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 Daniel Quinlan (talk | contribs) at 01:07, 8 August 2024 (fix mistake). 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

    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 [1] 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. [2] ― "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.

    See my community ban proposal for Wikieditor662 at AN, inspired by this user's subsequent editing. Graham87 (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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]
    • Oppose an indef at this time. Grandpallama (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Due to ongoing disruptive behavior by Krimuk2.0 and Lapadite, I propose the community impose several sanctions:

    Might not be a bad idea to add an interaction ban assuming Lapadite doesn't get site banned. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying that's a bad idea, but nobody has cited previous issues between these two editors so I don't believe an interaction ban is necessary as a sanction. The community can always revisit these sanctions if needed. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a civility restriction and a one-revert rule (1RR) restriction for Lapadite based upon their personal attacks and general personalization of disputes, in order to encourage them to collaborate in, well, a collaborative way. Oppose sanctions for Krimuk, who did not personalize the dispute, who did not cross a 3RR brightline, and who started a civil talkpage discussion. Krimuk's behavior here does not merit sanctions. Grandpallama (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Grandpallama. I agree that Lapadite's behavior has been quite WP:BATTLEGROUND, not enough for a block, but enough for some restrictive editing. However, Krimuk's behavior, while hostile, has not been clearcut on any community disruption. Conyo14 (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For edit warring, battleground and ownership behavior, failure to seek consensus, and failure to assume good faith, Lapadite is subject to a civility restriction and a one-revert rule (1RR) on all biographies of living persons for 1 year. These editing restrictions are imposed by the community based on the consensus in the above discussion. These editing restrictions will be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Details of the 1 year editing restrictions on all biographies of living persons:
    • civility restriction: Lapadite may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.
    • one-revert rule (1RR): Lapadite is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours; exemptions listed at WP:3RRNO apply, but the guidelines must be followed for an exemption to be valid. Lapadite is additionally required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So what are we doing about that IP

    The admins are well aware of this and are taking steps to mitigate the damage. Remember The less said openly the better and just handle without making a big deal about it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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]
    ISPs won't do a fucking thing unless it's paid Foundation staff sending them a strongly-worded email, and even then they won't do a fucking thing. (For those with no context, it took the person in the latter link threatening Merriam-Webster in 2022 to force him to stop editing Wikipedia on account of being imprisoned for a federal crime.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no way the WMF would have bought in - after all, there's always more volunteers willing to waste their time dealing with this sort of abuse for free - but something akin to the Usenet Death Penalty might have proved effective against JA. "Views of Wikipedia from your ISP have been disabled because they refuse to enforce their own terms of use against one of their customers. Please consider taking your business to one of their competitors instead." —Cryptic 18:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You underestimate regulatory capture in the ISP area in the United States. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its bad. Really bad. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:57, 4 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]
    @GrayStorm: And I'm I'm sure they're all so very grateful to you. SerialNumber54129 14:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, seems like a new edit filter got added for MAB (LTA 1319). Jdcomix (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're still at it here as we speak.14.162.183.196 (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I'm absolutely grateful to the administrators that are here to help block any annoying proxies that MAB uses to continuously annoy us. Brownie points for them. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They have gotten around the semi protection on this page. GrayStorm(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.) 04:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like all storms, this will blow over eventually. Curbon7 (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the revisions today, it looks like that IP or more specifically MAB had created a new account to keep on spamming and edit war here at ANI. User:DoMyDance8402 seems to be MAB doing a block evasion so he could keep spamming even when this Project page was semi protected. This DMD8402 is now blocked which happened only a few minutes ago. PEPSI697 (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: looks like MAB created another account which is User:DoMyDance8404, created after his other sock puppet account DMD8402 was blocked. PEPSI697 (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Admittedly this may be a bad suggestion, but how about protecting AN and ANI for longer than a day? I recognize that may drive off some good IP participation but I think mitigating a really aggressive LTA may outweigh that concern. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 05:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would second this, maybe create a system where IPs can reach out to autoconfirmed users with complaints as a way to enable participation. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that'll work, given they don't just target ANI and they've been at it since 2018. Remsense诉 05:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaaaand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/45.151.62.241 is currently vandalizing the socks talk page. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Heads up, 2A12:5940:D2D2:0:0:0:0:2 just posted a wall of incomprehensible tripe on my talk page.Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If I may: you have let on a bit in this thread that you are "trollable", as it were. There's a reason we've tried to say/snark as little as possible so far; I recommend doubling down on WP:RBI. Remsense诉 07:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, i don't really care if i'm trollable or not. Snark/sarcasm is just kinda part of my personality unfortunately. Picked it up from working in a law firm for the better part of 6 years and then deciding that I still wanted that career choice. It was incomprehensible so I'm frankly totally unconcerned for my own sake, more of the fact that the dude just doesn't get the hint. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The hint for you is we would like them to go away at some point, and WP:RBI makes that more likely for everyone. Remsense诉 07:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also recommend maybe closing this thread soon and putting a little note at the top of the page if it's deemed appropriate just to let people know what's up; we've more or less discussed what needs to be discussed and this is just giving them attention. Remsense诉 07:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you too @Remsense. It will just give them more and more attention. So maybe soon we can close this thread. PEPSI697 (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that was gone too far. Posting a rant and an attack on someone's user talk page. Did MAB (on IP) say the same thing as here on ANI just for curiosity? You're allowed to say no if you don't want to. Since these revisions were deleted and locked looking at the revisions on your talk page. PEPSI697 (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and its frankly not that big of a deal. Just pointing out so that another bug can be squished.. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, not really a big deal here. But I'll just assume it was the same as the other Project pages on what that topic was about. PEPSI697 (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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 [3]. 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 [4]. 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 [5] 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" [6], but that was shortly after an instigating attack [7], 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]
    • Support TBan. Despite 122141510 stating below that they no longer care to edit this article, the sheer amount of vitriol & personal attacks posted in this discussion shows they cannot control themselves around this topic. They should need to request removal of the topic ban before returning to this area at any time. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBan. (involved editor). Most of this ANI has 122141510 flailing around making incoherent accusations in every direction, but this is a fairly explicit accusation that I am a 'genocide denier', or am echoing such deniers: 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., No details of when I am alleged to have done this or diffs are supplied despite my challenging 122141510 to supply them. Someone who cannot edit an article about a notorious genocidal event without accusing other editors of genocide denial with ZERO evidence is not an asset. This editor is clearly intelligent and whether he lacks competence, lacks the ability to control what he expresses, or is simply trolling I don't know, but I echo HandThatFeeds above They should need to request removal of the topic ban before returning to this area at any time..Pincrete (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN and final warning prior to indef. WP:BATTLE and WP:POINT on full display with what may be WP:CIR. The editor claims to have left the project but better to be safe than sorry to have this put in place. DeCausa (talk) 09:22, 7 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]
    Given your extensive "Why Wikipedia Sucks" screed now on your user page, your antipathy towards the project is pretty obvious, yeah. Ravenswing 23:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that the user's talk page repeats the assertion that some of us here are engaged in what is "arguably … genocide denial". Because we acknowledge that lots of people, the majority in fact, refer to the 'Srebrenica Massacre', rather than the 'Srebrenica Genocide'? Pincrete (talk) 05:32, 7 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. [8] (seems to be obviously wrong) [9] 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]

    @Jdcomix: You may want to strike your comment per WP:Aspersions and WP:Civility. 216.126.35.174 (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, maybe. My bad. Jdcomix (talk) 12:06, 5 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 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. [10], [11], adding random names that aren't part of the TV creidt. [12], [13], [14]. 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, [15]. 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]
    Hi everyone,
    I understand that we have been talking about my disruptive editing. I understand that the edits I have been making, such as adding unnecessary crew members, may be considered disruptive. However, I am not quite used to how article editing works here, so that may be a factor to why I’ve been considered for being blocked. If anyone could give me some helpful tips, it would be greatly useful.
    I sincerely apologize for the disruptive editing, and I hope to improve in the future. Sambenyoseph (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sambenyoseph Thank you for your response. I am going to append a more detailed welcome template to your talk page. In general, when you get messages expressing concern over some issue in the future, you should reply to them and acknowledge the message at the least. If you are unsure what the concern is, then ask for clarification. That will go a long ways towards preventing misunderstandings in future and it is also how we learn to be better editors.
    Courtesy ping- @Ahri Boy @Magical Golden Whip
    -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 5 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, [16] or [17]. 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]
    I don't disagree with your advice Liz, but after looking at those diffs (which constitute almost an entire rewrite of the article, top-to-bottom, paragraph-by-paragraph, all at once, with substantial sections added with non-encyclopedic tone clearly meant to polemically minimize/rationalize the importance of the infractions, more so than inform about them), I decided to look at the article revision history. There are indeed numerous new SPA accounts that have all been created in the last few weeks, and even more IPs whose first and only edits are on this article over the same period--and all of them tagteam edit warring to keep basically the exact same, new, and radically alterered version of the article in place. It's a pretty substantial bit of evidence leaning strongly towards a fairly WP:DUCKy conclusion.
    In short, worth having eyes on, and though the OP is indeed trying to engage in discussion on the talk page, I wouldn't blame them for suspecting that most of the parties they are engaging with are either one large sock farm, or else a concerted paid COI whitewashing brigade. Still, maybe better suited for SPI. SnowRise let's rap 05:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is some conspiracy or tag-team job, what this report is missing is diffs that indicate that is occurring and some usernames of relevant editors. It's great, Snow Rise, that you took the time to investigate the article history but ANI reports have to be more targeted for action to be taken by admins who patrol the cases that are brought here. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't disagree with that either, but the deficiencies in the OPs report are probably of incidental concern at this point: given what has already been noted above, I really do think SPI may be the best vehicle here regardless. I'd be surprised if a checkuser didn't connect the registered accounts, and much of the activity as a whole (for IPs and SPA accounts alike) could very probably lead to blocks on behavioural evidence alone. SnowRise let's rap 10:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it's become a huge propaganda page, it's basically a defense of China getting caught with doping, "but but but X and Y also got caught". And they start doing to you, what they accuse you doing, adhominem attacks. This is not a page about doping in china, this is some weird comparison page about what countries used the most doping. This is not objective at all. And china's 50 cent army is a very real thing, it even has a wikipedia page, and has been documented from the new york times, to having been published by harvard "How the chinese government fabricate social media posts for strategic distraction, not engaged argument", [2]https://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/50c.pdf , that is exactly what is happening here. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party (please don't vandalise this page either..)
    I can only say, I respect wikipedia mods/admins even more now, to have to deal with these kind of things, damn, nothing but respect. But these pages are so important to learn from, for our youth, the ones that are not yet adapted to the current media landscape, that is manipulated by foreign powers, and are not able to see who is muddying the waters.
    I ask the mods reading this, just to protect this page, and let people with shown objectivity edit the page, and not these 2 emotional guys, whom seem to be either emotional patriotic chinese, or the 50 cent army I was referring to, which is a very real thing, and not racist, as they accuse me of, with their ad hominem attacks (of which they by the way accused me off, they accuse you of something, while they are doing it sigh..)
    Johannesvdp (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The comparison between doping in international sports and war crimes is completely facile. When describing doping in sports, a comparison is required to understand the degree and magnitude of the problem. Such "et tu quoque" comparisons would be unnatural in the context of discussing specific war crimes by particular states (but could be warranted in describing the overall conduct of two parties to a war). You are bringing in an irrelevant analogy. MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you go, for example, to the "Russian war crimes" page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_war_crimes, you don't read about how they compare to USA war crimes, or other countries war crimes, because it's completely irrelevant. You are trying to make this page into total whataboutism. It's no longer about chinese doping, it's about how chinese doping cases compare to USA or Australian doping cases, which again is a typical 50 cent army tactic! Read the harvard case or the wikipedia page, USA and australia are the most common used whataboutism examples in their strategy.
    But I divert, my point is, that this page is no longer about doping in china, but a defence of chinese doping based on whataboutism. Perhaps you can make a doping comparison wikipedia page, but stop vandalising this one.
    Johannesvdp (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I copy pasted my replies from the talk page, I am obviously not addressing Snowrise, Liz or Normchou. Excuse me for not editing my replies! Just wanted to give my reason for reverting the page back to previous versions (from before olympics). Johannesvdp (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for reviewing the article and diffs I alluded to, and I apologize if there wasn't enough detail due to my own time and resource constraints on Wikipedia. Yes, the sudden appearance of SPAs rewriting the entire article and promoting a controversial/fringe POV is concerning. The random IPs like 49.195.14.60 (talk · contribs), 49.179.43.130 (talk · contribs), and 49.186.88.247 (talk · contribs) are almost impossible to be new users given their familiarity with community guidelines and policies, so I also agree that an SPI may be warranted. Normchou 💬 01:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is interesting that you have been suggested to go to the Talk page, Normchou. And yet, when I respond and point out issues with the article and your accusations against me, you do not respond. In the vast majority of my edits for Doping in China, I advocate for western-based sources, most of which are in line with WP:RSP such as BBC, Reuters, The Conversation, Agence France-Presse etc. (apparently these sources promote a fringe POV to you...who knew?) So I assume your move to ignore my reply on the talk page and instead go here to report me along with some other IPs I've never heard of (based on your recent edit history), perhaps hoping to get me banned alongside them, is really quite disappointing behaviour on your part. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since he has not replied in a reasonable time, you should just proceed to restore the page to the objective version with all the facts about WADA. MingScribe1368 (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do that eventually but I'm not in a hurry. And I would need to first start by citing sources considered green in WP:RSP, so it is unlikely everything can be restored. After all, this is the first time in all my 6 years editing here that a random user (called 'Allan Nonymous') has left an unprovoked threat & aspersion on my talk page after stalking my edits. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This made me look up your talk page, you are delusional, that user didn't threaten you in any way, he made the observation you seem to edit pages to benefit China, I have no idea if that is real or not, but the fact that you make false claims here, to make yourself seem like a victim, doesn't play to your benefit. Also your whole talk page reads like a red flag, this isn't your first rodeo vandalising wikipedia pages. Congrats! 50 cent well earned, but again that is just my opinion, which I am allowed to have.. I hope they check your account and ip address. Johannesvdp (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We really need to get rid of the "user contributions" feature since its only purpose seems to be stalking. Remsense诉 18:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking to see if there is a pattern in a user's contributions page is generally considered a standard way of identifying WP:SPA, WP:LTA accounts and evidence of WP:CPUSH, going through those contributions to attempt to identify a pattern is generally not considered WP:HOUNDING. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will note that all three of the IPs belong to SingTel Optus Pty Ltd (a mobile network) and geolocate to New South Wales. I don't have access to checkuser, and I don't know the underlying user-agent data, but I do believe that it is reasonable to suspect that they might all be the same person based on the public technical evidence and the user behavior. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on this ongoing discussion at the Teahouse, all of the 49… IPs are being operated by the same person, as claimed by 49.179.43.130. Left guide (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am seeing a general edit war going on that involves autoconfirmed users, so I have extended confirmed protected the page for two days. To the people party to the conduct dispute: please discuss changes on the talk page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Information from WADA, the IOC and World Aquatics are surely authoritative and neutral, as well as credible and verifiable. They provide context and enable us to extent the magnitude of the problem in China. This information has been deleted wholesale by Pinzzig, Normchou and Johannesvdp in an attempt to promote a "China is cheating!" narrative that is simply inconsistent with international data. WADA Anti-Doping Testing Figures have been removed.
    2. The article leading statement in its leading paragraph beings with an allegation rather than an authoritative statement by an international body.
    3. Claims about the natural growth and development of Chinese athletes are represented as fact rather than opinion, even though they are clearly unscientific claims without citation. The entire article from head-to-toe now reads like a Sinophobic rag.
    4. Johannesvdp has been accusing other users of being "50 cent propagandists" and what not. Surely these false and defamatory accusations are blatant violations of the code of conduct, aside from being outright unethical. MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the only one using ad hominem attacks. The 50 cent army's existence and presence on western platforms are a fact. I am not saying you are part of it, but I am raising the concern you and the other pro-china editors might be part of it. You are reverting purely to whataboutism and ad hominem attacks, are part of their strategy. Comparing to the US and Australia are exactly their modus operandi. If you have an article about Russian war crimes, you don't make the article about USA war crimes and visa versa. All your additions have been purely ways to censor the genuine cases of doping and genuine cases of concern. The fact that other major countries have higher rates of doping (which is probably true) is neither here nor there. This is not a comparison page. This page is about doping in china! But you are editing this wikipedia in a way, that it is only about USA and Australian doping rates, which is absurd. Johannesvdp (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You acknowledge that the statements made are backed by highly reliable and neutral sources. They also happen to portray Chinese sports in a positive light. That however is not grounds for their exclusion on an article on Chinese doping. They are necessary to introduce balance and maintain neutrality in the article. Audi alteram partem. As it stands, the wikipedia article appears to be an extension of various Sinophobic actors - completely lacking in objectivity and suppressing relevant sources that happen to fail to coincide with the "China is cheating!" narrative. The information should be allowed to stand if relevant to the topic. MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the only one using ad hominem attacks. The 50 cent army's existence and presence on western platforms are a fact. I am not saying you are part of it, but I am raising the concern you and the other pro-china editors might be part of it. You are reverting purely to whataboutism and ad hominem attacks, are part of their strategy. Comparing to the US and Australia are exactly their modus operandi. If you have an article about Russian war crimes, you don't make the article about USA war crimes and visa versa. All your additions have been purely ways to censor the genuine cases of doping and genuine cases of concern. The fact that other major countries have higher rates of doping (which is probably true) is neither here nor there. This is not a comparison page. This page is about doping in china! But you are editing this wikipedia in a way, that it is only about USA and Australian doping rates, which is absurd. Johannesvdp (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, you did accuse me of being a 50 cent army propagandist when you reverted my edits - let us be very clear that you began with an ad hominem attack from the get-go.
    Second, you removed reliable citations and information quantifying the extent of Chinese doping. Concise one-line reference comparisons to doping in the US and Russia (also sporting superpowers) enable us to understand Chinese doping. There was no attempt to expatiate at length about US doping, which of course belongs to the page on Doping in the USA. There is an obvious difference here that seems to elude you.
    Stop censoring information from reliable sources and deleting anything that does not disagree with your pre-conceived views. Initially you said that "pro-China editors" should not be allowed - again, a sign of bias, since facts should be allowed to stand for themselves. Now the entire article is a string of allegations by one side, with all data from the opposing side (for e.g. WADA, IOC) completely deleted.
    There are also many false claims in the article that have been reinstated, such as the false statement that WADA has not addressed or taken a position on the claims against Chinese athletes by the NY Times. MingScribe1368 (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to keep replying to this, I stand behind everything I said. You seem extremely emotional over this subject and I am not at all, I just want the article to reflect the actual subject, and not allow a propaganda article, or muddied with whataboutism. You don't agree with me, fine, I hope you do agree however to let objective mods (with proven records of objectivity on this platform) to edit the page. This is not me, but the people above. I just want to express my gratitude again to the mods, whatever route they take on this subject, to have to deal with all this on a daily basis, nothing but respect! Johannesvdp (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Normchou - the point was not to suggest that "China does not dope as much as the United States" (which is technically true), but rather to provide a frame of reference, without which the phenomenon of doping cannot be understood. Is the amount of doping that is alleged to have occurred substantial or not? That question cannot be answered fairly except in relative terms. As it is, the article has become one-sided, unbalanced, and objectively verifiable and credible sources have all been expunged. What has been left in the article is a laundry list of allegations without context and credible numbers from reputable bodies. MingScribe1368 (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @normchou
    At no point whatsoever did the attempt to provide international data and contextualize the numbers detract from the main article, which was about Chinese doping. The data actually enhanced our understanding of the issue, giving a more accurate understanding of its extent. That the data happens to exculpate many Chinese athletes is far besides the point - because the data is correct, was provided by reliable bodies. MingScribe1368 (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Radlrb in WP:WPM

