from the jump is incredibly hostile. I strongly recommend you re-read the rhetoric you have used throughout your comments here, especially in light of the fact that you keep claiming Krimuk2.0 is projecting their behavior onto others. Grandpallama (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The page was blocked from editing before you made that comment. Again, false. My initial comment asking for discussion engagement was at 21:48, July 30, 2024, and the article was locked at 07:14, July 31, 2024. I'm not going to further waste my limited volunteer time here going to through more edit histories between the article, talk page, my talk; anyone who wants to can verify what I've said here by checking them and the time stamps. My comment on the talk page is comprehensive, clearly addressing the reasons his repeated removal of notable content is incorrect, not supported by PAGs, disruptive and affects the expansion goal of an article, any article, toward at least GA-level quality, and asks for discussion with "discuss on the talk page what specifically you think shouldn't be in the lead. If you want, we can involve WP:ACTOR, WP:WPBIO". Your hostile, bad-faith comments on me from the jump are plainly seen, no need to quote them again and contribute to more redundant text to the page. I'm genuinely not interested in being goaded me into your level of attitude here or wild provocations like you calling for "sanctions" and whatnot cause I dared report Krimuk's behavior and respond to/defend myself against your hostility and false accusations, for which you act like you have carte blanche while the person responding to your hostility is at fault. My reporting Krimuk, my expansion of that article, your support of Krimuk and his removal of content and disruptive behavior including on my talk page, or all the above, whatever it is that motivated your pointed anger toward me, my ask was for you to cool down your hostility. If as you say, the comments of others on a report are scrutinized and potentially acted on, then I suppose that includes your own. Yes, appreciate it if you'd cool your wrath, false accusations and attempts to derail and muddle what was merely a report on someone's recent repeatedly disruptive behaviors, who evidently has a long and recent history of such. Lapadite (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I wasn't talking about your "initial" comment. I was referring to the one in which you talked about seeking outside help--specifically a Wikiproject--which came post-lock, exactly as I stated. This ongoing misrepresentation is a problem. Grandpallama (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given this string of bad-faith personal attacks, Lapadite needs at minimum a block from Aubrey Plaza (and perhaps a topic ban around her) and a strict warning about WP:NPA. If this behavior continues, a site block may be necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody's covering themselves in glory here. We have two people edit-warring to restore their preferred version and not really talking to one another about the situation. Sure, we have a few terse/angry talk page posts, but no one's trying to get anything done, they're just arguing past each other in a way that isn't going to achieve anything. Nobody's new here, but Lapadite has a clean block log and Krimuk2.0 does not.
      This appears to be a fairly clear-cut case of OWN from Lapadite, who has so far responded to every pushback with lengthy posts full of anger and accusations of bad faith. On the other hand, I think it's pretty fair to say that Krimuk2.0 was equally edit-warring, and he has a history of EW blocks going back to 2019 and as recently as December 2023, so it's not as if he doesn't know not to do that. Both parties should be sanctioned, although I'm not sure if short(ish) blocks in accordance with their history or a lengthy page block would be better. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lapadite may have a clean block log, but they've pulled this exact stunt before, multiple times, although it has been a while since the last instance. Each time, they were ignoring calls for consensus, each time they claimed the editor(s) disagreeing with them on content were disruptive and/or tendentious, each time Lapadite made a number of unfounded claims, each time Lapadite personalized the disagreements in ways that merited warnings, each time Lapadite was met with multiple editors pointing out there was a problem with Lapadite's approach, each time Lapadite lashed out with lengthy and personalized attacks on anyone who disagreed with them.
      First trip to ANI, where consensus moved against them pretty quickly, resulting in bad-faith assumptions casually thrown around about editors (then and now) in good standing: "clearly this is just an issue of bias".
      Second trip to seek a TBAN against someone with whom Lapadite had a content disagreement, with the usual accusations of tendentious editing, disruption, lack of collaboration, etc., all laid out in bad-faith walls of text full of personalized commentary and unsubstantiated accusations of lying that exhausted participants until it was mercy-closed. Note that this was also an article about a Hollywood actress.
      A failed 3RR report with false claims about the editing history
      Another absolutely absurd trip to ANI about another Hollywood actress, this time to accuse All Hallow's Wraith of disruption and BLP violations for removing obviously incorrect material. This filing was so ridiculous (the content they edit warred over boggles the mind), and Lapadite's refusal to let it go so extreme, that they narrowly avoided a block for disruption from Drmies.
      Their most recent trip to ANI, again about a performer, which resulted in a boomerang warning about Lapadite's inability to collaborate constructively and their repeated personal attacks and stirring up of drama. Again, they were lucky to avoid a boomerang block
      God have mercy on your soul if you're willing to read through all that, but it tells a pretty clear tale about an editor who refuses to collaborate and who is determined to win arguments. If we're talking about the history of editing for both users, Krimuk may have been blocked in the past for edit warring, but in this case they didn't even cross 3RR. Lapadite, however, has not only done the same amount of edit warring at Aubrey Plaza, but has also demonstrated an almost carbon copy of every single aspect of the problematic editing behavior they've been repeatedly warned about in the past. They need a pageblock from Aubrey Plaza, and clearly something more--I'd recommend a logged final warning about personal attacks, or maybe a TBAN from BLPs (since that appears to be the locus of their disputes). Grandpallama (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you've been doing is a, frankly, contemptible witch hunt to character assassinate (in turn, as you indicated, try to ban) an editor for coming to ANI about Krimuk's recent behavior. WP's the only place you get away with your hostile crusade without being read the full honest truth. That's exactly the kind of, and one of many, issues countless editors have complained about on WP over the years and that the media has written about (here's one of them). Your comment on me is plainly false; not mischaracterization, a downright lie that you're dead set on framing me with; both an undue persistent attack and a blatant manipulation of an ANI that should be at least called into question. All because I didn't ignore and reverted (as anyone would if it was an IP user) the unconstructive edit Krimuk repeatedly forced on a stable article where no other editor had removed notable content from, and because I didn't ignore his further behavior. All because – after I tried to discuss, explain, ask for reasons and collaborative engagement suggesting wikiprojects (all of which he ignored then) – I then went to ANI about his disruptive and WP:OWN behavior forcing his revision (he called his "status quo") that depleted a stable lead of important content (and his edit summary here declaring the article "would fail GA" is telling). Plus, he aggressively going at my talk page; I didn't go to his.
    • This, and your crusade in general, speaks volumes. I've collaborated with many editors many times on various article over the 10+ years I've been here. You trying to use a few, old temporary issues, which everyone's had along the way, that were resolved, to promote a blanket, distorted notion about my existence and decade-long work here is just nasty, particularly combined with your previous attempts here. I've edited various types of articles across bios, films, music, art, anything entertainment in general, and sometimes science stuff I find interesting or that needs some copy editing. I've also done copy editing at others' request, such as this. One of my biggest collaborations is the Carol articles, primarily with Pyxis Solitary. Notice how I don't ping her, or any of the many editors I've collaborated with and had positive discussions with over the years, to drag them into this nonsense so they can advocate for me; the inverse of which you're doing by pinging the editors that were part of those few very old reports for your purpose of dragging them here to help you pile on your witch-hunt. That I have to contribute more text to your muddling/derailing of this ANI just to defend myself against your deceitful, falsehoods-ridden, character assassinating witch hunt is unfortunate. Apologies to others who have to go through much more text here, as I know I'd personally get exhausted from it. Lapadite (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Propose indef for User:Lapadite For Battleground Mentality as evidenced above in this thread and the other threads presented by Grnadpallama. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef for User:Lapadite support an indef as the above thread confirms to me that the editor is incapable of engaging with others in good faith. The tirade directed at GrandPallama was beyond the pale of acceptability.--Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose an indefinite block of Lapadite. Propose a one week block minimum instead. I think Grandpallama pulling 4 ANI requests from 2015 and one from 2018 is a bit deceptive to try to paint a picture of ongoing or recurrent violations of WP:RULES which by Grandpallama's own admission never lead to blocks. However Lapadite went ahead and shot himself in the foot with this diff, a clear violation of WP:NPA along with a few other borderline comments in this report. An experienced editor should know better than to keep replying when they are already well past their boiling point. Hopefully this user will take time to cool off, maybe read WP:DR more closely, realize there are other ways of resolving content disputes and go back to productive edits like he has done in the past decade.Yvan Part (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I also oppose an indef, but I'll explain why those ANI reports are there, since you think they're an attempt to build a "deceptive" picture. Lapadite sailed in with false claims of WP:HARASSMENT (Krimuk put two warning templates on their talkpage), and claims that Krimuk was being disruptive--to the degree that they said Krimuk's edits constituted WP:VANDALISM (for reverting Lapadite and expecting them to follow WP:BRD), and a bunch of claims about Krimuk's extensive history of blocks for edit warring and disruption. Have you looked at Krimuk's block log? Because there are multiple entries there, yes, but a grand total of two actual blocks; the others are all errors and error corrections. Meanwhile, Lapadite does have a clear history of weaponizing ANI to seek sanctions against other editors with whom they have content disputes, and they have a clear history of personalizing those disputes and indiscriminately flinging personal attacks at anyone who has disagreed with them (both the people they report and uninvolved editors who weigh in), and they have a clear history of engaging in misrepresentation in those ANI filings. The point of providing those past incidents is to recognize that we should have zero tolerance for that behavior this time. The fact that they evaded sanctions and blocks in those instances was predicated on "maybe they didn't realize, so we'll give them another chance"; it's not an argument that the community didn't think the behavior was blockable. Grandpallama (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I will not respond to everything to keep it short but my main point that it was mostly 9 years ago. The user learned better after 2015 and I don't think two abusive ANI requests (including this one) in 8 years is that much overstepping the line even if worth a temporary block. I do not think Krimuk has done anything actionable in this case. Yvan Part (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Per Yvan Part. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IP address expressing inappropriate behavior:

    Hi, I would like to report this IP address: 2601:984:201:7E90:793E:62CC:7267:1A53, for asking me to come to their house on the MrBeast Burger talk page. This is very inappropriate and I would like them banned. Thank you. HiGuys69420 (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I left the IP a warning on their talk page. This seems like run of the mill vandalism. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 14:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking further into the issue, HiGuys69420's usage of "Chris’s kiddie dog and Chris’s Creaming and Dreaming milkshake" is worrying, as my research shows me this is apparently a hoax spread to attack a living person. I've deleted the topic at the talk page and ask HiGuys69420 to be more careful when it comes to BLPs. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 15:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The pagehist at Escape Room (2019 film) also seems to be an issue where OP refuses to use the talk page and is using edit summaries to argue, and just a quick contrib scan is showing someone who doesn't want to collaborate well or show basic respect to other editors. HiGuys, I would highly suggest not calling another editor 'dude' in the future. Nate • (chatter) 16:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was using the talk page but the guy didn’t reply HiGuys69420 (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then notify them on their own talk page. And the IP was clearly a drive-by that just needed a simple reversion. Nate • (chatter) 16:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw it on twitter and thought it was real HiGuys69420 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't do that again in the future. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 16:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I saw it on Twitter and thought it was real" is a statement that beautifully summarises our day and age. Ostalgia (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    sigh. Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That IP should remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:July2806

    July2806 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Has made a lot of uniscussed moves and reverted anyone who reverted them per WP:RMUM AlexBobCharles (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @AlexBobCharles: I'm not seeing where they've move-warred, can you share a particular page where this has been a problem? Elli (talk | contribs) 23:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's Special:Redirect/logid/163506984 and Special:Redirect/logid/163508061, for one. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Yeah that's certainly not great and I'm not confident in their competence regarding moves generally (they have moved Interim Government of Mohammad Mokhber four times in recent days). Given this I have WP:PBLOCKed them from making page moves as a preventative measure. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent edit warring and possible conflict of interest by User:Earthh

    Earthh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Long history (for over a decade now) of removal of sourced content and edit warring at Mr. Nobody (film)‎, creating an alternative reality where that film was a hit and persistently removing sourced content that says the film was a box office flop, despite the film's own director having called it a financial failure, which is sourced in the article. They even created a new rule and keep removing the film's box office gross because they claim (without a source) that "the film was released on streaming services in most countries", but it was released theatrically in all of its production countries and it still flopped in all of them and everywhere else. They seem to act like a publicist (which falls under WP:COI) by removing even the slightest negative sourced content about Jared Leto and any article related to him, most notably when they claimed that Leto's performances in Suicide Squad and Morbius were acclaimed by critics despite several sources saying the opposite, see this, this, this, this, this, this and this. User has argued with several editors and received several warnings from different editors about their edit warrings throughout the years, but nothing happens to them and they keep removing sourced content that goes against their personal preference and adding false information because they refuse to accept facts. In their latest edit warring, they not only removed the box office gross, but also the film's distributors from the infobox (which were sourced) and added a new one that has no source and wasn't the distributor in any of the film's production countries, which they had originally added on July 2, 2024 without a source and without any explanation. Zoolver (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You are required to notify User:Earthh of your complaint. I'm also not seeing where you have attempted to discuss this with Earthh, either on the talk pages of the articles you cite, or on their own talk page. Ravenswing 22:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified them on their talk page AlexBobCharles (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a blackout in my neighbourhood yesterday right after I sent my report, so I couldn't left the message notifying Earthh, but fortunately @AlexBobCharles: did that already (thank you!). And I honestly have no desire to waste my time with an editor who refuses to accept facts no matter how many discussions several people have had with them for over a decade to try and make them understand that they're wrong and should stop removing sourced content and replacing them with false information. I'm quite sure that this report won't go anywhere again as this is not even the first time that this user is reported for the same behavior. Zoolver (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate behavior by Zanbarg