    Tension arises between user @Radlrb with multiple users in WP:WPM, regarding the article 1234 (number), and numerous discussions about how funny and ridiculous according to some of the users in that WikiProject. Pinging some concerned users: @Jacobolus, @Mathwriter2718, and etc.. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The main argument is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#1234_(number), though I'd like to mention that there are other complaints about Radlrb's edits in other places as well. I think this issue needs admin input because this is a chronic issue involving willful ignoring of Wikipedia policies. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There can be no doubt that Radlrb has good intentions. However, I think there may be an difficult-to-reconcile difference between Radlrb and others about what the purpose of Wikipedia is and what policies are. For what it's worth, I still maintain my hope that there is a resolution that will make everyone happy and that doesn't make Radlrb feel like they are being kicked off the website. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am about to quit, I think. Radlrb (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest (really) that you take a copy of the entire contents of the number articles and move it to your own blog / wiki / whatever, then you can expand it as you wish. Almost nothing you have added is actually wrong, so you could have you own wiki with a vastly higher relative truth content than WP. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My fear is that if I make a blog, that it will quickly be hacked because of obvious reasons (too much truth), I feel WP is a stronghold that can protect this content. Also, as an anonymous editor here in WP, where there is also a type of vetting that can validate these delicate number-theoretical synchronicities. This being said, we can remove the deemed-superfluous material, and I'll make my way. Radlrb (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there are any hackers out there who have an agenda in mathematics that they want to advance by force. If you were writing a blog criticizing the government of Russia or North Korea, I could see worrying about hacking...but math? -- Beland (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    arXiv is where I'll head over to first, most likely, then set up a blog and forum thereafter. It's been an idea I've been contemplating for some time. I appreciate your suggestions. Radlrb (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SYNTH is the main concern. I believe as with the example I added recently to the thread at WP:WPM, that these points will naturally accrue, and some will coincide, lending to an appearance of SYNTH. I make no statements of consequences, as they generally are out of scope.
    I would also like to mention, and will link later diffs, the bias against my heated exchanges, without taking accountability in these exchanges, of the many-a-times demeaning behavior against my position or my person.
    I would also like to express that my intentions here have only been of the highest I can give, and honest. An important note, is that my edits have stood for 2.5 years almost, without much backlash, aside from a small number of editors.
    Respectfully yours, Radlrb (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The project page discussion is illuminating. Seven editors have objected to Radlrb's edits. Radlrb's response in all cases was long paragraphs of weird purple prose that did not engage with the complaints but ranted and philosophized: "Do you have any idea, of how difficult, and challenging, it is to find synchronicity and sense in mathematics? Be grateful, for the love of our very existence and subsistence, that these facts exist.", "we are ants still, trying to understand a landscape of truth far larger than you or I can even conceive, proven every millenium by the next mass discovery that upends everything once conceived.", "And im being kind here, there's no telling how complex Mathematics really, really is. There's no living organic-born or ethereal angel in our Universe that has a real-idea of all Math. Thats for the stars to contemplate.". Also boasting about the brilliance of their edits, arguing that the fact that all of their edits have not been reverted means that their approach is right, and a quite offensive comparison of their disregarding policy with fights against historical racism: "You know, as with many peoples, black folk were unnallowed to do many things in America, against "laws" inhumane to them. They broke free, and are breaking free more every day, teaching us along the way to not hold back against unfair and limiting barricades. In like manner, I am unafraid of breaking this Wiki "law"". The main issue seems to be a lack of willingness to work collaboratively with other editors, based on an assumption that anyone who opposes any of their edits lacks understanding. CodeTalker (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is important to gauge the scale of this problem. Over the last year or two, Radlrb has expanded number articles so that probably 50% of the total content is his additions. And has been extremely persistent, making several personal complaints to me in particular, because almost all of the editing I have done is removing stuff - this is true, and the complaints are not remotely offensive, but they illustrate a total unwillingness to consider whether something is really relevant or notable. (See the diagram I just removed at Talk:2.) Imaginatorium (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets make a laundry list of the properties that should be removed, and we can remove them (or go article by article Radlrb (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)). However, I'm really way to depressed with this and other things in my life, to hold a healthy state of being. So I think it's probably time I take my leave, and unfortunately leave my personal goal of improving all of the first 100 articles to proper standing. I know I take some liberties, I was hopeingRadlrb (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC) they were in good conscience and in the direction of where we are headed. Radlrb (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding one point you mentioned - I was not boasting about brilliance in my edits. I affirm my inputs, equally as I affirm others, and laud our collective work. There is nothing wrong in appreciating one's work, and welcoming it, at whichever stage of fulfillment perceived (usually, it always come short of actual worth, a lesson history teaches over and over). Also, these "rants" were also rooted in dissapointment I felt at ignoring my pleas of non-triviality over some of my edits, as well as affronts that were directed at me, passively or directly. This is all water under the bridge for me, I am not going to hurt myself or depreciate Wiki space any further, anger in the end always ends in lament. Radlrb (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Before this discussion goes any deeper, can someone please outline what the actual incident here is that purportedly requires administrator intervention? This sounds like a content dispute (that doesn't even identify what the dispute actually is) involving someone who doesn't fully grasp the point of this project (e.g. "too much truth", "WP is a stronghold that can protect this content," etc.) Does not sound like a problem for AN/I. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, in response to my question, an IP editor who is unable to contribute to this discussion due to the semi-protection at the moment, has responded on my talk. It is a much more succinct and direct statement of the dispute than what we have here, so thanks to them for that. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 on that. "Tension arises" tells us nothing (and, after all, ANI discussions get pretty dern tense), and a third of the active user pages on Wikipedia burble about barnstars and articles created/taken to GA/DYK/FA. A little less on Radlrb's verbiage and more on how this diff or that diff illustrates a genuine policy violation? Ravenswing 19:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's a need for administrative intervention. Editors should remove material they consider to be original research, off topic, undue weight, out of scope, etc., and any resulting disputes can be resolved on the relevant talk page(s) or at WT:WPM. With that said though, user:Radlrb can you please tone down the weird puffery and try to keep discussions cooperative and on topic? –jacobolus (t) 20:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Because this board is about conduct not content, perhaps this is the place to point out Radlrb's bad-faith assumptions in WT:WPM#1234 (number), where another user started the discussion by pointing to Radlrb's past block for personal attacks [18] and Radlrb immediately responds by questioning the other user's impartiality merely because they had some past interactions with me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to comment on this. We can also bring up David Eppstein's examples of bad-faith, and with regard to the article at 1234 (number); it might be time to show his absence of good-faith, especially when others try to cooperate with him. That would be for a seperate AN/I, though. I did not assume bad faith here, I pointed to his possible willing miscontrusion of what occurred, which is different (i.e., one is the assumption that I did assume bad-faith, while the other is me seeing an incomplete introduction to an issue that occurred in the past, which is my right to point out, because it was misleading - maybe from favoritism, and therefore, with obvious negative intentions for me. Notice I never actually said anything explicit about me thinking either way, I said it raises questions of impartiality, as mentioning a "block" immediately leads to negative connotations without due context). This is actually a real-time example of a twisting of events he is concocting here, to push me out. Radlrb (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At that time, I took "one of them was blocked" from Dedhert.Jr (in the diff David Eppstein provided) as hinted at me, since it has been the general experience (I believe) that David Eppstein has not been admonished for his oft-times demeaning attitude with editors (so its less likely to assume that the person blocked would be, David Eppstein). Radlrb (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this combative response, together with the admonishment above it "to keep discussions cooperative and on topic", speaks for itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No combative tone here, actually, just facts defending my response. Some of it is accusatory toward you, however that is not necessarily aggressive, just sharp. Radlrb (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading carefully Talk:1234 (number) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#1234 (number) and the edit history of the article, I can offer some tips on how to avoid this sort of personality conflict in future interactions. I don't share this commentary to assign blame or because anyone's supposed to be perfect (personally I'm kind of blunt and generally terrible at navigating emotionally charged conversations) but in the genuine hopes of improving future cooperation.
    • This dispute should probably have ended when Radlrb said, "I found it interesting within its class of numbers. Do what you want you with it, I'm done fighting irrationally over things here." If that was your feeling, Radlrb, and there were two editors against and only one editor in favor, I'm not sure why you didn't just accept the removal as you said you were going to, given it's a minor fact and there are probably more important things to use your time on.
    • On the other hand, if you actually do want to spend time defending this inclusion, arguing for it with detailed reasons and better sourcing are desirable responses to a removal based on unimportance, and you did that, so well done there. However when doing so, using language like "Seriously, stop, you're being petty now." (as Radlrb did) is not appropriate. It's a bit of a personal attack, and violates the guideline "assume good faith". It also seems to come out of frustration more than from actual evidence. I don't see any reason to think David Eppstein is removing this tidbit for any reason other than what he stated: he does not believe it is relevant to the article or important enough to include. That rationale was already supported by another editor, so it would be arrogant to assume it is without a reasonable, rational basis.
    • David Eppstein replied on the talk page "Radlrb please stop edit-warring to add your junk WP:SYNTH non-interesting property to this article. It should be removed. Despite most of this conversation being dominated by your walls of text replying to yourself I see no other supporters of this content." Radlrb was not simply reverting the removed content, but modifying it to try to address other editors' concerns. Characterizing this as "edit-warring" seems to me a bit inaccurate, but regardless of whether it's correct or not, making a personal accusation is more likely to annoy the other editor and make them uncooperative than it is to encourage them to have a rational discussion. Criticizing another editor's talk page writing style in this way is unhelpful; it's almost certainly going to be perceived as disrespectful, and it's not necessarily something that someone can easily change about their personality. My advice would be to focus on the content of the article and the merits of the arguments made, rather than the style or the messenger. You could simply say, "I see you added mention of property X back to the article. The new {phrasing, sourcing, whatever} doesn't establish its importance because ___." Instead of attacking the author's "wall of text" writing style, you could respond on the merits with something like "I didn't see anything in the above reply that convinces me that this property is important." and ideally some specifics indicating you read and considered the good-faith arguments being made. You could wait a bit to see if the reply changed the mind of the other editor in support of removal was convinced, but if not, you could say it's two editors for removal and one against, so the choices going forward are either removal in X timeframe or solicitation of more opinions.
    • Radlrb did indeed remark that the previous comment was rude, so I can see why they got upset at this point. Part of their reply was: "Interesting would be to see you respond to some of my points, rather than ignore them. It could give validity to your perspective, however you do not want to engage. In the light of true intellectual pursuit, you come heavily short, and all from substantial prejudice you still hold against me, and people of the like, who are willing to cross bludgeoned barriers of destruction that continue to exist today. But you're not the type to fight such heavy things." Everything after the word "perspective" here is an attack on David Eppstein. It's pretty unrealistic to think that David is going to go, "Oh, you're right. I didn't realize I was doing that. Sorry, let's talk about this rationally in detail or maybe just restore your proposed text." Responding to rudeness with rudeness is probably just going to fray everyone's nerves and reduce willingness to cooperate or find agreement. If you're asking them to engage with you, telling them they don't want to engage is a good way to thwart your own purpose - telling people how they feel or what they think is never received well, especially if - as in this case - it's probably factually incorrect. Accusing them of bias against you and questioning their commitment to intellectual pursuit is going to hurt a lot, and could easily make an enemy out of someone who wasn't actually one to begin with. If you can find it within yourself to respond to rudeness with calmness and rationality, you will not only look like the more reasonable person in the conversation, but you will also be more likely to reach a satisfactory compromise. A better reply here would have been, "I changed the added text in X way to try to respond to your concerns. If that wasn't satisfactory, was there something else that could be added in terms of sourcing or context to address them? Did you find (brief reference to best argument in long previous post) unconvincing?" This forces them to think about possible compromises if they want to look like a reasonable person without accusing them of being unreasonable, and makes it easy for them to engage with your arguments even if they were too annoyed to read them the first time, without accusing them of not engaging.
    • When this got taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#1234 (number), Dedhert.Jr wrote: "Previously, both users had already edited war in the article Golden ratio, and one of them was blocked." and then mentioned what the dispute was about and asked for more opinions. Radlrb replied: 'I'm not sure why you mention "one of them was blocked" unless you are purpusefully trying to tilt the scales'. I assume Dedhert.Jr wrote that to explain why this dispute was serious enough to merit WikiProject attention: these editors have been in a dispute before that got so bad one of them had to be blocked, so we need to talk about this in a broader forum and diffuse the conflict. This also sends a signal to other editors that emotions are running high, so it would be good to phrase comments carefully and in a sensitive fashion, to avoid making the interpersonal conflict worse. Radlrb, you were the one blocked in the previous conflict. The fact that Dedhert.Jr did not mention you by name was doing you a favor, avoiding making you look like the worst offender. It's a bit ironic that a comment going out of its way to avoid biasing the conversation against you was used as evidence of bias against you. In general, it's unhelpful to think of Wikipedia editors in terms of friends and foes, of settling into factions. Treating groups of editors as tribal enemies leads to persistent violations of the "assume good faith" rule, and generally prevents otherwise-easily-resolved conflicts from getting settled in a quick and cooperative fashion. It's also usually just plain wrong - most of the time, people who revert our edits, argue with us on talk pages, or complain about us on WP:AN/I, are not out to get us. Usually they just disagree with the changes we're making or the behavior we're exhibiting.
    • Radlrb had this idea that because over time so many more people read Wikipedia articles than editors who try to change them, any attempt to change long-standing content must be erroneous because of all the people who didn't object. That's very wrong. I used to work in customer service, where the rule of thumb was that for every 1 customer who called in to complain about something, there were probably literally 1000 others who felt the same way but didn't contact us to complain (assuming it was something that affected everyone and not just that we had messed up their individual order). Most people just don't have time or the emotional energy to engage in that sort of conflict, even though it's actually very helpful feedback for a catalog company and a powerful way to fact-check and NPOV-balance Wikipedia. In general, I assume the opinions of readers are probably proportional to editor opinions, to the degree that editors are a representative sample. If the prevailing view on talk pages seems out of whack and it's important enough to spend more editor time on the question, the best way to determine this for real is to increase the sample size of editors and draw opinions from a larger group, possibly not limited to enthusiasts of one topic, if you need it really representative. (For example, a site-wide RFC is useful if we're figuring out how to clearly explain something to non-experts in a field, but consulting a WikiProject is better if you are seeking enlightened experts who can fact-check a dubious claim or have an informed opinion about sources or something.)
    • Radlrb wrote: "Well, if you don't follow what I am saying, then you very likely don't understand the very subject matter we are speaking of, I think." I think it's poor form to assume someone is having trouble following what I wrote because they're stupid, and tell them that to their face, rather than assuming that what I wrote was unclear. A better response is to figure out why the original explanation is unclear and clarify, apologize for unclearness and offer to clarify if that would help, or just ignore the "I didn't follow you" as unproductive to respond to and move on in the discussion, trying to be more clear and concise in future comments. Yes, it's possible the other person simply doesn't have the expertise to follow the argument, but it's much more graceful for them to be the one to say that or for us to politely ignore that while accepting everyone's input as valuable - especially since if something is too complicated for interested editors to understand, most readers are going to have similar problems.
    -- Beland (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great points, thank you Beland, and I agree with most of what you have expressed. Without a doubt, I lament my behavior. I extend my apologies to @David Eppstein, I'm sorry. I do cherish and value your work here on Wikipedia, and more generally the scholarly work you put forth elsewhere; you continue to write with fortitude. I also extend my apologies to @Dedhert.Jr, @Jacobolus, @XOR'easter, @Gumshoe2, and @100.36.106.199, and also extend it to @Dhrm77, @Imaginatorium, and @Certes, as well as everyone involved here and elsewhere that was directly affected, dissapointed, and dismayed at my poor and selfish responses that are not in my character. I know this is not enough, however maybe it can lay a path toward reconciliation and understanding. Radlrb (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beland Thank you for this thorough response. Much to learn from it I think. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TBAN for User:Radlrb