    I want to report @Zanbarg: for inappropriate behavior. First, the editor is exhibiting ownership of content.[9][10] Second, the editor is exhibiting this kind of attitude in user talk pages.[11][12][13] I've directly told the editor to stop harassing me in my talk page but they won't leave my talk page, and asking me to be friends with them.[14][15][16] Third, the editor has been adding poorly sourced "episode summaries". The references don't line up to the episode summaries posted by the editor. I've brought up the issue in the article's talk page.[17] The editor simply reverted their edit back into the article.[18]Hotwiki (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion and ongoing disruption at List of video games with LGBT characters

    I made a previous report about this only a month ago, and to no one's surprise, the moment protection expired, the same vandal immediately resumed doing the exact same thing ([19] [20]), not even trying to hide that they're the same person (note that they are once again using the name of a Xenoblade character for their account like last time). Given this seems unlikely to stop, I would like to request either permanent or much longer-lasting protection for the page (and potentially its two subpages) to prevent this from continuing. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging @Canterbury Tail: and @Daniel Case:, who were responsible for the previous block and protection. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Protected again for a month. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Much obliged. In the meantime, can someone else take care of Ontos30 for block evasion, please? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef'ed. DMacks (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Goodymeraj, #WPWP2024 entrant

    User is taking part in the Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2024 competition, where whoever adds the most images to articles before August 31 wins a prize. They had a few messages about inappropriate and off-topic additions earlier in the month and after being reported to the competition organiser User:Reading Beans were told by them to "Please, desist from adding images for the #WPWP2024."

    They've decided to keep going, though, and yesterday returned to add an unrelated photo to the psychic cold reading article of some people performing the script of a play cold (because the Commons picture description uses the phrase "cold reading").

    Given that the competition runs for another month, and runs every year (Goodymeraj also took part in 2023), and that the user isn't responding on their talk page, this may merit a block to at least get their attention. Belbury (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ah, the annual WPWP image spamming problem. I've just removed another one as well. Not all their additions are bad - indeed, most of the ones this morning were actually fine - but it is sometimes really random what they're adding (the image of a traffic junction for Rosmalen Grass Court Championships was spectacular). I can understand why mass-reverting might be tempting, as User:FMSky did this morning, but can we at least look at them, as some of those were actually OK as well? I've just reverted a couple to put the image back in. As to what we actually do here, I'm open to suggestions. Black Kite (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      They're possibly just searching Commons for the article title, and using any result that seems to fit. That can often be helpful, but of the eleven new images that they've added to articles in the past few days, five have since been reverted for not actually depicting the article subject. That's a poor success rate.
      If the user can't see their talk pages (a competition organiser asked them to write fuller captions a while ago but they haven't taken this advice) or speak English well enough to understand what's being posted there, they may not realise that there is a problem. Belbury (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Looking at recent errors the same images were being used on these subjects' Wikidata entries, so the user may just be uncritically repeating mistakes that have been made on Wikidata (either taking the images from there directly, or from a Commons image search that takes the incorrect Wikidata entry into account). Belbury (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has a repeated pattern of disruptive behaviour and clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. There are repeated warnings from editors and myself. This user has also been reported to administrators in the Igbo Wikipedia and also on Meta. I would support a block if proposed. Best, Reading Beans 09:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be worth noting that I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations for this last year based on the sum of the prize pot, the leaderboard, and the amount of time it took me (a very experienced technical and content editor with a lot of scripts and a decent multi-monitor computer setup) to add images. I am a pretty damn fast editor, but the minimum amount of time it took me to find and add an illustration meant that I would have been far at the bottom of the class unless I was adding images as a full-time job. jp×g🗯️ 09:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or unless you didn't care whether the image was relevant (the subject of this thread added eleven images in 8 minutes yesterday, most of which were useless). Black Kite (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, right -- it was basically set up so that doing this was the only reasonable way of competing . jp×g🗯️ 10:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Reading Beans above, this is a WP:NOTHERE user who is not responding to questions. If a partial block can prevent the user from adding any images, that could be sufficient. Otherwise, a block for disruption is in the interest of the encyclopedia.Dialectric (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a competition doomed to fail, alongside competitions about creating the most articles possible. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment over Kevin McSheehan article

    Kevin McSheehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    So I edited Kevin McSheehan, I cut some bad sourcing, it looked a bit shaky for notability and I tagged it accordingly.

    Since then I've been receiving threat messages by email and text and a phone call this morning (my phone number is public), purporting to be from the article subject, demanding I revert the article!

    (The threats have been forwarded to the arbcom and by them to WMF.)

    Joe-jobs exist, so I'm not going to state it's really Mr. McSheehan. But whoever it is is annoying and persistent.

    I'm not worried for myself, but other editors should probably be aware that touching this article might lead to being annoyed by a foolish person.

    I have no interest in editing the article further, but it could probably do with more (and experienced) eyes on it - David Gerard (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For removing this trash cite that went to the guy's own website and a patent database? Christ. Can't have shit in Cincinnati I guess. jp×g🗯️ 10:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    oh, the article's author who had like a handful of edits between 2009 and now uploaded the image of the guy in the article and tagged it "own work", and also bro has a bunch of tough guy posts on twitter about how he could kick my ass if i watch anime that he locked replies to followers only. Hell yeah dude. True 500 IQ four-dimensional chess if true 😂😂 jp×g🗯️ 11:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Raykoosi0

    Raykoosi0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Classical WP:NOTHERE WP:TENDENTIOUS user.

    Personal attack for not getting allowed to alter sourced information; "Bro, stop changing Kurdish history. That's why no Kurds like being called Iranian. Why do you do that to Kurds? We are cousins by blood. Racist!"

    Severe WP:COMPETENCE issues. Eg here [21] when I listed several policies for them to read after they ranted about their personal crusade, they replied; "Sir, are you a robot or a human? I’m talking in human language, so stop switching to robot mode." There is also this one here [22], where they still don't understand that they have to reach WP:CONSENSUS and use WP:RS, not Reddit nor their personal opinion.

    Edit warring and/or removal/alteration of sourced information because it clashes with their POV;

    They have already openly declared their intentions on this site a few times, which is basically to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS [33] [34]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. You misunderstood the topic. I was a Peshmerga fighting in that battle, and I was there. I know this topic is very sensitive and needs more work and the Reddit link was for you, not for the Wikipedia page. I was trying to make you understand the topic, and the reversal you did regarding the Rawwadids was against reality. I added reliable sources without changing the topic or removing the sources. It seems you are trying to engage in an edit war with me, which makes me want to leave Wikipedia. I have studied Middle Eastern history and am a professional in this topic. I can speak all the main languages of the Middle East, which allows me to conduct extensive research on these topics. I hope you stop the edit war with me. I have read all the Wikipedia rules you sent yesterday, and now I understand them better. This is why you shouldn't treat me as the same person. I hope you understand. Raykoosi0 (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was a Peshmerga fighting in that battle, and I was there.
    Even if that's true, Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not your personal opinion/deduction.
    I was trying to make you understand the topic
    I don't need to "understand" anything from you nor Reddit. You are not scholars.
    the reversal you did regarding the Rawwadids was against reality.
    Again, Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not your personal opinion/deduction.
    It seems you are trying to engage in an edit war with me, which makes me want to leave Wikipedia.
    Yet you have been reverted by multiple users by now [35] [36] [37].
    I have studied Middle Eastern history and am a professional in this topic. I can speak all the main languages of the Middle East, which allows me to conduct extensive research on these topics.
    Again, Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not your personal opinion/deduction.
    I have read all the Wikipedia rules you sent yesterday, and now I understand them better.
    Clearly not per your comment here and disruptive edit today which was reverted by me [38]. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the reliable sources that I added? I wrote them, and most of them were far from my opinion and included sources like Iranica and other reliable sources.But you still removed my chanfe it? Raykoosi0 (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed my changes. Raykoosi0 (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I assume you're referring to this [39]. So altering sourced information is okay as long as you also add sourced information? Heck, you even cherrypicked that Iranica citation [40], because it literally states that the Rawadids were of originally Arab stock right above the bit about Ibn Khallikan/Ebn Ḵallekān, and you tried to dispute that in the article. https://kurdshop.net/ is also not WP:RS, and you also even added unsourced info in that diff. So much for reading the rules. You are WP:NOTHERE, and I won't entertain your comments anymore. I'll wait for an admin verdict. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Why is it cherry-picked when I added both opinions that are in Iranica? Which one was missing on the Wikipedia page? You literally tried to hide the truth. I don’t know the reason; I hope it’s not related to hate. You did the same to another person who was trying to add the second opinion, but you removed it. [This one] Raykoosi0 (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Why is it cherry-picked when I added both opinions that are in Iranica?
      Expect that there are not "both opinions". Perhaps you should spend more time reading the source than Reddit, this is what it starts with; "RAWWADIDS (Ar. Rawwādiya, Rawādiya), a family of Arab descent that controlled Tabriz and north-eastern Azerbaijan in the late 8th and early 9th centuries. Their Kurdicized descendants ruled over Azerbaijan and parts of Armenia in the second half of the 10th and much of the 11th century."
      I don’t know the reason; I hope it’s not related to hate.
      Once again suggesting that I am racist, despite you being reverted [41] and warned [42] by an admin for calling me a racist and whatnot. More proof that you are WP:NOTHERE.
      You did the same to another person who was trying to add the second opinion, but you removed it. [This one]
      More dishonesty. The reason for my revert is explained here [43]. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is my last time addressing this topic, and I will leave it to the admins. I didn’t say you are racist in the previous conversation; I just said I hope it’s not associated with hate. How is this the same? Please stop associating today with my previous conversation, as I mentioned I hadn’t read the rules before.
      "I don't need to "understand" anything from you nor Reddit. You are not scholars."
      Your responses feel quite harsh. Saying you won’t try to understand me just because I’m not a scholar makes it seem like you see yourself as superior to others.
      And again, you ignored this and cherry-picked only the first part of Iranica:
      The Rawwadids are described by Ebn Ḵallekān (d. 681/1282) as a branch of the Haḏbāni Kurds, and Ebn al-Aṯir (XI, p. 341) says the Rawwadids were “the most noble of the Kurds.” Raykoosi0 (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is my last time addressing this topic, and I will leave it to the admins. I didn’t say you are racist in the previous conversation; I just said I hope it’s not associated with hate. How is this the same? Please stop associating today with my previous conversation, as I mentioned I hadn’t read the rules before.
      Drop the act. You were indicating that I was hating Kurds. If thats not racism then what is it?
      Your responses feel quite harsh. Saying you won’t try to understand me just because I’m not a scholar makes it seem like you see yourself as superior to others.
      Im sorry for ruining your scholar roleplaying, but as youve been told countless times, Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not you and Reddit. If anything, it is you that think you are superior since you think we have to follow your words rather than that of WP:RS.
      And again, you ignored this and cherry-picked only the first part of Iranica: The Rawwadids are described by Ebn Ḵallekān (d. 681/1282) as a branch of the Haḏbāni Kurds, and Ebn al-Aṯir (XI, p. 341) says the Rawwadids were “the most noble of the Kurds.”
      The author (Peacock) is simply mentioning their reports, nothing more. He still ultimately introduces them as Kurdificed Arabs. You boast so much about your skills yet you cant even understand a simple Enclyopedia article. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked Raykoosi0 for 24 hours because of violations of WP:GS/KURD's extended-confirmed restriction, which have continued after a warning. I made the block partial so that they could continue to participate in this discussion. The block is not directly related to the main substance of this complaint, and it shouldn't be considered to have resolved the issue here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool Raykoosi0 (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Racist comments by IP user

    Deeply offensive comment with racist slurs left by 212.39.89.136, here. Might need an oversight (and an IP block). Why is the slur (pajeet) not on the blacklist already? See usernames and comments containing it extant on enwiki. Gotitbro (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Another admin can revdelete it if they wish but a block? That edit was made in May and the IP hasn't edited since.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the filter: I recommend posting a suggestion at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard in order to add it to a filter, possibly Special:AbuseFilter/384. Remsense诉 13:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And another one and another one and another one/again, and another one. Gotitbro (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all stale, Gottibro. Feel free to redact/remove the messages containing the offending word, but there is no point in blocking IPs for months old edits. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 14:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ubaldo Pfannerstill warning users for making constructive edits, this is an LTA that I can't remember.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ubaldo_Pfannerstill Title says it all. Obvious DUCK of another user who recently got indeffed for the same thing. Needs to be indeffed. Jdcomix (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This would likely be a sock of Hamish Ross. Schazjmd (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the one. Jdcomix (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ILoveDenpaMen48

    Resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    ILoveDenpaMen48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Apparently sharing their account and/or not here to build an encyclopedia; [44]; [45]. Note edit summary here, alsoAndy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am, it's just that my sister sometimes gets into my phone without permission. I made sure she is banned from my phone. ILoveDenpaMen48 (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked by Bbb23 as a WP:COMPROMISED account. --Yamla (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Their excuse was technically considered WP:LITTLEBROTHER, to nobody's surprise. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Tridaspe

    Tridaspe is an obvious duck of User:Ergobus who mass-uploaded a bunch of copyrighted Plants vs Zombies images. Someone might want to nuke them. C F A 💬 20:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm trying nuke them, but I think there's an issue with the mass delete script. It's just hanging, then I get the error %error_body_content%.-- Ponyobons mots 20:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to have resolved itself despite the error message. I nuked Alcho0's uploads as well.-- Ponyobons mots 20:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we were running into each other. I was trying to nuke the files and got the same error. -- Whpq (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So what are we doing about that IP

    You know the one, they're very unhappy that they got blocked so they're spamming the same copy pasted rambling on a variety of project space pages. Right now they're constantly recreating Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/talk/talk with the same message. (You might want to salt that.)