    Well... it was inevitable. For all we mathematicians like to pretend we are the only field that deals in universal truths the fact of the matter is, there is WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE in math, as in any other field (for a good example, see the trainwreck that is IUTT). In this case, it is pretty clear that the user in question has rather WP:FRINGE opinions on what is mathematically WP:DUE and has thus created vast reams of low-relevance text made worse by a general inability to write in a way that is penetrable to others. I think disconnecting the user in question from the topic in question might help ameliorate this issue. Frankly, and as a math major, I say: Wikipedia's math articles should be getting more accessible, not less. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You could, could give a definitive warning first (an ultimatum on this issue). As I am also willing to undo the edits that are superfluous. Up to administrators, though. See the article for 2, for an example of work that is likely acceptable in your eyes. Else, I'll accept the penalty - I can still provide great quality work if you allow me to finish some pages I think I can put together nicely (the page for 7 is nearly ready for an upgrade in layout of the mathematics section, for example; a well cited mathematics section). Radlrb (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Talk:2 would be a good place to start. It includes two bits of your contributions which have been removed. The first is the mysterious "digits of pi" which I spent quite a lot of time struggling to understand, and which I believe amounts to the following: "Consider the initial subsequences of the digits of pi, including at least one digit after the decimal place. (i.e. as strings: 31, 314, 3141, 31415, 314159) Then the first four terms represent sets of consecutive (positive) naturals, excluding only 2. And that's it? Then there are some apparently unrelated equivalences, and I can make no sense of your attempted explanation. And I do not really think that any of the "Transcendental numbers" section is really relevant, because it just amounts to finding expressions including the number 2. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel at least, one is particularly valuable as it provides an actual property of
    the number 2: one can generate e very simply with a pattern involving 2. If there is more consensus, let’s remove it! (Certes in his last conversation with me mentioned the example with pi, yet not e as superfluous). The one for pi is a well known example, and one of the simplest, which is why I chose to include it. Maybe a mention is warranted that it is not the only such fraction, and one of many. It still is a property of 2 I believe, since one cannot so the same with 3 nearly as nicely, or 17 say, without making it look much more complicated most likely (one can actually make that formula look like something entirely different if one wishes… by manipulating both sides of an equation). Again, I’m alright with removing them, the one for e is the one I find particularly relevant, feel free to do so. Radlrb (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The strings example has already been removed for some time, and you recently rid the image I had put there. I’ll give my rationale for it on the talk page after work today. Radlrb (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything, saying that the articles on 7 and 2 are "likely acceptable in [my] eyes" shows the depth of the problem. I'm a math major and I can tell you that talk of "heptagons in Eucledean space" (just call it a heptagon for crying out loud, we know what you mean and furthermore, should only be in the heptagon article), or "all cubes are congruent to" (pretty irrelevant if you ask me), or the Fano plane (I doubt anyone is looking for that on the article for THE NUMBER 7) or Wythoff symbols, or... I could go on, the point is, that, besides maybe a few short factoids (that could probably be trimmed down for readability), these article's math sections need to go. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like consensus on this from other editors, since it seems to me this is not a proper reading of properties and their validity on the page for 7. The point on heptagons, in Euclidean space specifically, is needed to disambiguate from heptagons in hyperbolic space, which do tile the plane. That's for that. The point on cubes congruent modulo 7 I did not add (it was @Seckends), and it seems very relevant. The Fano plane point describes the smallest finite projective plane, with an order in proportion to 7, with a structure of 7 points and 7 lines such that every line contains 3 points and 3 lines cross every point, whose incidence graph "embeds in three dimensions as the Szilassi polyhedron, the simplest toroidal polyhedron alongside its dual with 7 vertices, the Császár polyhedron". Obviously relevant. The Wythoff points are definitely relevant as well, not only as a count, but to show that 7 is the number of uniform tilings that are Wythoffian (some of this can in fact be reduced some, and I will reduce it here too, in good-fath - to show you that I am serious here in making amends, and further the encyclopedic value of these pages vis-a-vis verifiable sourcing). There are also points of dimensionality, freeze groups (that has been there for a while, here as counts of 7 too), and other valuable points as well. Radlrb (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN - Radlrb has shown they don't know what should be included in a numerical wikipedia article. The section Imaginatorium points out on Talk:2 about the insertion "In decimal representation, after the first two, three, four and five digits in the approximation of the number 2 is the only digit greater than zero not yet represented (overall, up to the largest appearing digit). [Where also, operations of strings and are collectively satisfied.]" is ridiculous. It's the mathematical equivalent of playing with dolls. "If you take a constant, and then turn it into decimal, and then take only the first few digits, and then interpret that as a set, then it will have all the digits except 2 (or 0, or some other digits)" - this is no way an interesting property of the number 2. This is like if I went to pear and added "if you peel an orange, you can cut the peel up and rearrange it in a particular way to spell the word 'pear'". It's meaningless WP:OR. When pointed out to Radlrb that this was arbitrary they posted a comment saying It's cool, more than just cool...incredibly interesting and telling if you have the sensitivity to understand how immensely useful and absolute most unlikely to be trivial, if you don't think its meaningful then you don't think so, but if you have any hope for something in mathematics that makes sense, instead of fronting the same arguments over and over, over "trivialities" that I am adding (meaning you are not really clicking with what is going on here), then you will noot want it removed.. Yesterday, they seemed to be heading towards an edit war while adding similiar pieces of trivia to 18 (number). On one re-addition (of a "if you add a bunch of carefully cherrypicked numbers together, they total another number" style fact), they included a very pointy edit summary "that is obviously a nice property (when having normal personal mathematical saliency, that is)". When another editor removed these useless facts and explained why, Radlrb just immediately added them all back in and added another one, ignoring the protests. From what I can see they are (whatever their intentions) creating messes for other editors to pick through and clean up - TBAN is the right way to go. BugGhost🦗👻 09:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You chose select examples. I've written plenty of material, what are your views on the other material I have added on 2, most of which has not been contested? Check the page for 9, for 8, for 7, for 6, as well as for other pages such as 17 (all uncontested so far, care to look through so you will see there are good additions made? Some points I will also remove from these pages). This seems like a biased analysis, as you have not vetted a large pool of my additions, and therefore are cherry-picking. Yes, I agree those additions for 2 were not productive here on WP (I did compound multiple points on that quote, if it's read through all the way, which gives more validity to its substance, however viewed as FRNG or not). Check the material added to the other pages below 11, and please tell us what you think, and if you still believe they are not worthy points added (no contest has been submitted to my additions for those pages I mentioned above, for integer articles between 3 and 10, aside from 5).
    Also, in good-faith of this discussion, I have started to revert some of my additions, however I won't get the chance to do real work on these until a week from now, as I am not with my computer at the moment, and am working most of this week at least 12 hours a day. Radlrb (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please visit Wikipedia:Wikiproject Numbers where I led changes to a now-greatly improved guidelines (will add more on SYNTH/OR), and improved the Project Page into more refined working order. This, so that you see that I do also know what to include in these number articles; I'm not in anyway a "crackpot", like the User IP 100.36.106.199 said of me on the Mathematics Project discussion thread. I do know what I am talking about, putting aside the SYNTH bits (that I thought were relevant additions, but not for here; how people define triviality is defined differently over time, as we understand more intricate details that merge properties together, in light of parsimony, regardless of personal objections to seeming-"numerology"). Radlrb (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles pointed out confirms my vote. In the articles you point out as your "good work":
    • 9 - your most recent edit adds The regular hexagon contains a total of nine diagonals, and is one of only four polytopes with radial equilateral symmetry such that its long radius (center to vertex length) is the same as the edge-length: (the hexagon), the cuboctahedron, the tesseract, and the 24-cell.. This was added under immediately under the heading "Polygons and tilings", and actually pushes down relevant info like A polygon with nine sides is called a nonagon.. This change includes one tenuously relevant piece of info about the number 9, and then some completely irrelevant jargon-filled info about hexagons, with no citation. People who visit 9 are not looking for trivia about hexagons.
    • 8 - no substantial edits since January
    • 7 - [19] Cites [20] for the claim the heptagon is the only convex polygon to have a one-to-two ratio between the number of its sides and diagonals., which is not interesting or relevant, and also not in source - either based in WP:OR or WP:SYNTH
    • 6 - [21] - you added a piece of useless geometry-based trivial about the number 25 (not 6), completely unrelated to the preceding sentence, which was about aliquot sums.
    • 17 (number) - [22] - added far too much detail about the behaviour of subatomic particles (I wish I was joking), completely unsourced.
    I didn't cherrypick these examples, they are all the most recent non gnoming/copy-editing edit in each of them. Your changes on these articles only goes to show the breadth of this problem and reaffirms the need for a topic ban. I also would ask you to not add/edit guidelines on SYNTH/OR considering this situation at hand. BugGhost🦗👻 13:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's definitely looks like a type of cherry picking, with respect. Are there any other facts in those number pages that you disagree with? Because, thats less than 5% of content I added in each of the pages you mentioned. For the page for 8, what you see in the mathematics section, I wrote and expanded most of it (and organized it as you see). I am asking for a more comprehensive summary of your views of content I added in these pages. Could you please do that? In honor of your points that you mentioned as being superfluous, I will remove them now, except for the heptagon point, as I see it worth mentioning, and even @Dhrm77 protected an edit that was trying to word it differently, 1. Radlrb (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not replying further - I presented 2 examples, and then when you wanted more, I posted 4 more examples of your unhelpful changes, from recent changes from articles you specifically cited as your good work. This response is just WP:IDHT and WP:SATISFY. If I post 5 more examples (which I could), you will just ask for 5 more. One final thing I will point out is to show that you should be TBANNED from editing number-based articles is the 2,000 word essay on your userpage that has such insights as: These three unifying states are themselves united into a single state of equanimity (16, a value representing the ninth composite number), such that these two polar opposing states and middle state are united into a healing and sustaining flow of expression (all-feeling, all-knowing, and all-fulfilling). This yields sixteen elements (1-16). A state of rest of this equanimity is full sleep (0, the only number aside from 9 to yield a digit sum that is the same as the original number added to it, as with any final numeral-number in a given base, here in decimal), which is the root emotional and mental element. - I don't think it's a good idea to have someone who has this kind of relationship with numbers to be editing mathematical articles. BugGhost🦗👻 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, your input is not comprehensive and is selective of evidence, so does not satisfy "beyond reasonable doubt" so to speak, your vote, just shows bias you have and are unwilling to actually present wholesome evidence. What's on my personal user page should tell you that I think out of the box, and yes, think critically beyond what we know today. After all, that's how new knowledge is born, not out of stagnation. However that does not change the fact that I added great information in the first 10 integer articles. I will make a list of the points I have added, and will check mark the information that is clearly admissible, so that you can see actually (you likely do not know, by how you are describing my edits) what I have added! Radlrb (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From my experience with User:Radlrb's edits, he has done a mix of good and some controversial/fringe/unorthodox edits in the WP:WPM area. So, I'm not sure if TBAN means Temporary Ban, Topic Ban or some other form of Banning, and I don't know if that would accomplish the ultimate goal of keeping the peace and keeping Wikipedia both informative and not filled with obscure or fringe cruft, but I support some form of action that would go in that direction. Dhrm77 (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TBAN is Topic Ban, I believe. Radlrb (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Tban even above Radlrb is showing IDHT. Also some minor bludgeoning Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Tban for the examples given directly above, followed by Radlrb's accusations of "cherrypicking" and excuse that they are "thinking out of the box". Radlrb says to go check out the articles on 2 and 7, and when it's pointed out that they added bad content to 2, Radlrb says to look at more pages. When there are problems on those pages, Radlrb says it's "cherrypicking" again. This is WP:IDHT and arguing in bad faith. "I sometimes add content that hasn't yet been challenged" is not a good excuse for adding bad content. Also, announcing that you're "thinking out of the box" because "that's how new knowledge is born" violates WP:OR. Toughpigs (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      IDHT more from people here, that don't want to see the majority of the valuable points that I have added, so they only highlight the minority points in hope that it will flood over the actual evidence. For this, I can seek mediation from higher Wikimedia bodies, if this unfair treatment still persists, entirely against guidelines (ironic, because I am being framed for violating policies that here I was willing to fix, and after I gave heart-felt apologies). Also, the misquoting, taking my own words out of context. A lot of hypocrisy unfortunately, and worse, deep prejudice that does not want to come out from most (some are more vocal about it). Radlrb (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think it's "bad faith" to have an overly high opinion of one's own edits. If one doesn't think they are good, one probably wouldn't have made them in the first place. WP:AGF says "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful." I see no evidence Radlrb is playing a game or trying to put material they think is harmful or self-serving or deliberately provocative into Wikipedia. It seems they are simply trying to share information they think is interesting with people interested in that type of information. Yes, it's often original research and excessive detail and meandering off-topic, but that's a disagreement over what is good, not a conflict between good and evil. -- Beland (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Radlrb has posted a declaration of retirement but is still commenting. XOR'easter (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Correct. I can still talk in relevant spaces in retirement since it has to do with me, without editing articles directly. I'm making sure my voice is heard, regardless of people trying to silence me. Radlrb (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      From the template documentation: Do not use this template unless you plan to completely and permanently stop editing. Other templates are available if you might return at a later date, or if you plan to significantly reduce your activity. XOR'easter (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN. I am generally a sentimental softie and don't like recommending sanctions, but by now I think it's unavoidable here. Spamming number articles with nearly incomprehensible prose about points that are either esoteric or trivial is bad. Failing to understand the problem after multiple other editors have tried to explain it is worse. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN, because of the refusal to listen to others' relevant opinions demonstrated well in the interactions with BugGhost above, and the reliance on original research over published sources demonstrated in their number-related edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN. While some of their edits may indeed be good, the need for continual monitoring to pick out the wheat from the trivial and OR chaff is an unacceptable drain on other editors' time. Given their responses here, they clearly don't understand the problem nor the purpose of Wikipedia, and don't intend to change their behavior. If they really intend to retire then the TBAN is harmless but if they return to editing then the TBAN is necessary. CodeTalker (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Imaginatorium has asked me to chime in here. I don't really have the time or care to slog through the entire backstory of what has transpired here, so feel free to ignore this comment if you think I am missing important context. To the extent I am involved, I reverted Allan Nonymous's BOLD edits at the number articles which were wholesale deletions of content. I was then informed on my talk page that some of the removed content had been contributed by Radlrb, who was the subject of this AN/I discussion, and that I should weigh in here if I find their contributions positive. Personally, I believe that much of the content in question is interesting, informative, and useful; the reader who searches for individual numbers on Wikipedia is looking for exactly this kind of information. So, based only on this involvement it is my opinion that pushing away the editor who created this content would be a loss for Wikipedia. However, I should make clear that the reason I attempted to revert Allan Nonymous's deletions was not that I reviewed every single fact in question and determined that they were all suitable for inclusion; I simply disagree that making such large changes all at once is the right way to go about this. Davey2116 (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The opinion expressed here is exactly the reason I stopped most editing of number-based articles a year ago. It is clear that there is a community of like-minded editors who like having number articles in states like (to pick only the most recent of Davey2116's restoration of material removed in recent cruft-removal) 744, packed with statement after statement after statement sourced to OEIS and almost as interesting as "744 = 723 + 21".
      It may even be accurate that this is what readers who come to Wikipedia looking at articles on numbers in this range expect and want: they intend to find some factoid to say about this number (for instance, maybe as a lead-in to a blog post) and they don't much care whether there is any mathematical depth to that factoid. That's not a use case I care to contribute my energy to, and I'm not convinced it's encyclopedic, but it is a use case. So eventually, to me, the effort of cleaning up what always seemed to me the Augean stables weighed too much relative to the opposite reaction to appreciation for those cleanups from editors like Davey2116 and I stopped. But I applaud others who have the fortitude to continue cleaning this up. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is not a fair representation of what happened. Davey2116 didn't restore the content because they think meaningless trivia belongs in the article, but because Allan Nonymous's deletions went too far, removing high quality encyclopaedic content written by users (including myself) who have been actively removing trivia and developing the articles with GA quality prose. Polyamorph (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Your advocacy of the same cruft does not change my evaluation that it is cruft. Also "I worked so hard putting all this cruft into the article and it's unfair to just remove it" does not count for much to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm clearly not advocating for the inclusion of "cruft" but the manner in which it is being removed, taking genuine high quality encyclopaedic content (like that which I contributed to at the article 1) out with it. I'm not impressed. Polyamorph (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Your "genuine high quality encyclopaedic content" is my cruft. And your "taking content like that which I contributed" is my "I worked so hard putting all this cruft in". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think you've read my contributions at all, if you had you would know it is not "cruft". Polyamorph (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Please be open to the possibility that someone has read your additions and decided that they are too much detail for that encyclopedia article. Not everyone has the same priorities and interests on a given topic.
      And folks, just typing back and forth "it's cruft!" and "it's not cruft!" isn't getting anywhere. We're discussing changing the guidelines on what should and shouldn't be included on integer articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers. Being more specific about what is and isn't important in a huge pile of changes would be helpful, as would be specific reasons for why readers would be interested. -- Beland (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with Beland that it would be more productive to discuss specific things at WP Numbers than to back-and-forth about whether Polyamorph is a "cruft-pusher". Mathwriter2718 (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the wholesale removal of the content at the integer articles by Allan Nonymous were totally reckless, removing high quality prose written collaboratively by multiple authors in addition to the so-called WP:CRUFT. It is for this reason they have been reverted, not because anyone wants to keep trivia. It's a case of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There is a discussion about this at the numbers wikiproject. Polyamorph (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose TBAN seems moot at this point as Radlrb appears to have retired. Some of their comments suggest they are not in the best state of mind. My interactions with them suggest they are a good faith editor that tries to do the right thing. I also note Radlrb's apology above. I'm not impressed that the user that proposed this TBAN has been systematically mass deleting content on numbers articles without consensus. Polyamorph (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      People often announce that they're "retired" during ANI discussions, and then come back shortly after the discussion is over. Radlrb announced their retirement two days ago, and then kept posting here. The topic ban is still necessary to prevent further disruption. Toughpigs (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      On the basis of what policy infringement. It just comes across as a content dispute with a few disgruntled editors taking there chance to dismiss an editor that annoys them. Polyamorph (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This dismissal of alternate opinions, well represented in the comments here, as "a few disgruntled editors" is exactly the same pattern of failing to consider seriously any disagreement that has been so problematic in the behavior of Radlrb. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      How pleasant. Polyamorph (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I gently urge that further discussions about specific removals of content we should make, comments about recent reversions made by editors other than User:Radlrb, and generally material relevant to WikiProject Numbers but not relevant to sanctions against Radlrb, be placed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Help remove WP:CRUFT on number articles! and not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathwriter2718 (talk • contribs)
      Of course, but when it comes off the back of a kneejerk reaction to Radlrb's additions and is by the very same user who is proposing a TBAN, then it is of relevance for the admins reading this. Comes back to this essentially being a content dispute. Polyamorph (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough. Mathwriter2718 (talk) Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    2024 Sri Lankan Presidential Election

    The article for the 2024 Sri Lankan Presidential Election (due on 21st September) is beginning to attract some attention, including from a user Oshalah with a username very similar to one of the candidates (Oshala Herath). The user created an article about the candidate concerned, which was deleted earlier today by Jimfbleak as unambiguous advertising. The user continues to edit the election page despite receiving a COI notice and a request not to edit the relevant pages until they have responded to COI concerns.

    They have very recently responded at COIN [23], but not in a way that inspires confidence that they are about to stop.

    The situation would probably benefit from some admin oversight. Axad12 (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see further comments [24] [25] [26] from the user on their talk page.
    The user would appear to deny being the subject, although they don't seem to have made a full denial of COI. They seem to claim to be an uninvolved voter making factual edits, although they describe the photos that they have uploaded as "[the candidate's] own and copyright free", which suggests some direct contact.
    If the user is indeed unrelated to the subject, it is presumably a matter of coincidence that they made edits under the same username back in 2009.
    The pattern of editing at the election page, however, appears disruptive either way (as per this talk page notice [27] by Obi2canibe) and they are being reverted by four different users. The user seem to be alleging that at least one of those reverting their edits is working directly for one of the other candidates in the race, and that they are more generally a victim of bias.
    There appear to be various issues at play here (including various policy issues). If an admin could take a look at the situation it would be appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:C4r10sg30rg3 and Acts 2 Network

    This user has replaced the Acts 2 Network article with improperly sourced thrice, including once after I warned them to stop. All three times they gave a useless edit summary. Clearly, the only way to stop them from doing this is to edit war or, as I would prefer, P-block them so they have to use the talk page. Mach61 19:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I've also requested page protection, so hopefully it stops. Procyon117 (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. The user is clearly here to whitewash the organization's reputation. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion by Second Skin

    Second Skin has been evading their indefinite block by using IPs from Pahrump, Nevada, such as Special:Contributions/158.140.61.7 today, Special:Contributions/158.140.53.39 in July, and Special:Contributions/158.140.53.34 from 2023 (before the indef block) through June 2024. Earlier in 2023, Special:Contributions/158.140.61.60 was active, getting blocked in May. Despite some collateral damage, I recommend a rangeblock of Special:Contributions/158.140.48.0/20, because smaller ranges don't get every involved IP.

    Second Skin and these IPs have the same abusive style in their edit summaries, especially in calling others "idiot".[28][29][30][31][32][33] There's also "retard".[34][35][36] They share an interest in the genre details of extreme metal topics. It's obviously the same person. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Some history: Back in December 2021, I warned Second Skin about editing logged out.[37] The involved IP was from Pahrump, Nevada.
    In October 2023, Second Skin was topic-banned from music genres.[38] That's when the IP Special:Contributions/158.140.53.34 started being used for music genre edits. Binksternet (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'll keep an eye out. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic Ban or Site Block, Greghenderson2006

    Greghenderson2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under p-block implemented by @The Wordsmith from community consensus at this discussion. Disclosure, I opened that discussion, which is part of why I was loathe to bring this, but the problems/conduct have not improved - they've just moved to the Talk space and AfD. Greg appealed his p-block, which was declined by @Floquenbeam per community consensus. The most recent disruption can be seen at Draft talk:Lewis Josselyn, specifically Draft_talk:Lewis_Josselyn#Birthdate_and_death_date_accuracy_still_remains_questionable_(and_COI_related_discussion) where Henderson shows the complete disregard for consensus about the sourcing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Josselyn and filibusters the discussion without regard to feedback provided about why the sources are inappropriate. Full disclosure, it is in that discussion where several of us began discussing further necessary action due to Henderson's ongoing sourcing issues which may have become also a COI one. The same is present at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California) where he claims sources are independent and books, when they are neither.

    This is the same problem that has been going on for more than a decade, and it's clear Henderson prioritizes his desire to create articles over our notability policies and guidelines. Therefore, I propose either a topic ban from California and the Henderson family, broadly construed, if not a site block entirely as I'm not positive the disruption won't move elsewhere since he shows no willingness to change his manner of editing. Should this be enacted, it needs to be clear it applies to his account as well as those he may be collaborating with given the concerns raised here to which he has not adequately responded.