    I can't even tell you what their first IP was because they're going through them faster than I can keep up, but their latest is 211.227.207.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), blocked by PhilKnight. They've also edited under 125.136.25.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 14.40.21.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and 112.167.255.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). — Czello (music) 21:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, I couldn't find another thread on this but if there is one just close this. I promise I won't be offended. — Czello (music) 21:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my infinite wisdom I preemptively added Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/talk/talk/talk to my watchlist, and sure enough he's moved to this one now under 119.202.79.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). — Czello (music) 21:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on behaviour, not CU technical data, this is MidAtlanticBaby. I'm not sure what can be done, frankly. They are using a significant variety of proxy/vpn IP addresses which we can block once they turn up. And we can protect the target of the vandalism. But then they just move on. I suppose some filters might work, but that's beyond my ability. And likely, they'll just change the specific vandalism. --Yamla (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Spur.us identifies the IP addresses as PROXYRACK_PROXY/VPNGATE_VPN, by the way. At least, all the ones I've seen. --Yamla (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This might spill the beans a bit, but how about we don't protect pages where it's not creating an active disruption? Last night it was AIV, they were basically self reporting. Better than chasing them around. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    + all the 1s. —Cryptic 22:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, going to expand on this a little. This person is posting essentially the same rant over and over again. He clearly doesn't care where he's posting it. Salting and title-blacklisting aren't just the wrong tools for this job; they're actively harmful. Here's a handy corpus of edits for somebody who already knows how to use the very-obviously-right tool for this job; I'm too distracted in RL right now to learn its grammar, and this strikes me as a singularly bad case to try and learn it for anyway. —Cryptic 23:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering part of the rant he's posting contains a death threat... —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that was gone too far. I don't think it's even allowed on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. PEPSI697 (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can add filters to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. They should probably be removed after a while, when the disruption dies down. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    for about 2 months a month and a half (checked the block log again) MAB was doing this exact same thing on the Discord server (creating new socks to spam the same message over and over again), but they've moved onto focusing on ANI to "appeal" their g-lock. thankfully they're extremely easy to spot. at least it's easier to keep track of now? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an admin, but frankly I'm also at a loss as to what we can do. I actually wouldn't mind letting AIV go considering they're basically self reporting like SFR said. Jdcomix (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely it's not exactly an existential case yet: haven't you ever kept up a new hobby for a week and then got bored soon after? I would posit WP:DONTFEED likely remains the ideal tact to take for everyone's brains. Remsense诉 22:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the thing is it hasn't been a week; it's been a month and a half of almost nonstop trolling on Discord and now on here. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh shoot, I had no idea about the prior work. That exactly lines up with the period I happened not to be in the Discord, so I was unaware. Right, things make more sense now, thank you. Remsense诉 22:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    all good - thankfully i happen to be unemployed right now so i've been probably way too active on discord. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunate note: I've been getting constant alerts about this guy spamming his childish nonsense everywhere; I really hope we can put an end to all this. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an admin, but I did notice these multiple IP addresses spamming the same topic here at ANI. Per WP:BE, I could clearly see it was User:MidAtlanticBaby. However, I did revert their spam twice here and wanted to ask the same thing here at ANI too, like they were even edit warring here too. Admins had to semi-protect this Project page to stop that IP from keep adding that topic again and again. However, on 27 July 2024, I did notice this same user (as an IP) having a look at the revisions did the same thing. I was coincidentally there at the time of the spamming earlier on 1 August 2024. Unfortunately users Magnoila677 and NoobThreePointOh would of had constant alerts from notifications about this childish-like behaviour, and they didn't deserve it. Hopefully admins keep and eye out for any further incidents with that user (as an IP) constantly spamming and let's hope things start to settle down over the next few weeks. PEPSI697 (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notification of mentions can be turned off in preferences, which Magnoila677 and NoobThreePointOh may find useful if they haven’t already done so. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, they could find them useful to turn off notifications of mentions. PEPSI697 (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally prefer to keep my mentions on, just in case someone else pings me for an urgent message, but I think I might do that until the attacking and ranting dies down. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely a good idea to keep nonfictions of mentions on when there is something urgent you need to reply on. Having them off while ranting and attacking from an IP is going on at the moment, that way, you wouldn't have so many notifications clogged up. PEPSI697 (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My user name is buried in that rant, so I get all those notifications (23 the other morning when I started looking at my watchlist), but I know who it is and it is very easy to dismiss the notifications, so no bother. I have tried to revert when I see a notification pop up, but someone else has always beat me to it. Block and protect as needed, and ignore him otherwise. Donald Albury 15:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could understand if they were doing it purely for the sake of spite, but it's an endless source of confusion to me that they seem to be... requesting a review of their block? An explanation? They have been given dozens of explanations of why you are not supposed to spend several months going berserk sending death threats to people, you do not have a right to do this, being mad online is not a valid reason to do this, and "I'll stop doing this" is not an unblock rationale that will ever be accepted, under any circumstances, by anybody; the previous several months of going berserk from hundreds of IP addresses was not simply falling on deaf ears, and the problem is not that they need to get the right person to take a closer look at their block and see that it was all a big mistake; it is impossible to imagine anything further from the truth and I would be willing to bet that literally every single administrator, bureaucrat, steward and functionary on the English Wikipedia active in the last six months has not only seen their rampage, but seen it multiple dozens of times, and this group holds a completely unanimous consensus that there is absolutely zero probability of the person being unblocked, ever, for any reason, not because they were editing articles about counties in Florida or whatever stupid thing it originally was, but because they have spent several months on an unhinged rampage sending death threats to like a dozen people and attempting to disrupt as many parts of the project as it's possible for them to access. jp×g🗯️ 07:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be possible to figure out exactly what IP ranges his VPN provider uses and hit the lot of them with long-term (1-2yr) proxyblocks? Considering we know he's using that VPN provider, his ranting includes death threats, and whac-a-mole only works as long as it takes him to change to a different IP, hitting the provider with as much rangeblocks as we can feasibly get away with might take the wind out of his sails or force him to waste time and money changing VPN providers. It's not like VPNs should be used to edit in the first place per longstanding consensus that MAB's behaviour puts a period on. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, there are only so many unblocked IP addresses, and it will only ever get harder, so eventually we will get to a point where they are having to spend two days or fifty dollars or whatever trying to find a fresh IP, post the wall of text, and have it automatically reverted and the IP blocked two seconds later. Well, whatever, I guess. jp×g🗯️ 08:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JPxG: I know you're an admin and probably know this stuff or Wikipedia help article, but I recommend seeing Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. PEPSI697 (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I've been doing. jp×g🗯️ 08:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the point you're making Many threats are empty, but leave that evaluation to Wikimedia Foundation staff? Lines can only be so bright: this is clearly just farce and nothing else, and I don't see the need to turn my brain off here because a bad-faith user has discovered the magic words that force us to freak out. Remsense诉 08:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I've just rollbacked their whinging, privately contacted admins to revdel it and whack the IP, and done little else to call attention to their temper tantrum. The thing about trolls is that they will fuck off and do something else once people quit taking them at face value and treat them as little more than background noise. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully agreed. Remsense诉 09:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What Jéské said ^ -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I contacted T&S on July 28th about this IP, and they said If the same comments are posted to any other venue, the T&S team should be able to handle them appropriately. However, if you or any other member of the community sees new threats, or the situation changes materially, please inform us at the earliest. GrayStorm(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.) 16:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it’s worth I’ve seen that insane rant on Reddit a few times. (I think like 6 to be honest). Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, I've watchlisted every page MAB has created, and no matter what, they have continuously done it again and again. I've turned off my mentions for now, but to me, I don't ever think MAB is going to give up. I've tried tagging his childish bullshit for deletion, but he just keeps creating a new page after about 5 minutes. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My technical skills in this area are non-existent, but wouldn't an edit filter be a possibility? The wording is almost identical every time. Cullen328 (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, though I assume that he might just try and find a loophole around the edit filter to continue ranting about us. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    they've done this in the discord; scrambling their messages to be nearly unrecognizable, using unicode fonts, and other shenanigans to get around automod. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think you probably even set it up to catch things that are substantially similar as well. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like a plagiarism checker or something. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm seriously hoping someone protects Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Administrators' noticeboard/2 from creation. Please please please. It keeps getting recreated over and over at least 50 times. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or just let them keep creating a page no one will see and isolate the disruption there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, maybe what I said was a bad idea. But of course I don't think he's going to stop anytime soon due to the large amount of proxies and VPNs he has at his disposal. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328, edit filter manager here. It's likely feasible, though I'm not an admin and can't see the revdel'ed history entries. On the other hand, ScottishFinnishRadish is right, though the need for constant revdel and deletion by an admin is a waste of volunteer time. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    EFH here (can't see the revision deleted diffs either). Some tracking measures were set up (see the recent activity of this log). Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 03:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Couple of recommendations I have:
    1. I would like to remind those not already aware, of the principle of minimal effort and participation, known as Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore. Every time you come across a blatant troll or vandal like this one, just simply apply the RBI principle. Don't bother placing any warnings or speedy deletion notices, or even block notices too. This is the best and quickest way to deal with inveterate LTAs that results in the minimal amount of retaliation.
    2. Admins/CUs should consider the scale/level of disruption being caused on this site, and perhaps decide on filing an abuse report against the internet service provider (actual ISP, not VPNs/proxies of course) of this user, so that their internet access may be terminated for the level of extreme disruptive and threatening behaviour being conducted by this user here. This user is not only attacking other editors but also making lives much harder for legitimate IP editors and new users by causing them to be locked out from editing many of Wikipedia's noticeboards and centralised discussion forums (e.g. this very noticeboard, the general AN, the EFFP reports page, heck even RPP/I ironically, among several more). Plus it isn't just on Wikipedia, they are apparently going after other sites and services like Discord and Reddit too.
    Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think point 2 is a good idea. Honestly, with how persistent this person is, and how much resources, time, and attention we’ve already given to this situation (for example, the existence of this thread), contacting the ISP might be the best move. GrayStorm(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.) 04:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Question is: have they ever posted from their actual IP? They've apparently been socking since 2018. Remsense诉 04:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, thats tricky. Maybe a CU could check MAB. Then see if the IP is from an ISP or a VPN. If it's the former, the ISP could be contacted, if it's the ladder, then were kinda out of luck. GrayStorm(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.) 04:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At some point you exhaust your wallet or the IP addresses you can access, per above. Seems like that's how things are likely to pan out. Remsense诉 04:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to keep an eye out for this user when I can as well. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are always very visible, which is sort of the problem! Remsense诉 06:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, it would (unfortunately) take me way to much time to post this to everyones talk page, so I'll just say it here: any admin who's helped out with this situation, either by protecting pages, blocking MAB's socks, or revdeling their post's, can consider themselves to have received {{The Admin's Barnstar}} from me. GrayStorm(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.) 22:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fennoskand performing disruptive edits on the Karelian National Movement page

    So this is similar to something I've dealt with before (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#user:stop the occupation of karelia and user:MiteriPanfilov unusual edits) but basically User:Fennoskand is promoting a very biased view of the Karelian National Movement. Normally I wouldn't take this to ANI this quickly, but I have dealt with this in the past and there is very clear disruption here. Gaismagorm (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    looks like they have stopped already, I guess I probably should've waited before reporting. Gaismagorm (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    nevermind they are arguing with me on their talk page (at least I think they are, it's an unregistered user, but they are speaking in a similar way to this users old talk page comment) Gaismagorm (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring and accusations of bad faith about Srebrenica massacre

    There's been a good deal of recent edit warring and content disputes over the Srebrenica massacre article. There's been an RM and then an MR and an RfC and a lot of back-and-forth. Despite the formal attempts to resolve the content dispute, the tone of discussions has not improved and seems in fact to have deteriorated, with serious accusations of bad faith up (to the point of accusations of genocide denial) along with general insults and demands for apology. Much of the edit warring has been over seemingly minor issues. Involved users especially include 122141510 and Pincrete. Below are some examples, but they are not particularly well chosen – it's probably easy to find better ones, and there are many. I'm not taking time at the moment for a more exhaustive list.