    Notification forthcoming, want to be able to give him a direct link. Star Mississippi 21:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe there may be a misunderstanding regarding my behavior. Regarding the two articles mention above, it has been hard that the articles were rejected. I have invested a lot of energy into ensuring the articles are the best they can be, using what I feel are reliable sources. I understand how it may have been perceived as disregarding, and I apologize if it caused any issues. Since May 2024, I've have submitted 22 drafts, which have been reviewed by my peers and accepted into the article main space. I am currently working on an article about Monterey's "Casa del Oro," which is a California Historical Landmark. I would like to continue my work on California history. Perhaps we could discuss this further and resolve the issue, with me accepting the feedback from my peers, and working with them on following the notability policies and guidelines. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Greghenderson2006 For this to be a true offer, a real offer, you will need to convince me, at least, that you will accept that feedback consistently (after questioning to understand if necessary), accurately, willingly, and effectively.
    I have always wished you well, Greg, and been certain that you can, if you choose, be an excellent editor, but the evidence that you will work with advice and feedback is usually short lived. It looks to me as if this is last chance saloon. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You never accept feedback from your peers (at least nowhere close to a net-positive manner), and this was called out by Star Mississippi in an ongoing deletion discussion. Why would it be any different this time? Left guide (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Left guide This is the most elastic WP:ROPE I have ever seen. I am surprised it has not passed its elastic limit. You have said what I said far more directly. I have to agree with your assessment. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For more insight into the problems with the sourcing of the Casa del Oro draft see Draft talk:Casa del Oro. Netherzone (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and Talk:Vásquez House where he is using the same poor sourcing and bludgeoning the Talk with edit requests. Star Mississippi 02:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He also requested to be an AfC reviewer on June 9th which was declined because he is blocked from article space. He requested it again on July 2nd, declined again pointing to the same reason as June 9th and then again on 31st. S0091 (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for adding that @S0091. I had somehow forgotten despite weighing in at the latter. I do not trust that Henderson would not use AfC as an end around his p-block. Greg, AfC isn't peer review and as I said at the AfD, has no bearing on whether an article should be retained. Just that it has a chance of being retained. There are new AfC reviewers who aren't aware if your issues with COI/UPE and RS so yes, some articles may be accepted. You've promised to accept feedback at every prior discussion, yet we're here because you don't follow through - which is what Floq noted in the close. I do not believe you will change your conduct, simply say what you believe we want to hear so you can proceed with your work. Why is this time true when none of the others were? Star Mississippi 22:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Repeatedly requesting same actions and hoping for a favorable outcome from an unfamiliar editor is a pattern with Greghenderson2006 and it's a despicable waste of editors' time and effort. I recall there was a draft rejected by 3 or 4 different editors after repeated submissions for review and getting rejected for more or less of same concerns about sourcing, verification failure and such that have been revisited with regard to his edit. I liken his behaviors to trying to sneak contraband through security checkpoint knowing it's not allowed to get through. I feel his editing habits are often sneaky. For example, in many of his block appeals, he made no effort to notify those whose participated in past discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And it continues... Greg continues to produce a pile of articles to expand his walled garden related to Carmel-by-the-Sea, Pebble Beach, Monterey areas of California. They often don't meet notability criteria and worse, verification, are hagiographic in tone or contain blogs and self-published sources as references despite having been corrected by numerous editors. I can't recall a time he didn't litigate any deletion effort. Every PROD gets challenged, and every AfD turns into a long drawn discussion counting on the chance it might not get deleted. In the case of Lewis Josselyn, he's tried to re-create something that's been deleted after a thorough discussion. The most recent occurrence is at Talk:Vásquez_House#Edit Request - Remove proposed deletion/dated tag AfD stats on shows his perception of contents policy disagrees with community in 70% of the cases and that's only counting Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_D._M._Beebe group AfD as one. If each was added as a separate entry, his stats would be significant worse. This continuing pattern is a prodigious waste of many editors time. Graywalls (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been scores of edit requests to add content sourced to poor sources, for example this one from earlier today: Talk:Vásquez House#Edit Request - Add sourcing, requesting that the history of a historical home be sourced to a pulp-history ghost story book published by Haunted America (publisher) is a subsidiary of Arcadia Publishing which is a disputed source as to reliability and quality. Haunted America publishes dozens of books on super-natural FRINGE topics such as Ghosts of Salem: The Haunts of the Witch City, Haunted Florida Love Stories, etc. A couple days ago, he bludgeoned an AfD that a work-for-hire report paid for by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea was a "book" that was "independent, secondary and reliable." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California). This sort of editing has been going on since 2007. He continues to crank out articles, drafts and edit requests like an article mill even with his current main space restrictions. It is collectively wasting hundreds of hours of editors work, which is a net-negative. Netherzone (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the community at large first took notice of this user's behavioral issues back in 2020 at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 163#Greghenderson2006, when he was discovered having written articles about (and promoting) his family members en masse. These two comments from the p-block ANI offer a more thorough historical summary of the situation. Left guide (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Your second diff caused me to reflect and change my initial vote. I had not realised that this had gone on soooooo long. My AGF just evaporated. I have been holding on to it for too long. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true - I am not promoting family members en masse! The incidents you bring up have nothing to do with the current incident concerning the two wikipedia article I wrote (see above). Let's stay focused on the topic at hand. I've already been partially blocked, which is embarrassing enough. Why would you try to ban someone from expressing their views? Isn't Wikipedia an open and free encylopedia that enyone can edit? Greg Henderson (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question? Is there a time restriction before they can appeal either sanction if passed, like six months or a year or longer or not at all? Isaidnoway (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment Given his pattern of repeatedly requesting reviews, incluidng blocks, I would hope that it would be no less than a year before he's even able to request resuming edits, and that should not be via a unblock request through talk page, but rather by requesting to community. Graywalls (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment it is perfectly reasonable to suggest a minimum time prior to appeal. It is equally reasonable to trust the eventual closer of this to "read the room" and chose an arbitrary time. I am ambivalent about the appeal mechanism, though I do not anticipate an early appeal will be granted. The prime concern is that Greg talks the talk, and then walks in a totality different, but expected, direction. Judging whether to accept an appeal is not a job that I would wish. Track record suggests that I doubt the conditions that may be imposed on any successful appeal will be adhered to, though this is a point to remind ourselves that a full topic (as in Proposal 1) ban might then become appropriate, whether or not it is currently. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Timtrent:, His initial p-block was prematurely lifted after a unblock request posted on his page and at the discretion of one admin, who appear to not have been aware of the entire situation. To prevent this from happening, I recommend that the sanctions be community imposed, and unban should be community consensus to prevent repeatedly submitting requests until he comes across one admin who might be sympathetic and lifts it. Graywalls (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Graywalls I see your logic. I am ambivalent becase I think wiser heads than mine should decide 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment - I think a lot of the issues come from the user likely being unaware of the rules and then being told them by people who are repeatedly voting for his articles to be deleted and are now voting for him to get punished. I think users being more positive towards the user in question and neutral parties trying to explain what is going on would accomplish a lot. Wiki also has some other issues with conflicting rules and ever changing notability standards that will continue to cause problems for years to come.KatoKungLee (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks! Finally a more positive comment. I agree with KatoKungLee. We should be more positive towards one another instead of this bashing and pointing out past mistakes. No one is perfect. Yes, we have many conflicting rules and we should learn to help each other not ban them from something they love! Greg Henderson (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The issues here have been a persistent problem for many years (Netherzone, above, said since 2007). The user has been advised not to proceed in certain ways on many many occasions, by many other users, and has now worn out community patience. Probably never has a user been given as much advice, as much community time and as many opportunities to change their ways. Axad12 (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @KatoKungLee, you are of course entitled to your thoughts and opinions, and I respect that you have weighed in here, however this is a long-term issue. This ANI report is not about punishment, it's about preventing long-term patterns and problems from continuing and wasting the community's time. The history of problems go back 17 years to 2007 when the editor created a walled-garden of articles about his family members sourced to his own self-published personal family history website and self-published book onhis family (Henderson, Ford, Byington, Boisot, etc.). This went on for years [39]. Then 14 years ago, in 2012 he was warned about Conflict of Interest editing [40], and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 163#Greghenderson2006. He began engaging in Undisclosed Paid Editing, creating an article on Quisk in 2012 who he worked for (now deleted) and was first warned about UPE in 2012 [41]; [42], [43] and UPE continued for a number of years Gary Hugh Brown, Zearn, Nyombi Morris, etc. Problems with poor quality sourcing and misrepresentation of sources go back to 2007. There have also been more recently discovered problems with COPYVIO and close paraphrasing and using AI. Please understand that the issues presented on this noticeboard are not new, and there have been a team of editors who have generously given of their time for years to try to help, guide, mentor and teach him about WP guidelines, policies and and sourcing, but unfortunately the behaviors never changed. I hope that helps to shed some light. Netherzone (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not true! For someone who once gave me two Barnstar rewards, I am suprised that you would say such negative things about someone. How would you feel if someone said this about you and tried to site ban you? When I worked at Quisk, I wrote the article out of pride in the company and was certainly not paid for it. You wanted to delete several of my articles, which was heartbreaking. You tried to delte Henri Vincent-Anglade and Joseph Henderson (pilot) but they were voted to be kept! I appreciate the help you have provided but the unkind words are not easily forgivable. Please try to open your heart to your fellow Wikipedians and realize we are all share the same goal; to write and edit the best we can. I think my record shows that in the 400+ articles I've written, there is no reason to accuse me of such wrongdoing. Rather, you should appreciate the accomplishments I've made to expand the scope of Wikipedia! Greg Henderson (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The comment "When I worked at Quisk, I wrote the article out of pride in the company and was certainly not paid for it" shows an interesting interpretation of the UPE/COI policies. (My emphasis.) Axad12 (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Greg, you seem to have forgotten that I retracted the barnstar because you had fooled me about your undisclosed paid editing: User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 11#A Barnstar for you! 2.
      Guess you also forgot about this convo with another editor: User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 11#Do you have an undisclosed connection (paid or unpaid) to Zearn? and this: User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 12#Were you paid to create Jin Koh?. And this: User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 12#Zearn (and others.)
      Many of your former and current creations indicate that you may still be engaged in COI/UPE editing in relation to Carmel-by-th-Sea topics, Carmel Historical Society topics, and in particular the Monterey County Historical Society (MCHS) related topics.
      In this very long thread: User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 13#Two THREE more undisclosed COI articles discovered you admit that you spoke with the curator of the MCHS [44] but when @GraywallsGraywalls directly asked you three days ago if there was any coordination or conversations with the MCHS [45] you said No.[46].
      Then there was the strange interloper from the MCHS who showed up on: Draft talk:Lewis Josselyn#What's going on here? COI? Netherzone (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC) Netherzone (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      How would you feel if someone said this about you and tried to site ban you? is a non-sequitur because Netherzone doesn't engage in the same problematic disruptive behaviors as you that landed you here. This whataboutism isn't helping your cause. Left guide (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Question: How long is it appropriate to keep this under discussion prior to drawing it to a close. Being humane, the sword of Damocles is hanging over Greg. Whatever his behaviour, and recognising that justice needs to be seen to be done, I believe he deserves a swift outcome once consensus is established on any of proposals one to three. I feel they may be closed individually. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)·[reply]
      This means that the follow-up question needs to be asked: "Is consensus now established?" If it is, please may we move towards closing the discussion and implementing that consensus?
      If the answer is that it is not yet established, the question should be asked on a daily basis, perhaps more often, until someone feels it is sufficiently established and a definitive outcome can be reached, implementing the consensus. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks to me that there is a clear consensus for a site block. Recent edits suggest that there is now going to be a concerted attempt to distract from that consensus by questioning the validity of the charges, the validity of the process, etc. Axad12 (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Per WP:CBAN - For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours. So I reckon after 72 hours, this discussion will be closed. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    question mark Suggestion Who wrote these proposals? If they are proposals, then I vote for a fourth option: that this whole discussion is moot because it is not based on any charges that are significant to warrent a ban. Please see my commnets below regarding the original incident. Any wrongdoing on my part does not warrent a total ban! Greg Henderson (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Greg, your fellow community members wrote the proposals.
    What you are failing to understand is that Wikipedia is a community, and as such it has community norms that include behavioral and content guidelines and policies to insure a productive, efficient and effective working environment. Wikipedia operates by community consensus; Wikipedia is a collaborative project. The ANI was opened by an administrator because chronic, intractable behavioral problems exist with your editing.
    When an editor deviates from community norms too many times disruption is the result. You have not been listening to your fellow community members but rather have been operating by your own set of rules and interpretations of the guidelines and policies of the community.
    This chronic behavioral-and-content noncompliance has caused frustration and wasted a lot of volunteer editors time; time that could be better spent working on our own articles, tasks and projects to improve the encyclopedia. Disruption = energy inefficiency within the community; there is a point when this is simply no longer sustainable.
    Everyone here has wanted you to succeed, and have tried very hard to make the norms and expectations of the community transparent. Unfortunately patience has been exhausted and AGF has been fully depleted. I'm sorry that is the case. [Formatting is for emphasis only.] Netherzone (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The supposed fourth proposal is rendered pointless by the strong support to Proposal 2. Apart from Greg's own opinion against it would already be carried nemine contradicet. So the suggestion that this discussion be moot is devoid of value, and is suggested by him to sell to dilute and derail the full discussion. This has been a typical behaviour that he has exhibited throughout my knowledge of him. His strategy, knowing or unknowing is to choose one or more of apologise, continue, dissemble, distract. Apart from 'apologise' this feels straight out of the Trump playbook. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: a number of participants in various places are referring to a Site Ban which differs from a Site Block. The latter is what we are voting on in Proposal 2. They are different things. It would be pragmatic to stay consistent with the proposal as posted. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Timtrent: Honestly, that's all just semantics by this point, at least for this situation. It's a distinction without a difference as evidenced by the third bullet point of WP:CBAN policy section, which says Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus…are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Left guide (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      While it is semantics, it is well to have pragmatic regard to them. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Probably my clumsy wording. Basically my distinction was partial (topic) or full site since partial (article space) wasn't working. If it needs tweaking, you have my blessing. Star Mississippi 01:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote proposals one and two, and the community disagrees with you that they don't warrant a ban @Greghenderson2006 which I notified you of (and you replied to). You're unwilling & unable to change your behavior despite many people trying to help you. If you feel my proposal was in error, feel free to open one of your own. You're entitled to Star Mississippi 01:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true - I am willing and able to change my behavior! That is the point you don't seem to understand. A site ban should only be placed on someone to deal with immediate problems such as vandalism. I am a good editor and volunteered my time to create 400+ articles. Why would anyone want to ban someone who is contributing to Wikipedia and is willing to follow the rules. Yes, I think your proposal was in error (either a topic ban from California and the Henderson family, broadly construed, or a site block). Your proposal should have taken me from the current partial-ban to a topic ban. Please reconsider your proposal and allow some flexability in your prevention ideas. Greg Henderson (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Greg, respectfully, you are the only one who doesn't believe you shouldn't lose access to edit and in the minority arguing for retention of an article that will be deleted in days' time. You are not willing to follow the rules because you are more focused on adding articles than quality and you do not respect sourcing nor policies because your sole goal is adding articles. The current AfD and talk page discussions make that crystal clear and a topic ban would just mean the same problem would happen elsewhere. Feel free to open a proposal of your own if you believe my actions were wrong. Star Mississippi 02:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get it. How do I open a proposal of my own? I think your assumptions are incorrect and you are not looking at my contributions only accusations, which are false. Greg Henderson (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The exact same way I did here, you start a new section detailing what you think is wrong and then you notify me.
    But Greg, it's disingeneous to say the accusations are false. You claim sources are books and independent when they're demonstrably not. You badger editors to make edits that you're not allowed to. Do you realize a topic ban would mean you're not able to edit about these subjects anywhere? No talk. No draft space. Nothing. Yet you're supporting that. This is not something that will be lifted by you convincing one admin you have changed, so suggest you think hard about next steps. Star Mississippi 02:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many such promises made by Greg. There are equally many instances of those promises not being kept. I am unable to determine whether this is a CIR issue, a issue of saying what it is believed we wish to hear followed by carrying on regardless, an inability to understand what the promise is about, or some other issue that I cannot frame.
    Whatever it is, and despite many of us having tried to help, lead and guide Greg, despite Greg being eminently likeable (not relevant here), I cannot see a place for his editing here, Wikipedia does not need an editor with his particular inability to play the game within the rules.
    These are our rules, made by us, made by the community, by consensus. The community is now reaching consensus on whether we believe that Greg can and will work within the rules. At this point the overwhelming interim consensus as I post this is that the community believes he cannot and will not. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 1: topic ban from California and the Henderson family, broadly construed

    Proposal 2: Site block

    • Support: Whatever Greghenderson2006 has said that he thinks we want to hear, there just doesn't seem to be any remedy for his tin ear. I remember the Josselyn AfD all too well, where he conflated fleeting mentions and photo captions into significant coverage, fought doggedly on the premise that "Biographies of Carmel and Berkeley Artists" constituted a "country's standard national biographical dictionary" as per WP:ANYBIO #3, and bludgeoned the hell out of the conversation. I just don't see where he's been an asset to the encyclopedia enough to counterbalance the many headaches and wastes of editors' time he's been. The WP:ROPE has indeed stretched to the breaking point. Let's just cut this short. Nothing prohibits Mr. Henderson from continuing his biographical research and work in some other venue. Ravenswing 22:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support According to his block log, this is his second article-space block. I think this pblock from mainspace was the final attempt to let Greghenderson2006 demonstrate that he could edit productively while avoiding the errors that led to that block. That he simply transferred the same problems to draftspace and AfD means it's likely a topic ban would also result in the problems moving elsewhere. He refuses to understand the relationship between sources and notability as demonstrated at Draft_talk:Lewis_Josselyn#Birthdate_and_death_date_accuracy_still_remains_questionable_(and_COI_related_discussion) and the same behavior plus bludgeoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California). When an editor's participation becomes a frustrating timesink for other editors, something has to change and Greghenderson2006 has shown that he isn't going to change. Schazjmd (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedians are not allowed to voice their opinions? I am suprised that you point to these examples for a total ban on someone who has contributed so much! Greg Henderson (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - based on this and past ANIs. I am certain the UPE is continuing and have sent an email to an administrator detailing evidence thereof. Ongoing problems with UPE, COI, CIR, misrepresentation of sources, poor sourcing, has been going on for over 10 years. Myself and many other editors have tried again and again over the years to mentor and teach Henderson, but he still has not changed his ways nor does he ever make an attempt to do so despite repeated hollow and sometime AI-written apologies and promises. The amount of time wasted over the years on this editor is a massive sink hole with no end in sight. Diffs can be provided if requested. Netherzone (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support--enough already. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support-- for reasons detailed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as proposer as as we've tried blocks and partial blocks, none of which have changed the underlying behavior. This is unfortunately the next and only viable option. Star Mississippi 01:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support WP:TIMESINK IDHT. Graywalls (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    specifically, indef and no option for appeal for at least a year. He's been given more than fair number of chances. Graywalls (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support -- editor seems to not have learned their lesson and precious time has been exhausted for them. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support sadly. This is not where I wanted to see this end, because it is clear Greg is passionate about his editing, gives hours of his time to it, and really enjoys it. However I genuinely believe he would be better served giving that time and energy to places like family or local history websites because that is where much of it belongs. There have been years of WP:IDHT and WP:CIR issues and huge time invested from multiple other editors with no change, so this is where we are. Melcous (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support due to the chronic massive WP:TIMESINK caused by this user's WP:STUBBORN behavioral patterns, over and over and over again. The topic ban is a bandage on a bullet hole since the problematic behaviors would simply shift to other areas of the project, so this indefinite site block is necessary as the only workable remedy to prevent further damage and disruption to the encyclopedia. Left guide (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - even though I am not an ANI regular, from my knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, someone with 18 years of experience, 23,000 edits, and about 450 articles should obviously know what is conflict of interest. We should spend our time doing more productive work than correcting this user's mistakes, of which we can name many as described above. HarukaAmaranth 14:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: The only real "issues" I've had with AfC content have involved this user's drafts. C F A 💬 15:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support enough is enough, if Greghenderson still thinks a local biographical entry = country's standard national biographical dictionary and that photo captions are SIGCOV after all these years then that is either sever CIR or IDHT, either way indef block is the right method. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also unrelated, but I keep getting edit conflicts with myself. What is going on with that? Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a site ban because, both before and after being blocked from article space, this editor has been a net negative, which is another way of saying a timesink. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Far too much time has been wasted by this editor and it must stop. Cullen328 (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not support - I’ve worked hard to improve and write quality articles. I very surprised that some people support a site ban. How would you feel if someone did this to you? I believe a partial ban is harsh enough! Why would you ban someone who has been contributing the following accepted articles since May of 2024?
    1. Carlisle S. Abbott – American pioneer and politician 5/15
    2. Bradley Varnum Sargent – American pioneer and politician 5/16
    3. Bradley V. Sargent Jr. – American politician 5/20
    4. Roswell Chapman Sargent – American politician (1821–1903) 5/21
    5. James Pattee Sargent – California politician 5/22
    6. Pebble Beach Equestrian Center – Historic Equestrian Center in California, U.S. 5/29
    7. Sargent Station – Rail station in California, US, 1869–1971 5/30
    8. Sargent, California – City in California, United States 5/31
    9. Coyote station – Rail station in California, US, 1869–1959 6/3
    10. Edgar A. Cohen – American photographer (1859–1939) 6/5
    11. Alfred H. Cohen House – Historic home in Oakland, California 6/8
    12. Ballard-Howe House – Historic home in Seattle, Washington, US 6/19
    13. Richard A. Ballinger House – Historic home in Seattle, Washington, US 6/20
    14. Jesse C. Bowles House – Historic home in Seattle, Washington, US 6/21
    15. Charles Bundschu – German winemaker (1842-1910) 7/7
    16. Orange Lawn – Historic mansion in Sonoma, California, US 7/16
    17. Sonoma Grammar School – Historic grammar school building in Sonoma, California, US 7/18
    18. C. W. J. Johnson – American photographer (1833-1903) 4/9
    19. Sonoma City Hall – Historic building in Sonoma, California, U.S. 7/21
    20. Sonoma Valley Woman's Club – Woman's club in California 7/17
    21. Governor Alvarado House – Historic site in California 7/30
    22. All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California) 7/21

    Greg Henderson (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting that you give #22 as one of your best contributions. It is currently the subject of an AfD which highlights many of the issues here, and will surely result in it's deletion in the near future. Including it above gives the impression that you are still disregarding community concerns about your editing. Axad12 (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very cherry-picked, as that response conveniently hides the time-sinks of countless hours spent by other editors on declined drafts, talk pages, draft talk pages, and AfDs, in addition to cleaning up low-quality sources on those articles. Left guide (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not my best or cherry-picked articles, they are simply the most recent from in the last few months. I've written over 400 articles since joining Wikipedia. The All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California), is actually a great article. I visited the site myself and took the pictures, and I am very proud of this article. No one in their right mind would delete it but rather suggest ways to improve it. What would greater if we worked together to make Wikipedia the best it can be, rather than fighting with one another. Greg Henderson (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The count of votes at that AfD is 7:1 in favour of delete. Commenting as you have done above is just doubling down on the disregard for legitimate community concerns about your editing. That is basically the core reason why there is so much support here for a site block. Axad12 (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one in their right mind would delete it. So when WP:Articles for deletion/All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California) inevitably closes as delete, somehow the community of experienced editors who assessed the sources and weighed them against the notability guidelines all have "wrong minds" and yours is the only "right mind". You are literally demonstrating the same WP:STUBBORN mindset as we speak, and have learned absolutely nothing about your behavior, even in this final hour discussion. Left guide (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. There's just no hint in their replies that they actually understand or accept what they're doing wrong; their response at the top of this section (describing things as a misunderstanding and saying that I understand how it may have been perceived as disregarding, and I apologize if it caused any issues) is essentially an "I'm sorry if you're offended" non-apology. Huge amounts of time and effort have been wasted cleaning up after them and every indication is that if more bespoke restrictions are used they'll just keep causing the same problems somewhere else. --Aquillion (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Very strongly support. Axad12 (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      One incident that hasn’t really been covered above is the occasion when Greg openly admitted to using AI to write articles and then to making enough minor changes to the text so that they didn’t flag as categorically AI-written when applied to an LLM detector. If I recall correctly, this was after having presented the results of an LLM detector to suggest that the text had not been AI-written.
      I’m afraid I don’t have a diff for the relevant discussion. It seemed to me to be an interesting window on how far the user had strayed beyond community norms but still felt that his explanation would be acceptable to the wider community.
      If anyone has the diff please feel free to include it here as it's a real eye opener. Axad12 (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There was also a comment they made on a user talk page in defence of an exhibited inappropriate behaviour that was or appeared to be entirely AI generated. Obviously not the same as an article or draft, but showing very questionable judgement. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      here's the link [47]. Theroadislong (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - if you don't understand and/or are not willing to abide by our policies and guidelines after 18 years, it is highly unlikely you ever will. Support at least a minimum of 12 months with a community appeal process in order to get unblocked. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Discussion ongoing...
      Remember, this incident arose due to "sourcing issues which "may" have become also a COI one." I believe that assertion is hardly a reason to site ban a fellow Wikipedian who has contributed so much! Where is my defense? This is a simple matter of me voicing my concerns about two articles that I have worked hard to create. Please look at the Draft:Lewis Josselyn and/or the All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California) and tell me honestly if they warrant banning someone? The Lewis Josselyn is about a local photographer who played a major role in the development of black and white photography, when it was the only means to capture images of an area. The All Saints Episcopal Church article was accepted by a fellow peer who has remained silent in this discussion. It tells a wonderful story about how a chcurch was founded in the early 1910s and 1920s in a tiny village that has growned into a modern and contributing factor in the community. Please don't muzzel a peer that worked so hard to bring encyclopedic articles to his community. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, this is about more than a single incident and you know it. This is about chronic, intractable behavioral problems that have been ongoing for several years, and your apparent refusal to change that behavior. If you don't understand that, then that is a problem as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The use of {{Discussing}} seems to be either showing WP:CIR, since it directs to this page's talk page(!), disregarding the fact that this, here, now, is the discussion, or is a further attempt to seek to obfuscate, dissemble, distract, call it what you will. There are no shiny objects to look at here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That (so far) twenty-one veteran editors -- including multiple administrators -- advocate blocking you from Wikipedia altogether, with the only dissenting voice yours, is a profound indictment. That you claim you can't figure out why we would possibly do so is a profound statement: either you lack the competence to edit Wikipedia, or you're bullshitting us and you're incapable of backing down. Either way, you have amply demonstrated that a collaborative, consensus- and trust-based environment is not for you. Ravenswing 23:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with gratitude for all the editors who have spent so much time trying to address these issues over the years. I don't see any reason to believe that this editor's behavior will change for the better. Nor do I see evidence that they recognize the impact of their behavior on other people at all. The community worked hard to harness this user's motivations for the benefit of the encyclopedia. I wish those efforts had been rewarded. But it's time for everyone to move on. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - while I haven't encountered this guy's contributions, the attitude shown by him to people pointing out chronic problems with his editing is simply not compatible with this site. MiasmaEternal☎ 22:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban (not just "block") – Greghenderson2006 seems unable to understand / grasp why his way of editing is problematic, let alone change/fix it, to this very day. This has all been going on since what, at least almost a year since the first time action had to be taken? — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this user reminds me strongly of Doug Coldwell—both producers of large amounts of poor-quality content who refuse to acknowledge that their real actions take up a lot of real time from their real fellow editors. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctant Support I've accepted a few draft articles Greg has produced through AfC. He can write well sourced, well written, encyclopaedic articles on notable topics. But the COI and UPE editing is so disruptive and still ongoing, and we have been through this time and time and time and time again (including with AI generated reassurances to me that his behaviour would change). The behaviour isn't changing. That's a real shame. Qcne (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support because Greg talks and talks, and never says a single thing that acknowledges the impact of his work on other editors. Toughpigs (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Toughpigs Exemplified by "Yes, you would be preventing me from enjoying the freedom that Wikipedia advocates! Wikipedia is suppose to be a free encylopedia that anyone can edit!" below. I see "Me, me, me, it's all about me and my fun" and this is not collegial and shows no sign of ceasing. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't want to say it, but now that you have.... I had that exact same thought, his behavior is all about "Me, me, me, I, I, I, my, my my. I wanna have my way!" There is zero respect shown for the community itself or his fellow unpaid volunteer editors (not even a thanks for cleaning up his messes and trying to helping him learn); no respect the guiding principle of collaboration, no respect the pillar NPOV, or the copyrights of others (per copyvios and close paraphrasing). It is reckless and childish disruption. Netherzone (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Timtrent and Netherzone: Agreed. For a 71-year-old man, this is a remarkably immature attitude to have. There's three-year-olds who have a far more collaborative mindset than that. Left guide (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 3: Eventual unblock conditions

    Blocks are intended to be preventative not punitive. Thus the (presumed) indefinite block in Proposal 2 will be appealed eventually. Assuming that an appeal is successful at some future date, this proposal suggests an initial period of eighteen months from implementation of any site block before an appeal may be lodged, with conditions of lifting that the editor be then indefinitely topic banned from California and the Henderson family, broadly construed, unable to make edit requests within the 'area' of the ban, including drafts user sandboxes, etc.

    My rationale is to seek to prevent a welter or edits and drafts and edit requests in this ban area 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer for reason s stated in the proposal. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral on time as I think a time delineated one will just result in him waiting it out since he's repeating the same problematic behavior while this is going on, which to be shows he has no interest in ever changing. But yes, I do think a topic ban will be needed if & when he's unblocked. Star Mississippi 02:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd support a full topic (partial?) ban on creating new articles, both in article space and in draft space, if and when he is unblocked. C F A 💬
    • Not Support If an appeal is successful, why would anyone continue to place a hardship on someone's editing. It makes no sense. This should be the first option to choose not an outcome of proposal 2. Who is making up these rules and outcomes? This is certainly not unanimous and would not hold up in the real world. Greg Henderson (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Saying that he doesn't understand why such measures might be necessary only serves to demonstrate why they would be absolutely necessary. He really is his own worst advocate. Axad12 (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What sense does it make that GregHenderson2006 supports his own topic ban on California and the Henderson family [48], in Proposal 1, but opposes a topic ban remaining in place in the event that he successfully appeals the indefinite block of Proposal 2? Meters (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "why would anyone continue to place a hardship on someone's editing." For the avoidance of doubt, a hardship is not what this is. All blocks, all restrictions, are preventative, not punitive and not implemented as a hardship. This or any restriction is to seek to prevent the continuation of years of the same or similar apologies followed by repeats of the same or similar behaviour.
      I have no doubt that Greg will, at some future point, and if site blocked, make a successful appeal. I have little doubt that he will return to his customary inappropriate behaviour unless prevented. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Prevent" is the key word here. Yes, you would be preventing me from enjoying the freedom that Wikipedia advocates! Wikipedia is suppose to be a free encylopedia that anyone can edit! This ban would restrict my freedom just because I made a few mistakes with my sourcing and voiced my opinion on some deletion discussion. This is not a valid reason to ban a person someone and deny them the freedom to write. You claim that even with a topic or partial ban, I would continue my misbehavior. That is not true. We need to trust each other and offer help and assistance, not treat someone like a common criminal. You say that you've tried to help in the past and it hasn't worked. This is not true. I have improved, and my articles that have been accepted in the past few months are perfect examples of this progress. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Greg, this is about preventing disruption and time wasting for other volunteer editors, and not once have I seen you acknowledge this impact on others. This is a community, and you don't seem to have heard for many years the many, many editors telling you many, many times the negative impact your behaviour has had on them, nor have you changed your behaviour in response. We have trusted you, over and over again despite the same issues, and we have offered you enormous help and assistance, but you have not reciprocated by listening or trusting the community when others disagree with you (as evidenced most recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California), where like here, you are the single editor out of all those engaging who sees things one way, and yet you keep doubling down and refusing to acknowledge that the views of others just might be valid). It is at least in part because of this, that this looks like it will be the end of the road for you here. Melcous (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen this obfuscatory style of blandishment far too often form this editor. It says "I'm good, trust me." And he is not and I do not. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Greghenderson2006 you made an implied agreement with Bradv that you were going to clean after yourself in your older articles, as said right here. As shown in the current discussion, you continue to churn out a bundle of substandard, poorly sourced articles often written in hagiographic tones while you've put little into clearing out things or requesting clean out. I'm still finding things like this in your older stuff, which you've agreed to take care of, but have not. You denied COI with MCHS, so I asked you a reasonable follow up question, which remains unanswered even though you continue to submit drafts and edit requests in other places which like you're dodging questions where there's a reasonable community expectation that you answer it. All the behavioral evidence that have been brought to this point suggests that your purpose for editing Wikipedia is completely opposed to the very objective of Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an unfair characterization of me. I am suprised that you would say such mean and hurtful things. My behavior is evidence that I am complexity supportive of every objective of Wikipedia. In my 400+ articles I have written, they are solid proof of this volunteerism and commitment to a free encyncolpedia that anyone can edit. Your remarks support the Criticism of Wikipedia. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Greghenderson2006, How can you make a statement like Not true! I am not promoting family members en masse! - what about these articles you created on your relatives: Alexander D. Henderson (businessman), Alexander D. Henderson III, Girard B. Henderson, Joseph Henderson (pilot), Alexander D. Henderson Jr., Lewis Francis Byington, Byington Ford, William Helm, Emile Kellogg Boisot, Louis Boisot, George Faunce Whitcomb, Patricia Ford Crass, Trey L. Ford Jr., Daniel Isaac Faure, Robert Lewis Byington, Cary S. Cox, Archibald Murray Campbell, Georges Boisot, Emil Ernest Gloor, etc. etc. and that's not even counting the articles you wrote about their businesses and their houses! And although several have been deleted, each AfD was a waste of community volunteer time.
    You even created categories on Commons for all your relatives: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], and many many more.
    After getting called out on your family COIs, you moved on to other COIs and UPEs, and have created multiple walled gardens about Carmel, Carmel-by-the-sea, Monterey, Pebble Beach topics creating intricate links between various COI people, places, and businesses. Maybe 10% of your creations are actually unconnected, maybe. This is not the purpose of the encyclopedia, this is boosterism, advocacy and promotion. Your editing behavior and content is solid evidence of that. Your track record here proves that you are not a truthful person, nor a trustworthy one. Netherzone (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Netherzone, in the past we had some kind words to say about each other. Now, you seem bent on pointing out the worst in me. We believe in different things. I see no problem with writing about a gg grandfather who was a New York Sandy Hook pilot that helped bring in the Statue of Liberty and helped sail the ocean waves to bring in ocean liners in and out of the New York Harbor. The what you call Walled Garden is no different then other Wall Gardens like Template:Robert Louis Stevenson. I've done the paid edits to learn that side of the coin, but have learned not to do them again (lessons learned). My track records proves that I am a trustful person. If you look at my user page, you will realize that I have devoted a lot of time to Wikipedia and there are a lot of accepted articles. Please find it in your heard to vote not to ban me as it would be a great loss for me as well as what I can help write. Perhaps, Wikipedia needs a better system of helping rather than resort to banning people that have contributed so much! Please read the two documents listed to understand where I am coming from: Criticism of Wikipedia and Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. If we can learn to trust one another it can a win-win outcome. Thanks for all your previous teachings and try not to critize so much. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no problem with writing about a gg grandfather. That you still see no problem with writing about your family on Wikipedia demonstrates a complete stubbornness and/or inability to comprehend and follow WP:COI rules. Left guide (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are guidelines! I undersand the COI rules. You should not write about family members. I have not done this in a very long time. This has been in the past and should not be used against me. My only point, early when I first started in Wikipedia, I wrote about my gg grandfather out of pride for history. I have come a long way since then. Now I write about California history! Greg Henderson (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noticed that your edits defending yourself go on about how you've contributed to Wikipedia, and how dare we criticise your contributions. If your point is that we're harassing/bullying you, my response would be to point to the first law of holes. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the info about law of holes. The point is, this should be a win-win sitation not a ban-ban one. We should be here in Wikipedia to help one another not overely criticize and ban people. I have proven that I can write good articles. I'am not perfect. Perhaps you can find it in your heart to provide a path to not vote to ban me, but rather help me achieve that next step in making Wikipedia the best it can be. Trust is key here. We need to learn to trust one another, help, and encourage, not do the opposite. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Date-changing vandal from Pristina

    Johnuniq blocked the IP range 37.26.64.0/19 for disruptive editing, with an expiration time of 1 month. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Someone using IPs from Pristina, Serbia, has been vandalizing music articles and biographies by changing to wrong dates.[62][63][64][65][66] Can we apply a rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked one month. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Therealangelo1177 disruption, reverting/restoring bad content in beauty pageant articles

    I've had difficulty convincing this editor to follow norms like not reintroducing bad content. Here are some recent examples of what they're doing:

    • Restoring a table of over a dozen personal names, only one of which is mentioned in the source (No reason given, just reverted) [67]
    • Restoring a dozen names, falsely claiming they are in a five-sentence source [68]
    • Restoring a list of 20 names, falsely claiming the source of 15 names supports the entire list [69]

    You can see where I and other editors have tried to communicate with them on their talkpage:

    The response is just more of the same kind of editing, sometimes with false or just plain incomprehensible rationale like Removing some information there that is unreferenced may find it not productive or helpful... Try finding a reliable source of yourself... [75]. I've reached my limit of what I can do with this other editor and am asking for help under WP:GS/PAGEANTS or whatever is applicable. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I'm not sure what the deal is but full results for various pageants are hard to source. They likely aren't wrong but they can't be found for unknown reasons. It really sucks because they could be a huge help in linking some articles together. KatoKungLee (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "It's hard to source" doesn't mean we should yield ground on WP:V policy. I'm getting exhausted dealing with stuff like this, most often including volumes of pageant competitors and fine-grained result tables that come out of nowhere. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bohbye

    It appears that the user is on a spree to nominate every article related to Kamala Harris's biography for AfD, causing senseless bureaucracy. They just nominated multiple articles in series with no good policy-based reason as many of these were reasonable WP:SIZESPLITs - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamala Harris's tenure as Attorney General of California, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early life and career of Kamala Harris, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public image of Kamala Harris. Raladic (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no point for all those forks for content that belongs in the main page of Kamala. Bohbye (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that the main Harris article already is over 200kb, which is very large for an article. Content forks are the typical method of breaking up overlarge articles, and you've been on Wikipedia quite long enough to recognize that. Would you like to point us to diffs where you've sought consensus for your changes in what anyone with the slightest bit of discernment should recognize is an unusually contentious topic right now? Ravenswing 12:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They also just made this insensitive comment on the talk page that runs afoul of WP:NPA. Raladic (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop stalkimg me. Bohbye (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is seeing a comment in a talk thread that I have been actively part of and as such watching the thread, before you even made your insensitive comment, stalking? Raladic (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Following my activity, and creating this ANI. AfDs are a tool for discussion. You can vote and discuss civilly, and you might be successful with it. ANI requires you to discuss with other editors and not just create an ANI. You didn't like it, stalked me and removed a comment too attacking any body, just because you don't like something. Bohbye (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You made an AfD in the middle of an existing split discussion and then proceeded to mass nominate multiple more articles for deletion, this creates a lot of extra bureaucracy when there is no good policy based reason for the nominations.
    Separately, I already explained, you commented on a thread I am a participant of, that can't be stalking, but simply being part of a thread I was already part of. the comment you made is derogatory towards editors on the basis of gender and race, squarely afoul of WP:NPA. Raladic (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From the very beginning of her career in elected public office, Kamala Harris has identified as both Black and Indian. Because her father Donald J. Harris is Black and her mother Shyamala Gopalan was Indian. Countless reliable sources say that, and none say anything different. Her public persona as a candiate for public office goes back 21 years, and every one of the reliable sources discussing her ancestry say the same thing. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the spirit of full disclosure, I am among many millions who have donated to the Kamala Harris campaign. I will not add any positive content but will not hesitate to revert content that I believe violates WP:BLP policy. As at all times, I will be receptive to contrary views. Cullen328 (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)⁶[reply]
    Ahem. Allow me to enlighten you on another point. When gauging whether an editor's conduct is worthy of ANI (or other methods of complaint), it's common not only to look at behavior right in front of one's face, but to look over an editor's record to see if there's a pattern of misconduct. This isn't "stalking," but due diligence. (Never mind the howling irony of throwing stones about removing comments one doesn't like, right after filing several AfDs to remove articles you don't like.) Your actions on Wikipedia are open for all editors to see, and you can't debar editors from taking a look. Ravenswing 12:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just looked at the comment and it is absolutely not an acceptable thing to say and shows the clear bias this editor has. They need either a community ban from making AfDs or a block. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      See User talk:Bohbye#August 2024 ":Blocked.(edit conflict) with NinjaRobotPirate. As for "stalking" you, there's a reason a user's contributions can be easily looked up: if you're concerned about somebody's editing, you can look at their contribs to see if there's perhaps a pattern of disruption. Very useful for admins and for good faith editors in general. "Stalking" is something else. You have been blocked for a week for unreasonable accusations of stalking in several places, and, in particular, for this unacceptable comment. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen (A) | tålk 1:18 pm, Today (UTC+1).} Doug Weller talk 12:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    2024-25 Indian Super League Season 2024-25