    • Talk page comment ("you're functionally illiterate. You cannot even wrap your head around basic English syntax and grammar – how is possible to disagree with a non-restrictive appositive? Your posts here are ridiculous. And now you want to bully, harass, and intimidate others into accepting your lack of understanding of what a genocide is?")
    • Edit summary ("a bad faith attempt to circumvent the failure to move")
    • Talk page comment ("comments almost all the way back to your arrival on this page and most of them, although they leave a rancid smell, are actually too silly for words")
    • Talk page comment ("I am effectively being harassed, bullied, and intimidated. Efforts on my part to cool the conversation down are rebuffed or otherwise ignored, sometimes even in favor of calling me illiterate. In effect, Pincrete is arguing he is not obliged to reach any consensus with other editors. I feel like it is simply a tactic to either wear me out or tire me out.")

    —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have consistently been trolled by them in several sections of the talk page and they are now disrupting an RfC.
    They oscillate wildly from not being able to understand the English language – cannot understand the difference between English words, thinks they can "disagree" with the rules and syntax of the grammar of the English language in favor of their own judgement – to being able writing giant essays and throwing up multiple issues at once. These sorts of text walls came even after I pointed out we clearly cannot get along, but potentially can if try and tackle issues one at a time rather than throw essays at each other.
    This is an editor who is not consistent – I had to argue an entire novella's worth with him about whether it was fair to point out the event in the article was primarily executed by military forces [46]. His primary objection? The word "military assault" wasn't in the sources (which of course it later turned out to be, but I'd already conceded because he'd worn me out). A new section arises! Pincrete is upset that there are no sources which identify the Srebrenica genocide as a genocide [47]. Of course, this is blatantly untrue, but their proposal is to use either the term "genocidal killing" or "genocidal massacre". There are no sources that describe the event with such language, so you might expect Pincrete to object in the same way he objected to the term "military assault", but instead he now pivots to a different style of argument.
    Insofar as accusations of genocide denial, Pincrete consistently takes great objection to whenever it is pointed out they are effectively doing that. The fact the user cannot appreciate a difference between the dictionary definition of genocide and massacre, one which is backed up by legal rulings which are relevant to the article in question – regardless of their intent, that is what they are doing. I've attempted several times to mediate with that user on their talk page and ratchet down the tone of conversation, but they immediately return to passive aggressive attacks and outright trolling.
    Pincrete will probably be quite happy to see this escalated to ANI again – they see themselves as having no obligation to work towards consensus with other editors, and have even said as much verbatim on that talk page. Once an article has gotten to a position they're happy with, they can simply annoy other editors until they overreact and disqualify themselves. It's a blatant example of gaming the system, and I am not convinced Wikipedia has any interest or ability to resolve this. I previously (foolishly) escalated to ANI, flagged more the talk page of more than one admin (who declined to intervene), tagged NPOVN, etc.
    I attempted to start an RfC and Wikipedia as a collective was quicker to censure the use of ChatGPT to potentially help deescalate a contentious argument than do anything to deescalate a contentious argument. You hardly have to find in my favor – I'm sure Pincrete can write a damning case against me, one that will surely include some form of "nuh-uh, he started it!"" – but I can't help but feel that Pincrete's indiscretions have effectively been ignored until I lost my patience.
    Editors regularly run into conflict on this site, and in the few months I've decided to become more involved in this site, I find myself regularly involved in disagreements I find absurd – editors citing a policy to support their argument when it says the opposite, editors asserting a source says the exact opposite of what it actually does, etc. – but so far only Pincrete seems to rely on intentionally being disruptive and aggravating. Once he's happy with the state of an article, he can disrupt, obfuscate, or by any other means sabotage the opportunity to form consensus to change, and from what I've seen (not much, to be fair – I've intentionally avoiding digging too much in to his history) the site has enabled him to continue this action. It works and it's effective. For an editor with over 100,000 edits and actively participating in many higher level policy discussions, once Pincrete's written enough text walls to aggravate his detractors to write walls of text in response, isn't it easier to find in favor of someone you know and trust as opposed to reading through the conversations to denote how often he quotes users out of context, consistently accuses others of bias and bad faith editing, accuses them of illiteracy, and otherwise indicates his superiority and lack of obligation to others? (Consider: my previous ANI against him was all but dismissed as a WP:TEXTWALL by multiple editors, including several admins.)
    It seems to me that that's what he's betting on. I'm not going to claim innocence – I took his bait more often than not – but the only way he could be allowed to get away with the level of systemic abuse, harassment, and sabotage would be if you were to not bother to look at the manner in which he conducts himself on that talk page. 122141510 (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I previously indicated I would probably request an interaction ban [48] and now that it's reached ANI anyways I should explicitly mention it again. I would, failing anything else, like an interaction ban between myself and Pincrete. 122141510 (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW (probably not much at this point), I just found an archive of another recent WP:ANI discussion about the same basic dispute; it's at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1159#User:Pincrete's bad faith contribution to Move request discussion. (and 122141510 was called AVNOJ1989 at the time). I had noticed some mentions of a prior ANI, but hadn't found it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by Pincrete: I cannot address this 'wall of text' at present, but demand a retraction of the statement above by this editor that Pincrete is upset that there are no sources which identify the Srebrenica genocide as a genocide.

    The statement is absurd, neither I nor any editor, nor any source has ever said anything so ridiculous in the ten years or so I've been watching this page. Any misunderstanding that the editor might have inadvertently had of a selective reading on their part of a single phrase from a remark I made has been repeatedly addressed on talk, and a correction of this, (frankly libellous) remark asked for. None has been received and now the editor 'doubles down' by repeating it here. Pincrete (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My previously asking for a correction/strikethrough of any claim that I had 'denied' genocide (or said sources did) is here. Since the editor has explicitly repeated the claim above, I don't give the diffs, of their initial statements, though can do so if wanted. I said towards the end of that post "In the context of the Srebrenica massacre, saying someone denies the genocide, or claims that sources say that, is an overt personal attack. It questions their intelligence, competence and neutrality apart from (being) deeply offensive in itself. I ask you to clearly concede that I have NEVER made any such claims nor said that sources make such claims and strike each of the repetitions of this that you have recently made. If you do not do so, I will be interpreting it as confirmation that you consider it your right to intentionally misrepresent editors' views, and will report you. In fact I intended to give the editor 2 or 3 days and if they failed to retract the claim, I intended to initiate an ANI complaint myself on grounds of repeated personal attacks and general WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on their part.

    The response to my demand for a retraction was :I suppose I gave you more credit than you deserved – you're functionally illiterate. The tone of my demand for a correction and some other requests to stop personal attacks have been consciously forceful, but remained civil IMO. Anyone wanting to read the entire interaction can read this section. I repeat what I have said previously, anyone who cannot even see that calling someone a genocide denier (or Serb apologist) is offensive, who isn't willing to correct doing so, even if it were initially done inadvertently, is not a net asset to the topic area and should stay away. Pincrete (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC) (nb several edit conflicts occurred while I was amending this post to add diffs)[reply]