    This page continuously vandalized by user muthachammy with slang language many times I revert but again he vandalized this page... Sir please look into this matter. Thank you Neon Grant (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You should notify this user on their talk page. Here, try adding {{subst:uw-error1}} and see if they'll listen to you and stop doing such changes. A♭m (Ring!) (Notes) 16:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're supposed to notify the involved editor per the notice at the top of this page - don't worry, I've done that for you. Just don't forget next time. MiasmaEternal☎ 22:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    178.51.64.144 unacceptable requirements of ethnic "purity" or something

    Super gross editing on User talk:178.51.64.144 & in this edit summary, the anon is requiring another logged-in editor to "prove" they are "pure" and not "half breed". ☆ Bri (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left them a sharp warning. We seem to have a lot of people who are extremely concerned with some idea of racial or ethnic purity these days. Acroterion (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief. I was hoping someone was misunderstanding No true Scotsman. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We should be so lucky. I wonder what the IP from Belgium might consider "Belgian," of all nations. Acroterion (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple: whichever ethnicity the IP is themselves. Ravenswing 21:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fraught issue in Belgium. Acroterion (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified 178.51.64.144 of this discussion, as required by this noticeboard. QwertyForest (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing after they received their ANI warning. This, this, and this. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, hardly any Americans would meet their purity requirements. Not sure what classification this English/Scottish/Irish/German/Dutch/mixed Scandinavian person I would be in their opinion. Acroterion (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, just read their talk page. I'm one of those half-breeds their upset with. My dad was Scottish and my mum was English. What a load of old codswallop. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He thinks I'm a "stupid Yankee." Nobody from West Virginia is any kind of Yankee, and any West Virginian not doubled over with laughter would break a chair over the head of whoever made such an assertion. So I guess his expertise in ethnology is pretty limited. Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but you're not recognizing the Yankee chain. To anyone not from the United States, we're all Yankees. To Americans, "Yankees" are anyone north of the Mason-Dixon line. To those north of the line, "Yankees" are anyone from the Northeast. To those from the Northeast, "Yankees" are New Englanders. To New Englanders, "Yankees" are those from Maine or Vermont, and likely residents of the one state growl at the thought of the other being a Yankee. Ravenswing 23:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't remember the last time I heard someone say the word "Yankee", other than referring to a certain baseball team. I live in the Pacific Northwest, and it's just not normal parlance here even though by some definition (immigration/settlers generally from upper Midwest and New England, with notable exceptions) many of us may be Yankees. But then any language referring disparagingly to a people – that term or others less couth – comes as a shock to me, maybe I'm just naive. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When I was younger you would sometimes hear the phrase "imperialist Yankees". It showed a complete lack of self awareness being said by British people. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    might as well just make it a synonym of "gringo" at this point cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    178.51.64.144's TPA has been revoked due to the comments they made on there. QwertyForest (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nocomputersintexas harassment and aspersions

    INDEFFED
    Indefenitly blocked as Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia by Bbb23 and user page speedily deleted as G10 by CactusWriter. Nobody (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I posted a warning on User:Nocomputersintexas's talk page after content they had posted to Talk: Yasuke had been removed by another editor who did not post a warning to their talkpage after they had removed the content. When I went to User:Nocomputersintexas's talkpage, I saw in the history that they had been warned already for WP:NOTAFORUM just days prior to what was removed on Talk:Yasuke, so I used the Level 3 Warning template. The user in question immediately jumped to accusing me of being a sock, proceeded to edit that accusation to further call me 'malicious'. After I responded to their post on my talk page, they made three more edits accusing me of even more impropiety.

    I was asked to explain why I issued the warning, when I did so, the user edited their reply to me multiple times again. [77] [78] [79] [80] with the same pattern of inflammatory accusations about myself being added in the subsequent edits.

    When I again attempted to explain since the user did not seem to understand, they repeated the same process as noted above of accusing me of improperity. [81] [82][83]

    When I further explained that I was asked to explain my actions and that giving said explanation wasn't harassment.

    The admin who had requested my response [84] posted again, at which point I responded [85] to which the user proceeded to accuse myself and a number of other editors [86] of extensively patrolling the talk page of this article and -- in my opinion -- heavily censoring and edit warring anyone they disagree with to the point where they have bumped heads against many editors not just myself

    When I refuted [87] those accusations, he proceeded to do the thing where he makes multiple edits and adds increasingly inflammatory information [88] [89]accusing me of "weaponizing Wikipedia policies". At which point I stopped engaging with the user and removed his posts from my talk page. The user then added me to his userpage along with what appears to be a great deal of [90] WP:WITCHHUNT. Their notice that I went to their talk page to ask them to stop, they refused and instead blanked it to hide it omits the fact that the only reason I returned to their talk page is because an admin asked me to explain. Likewise, when the user's talk page content was originally removed they accused the removing editor of abusing the rules [91].

    --Brocade River Poems 19:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears this topic has been rendered moot as the user in question has been indefinitely blocked shortly after I created this topic. Brocade River Poems 22:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is it about Yasuke that brings out the worst people? MiasmaEternal☎ 22:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know. My contributions to the Yasuke debacle are minor at best, my main concern about the article was the definition of sayamaki being used was omitting alternate definitions. I participated in some clean up on the article and some discussion, but I've primarily moved on to other things that seem like a more productive use of my time. Chiefly, finding sources for other articles that need sources. Brocade River Poems 22:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Before this gets closed, can someone check out his user page too? I don't know what it is, but it's a bunch of links about a user being blocked? That seems weird to have on a user page. Diffs are allowed per WP:POLEMIC if used in a timely manner in a dispute resolution, but that doesn't seem like it's going to be happening now. Closhund/talk/ 22:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's been G10'd. MiasmaEternal☎ 00:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Removal of content without consensus

    Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk · contribs) keeps removing entire paragraphs they don’t like from Israel at the 2024 Summer Olympics despite multiple discussions have reached no consensus on doing so. Has been warned, has gone past WP:3RR and has refused to engage in a discussion despite notification, on the pretext that the topic has been debated “ad nauseam”. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This should be at Wikipedia:ANEW LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 22:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can this be moved without opening a new thread? Thanks! ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this is accurate, as even a cursory review would reveal. IvanScrooge has been involved in a tendentious edit war in an effort to throw fire in a contentious subject. His edit comment stating "Israel taking part in the most important sporting event in the world despite its blatant war crimes is pretty notable" is pretty revealing. He needs to review WP:NPOV and WP:OWN.- ~ Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPOV is about balance within the article’s wording, not about notability or users’ personal views—and yes, this is pretty notable especially with the accusations of doubles standards in reference to the situation of Russia and Belarus in this very same Olympic event. You don’t just remove a whole section that is heavily discussed after refusing to take part in the discussion. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone spending two seconds looking into your conduct on that page would see the incongruency of your complaints and your behavior. Immediately running to the admin noticeboard to try to get support after initiating an edit war is already such a strange thing to do.- ~ Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Immediately? You’ve been vandalizing the page for something like ten days. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Vandalizing" means anything that anyone does that I don't like.- IvanScrooge. Like a said, maybe its time to take a deep breath and take stock in things.- ~ Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I won’t debate any further about how how your actions are obvious vandalism since I have been very clear before and this is not the place to discuss the notability of the content. Next time you make bulk removals and someone disagrees, stop reiterating your behavior instead of telling others to “take a deep breath” and just accept empoverishing articles from relevant information. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe that "empoverishing" is a word. I have no idea what you are saying.- ~ Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarcastic tones over a spelling mistake. I don’t think this even needs to be addressed. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no sarcasm.- ~ Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See wikt:empoverishing. It is a word, and the spelling is correct, albeit somewhat archaic. —Wasell(T) 06:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The content in question pertains to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is under the WP:PIA topic-wide restriction of WP:1RR. The article has already been protected as an AE action. I've added the banner to the article talk, and provided the appropriate CT alert on the user's talk page accordingly. If further reverts are made on the article, Arbitration sanctions can and should be enforced. Left guide (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg violated 1rr. They have been on wikipedia since 2006. Do they not know about the restrictions? VR (Please ping on reply) 01:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 1RR rule was not put on the article until after I edited it. I have never interacted with you before. It is strange that you would come here and make false accusations without engaging in 2 seconds of research.- ~ Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All articles in the Arab Israeli conflict area are under 1RR restriction and have been so for years.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is nonsensical. How is an article about Israel at the Olympics related to the Arab Israeli conflict area? This is the whole point of my position in the first place. There was no fair notice that this article was subject to 1RR because it had nothing to do with the conflict until some extremely tendentious editors tried to force it in. Would an article about Maia Mai Weintraub be covered by the 1RR because she is half Jewish and some editors made a big deal that she had traveled to Israel before? This is absurd. Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know where you should have discussed this? At the talk page where I invited you multiple times. Not here, not now. I opened this precisely for your refusal to discuss. And in any case, controversy on Israel’s 2024 Olympic participation fully belongs in an article titled “Israel at the 2024 Summer Olympics”, that’s it. You should have tried to challenge this in the appropriate spaces instead of waging an edit war. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg: It doesn't matter whether the whole article is under 1RR. Per Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict, 1RR applies to the entirety of the Arab–Israeli conflict area just as ECR does. "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict" To be clear, this means even if the entire article is not under ARBECR and 1RR, any content on any page (article or otherwise) which falls within the topic area is covered. If you are going to edit in the area, you really need do know this. And if you don't recognise that [92] content like "Palestinian sports organizations and sports organizations from Arab countries are calling for sanctions to be imposed against Israel and to prevent its participation in the 2024 Summer Olympics due to the Israel–Hamas war" clearly is within the CTOP area, you frankly need to refrain from editing anything to do with Israel and Palestine point blank. I fairly doubt admins who deal with CTOP will take kindly to what is either dumb wikilawyering (there wasn't a template applied) or excessive clueness-ness in such hot-bed CTOP area. Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And to deal with your hypothetical, AFAICT, the article Maia Weintraub can't reasonably be said to be within the A-I CTOP area (although still covered by BLP which doesn't have a stock 1RR or ARBECR). Nor would a sentence within the article, she traveled to Israel in X. But a sentence in her article (or any page) about something like Maia Weintraub's travel to Israel was criticised by the BDS movement would definitely be within the A-I CTOP area and so ARBECR and 1RR would apply. (Subject to the normal exceptions especially BLP.) Likewise a sentence on something like 'during a visit to Israel she tweeted ABC about the Israel-Gaza war'. I mean there are always going to be grey areas, but it's problematic if editors are claiming areas are grey areas when they clearly are not. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this makes any sense. Your post ad hoc attempts to include an untagged article in the 1RR penumbra that has no inherent connection to the Israel/Palestine conflict are not well taken. It might be a good idea to go back to your obvious off-Wikipedia coordination group to attempt to drum up more support. In my experience, the worse the logic that you are relying upon, the more AstroTurf editors you will need to express support.- ~ Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Well, time for a TBAN, if not an outright block for this blast of bad faith. Grandpallama (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reapeating that protests against the inclusion of a state in violation of human rights is something unrelated to the Israel–Palestine question is not gonna help your point. Just saying. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The inclusion of a state in violation of human rights." This could not be a more obvious example that this whole episode stems from your violation of WP: NPOV. You are clearly assuming that your edits were acceptable based on a controversial premise that you assume to be true. This is the entire issue. Though I am sure you can find plenty of similarly tendentious editors to disagree, your failure to recognize that you cannot start with a completely controversial foundation and then flail around angrily when anyone does not have the same basic assumption means you should step back.- ~ Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now read my comment again adding “alleged” before “violation”. Is my point all of a sudden not valid anymore? Whether the “assumption” is mine or of the people who protested, the protests have still happened. Last time I reply because, again, this is not the place to argue on the content of the article. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vice regent: Turns out they were alerted back in March 2015. Was 1RR in force then? Left guide (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1RR was explicitly stated in WP:ARBPIA4 in 2019. – robertsky (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. After searching and finding the legislative history shown in WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, it looks like 1RR in this topic area has been applicable in some form or another since as early as 2012. Left guide (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By the looks of it, it seems the user has a history of removing sourced content they don’t agree with and expecting others to just accept it. I had not noticed until now. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have p-blocked Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg from the article and the talk page for a month, citing "edit warring, accusations of bad faith/collusion"--that all seems pretty obvious to me, with those claims of "editors coming out of the woodwork" etc. If anyone feels like doing the AE paperwork, go ahead. Oh, User:IvanScrooge98, do you mind changing the colors in your signature? Very hard to read, that yellow. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the intervention with the user. Did not think this shade of yellow could be problematic, I’ll definitely fix it! ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very light against a white background--thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The black is bad for dark mode. 😂 – robertsky (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Darn it! XD ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: just turn on your blue light and up your brightness ;) Conyo14 (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    asking people to raise their screens' brightness should be an osha violation cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How has User:IvanScrooge98 not been blocked as well. Please count his reversions on the page in question. They are equal to mine. He has assumed bad faith on my part just as much as I have both here and on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics#c-Doug_Weller-20240806152600-Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg-20240806151400. It seems like a strange decision to only ban one guilty party.- ~ Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg: The only relevant edits by IvanScrooge98 that I was able to find are their reverts of you on (all dates and times in EST) July 28th at 20:29, July 29th at 19:01, then July 30th at 19:19. By the letter of 1RR, that July 29th revert was a policy violation and by the spirit of 1RR, that revert on the 30th was too. But it's been almost a week so it's a bit stale, particularly when compared to a 1RR violation by you, which only happened yesterday and came in a span of five minutes. Further, you were contentiously edit warring against a large consensus on an extremely sensitive page so they've got a strong argument that you were being disruptive enough that reverting you more than once was permitted. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just wouldn't bet that an admin is going to review this and block Ivan because of it.
    As for your claim that Ivan has wrongly treated you as a bad faith actor, I wasn't able to find evidence in the link you provided but I could have missed it. Could you please copy and paste the exact text that you consider problematic? City of Silver 19:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Clan vandalism

    OP sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    MixedHarsH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I am reaching out to the administrative panel to address a serious issue with user MixedHarsh. This user has been repeatedly engaging in disruptive editing and spreading false information, particularly in the Mair Rajput article and other related entries about the clan. Despite numerous attempts to resolve these issues, MixedHarsh’s actions have continued to harm the accuracy and reliability of our content.

    Specifically, MixedHarsh has made numerous incorrect changes to the Mair Rajput article, including introducing fabricated historical details and removing well-sourced, accurate information. These edits are not only misleading but also violate Wikipedia's standards for verifiable and neutral content. The issue extends beyond this single article, affecting related content and the overall quality of information available on Wikipedia.

    Efforts to engage with MixedHarsh through discussion pages and direct communication have not been successful. The responses have often been dismissive or unresponsive, failing to address the core issues or acknowledge the factual inaccuracies. This pattern of behavior suggests a disregard for collaborative editing and a preference for promoting personal biases over factual accuracy.

    In addition to the specific problems with the Mair Rajput article, there is a broader concern regarding MixedHarsh’s editing habits. This user has made similar disruptive changes across various articles related to the Rajput clan, indicating a deliberate attempt to distort information. Such behavior not only undermines individual articles but also affects the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole.

    Given the ongoing nature of these issues and the failure of regular editorial processes to resolve them, I am requesting that the administrative panel take appropriate action. It is crucial to address these disruptions to maintain Wikipedia’s reputation for reliability and accuracy. I suggest considering measures such as issuing a formal warning or restricting editing privileges if necessary.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that the administrative panel will take the necessary steps to address the concerns regarding MixedHarsh and help ensure that Wikipedia remains a trustworthy source of information.

    Backupwiki (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Backupwiki - with all due respect, you’ve neither notified MixedHash of this discussion, nor presented any diffs to support your case. Until both of those are fulfilled, nothing is likely to be done. The Kip (contribs) 14:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm assuming the article in question is Mair caste; if not, please provide the correct article name. I'm curious as to why you're bringing this up here. It doesn't appear that you've ever edited that page or the Talk page, nor am I seeing any evidence that you tried to raise your concerns with MixedHarsH before coming here. Indeed you've only made 20 edits in your time here, unless you've been editing under an IP or a different username, in which case you should (and potentially must) disclose those. DonIago (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This may be Truthfindervert, who was blocked 9 days ago and was the last person to post anything to MixedHarsh's user page. A type of cabinet (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I ran the OP through GPTZero because it looked AI-generated to me. It came back as 100% probability of being AI generated. QwertyForest (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BOOMERANG time? The Kip (contribs) 20:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by your username, I smell a sockpuppet. MiasmaEternal☎ 01:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And the article was edited recently by IPs in the Uttar Pradesh area. And on mobile too, like OP here. Time for an SPI? MiasmaEternal☎ 01:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MiasmaEternal When you think it is time to file one you should already be filing it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - funnily enough, the sock was reported to SPI over two weeks ago, but didn't get any attention from the looks of it. MiasmaEternal☎ 08:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    CU blocked, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthfindervert Doug Weller talk 12:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent unsourced date changes with misleading edit summaries

    Caitysodergren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps making unsourced/unexplained date changes with the misleading edit summary of "Added links", continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of unsourced/unexplained date changes: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked them from mainspace until we get an good explanation of what's going on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hollywood Creative Alliance Page Protection

    I am not sure if this is the right place to request page protection. On Hollywood Creative Alliance Page someone (or several people) keep posting negative info without valid citations, i.e bankruptcy info linked to bankruptcy docs and not news articles, which includes Original Research. There are a number of IP editors and single purpose accounts making edits. There are edits wars, back and forth. Could someone have a look and extend protect this page? Sharamoscar (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to request an article for protection, you can request a page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase. Hope this helps. PEPSI697 (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S, this Project page here is ANI (short for Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). ANI is used for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Hope this helps as well. PEPSI697 (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been a long time since I have seen so many SPA accounts dominate an article and quibble back and forth with each other. My first inclintion was Extended confirmed protection but that is not appropriate unless semi-protection has been tried first. The problem with that is that most of these SPAs are already autoconfirmed or close to it. So, something needs to be done but I am not sure what the best course of action should be. Ideas? Cullen328 (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PEPSI697, the article history shows that this is a chronic problem. I believe that it is worth discussing here. Cullen328 (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah ok, I see now, just had a look at the article's revisions. I agree that it's a chronic problem. I agree with you that it's worth discussing this topic here. PEPSI697 (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks guys, so I will not bother to post at the Page Protection page. I'll wait the outcome of discussion here. I am not sure banning these guys is a solution, because they may just open a new account. It's hard to tell if there are 2 people involved or multiple, but as you will see there are several accounts and some IP's. My own belief is that these are the organization's members and the opposing organizations members called Hollywood Critics Association, who were in lawsuit against each other, doing this. I wanted to report this issue months ago, but it was not as bad back then. Sharamoscar (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: It's not uncommon or unreasonable for an unprotected article to go straight to EC protection if there's disruption from auto-confirmed accounts. The "Doping in China" situation above is an example of this, and it also happened at the Jeremy Bloom article a short while back when I requested admin intervention there. I think WP:NOTBURO is useful to remember. Left guide (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your view on this, Left guide, and I appreciate your input. I would like a few more editors to take a close look at this SPA feud. If others agree that extended confirmed protection is the best solution, then I will head in that direction. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support temporary ECP. Extensive history of auto-confirmed SPAs disruptively editing. Going to semi-protection first is just a waste of time in my opinion. C F A 💬 03:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I won't play the IAR card, but ec-protection is warranted imho; as we have a discussion here, I support ec-protection. If requested at RfPP, I would probably have gone to EC-straight away. Lectonar (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have extended confirmed protected the article for two weeks. Ping me if the disruption resumes. Cullen328 (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bigotry at Talk:Germanic peoples

    Jared Hanson III warned. Lets leave it at that and disengage as nobody is going to get blocked. Especially as it was a one off that was removed and blocking isn't supposed to be used to punish. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In what was otherwise a typical discussion over at Talk:Germanic peoples, a new account, @Jared Hanson III:, let slip some casual bigotry aimed at myself in response to what this editor perceived to be an insult.

    While at no point have I indicated that I am a "neopagan", I don't think this is acceptable and I do think it warrants action.

    Disagreement is going to happen on Wikipedia but bigotry is unacceptable. While some editors here may be tempted to dismiss bigotry aimed at neopagans as somehow harmless, consider for a moment if it were aimed at an adherent of Judaism, Islam, Christianity, or any other widely recognized religious group. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What action are you looking for? This editor just registered their account hours ago and I think we should start with a strong warning since they chose to revert themselves before anyone brought the edit to their attention. This was leveled as an insult but I like to see a pattern of behavior before issuing a block to a brand new editor. Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Explicit bigotry like this deserves at least a temporary block, not a pat on the head and a warning. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who's talking about a "pat on the head"? I took their quick removal of the comment and their edit summary as an apology. But it's clear that you won't be satisfied by a warning that this behavior is not acceptable on the project. The question is whether there is an admin patrolling this noticeboard who agrees with you that this insult is the same as discrimination faced by members of established religious groups. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And that would be enough for you if the user's comments were instead "especially when the one leveling the insult is a Jew" or "especially when the one leveling the insult is a Muslim"? What about "especially when the one leveling the insult is a Christian"? Or "especially when the one leveling the insult is a Hindu"? :bloodofox: (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. As far as insults go, being called a neopagan is fairly schoolyard level and he did remove it on his own before you had time to reply. Dragging him straight to WP:ANI over it seems like a bit of a WP:BITE to me. Yvan Part (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you'd feel the same about dismissing someone's opinion because they perceived someone to be a Jew, Muslim, or Christian? Would "especially when the one leveling the insult is a Jew" or "especially when the one leveling the insult is a Muslim" be just a "schoolyard insult" to you? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bloodofox, please read above that This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I do not think this individual incident applies, especially since your username clearly references the blood of an ox, and your userpage clearly espouses neopaganism baloney. You could remove that stuff if you wanted to, just as I could remove the stuff on my userpage about all the California things that I am interested in. In other words, if you do not want to be accused of advocating baloney, then do not advocate baloney on your userpage. Problem solved! Cullen328 (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've also wrongly identified my name and user page as somehow referring to neopaganism. But you're missing that I'm not offended about being confused for any particular religious group (including those whose beliefs you find acceptable to refer to as "baloney").
    Many of us are not OK with dismissing users for being Muslims, Jews, or Christians, to name a few, but this user has done exactly that with neopagans. That's a clear example of bigotry and should receive a response. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, let me get this straight, what happened was: you bloodofox said in a comment directed at Jared Hanson "This article sure attracts some characters", to which he replied "I would also appreciate not being insulted and called some character to imply I am an odd one, especially when the one leveling the insult is a neopagan" and then he took out the offending neopagan reference 28 minutes later with the edit summary "Took out insult which I gave in response to an insult leveled at me, but I can be mature enough to realize that two wrongs doesn't make a right, so I removed it" Why on earth are you bringing this here? That's the politest (mutual) breaching of WP:CIVIL I've ever seen. DeCausa (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Attacking others based on their (in this case perceived) religion is clear bigotry. Neopaganism is a religion just as any other. I don't see why an attack like that doesn't merit some kind of admin response: I believe it certainly would here if it involved major religions like Islam, Judaism, or Christianity. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really: "I would also appreciate not being insulted and called some character to imply I am an odd one, especially when the one leveling the insult is a Christian" doesn't seem like much either. Anyway he almost immediately retracted it. You kicked it off with an aspersion that implied he was some sort of oddity (which you haven't retracted). Don't you think life's too short for this sort of stuff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talk • contribs) 12:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think being called odd once for appearing to be neopagan is enough to warrant filling an ANI case. It is a troutable offense, though. WADroughtOfVowelsP 10:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Admin intervention needed

    Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Several abusive IP socks editing that page (one gets blocked and another starts editing). We need an IP block right now and possibly page protection? Thanks. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not ideal to protect that page given it's specifically to request removal of protections, but given the situation I have done a temporary page protection for 3 hours. Snowolf How can I help? 06:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And looks like the latest in the series of IPs was blocked by Johnuniq in the meantime. Snowolf How can I help? 06:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't get to see the actual messages before they were revdel'd, but this is highly likely to be related to the thread § So what are we doing about that IP above. The same person who has caused this very page, the general AN board, EFFP/R, RPP/I, RPP/E, WT:BN among many other centralised discussion and talk page to all be semi-protected. I don't like to make a big deal out of wilful LTA situations like this, but man, I feel bad for all the legitimate IP editors and new users out there who are now completely unable to edit these pages at all, as even the freakin' requests for edits to protected pages (RPP/E) is protected.
    I have some good suggestions for those legitimate editors who wish to post / make requests on these protected pages, but unfortunately I'm afraid that pointing them out right here will make them the LTA's next targets. The best option I can suggest for now is to make an account if you have not already; autoconfirmed is pretty damn easy to get, even for a casual editor. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some admin suggested in the previous thread above that we start blocking the /16 of every IPv4 address they use. But apparently this was not done because of ""collateral damage"". Seriously?!?!?!? I see far, faaaaaarrrrrrrrr more collateral damage being done in semi-protecting all these various noticeboards, talk pages and user talk pages rather than blocking maybe, three-hundred or so other legitimate contributors. What admins really should do here, is put these things on a balancing scale - the protection of noticeboards on one, and the IP ranges on another, and weigh up the potential collateral damage caused by each to decide. Collateral damage shouldn't be viewed as just, "oh, we should never block this IP range no matter absolutely what because there are 20 good edits coming from it every day". It should be viewed as, "we should block this IP range even if there's 20+ good edits coming from it every day if the amount of damage and chaos that also comes from it outweighs what benefit there is from the legitimate users". I'm thinking eventually we should apply a "block IP ranges at all costs" approach if this continues several weeks into the future. We can't just keep on semi-protecting centralised pages as it would hurt significantly more IPs / new users than what big rangeblocks would do. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop talking about this. Your comments are not helpful. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Romanianguy2023

    Blocked by Bbb23. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Romanianguy2023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Users sole edits consist of nationalist POV pushing/disruptive editing or outright vandalism (including BLP vios e.g. [93]) with antagonistic edit summaries. Has been warned on several occasions but their behaviour has not changed. Pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE. I first took this to AIV but they removed the req without action for some reason so I don't feel like I have a better option than making a complaint here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified them on their talkpage Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Zindra Lord: insults

    Zindra Lord has been blocked for 31h, and the edit summary revdeleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The edit message is explicit enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitcoin&diff=prev&oldid=1239100920 a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jtbobwaysf#dik a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:39, 7 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 on embassies in Indonesia and more

    IP user 103.2.146.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well as his alternate IP 118.136.39.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps on making disruptive edits on List of diplomatic missions in Indonesia and List of diplomatic missions in Jakarta. The main thing he always does is adding an Israeli embassy despite the fact that Indonesia has neither recognized nor established relations with Israel yet. The reason why his editing is disruptive is because his source is poor as it doesn't even mention anything about an Israeli embassy opening in Jakarta with a full address and an ambassador. It only mentions Prabowo's stance regarding the conflict with Palestine. Back in June he (and I) even broke the three-revert rule so both articles were protected for a week. Soon after the protection expired, he keeps on doing this again, but also changing the Australian mission to ASEAN's address from Jalan Patra Kuningan Raya to Jalan H.R. Rasuna Said without a source, despite the address always being Jalan Patra Kuningan Raya all this time. Not only that, but he also vandalized other articles like Jinan because he replaced Han Chinese with African which doesn't make any sense. He also recently vandalized the following artciles: Kim Tae-hee (twice), Singaporeans (also twice), Immigration to Malaysia and Religion in Sweden to name a few, mostly unexplained content removal or replacing one country with another. I warned him once but he still hasn't changed. I would like to request an IP block on both addresses because his edits are unconstructive to say the least. Underdwarf58 (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Also not great. They edits do seem productive at first glance, but apparently I interacted with this IP a few days ago to revert poor edits that randomly changed some list items. Just reverted this which used a source about a diplomatic mission closing in 2003 to add a supposed current diplomatic mission. Either CIR or trolling, and leaning towards trolling. CMD (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    85.230.77.37

    85.230.77.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) after a week block, the IP continues the same disruptive behavior. - Altenmann >talk 14:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Undead sock

    Why was User:SudaniWiki, an account supposedly blocked indefinitely as a sock since May, allowed to make this [94] edit at Sudanese civil war (2023–present) just now without notice of any changes to their status? Borgenland (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on Ponyo's block notice (indef) I've blocked the account as such, assuming the 1 May 2 week block to have been accidental. Happy to be corrected by others more in the know... Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Using Wikipedia as a source in Utilitarianism

    The user Zopyr (talk · contribs) insists in using Wikipedia as a source for his addition in utilitarianism. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You might have started a discussion with them. You could point out that the common good article does not say "Common good is a key phrase in utilitarianism." CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont expect a good faith discussion with someone that didnt even took a time to confirm that this was a violation of policy after being warned about it. It wouldnt matter because Wikipedia cant be a source in any case. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, assume good faith goes in both directions. Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ZvmeitSJS

    Indef'd by Pickersgill-Cunliffe for WP:NOTHERE. Thanks for the quick response. Levivich (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Would an admin please review this user's 9 contribs (all now reverted) and take appropriate action. Thank you. Levivich (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty sure this user is WP:NOTHERE. Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Environmental impact of bitcoin

    The page Environmental impact of bitcoin lost its talk page and I cannot find it. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like @JPxG ran some script on a lot of pages which all now appear to have broken talk pages - Special:Contributions/JPxG
    It also looks like they just had to evacuate, so hopefully some admin can rollback everything their script broke? Raladic (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking into this now. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 21:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Raladic (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be fixed now. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 21:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the ongoing discussion at WP:AN#Replacement needed is related somehow. Left guide (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be all fixed now, though I only checked the talk pages. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 21:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting from my phone. I made a thread about this yesterday at WP:AN when the script (not mine, Plastikspork's) went apeshit and busted 66 pages in about ten seconds -- basically, the "find/replace" in MassMove does not work right if there is a string error in the find part... but instead of canceling/confirming it just continues to add the replace part, creating a bunch of glitch-named pages.
    The impression I got at the AN thread during the few hours I was paying attention to it (after my own attempt to undo the script bug seemed mostly successful) was that the only issue was the original page titles redirecting to the nonsense glitch titles instead of the actual targets. What the hell else happened? jp×g🗯️ 22:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's too bad that those page moves aren't registered in the page logs. Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:72.49.252.233

    This IP user is engaging in vandalism. See User talk:72.49.252.233, user contributions. I just reverted this edit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't look like vandalism. That unncessarily huge cast list is excessive fancruft at best. scope_creepTalk 23:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    47.54.219.33

    IP user 47.54.219.33 is edit warring at Gustav Lindström, Lukas Vejdemo, and Mattias Norlinder despite being reverted by multiple users and discussions in which they were repeatedly told by multiple users that they were in the wrong.

    User has previously been warned for unconstructive edits and has a history of blanking their own talk page when others attempt to start dialogue or confront them about disruptive behavior. Consensus on WP:NHL in the linked discussion is that action should be taken. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I've requested page protection, for the three bios-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pseudoscience and unreliable sources at Dan Kaminsky

    Can an active editor figure out how to engage with an unregistered editor that changes IP addresses with every edit? The anon keeps editing the page to insinuate that the subject of the article died from covid vaccination. I've linked to relevant guidelines in edit summaries when reverting, as I don't know an effective way to have a talk page discussion with an IP that changes with every edit. Natureium (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like the disruption started on July 31, and the unreliable content has been added back twice since then. If it continues, I would suggest asking for a temporary page protection. But you are correct to revert those IP edits, and I think WP:3RRNO should apply. That content added by those IPs is straight up OR/SYNTH garbage. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When the sources are a Tweet and a link to github, that's far from reliable. Unfortunately, folks that are convinced of a conspiracy theory can be very persistent. Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Way ahead on you on requesting page protection. MiasmaEternal☎ 00:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1239225731"
    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