    Respect is given when earn, not when demanded under threat. I tried several times to have conversation to understand why your editing preferences cut one way and you would always pivot away from a response.
    • Why were you so obsessed that the characterization of the event as a military assault be removed because no sources used the term? You alleged because no sources used that exact language.
    • Why did you so vehemently object to the presence of "genocide" in the opening sentence but not "genocidal killing"? It lessens the event, no sources describe it as such.
    • Why did you so vehemently object to the presence of "genocide" in the opening sentence but not "massacre"? It lessens the event, and sure, sources describe it as such, but so do sources describe it as genocide. You stubbornly insisted on some absolute drivel about it being 'bad English' and "disagreed" with the explanation that the sentence was valid and your edit was actually poorer English.
    I mentioned in my RfC that, although you were incapable of articulating it, I now realized you were functionally illiterate, but allowed that there must be something behind [Pincrete's] fury, and attempted to formally solicit additional opinions to establish what it might be that would be disagreeable. You decided to sabotage that RfC – so the question must be asked again: why do you prefer to characterize the event as a massacre instead of a genocide? Do you assert there are no sources which identify the event as a genocide?
    You're not some tyrant who I am obliged to satiate – you'll be treated like an adult when you act like one. If you want a retraction even after sabotaging attempts for me to understand why someone might insist on behaving the way you do, here's the deal: answer the questions! Cleanly. Simply. Concisely – without insulting me. And for the love of everything good, you should be able to do it without comparing me to Boudica or the Grand Inquisitor or any other historical figure that has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. 122141510 (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend a boomerang block for this charming little outburst immediately above. (Incidentally, people who use "earn" when they should have used "earned" can't really make claims about others' literacy). Failing that, 122141510 can implement an immediate interaction ban of their own by steering well clear of Pincrete in future. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Double standard, much? The rapid response to vigorously defending myself against Pincrete's hyperbolic accusation is consistent with what I've seen before. This is ridiculous. It's on me to ignore being attacked? Give me a break. 122141510 (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No personal attacks is Wikipedia policy. Accusing anyone (let alone a long-standing contributor) of being "functionally illiterate", absent any evidence whatsoever that it is the case, is a personal attack. I suggest you take advantage of it being the middle of the night US time and improve your behaviour before all the Administrators wake up in the morning. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't be clear, given after Pincrete said he agreed that the matter was "closed" [49], but that was shortly after an instigating attack [50], and when attempting to re-establish a quorum for stable conversation, there were some loose ends that needed to be resolved for conversation on the talk page to be able to continue and productive editing to resume. Of course, Pincrete decided to respond to my good faith questions with terms such as;
    • I barely understand this pile of nonsense. – After I point out how several of the things he's said on the page, when I attempt to reconcile them, seemed to me to only be reconciled as revisionism. Rather than attempt to answer or clarify, he dismisses the question being asked at all as 'nonsense'.
    • Lastly, your final point AFAI can see is literalist semantic twaddle at best. – This is rich hypocrisy from someone who spent an entire talk section making an argument that it was unfair to characterize an event primarily (and virtually exclusively) as a military assault because of some literalist semantic twaddle about what counts as military assault is rich. I mean, did you read' the section where he thinks he can argue with what English grammar is?
    • I barely understand this statement. - Pincrete can't understand anything that might point out he is logically consistent.
    • Apart from the fact that I have never made such an accusation against anyone AFAIK, how exactly are you (or any editor for that matter) "a historical figure" who is either relevant or not relevant to the discussion? – Immediately after referring to me as a "Grand Inquisitor".
    • They could of course selectively edit the quote in order to intentionally misrepresent the comment to another editor, and then double-down by not even bothering to re-read when challenged about it but that would be such a boring, bad-faith, trolling, pathetic thing to do wouldn't it? – A pretty good example of how many of Pincrete's accusations are often confessions.
    • To misread something once is human, we all make mistakes, to do so doggedly and repeatedly is proof of bad faith or incompetence. – I'm not levelling against Pincrete anything they've not already levelled against me.
    • The failure to do so is further proof of bad faith AFAI am concerned. – From someone who regularly quoted AGF at me, he seems entitled to ignore it and accuse me of bad faith at any point.
    • Your proposed text defines nothing. – Gaslighting me after repeatedly explaining the semantic consequences of his proposed edits.
    And so on... 122141510 (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And let's not forget this one: I'd be more inclined to take it seriously if I felt it was coming from someone who could read! Is this not a personal attack? Is this assuming good faith? Please, do tell me. I'd love to know what I'm doing wrong with my questions but Pincrete's apparently doing right with his personal attacks. 122141510 (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody has ever objected to 'genocide' being in the opening sentence (it's bolded as the alternative title FFS), where also multiple sources confirm the genocide verdicts of several courts. The objections are, firstly to simply repeating that alternative title as the 'defining sentence' and secondly to edit-warring in 122141510's favoured version before/without discussion or approval from anyone, WP:BRD applies. I've never compared anyone to Boudica, I did sarcastically refer to the Grand Inquisitor, because the questions the editor was asking and surmisals they were making based on those questions, were silly, intrusive and wholly off-topic. Pincrete (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have regularly objected to the use of genocide in both the opening sentence and in the article title. Your current edit warring is attempting to replace the term 'genocide' with 'genocidal killing' and/or massacre. The fact it is in the non-restrictive appositive doesn't matter, you are changing the meaning of the sentence in a way that lessens the event. The structure and syntax of the English language is not something you can disagree with. The way you propose to changing opening sentence is in a way that lessens the reality of Srebrenica as a genocide. This isn't subjective. 122141510 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you agree that Pincrete thinks the article should begin with the following phrase: “The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was …”? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pincrete has expressed rejection of the following sentence:
    • The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocide of more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys in and around the town of Srebrenica, during the Bosnian War.
    His rationale for objecting is that he reduces it to a glib "the genocide was the genocide", but this is a false reduction. This is not how [non-restrictive appositives] work. The reduction is actually "the massacre was the genocide". I explained multiple times to him this is an incorrect reduction and he indicated he 'disagreed' and that bad English was only a matter of judgment. I gave rationale for why his edit was bad English, he "disagreed", but gave no coherent rationale for why his edit (the actual tautology) was not bad English. I also explained how it necessarily changes the meaning of the sentence in a way that it is a lessened description of what happened at Srebrenica. It's not a violation of AGF to point out this is effectively the same as genocide denial – tell me, what am I supposed to do? Ignore it? Pretend it isn't? 122141510 (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very long paragraph considering that it does not answer my (quite simple) question. I think it would be helpful if you would answer the question I asked, and then I would be happy to continue to discuss further points. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't answer your question. I do not understand what Pincrete agrees or disagrees with. He continuously refused to have discussions which approaches issues one at a time. It would always be a grand barrage of 50 things. I have a habit of doing this too sometimes. This is exactly why, on rereading the talk page after a break, I realized it would be better if we were to try and approach things point by point, one at a time. If he had agreed to that, we wouldn't be here. 122141510 (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is Pincrete's opinion, it's a few paras above: Nobody has ever objected to 'genocide' being in the opening sentence (it's bolded as the alternative title FFS), where also multiple sources confirm the genocide verdicts of several courts. The objections are, firstly to simply repeating that alternative title as the 'defining sentence' and secondly to edit-warring in 122141510's favoured version before/without discussion or approval from anyone, You are free to disagree with me about the first, as I am free to disagree with you, and we can both make our case. If the majority of editors agree with you, 'your' text will prevail, if the majority of editors agree with me, 'mine' will, or ideally someone will come up with a better clearer version that will satisfy everyone.
    But this ANI isn't about a content dispute, it's about behaviour and you edit warring in a version wholly unsupported by any other editor, and then claiming to be the victim and flailing around making accusations is presenting YOU in a very bad light. Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want a two-way interaction ban. I cannot deal with hypocrisy. You repeatedly excuses yourself from the requirement to be obliged to participate in consensus-forming conversation. You can obviously tell we routinely talk past each other and cannot possibly get along – neither of us are innocent on this front. You also routinely have framed yourself a victim of my inquiries about your rationale, in attempting to understand and make sense of you, as if they are some untoward grand inquisition.
    In attempting to get away from you, I opened an RfC, with the express purpose of figuring out what the opening sentence should be without having to navigate the problem of us clearly unable to work together. If my logic is flawed, you would have no reason to expect the RfC to "resolve in my favor" – editors would argue against it, the RfC would be closed, and if I were to insist on revising the article in a certain manner then I would be dealt with.
    • But you insisted on attacking the RfC as invalid, biased, and should necessarily be closed.
    • The same way you did with a previous RfC on the talk page, the same way you insisted on attacking an RfC on another talk page as invalid, biased, and should necessarily be closed.
    • The same way you argued that many in the move request might be doing it for some untoward motive, while also simultaneously insisting any criticism or questioning of your motive was inherently a violation of AGF.
    • The same way you argued against opening the move request at all – I believe you asserted that even daring to submit the request would violate "editor goodwill" or something to this effect.
    You routinely insist on inserting yourself into every single conversation, and do so under an effective double-standard. Questioning you violates goodwill, AGF, is a personal attack, etc. Questioning others? You are either party to it or silent when it occurs. Here too you apply the same – I am presented in a very bad light, but Pincrete must surely once again be innocent!!! You refuse to take accountability or acknowledge responsibility for your part in the conversation degrading in the way it has, insisting on participating in a conversation with someone you know you don't get along with, and rejecting their proposals to try and have stepwise, one by one conversation, to achieve the outcomes that was going to probably be achieved anyways.
    The entire conversation regarding "military assault" is an example par excellence of this. The article was under no effective 'threat' and ultimately resolved to the outcome you insisted upon, but we couldn't get there respectfully because you insisted on a smarmy posting style that sought to push me away more than it tried to work together with me.
    So yes, Pincrete, I am claiming that I a victim of your harassment – I am making that claim and I stand by it. 122141510 (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide diffs for any of this? You haven't done so as yet?
    The same way you argued that many in the move request might be doing it for some untoward motive I never did any such thing. I even consciously avoided terms such as "WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, since I consider them patronising to motives which I recognise as well-intentioned, even if I disagree with them. I happily concede that I argued that the 'moral' and 'official' arguments were not going to achieve what the 'movers' wanted. They didn't. Pincrete (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TBAN for 122141510

    Uninvolved editor here. The claim from 122141510 that the Srebrenica massacre was not a genocide, and then the frankly insane use of ChatGPT to justify an argument shows a serious WP:CIR issue, not to mention the pretty aggressive violation of WP:NPA. I'm proposing a TBAN on genocide, broadly construed (given the issues with the definition this user seems to have). Frankly, I'm pretty close to suggesting a block here but I feel we might as well give this user some WP:ROPE. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you read the talk page? Are you ok with tedentious arguing and basically ignoring points made by other editors, serially refusing to cooperate in consensus forming conversations, lying, gaslighting, regularly misquoting me, refusing to reconcile irregularities between statements he has made, arguing with the English language? If there's a WP:CIR issue, it's the fact that even on this noticeboard, Pincrete still feels comfortable insisting that a proposal to change the opening sentence from
    • The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocide..., to
    • The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocidal massacre...
    is necessarily describing the scope event as less severe/consequential than it was? Here he is continuing to insist "but the word genocide is still there", even after an [entire talk page section] where he continued to insist on a false reduction of the opening sentence to a non-existent tautology. After taking the time and building up the patience to explain how a non-restrictive appositive works, and that regardless of the presence of the word 'genocide' in the non-restrictive appositive, removing it from the rest of the sentence necessarily changes the meaning of the sentence, he decided to say I disagree. and respond with entire word salads and tangents even after I indicated to him We often talk past each other and run into conflict in this way, so, as I've suggested to you before, you ought to stick to the direct topic and questions at hand and avoid abstractions so it might be better if we stuck to one topic at a time.
    It is absolutely more productive to use anything, anyone at all, to try and improve the article than someone who intentionally disrupts talk page conversations, so I have no apologies for using ChatGPT. It was used previously on the talk page by other editors and interpreted to productive ends, and the only reason ChatGPT was invoked at all was to point out "I have tried every which way to understand why this person thinks they can change the meaning of the opening sentence. I've conferred with friends online and IRL, I've looked up the dictionary and legal definitions, and I've even tried it out with ChatGPT. Everything is saying I'm right, Pincrete is wrong, and when I try and have a productive conversation with them, they prefer to hit me with giant walls of text and repeatedly reject step-by-step manageable conversation in favor of trying to troll me to death or tire me out."
    Did you read any of this? Did you consider any of this? You want to give me "ROPE"? Wow. 122141510 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    122141510 doesn't, and hasn't claimed that the Srebrenica massacre was not a genocide, he HAS falsely and repeatedly claimed that I have said/argued that this is true. I have difficulty defending his behaviour, but a genocide denier he is not. Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    he HAS falsely and repeatedly claimed that I have said/argued that this is true. No I have not. I have repeatedly pointed out you regularly make arguments that effectively lessen the characterization of the genocide, and/or make arguments that are coincident with the arguments made by those who make arguments that intend to lessen or deny the event as a genocide. You are the same person who insisted something about being found guilty of massacre is not the same as being found guilty of a crime, so I really don't understand how you would continue to insist on failing to appreciate this – you're either doing this intentionally so you can accuse me of violating AGF or making a personal attack – which you've already done multiple times anyways – or simply cannot appreciate the difference. 122141510 (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the same person who insisted something about being found guilty of massacre is not the same as being found guilty of a crime, Diffs please.
    BTW, nobody on the planet has ever been found guilty of massacre, because it isn't a crime as such, ie not defined in any statute book. Many people have been found guilty of all sorts of things, (inc murder or genocide), because of their actions at or during a massacre. Pincrete (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs for what? you are making the same point in the subsequent sentence – what are we disputing here? If you can make a point like that, you should be able to appreciate the point I just made. Now you're just making post after post – three in a row – of "diffs please". Some of these seem sincere, some of these are just shifting the WP:ONUS onto me – more of your same, tired WP:GAMETHESYSTEM tactic. I'll provide diffs if an administrator says it is necessary. 122141510 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'Massacre' is often used to describe an event at which a crime such as 'genocide', or murder occurred? What's difficult or controversial about that? Multiple murders occurred at My Lai and in many other 'massacres', but we don't change the title just because the 'crime' was not 'massacre', nor assume that the crime is being denied or 'downplayed' by it not being the title. Pincrete (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC) (modified for clarity by Pincrete)Pincrete (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    you regularly make arguments that effectively lessen the characterization of the genocide, and/or make arguments that are coincident with the arguments made by those who make arguments that intend to lessen or deny the event as a genocide. Again diffs please. The 'coincidence', better be pretty strong since your comment is extremely offensive and would be libelous if made off WP. I agree with over 50% of sources that the term "Srebrenica Massacre" is perfectly valid and does not downplay or excuse in any way the crime of genocide and other horrors which were committed at Srebrenica. That is the full extent of my 'lessening". My condemnation of the event has been total and unequivocal, but we aren't here to 'virtue signal'.Pincrete (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One additional diff for a comment from 122141510 that I find problematic is this Talk page comment, saying "your editing habits seem to involve outright denying this article is about a genocide". As evidence to support this accusation, the comment linked to this diff, where I personally did not find evidence to clearly support the accusation (unless one interprets a scrutiny of exactly what particular sources say and a discussion of whether certain phrasings can be deemed equivalent as being a denial that the article is about a genocide). Alongside that, I suggest a careful reading of the entire comment from Pincrete that the "functionally illiterate" comment was replying to (a duplicate of a diff that I already referenced above). I'll also note that in the other diffs given above, the person who said someone was "calling me illiterate" (twice, including this previous time) is in fact the same person who later accused that person of being "functionally illiterate". I am mystified by some of this. Personally, I find the difference between "genocide" and "genocidal massacre" rather insubstantial (especially when considering the rest of the content of the lead section of the Srebrenica massacre article and the topic of the Srebrenica massacre within the Bosnian genocide context), and I perceive what I believe to be other, larger problems with the way the lead section of the article is written, but I'll admit I have no particular expertise on this subject. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do apologize (WP:TROUT moment), it can be hard to wade through vast walls of text like this and I misread the quotes in question. However, if anything, this is a pretty clear sign of WP:BLUDGEONING (to an extent, from both sides, but more noticeably from 122141510). 122141510, you are certainly in the right about this being a genocide but the way you are going about defending your point is, to put it lightly, quite problematic. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, 1233, please stop replying to everything everyone says, it's both bludgeoning and makes everything extremely unreadable. As for what block, I do not have a preference. A TBAN does not fix the CIR and Civility issues in my opinion, so I prefer a short term block or an indef for sure. And then the admins can decide based on if they understand how to actually edit without insulting their fellow editors. Soni (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IBAN for 122141510 and Pincrete

    I requested this previously in the conversation but would like it explicitly acknowledged – i.e. either formally approved or rejected. I also intend to observe it informally effective immediately, and would insist that Pincrete please not respond in this section whatsoever. Please also read any lack of response to any of Pincrete's above comments is not a concession but simple fact of being done. I don't understand them, they don't understand me. They insist on hounding me and now they're just going to "diffs please? diffs?" without making clear if they're denying not saying things, or simply shifting more work onto me. Maybe he figures I'll get tired and give up. I don't know or care.

    Administrators, please let me know what is needed from me to justify this request. I am done trying to work with this editor. 122141510 (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably never mind. I'll save you all some trouble. Unlike some of you, I don't indefinitely have available to me the hours out of every day for months at a time (never mind years at a time) to involve myself in any project the way you do with this one. My time is now up.
    I had given the benefit of the doubt that editors just weren't paying attention or not sure what was going on. However, taking @Soni's comment that they had been watching the talk page for more than a few days at face value, then it's impossible for me to work in good faith with editors who are more concerned with the potential use of LLM and feel obliged to step in to stop that, then they are to clarify concerns about a Wikipedia article effectively downplaying or potentially denying a genocide. The lack of self-awareness when you, as collective, cite WP:AGF, WP:CIR, and WP:CIVILITY while you reveal that you were paying attention, and didn't respond to a potential NPOVN violation while I was begging for third party opinions to try and break the deadlock with Pincrete ...I gave it an honest try, but I won't be able to take most of you or this project seriously anymore. You are complicit by your inaction.
    I could go on, but I've said most of what I'd say anyways. My apologies to those editors that did assist me during my time here. It was not all awful, and your time was not entirely wasted. While it's probably not obvious at this moment, my antipathy of this project is now more measured and considerate than it was some years ago. I could never earnestly begrudge the professor with the office at the end of the corridor off the corridor off the main hallway, who simply wanted to be left alone to the little corner of the world they'd managed to have afforded to them. 122141510 (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thanks, I guess, for your contributions and good luck with whatever you spend time on next. Now we won't have to spend time trying to make sense of this complicated, lengthy, personal dispute. Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I would have preferred a different outcome – a greater degree of constructive engagement and open-mindedness with a more respectful tone towards other editors. (As a side remark, I found the professor analogy a rather compelling visual image.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jumpy542

    User:Jumpy542 has repeatedly submitted drafts that they have not previously worked on (e.g. [51], [52]), and that are clearly not ready for submission or previously declined and not since improved (as evidenced by their long list of user talk page notices for rejected draft submissions. They have also been doing something similar with submitting DYK hooks (I frankly don't know the process well enough to understand the details, but User:SL93 in particular has repeatedly engaged Jumpy542 about this). Jumpy542 has been minimally communicative or noncommunicative in response to queries about their activity, and I have reached the point of considering this either incompetence or intentional trolling sufficient to raise WP:NOTHERE. BD2412 T 03:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For the DYK hooks, Jumpy542 has been promoting DYK hooks to the prep areas which they have no business doing. I highly doubt that Jumpy542 has been reviewing those promoted articles for errors (or even that they know how to) because they promoted the hooks without even closing the nomination pages. Jumpy542 stopped with promoting DYKs once a block was mentioned by Schwede66 at User talk:Jumpy542#DYKs. Just recently, Jumpy542 posted a DYK main page notification (and incorrectly) on my talk page when the article has yet to reach the main page. The have also edited someone else's user page. SL93 (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to go with seriously incompetent and refusing to listen. What is the solution? There's options--an indef block is one, but that's harsh, and I don't know how a temporary block would help. No one ever spends a week of being blocked by practicing and reading up. A block from draft space is a reasonable, certainly. If they continue disrupting the DYK space we may have to consider extending the block into other spaces. BTW right now they seem to be just adding WikiProjects to drafts--are they doing at least a decent job? Is it useful? SL93, BD2412, let me know what you think. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My base concern is, why are they behaving this way? Promoting DYK hooks is not generally newbie behavior, so the early focus on that raises my hackles. I am dubious about the possibility of a minimally communicative editor going from incompetently participating in DYK and draftspace to competently and communicatively (as appropriate) participating in other spaces. My instinct is to indef, but I feel that such a step would need validation from the community.
    As to your specific question, their WikiProject additions do appear to be correct. Whether they are useful depends largely on whether the drafts to which they have been added are any good. BD2412 T 18:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I might think that an indef block would be extreme if Jumpy542 would show that they understand, but their response to this discussion on their talk page was just "ok". When I asked them why they posted an incorrect DYK notification about my nominated article being on the main page, they said that they were still learning. I don't know what them still learning has to do with posting fake DYK notifications. SL93 (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, here we are, seven hours later, and the editor offered an "ok" and then went right back to putting things on draft talk pages. I don't get it. I'm going to go and indef, for a mixture of incompetence, "I didn't hear that", uncollaborative editing, and general disruption. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a shame, but the non-engagement is itself dodgy. The editor can always appeal the block and provide their reasoning in that request. BD2412 T 02:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruptive editing by 2601:8C0:37F:63ED:0:0:0:0/64

    2601:8C0:37F:63ED:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps making disruptive edits like adding fictional character entries that they describe as "sexy" to disambiguation pages (1, 2, 3, 4), and removing romanized Japanese titles with no explanation (1, 2, 3, 4). Hasn't responded to warnings, and behaviour continued after a 48 hour block on July 30th. Waxworker (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked the /64 range for two weeks as a regular admin action. Hopefully this time it will get their attention. --Yamla (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Karl Erik Edvin block evasion

    Karl Erik Edvin (talk · contribs) does exactly same unreferenced edits in articles about Swedish wars as recently blocked IPs 85.230.77.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2A00:801:757:8855:488E:1AA1:F5CF:D4C8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), see User talk:Karl Erik Edvin. - Altenmann >talk 20:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Now this person shamelessly spams my talk page. Why are you not blocking this account? - Altenmann >talk 03:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on behavior, I have blocked User:Karl Erik Edvin for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    content removals by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/31.216.224.152

    See [53] -- loads of content removals, using the same edit summary. I figure a block is needed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified them on their talk page. Please note that It's required that you notify them on their talk page when discussing an ANI issue. Pinging them on their notifications is not enough. PEPSI697 (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked as a proxy (INFATICA_PROXY (RESIDENTIAL), OXYLABS_PROXY (RESIDENTIAL)). Admins and users are free to take whatever other options are appropriate here. --Yamla (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't connect the account of whom the edits were reverted by this IP to any known SPI or LTA but any expert is free to do it. A09|(talk) 11:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather distinctive edit summaries but it doesn’t ring any bells with me. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Воскресенский Петр writing unreferenced despite warnings

    Воскресенский Петр (talk · contribs) persistently adds huge batches of unreferenced information into Last_Address despite repeated warnings in the talk page. I removedd it several times [54] [55] [56] [57]. But instead of following Wikipedia rules this guy arrogantly posts repeated administrative threats on my talk page: User talk:Altenmann#Последний адрес, which have no grounds. - Altenmann >talk 16:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not only this user adds unreferenced info, he also reverts the "unreferenced" tags without addressing the concern. - Altenmann >talk 17:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked Воскресенский Петр for 72 hours for persistently adding unreferenced content and false accusations of vandalism and trolling. Cullen328 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Chin pin choo repeated WP:COPYVIO

    Since 31 July, Chin pin choo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been uploading non-free (Associated Press, Reuters, Indian Army) images to 2024 Wayanad landslides as their own work and/or Creative Commons, and deleting talk page questions and copyvio notices about them without any responses.

    Images: [58], [59], [60], [61]

    Article diffs: [62], [63]

    Talk Page diffs: [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]

    Further, they've deleted [69] the speedy delete notice on a similar image [70] uploaded by someone else.

    Celjski Grad (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked x 36 hrs. They have clearly done some good work, but way too much has been problematic. Hopefully they will take the hint and slow down. Anymore copyvios and the next stop is probably going to be an indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem I know their block hasn't expired yet, but I can unfortunately confirm that this isn't limited to non-free images. They have also copy-pasted text from external sources. See Special:Diff/1238113356 and Special:Diff/1238113054 copy from [71], and Special:Diff//1238111432 copies from [72], Special:Diff/1238128586 partially copies from [73], and Special:Diff/1238128985 partially copies from [74]. I'll check if the prose is still in the article, but they probably need to show at least a modicum of understanding before they can come back.
    And I know nobody can tell me this for obvious reasons, but what on earth edit filter "LTA 1122"? They've tripped it 75 times.
    GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually found and removed those as well [75], [76], [77] but didn't have time to see who added them. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Celjski Grad, @GreenLipstickLesbian I have left them a strongly worded note that I regard as a final warning about their editing and copyright in particular. If there is any further issue, the next step will be an indefinite block. Thank you both for dealing with these copyright violations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Masterliverwort

    Masterliverwort just revealed that they are sock of Kemilliogolgi (a sock belonging to AdityaNakul sockfarm) see this SPI for background. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the account for  Confirmed socking.-- Ponyobons mots 17:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive and persistent editing by a promotional SPA dodging their ban.

    Possible banned sockpuppet (unconfirmed as of now; sockpuppet investigation page) re-adding removed promotional material by making single purpose accounts, repeatedly on Death of Rey Rivera and refusing to join in on Talk Page discussions.

    Also, violation of WP:NPA in their edit summary.

    Awshort (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nora has engaged in multiple violations of the 3rr rule. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ponyo has blocked. Is a blocking TPA necessary as well perhaps given the fact that Nora is throwing wild accusations around? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am the recipient of a legally threatening letter, supposedly from Bryant & Stratton College, attempting to control the editing of that page. I feel confident that the letter is not actually from the college; while the letter itself says its come from Buffalo, the Swiss stamps and the German? postmark indicate it was mailed from Europe. I am also think it almost certain that the mail is from a floating IP editor who has been active at Talk:Bryant & Stratton College, as he stated on the 26th that they had notified the college of the discussion (the letter was supposedly composed on the 25th) and the letter reflects the concerns and wording that they had used earlier, and the IP locates them to Switzerland. I should note that a similarly dubious legal letter was sent to user CollegeMeltdown five years ago. I should also note that there is a current sock puppet investigation about a possible link between registered user AsteroidComet and the IP.

    I am uncertain all of what is to be done here. Certainly, if the SPI concludes with a confirmation, AsteroidComet should be blocked. It is worth considering whether the college's article and talk page should be put in a permanent page-protected state, as this is a problem with a multi-year history and discouraging this IP from involving themselves on the page might reduce the risk of it continuing (at the cost of blocking uninvolved IP/new editors, but it seems at least most of the IP edits to that Talk page are likely from the same individual.) Folks here may have some better ideas of what is to be done. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would think, regardless of what on-wiki actions are taken, you need to contact WMF Legal at legal@wikimedia.org to advise them of the letter and ask for advice and next steps. Even if it's a stunt, a legal notice sent via postal mail becomes something they may want to follow up on. Grandpallama (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a lawyer yet, But Grandpallama is giving good advice. Don't ignore this. Send it to the proper folks and let them decide what needs to be done. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I sent them a copy shortly after I posted this. (Not my first time dealing with WMF Legal.) Thank you for caring. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. I always take the "trust, but verify" approach to this sort of thing, as the potential to spiral into a complete dumpster fire is just to significant to ignore. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive user moving their userpage and other pages

    This user: User:VishnuPriyan.G keeps moving their userpage into mainspace, moved the Login page to another title, and is disruptively creating empty pages and moving them for no reason (not to mention that they could also be editing while logged out). I already filed a report at WP:AIV but it has apparently gone unnoticed. Could someone please block them? Clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Thank you. CycloneYoris talk! 05:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to notify the involved party. I have done that for you. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Insanityclown1: Thank you! CycloneYoris talk! 06:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And blocked by user:Robertsky Meters (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2A02:C7C:52F5:3100:0:0:0:0/64

    2A02:C7C:52F5:3100:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content, hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please notify the subject of an ANI report. Per the header of the page it is required. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Insanityclown1: - I already did to the talk page of the most recently used IP on the /64 shortly after making this report. Waxworker (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Belomaad (continued)

    This is a follow-up to an earlier post here, titled User Belomaad.

    First there was Belomaad's edit-war in Umm Kulthum bint Ali, where he repeatedly added unreliably-sourced content to the article. That material was finally removed with the intervention of AirshipJungleman29.

    Then came Belomaad's poorly-sourced and sectarian edits to Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam, which were spotted by StarkReport. The issue was apparently resolved when Belomaad removed their own content. After that came Belomaad's poorly-sourced or unsourced edits to Hadith of pen and paper, like this one. Please see Talk:Hadith of pen and paper#Unconsciousness.

    More recently, Belomaad has made a string of edits to Muhammad al-Mahdi, Occultation (Islam), Hadith of the twelve successors, Origin of Shia Islam, Imamate in Shia Islam, in which this user selectively quoted from reliable sources to push a certain sectarian POV. I reversed most of these edits, explaining that editors are expected to survey the literature and give each view its due weight. And that Belomaad first needs to reach a consensus on each article's talk page. In turn, Belomaad has accused me of stalking. I'm not stalking anyone. It's just happens that the above articles are on my watchlist, I've contributed substantially to most of them, and feel particularly responsible for safeguarding them against polemics and sectarian propaganda.

    Should something be done? Pushing a particular sectarian POV is the unmistakable pattern in Belomaad's edits. Even if we turn a blind eye and somehow assume WP:GOODFAITH, the fact remains that the time spent undoing Belomaad's damage to these articles could have been spent improving Wikipedia. To sum, Project Wikipedia is about creating a reliable and neutral encyclopedia. Belomaad is obviously not here for that. He repeatedly targets articles about Shia Islam and sabotages them by adding biased and often poorly-sourced content. Albertatiran (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Had you checked my contributions, you would have known that I also contributed to articles and other wiki projects that aren’t related to Islam at all.
    Your contributions, on the other hand, are all Islam related.
    StarkReport had a very respectful conversation and presented their view and was clearly there to help, which is why we could reach an agreement. But you, on the other hand, attack fellow editors and aren’t ready to collaborate at all. This pattern repeated itself with Shadowwarrior8 who is a more experienced editor than me which is why the whole thing only ended with a ban. On the other hand, I never experienced such people on Wikipedia before, so I couldn’t present my view like Shadowwarrior8. Belomaad (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Belomaad, please be more specific. When have I been "disrespectful" to you? And when did you ever try to collaborate and address my concerns on the talk page? It seems to me that you're deflecting the problem by making irrelevant and personal accusations. Also note that Shadowwarrior8 was banned equally and I'm not sure how that separate case has any relevance here. Albertatiran (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hey all, this user seems to be quickly building a history of problematic edits. They have created 75 articles now, all of which I believe are poorly translated articles from other-language Wikipedias. They have received several messages telling them how to correctly attribute translated content (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), yet ignore them and continue to cite the French Wikipedia when their edits are from other wikis. They seemingly haven't checked whether their articles are duplicates on enwiki (1) nor have they correctly translated many titles (1). According to their talk page, several of these articles were draftified (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

    Soon after creating their first giant batch of articles, they moved to link spamming across them, both in "references" and external links (1, 2, etc.). They received several warnings for this (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). They were blocked for 36 hours (1). Following this block, they've started the same edits again, creating similar articles and even continuing the link spam (1). I assume they will continue with the same strategy of creating a lot of articles and then spam their links again soon.

    How much longer will we need to clean up after this editor, whose end goal is clearly just to mass-create "articles" where they can continue spamming links to promote their site? Bsoyka (t • c • g) 15:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User notified of discussion. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 15:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indefinitely blocked them. They resumed spam-translation immediately upon the expiry of their 3-day block, so I doubt extending it by intervals is going to achieve anything. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User is threatening to report me for simply adding relevant Wikiproject tag to talk page

    A discussion should be taking place at the talk page of the article to determine consensus. At the moment, one hasn't even been started, let alone extended.I missed that because it was so far up the page. This particular discussion is not really going anywhere and is generating more heat than light. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I tried to add WikiProject LGBT studies tag to the talk page of Imane Khelif as a member of the Wikiproject had expressed interest in the article within the scope of the project after i asked on the Wikiproject talk page

    Mellamelina reverted me and falsely accused me of calling Khelif a member of the LGBT community. I have never at any point at the talk page or anywhere for that sake made that claim so this is not only entirely false but also a blatant red herring

    He is implying that there is a policy banning any BLP from being tagged with this particular Wikiproject unless said person is LGBT+ themselves (Hint: It doesn't exist).

    I added the tag back and tried to explain to him that this "rule" didn't exist anywhere and that it's up to the members of the Wikiproject to decide whether or not they consider it in scope. M.Bitton then decided to revert me once again this time threatening to report me for violating BLP if i (or likely anyone) where to add the Wikiproject tag back to the talk page

    Since he threatened to report me i feel like i have no option but to bring the issue up here Trade (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Trade You need to notify the user on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What made you think i didn't? Trade (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I see you have. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I see that User:Mellamelina reverted you. Then Bitton reverted saying it was a BLP violation. Where's the talk page discussion\? And you are also asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality . Doug Weller talk 15:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note that Mellamelina's edit summary said "Disagree. There are no sources that say she is a member of the LGBT community" and your response was that "It is entirely for members of the Wikiproject LGBT studies project to decide whether or not the article is within scope. Not you. The requirement that only LGBT people can be tagged for this project is entirely made-up and have no basis in any policy". I disagree. Are you also saying there is consensus at that project? Doug Weller talk 15:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Mellamelina and Bitton reverted me. Sorry i mixed them up Trade (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Not admin so feel free to delete as appropriate) Why is the tag being added in the first place? Knitsey (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the same reason as the six others tags already on the page Trade (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't answer the question as to why that specific tag was added. I'm just interested in the reasoning? Knitsey (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She's been victim of an intense transphobic harassment campaign from a variety of public and annonymous figures. And she's the latest public figure out of many who's eligibility has been critized or disputed (regardless how false, naive or malicious it might be) as part of the ongoing controversy regarding sex verification in sports (a subject which is very strongly relevant to the WikiProject LGBT studies) Trade (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Victim of utterly baseless hearsay by celebrities and irrelevant people. M.Bitton (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The other six are on her page because she's a female boxer from Algeria who is currently competing in the Olympics. These are objective facts. It's not the same reason you added the LGBT studies WP. Mellamelina (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those tags were added because they are of interest to and within scope of the Wikiprojects in question. The fact that she's a boxer is while true is also not the entire and sole reason for the tags to be there Trade (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would a non-X be of interest to X? Replace X by anything you want. M.Bitton (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would actually be of the opinion that the tags are appropriate--{{WikiProject LGBT studies}} is not limited to LGBT people nor does its addition mean that the subject of the article is LGBT. Khelif's situation is of interest to the project regardless of her own identity because she has been repeatedly targeted for transphobic attacks despite her own disavowal of any non-cis gender identities.
    That having been said, the appropriate place for this discussion is Talk:Imane Khelif or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, not an ANI report. signed, Rosguill talk 16:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My ANI report was against the threat of being reported for tagging the article talk page specifically. If the user in question agrees to withdraw the threat and not do the same things towards other users who are tagging articles for Wikiprojects that are within scope then i am happy to lay this to rest Trade (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that this discussion has gone well beyond the scope of @Trade's initial complaint, and should be redirected to the appropriate talk pages. (I'm not an admin, just my observation.) Funcrunch (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already had a discussion on the Wikiproject about this but apparently that didn't count somehow. Then i added the tag after the discussion and.... Here we are Trade (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trade you had a discussion but I see no consensus at that time. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gilberto Mendoza Jr. have never been a boxer and yet the biography is still relevant to the project (because he's the president of the Panama based World Boxing Association and therefore related to the sport itself)
    If boxers were the only people who were allowed to be tagged this wouldn't be the case.
    You can find hundreds of other similar examples for other projects Trade (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think that the fact she doesn't seem to be LGBTQ+, added to the fact she is from Algeria where vigilante murders still occur, would immediately seem to anyone from the Wikipedia project that the subject needed discussion first?
    Some discretion (without pandering) to the situation in countries where the LGBTQ+ laws are stringent should be taken into account. Knitsey (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She is not LGBTQ+ and any suggestion that she is would constitute a WP:BLP violation. M.Bitton (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, you edit warred over it.
    On what basis have you decided that it's relevant? M.Bitton (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't Trade (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't what? Please elaborate. M.Bitton (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I consulted with WikiProject LGBT studies whether or not the article were of interest and after the consensus seemed to fall on yes (at the time that i added the tag).
    I had hoped you would have brought the issue up on the project whose tag you were removing but i could not exactly force you. And you didn't really seemed like you feelt gaining consensus from the relevant Wikiproject was necessary in the first place
    There were also nothing to suggest that we had a consensus or policy against tagging cisgendered heterosexual people as part of the project (as long as they are deemed relevant) Trade (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you didn't answer my question, I'll answer it for you. If by I didn't you're referring to the edit warring, then I have the diffs that show that you absolutely have edit warred over your addition. M.Bitton (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Trade: You can't add LGBT-tags to BLPs (or their talk pages) unless a) the subject of the article has publicly said they're LGBT, and b) a reliable source for that is provided. And don't hold your breath while waiting for that to happen since homosexuality is illegal in Algeria... Drachentöter001 (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just be aware that Wikiprojects are a social construct to bring like minded people together to improve certain areas. However Wikiprojects have zero authority to impose controls/tags/ownership etc over articles. If someone removes a tag from an article, the Wikiproject doesn't have the ability to decide that it needs to be put back or that they are the only ones who can edit with those tage, and articles don't need to be tagged to Wikiprojects. Canterbury Tail talk 15:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      She's been victim of an intense transphobic harassment campaign from a variety of public and annonymous figures. And she's the latest public figure out of many who's eligibility has been critized or disputed (regardless how false, naive or malicious it might be) as part of the ongoing controversy regarding sex verification in sports (a subject which is very strongly relevant to the WikiProject LGBT studies) Trade (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What you added would turn the baseless nonsense by celebrities and other irrelevant people into a fact. That's not acceptable by any stretch of the imagination. M.Bitton (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Haven't disputed that, I'm just saying Wikiprojects have no special rights or ownerships on pages and cannot insist on anything from an editing perspective. It's fine for the project to be interested in an article, but that doesn't give the project the right to tag an article over others objections. Canterbury Tail talk 16:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you explain to me how a template meant for internal management of a "social construct to bring like minded people together to improve certain areas" could constitute a violation of BLP? Because otherwise this threat from M.Bitton feels unfair and likely a violation of Wikiquette at least Trade (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Turn it around. Can you explain to us why it's very important to the social construct of a Wikiproject to tag this page when the Wikiproject can just have a link to the page from their space on articles of interest? Why is it important to advertise the Wikiproject on the page? Canterbury Tail talk 16:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There's an excellent page that explains the purpose of Wikiproject banners on talk pages here
      As for LGBT Studies i do not share the beliefs that they should be treated any differently than the rest of the Wikiprojects Trade (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's right, they are as WP:OR filled as the rest. M.Bitton (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Trade, is that the correct link? It seems to link to a template index, not an explanation of their purpose. Am I missing something? EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:PROJSCOPE Trade (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That reply was to the wrong person anyways. Sorry Trade (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think anyone here disagrees with you about the harassment campaign. That said, it seems like Sex verification in sports is the correct article to have tagged in this case, which it is. I don't believe that it's prudent to tag Khelif's page with it. Mellamelina (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Almost 3½ pages of the article is dedicated to the subject of Sex verification in sports (in relation to Khelif specifically). Meanwhile for the talk page the subject of her sex/gender (and by extension Sex verification in sports) is close to 99% of the content
      The rest of the text of article is barely enough to fill 1½ page. If anything it would be prudent to remove the tag Trade (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • M.Bitton (talk · contribs) have removed my ANI-notice from their talk page. Just FYI before someone tells me to leave a notice on involved parties--Trade (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • NGL, might be feeling a BOOMERANG here. Behavior seems to suggest that the dominator is involved in an edit war and making disruptive edits to the page. Jdcomix (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting that Trade is aware of the contentious topics in the area of gender. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      By adding the article on Imane Khelif to a category, the editor was essentially saying that she belonged in that category. But the article does not mention anything that explicitly supports her inclusion in that category. If it did, then the statements would have to be supported by citations to reliable sources. Given that homosexuality is illegal in her country, it would be reasonable to demand multiple citations to very reliable sources to support a claim that she was a lesbian, because exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing.
    The edit summary for this edit by M.Bitton was Reverted 1 edit by Trade (talk): WP:BLP violation that will reported if repeated. That was the right thing for M.Bitton to do.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had nothing but positive experiences and feedback regarding my edits of the article. I just wanna be able to tag articles to their relevant Wikiprojects without having to worry about other users threatening me with BLP violations Trade (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • One fact: WikiProjects get to decide their own scope. See WP:PROJSCOPE. Anyone claiming that this can or can't be tagged based on who gets to put a tag on the page otherwise is incorrect. Regarding which, claims that the presence of the tag is a question of BLP fall flat with me. It is no more an implication that a company is a video game if I tag a company article with the WP:VG banner. IznoPublic (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pardon me for saying so but that is outright naive. Claiming that someone living in a country where homosexuality is illegal, and by Sharia law punishable by death, is LGBT (which is what adding LGBT-tags does)) is far more serious than claiming that a company is a video game, and anyone who doesn't understand that should stay very far away from the entire subject area. Drachentöter001 (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The WikiProject tag does not entail that the subject is LGBT, nor is it visible to the 99% of readers who look at the page but not its Talk page. By the logic you're proposing, Adolf Hitler is Jewish because there's a {{WikiProject Jewish History}} tag there. Your argument would be valid if this were a discussion of placing Category:LGBT people or its subcategories on the article, but no one is proposing that.signed, Rosguill talk 16:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        That's different because Adolf Hitler has had a big impact on Jewish history. M.Bitton (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        This article have a big impact in the history of sex verification in sports and especially in the Olympics and the discrimination faced by athletes that does not conform to normative gender roles and gender expressions Trade (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hitler is dead, but Imane Khelif isn't. Yet. The danger you put her in far outweighs your reasons for wanting to add the template- Drachentöter001 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's avoid making aspersions about other editors please. Jdcomix (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This scaremongering about honor-killings is way off base. Wikipedia is not leading anyone to the conclusion that Khelif is LGBT, one way or another (the massive public furor by transvestigators, on the other hand...). Further, the invocation of honor killing in this context smacks of Orientalism. Countries outside Algeria are not exactly covering themselves in glory on LGBT rights at the moment, and especially insofar as women's sport is concerned. signed, Rosguill talk 17:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "and by Sharia law punishable by death" That's not in Algeria Trade (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it's not about Sharia of anything of the sort, it's about suggesting that she is what she most definitely isn't. M.Bitton (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:" doesn't suggest much other than the fact that the topic is of interest to the following WikiProjects
    Unless you think that the people of Algeria who uses ENWP as their source of information can't read english. Trade (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (@Drachentöter001) If this refers to a Wikiproject template on a talkpage, I don't think that's right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are you getting You can't add LGBT-tags to BLPs unless...? Sounds like we're confusing categories (WP:BLPCAT) with WikiProject tags, which are ostensibly maintenance templates. An article being within the scope of a WikiProject scope simply means that it is of interest to that WikiProject.
    Certainly if an editor were tagging a biography as an LGBT Studies topic solely based on unfounded speculation that the subject is LGBTQIA+, that would be an issue, and I think that's what the commotion here is about, but I doubt (WP:AGF) that this was the intention. I would consider this article an LGBT Studies topic because it involves sex verification in sports and transphobic harassment, but I'm fine with excluding it if editors feel it risks misleading. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the potential harm to the subject based on readers (naively or deliberately) misinterpreting the purpose of the project banner far outweighs any benefits to the project of tagging the article. Schazjmd (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have to disagree here. WikiProjects are an internal organization tool, and inclusion is either editorially significant or it isn't. As it only appears on the talk page, I can't see how that can be justified. Remsense诉 17:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can tell it is a tag on the talk page marking them related to a project. It is not reader facing. PackMecEng (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can read it and so can the other editors. M.Bitton (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is an ethically defensible position to make ourselves responsible for what potential bad actors theoretically decide to do while pointing to us saying something we are clearly not saying. They are responsible for that, and if you're being honest, you know they don't actually need our help to justify any actions they may want to do. It is an unsustainable position. Remsense诉 17:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that when readers/editors come to Wikipedia with ill intent, they often find article talk pages. Describing the talk page as 'not reader facing' is thus not very helpful. Axad12 (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you are kind of screwed either way right? They could maybe find this ANI page even! But seriously, there is a huge difference between article and talk pages and what most readers see. PackMecEng (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Less so, I suspect, for bad actors. However I do think that Remsense makes a very compelling point above (re: 'unsustainable position'). Axad12 (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So the readers found not only the article itself but even the talk page (which most casual readers aren't even aware exists) but they also somehow didn't encountered any of the hundreds of news articles or YouTube videos discussing the debate about her sex? Trade (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are any of those article describing her as LGBTQ+? M.Bitton (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hundreds of RS in both English, French and Arabic from all over the globe have been talking about the harassment and accusations against her for a whole week with famous figures from ranging from Elon Musk to the Prime Minister of Italy and the Algerian Olympic Comitee having publicly spoken about it
    The whole idea of it somehow being a secret that Wikipedia has to conceal from all of Algeria has no basis in reality. At some point we have to accept that the conspiracies against her is common knowledge in large parts of her home country Trade (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when harassment of a living person over some baseless nonsense justify their categorization (yes, the tagging is a form of categorization that we can all read)? M.Bitton (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trade: Do you understand the ideas that (1) you categorise on the basis of what is explicitly mentioned in the article, and (2) that what is in the article must be explicitly supported by reliable sources?-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, adding a page to a WikiProject does not require those things. This is why @M.Bitton conflating the two is confusing. (Obviously, it is categorization in the broad sense, but I'm sure we all understand that.) Remsense诉 17:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are talking about a talkpage banner and not article categories, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP doesn't make any difference between the pages. M.Bitton (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good, because we're not making any claims about the subject in particular. We are simply not doing that. Remsense诉 17:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An unsourced suggestion is as good as a claim. M.Bitton (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll level with you: here's a 2010 RfC on this precise dispute. That is safely before my grandmother was born, so at bare minimum I think we should consider having it again. Remsense诉 17:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schazjmd I can understand that argument, but it is not obvious to me that the talkpage Wikiproject banner would have any such extra effect, the "thing" is well covered in the article text, including the lead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing in the article about her being LGBTQ+. M.Bitton (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. But per article content, it may be of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They can add a link from the project to the article, there is no need to advertise their interest on a BLP. M.Bitton (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you have not presented a consistent argument for why they should have to do that in lieu of what is done with every other article. Inclusion in a WikiProject makes no claim about the subject, so if the WikiProject wants it, it can be included. Remsense诉 17:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have to justify people's interests (whatever they may be). Are you suggesting that if someone is interested in "child molestation", they can create a project about it and add it wherever they want? M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally wouldn't participate in that one. I think that would get boinked quickly as disruptive if anything. Interesting hypothetical, though—I won't say it's made from straw, but maybe a reasonable paperboard. Remsense诉 17:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me ask another one: I know of at least one living person who has been accused of being the child of an orangutan. Do you think adding "orangutans" to their talk page would be appropriate? M.Bitton (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends. Remsense诉 17:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on what? M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire rest of the context, which would help me ascertain whether the subject is of interest to WP:WikiProject Primates. Remsense诉 17:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The context is simple: accused of X, therefore (according to you) of interest those who are interested in X. M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I would say something like no "This subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia". Remsense诉 17:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I follow, but the same answer applies in this instance. M.Bitton (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is these parsimonious examples don't work because the point is whether the WikiProject is interested in the subject, which depends on context. In any case, I've replied enough, and would reiterate that I really do think this is a problem that should be addressed in a fresh RfC, because it seems pretty important. Remsense诉 17:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP will do the talk. M.Bitton (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as they did in the 2010 RfC, which is dated but certainly not completely obsolete. Remsense诉 18:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to the RfC that let us violate BLP at will. M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Linked it above, will link it once more. Seems there is a coherent position shared among many people that "is of interest to editors" is simply not an editorial claim. Remsense诉 18:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything in that old RfC that would let me advertise my interests wherever I wish. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm flummoxed at this, as this RfC took place as the result of a rather similar inciting incident (concerns about including a subject in WP:LGBT without particular sourcing constituting a BLP violation), and came to a consensus that a WikiProject tag identified that an article was within the interest of a group of editors rather than categorizing the article as belonging to a topic field; removing such tags without consensus of the involved WikiProject(s) was seen as unhelpful.. Remsense诉 18:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How much space of the article text is dedicated to orangutangs? Just a single sentence? The majority? Trade (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have better things to do than repeat an entire discussion (with another editor). M.Bitton (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Remsense Do you mean that if a real discussion comes to a consensus it can be tagged, or that anyone, even a new user with no clue about policies and guidelines, can join the project and then tag? Doug Weller talk 17:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's like most other mechanisms onsite—if a move lacks consensus then consensus can be established, here at the page or at the WikiProject level. Remsense诉 17:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not like those haven't happened Trade (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think all this could have been avoided if there had been discussion on the article talk page before adding the project tag. Knitsey (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think adding it once was a reasonable edit, personally I wouldn't have forseen the brouhaha. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Knitsey Or, maybe, a decent discussion and consensus at the Wikiproject which also didn’t happen. Doug Weller talk 18:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gråbergs Gråa Sång I think you're probably right on the first bit. I would have forseen some objections given the article contents and the misinformation, plus most of the other objections mentioned.
    Doug Weller it looks like the discussion was barely underway when the revert happened. Knitsey (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Knitsey agreed, but there is still the question about consensus as that discussion progressed. Have a “group of editors “ come to an agreement? Trade added it without consensus,so that seems to justify the revert. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller: I think that's the whole crux of the matter, discussion and consensus which didn't happen. Knitsey (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you be more specific which discussion? Trade (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikiproject Doug Weller talk 19:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As i said i was acting with the information i had at the time. Both the last comment on the article talk page and the Wikiproject had perfectly valid and good reasons to suggest that talk page banners were widely considered uncontroversial and simple maintenance edits.
    The last comment in the discussion at the article had already given reasonable responses to the above comment so there wasn't anything to get (and he was seemingly the only person who even brought up any policy or past discussions to support him)
    I repeatedly asked the other commenters for any policy or discussion to support the rationale that the talk page banners went against BLP but since i never got it i couldn't really conclude anything
    Only thing i got from the article discussion were that people either quickly lost any interest or were (unintentionally) stonewalling Trade (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Summary The Wikiproject tag may have been a good-faith addition to the talk page the first time, but it should not have been restored after it was reverted and made clear that there was a possible BLP issue here. Is there a possible BLP issue here? Yes. Do Wikiprojects get to decide where their tags go even in the face of possible BLP issues? No. Can we close this now before this immense waste of time continues to waste people's time? Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you think a potential refresh of the 2010 RfC that came to a different consensus would be worthwhile? Remsense诉 18:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A RfC that would allow a group of editors with similar interests to violate BLP with their suggestive OR makes no sense to me. Anyway, time to move on now that Black Kite summarized the discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      He (tried) to summarize how he saw me. He never really summarized the actual topic of the discussion itself.
      Nothing to suggest other users wont keep making incident threads here next time you decide to that a Wikiproject template violated BLP and remove it Trade (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Wouldn't that mean that the tag should stay on the page until a new consensus have been formed? Trade (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No. You added it, it was reverted, at that point a discussion should determine consensus on whether it should be there. Which is what should be happening now; discuss the issue there please. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    NOTHERE editor abusing social groups

    This editor Anonymous Abhira is abusing social groups in edit summaries. For example he used the slur "mughalput" here which is used only for abusing Rajput social group.[78] He used this slur here too. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    DMacks: Likely, I'll keep a watch on this topic area. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User claiming people would be French without any source

    The edits of the same user have mostly the purpose to claim that a person would be French without giving any source. [79] (seems to be obviously wrong) [80] Someone who has experience with Wikipedia should have a look on his edits. --2003:C3:4F27:5B93:4520:ED87:F4D8:966D (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Your 4th edit on this project, at least with this IP address, was to come to ANI and complain about an editor who you don't identify? Did you try to speak to them first? Did you inform them about this ANI posting? ANI is supposed to be what you turn to if all other methods of resolving disputes have failed, for intractible problems and it doesn't look like you even took Step 1 in this process. Go, talk with the other editor first. Liz Read! Talk! 19:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely raises a few eyebrows... Jdcomix (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, though, the IP's summary of the first edit "seems to be obviously wrong" is accurate, and the second edit is both an unsourced addition to a BLP and an inaccurate statement of the country an athlete competes for. Perhaps Tonyandrew19 (talk · contribs) could explain their edits? I have notified them as the IP should have done. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editor on SpongeBob articles

    Premature. No evidence of attempt to discuss with the user or any other form of dispute resolution before coming here. OP failed to notify respondent as required. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Zingo156 believes that the SpongeBob films are not defining to be animated, although Saving Bikini Bottom: The Sandy Cheeks Movie is considered a hybrid film. They continue to say that its not necessary to call it a hybrid, but it has been a general consensus that films considered a live-action/animated hybrid is defining.

    They also removed the animated word in the head of The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This does not even begin to approach the level of being a chronic, urgent, or intractable issue, which is the purpose of this notice board. Additionally, you are required to notify Zingo156 of this complaint, which you have not done. In short, this complaint is beyond frivolous. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing by Sambenyoseph

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

    Persistent WP:DE editing by Sambenyoseph for over a month now with several warning on their talk page. User has been adding unnecessary crew members in infoboxes. [81], [82], adding random names that aren't part of the TV creidt. [83], [84], [85]. This has been going on long enough with several warnings on their talk page before the month of July as well. Editing is problematic. @Amaury today has submitted ANI, but was denied, [86]. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I see a wall of warnings with effectively no response. For now, I've left a note on their talk age advising them to discuss this here. Failing that, I would support a block for disruptive editing. This is a collaborative project. When you have this many messages on your talk page expressing concern about your editing habits, silence is not an option. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Samby doesn't respond. He may ignore the message. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps. But they need to be given a chance to do so. I will see where we are tomorrow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: Doping in China

    I have made quite a few edits to the Doping in China article over the years, and recently noticed that there has been unusual activity on this page. This is probably due to this year's reports by The New York Times and others on Chinese swimmer doping scandals, such as the one before the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and the more recent one before the 2024 Paris Olympics. The one thing I have noticed is that some random IPs such as 49.195.14.60 (talk · contribs) and other users are making substantial edits, with a disproportionately small number of reliable sources, that push an undue and tangential (to the article's main topic) POV which can be roughly described as "China does not dope as much as the United States". See, for example, [87] or [88]. I find this problematic because some editors do not contribute directly to improving the article, but instead seem to be doing some kind of public relations for the Chinese athletes/teams/government. Anyway, these are just my observations and may warrant the attention of the administrators. Normchou 💬 02:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Normchou, this sounds like a content issue. Have you brought this up on the article talk page? That would be my recommendation. If there is vandalism going on, you can request page protection. Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1238476008"
    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy