Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1133

User:Victor Freeknight

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Victor Freeknight (talk · contribs)

Crosswiki hoaxes, check RuWiki for details. As I can see, user did the same contributions here. Siradan (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of many images from the storage and permanent blocking.

Please explain what the hoax is, all sources are reliable and verifiable, there are links and footnotes.

You deleted many images, the sites from which they were taken gave permission to publish, also the file - the Order of the Asian Cross is not a hoax.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=340838265 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Freeknight (talk • contribs) 19:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Here in en.wiki, as well as in ru.wiki, this User created the articles about Order of Saint Blaise and Order of Saint Catherine with Mount Sinai (see also the draft of the latter, User:Victor Freeknight/Орден Святой Екатерины с горы Синайской) based exclusively on the websites of these orders, none of them is described or even mentioned elsewhere. The information provided by this User is completely false, the photographs uploaded to Commons are self-made hoaxes too (I have deleted all of them and banned the User there). I would strongly propose to ban this User indefinitely and eliminate his entire contibrution. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

   Done, blocked indef. Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of Jengod's autopatrolled right.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can the autopatrolled right of former admin User:Jengod please be removed? Anyone who creates the vandalistic or drunk nonsense of Dyer–Brody shouldn't have that right. While based on an apparently not very notable but real case[1], their unsourced article was just atrocious. About this 1866 lynching, they said things like "the antifa-aligned 1st Tennessee Cavalry Regiment", "The refusal to comply was reportedly for the equivalent of being in the wrong pre-line line at Ikea. The cop also said he matched the description." (no idea which description, complete non sequitur), "Brody was sequestered by the thin blue line.", "[...]was a bad day in America in 1866." "Irate at the murder of their friend, apparently fearful he would not be brought to trial, motivated by and above" (and so it ends).

I already had my concerns when they created List of military families of the United States (which I prodded), with lines like "[...]any families whose service was predominantly for the Confederate States of America, which was a treasonous carbuncle and not the United States." (emphasis mine).

An editor who can't write in a neutral, factual, encyclopedic way shouldn't have the autopatrolled right. Fram (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Fram, I'm sure you'll have done this, but to confirm – a checkuser has been asked to confirm that Jengod is still in charge of the account, yeah? — Trey Maturin™ 16:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

This is fine. I'm sorry about Dyer Brody! I really thought it was in my user space! But I am totally losing my mind reading about the American Civil War. But your instincts are probably right that I should be reviewed again. jengod (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Since you said it yourself, I'll remove it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Trey Maturin, no, I haven't done this. Fram (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks and my apologies to all the patrollers and to you and Fram. jengod (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Just posted this on Fram's talk but posting it here as well, for posterity:

I swear thought I was drafting in User:Jengod/Dyer-Brody. I usually start with what's called with a vomit draft and edit my way through it, with citations and NPOV and everything. I hope you'll take a look at User:Jengod#Work: Articles created 2023 and see that it's not my norm to publish vomit drafts. The treasonous carbuncle comment on List of military families of the United States was out of line; I was losing my mind after having written Samuel Wilkeson Jr. (unbearably sad) and after creating Robert Johnson (Tennessee) (a different kind of tragedy) and generally immersing myself in American Civil War horror. Thanks for reminding me to tap the brakes.

Hope to see you all around here in better circumstances on another day. jengod (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jengod:, in that case, would you like Dyer–Brody undeleted and moved to your userspace as User:Jengod/Dyer-Brody as a "vomit draft" (interesting term; I do the same when writing something IRL, but I just call it a "stream of consciousness draft")? Or do you think you might not write the article, or that it would be better to start fresh? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is I was writing while Fram was deleting, so while I was starting to compile sources in the CMS (ex: https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-missouri-republican-the-knoxville/127787840/ , https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/fk78s4k57s&view=1up&seq=322&q1=Tracy; ISBN 978-0807133989 epilogue chapter), I think I've got them all available and the words are very reconstructable. (I was writing out the lede to help me grok what was described at the ref Fram linked above as a "complicated" case and then was doing to do bios for the relevant parties and then recount the incident and somewhere in there make the lede not insane), but yeah I don't think any of it needs to be recovered. Thank you so much for asking tho Floquenbeam that's really nice. jengod (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

A former sysop creating an obvious G3 was worth a look on those grounds. With the obvious caveat of the 90 day rule, I didn’t see any reason to suspect compromise. Cross referencing, I think the same person is in control of the account now as was in 2018. Courcelles (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not to imply the account was compromised back in 2018, just to say that’s as far as I can get technically. I find @Jengods explanation, posted after I started looking, satisfactory. Courcelles (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. It was a back-of-the-mind worry that became a front-of-the-keyboard piece of typing. Sorry to have wasted your time. — Trey Maturin™ 17:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a waste, @Trey Maturin. Long term established accounts may create an occasional CSD page, but G3s are especially unusual from non-new accounts. Courcelles (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

In case I need to say I need to say it I'm just myself and I have been for all these years. I was de-adminned for inactivity which was correct and good but now my kids are out of diapers etc so I have time to edit while waiting for the kids at various activities and/or while holding very still and willing them to finally fall asleep. jengod (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh! While I've got you all here questioning my sketchy autopatrolled article publications please take a look at Lincoln–Johnson ledger-removal allegation which I felt guilty about publishing because the sourcing is so thin but also it seemed notable on its face. But I've been on an Andrew Johnson controversies streak so maybe I'm biased against Please advise. Or nominate it for deletion? IDK. TIA. jengod (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, User:Jengod has just recently made some good edits on East Tennessee Civil War figures, most of whom were Unionists. Invective ran strong in this lot; “traitors” and “carbuncles” would have been the least of their terms for the hostile Confederate armies that occupied East Tennessee. Perhaps she’s just been overly immersed in their 19th century memoirs.

I’ve been meaning to thank her for her edits. I reckon this is as good a place as any.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User removing categories without reason

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Ziggy Coltrane keeps removing categories without a valid reason, not saying he isn’t wrong but it could be considered vandalism. Sqirm (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is an example of a unexplained category removal:[[2]] Sqirm (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

You do not get to remove content from other users' talk pages, as you did here. I see that you also escalated this issue to here without any interaction on the user's talk page. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I did leave a notification on his user page about this discussion but I have noticed he has a history of disruptive edits

Also I’m new here so I’m not familiar with all the rules my apologies if I did something wrong. Sqirm (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not talking about leaving notice of this discussion (which you did and is appropriate), but the lack of any discussion leading up to this. Bringing an issue to ANI should be the last resort, not the first resort. Also, you deleted a comment from another user on User:Ziggy Coltrane's talk page, which you are not allowed to do. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Again I apologise for doing that and I know in the future but still I feel my concern was valid since I’ve noticed other users have had issues with him. Sqirm (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sockpuppet vandals at Big & Small

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Big & Small (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are currently two socks vandalizing this article. Whoever is behind this vandalism also vandalized the article in April, after which it was protected. Their vandalism today began two days after it was unprotected, and it's clear that they want the page protected again. Nythar (💬-🍀) 12:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I see the accounts have been blocked. Nythar (💬-🍀) 12:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potential COI on Social Democrat Hunchakian Party

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It appears that a recent edit war on the page Social Democrat Hunchakian Party revealed that, according to a discussion on my user talk page between myself, @Archives908: and @Sevkhatch:, and various other comments by the later, supposedly revealed that User:Sevkhatch had a WP:COI that he failed to disclose for 5 years. Rather than reviewing the policies that he was sent, he decided to engage in an WP:EDITWAR, and perhaps violate the three-revert rule, and that resulted in the page being fully protected so as to avoid further disruption and allow things to cool down. I think some form of further action may be needed here before things get ugly. --IanDBeacon (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. @Sevkhatch: admitted to being a member of the political party here Talk:Social Democrat Hunchakian Party#Leadership. It appears that Sevkhatch has been editing the article since 2019 without disclosing their connections. Furthermore, I have warned Sevkhatch several times about YouTube not being a WP:RS, yet they continued to reinstate their preferred version. I advised Sevkhatch (on several occasions) to take the time to review wiki policies, rather than engaging in an edit war. I recommended the user to WP:COOL down, take time to review the relevant wiki policies, and seek to attain a WP:CON through dialogue and civil discussion. As you can see on IanDBeacon's talk page, Sevkhatch continues to not act in WP:GF by engaging in WP:PA against myself, instead of taking our advice and focusing on the content. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long-term disruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Since April 2022, this user has been warned on their talk page repeatedly about:

• edit warring
• poor grasp of English, resulting in edits with incorrect grammar and spelling
• vandalism
• adding unsourced information

--79.244.55.54 (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too worried about incorrect grammar and spelling—they can easily be fixed and the same faults are apparent in many editors who claim to be native English speakers—but the other points are concerning, and even more concerning is that this editor does not seem to communicate with anyone. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

bkf...Lourdes 07:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated legal threats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• User:Zim Kham

Unambiguous legal threat here. I asked them to retract it and they made another. — Czello ^(music) 19:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:NLT. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if it matters but they've made a third. Not sure if it justifies revoking TPA? — Czello ^(music) 19:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm rather proud of that smartass reply of mine. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

— Czello ^(music) 19:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

What nation's courts does he think he is going to take the action in, anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

(grins) Short and to the point! Ravenswing 21:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Gamowebbed

I encountered this user a few days and noticed there some of their edits weren't correct, so I reverted those incorrect edits. This editor has also reverted me without any proper reasoning and still continues to do so. My main concern is this editor is WP:HOUND me. It started off yesterday when I was notified that an edit of mine was reverted by this editor. I check to see what was reverted, and it hit me that the revert seemed to be targeted. They reverted this here: [3] on July 6, 2023. I find it odd that they reverted me because I made that edit on May 21, 2022, also the editor never edited on the page. So I take my concern to their talk page, and they merely said it was a computer glitch, I left it at that. The conservation is here:[4] After a little while I thought things were fine, but then I wake up to see I've been reverted 3 times, by this editor again. It's the same pattern, they've never edited on the article until they revered my edits. 1st revert:[5] 2nd revert:[6] 3rd revert:[7] At this point, I can't keep dealing with the editor. I would just like to edit in peace, but I can't seem to even do that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Btspurplegalaxy (talk • contribs) 18:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

This user had been edit warring see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gamowebbed reported by User:Lightoil (Result: Declined) permlink but admin action was declined by Daniel Case. Lightoil (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Both editors have been hounding me while using rollback privileges to remove all my edits while only justifying one edit. Some examples include reverting my edits where I tagged sources as unreliable. Some more reverts without justification here and here. An anonymous source also provided me with this interesting article 🇬🅰️Ⓜ️⭕🔱📧🅱️🅱️📧🇩 (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I am going to repeat what I said on my talk your edits have been subpar, formatting references incorrectly and using the wrong redirect categories. Lightoil (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

04:51, July 8, 2023, here you claim you "fixed link and references" but very sneakily and deviously reverted factual information (changing American to Indian-American, which is not how ethnic descriptions works, as Sundai is an American citizen) 🇬🅰️Ⓜ️⭕🔱📧🅱️🅱️📧🇩 (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Your link is Indian American so if you want it to say American it should link to American. People should not click on the link American and get redirected to Indian American. Lightoil (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Why are you bringing up that article when it doesn't have anything to do with the current situation? Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 05:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE and treating every single edits as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and clearly has no interests in working collaboratively. I also been involved with this editor, my experience doesn't differs much from what is stated by Btspurplegalaxy, once you reverted them with valid reason such as violating MOS:SURNAME, instead of reading through the linked guidelines/policies, they will instead revert my revert without providing any valid reason, and also go around to WP:HOUND you. I believe a 1 week block is required here so they will stop hounding and (hopefully) learn from their mistake once they're unblock. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

been collaborating here, using talk instead of reverting. 🇬🅰️Ⓜ️⭕🔱📧🅱️🅱️📧🇩 (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The WP:HOUND continues with the latest victim being Ïvana after getting reverted at D-Day (album) and immediately what is stated by me and Btspurplegalaxy is exhibited again. This needs to stop immediately, any administrator can intervent. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

user ip: 86.187.235.184 vandalism, personal attack, conflicts

on wiki page Tredegar 86.187.235.184 is reverting edits made to include a Welsh language voiceclip to the Welsh pronunciation despite giving reference from the BBC's own company; (S4C, which is a Welsh language channel).

86.187.235.184 added remarks (on the page's edit history page) such as;

- "utter bollo**s (as usual)"

- 'shove that in your big fat Cymdeithas warrior pipe and smoke it mate'

in the page's talk page; |https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tredegar he/she mentioned;

- "And please give up with all this pathetic Welsh Nationalistic b*ggery boll*cks. Cheers"

- "but it's a load of fucking arse w*nk mate"

So he/she used xenophobia against me because I speak Welsh, assuming I was a nationalist (using 'cymdeithas' referring to Welsh_Language_Society), he/she used profanity, he went into an edit war after being confronted with evidence, I also have a feeling the user is using sockpuppetry to make these remarks and edits which is also against terms of use.

I'd very much appreciate someone looking into this please, best regards.Hogyncymru (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Diffs as per Hogn’s report: (1),(2), (3) (that last one is in the content, rather than the edit summary)

Requesting a mop. I doubt this one’s gonna play nice, even if you try to educate it. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 13:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

IPs padding the accomplishments of audio engineer Greg Fulginiti

• 2601:8A:4000:7D6:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone has been adding the audio engineer Greg Fulginiti to album projects that do not list his name anywhere. This practice started in late 2005 with User:ANGLESEA (example), and continued in early 2006 with Philadelphia IP Special:Contributions/69.249.183.169, for instance, the IP adding Fulginiti to the Who album It's Hard, which instead credits Doug Sax for the original release, and Bob Ludwig for the later remastering job.[8]

(Fulginiti has plenty of excellent album credits already. No need to fluff up the career with falsehoods.)

Two weeks ago I noticed this problem. New Jersey IPs had recently been adding Fulginiti to albums that listed other mastering engineers. As an example, this addition of Fulginiti is contradicted by AllMusic saying that the mastering job was by Joe Yannece, not Fulginiti. I started running through related articles and pruning the unsupported listings,[9] but the New Jersey person reverted me.[10] Some of the additions appear to be anecdotal, a violation of WP:No original research.[11] I think there's enough evidence here to block the range Special:Contributions/2601:8A:4000:7D6:0:0:0:0/64. And I still need to comb through all the Fulginiti listings to make sure he's really credited on the album liner notes or in other published sources. The problem extends to Discogs.com where Fulginiti's name has been added here and there by a user with an obvious conflict of interest. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• I blocked the /64 for one month. Let me know if the problem continues after that. EdJohnston (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Reporting User:Anubhavklal

User:Anubhavklal has been unilaterally moving articles against consensus (disregarding WP:COMMONNAME) [12] [13] [14] [15], disregar of WP:COMMONNAME in edits [16] [17] [18] and being disruptive [19][20] [21] [22] [23]. The user was blocked four times for similar behaviour and not abiding by WP:ARBIP. Their editing history and the talk page warnings and discussions is a testament. They either need to take time off Wikipedia or remove themselves from the WP:ARBIPA space. They show a serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mentality. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Now making a plethora of move requests, some of which are obvious POV, like this one, which they did after being reverted here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

what is "obvious POV" for you may be actually NPOV, which you are probably not able to see due to your biased point of view. This is also visible from your comments on the respective talk pages where even many other users have tried to explain you.

All my edits, are in good faith and with intent to make Wikipedia a credible source of information. In some cases, my suggestions have not been able to reach consensus, and I believe that is ok. But in many cases your intent is just to block the consensus and push your point of view. Anubhavklal (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

THere is a reason you were blocked for your disruptive edits (4 times), and you still continue to do that, despite countless warnings. All you have to do is follow policies, which seem to be lost on you. You contravening rules of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RM is a testament of that. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Note edit warring against WP:CITYSTRUCT policy [24] [25]. Also note personal attacks and assumptions here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Admins can see in the example quoted by you that it was you who unilaterally removed the content. I only reverted it and requested to discuss on talk page. Anubhavklal (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

How is it wrong to make move requests on respective talk pages?

Agree, once I made page move directly, but that was because I didn't believe anyone will disagree with it. Once disputed, even though I wS not convinced with the reason for disagreement, I chose to discuss it on talk page only. Anubhavklal (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No, you did it even after being warned and reverted. For example, you moved it on 19 June 2023, 11:25, I warned you at 11:52, same day, you moved the article again on 30 June 2023 without consensus. You also disregarded WP:COMMONNAME is a lot of articles meanwhile and edit warred. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That's what I said earlier. I did it for one article because I was not aware that anyone will object. But when you reverted it, I thought it is act of vandalism by someone and reverted again. But after suggestion by another user I posted move request on talk page.

Your complaint is that I am "making a plathora of move requests", which I don't think there is any restriction.

Anyways, this doesn't seem to be a place for this debate. I have explained my position. Rest is for admins to decide. Anubhavklal (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I think part of the problem with Anubhavklal is that he/she lacks competence in English, and therefore misunderstands what other editors write and consequently reacts inappropriately, as in this example.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

User treating an article as a personal list project

User Peter39c appears to be treating European Rally Championship as a personal project, listing 'winning cars' for each season in a table, in a section previously called "Champions" they have now renamed to "Winners". There were no such awards, prizes or championship titles awarded to cars, only titles of champion awarded to drivers, and there are no sources to back their edits up. Despite this, the user is reverting the edits made to remove their content, ignoring the points in edit summaries about sources being required, and choosing to include citations that have been explained on the article talk page do not mean what the user believes, alongside notices that what they add will have to be removed, it being unsourced.

Since first adding this content, the user appears to have now accepted that these 'winners' are not champion manufacturers, but persists in re-adding the disputed content in peculiar fashion with nearly 100 edits in one month, presenting winning cars as equal status to the champion drivers. There are sources at table level for who the champion drivers are, but cannot add this whilst bogus content keeps being added.

The user refuses to engage in dialogue about why they are doing these edits. Rally Wonk (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I should add that perhaps English is not their first language; they have were previously briefly blocked on Commons for copyright violation, although it did not seem like they understood why. See c:User talk:Peter39c. Not a valid excuse for refusing to communicate, however. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 00:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It isn’t. The contributions on Commons scream ‘Italian’. I’d throw {{subst:welcome-foreign|it}} at them and see what happens, but it only gives the English version. If you think trying to tell them ‘there’s an Italian Wikipedia’ in English will help, then do it. _{(This doesn’t give a good tone, but I can’t think better on how to word it. Sorry!)} MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 10:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Indef-blocked on it. in March 2022. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Recurring personal attacks

• Jyomon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sneha996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Jyomon is personally harassing other editors who disagree with their disruptive edits. Have noticed two incidents so far: User_talk:Revirvlkodlaku#Sreelala, [26] Sneha996 (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The response/counter-complaint from Jyoman below was originally created as a separate section; I have combined the two threads into one. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sneha996 is purposefully Harassing me with unwanted and obsessive attention.why this user try to obstruct me here... Don't i have a right to ask if someone asks me or write upon me over my pages... The horrible and shocking thing is that this unbelievable Sneha996 user is still observing me with hidden kind of attitude even I have warned her directly and indirectly several times...how can she be like that???

I definitely feel like she is making trap for me and continuosly observing for suppressing me as an editor...even other editors too questioned her and she keeps silent???what the heck is this?? Please help me to solve this disgusting follow up by this untolerating user Sneha996

Please help me..Jyomon (talk)

Sneha996, if you continue WP:FOLLOWING Jyomon, and if continue to mislabel their edits as vandalism (these edits are clearly WP:NOTVANDALISM), you will be sanctioned. Jyomon, please use normal capitalization and punctuation — this is not a chatroom. El_C 12:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello El_C, User:Jyomon was clearly harassing other editors personally, including me. I provided the links in previous note. I tried to report their personal attacking behaviour only. I was not following User:Jyomon, but tried to revert unexplained disruptive edits which I happened to notice. Also I haven't reverted good contributions they made. It is clear that User:Jyomon doesn't have enough awareness about Wikipedia policies, and implementing their own viewpoints about Wikipedia articles. tagging vandalism was my mistake, I admit Sneha996 (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You provided a mis-link to a user talk page section (I turned it into an internal link to show that it was not a diff), and a diff that displays their frustration with you following them — which you clearly did do, so I'm not sure why you'd say otherwise. And while that aforementioned comment did contain personal attack, so does you falsely calling their edits "vandalism," which you did repeatedly in the course of following them. You have gone about challenging the quality of their edits all wrong. Please review WP:DR closely, for further "awareness about Wikipedia policies," as this appears warranted on your part, also. El_C 13:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you sir for understanding the reality...I was so worried and tensed about the way user User:Sneha996 trying continuosly to suppress me without understanding her mistake.Still why she is behaving like an attacking mind and eagerly waiting for anything negative from my side...and even though there is no mistake from my side, she is again creating problem pointing out me for previous things...

Will she repeat like this haunting me and my edits.....keeping eye over me ?? Why is she so?? please make sure that she doesn't interupt t me again and again..

Even we said all things to her...she is not ready to hear us...please provide punishment for her lifelong...please appologize me if i said anything wrong...Jyomon (talk) Jyomon (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I came across this topic entirely by accident, because I am apparently following updates to User:Revirvlkodlaku's Talk page, and upon receiving an update email, was reviewing their page to try and remember why. When I saw Jyomon's comments, some of the statements were so confusing out of context, that I've spent a couple of hours reviewing their contribution history and some of these disputes. Obviously the following represents strictly my opinion, but it is a thoroughly-researched opinion from a neutral observer. And my observations do not match your assertions, User:El_C.

Firstly, when you encounter a new Wikipedia editor who is making edits which do not adhere to Wikipedia policy, it is entirely normal to look at other recent edits for similar errors that need to be reverted, and even to watch future edits while they're still learning. That does not represent stalking, suppressing an editor or continuously observing anyone. Sneha996's behavior is common practice and one of the ways we keep Wikipedia articles compliant with policy.

But accusing Sneha996 of "harassing edits," on a completely unrelated section of their Talk page [27], that does come into the realm of stalking another editor. Responding to an edit warning from Sneha996 by creating a Teahouse discussion (linked below), then posting an edit warning on Sneha996's page before the Teahouse discussion comes to any consensus, is also a form of editor harassing. And the already-linked comments on Revirvlkodlaku's page are similarly inappropriate - which were not a mislink when I first began my research.

Intentional or not, Jyomon's comments do represent personal attacks which are against the Wikipedia rules for how one interacts with other editors. Specific examples of personally attacking language include; "have a dignity," "fan based edits," "disappointed and sad", "fan girl," and "disgusting." It is my opinion that nothing in Sneha996's behavior represents harassment - and how they've handled this dispute has been respectful and in keeping with policy - while Jyomon's actions do represent personal attacks as well has harassing behavior toward Sneha996 and other editors they've had conflicts with.

It also needs to be noted that this dispute began because of edits made by Jyomon which violated Wikipedia rules on (for starters) reliable sources and NPOV language - as stated by two other independent editors [28]- yet nothing in their editing behavior appears to have changed. For example, this recent edit to the Lead of an article added POV language with no citation, meaning the language used represents nothing but Jyomon's personal opinion. [29] I would suggest that if Jyomon wants to continue being a Wikipedia editor, they need to commit to learning and applying Wikipedia policies, both in terms of how they edit and how they interact with other editors. If they refuse to do so, then many of their edits will continue to represent ongoing vandalism, even if they are made in good faith. CleverTitania (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok see things from both side...i have already appologized to user sneha...but she is the one who follows me and noticing everything that I do as edits... it clearly shows that she purposefully aiming me.

Anyway i quit from this topic ..and deleting all those things regarding this from my talk page as well as her's page regarding my thing ...

Anyway thank you all who supported and dscouraged me here.... Jyomon (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Even I concluded the topic ....user User: Sneha996 is trying to make the same problem again but reverting all those discussion...

Admin can you make an immediate and permanent solution for her disturbance...she is not even understanding...what to do??? Help me please ... Jyomon (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jyomon and @Sneha996, both of you stop messing with each others' Talk pages. Sneha996, editors are allowed to remove comments from their own Talk page (with some exceptions). Jyomon, you're not allowed to edit or remove others' comments (also with some exceptions); what you can do is redact your comments, but it's really not necessary. Woodroar (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Would an IBAN do any good here, do we think? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 07:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Noting comment: @Sneha996: may have better understanding of the issue so would like to know more @ Talk:Ayisha (film)#What is happening here?. @Sneha996: Reply is still awaited @ Talk:Ayisha (film)#What is happening here? Bookku (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  my re @ Sneha996's user t/p -- Bookku (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  See the way she replied.... it is a bad word in Malayalam.... humiliation...using a bad short cut word as "my re"....

  She can say anything according to her wish ..if I openup or replied to a content over my talkpage become personal attack???? Very well conclusion and team work ...you both bookku and Sneha996

  🙏👏👏👏👏👏😡😡😡🙏🙏🙏🙏 Jyomon (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Jyomon Which of her sentence is objectionable? Give link. here none of have reason to be partial. Of course do not make baseless accusations the way you have done against me also.-- Bookku (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Jyomon Past couple of days might have helped you to calm down and revisit your mistakes which may help to retract personal attacks. Before you started personal attacks I did not have even any memorable interaction with Sneha996. Your baseless bad faith accusations against me remain all the way unacceptable.

  .. if I openup or replied to a content over my talkpage become personal attack???? ..

  For your information, personal attack made anywhere remains a personal attack. Pl. also read WP:AGF. Un til you retract personal attacks and bad faith attacks against @Sneha996, me and for that matter any other user, that would get counted against you, every time your topic would come here at ANI. So it would be smart to retract personal attacks at your earliest.

  Also you have not provided any link as requested above. Bookku (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Jyomon fails WP:NPA again → [30]. @Jyomon unworthy personalization not acceptable. Pl. remove or strike out "...maybe she is a freeky fan of .., whose movies are flops present days...and she is a freeky fan of .... " , you may be nearing a block. You can't make personal aspersions like this again and again. any one's mistakes or differing opinion can't be excuse to justify personal aspersions on fellow Wikipedians. -- Bookku (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  oh was it a planned and team work attack..you guys bookku and sneha996 ...well done to trap me....good team work to attack me indirectly..in the name of personal attack...i said my opinions...i haven't tried to say anything personally...the way you took with your partner sneha999 is wrong....

  Anyway nice teamwork...u always shown affinity towards that her...as she is a lady ...and am a boy ....it personally hurts me anyway..

  Always be withyou favourite partener even they didn't answer you or replied to you or made a mistake...

  Not a good quality... be there where truth and right is there... Jyomon (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Jyomon I advised you in time, since your this certain comment was bordering misogyny. At wikipedia we all see women editors are not discriminated on gender. Your accusations of teaming up are entirely false and provide further proof of your recklessness in making baseless personal accusation hampering good faith mentoring. You don't have any proof, conversely i asked difficult question to @Sneha996 Talk:Ayisha (film)#What is happening here? that proves my impartiality. accusing impartial people of bias is not helpful and may invite sterner action from wikipedia community.

  @User:El C and @Cullen328 my good faith impartial mentoring effort seems not working as expected. You can do the needful as experienced admin I request. -- Bookku (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is not easy to make sense out of this convoluted situation and please correct me if I am wrong. It looks like Jyomon and Sneha996 are bickering endlessly, and that neither are acting like level-headed encyclopedia editors, and that state of affairs cannot continue. I do not have the time to delve deeply into this dispute because I need to get some sleep. If someone else can make better sense of this, then great. Otherwise, I will take a closer look in my morning. I urge both editors to refrain from further comment unless asked a specific question by somebody uninvolved. Do not make this mess worse by continuing to argue. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Idk detail antecedents of both accounts, since I do not work much in movie articles segment.

  • But recent behavior seem to indicate Jyomon has tendency to unnecessarily go overboard and cross the WP:NPA red line repeatedly with baseless allegations, even after saying sorry once or twice.
  • Sneha996 seem to prefer slow revert wars, some cherry picking, not preferring article t/p for WP:DR. For eg. recent 1/2 july 2023 history of this article indicates Jyomon deleted unsourced content without using cn template. Sneha996 reverted that next day without providing sources moreover termed Jyomon's content dispute edits as 'vandalism', probably El C too seem to have taken note of the same. We do not know since when and how many articles both are doing those things.

  -- Bookku (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  l checked article talk namespace contribs of Sneha996. Out of just 3 first accuses some other users of fan followership, one merger proposal and another GA nomination. No proper participation on article talk page in content DR discussion. Where as Sneha996 seem to have issued multiple warnings on user talk pages. -- Bookku (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  "It is not easy to make sense out of this convoluted situation and please correct me if I am wrong. It looks like Jyomon and Sneha996 are bickering endlessly, and that neither are acting like level-headed encyclopedia editors, and that state of affairs cannot continue." I do not think your assessment of the situation is accurate, based on the comments here and on the linked talk pages. It seems to me like Sneha996 has behaved like a level-headed encyclopedia editor, and engaged with civility and professionalism in all relevant discussions. I agree with El_C that she should not have tagged some edits as vandalism, but she was correct in reverting a few very ugly edits by a beginner editor. Jyomon on the other hand has violated WP:NPA and WP:AGF in at least four comments on this very thread, plus a handful more on the talk pages linked above. He seems to have very little understanding or awareness of WP:PG and is now for the first time running into the community trying to teach him how we do things here... and his persistent reaction has been to victimize himself and personally attack editors for doing so. On top of that, his attacks seem to have a misogynistic undertone to them (calling an editor a "fangirl," and telling another editor to get off the encyclopedia and mind her family matters), which is even more disruptive. Combefere ★ Talk 05:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Moorishino making personal attacks and edit-warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Account being used to make personal attacks against another editor (see [31], [32]) and edit-warring at Marinid Sultanate. Their edit is adding an older, unsourced political map to the article's infobox and replacing a map based directly on a WP:RS that has been in place since 2021. The issue of maps in the infobox has been discussed on the talk page at least twice already. I warned them on their talk page about all these issues ([33]), but they ignored it and repeated both the edit-warring and the personal attacks in their next edit ([34]).

Prior to today, they had only one (reverted) edit. The fact that they're immediately engaging in attacks against a particular editor, out of the blue, makes me suspect that this is a sockpuppet of a previously blocked user returning for a grudge. This edit summary, where they say "Look at this page in other languages, you'll find my version", potentially suggests it might be a sock of Omar-toons, who was blocked years ago on the English wiki and whose map is indeed still in use at the French wiki article (where he remains active), among others. An SPI doesn't seem worth it right now, but either way they're not here to edit constructively, so I'm reporting it here. R Prazeres (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Update: after trying in vain to get an administrator to take their side ([35]), they've finally gone to the talk page ([36]). So hopefully they'll stop disrupting and no special action is required. R Prazeres (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

R Prazeres, except for one edit a few months ago, this account just started editing a few hours ago and they've made a total of 8 edits. They are a new user. I think it was premature to escalate this situation to a noticeboard for the most troublesome situations among disruptive editors. I don't think it was wrong for them to go to a help desk after they had only been editing for a couple of hours and ran into problems. Of course they are not aware of most Wikipedia policies and practices. You covered their talk pages in serious warnings. I understand that they are not going about handling a dispute in the proper way but you have 9 years of experience vs. their 3 hours worth of editing experience. I don't know if they are a sockpuppet but that can only be resolved by heading to SPI or contacting a Checkuser. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

In the light of the update by R Prazeres can we just close this quickly and see how the talk page discussion goes? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mission Q8 and User:ORT5000

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Users keep adding the same contentious paragraph to Zürich and think leaving a {{cn}} tag will be fine. Three editors have reverted them recently, and they just keep giving nonsensical edit summaries. Seasider53 (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Indef block Both users have appeared in the last few weeks, and already support each other in edit warring across different articles. WP:DUCK suggests socking. In the unlikely event of the users being different, there is also a strong WP:COMPETENCE issue involved as evidenced by their edit warring to insert an obviously unsuitable source at Zürich. In addition, even if separate both, both accounts are actively edit warring. Jeppiz (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks, Wiki-feuds, and longstanding battleground mentality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• SkylerLovefist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Note this topic area is under general sanctions

A few weeks ago a case against User:SkylerLovefist was opened at SPI. They recently discovered the report and have left a number of comments complaining and counter-accusing the reporter, User:Addicted4517 of having a vendetta. After moving a comment Skyler placed in the wrong section, Skyler reverted with the edit summary This petty attempt at revenge because you're sulking doesn't belong here fullstop. I reverted, prompting Skyler to message me. After I didn't reply, Skyler then messaged Vjmlhds with the message And now we've got another allegedly "professional" editor "helping" him. I never realised how many people who edited wrestling pages on here had a God complex. You'd think that guys who totally aren't editing for their own egos and are totally doing it to keep the site at its highest quality wouldn't be aiding someone's extremely creepy little vendetta, wouldn't you?. I asked them to retract it but they've ignored it.

This isn't the first time SkylerLoveFist has engaged in personal attacks and battleground mentality. They've been blocked for it previously and have been brought to ANI and EWN over their behaviour before. They seem to have a particular agenda against Addicted4517, often times taunting Addicted (also User:HHH Pedrigree) or deriding their editing ability. Some select diffs of long term personal attacks, incivility, or battleground comments:

As you can see, SkylerLovefist seems to have a particular vendetta against Addicted4517 as the vast majority of their comments are directed at Addicted. The above set of links are the more outright instances of PA/incivility, but there are dozens more comments at Talk:List of Impact Wrestling personnel that also demonstrate hostility and a battleground mentality. Meanwhile Addicted seems to always respond with patience and I have yet to see them retaliate. Every time there's a dispute, SkylerLovefist seems to start a thread on Vjmlhds's talk page gossiping about the situation (I provided a few links above but there are many more examples).

Individually these edits might just be bog-standard incivility, but given that they're continuing after they were blocked previously for it, also given they've been doing this for several years at this point, (not to mention there's a convincing SPI case against them) I'm inclined to believe it's not going to stop.

Edit: In addition, it's worth pointing out that the apparent sock master User:Damolisher was also blocked for incivility. — Czello ^(music) 11:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Also apologies in advance to EEng for more PW drama finding its way here. — Czello ^(music) 10:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow, here we go. Can't get me on the sockpuppet thing so we're now filing a false ANI on me.

Please, dear admins and moderators of Wikipedia, understand that Czello, HHHPedrigree and especially Addicted4517 have a vendetta against *me.* Not as Czello says, the other way around. How this goes, because I am absolutely terrible at linking other Wikipedia interactions is that Addicted has followed me over from the New Zealand Wide Pro Wrestling page to the List of Impact Wrestling Personnel page where he continues to make persistent, unhelpful edits on the page. Myself and another user have had several disputes with Addicted4517 where Czello and HHHPedrigree often step in on Addicted's behalf while ignoring basic concepts such as WP:COMMONSENSE. Addicted himself displays frequent examples of WP:OWN as evidenced by his inability to work with others on the New Zealand Wide Pro Wrestling Page and has attempted to do several times on the List of Impact Wrestling personnel page. The main point of contention here with Addicted comes from himself not being able to remove an entire section from the page, which then led to a discussion on the List of Impact Wrestling personnel talk page. Addicted would not let the point go in spite of having it pointed out to him that his removal made no sense. In November, the discussion seemed to end and Addicted disappeared. He came back in April to make another comment which showed his inability to not show WP:OWN tendencies along with starting unnecessary drama on said page. I responded telling him the comment was not helpful in the slightest and that he should brush up on his understanding of Wiki policies.

This was followed by the current pointless drama of filing a sockpuppet investigation from out of nowhere when I haven't had any interactions with him since this aforementioned incident in April. These actions clearly show a case of WP:PERSONAL from Addicted. Czello can make all the biased claims he wants, but Addicted has also left proof on his talk page and that of HHHPedrigree trying to start some bizarre form of retaliation for chastising him for his WP:OWN problem.

TL;DR: Czello is lying, Addicted is the one with the problem and he's left evidence a mile long that he's retaliating in a childish fashion because outside of Australian and New Zealand Wrestling pages, we do things the correct way. He doesn't like being told he has a WP:OWN problem, neither does HHHPedrigree, and Czello has an issue using WP:COMMONSENSE. SkylerLovefist (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Accusing me of lying and having an issue common sense, all the while positing there's some conspiracy against you, I think only adds to my case. For what it's worth to whichever admin is unlucky enough to read this, I do think there are issues with WP:OWN on the aforementioned article, but Addicted isn't the one at fault. — Czello ^(music) 10:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course you don't. Nevermind that his entire edit history when he's not stirring drama with me is removing other people's edits. Not a single edit of his is an addition to an article. It's always removing sections or telling people their sources aren't good enough for him. Guess that doesn't fit the narrative though. SkylerLovefist (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, "Addicted is always calm and I've never seen him retaliate?" Seriously? You call taking a powder for six months, coming back to throw a useless comment into a talk page for no reason other than to continue months dead drama, starting a nonsensical Sockpuppet investigation, leaving messages on HHHPedrigree's pages which have threatening undertones, reverting any talkpage messages I leave, constantly referring to justified accusations of WP:OWN as "personal attacks," and so on "not retaliating?" SkylerLovefist (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to provide diffs for any of those claims, otherwise they will not be taken into account. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Just look at this from December - 7 full months ago - where Addicted says to HHH Pedrigree on his talk page "The time is coming for one of them (referring to Skyler) in particular. The timing simply has to be right, that's all" He's been looking for months to find a way to put some sort of whammy on Skyler. Here's another point showing Addicted is the one holding a grudge, where five full months after a discussion was held on an article topic, which was settled and everybody else had long since moved on, Addicted felt it necessary to just have to get "the last word" in on Skyler. Addicted telling Skyler to "let it go", when it was Addicted - five months after the dust had settled - who just had to get in a "parting shot".And in this little exchange from HHH Pedrigree's talk page, Addicted - probably already figuring the SPI is a lost cause - is already thinking of next steps such as searching for "sleeper accounts". For the sake of full disclosure - I have no issues with Czello...he just wants everyone to play nice, and I don't think he has a personal issue with Skyler. Me and Skyler usually get along well, though I've had to pull him off the ledge a couple of times when he was going too far. I've gone back and forth with Addicted in the past, but never to this level, as Wiki fights aren't worth THAT kind of time and effort. Long story short, it takes two to tango in a feud, Addicted pushes Skyler's buttons, Skyler responds with guns blazing, and we wind up with SPIs and ANIs, and everyone bickering. None of this deserves anyone getting blocked. My personal prescription (as someone who has had my share of ANIs brought on me and knows the hassle they can bring) is this...Addicted needs to let it go and not hold a grudge. Skyler needs to cool it and not go right into DEFCON 1 every time something is a brewing (believe me...I speak from experience as someone who used to have the same issue in years past). Both parties should go forward and realize "Big brother" is watching and any more scuffles will lead to hammers being dropped. So Addicted, step away from the proverbial button, and Skyler, put the imaginary gun down. Let everyone shake hands move on and end this with a (I'll settle for) semi-peaceful co-existence. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that Addicted isn't the only person Skyler has been hostile to. They've been hostile to me, to HHH (first link the collapsed section), to random IPs (the "mind your own business" quote), and other editors too - so I don't blame Addicted for saying that Skyler's "time is coming" (it is, by Skyler's own doing). Additionally, none of these diffs excuse Skyler's behaviour. — Czello ^(music) 18:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, since I was mentioned, here is my version (apologies to EEng). The first time I saw Skyler, it was on the Buddy Murphy article. He was including material using Twitter as source. Addicted removed several times, since Twitter it’s not a reliable source. I explained Skyler that we have to use reliable sources, not Twitter. [37] Then, Impact article. If you read the talk page, there is always a discussion between us: VJ and Skyler, Addicted and myself (sometimes, Czello is the middle-point user). VJ and Skyler usually include unsourced material, based on Twitter, Youtube or something like that. We remove it, since it’s not properly sourced, then Skyler accuses us of WP:OWN and WP:BULLY, just because we have explained hunderds of times that every edition needs a source and social media isn’t. [38] "Regarding Certain Editing": Almost 10 accusations of WP:OWN. For Skyler, removing unsourced material is bullying him and owning the article. Also, his attitude. Reading his talk page or impact talk page, he has a “battleground mentallity”, usually answering with attacks and mocking us [39] [40] (English is not my first language, so maybe I make some mistakes when I write, specially if I'm nervous) When I pointed I felt harassed by his behaviour and comments, he mocked me again [41] “Apparently they're feeling "attacked and harassed" because people aren't letting them get away with bullying behaviour. ” and pointing our WP:OWN behaviour it’s for “ compensating for something offline ” , which is a very personal attack. Now, Addicted percieved similarities between him and other user. Well, same editions, same problems (WP:OR and incivility) and his answers, complain and insult again. My version, yes, this user has a huge attitude problem, mocking and insulting other users. Every time he includes unsourced material, says it's bullying against him, but he mock and insults with every answer. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Czello’s diffs show an uncollaborative, uncivil WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality by Skyler. Perhaps a pro-wrestling topic ban is warranted. starship.paint (exalt) 16:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to add that SkylerLovefist has been blocked as a sock of User:Damolisher. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Well that explains why they were so upset at that SPI being opened. I guess that settles that. — Czello ^(music) 19:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kulbhushan Jhadav

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Racial hatred has been observed in an edit by "User:Kulbhushan Jhadav". In an edited summary of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Kalyani's article, he has shown a hostile attitude towards the Bengali ethnic group. The edited summary was written in Bengali, where he satirized the eating habits of Bengalis and Body shaming them.

• Edited summary - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All_India_Institute_of_Medical_Sciences,_Kalyani&diff=prev&oldid=1164325169

(Please read the edit summary text translated into English.) -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotional user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I noticed that @Wamocteam (talk) is a promotional account, based on this logo they uploaded. There's also a previously blocked account, @Wamoc official. I am not sure if this is the correct venue for this. -- QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 15:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

See their Persian talk page. -- QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 15:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, QuickQuokka. Wamocteam has never edited or tried to edit the English Wikipedia, so there is no reason to discuss this account here. This is not the correct venue. Uploading a simple logo to Wikimedia Commons is not evidence of promotional intent. If Wamocteam is engaging in improper behavior on the Persian Wikipedia, then the matter needs to be reported on Persian Wikipedia's version of this noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing behaviour

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone please assess the current editing behaviour on Tyranny of small decisions. There has also been an attempt to discuss the matter here. — Epipelagic (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Done. - Protected for 10 days. Slow-moving edit war. And of course, any admin is welcome to adjust the protection at their discretion without needing to let me know.- jc37 17:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispute at Jojo Siwa

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• MikeAllen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly reverted my edits to Jojo Siwa with well over 15 cited credible sources to a section in regards to her recent fake pregnancy scandal. In no way shape or form was the edit designed to lean favor of Siwa to any particular bias. MikeAllen has repeatedly taken the section down on numerous incidents as visible in the page's history. I provided him sufficient explanations and warnings and he appears to shrug off my warnings against his own personal bias and he takes it as a complete joke.

MikeAllen has tagged my original edit as WP:GOSSIP, while removing an entire section out of his own personal bias. responding to my warnings with the following comments:

Talk:JoJo Siwa

• 00:07 11 July 2023 It doesn't matter that sources are "credible", this gossip doesn't belong on a WP:BLP. Please read it throughly. A warning? We can take this to the BLP noticeboard if you would like

User talk:MikeAllen

• 00:04 12 July 2023 A warning? Lol
• 00:59 12 July 2023 You have no idea how Wikipedia works. You do not own the page. Give warnings all you want. Mike Allen 00:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• 01:01 12 July 2023 Who's doxing? Please stay off my talk page. And I will be taking it to BLP noticeboard when I have time. See you there

PontiacAurora (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you know what doxxing is? Because this isn't it. Additionally, I agree that none of the items listed in that section on "controversies" rises to the level of belonging in an encyclopedia. This isn't Teen People. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

in what way shape or form? I'm not on a mission to make Jojo Siwa look like a bad person here but it's worth including though PontiacAurora (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The place to discuss the content of the article is on the article's talk page; not here. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how posting a segment of an individuals specific controversies would be considered gossip, if I had no sources to claim an incident occurred, that would be entirely understandable; but I didn't. I had 15 proven sources PontiacAurora (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, this is where you need to have this conversation; not here. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the content in question, I'm seeing controversial/negative claims cited to Insider, PopBuzz, Sportskeeda, Fox, etc. Claims like these need to be widely published in high-quality reliable sources to meet our BLP and DUE policies. These gossip/tabloid sources definitely don't meet that threshold. Woodroar (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

the sources such as Fox, Yahoo, Parade, Sportskeeda, or Insider are relatively credible though. I avoided using The Sun or the Daily mail for that reason PontiacAurora (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RSP for details on those sources. But, as Bgsu98 mentioned, the place to build consensus for including this content is at the article's Talk page. Woodroar (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

IMDB and OKMagazine are also credible PontiacAurora (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding IMDB: Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I've notified MikeAllen about this thread, as you should have done. Please remember to do this in the future. Woodroar (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

thank you PontiacAurora (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The word "scandal" (in the report above) should be reserved for, well, scandals. A youtuber who (according to your text at JoJo Siwa) videos herself buying infant clothing and products is just trying to make a buck. It's not a scandal until reliable sources comment on the issue and explain what is scandalous. An encyclopedia does not record the day-to-day gossip that always surrounds media people unless it is demonstrated to have some lasting effect. Have you checked doxing yet? Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a boomerang is in order for such unfounded accusations. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Additionally, PontiacAurora accused MikeAllen of "harassing" her, when MikeAllen hasn't posted once to her talk page. All communication took place either on his talk page, where she posted numerous times, or the edit summaries at JoJo Siwa. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

no I meant harassment towards me based on his comments PontiacAurora (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Nothing he wrote remotely approached "harassment." Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"You have no idea how Wikipedia works. You do not own the page. Give warnings all you want." "A warning? Lol" that really doesn't even remotely look like any form of bullying or harassment to you? PontiacAurora (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

No. In fact, your comments to him were closer to bullying. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

in what way? I warned him sternly after he removed my article and he openly mocked me for it before deleting my warning off of his talk page PontiacAurora (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Users can delete whatever they want from their own talk pages. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Do they have the right to mock other users and to ignore an edit warning? If I decided to take aim at MrSchimpf in the same way MikeAllen retorted towards me, what do you expect the outcome to be? PontiacAurora (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Fake pregnancy scandal may be gossip, but other content added was not gossipy. There was content from USA Today, BBC, CNN and the Daily Telegraph. Shouldn’t have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. starship.paint (exalt) 02:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I had sources but they want to deem it as me spreading a gossip article PontiacAurora (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Just saw this posted (then reverted) by the same user on WT:AIV and warned PontiacAurora on their talk page about this. Seriously, a dancer making jokey TikToks about being pregnant should be a focus in the article?! Where has our sense of humor gone and why should this even be anywhere near the article, much less talk space? And quality control issues about products the dancer endorses, but can't possibly control isn't 'controversy' at all, Starship.paint; let's be careful about ever placing that heading in an article. It was properly placed before. Nate • (chatter) 02:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I want to know in what way did I harass MikeAllen? I never used any profanity or insults towards him or attacked him on a punitive level. Arguably somebody who responds to my edits like

You have no idea how Wikipedia works. You do not own the page. Give warnings all you want.

isn't exactly the victim in this situation PontiacAurora (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@MrSchimpf: - the Controversy heading was there because I did a partial revert, I moved the content and deleted that header within 2 minutes, which was 20 minutes before you objected. starship.paint (exalt) 02:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I even notified him and warned him for removing the entire section without paying attention to the citations I had and he responded deleting the whole segment and mocking me for it, in what possible way did I harass him? PontiacAurora (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t seen any harassment. Let it go. starship.paint (exalt) 02:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

MrSchrimpf needs to rescind his warning against me, I didn't sink down to MikeAllen's level of bullying even once PontiacAurora (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Please calm down. WP:DROPTHESTICK, let this go. This is a minor dispute. If you stop now, there may not be sanctions. Content can be discussed at article talk page or WP:BLPN. Let's just let the behavioural stuff go. Focus on the article. starship.paint (exalt) 02:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Very Well. The articles I had quoted in regards to the fake pregnancy scandal and Siwa's polarizing relationship with the LGBTQ community are still anchored with several reputable sources PontiacAurora (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

We can discuss that at the places I mentioned. Now, I am openly advising you to withdraw the complaint, PontiacAurora. I see virtually zero chance for sanctions on MikeAllen or anyone else except you. For you, more than zero chance. State you withdraw this and we may be able to move on. starship.paint (exalt) 03:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

fine. I withdraw the complaint PontiacAurora (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated Bludgeoning by .Raven after P-Block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• .Raven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Killing of Jordan Neely (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User .Raven was p-blocked on June 21st as a result of this ANI (which I filed) for repeatedly bludgeoning the talk page on Killing of Jordan Neely. A block appeal by .Raven was denied by the same admin on their talk page.

Relevant talk page link 1

Relevant talk page link 2

On June 30th, a few days after the block was lifted, .Raven returned to the talk page, repeating the same talking point that they had bludgeoned in the weeks prior. They are now continuing to bludgeon the point on the page; not engaging constructively with editors, but simply replying to every comment insisting that other editors take their view. Here's just one example of such an exchange.

dif 1

dif 2

dif 3

dif 4

dif 5

Multiple editors on that talk page again warned .Raven that this pattern of behavior was disruptive, but .Raven has continued. In general, it seems their attitude is to respond to every comment that expresses disagreement with their positions (and frankly many of these positions are so ludicrous that they stretch one's ability to AGF, so virtually every comment on the issue is in disagreement) in an attempt to wikilawyer [42] [43] their perceived opponents into submission, or at least get the last word.

Clearly the p-block issued on June 21st has not changed this editor's behavior. Instead of recognizing the issue, agreeing to change their behavior, and making a good-faith unblock request, .Raven got into extensive heated arguments with nine other editors on their own talk page defending their behavior, deflected and attacked other editors' behaviors, waited for the block to expire, hatted and archived the discussions on their talk page, and quickly returned to repeat the same disruptive behavior on the same page they were originally blocked from. Combefere ★ Talk 20:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

This incessant argumentativeness has also characterized Raven's recent conduct here at ANI (see [44] and [45]). At one point, in light of their limited experience, I tried to encourage them to step away from ANI and spend more time familiarizing themselves with community norms [46]. This suggestion was rebuffed [47]. Honestly, in light of the impressive rapacity with which Raven has acquired a reputation for battleground editing, I'm not sure we owe them much more patience. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for including those cites, Lepricavark. Your first link takes us to the case about Randy Kryn, where one of my comments said "Now this is a plain content dispute, not even edit-warring" — and others said the same, and the case was closed accordingly. Your second link takes us to the matter of Freoh and Gwillhickers, where again I argued against sanctioning Freoh, and the closure did not sanction him. Another editor called your comment to me "pulling rank" (conveniently outside the snippets your links show), and on yet another editor's also using that phrase, I noted the impression I had received. But I hadn't argued with or "rebuffed" you for that comment. Odd that these are what you cite as my "battleground editing". It had seemed to me that others were using AN/I as a way to throw those they disagreed with in content disputes off Wikipedia, and I was one of those saying 'slow down'. Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that I soon thereafter was targeted in the same way. – .Raven  .talk 22:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, Raven, taking issue with someone else's perception of argumentativeness is a bit of a self-refuting strategy, but to each his or her own. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Dumuzid is one of the people who came to my talkpage. That my replying to Dumuzid's and others' comments on my own talkpage is being charged against me as a conduct offense seems to me to be the odd thing. – .Raven  .talk 22:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, Raven, but I have no interest in becoming ensnared in one of your patented protracted, pointless, pedantic debates. I trust that the admins who frequent this board will be quite capable of evaluating my evidence accurately despite your ill-disguised and amusing attempt at interfering. Have a lovely day, LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

> "attempt at interfering"? — Responding to accusations against me is an attempt at interfering? – .Raven  .talk 22:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

> "...simply replying to every comment insisting that other editors take their view." -and- "their attitude is to respond to every comment that expresses disagreement with their positions" — Such exaggerations, "every". As though I hadn't also agreed with other people; answered questions; encouraged AGF all around; replied to comments pinging me by name (e.g. here and here); and finally withdrew from such a conversation when the repetition of already-answered questions appeared to be sea-lioning.

> ".Raven got into extensive heated arguments with nine other editors on their own talk page defending their behavior" — my goodness, they came to my talk page to argue with me. I didn't ping or otherwise ask them to do so. Replying to them is an offense? Disruptive? Of what, on as the OP says, my own talk page? If nine people had each posted one lone comment to me, just by replying to each once I would be posting nine times and they could say I was a nine-times-more-frequent commenter. Of course their average was higher than one each, which only increased my replies. Now one of those arguers wants to make that an offense.

> "hatted and archived the discussions on their talk page" — In order to stop the arguments. That's an offense now too?

This is lawfare, WP:SANCTIONGAMING. It's been used by the same person before. – .Raven  .talk 21:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

If nine editors comment on your talk page asking you to reflect upon and change your behavior, it may be constructive to view that as an opportunity to reflect upon and change your behavior. Viewing it as an obligation to start nine new arguments may be rather unconstructive. Combefere ★ Talk 03:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I am not the one who lawfared / sanctiongamed our content disagreement to try silencing you, Combefere; a behavioral note. – .Raven  .talk 04:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Always happy to consider the feedback! If there's a community consensus or an admin ruling that my actions were lawfaring or gaming, then I'll be sure to think more carefully about filing similar ANIs in the future. Cheers! Combefere ★ Talk 05:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

When an editor continues behavior that previously got them blocked, it is not inappropriate to bring this to administrator attention. Please don't allow yourself to be bullied into thinking that you did something wrong. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I'm unbothered by your feeble attempts to refute my evidence, someone needs to speak up against this troubling new development. It seems that Combefere's point was so airtight, you've decided to lob aspersions instead of conceding that maybe it's true that you don't need to argue with everyone who asks you to change your behavior. This unwarranted attack on Combefere's integrity is unacceptable and blockworthy in its own right, everyone if we ignore the fact that your entire approach to editing is incompatible with a collaborative project. But I don't expect you to start listening now. Everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and some of us are apparently conspiring to silence you by driving you off the site. The criticisms in this thread stem purely from malice on our part and have nothing to do with your tendency to take over conversations, argue implacably over minutiae, and feign moral outrage over comments that you never even tried to understand. Please, tell us more about how you're the victim and we're the big mean baddies. Do you really think we're going to just put up with your behavior indefinitely? Or is it more likely that something else of an indefinite nature is in your future? The charitable side of me wants to urge you to reign yourself in before it's too late, but the very slim part of me that cares about Wikipedia thinks you might save us all a lot of future drama if you just keep talking your way into a permablock in this thread. Besides, I already tried the charitable approach and for my trouble you accused me of pulling rank. I've no patience for your continued silliness, and any further insults directed at Combefere will result in a formal proposal for an indef block. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and just to make it abundantly clear, I continue to refuse to waste my time trying to reason with someone who will not listen to reason. So don't expect me to engage with whatever version of reality you invent for your next salvo. Again, I'm not particularly concerned with how badly you pretzelize my words. I've endured far worse treatment than that. But the cheap shots at Combefere were your big mistake and they are to stop now. Believe it or not, there are some people on the internet who are willing to stand up to a bully. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

> "willing to stand up to a bully." — That's good. How about people who take content disputes to AN/I to try throwing those who disagree with them off Wikipedia? – .Raven  .talk 06:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I see no indication from OP's comments that they are trying to get you thrown off the site. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not merely a content dispute. This is about how we communicate with one another. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

> "you've decided to lob aspersions" -and- "insults directed at Combefere" — What aspersions or insults?

Per WP:ASPERSIONS, "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation." -and- "It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true." [emphasis added]

Cf. making exaggerated claims of misconduct like "...simply replying to every comment insisting that other editors take their view." -and- "... their attitude is to respond to every comment that expresses disagreement with their positions (and frankly many of these positions are so ludicrous that they stretch one's ability to AGF...)" [emphasis added] — those "ludicrous positions" being that such policy as WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPPUBLIC should be followed. – .Raven  .talk 06:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Y'know, L., I was done posting at WP:VPP and Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely, but here your accusations are dragging me back into the morass. I'm done with you too. – .Raven  .talk 06:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

If you can't figure out that you are casting aspersions by inventing the claim that the OP is trying to throw you off the site, then I can't help you. You seem determined to be the victim here even though you're the one creating disruption almost everywhere you go. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

If a community consensus or admin ruling determines that I have violated WP:ASPERSIONS, I will gladly face the consequences and adjust my behavior accordingly. As of yet, I just don't see such a consensus. I do stand by the comments you quoted. I don't think either of them are unsupported or exaggerated, but I am always happy to hear other opinions on the matter. I have indeed already noted yours, .Raven and there will be no need to restate it. Cheers. Combefere ★ Talk 07:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yeah, maybe a walk away from the Neely page is a good idea .Raven. You are right in that Penny's name should not be used if the title of the page includes the word 'Killing' instead of 'Homicide', but remember that this is Wikipedia where anyone can have an opinion (and anyone does) so at times the "wrong" opinion gets traction. Wikipedia certainly should not lose you as an editor, so again pushing the incorrect to a point of ANI discussion gives more fuel to those who disagree with your commonsense. Too many bring ANI concerns too quickly, but again, many hands make this cake so give them some slack so other articles become better because of your knowledge. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, Randy. I just would prefer that our being incorrect in print be about minor issues, or even major-but-innocuous issues like getting wrong the diameter of the Earth or the population of nation N, rather than jumping the  gun  court verdict in declaring X-killed-Y as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice — too many bad things could result, and it sets a terrible precedent for future cases, in addition to flatly contradicting policy. But I think I've made my point clearly enough, despite the hatting there; so I'm done. – .Raven  .talk 00:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Taking this complaint seriously and looking at my comment from June 30 on, at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely (the page and date range Combefere references), I replied twice to !votes / left-edge (non-outdented) comments:

• Here, beginning "Thank you Chrisahn.", in reply to a cite-heavy comment I was happy to see, and adding a policy snippet (quoted verbatim) in furtherance of its point. Clearly neither a "heated argument" nor "bludgeoning" — because I certainly was not trying to change his mind nor to dissuade him from commenting.
• Here, on a different thread ("City and country in lede?"), saying in full "Agreed, Yes, on main point. On parenthesized point: perhaps  'the F train of the subway'  — since 'the F train' by itself might not communicate 'subway' to people unfamiliar with NYC; not 'universal knowledge', as you put it." Again clearly neither "heated argument" nor "bludgeoning", for the same reason.

For replies inside already ongoing discussions, i.e. indented more than once, I take note of Loki's comment below:

"The classic form of [bludgeoning]  is responding to every !vote to try to convince the editor in question to change it. Raven is not doing that, and I'm very clearly not doing that: most of my replies are deep in a thread and several of them are to people I !voted the same way as."

– .Raven  .talk 05:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Since Raven mentioned me, I'd like to clarify: "in furtherance of its point" – that's incorrect. Raven apparently misunderstood my point. I very much disagree with the claim in Raven's reply (about "alleged"), and it didn't have much to do with my point. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Broader bludgeoning issue?

I've only interacted with this editor once but I've seen bludgeoning by them there to, at a VPP discussion where they have made 78 comments - more than twice as many as the next most prolific commenter - including eight after I made a comment asking editors to generally avoid bludgeoning. BilledMammal (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Including multiple comments to ping previous RfCs' participants to participate, as a fix for another editor's attempt which fell afoul of the 50-pings-per-comment limit. Oddly enough, after my first such ping-group (for #51-to-end), BilledMammal advised me that the first 50 listed names hadn't received pings either, so I posted more pings (in 2 comments) to finish the set; then answered a question for one of the responders.

And in response to ScottishFinnishRadish's small note about the dash Wikipedia often requests (ndash) not being on our keyboards, I suggested a browser add-on ("AddAccent") which simplifies typing non-keyboard characters.

Provided links and reference quotes of the MOS, the UCoC regarding respect, and the previous RfC's closure; even tried to encourage an editor who'd asked "Can I just point out...?" with "You certainly can...." (and not because I agreed).

'Bludgeoning', hm. That term conveys a more discouraging attitude, e.g. telling people they mustn't comment. Like this section. – .Raven  .talk 04:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that you shouldn't comment, but when the number of comments you have made are getting close to triple digits - and the next most prolific commenter has made less than half the number you have - you should seriously consider stepping back from the discussion.

'Bludgeoning', hm. That term conveys a more discouraging attitude, e.g. telling people they mustn't comment. Like this section. I am concerned by this comment; it suggests you don't see an issue with bludgeoning and thus will continue doing it, despite community consensus that it is disruptive. BilledMammal (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Note that WP:BLUDGEON isn't measured sheerly by quantity of posts: "In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view..." — of which pinging more participants from prior RfCs to discuss the topic, and encouraging new commenters, is rather the opposite — and to do which "sheer volume of comments" is not the only possible method. For instance, silencing dissenters by trying to get them blocked or banned is another technique. – .Raven  .talk 06:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You're right; in theory, it is possible to make 78 comments to an RfC and not be bludgeoning. In practice, though? I've never seen it. I'll note that it's a little inaccurate to suggest that most, or even just many, of your comments there were procedural and not arguing your position.

I'm also concerned that rather than taking the concerns other editors have raised here about your behavior onboard you have instead assumed bad faith and suggested that three separate editors are trying to silence you; Lepricavark, Combefere, and now myself. This suggests a problematic level of tendentiousness and battleground behavior. BilledMammal (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Raven's comments here give the impression that he he hasn't just failed to realize how much he's commenting, but rather refuses to accept that bludgeoning is a form of disruptive editing. He is instead trying to wikilawyer what "bludgeoning" means. In the Newimpartial AN/I thread in February, I proposed the following sanction, which was subsequently enacted: no more than two comments per discussion per day, except replies (of reasonable length) to questions or very brief clarifications of their own comments. Perhaps the same should be imposed here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Someone posted in DGG's obituary that he had cultivated the practice of holding himself to two comments per thread, trusting himself to make his points with clarity and persuasiveness. If he expressed himself well and had a cogent argument, other people would agree and back him up. If not, it's Wikipedia. Consensus isn't always on our side. Ever since reading that I've always thought an enforced DGG% thread cap would be a good novel restriction. No comment on the particulars here, just support for the idea behind the restriction in the general case. Folly Mox (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  What?? DGG died? Oh, good god, this is getting to be an intolerable sequence of losses the last couple of years. :( SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Pretty close.

  On one of the two discussions at issue, WP:VPP#RfC: Proposed addition to MOS:GENDERID - when to include deadnames: During July 3 (UTC), I posted 3 comments in reply to comments not directed at me, and 5 in reply to comments directed at me. During July 2, zero. During July 1, zero. During June 30, zero, During June 29, zero.

  On the other discussion at issue, Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#What to include from assailant's video statement: During July 3, I posted 1 comment (in reply to a comment not directed at me). During July 2, zero of those and 7 (in reply to comments directed at me), respectively. During July 1, zero and 4, respectively. During June 30, 1 and 1, respectively. During June 29, zero. (The period of the P-Ban was the week of June 21-28.)

  Clearly I've been failing to match the expectations made for me above. – .Raven  .talk 11:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

[48] - I am one of the editors who engaged with .Raven on their talk page regarding bludgeoning at WP:VPP after the partial block. There was a resultant argument, of course. I went to the talk page to try to ensure that this ANI report would not occur. I did not succeed. starship.paint (exalt) 12:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Just jumping in here to say as someone who's following that VPP thread closely that I don't actually think that Raven has a problem with bludgeoning generally (commenting a lot is not the same as bludgeoning), that this is pretty obvious from reading that VPP thread, and that I find it very suspicious that the person who brought up this issue is also someone who has repeatedly had their ideas shot down, and not just by Raven, at said VPP thread. Or in other words, I suspect the point here is to eliminate an opponent and is not a real concern over wrongdoing. Loki (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm growing tired of these aspersions against the OP. There's no evidence that they are asking for Raven to be eliminated, whereas there is abundant evidence (including the very recent p-block) that Raven's behavior has been deemed problematic by uninvolved editors. Really your reading of the situation is extraordinary. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  @LokiTheLiar: I have no idea what is meant by this comment: "I find it very suspicious that the person who brought up this issue is also someone who has repeatedly had their ideas shot down, and not just by Raven, at said VPP thread." I was not involved in the VPP thread. Combefere ★ Talk 16:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not you, BilledMammal. Loki (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Still a personal attack that you make without evidence, and one that ignores that I'm not the only editor seeing a problem with Raven's behavior. Please strike it; if you need evidence against your allegation to do so, please consider that when I first called out this behavior I was careful to avoid mentioning any editor directly, in the hope that we could avoid any drama or ill-feeling. BilledMammal (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  You're right that it was unfair to target you specifically, so I've struck the parts of the comment about you specifically. However, I still think that Raven is obviously not bludgeoning in that thread and that the idea they are is indicative of ulterior motives. Loki (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Mmm, "there is an element of bludgeoning going on, with the most prolific contributor having made 70 comments" sure seems to say that the one who had made 70 comments is "bludgeoning". – .Raven  .talk 17:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - My initial instinct was to oppose sanctions, but seeing Raven's conduct here, I can't do that in good faith, so I am resolutely neutral. But Raven, a thought or two, if you will indulge me. I fear you'll keep getting dragged here unless you can deal with one of two editing tendencies. The first is to assume, axiomatically, your own correctness. We all believe we are right, of course, but at least at the Neely article, you seemed to scoff at the idea that there could be any other reasonable interpretation. That would be a bit irksome, by itself, but when combined with the second factor, is more problematic--and that factor is somewhere between a distaste for disengaging and WP:LASTWORD. In the linked diffs above, I think it was pretty clear that I was trying to say "okay, nothing more to be done here" but you kept hammering away at essentially the same point. Part of being WP:CIVIL is learning to disagree and disengage. Again, either trait is suboptimal (as are we all in this sublunary world), but it's the synthesis between the two that seems to me keeps dragging you back here. Finally, you really need to take on board the idea that if multiple editors comment to you about your behavior, you need to do some self-reflection. That doesn't mean you need to agree, but something you are doing is problematic in some regard. I would never have asked for sanctions here myself, but I absolutely understand why this section exists. I have tried to deal with you both collegially and in good faith, and I hope I have done so. Whatever happens, sincerely, all the best, and because I don't want to contribute to the problem, I won't be responding further here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "you seemed to scoff at the idea that there could be any other reasonable interpretation."

  In our exchange (starting with your comment, ff.), I pointed out that what you called my "interpretation both of the substance of the relevant statements and the application of policy thereto" was my linked verbatim quotes of both, and invited you to find where I'd misquoted either... which you declined to do. So I think this is yet another example of misrepresenting what I wrote. – .Raven  .talk 05:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• While I opposed the sanction idea below, upon further review it's kind of clear this editor isn't learning anything. The TALK page where editors have attempted to steer the editor in the right direction has been greeted with excuse making and finger pointing. There's really no acknowledgement that their might be a problem. When an editor is seemingly incapable of listening to others something should probably be done. I would support an indefinite or temp block. It would nice if the editor could acknowledge the issue and attempt to modify their behavior. Nemov (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: daily page comments restriction

Proposal 1/Tamzin's proposal: "no more than two comments per discussion per day, except replies (of reasonable length) to questions or very brief clarifications of their own comments"
Proposal 2/JBL's proposal: no more than two comments per page per day
Added alternative proposals to top for ease of reference BilledMammal (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support Tamzin's proposal, although I would replace "discussion" with "page" and remove the exceptions, because I do not trust that .Raven will abstain from debating and lawyering over the definition of "a discussion", "reasonable length". or "very brief clarifications". --JBL (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  For clarity, this is JBL’s proposal: no more than two comments per page per day. starship.paint (exalt) 23:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wow, JBL, and I even cited two discussions above by section link. – .Raven  .talk 23:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand what this comment means. --JBL (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Have I failed to demonstrate my understanding of "discussion"? Or do we mean different things by that? – .Raven  .talk 01:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  My objection is not to your ability to understand things, it is to your relentless style of argumentation. For that reason, I think restrictions on you should not have clauses in them that are possibly subject of interpretation (hence of argument). I also strongly agree with what Folly Mox says below about the general principle here. --JBL (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "should not have clauses in them that are possibly subject of interpretation"

  Hm. I had thought policy WP:BLP's sections WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPPUBLIC had clear unambiguous statements, yet at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely I was told (in response to my word-for-word quotes of policy and RSs) of disagreement with my "interpretation". Any text is subject to word-for-word quote, which (using that approach) can be called "interpretation".

  Please notice that my reply to the linked comment was not in agreement with that approach. – .Raven  .talk 04:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think it would be a good exercise for you to re-read my comment, and perhaps my other comments in this thread, and consider what I might think of this most recent response. (E.g., whether I would find it responsive to or engaged with the points and concerns I've raised.) I also think it would then be a good exercise for you to not respond to this comment, if merely as a proof that "not responding" is something you are capable of. --JBL (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Support Tamzin's proposal with JBL's modifications above. Combefere ★ Talk 17:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support The proposal with JBL's modifications. Display name 99 (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• I still prefer my wording, because admins are perfectly capable of blocking users who wikilawyer around sanctions, but JBL's is acceptable to me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, nobody as active as .Raven deserves such a restriction. Two comments per talk page a day? That could be used up as a post and a reply, and then if one more comment is posted people who will be keeping gleeful track of their comments will jump up and down and demand a block. Two comments a day in a discussion is almost absurdly limiting towards an active editor. If the goal is to block .Raven then this would do it, and that should not be anyone's goal on Wikipedia - a "got ya" trap set and approved at ANI. Just let everyone involved here edit freely and give each other the latitude to fully express themselves. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  There are definitely certain circumstances in which two edits per discussion per day is very limiting, like the common "what should we do about this issue?" → "ok I'm going to do a thing" → "ok I did the thing everything look good?". The general case is to compose with more thought, reread and rewrite your post, and resist the urge to respond to edits containing claims you feel like refuting. Even if there are a bunch of errors, you can save them up for your next comment and address them in a batch, AE-style. I'm definitely guilty of not thinking through my initial edit to a thread sufficiently thoroughly, but it's possible with self-restraint and patience.

  And again here I'm arguing for the principle of the restriction. I haven't looked into all the discussions linked from this one and have no desire to weigh in on whether this sanction should be applied in this case. Folly Mox (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support either Tamzin's or JBL's proposal. Raven's comments above demonstrate that they aren't willing to avoid bludgeoning discussions, and indeed reject that such behavior is disruptive. Both of these proposals will allow them to continue contributing to the site while also preventing this disruptive behavior.

I would also support adding two common sense exceptions; comments made on their talk page and comments made in noticeboard discussions about them don't count towards the limit. BilledMammal (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

> "Raven's comments above demonstrate that they aren't willing to avoid bludgeoning discussions.... / ... comments made in noticeboard discussions about them don't count towards the limit."

This *is* a noticeboard discussion about me; yet you say my "comments above demonstrate"... — on what basis? The numbers you just said don't count? What did this comment demonstrate? – .Raven  .talk 01:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to comments like 'Bludgeoning', hm. That term conveys a more discouraging attitude, e.g. telling people they mustn't comment. Like this section. BilledMammal (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Which was in a post above linking to comments that had been counted toward "bludgeoning", yet did not "attempt to force [any] point of view", e.g. pinging more participants from prior RfCs to discuss the topic, and encouraging new commenters. I don't consider those to be "bludgeoning" at all, and I think WP:BLUDGEON's definition excludes them too. Which makes using raw comment-counts (without examining content) not particularly useful as a guide. The hostility or absence of it matters too. We're supposed to welcome differing viewpoints — which those comments did — rather than the reverse. Yet now that's counted as "bludgeoning"? – .Raven  .talk 02:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions, as I again see no evidence that Raven is bludgeoning discussions generally. Loki (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support any and all sanctions. This is probably the worst case of serial bludgeoning I've encountered in all my years on Wikipedia. It has to stop somewhere, although for whatever reason some editors inconceivably refuse to see the problem even when it is this blindingly obvious. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Are actual numbers blinding? – .Raven  .talk 01:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  What's blinding is how obvious it is that you frequently bludgeon threads and turn them into battlegrounds. Your style of communicating is inconsistent with a community that values listening. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "frequently", now? Are the two threads brought up here a fair example of this "frequent" behavior? – .Raven  .talk 02:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I could respond further, but I see no point since you're never going to let up no matter what evidence is presented. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  What "evidence" of "frequently" has been presented? Two discussions were brought up; you've refused to respond to (and possibly even to read) the actual comment-counts from those discussions after the P-BAN ended.

  Per WP:ASPERSIONS: "Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true." [emphasis added] – .Raven  .talk 05:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Raven, you're literally bludgeoning a thread about how you bludgeon threads. I strongly suggest you just stop typing for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is, in my opinion, literally impossible to bludgeon an ANI report of yourself. You're expected to respond to many or most comments in an ANI about your own behavior, because you have both a right and a duty to defend yourself. Loki (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I have seen AN/I reportees criticized for insufficient response to the discussion. – .Raven  .talk 17:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I've definitely seen people sanctioned for over-replying to ANI, because it veers from defending themselves to browbeating everyone who speaks up. It's possible to respond collectively to concerns, rather than every damn last comment made in the ANI thread. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh come now. What does duty have to do with anything? We're writing an online encyclopedia; this isn't a war or something. Besides, nobody has the duty to defend themselves against every form of criticism however mild it may be. It is quite possible to bludgeon an ANI report about one's self, and it is untrue that there is some expectation that the editors will respond to many or most comments in such a thread. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "defend themselves against every form of criticism however mild it may be"

  When the accusations are severe enough to move for sanctions, that's not "mild". – .Raven  .talk 04:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Of course not. But the reason we got to this point is because you argued with the mild criticisms too. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Accusations of "bludgeoning", aka "incessant argumentativeness" or "patented protracted, pointless, pedantic debates", are mild criticisms? If not, then what? – .Raven  .talk 21:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Editors need to be able to engage in dialogue with each other to discuss questions that may arise with mainspace edits. If one participant is limited in the frequency of their edits, this hampers them from participating fully as a mainspace contributor. I appreciate the intent of the proposal, but I feel the desired goal of inducing greater concision and less repetition should be achieved with a different method. isaacl (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Note I am not saying that no restriction is warranted. Although I can imagine situations where a mainspace talk page restriction might be workable, in most cases I think if an editor is unable to be productive in discussing their mainspace edits, they may as well be restricted from editing articles rather than just limiting their mainspace talk page edits. isaacl (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Someone who prefers discussion to edit-wars will tend to comment more than someone with the opposite preference. If comments are stopped but article-editing is not, doesn't that encourage the B and the R without the D? – .Raven  .talk 17:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how your response relates to my comment, as I explicitly said that editors need to be able to discuss their mainspace edits. To me, this is an off-topic response which illustrates the issue of posting more responses than necessary. isaacl (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I was not *disagreeing* with you, but suggesting a point in *favor* of your "they may as well be restricted from editing articles rather than just limiting their mainspace talk page edits." — thus, "If comments are stopped but article-editing is `not, doesn't that encourage the B and the R without the D?"

  Is that still off-topic, or does it relate mow? – .Raven  .talk 04:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  The first sentence in your initial reply is unconnected. The second sentence is phrased as a question, which thus appears to ask me if I agree with something I already stated as my viewpoint. Both of these are detrimental to the topic of discussion I feel you should be focused on: illustrating that you can be concise and avoid posting more often than necessary. isaacl (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not so much to ask you, as to pose a rhetorical question to the readers we share. – .Raven  .talk 21:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  When you ask a question in response to my post, it sounds like you're asking me a question, rhetorical or not. Since you're ostensibly agreeing with me, it's not clear why you're asking this question. If you're trying to initiate a dialogue with other, unspecified people, it would be more effective for you to set the appropriate context, and often it is better to do so in a separate thread. (Note I'm not asking you for any further response or explanation; I'm just explaining the effect of your initial reply.) isaacl (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  User:Isaacl - I agree on both counts. Editors need to be able to fully contribute to a consensual discussion, because it is fully intertwined with boldly editing. One does not work without the other being fully available. - jc37 23:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose JBL's proposal – 2 edits per talk page a day, without being able to make corrections or reply to questions posed to you, is too restrictive in any case in my opinion. No comment on Tamzin's proposal – I haven't looked in depth into this case. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with Randy Kryn that this extreme limit is just setting the editor (or any active editor it's put upon) to up to get gamed and blocked ('look, it's only been 23 hours since the person's previous two!'), and having just seen another editor in this topic area get similarly gamed and blocked, I'd rather we not add to the pile... especially since it is noticeable that there is a specific pile; I've seen a lot of suboptimal editing in this topic area, and can't avoid noticing that in the last few months four of the editors who are trans or are 'nonhostile' to trans people have been dragged here, banned, blocked, or restricted by crowds consisting of many of the same people, while wp:nothere SPAs who do nothing but wikilawyer or troll in the other direction continue to operate : as Black Kite said even when it was just two, it ain't been subtle. OTOH, Raven's replies to this very thread make clear some kind of warning is necessary. On a balance I oppose either two-edit restriction (although Tamzin's is better than JBL's), but Raven, as Dumuzid said, you will get dragged here again — eventually the editors who are angling to get you blocked, no matter how incorrect or invalid you think their actions are, will succeed — unless you take to heart that commenting this much is indeed viewed negatively and learn to rein it in; you don't have to have the wp:lastword, you can say your piece and leave it at that, and just because another editor keeps repeating their own point doesn't mean you have to keep engaging. -sche (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support either proposal editor is bludgeoning a thread about how they're bludgeoning threads by demanding someone provide evidence of them bludgeoning threads. I wonder what completely novel information they'll respond to this !vote with. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I was surprised to see that LokiTheLiar wrote: no evidence that Raven is bludgeoning discussions generally. Perhaps no one has presented evidence. I shall present a comparison in the green boxes below - to Loki, who also participated in the RFC. starship.paint (exalt) 16:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

70 posts by .Raven in the WP:VPP RFC, initiating replies against 19 editors, while only 3 editors initiated replies against .Raven without .Raven initiating them first.

[initiating replies against 19 editors] - Cunado, Only in death does duty end, Mitch Ames, North8000, BilledMammal, Iffy, Locke Cole, Kusma, FOARP, Graeme Bartlett, Folly Mox, JoelleJay, Ravenswing, Blueboar, Huggums537, Adoring nanny, Cavarrone, Visviva, SmallJarsWithGreenLabels - bolded later re-engaged .Raven in later discussions [3 editors initiated without .Raven initiating] - SMcCandlish, Jerome Frank Disciple, EddieHugh Survey section Discussion thread 1: Initiates reply to Cunado 23:57, 12 June 2023 04:00, 13 June 2023 07:33, 13 June 2023 16:36, 14 June 2023 Thread 2: Initiates reply to Only in death does duty end 07:36, 13 June 2023 Thread 3: Votes (no one replies) 05:48, 14 June 2023 Thread 4: Initiates reply to Mitch Ames 16:00, 14 June 2023 Thread 5: Initiates reply to North8000 16:51, 14 June 2023 18:22, 14 June 2023 Thread 6a: Initiates reply to BilledMammal 18:22, 14 June 2023 Thread 7: Initiates reply to Iffy 23:33, 15 June 2023 Thread 6b: Responds to reply by Iffy 01:45, 16 June 2023 Thread 8a: Initiates reply to Locke Cole 07:35, 15 June 2023 Thread 9: Initiates reply to Kusma 10:20, 18 June 2023 16:15, 18 June 2023 17:16, 19 June 2023 Thread 10: Initiates reply to FOARP 16:58, 22 June 2023 Thread 11a: Initiates reply to Graeme Bartlett 16:27, 22 June 2023 Thread 11b: Responds to reply by Cunado 19:31, 24 June 2023 Thread 12: Initiates reply to Folly Mox 01:20, 24 June 2023 Thread 13: Initiates reply to JoelleJay 02:24, 24 June 2023 Thread 14a: Initiates reply to Ravenswing 01:49, 24 June 2023 07:15, 24 June 2023 Thread 14b: Responds to reply by Mitch Ames 03:38, 24 June 2023 04:31, 24 June 2023 09:23, 24 June 2023 19:43, 24 June 2023 Thread 14c: Responds to reply to Locke Cole 05:26, 24 June 2023 05:36, 24 June 2023 05:47, 24 June 2023 05:54, 24 June 2023 06:46, 24 June 2023 06:53, 24 June 2023 07:00, 24 June 2023 07:03, 24 June 2023 07:10, 24 June 2023 09:09, 24 June 2023 09:10, 24 June 2023 09:12, 24 June 2023 19:05, 24 June 2023 19:49, 24 June 2023 Thread 8b: Responds to reply by SMcCandlish 09:36, 24 June 2023 Thread 8c: Responds to reply by Jerome Frank Disciple 19:18, 24 June 2023 20:12, 24 June 2023 21:08, 24 June 2023 21:30, 24 June 2023 Thread 15: Initiates reply to Folly Mox 07:18, 24 June 2023 Thread 16: Initiates reply to Blueboar 19:49, 24 June 2023 Thread 17: Initiates reply to Huggums537 17:01, 28 June 2023 18:21, 28 June 2023 06:36, 30 June 2023 Thread 18: Initiates reply to Adoring nanny 06:36, 3 July 2023 10:06, 3 July 2023 Thread 19a: Initiates reply to Cavarrone 10:06, 3 July 2023 Thread 19b: Responds to reply by EddieHugh 20:44, 3 July 2023 Thread 20a: Initiates reply to FOARP 16:07, 3 July 2023 Thread 20b: Responds to reply by Huggums537 16:18, 3 July 2023 17:13, 3 July 2023 15:16, 5 July 2023 Thread 20c: Responds to reply by Blueboar 20:11, 3 July 2023 Thread 20d: Responds to reply by FOARP 15:00, 4 July 2023 Thread 20e: Responds to reply by Locke Cole 00:59, 5 July 2023 01:04, 5 July 2023 Outside of the survey section Thread A, part 1: Initiates reply to Visviva 23:18, 14 June 2023 02:17, 15 June 2023 Thread A, part 2: Responds to reply by SMcCandlish 23:18, 14 June 2023 Thread A, part 3: Responds to reply by BilledMammal 06:51, 15 June 2023 Thread B: Initiates reply to Huggums537 19:56, 24 June 2023 Thread C: Initiates reply to SmallJarsWithGreenLabels 02:28, 24 June 2023

13 posts by Loki in the same RFC, initiating replies against 10 editors, while only 1 editor initiated replies against Loki without Loki initiating them first.

There are diffs, but, well, trust me on this. starship.paint (exalt) 16:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Survey section Votes Initiates reply to -sche, once Initiates reply to Sideswipe9th, once Initiates reply to Huggums537, once Initiates reply to North8000, once Initiates reply to Spycicle, once Responds to reply by Locke Cole, once Initiates reply to JoelleJay, once Initiates reply to Blueboar, once Discussion section Initiates reply to SMcCandlish, once Initiates reply to Sideswipe9th, once Initates reply to SnowRise, once Initiates reply to Adam Cuerden, once

• Perhaps, editors can make a decision whether either Loki or .Raven, neither, or both bludgeoned. Skarmory may wish to take a look. Note that .Raven had three bursts of activity (12-16 June, 22-24 June, 3-5 July). The second burst stopped after warnings by myself and Dumuzid. starship.paint (exalt) 16:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The list is inflated by including replies to comments directed at me. Nifty. – .Raven  .talk 17:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• See, this is the whole issue I have with this report in a nutshell. Replying to comments by itself is not bludgeoning. Replying to comments a lot is not bludgeoning. You cannot prove anything with just pure frequency of replies, you need some kind of reference to the content and the structure of the replies.

WP:BLUDGEONing is not just commenting a lot, it's trying to overwhelm the discussion by sheer volume of comments. The classic form of it is responding to every !vote to try to convince the editor in question to change it. Raven is not doing that, and I'm very clearly not doing that: most of my replies are deep in a thread and several of them are to people I !voted the same way as.

In general, if Editor A asks an open question and Raven responds, that's not bludgeoning. If Editor A says something, Editor B disagrees, and Raven responds agreeing with Editor A, that's also (generally) not bludgeoning. Raven sure is commenting a lot on that discussion but only relatively rarely with the sort of combativeness that is necessary to be considered bludgeoning. Loki (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that replying a lot is not necessarily bludgeoning. But .Raven has been bludgeoning. Per WP:BLUDGEON, "In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people."

In my experience, .Raven certainly has a tendency to contradict every viewpoint different from their own, and to make the same argument over and over to different people. Furthermore, I typically find their comments to be combative, unconstructively dismissive (see WP:IDONTHEARYOU), and overly reliant on proof by assertion. This leads them into a lot of situations where they respond to comments just to say 'nuh-uh!'

On the Neely talk page, they came back from their block with the rather silly argument that all statements from RSs are no more than allegations (based on the wikitxt definition of the word "allegation"), and therefore we cannot include information in the article without the qualifier "alleged." They made this identical argument to four editors in four separate threads. When all of the editors disagreed with .Raven's interpretation and offered clear and succinct explanations as to why, .Raven persisted by simply repeating the argument over and over, by asking condescending questions, by linking to diffs of their own comments when they needed a fresh way to repeat them, by claiming that other editors agreed with them when they did not, by accusing other editors of trolling, and generally by having a "debate me!" attitude.

And this was in the course of only two days, after they were already blocked on the same page for bludgeoning discussion. Their behavior which led to the first block was similar, but lasted for weeks and weeks, spanning dozens of discussions. It was this previous block that led me to file the second ANI so quickly – repeat offenders do not have the same leeway as other users. Combefere ★ Talk 17:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I cited policy, WP:BLPPUBLIC, which I had no part in writing, to several people who were either unaware of it or unwilling to follow it. That gives the "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. / If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." Several other people's comments have stressed the "alleged", e.g. "A 'crime'/felony IS alleged by e.g. the DA, and thus e.g. BLPCRIME policy applies and the allegation matters now" -and- "... Serious BLP concerns. It is still alleged." -and- "... there's a distinction between describing an event as a killing and naming an alleged killer." — so to say that "all of the editors disagreed with .Raven's interpretation" is incorrect, unless you mean those four. Here's the start of one circling thread in which an editor insists I cite and quote from recent high-quality reliable sources that use such explicit language, specifically that ""Penny allegedly killed Neely"" etc.... apparently unaware that one needn't use the word "allege" in order to allege something. For that editor I provided links to both definitions and synonyms, showing that the newspapers stating X-killed-Y were alleging it. On such a matter, WP:BLP has us wait for a court verdict, not the newspaper headlines ahead of trial. This much should have been uncontroversial. We're not supposed to rush to judgment like newspapers; we're WP:NOTNEWS. – .Raven  .talk 19:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

When I said "all other editors" I did mean all four other editors engaged in that discussion about BLPPUBLIC. I assure you that we, all four of us, were fully aware of the policy, fully understood your interpretation of the policy, and were fully aware that one needn't use the word allege in order to allege something when we responded to you. But I do appreciate you taking the time to demonstrate both how eager you are to continue repeating yourself, as well as your unshakeable belief that anybody who disagrees with you must not have heard you the first six or seven times. Combefere ★ Talk 19:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

> "all four of us... were fully aware that one needn't use the word allege in order to allege something"

Requiring "explicit language, specifically that 'Penny allegedly killed Neely'", indicates otherwise. – .Raven  .talk 21:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a less condescending explanation is that we all simply disagreed with your interpretation of BLPPUBLIC. My humble advice is to consider that this type of explanation is often more constructive than the explanation that four other editors didn't hear you the first seven times, and that you must repeat yourself an eighth time. But if you'd prefer to ignore that advice and repeat yourself for a ninth time, then by all means keep digging. Combefere ★ Talk 23:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

My goodness, "condescending"? *I* haven't told anyone they shouldn't comment (or !vote) at all if they weren't commenting the way *I* wanted them to. – .Raven  .talk 03:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I've only interacted with Raven on the Neely talk page. Unfortunately, Combefere's description of Raven's behavior on that page matches my experience very closely. I think Raven should take to heart the following sentence from WP:BLUDGEON: The more often you express the same ideas in a discussion, the less persuasive you become. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support either. Tamzins version leaves more space for constructive editing, while JBL's version prevents the exploitation of loopholes with more wikilawyering. From the evidence submitted I was already leaning towards support, but the amount of spammed replies with little meaningful additions of content in this very thread sealed the deal for me. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on principle. - Ok, So I haven't looked at the diffs. And I don't think I've ever encountered the editor in question. But I'm reading through a "discussion" with huge blocks of text (noting that I can write huge blocks of text with the best of them : ) - where there are more than a few cases of people talking past each other, all while accusing someone else of "bludgeoning" a discussion. Anyway, all that aside, picking some arbitrary number is just another form of edit-counting, and I oppose editcountitis out of principle. If there really is an issue with bludgeoning here, then perhaps someone can come up with some other creative idea to reduce the disruption. But I don't think this is it. - jc37 19:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is certainly possible for reasonable people to disagree about whether the proposed restrictions are necessary or appropriate (or, obviously, on the precise details) but this comment is just incoherent -- what is {[tq|picking some arbitrary number is just another form of edit-counting, and I oppose editcountitis out of principle}} even supposed to mean? Maybe you could make some attempt to investigate the specifics of the situation under discussion before opining? --JBL (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  "If there really is an issue with bludgeoning here, then perhaps someone can come up with some other creative idea to reduce the disruption. But I don't think this is it" I don't think this suggestion is really constructive. As Tamzin pointed out, this proposal has precedent; it was used in the ANI for Newimpartial earlier this year. A similar proposal was unanimously supported to sanction user Bus Stop at an ANI thread in 2021, and was only overruled because editors on that thread ultimately decided a site ban was more appropriate.

  If you have a better proposal, then by all means, put it forward. As is, your comment seems to oppose on principle the idea of sanctioning disruptive users at all. Combefere ★ Talk 20:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Arbcom is not bound to precedent, and neither are we. Just because someone else did something does not make it the correct thing to do in every situation.

  As for a different proposal? there are more than a few, but it depends on the situation. There are plenty of creative minds here who I presume are more informed about whatever the disruption is, than I presume to be.

  But whatever is decided, editcounitis is for the birds. Edit quantity over edit quality is almost always a waste of community time.. And if you have read WP:BLUDGEON (and I presume that you have) you'd know that it has little to do with the quantity of the edits, but what the edits consist of. Hence: editcountitis is for the birds. - jc37 20:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  it depends on the situation. Yes. There are plenty of creative minds here who ... are more informed about whatever the disruption is, than I presume to be. Also yes. Perhaps you could restrict your commenting to situations about which you are informed. --JBL (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's interesting to see you attempt to cherry-pick out part of my comments while seemingly intentionally ignoring what I was actually saying, and then trying to use that as an attack, and then to try to push me away. There's an interesting irony here.

  Anyway, you're welcome to disagree or not like what I'm saying, but you not understanding what I'm saying (by your admission above) does not mean you should use your lack of understanding to attack me.

  Speaking of things that this discussion would appear not ot be, I think I'll add "Collegiately Civil"... - jc37 22:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I already expressed above that I find your point obscure; your decision not to explain yourself clearly (either initially or in response) is a decision you've made, not a personal failing of mine -- you are welcome to explain. Separately, I do not think the principle "don't make votes on ANI threads without investigating the actual situation" is particularly difficult to understand, and I'm also not sure why you think it's a good idea to disregard it. (Unlike the first point, I don't want you to explain this bad choice, I just want you to either stop commenting on a situation you aren't familiar with or to familiarize yourself with it and adjust your comments appropriately.) --JBL (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I believe the word you used was "wikt:incoherent". Which, based upon your words, means that you could not make sense out of my comments.

  And I absolutely can "opine" (as you put it) that I think that this "solution" is inappropriate to address a situation of bludgeoning. My comments are pointed at the suggested solution. Whether the editor is guilty of bludgeoning is immaterial to whether setting an arbitrary number for allowed edits should be deemed appropriate for any editor, especially since that's not the intent of WP:Bludgeon, and not what it states. As I stated above. You can continue to try to ignore my words, but it doesn't change their applicability to this request for comment.

  Again, you apparently keep attempting to dismiss what you don't understand. I'm happy to try to continue to clarify, but please, go ahead and repeat your comments again stating the same thing you've now said twice. As I said, it's an interesting irony... - jc37 22:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'll just say that I agree with JBL that your comment is rather incoherent, and unconstructive. It strikes me as asking others to do your homework for you. If you think there's a better sanction for bludgeoning, then propose one. If you think there should be no sanction for bludgeoning at all, then admit it outright. But if you simply want to chime in just to chime in, other editors are bound to wonder what the point is. Either add something constructive to your comment, or stop commenting; no need to go around this circle again. Combefere ★ Talk 22:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I have "done my homework". I've read WP:BLUDGEON. Above, I had presumed that you had too, but perhaps I was mistaken. But I will agree that the two of you seem to want to "go around this circle". Your focus seems to be so much on sanctioning the editor's behaviour, that you are apparently not looking at the pages you are linking to, to see if the proposed sanction is appropriate for the deemed offence. To wit: If the issue is bludgeoning, a restriction of quantity of edits is inappropriate. It's not rocket science. But it does require you to read the page you're referring to. - jc37 22:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wouldn't doing your homework include looking at the diffs? Look, maybe you haven't encountered this editor before, but I have. And I have consistently found that their bludgeoning, battleground approach is disruptive. There are several other editors with similar experiences in this thread. But you've brushed aside those specifics, without substantive acknowledgement, to oppose this sanction 'on principle' as if the details don't matter. You can hardly blame us for being annoyed.

  As far as the editcountitis aspect is concerned, I'll happily concur that bludgeoning is about more than mere quantity (personally, I'm concerned less about Raven's quantity and more about his tendency to pick out one or two things in a comment to disagree with, disregard everything else, and then argue ad nauseum about the one or two points). But this sanction will still be a serious step forward toward reducing the ongoing disruption, so it is a clear step in the right direction. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  "...looking at the difs?" - sometimes. And I have spent a lot of my days poring through page histories and edit histories. But sometimes, it isn't necessary in order to see that there's an issue - which, in my estimation, was the case here.

  Look, the situation may very well require sanctioning. I don't know, because I have not looked. I have been honest about that. And I appreciate that you would like what you see as an issue, resolved. But, at the moment, I'm fine with leaving that specific behavioural assessment to another admin, and am merely addressing the policy/guidelines issue that I was looking at.

  But, I will admit, that the seemingly intentionally obtuse responses above were definitely nudging me to take a look at everyone's edits. But I tell you what. How about this: The editor "thanked" me for some of my comments above. I'm going to take that opportunity to go drop a note on their talk page. Maybe it'll help with what you're concerned about, and maybe not. But I suppose we'll see. - jc37 23:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth: while bludgeoning is not about edit count, it is about persistently replying to someone who's not interested in arguing with you. Which seems to me like exactly what the three of you are doing on this very thread. Loki (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hence my comments about "irony" above... - jc37 00:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Although I support either proposal above, I do find this comment rather perceptive. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is the catch-22 of trying to raise a complaint against a serial bludgeoner. Invariably, the bludgeoner will talk you to death. Indeed, your definition of bludgeoning clearly applies to Raven's action in this thread. Meanwhile, the bludgeoner's defenders will show up, as will a couple of well-intentioned editors who want to err on the side of no sanctions but don't really understand the disruption that prompted the report. If you leave these comments alone, other neutral observers will conclude that you have no rebuttal. But if you try to counterargue, inevitably someone will try to turn the bludgeoning accusation back around on you. It's an exhausting situation to deal with, and the implications of bad faith are a delightful icing on the cake. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose sanctions. The numbers do not convince me that .Raven's behavior is particularly disruptive, and the argumentative comments that I have seen look more like a typical content dispute rather than a real conduct issue (though I have not looked at every single one, as this conversation has gotten quite long). Sanctioning a particular editor because it is difficult to reach a consensus gives the impression of a sham consensus, which is far more disruptive (in my view) than any of Raven's behavior. Perhaps the solution is to take this to WP:DR/N so that everyone is subject to the same commenting restrictions.  — Freoh 10:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• WP:BLUDGEON is a blunt instrument that misses the point. It's very easy for Wikipedia discussions, especially RFCs, to turn into a series of dialogs, different editors each engaging with the same one editor. It's not strange – real-life meetings do it too – and when each dialog's sustained by both people in it, it can seem hard to blame anyone. But it means we don't get an open discussion among several editors, and the RFC or whatever is the worse for it. One "side" is largely represented by one editor, the dialogs delve ever deeper but we don't get fresh perspectives from that side, and it all becomes less productive, less rewarding and more frustrating – so we wind up here. Opening up discussions and letting other voices in needs self-restraint and acceptance from all that sometimes it's better to step away, without anyone being persuaded to change their mind or concede something. .Raven, will you do that? And if you say you're already doing it, will you do it a lot more? NebY (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Goodness, I thought I'd documented what I had and had not done in the original discussion during the time period mentioned. Now even my comments here are being counted against me as "bludgeoning", which would include this reply to you. Should I not reply at all? That would be "stepping away more", but in my opinion rude. Which would you prefer? – .Raven  .talk 21:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  @NebY: What do you think, is that a yes or a no? --JBL (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  I meant it more the way "How high?" relates to "Jump!" – .Raven  .talk 23:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Raven is on thin ice and clearly attempts by well meaning editors has fallen on deaf ears which is why this has escalated. However, the OP here was also beating that Neely article like a dead horse. It's time for all involved parties to go in their seperate directions. Finally, Raven... if you're brought here again with similar issues I suspect the community will support stronger sanctions. I wise man once said nothing. Nemov (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose JBL's proposal on principle largely per isaacl and jc37. In general, these kind of sanctions fail to address what bludgeoning is, which is the mere repeating of the same argument over and over again. Sure, limiting Raven to two posts per page per day would prevent bludgeoning, but it would only do so in the same way that blocking him would, by simply preventing him from participating at all. Per isaacl, we need to allow people to defend and discuss their edits, and they can only do this by participating on the talk page without bludgeoning. Limiting Raven's talk page editing would stop the bludegeoning but also the participation, which has effects on their ability to constructively edit the article. Looking over the edits, I see definite bludgeoning by Raven, and I would support sanctions targeting this behavior rather than raw edit count. Tamzin's proposal comes much closer, but it's still fundamentally based on edit count, and I fear it will lead to unnecessary gaming/lawyering by one or both sides due to the difficulty of defining reasonable length comments and brief clarifications. Pinguinn 🐧 11:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support JBL's proposal. Every single discussion I've encountered .Raven in he has had the most, or at least the densest, comments (and that's saying something coming from me!). But more problematic than the bludgeoning itself is that the points he is bludgeoning are often so unsupportable and/or accusatory and/or aggressively captious that, as Lepricavark somewhat alludes to, they inevitably derail the thread after other editors fall in the trap of attempting to explain a PAG or clarify a misinterpretation or defend themselves from snide comments (see the interminable riveting discussion collapsed in the diff above). This happens even when responding to editors who broadly agree with him. .Raven made a combined nearly 100 comments at the Randy Kryn ANI and the associated page in contention, many of them arguing from an off-topic, fatuously-contrarian position. I see that he has repeated this behavior at multiple other pages since then and collected numerous warnings from it, with no apparent restraint even after a p-block. A comment limit is the minimum sanction needed at this point, but I wouldn't be surprised if a NOTHERE block was brought to the table in the future. JoelleJay (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "... 100 comments at the Randy Kryn ANI and the associated page...." [emphasis added]

  Ah. Now the scale is not by discussion, but by the entire page, with all its discussions? Noted.

  > "... contrarian position." — Thank you for clarifying that my offense was holding minority opinions in those discussions, sufficient cause to complain... especially since I was quoting/citing WP policy, established by wider consensus, majority opinion which many in those discussions wished to disregard. – .Raven  .talk 06:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Literally all your edits to that page are in the one discussion.

  And your severe miscomprehension and misapplication of P&Gs is well-documented by now. JoelleJay (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "Literally all your edits to that page are in the one discussion." — Which one discussion?

• Discusstion?   -or-
• Like space embryos scattered to the stars, we seek a new beginning?

> "your severe miscomprehension and misapplication of P&Gs" — My direct verbatim quotes with cites/links?

> "is well-documented by now." So it's documented that I misquoted or miscited them? Where? Links, please. – .Raven  .talk 07:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. It's a bit a beyond the scope your typical editing restriction, but I'm convinced it's warranted: .Raven's conduct across policy spaces in particular over the last couple of months has been deeply (if unintentionally) tendentious and disruptive. Prior to that timeframe I had never encountered them (that I can recall) anywhere on the project, but the sheer volume and tenacity of bludgeoning has really left an impression. They seem to have a compulsive need to respond to every single person they perceive to be arguing against precisely their preferred take on an issue, typically adding more content to a discussion than the next few most vocal participants combined. These issues are additionally compounded by a non-standard formatting/response scheme--which is not a brightline violation of policy per se, and would not be as big an issue with a less loquacious contributor, but combined with the bludgeoning, it does tend make standard discussion tracking all the more strained.

Further, the bludgeoning is not just by virtue of the number of responses, but also results from tonal issues: every subpart of every dispute must be disputed to the hilt, and no quarter given--even those agreeing with 90% of what .Raven has to say in a given instance can still find themselves on the receiving end of vociferous deconstructions of how wrong they are about the other 10%. And rather than indicators of a strong developing consensus resulting in their taking their foot off the gas, it typically just seems to encourage .Raven to double down at exponentially accelerating rates. It's a deeply non-collaborative discussion style which .Raven has been approached about repeatedly here (and apparently on their talk page) over recent weeks, with little to no evidence that much of this feedback is ever taken on board by them as indication that there might genuinely be something wrong with their approach.

All that said, I do believe .Raven is trying their best to follow and promote respect for policy as they interpret it. But whatever value they might potentially bring to discussions is currently being undermined by a severe deficit of restraint, as well as poor perspective on what a reasonable ratio of contribution to a discussion is, relative to everyone else participating. I know it might sound like lip service, and they might reasonably feel it is patronizing, but I honestly think some sort of participation restriction is highly in their best longterm interests here--as well as the shorterm value of their arguments, for that matter. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

> "a non-standard formatting/response scheme" — Do you mean adding quote marks, italics, and the >?

Not everyone has color screens (even my wife's handheld is monochrome), and some of those who do have some form of color-blindness — green is one of the colors often affected; it doesn't stand out well for me at my age. I'm trying to provide multiple cues about quotations for such situations. The > is a traditional quotation-line mark in Usenet, and like bullets at the left helps mark a new item in the response. Please disregard whatever cues you don't need. – .Raven  .talk 07:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

References

• Strong oppose JBL’s proposal replying to comments is generally not bludgeoning, nor is pinging participants in past RFC’s on similar topics, as long as it is done in a neutral manner. I could potentially support Tamzin's proposal if the exceptions were objectively stated, as there is a lot of gray area as to why a reply of “reasonable length” or “very brief” comments are. I would suggest an objective limit of five sentences per response (or more) as most genuine responses are shorter than that and most walls of text are far, far longer. Removing the exceptions rather than clarifying them is a non-starter in my opinion. But as written I oppose Tamzin's proposal as well. Frank Anchor 12:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support a comment limit, with objective boundaries and no room for loopholes or wikilawyering around community sanctions. .Raven does not appear to hear what other editors are saying, about how excessive commenting dominates a conversation, and how that can be disruptive to a productive and collaborative atmosphere. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Marines RfC, and two-week site block proposal

While I don't particularly like doing this, I feel it must be done. While this ANI thread is still ongoing, I see that .Raven has returned to participate in an RfC they earlier started advocating for the capitalisation of Marine. Again, .Raven is the dominant participant, I count 22 comments by them (ignoring 4 irrelevant comments), much more than other editors: Parsecboy (8 comments), Intothedarkness (6 comments), SMcCandlish (5 comments) and Cinderella157 (4 comments).

Now, this isn't even the biggest issue here. What I want to raise is that at a time when there were 4 supports and 13 opposes (and yes, I am aware WP:NOTAVOTE), indicating a high likelihood that the result would be against .Raven with no capitalised "Marine", .Raven inserted a placeholder for a new RfC (diff) on whether titles for specific nations' armed forces members should follow their own nations' practices, essentially planning to re-litigate if "Marine" should be capitalised since the American Marines do so.

Is this a problem? I will refer you to this argument made by .Raven in June in another RfC, where .Raven argued in favour of excluding dissenting views by stating that (diff) only comments/!votes within the parameters of the prior RfC's closure should be accepted [...] does not invite revisiting options already declined there, then emphasising that (diff) proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive." per WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE.

That .Raven would do this while their conduct is being examined at ANI is perplexing. Since the above proposal on daily comment restrictions is garnering opposition for not being viable, I instead propose a two-week site block for .Raven for disruptive editing, for them to re-evaluate their approach to discussions. The idea of a temporary block was floated by Nemov above, who said: "While I opposed the sanction idea below, upon further review it's kind of clear this editor isn't learning anything ... When an editor is seemingly incapable of listening to others something should probably be done." starship.paint (exalt) 07:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Combefere, Lepricavark, Dumuzid, Chrisahn, Randy Kryn, LokiTheLiar, BilledMammal, Tamzin, Folly Mox, Snow Rise, Nemov, and JayBeeEll: starship.paint (exalt) 08:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• @Display name 99, HandThatFeeds, Isaacl, Jc37, -sche, AirshipJungleman29, Captain Jack Sparrow, Freoh, NebY, Pinguinn, and JoelleJay: starship.paint (exalt) 08:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• @.Raven: starship.paint (exalt) 08:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• @CapnJackSp: starship.paint (exalt) 08:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support something. Clearly this is untenable; .Raven has demonstrated a problematic level of tendentiousness with their bludgeoning, with it being strongly on display in the linked Marines discussion, and it appears this extends to RfC's as well; when an RfC goes against you the correct response is not to plan to open another RfC on an almost-identical topic as soon as the first RfC is closed.

I don't know if that "something" is a block, but something needs to be done - .Raven is not interested in listening to the concerns of the broader community and perhaps a short block will teach them that they need to if they wish to prevent a longer block being applied.

By the way the pings didn't work properly; they took me to the top of the page, not this discussion section. (Uncollapsing the pings appear to have fixed it. 08:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC))BilledMammal (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

> ".Raven is not interested in listening to the concerns of the broader community" — My goodness, one opens an RfC specifically to request comments from the community. I did that rather than "boldly" make changes myself to all the various pages with uncapitalized "marine". Once again, my choosing to D[iscuss] rather than BRRRR/edit-war is held against me. – .Raven  .talk 08:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue isn't choosing to discuss marine capitalization rather the edit warring. The issue is not stopping discussion when it is clear that consensus is against you. BilledMammal (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The RfC is still underway, and at Randy Kryn's suggestion, on July 6 I notified two pages more thematically related to the topic than WT:MOSCAPS. It's far too soon to guess the outcome. – .Raven  .talk 08:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

"my choosing to discuss rather than edit-war" – You seem to think that you only have two options: 1. edit war, 2. intense discussion. That's a false dichotomy. You have many, many other options. — Chrisahn (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Stay away entirely is another option. But I'm here to improve an encyclopedia. – .Raven  .talk 08:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

You now seem to think that you only have three options: 1. edit war, 2. intense discussion, 3. stay away entirely. That's progress, but still a false dilemma. You have many, many other options. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven: If you are here to improve Wikipedia, then please try and listen more, and be attentive to what many members of the community are trying to say to you, about how you can do it better! 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been following that RfC and am familiar with the arguments of both sides, but I haven't contributed. When I saw the placeholder RfC, I didn't see wikilawyering, but rather a kind of mental organization tactic, like "I see where this is going, there is the possibility of a slightly different approach that could lead to consensus and I want to address it, but more discussion needs to happen and I don't want to forget". It's true that it was unorthodox, possibly inappropriate, and surely annoying to many of the participants, yet adhering to WP:AGF I saw it as a thing that seemed forgivable at the time. I would hesitate to use this as an example of a pattern of misbehavior. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

In the original RfC (just concerning U.S. Marines), several people brought up, in effect, 'what about other nations' forces?' — to which I had replied: "If referring generically to 'seafaring infantry' not of any particular nation, then the generic term 'marine[s]' could apply. For specific nations' forces, we should use their format, e.g. 'A Spanish marine, left, explains how her weapon works to a U.S. Marine....' — and in fact I'm willing to start a separate RfC for that generalization (rather than change this one mid-!voting)."

Then I created the placeholder for such an RfC, not yet open for discussion: "Should the capitalization of titles for specific nations' armed forces members follow their own nations' practices, e.g. 'Spanish marine' but '[U.S.] Marine' and (U.K.) 'Royal Marine' for individuals?" This is a wider topic, which the present RfC does not address.

What should be done with the original RfC? Close it at once summarily, after people have been !voting for a while? Change its question, again after people have already voted on the original question? Or let it continue until closure one way or the other, and then raise the broader question? I'll happily take advice. You're the first person to object to there being the broader RfC at all. – .Raven  .talk 08:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

As to comment-count: those comments include the original short question to open the RfC, my longer exposition, and then several comments containing linked references — plus replies to comments directed at me, e.g. here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here, not a complete list but greater than "4". – .Raven  .talk 08:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

No, the original short question to open the RfC was not counted. starship.paint (exalt) 08:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's one. – .Raven  .talk 08:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

... and all but one of the above comments were directed at you in response to you directing comments on other people. starship.paint (exalt) 08:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Does that negate comments like "This seems an odd placement for an RfC on the topic, could have been done at the U.S. Marine page. Have that talk page and the talk pages of military WikiProjects been notified? Thanks." (not in reply to my commenting on him) — to which I replied, "Now done. Thanks for the suggestion!"? -or- this comment by Indefatigable, replying to my comment not directed at him — to which I replied in turn? -or- this comment by Parsecboy, replying to my comment not directed at him — to which i replied in turn? ... and another four exchanges after that? Etc. – .Raven  .talk 09:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I discounted the Randy Kryn one from the "in response" before you commented. It's crystal clear, you don't see the problem, even though your comment levels are much higher than anyone else. The numbers speak for themselves. Plus this is the 3rd RfC with issues... starship.paint (exalt) 09:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

> "The numbers speak for themselves." — That's what Jc37 called "editcountitis", above, saying, "Edit quantity over edit quality is almost always a waste of community time.. And if you have read WP:BLUDGEON (and I presume that you have) you'd know that it has little to do with the quantity of the edits, but what the edits consist of. Hence: editcountitis is for the birds."

Plus this is the third discussion for which the mere quantity of the edits has been made an issue.

If the essay (not policy or guideline) WP:BLUDGEON is going to be a basis for complaint, could we at least pay attention to what it actually says?

Replying to many questions that are directed to you is perfectly fine. ... You have the right to give your opinion in any open discussion, so long as you aren't doing it in a way that limits others from doing the same.

Where and how have I attempted to limit anyone else's full participation? – .Raven  .talk 09:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe by dominating a number of conversations? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

So whoever posts the most comments [e.g. adding evidence] has inherently limited others' full participation, because there's a cap on the number of comments that can be posted?? I don't think that's quite what WP:BLUDGEON says. Trying to silence other editors would be an issue, but answering "Can I point out...?" with "You certainly can point out whatever you think any page 'really ought to only be about'. Your opinion, taken with others, goes into the mix from which consensus (or 'no consensus') is derived." – is clearly not an attempt to silence, or limit the participation of another, nor is pinging some 73 participants of prior RfCs to join in a new one (I had no idea what positions any of them would take), nor is (at another participant's suggestion) sending invitations to topically related groups. I have repeatedly tried to increase the participation of others. – .Raven  .talk 14:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support some action being taken, as described by BilledMammal. I am casting this !vote with some degree of difficulty, as all the interactions I've directly had with Raven have frankly been very positive - many of them intense and detailed, but positive for that exact reason. I think, by and large, that it is a good thing to have editors who argue adamantly, because having people with strongly held positions (that aren't manifestly absurd or otherwise problematic) is necessary to get less involved participants to see what the options are, even if they refuse to change what they believe to be true.

That being said, there needs to be a point where we pack it in or at least dial it back, even if we believe - or know - ourselves to be right and the emerging consensus to be wrong. I recognize the desire to guide a nascent consensus, but we need to trust that we have articulated ourselves properly and that others will come and be convinced of our positions, or at least that some time in the future, people will show up and form a different consensus.

Secondly, the inefficacy of being too aggressive when arguing is the nature of the beast in a community where consensus is the primary decision making method. It only serves to upset and distract people to answer EVERY or even most/many of the dissenting viewpoints, even when done politely. Just because you aren't necessarily doing exactly what WP:BLUDGEON describes doesn't mean that people don't feel like your behavior is disruptive, and when consensus is necessary, what the community feels is most important. We aren't here to engage in structured debate, in which logic dominates and you can precisely dismantle people's arguments in order to win, we are here to express our opinions and move toward compromise (or acceptance) when the consensus is not emergent.

The bottom line is that right or wrong, a lot of people are taking issue with how you are conducting yourself. That in and of itself is disruptive, regardless of any particular policy regarding a specific type of DE. Nobody is telling you to shut up, just to let stuff go, even if you believe it to be wrong. PriusGod (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

So noted. As a point of information, have I not  "dialed it back" at the two discussions originally complained of here, Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#Name Inclusion, reopened, and WP:VPP#RfC: Proposed addition to MOS:GENDERID - when to include deadnames? What's my edit-count there for the past week? – .Raven  .talk 09:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on the edit counting aspect of this discussion but FWIW I agree that you've moved firmly into the realm of having dialed it back on the Neely discussion. That being said, I would clock some of your behavior there prior to the aforementioned dialing as bludgeon-y - by which I mean that it substantiates some of the above complaints while also demonstrating that the issue at hand is not unsolvable. Hence, that I think some sanction may presently be warranted, but also may pan out not to be necessary. PriusGod (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, this seems an ANI get-them-blocked-somehow-or-anyway. Has .Raven improved since the complaints? Seem to have, which is the step in the right direction asked for (and by the way, Marines should be uppercased, .Raven has proven it, but lowercasers will likely "win" the RfC by showing up). Everyone has their own way of editing (it's often a process, like art or music) and leeway obtained by "assume good faith" will handle a lot of perceived faults. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, how has their conduct improved since the start of the complaint? They've literally bludgeoned a thread about how they're bludgeoning threads by adding numerous replies with unclear meaning and little to no meaningful insight. Display name 99 (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Display name 99. This is ANI, so defending oneself against perceived misinformation and inaccurate descriptors of intent and function seems okay. On other threads the user should hold back a little, which they are doing as far as I can tell (the RfC on Marines, started by .Raven, would seem like bludgeoning until realizing that much of .Raven's response has been providing more good evidence for their position). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It may be seen as good evidence by Raven, but even substantive replies can become bludgeoning just by their sheer volume. I'll admit that I haven't looked at that thread, but Raven's tone in numerous other discussions has been combative and tendentious. As for ANI, defending oneself is okay, but posting sarcastic replies with unclear meaning that don't add anything to the discussion is not, and they've done that repeatedly throughout this thread. Display name 99 (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support something, but preferrably a restriction that still allows them to reasonably partake in discussions. Given they havent taken responsibility, I am compelled to agree with those who seek sanctions; However, I do not think that they do so in bad faith, and as such would want to see sanctions that would not be unnecessarily restrictive to the extent of forcing them from not being able to take part in discussions. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose all sanctions. I fundamentally do not see any of Raven's behavior as problematic and frankly see starship.paint's apparent strong desire to get an editor sanctioned as suspect itself. Loki (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

That comment on my desire being suspect is laughable. I went to .Raven’s talk page twice before proposing this. If I were acting in bad faith, it wouldn’t have been Combefere coming to ANI. It would have been me taking .Raven to ANI even without visiting .Raven’s talk page. Also, my desire to get .Raven sanctioned is so strong that I did not even vote to support the daily comment restriction proposal. Amazing! starship.paint (exalt) 11:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

You did promote this ANI thread and ban request at the Marines RfC, which looks a bit like trying to attract the mostly opposed editors who have posted there. Hopefully editors posting here will read that thread as well, which contains many comments by .Raven which present further and, to me, increasingly conclusive evidence that the name Marine, when used in the military context, should be uppercased. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not Raven's position is correct is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Being right does not justify a combative and uncollaborative editing approach. Display name 99 (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Randy Kryn, I did promote this thread there, but if I was that desperate for a sanction, don’t you think I would have simply directly pinged all of those mostly opposed Marine RfC participants here? Wouldn’t that be a better way of attracting them, instead of risking them missing my message? I’ve already demonstrated the ability to ping, so why didn’t I do it? starship.paint (exalt) 13:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I know this is a good faith thread, as are your intentions Starship.paint. Promotion at the RfC is a bit much, but not out-of-bounds. You have communicated more with .Raven on this topic than most, and seem both committed and genuinely interested in educating them how not to bludgeon. I think it's taking, maybe they just need to be less wordy. Two weeks seems like a long ban for a short pier, a trout or two may suffice? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Good faith editors can disagree on the length and type of sanction merited. Two weeks is not short, and not long either, but .Raven is guaranteed the ability to return. I personally disagree that .Raven is too wordy, I think the issue is knowing when to stop discussing and step back. I've told .Raven before - when you're the #1 commenter in a large discussion, when you've replied to more editors than anyone else, when you've commented more than other 'frequent commenters' put together - have we not heard your position enough? (Note - I am not referring to defending oneself at ANI). starship.paint (exalt) 14:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

If this was a first warning, a trout would suffice, but it isn't. They bludgeoned this ANI thread and were warned there. They've already been paged blocked for a week for similar behavior and refused to listen when editors approached them on the talk page to encourage them to change their behavior, even hatting the discussions. This is a serial bludgeoner who will not listen to polite warnings. Display name 99 (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support-Clearly unacceptable behavior has continued for a long time despite repeated warnings. This alternative will remove concerns about wikilawyering that several editors voiced in response to previous proposals. Display name 99 (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support – a full two dozen editors have asked Raven to change their behavior. It is clear at this point that Raven has fully committed to the decision to not listen. We’ve given Raven enough WP:ROPE. Broad community resistance to their behavior spanning multiple discussions has proven ineffective. It’s time for an admin to step in and do something. Combefere ★ Talk 16:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support it is utterly incomprehensible that anyone, besides Raven of course, still does not see the problem. Raven meets even the slightest disagreement with a battleground approach and displays little to no capacity for self-reflection and course-correction. At this point, how many people have tried to reason with them to no avail? How many more will it take? They are undoubtedly headed for an indefinite block, but we can at least go through the motions of hoping that a two-week block might possibly somehow get their attention. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - There have been extensive attempts to encourage Raven to participate in a net positive manner, including the one-week p-block from the previous ANI, and a variety of editors offering advice and feedback, but Raven does not appear to be listening. From my view, a two-week block prevents ongoing disruption, can deter future disruptive conduct, and will hopefully encourage "a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms" by discouraging what appears to be a well-documented battleground approach to editing and related discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "prevents ongoing disruption" — Query: what "ongoing disruption"? Where?

  > "deter" — Ah... WP:PUNITIVE. – .Raven  .talk 18:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  The 'prevents' wikilink is to WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE, which includes, deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. From my view, a persistent combative approach in response to extensive good-faith attempts to encourage more effective participation in encyclopedia-building is a distinct form of not listening, and indicates a likelihood of repetition, particularly in the context of ongoing disruptive conduct noted in this section, and the overall pattern of disruption, including in contentious topics, documented throughout this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "a persistent combative approach in response to extensive good-faith attempts to encourage more effective participation" — I have thanked (via button) numerous good-faith comments, without commenting to do so (because my commenting at all increases a count held against me); how is that "combative", let alone persistently so?

  > "in the context of ongoing disruptive conduct" — Again, what "ongoing disruption"? Where?

  See PriusGod's "... FWIW I agree that you've moved firmly into the realm of having dialed it back...." – .Raven  .talk 00:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's a red herring. Nobody has claimed that it is combative for you to use the 'thanks' button. But those few examples of non-combative responses hardly negate the numerous instances (incl. many of your responses in this thread) where you have repeatedly demonstrated a chronic inability to stop, reflect, and adjust in spite of dozens of editors expressing their concerns. Do you seriously believe that you are right and that almost everyone else is wrong? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I look at PriusGod's "... FWIW I agree that you've moved firmly into the realm of having dialed it back...."

  I look at Lepricavark's "you have repeatedly demonstrated a chronic inability to stop, reflect, and adjust"

  And I don't see how they're referring to the same thing.

  Below Lepricavark says: "your ongoing disruption this thread ... self-defense must be conducted within prescribed norms"

  Hm. So where (link please) is it prescribed that I mustn't respond to accusations or misstatements? – .Raven  .talk 00:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  You've cherry-picked a small part of PriusGod's comment that was favorable to you and ignored the rest of it, which was somewhat less favorable. If you did dial back at the Neely article, it is presumably because you have been expending your battleground energies at other pages instead. Your closing question is yet another red herring, and I feel no obligation to answer it given that you ignored my questions. There are dozens of us telling you that there is a problem. Figure it out. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "it is presumably because you have been expending your battleground energies at other pages instead." [emphasis added]

  Hm. Presumption of guilt, no actual pages linked to show this purported behavior.

  L >>> "self-defense must be conducted within prescribed norms"
  R >> "So where (link please) is it prescribed that I mustn't respond to accusations or misstatements?"
  L > "Your closing question is yet another red herring, and I feel no obligation to answer it...."

  So. Prescribed nowhere, then. (As the saying goes, 'Links, or it didn't happen.')

  You're trying to get me blocked for breaking a rule you won't (or can't) point to. – .Raven  .talk 00:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  The pages have already been linked by other editors. I would agree that there is no policy prohibiting you from responding to accusations. But then, I never said that there was, did I? You misunderstood me, just as you did in your latest reply to me below. You misunderstand me a lot. I suspect that's because you read my comments not with a desire to understand but with a desire to disagree. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "The pages have already been linked by other editors."

  So. Not the Neely talkpage (since you said "other pages" than that). The RfC I started? You've not answered either how my posting evidence to it was "disruptive" nor why I would "disrupt" an RfC I started, having just invited two more groups to participate. WP:VPP#Survey (GENDERID addition)? Last comment over three days ago; is this what you mean by "ongoing"?

  > "I would agree that there is no policy prohibiting you from responding to accusations. But then, I never said that there was, did I?"

• "... non-combative responses hardly negate the numerous instances (incl. many of your responses in this thread) where you have repeatedly demonstrated a chronic inability to stop, reflect, and adjust...." [emphasis added]

• "... your ongoing disruption this thread ... self-defense must be conducted within prescribed norms..." [emphasis added]

["Prescribed norms" you have explicitly refused to cite/link.]

This begins to look like WP:GASLIGHTING. – .Raven  .talk 01:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

.Raven, from my view, norms that apply to discussions include policies that relate to the Wikipedia community, such as Wikipedia is not an anarchy or a forum for free speech; Wikipedia is not a democracy; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; and Wikipedia is not a battleground. As to my use of the word "ongoing," I am referring to how from my view, it appears there has been disruptive conduct, and that the disruptive conduct has continued after warnings and a p-block, and that there is a likelihood of disruptive conduct continuing based on the pattern of conduct that has been documented in this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

> "the disruptive conduct has continued" — Where?

• The original two discussions complained of, where I then "dialed it back"?

If a high volume is (in itself) disruptive, how is a low volume also disruptive?

• The RfC I started, where (as Randy Kryn noted) I was posting evidence?
• Here at AN/I, where (as LokiTheLiar noted) I have a duty to defend?

– .Raven  .talk 16:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, we're all aware that blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. The concept of deterrence pertains to prevention; eg. the block will hopefully deter you from future problematic behavior. This grasping at straws does you no credit, and hopefully even your most obstinate defenders can see how silly this is becoming. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  A block would stop ongoing disruption. Where is the ongoing disruption? If only in response to past comments over a week ago, how is that "preventative" rather than "punitive"? If referring to my comments here in response to accusations or misstatements by others, is that not "deterring" (punishing) self-defense in a hearing? If referring to an RfC I started... I'm now supposed to have "disrupted" the process *I* began? By posting evidence in it? – .Raven  .talk 00:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, aside from your ongoing disruption this thread (even in a formal legal hearing – which this is not – self-defense must be conducted within prescribed norms), there's that MOS thread that you've been disrupting (which you've also failed to explain away). Then there's the fact that a two-week block will prevent you from disrupting any more threads for a couple of weeks. And then there's the foolish hope that the block will get your attention and cause you to curtail your disruptive tendencies in the future. So yeah, preventative. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Do you mean WT:MOSCAPS#Capitalization of "Marine", the RfC I started, and to which I've been posting evidentiary links about off-wiki usage? How is that "disruptive"? Why would I want to "disrupt" a thread I've been inviting people to comment upon? And the "disrupting" of which would meant I'd wasted my own time?

  > "a two-week block will prevent you from disrupting any more threads for a couple of weeks." — Including the thread of which PriusGod said "... FWIW I agree that you've moved firmly into the realm of having dialed it back...." and the RfC I started and to which I'd been posting evidence. Hm. Again, where's the "ongoing disruption" needing "prevention"? – .Raven  .talk 00:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Get back to me when you've meaningfully engaged with the rest of PriusGod's comment. Or any of the dozens of other comments pointing out why your behavior is disruptive. One person said one mildly nice thing, and you've decided to seize on that and ignore all the haters, as you undoubtedly think of us. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Kindly speak for your own emotions and opinions, not mine. That's strawman argumentation.

  Meanwhile you've neglected to point out any "ongoing disruption". – .Raven  .talk 00:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, I'd love to, but I refuse to give you the satisfaction. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Of NOT strawmanning? – .Raven  .talk 00:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support - the individual has a battleground mentality, and as far as I can tell from the brief interaction I've had with them in this discussion, behaves tendentiously. Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support with the hopes that the block will cause Raven to consider that their tendentious bludgeoning and battleground mentality is considered disruptive by the vast majority of the community. Although honestly this seems a vain hope, since it is blindingly obvious from their responses in this thread that they see absolutely nothing wrong with their behavior. Almost every response in this thread has been to argue that everyone else's viewpoint is wrong. There has not been a single response that indicates any self-awareness or understanding that their behavior is the problem. So ultimately an indef block seems inevitable, but a two week block at least gives them a opportunity to reflect on their behavior and hopefully to change. CodeTalker (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "battleground mentality" — Honestly, I was providing quotes and cite/links with the friendliest intention of helping to improve the encyclopedia, by D[iscussion] rather than BRRRR/edit-warring. To be verbally attacked and accused for that has come as a surprise; to have edits-per-page offered instead of comments-per-discussion (thereby inflating my contributions two different ways) does not seem to me how people have scored others or would like themselves scored. It really seems to me that "battleground mentality" better describes this mobbing of what was minority opinion in some discussions — even though I advocated abiding by policy which the wider community's consensus had established. – .Raven  .talk 23:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. We have independent discussions in a wide variety of topics where .Raven's bludgeoning, battleground, time-wasting, IDHT behavior has been noted:

• Randy Kryn ANI - 47 comments
• Killing of Jordan Neely - 83 comments, 131 edits, 52,107 bytes added
• Eight-circuit model of consciousness - 56 comments, 113 edits, 55,233 bytes added
• deadnaming RfC - 81 comments, 114 edits, 50,000+ bytes added
• This ANI - 47 comments so far.

For an example of the thread derailment .Raven introduces, see this discussion on the notability of/how to describe a particular pseudoscience topic, where he starts out by attacking the FRINGE guideline itself with misreadings of it and nonsensical comparisons and anecdotes, eventually making anti-consensus edits in mainspace to advance his position. JoelleJay (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow, now we're counting "edits", including fixes to existing comments — again to inflate my purported offense.

> "making anti-consensus edits in mainspace" — where I was invited on the talkpage to edit: one content edit restoring deleted text and fixing it to address some complaints about it by others (putting refs where {{cn}} had been, etc.), plus right afterward one fix to my own edit. Immediately reverted by others who apparently had not seen the invitation. After that, invited to edit in sandbox, made the same restore-and-fix, and was ***thanked*** for it. But now an offense to be reported here? – .Raven  .talk 23:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

You wholesale restored material that there was strong consensus to remove, added references to sources that were deemed unreliable or otherwise unsuitable, and added a paragraph of SYNTH(/fabrication?) totally unsupported by the source you cited. You were invited to draft content that complied with WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE, not dump the same junk back into mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

1. Unsourced material (filled with {{cn}}s) had been removed; I filled in refs; you then removed it again anyway.
2. The published sources explaining the model were "deemed unreliable or otherwise unsuitable" precisely because they did so, as your group had declared it "fringe", unworthy of coverage. Therefore ditto the sources covering it (labeled "adherents"), which meant the material inherently could not be referenced, thus must be deleted as unsourced. A perfect circle of reasoning, except that WP:FRINGE's section WP:PARITY itself allows articles on "fringe" (not mainstream) subjects to include the views of their "adherents":
   Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. [...] Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review. [...] Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects.
3. "... added a paragraph of SYNTH(/fabrication?) totally unsupported by the source you cited." — What I added was the sentence "That blend has sparked criticism from some as 'fringe' science or worse.[9]", with the footnote:
   Cultural historian John Higgs argues that Leary's idea of the mindmap exemplified by his book Neurologic is "arguably Leary's most important work", but was greatly diminished by newspaper accounts of his prison escape and related travails. Journalist John Bryan said that Leary sounded "like a Raving Madman from Outer Space. It was at this point that many of his former followers decided that Tim had overdosed—both on acid and on life." (Higgs 2006, p. 209.)
   Yet for some reason I was accused of being WP:PROFRINGE, go figure.
4. Might you possibly be referring to the rest of the paragraph before that sentence? —
   This model doesn't restrict its sources to just mainstream psychology or neurology, but uses concepts or metaphors from diverse modern sciences, transpersonal psychology, and Eastern spiritual traditions which perceive all objects and phenomena as various interrelated aspects of a single supreme reality.
   Perhaps you hadn't noticed that this merely adapted (but removed fluff from) the pre-existing text, not by me:
   Bringing the Eastern spiritual traditions, which perceive all objects and phenomena as various interrelated aspects of a single supreme reality, transpersonal psychology and modern sciences together, contemporary philosophers are able to design and develop a new approach to a human that will bridge the gap between different interpretations of a human being.
   The references were in the detailed sections where these components were brought up separately.
5. "You were invited to draft content that complied with WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE,"
   And moved the article in that direction — my "first attempt", as I commented — but you folks weren't paying attention to little details like that. You wanted the whole article gone, no matter what.

And this content dispute you report to AN/I. – .Raven  .talk 05:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support as second choice if the restriction in the previous subsection does not gain consensus. --JBL (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - It bums me out that it has come to this, but several editors really tried to avoid this and steer .Raven in a more productive direction. Even the slightest amount of effort to listen and this could have been avoided. I support whatever the community decides. Nemov (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Do you think I didn't listen to the comments I thanked their authors for? Or was it necessary for me to post comments replying to them to indicate that? After I've been repeatedly criticized for replying even as often as I have? And having "moved firmly into the realm of having dialed it back" doesn't indicate "listening" either? Wow! – .Raven  .talk 06:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  You clearly aren't getting the point. It's sad. I hope you figure it out. Nemov (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral. I haven’t read the diffs, or the RFC, just the ANI thread ^{(hey, my train’s only an hour and 15 today, cut me some slack)} However, I am seeing folks above, saying that .Raven is working on it. Now I may be being suckered (some people can be convincing, when they want to be), but if .Raven didn’t get the boot already, then he’s clearly being a net positive somewhere on the encyclopaedia, right? We don’t toss someone just because of their attitude, if their contribs are good. BrownHairedGirl’s recent thread? EEng’s humour? Fram, to an extent (yeah, ArbCom DeSys’d him, but no block / ban) Give .Raven enough time to prove that he can knock his old behaviour on the head. If not? As somebody else said, he’ll be back at ANI, and the community might not be so divided. I, for one, will support sanctions, if .Raven is back here for the same problems. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 10:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• _{(Third attempt to add this.)} Support. Seems I’ve got a mini consensus to switch, and Consensus is how we work around here. Looks like I misread Randy aswell, and that he was trying to drag .Raven out from under a pile-on, rather than actually back him as ‘he’s improving’ ^{(correct me if I’m still not getting it.)} I guess .Raven’s out of ROPE, and AGF to be spared for him, from what I’ve had swing into my replies, and I wouldn’t wanna be in the shoes of anyone where the AGF and ROPE have run out. I’m probably still not getting it, with the main score here being that .Raven was dragged here because he bludgeons, and doesn’t know when to quit, but, 6 and two 3s. Don’t bludgeon my reply, guys. ;) MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 09:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Matticusmadness, if you actually think that Raven is improving, I don't even think that you've even read the ANI thread. Basically every single response by Raven has been combative and argumentative. As has been pointed out above, they've continued to bludgeon a thread elsewhere even while this thread has been taking place. Just because something has not yet happened does not mean that they are a net positive. Raven has already been page blocked for a week and warned numerous times, but hasn't changed anything. Display name 99 (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I’ll have a reread, and come back to this, but I knew I saw someone saying .Raven was improving, and sure enough, Has .Raven improved since the complaints? Seem to have, from Randy Kryn, so not entirely baseless. You’re probably right on the other two, hence why I’ll come back to this sometime, when I can dive deeper. I only really drop in around here, when I’ve nothing else going on. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 13:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@MM, two points I'll ask you to consider as you review.

• .Raven has not once admitted that they want to "knock their old behavior on the head." They are still very much in a mindset of "I did nothing wrong, and these other 27 editors (and counting) who asked me to change are all out to get me!" This is the biggest problem, as we can't trust .Raven to improve their behavior if they don't at the very least admit that there is something to improve about their behavior.
• For the reason above, I would characterize Randy Kryn's assessment that 'Raven seems to have improved' as completely disconnected from reality. In general, I have found Randy's participation on this matter to be suspect. He has shown up on multiple disparate threads to vociferously defend .Raven's behavior (in contrast to the broad community consensus that there's really a problem), accuse editors who take issue with .Raven's behavior of bad faith (perhaps you have not seen this diff), and coincidentally support .Raven's extremely unorthodox minority positions on content. Perhaps not coincidentally, Randy Kryn was brought to ANI a few weeks ago and .Raven was his most vocal defender. To be clear, I am not accusing them of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry; rather it seems like they first encountered each other as supporters of a fringe minority view on Eight-circuit model of consciousness back in May, and have been following each other around other pages supporting each other's fringe views and defending each other's disruptive behaviors on other pages ever since. All that to say: take Randy's comment with a grain of salt. There is a reason that 27 editors have asked .Raven to change their behavior, and Randy's refusal to see it doesn't invalidate those editors' concerns. Combefere ★ Talk 16:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Combefere, maybe a ping would be in order when going on an accusatory rant about someone, you think? I'm glad you take my comments with a grain of salt (keep hydrated!). Nonsense above in your comment about me, and the ANI about me also began with and continued to fall into nonsense. I support a lot of editors when pile-ons occur, that's just my style and concern for fairness. Here's my answer again to a comment above asking me to explain, please read it: "This is ANI, so defending oneself against perceived misinformation and inaccurate descriptors of intent and function seems okay. On other threads the user should hold back a little, which they are doing as far as I can tell (the RfC on Marines, started by .Raven, would seem like bludgeoning until realizing that much of .Raven's response has been providing more good evidence for their position)." For this, and for pointing out some of the value .Raven has given Wikipedia, I get your backhanded non-compliments above. I haven't said .Raven is perfect, but improving, and even incremental improvements should be encouraged. This gets long, so nough is nough, as is your comment. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

And Combefere, please consider striking out some of your rant. You know, I am the worse almost-meatpuppet ever. On .Raven's main issue, the Neely article, I did not comment, nor do I intend to comment. There goes my Meatpuppet Guild membership, and it takes a hell of a long time to earn that back (thanks a lot, their meetings are legendary). On the other issue people are focusing on, the Marine RfC, I missed it while following .Raven around (which you state as a fact). I read about it from my watchlist. It seemed a good RfC to comment on, not because of a meatpuppet pact with .Raven, but because he is right. Marine stands as a proper name and should be uppercased. He kept proving it in the discussion with new sources and information, which I guess others define as bludgeoning. I commented there in support of the RfC. You seem to see "there" when there's no there there. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Changes above. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 09:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - no articular opinion on the general issues, because I haven't looked into them yet, but most certainly if .Raven doesn't stop WP:BLUDGEONing the Marine RfC, he should be partially blocked from that talk page. I suspect that if the problems seen from this user on other pages are similar to that, I'll be back here supporting some sort of sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support, with regret. As above, I don't feel the behaviour of many editors in this section have been great, but it is just very clear .Raven they don't understand that "defending themselves" works against them and their argument. They refuse to understand that no, it is not their responsibility to defend themselves—if they have any faith at all in the fundamental decision-making processes of Wikipedia, they should let their (numerous, but proportionately dwindling—I wonder why?) supporters do the talking for them. The fact that they are unable to grasp this here, when their ability to edit is at stake, does not give me any confidence in their ability to reach consensus constructively on other talk pages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  > "... it is not their responsibility to defend themselves...."

  If prior AN/I defendants had not been criticized for "failure to respond", I could more easily believe that.

  > ... if they have any faith at all in the fundamental decision-making processes....

  It would surely help to see fewer exaggerations or blunt misstatements of fact posted here, then cited by others as reasons. – .Raven  .talk 23:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  And it would absolutley help if there were no more responses from you in this thread. Please read WP:BLUDGEON and follow it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Without comment on how effectively Raven in particular happens to be doing it right now, it is absolutely and unambiguously the responsibility of someone brought to ANI to defend themselves. Loki (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Loki, I would just slightly quibble to say while there is certainly an obligation to respond, it need not be a defense. Though rare, "sorry, I did something dumb" is perfectly valid and often times more successful than being combative. Just a stray Sunday thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's definetly true that those whose conduct is brought to ANI are typically expected to respond, and refusing to do so at all can definetly reflect badly on them. And I'd go even farther to say that reasonable community members understand why someone put in this position would want to respond at a higher than normal rate to multiple users in defense of their conduct. There's certainly no brightline rule saying that those being scrutinzed here can't go to the mat to do so. However, as a purely practical matter, in terms of shaping community perception (especially of someone who is here for the specific issue of bludgeoning discussions), there are limits--a point of diminishing returns where repeating the same points and refusing to drop the stick well after the community response has clearly indicated a perception of unambigous issues is (purely from the perspective of what is in the best interests for the party whose conduct is being considered) just a really dumb tactic to keep doubling down on.

Put aside for the moment the question of whether .Raven disputing every criticism of their conduct with almost every community respondent here is disruptive or unreasonable: it is just frankly counter-productive and self-defeating. .Raven has given every reasonable caveat they can to explain why they have made the choices they have made, in the context they made them and, blunty, the community's response is really very clear: many of these were bad choices--and even the good ones have been lost in the massive volume of IDHT in which they reside. The block is almost certain at this point: .Raven had substantial room to dodge it here because of the amount of WP:ROPE that many editors were initially willing to extend; .Raven honestly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in that respect. And was somewhat enabled in that by one or two people giving them poor feedback, if I am going to be perfectly honest. Sometimes coming out in full-throated defense of someone is really the last thing they need at ANI. Supporters of .Raven here would have done much better to mute the level of their support and urge them towards some restraint. That ship has now sailed, I am afraid. .Raven now has to decide how they are going to react to this likely sanction, so questioning how much they are entitled to respond here is no longer a useful inquiry: they have more relevant things to be contemplating moving forward. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support something Raising the marine RfC without any prior discussion on what could be considered a perennial question could be construed as disruptive. Their commenting there is excessive and IMO rises to bludgeoning. Perhaps more to the point, the arguments used can be characterised as red-herrings, strawmen and false examples. In turn, these can be broadly charaterised as pettifogging. This is either a conscious argument style or one of insufficient competence. Furthermore, they repeat essentially the same unsuccessful arguments with multiple users. Then, when it has become clear that there is no appetite for their proposal, they foreshadow yet another RfC on essentially the same question - albeit worded slightly differently. I see a fair bit of IDHT and a refusal to drop the stick. My limited interaction with them at the RfC is probably of itself insufficient for any significant remedy; however, this ANI would show a pattern of behaviour and an apparent unwillingness to modify that behaviour after an earlier remedy was applied. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I can understand why the previous proposal was not as uniformly supported: the limit of two posts was pretty severe, and I meant to say as much in my first comment above. That said, it's pretty clear that action needs to be taken here: the disruption is substantial and the refusal to hear the community in this and previous discussions near-absolute. If i'm perfectly honest, the sheer depth and vigour of .Raven's refusal to accept broad community feedback the issues here and need to turn every support !vote into an individualized battle of wills has me very doubtful that they will come back reformed and prepared to work within our usual standards for editor conduct. I fear this may just be a build up to a full CBAN, based on their choice to embrace indignation and instransigence rather than the tiny shred of humility necesary to contemplate the possibility that if dozens of other editors (each with much more experience) are telling them there are issues with their approach, that those other parties may be right.

Or more precisely, .Raven is now suggesting they are enjoying robust support for the notion that they have vastly improved, by cherry-picking one or two more muted comments and repeating them ad nauseum. .Raven, I'm afraid this is still a display of massive confirmation bias: the consensus here is clearly that your issues are ongoing and have not been substantially (or even notably) improved so far. If you really want to turn thigns around here, you have got to find in yourself to see that the issues are not trivial, and a much, much more substantial change in your approach is needed, becuase this is beginning to feel like a WP:CIR issue, bluntly speaking. Nobody is asking you to fall on your knees and beg a reprieve. A simple acknowledgment of the issues would go a long, long way. As I've said previously, if the energy you bring to the table in these discussions could be channelled into something more productive, you might be a real assett to this project. But right now you represent all the wasted potential of an inflated but unmanned firehouse, with about as much pleasantness for the people in proximity. And patience is clearly wearing thin. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel the responsibility to comment that my statement about having dialed it back in the Neely discussion was to mean that it would be a good idea to continue dialing it back in other places, including here. That sanctions would "pan out not to be necessary" should have been written more clearly to indicate that reducing reply volume and possibly altering tone would be the thing that causes the sanctions to pan out to be unnecessary, not further argumentation.

I think it's tough for me to make statements that are too heavy handed because I'm concerned about the proverbial hammer coming down having something of a chilling effect on people being bold/adamant in their argumentation in the early stages of discussions - while it is problematic for it to wear on, a strong tempo in the beginning of any discussion is, I think, a good thing. Obviously the discussions that are under examination here are quite mature, and the same level of aggression that creates healthy comment output near the beginning only incites annoyance at this stage. PriusGod (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support 1 or 2 week block to cool down. Activity at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) alone is enough to show the need. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  My last edit at that page was 5 days (and over 180 edits by others to that page) ago. – .Raven  .talk 22:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Responding to 19 different people's RFC responses in the same RFC with largely argumentative comments is disruptive editing. Further not recognizing that it was problematic means a block is an appropriate response... but if you want to just keep grabbing for more rope, go ahead. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Are you counting in-discussion-thread responses, including to comments directed at me? – .Raven  .talk 01:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Why wouldn’t they count? (1) You can disengage instead of replying. (2) Most comments directed at you were in response to you first directing comments at others. This thread is an example. starship.paint (exalt) 03:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  So: (1) I'm charged with violating the essay WP:BLUDGEON; but (2) what it actually says —

Replying to many questions that are directed to you is perfectly fine. ... You have the right to give your opinion in any open discussion, so long as you aren't doing it in a way that limits others from doing the same.

— is a dead letter if I cite it in turn? – .Raven  .talk 14:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You're going to end up getting blocked forever based on your inability to read the room. Nemov (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

High school bullies started out trying to attack me one on one; eventually they escalated to six-on-one. The principle of bullying hadn't changed. The threat, "Stop defending yourself, or we'll hurt you worse", hadn't changed. Nor has it now. Only one side is trying to silence the other. – .Raven  .talk 15:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for violating my own promise, but I simply can't resist asking: Raven, would you call me one of the bullies? Genuinely curious. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You've generally been a reasonable discusser, Dumuzid. I've said that before. – .Raven  .talk 15:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Then I hope you will take this in the good faith in which it is offered. I see no bullying here, and no one who is actually arguing about your substantive opinions, only your manner of presenting them. The only issue apparent to me is your sense of constant pugilism. As I have said before, all that is required here is occasionally let discretion be the better part of valor and forego responding sometimes. "Agree to disagree" is a powerful statement and something that will stand you well on Wikipedia. You are certainly entitled to make your points, and to present objective defenses. But when many people tell you something, it's worth considering. As ever, all the best and I look forward to seeing you around. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

> "Agree to disagree" is a powerful statement and something that will stand you well on Wikipedia. — As in this comment, for instance? – .Raven  .talk 19:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes indeed, just like that. I only wish you would apply it a bit more often. Cheers, and I'll go back to my non-reply stance. Dumuzid (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Very well. Per Dumuzid and per LokiTheLiar's comment below: I intend to watch my own comments very carefully for anything even approaching WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior (e.g. holding grudges, importing personal conflicts, carrying on ideological battles, or nurturing prejudice, hatred, or fear ... insulting, harassing, or intimidating those with whom I have a disagreement) and will pay prompt corrective attention to any alerts that I have begun such misbehavior. My goal is, as it has been, to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation ... approach [disagreements] intelligently and engage in polite discussion. On which side of content disputes is "correct" or "right", I reserve the option to "agree to disagree", as I intend neither to bully anyone out of their own opinion (if that were even possible), nor to be bullied out of mine. – .Raven  .talk 19:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean sides? We shared the same opinion on a topic and I asked you to stop WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion because you weren't helping the discussion. You've basically ignored every attempt I've made to course correct. You aren't being bullied. You're refusing to listen and this is temperament problem that's not usually compatible with productive Wikipedia editors. You're not a victim here. Nemov (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we share the same opinion on whether quantity=bludgeoning — including replies to comments directed at me, posting evidence, pinging invitations, and agreeing with people — i.e. no matter the actual content of the comments? – .Raven  .talk 15:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

This post of mine is an example, .Raven. You reply to me and you ask me a question, but I choose not to answer it. starship.paint (exalt) 15:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yet you "reply" even while refusing to answer a relevant question. – .Raven  .talk 15:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

. starship.paint (exalt) 15:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven: You picked a few sentences from WP:BLUDGEON that sound like your behavior is perfectly ok. But please also read the rest of the essay and really think about which of its descriptions and examples match your activities in some discussions. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)ive.

For what it's worth, while Raven's behavior on this ANI thread has been rather WP:BATTLEGROUNDy (and honestly, probably counterproductive), I honestly don't blame him because I feel like his sense of being bullied is fully accurate. WP:BATTLEGROUND goes both ways and the behavior of several of Raven's accusers is egregiously aggressive.

Many people making the same false accusation doesn't make it true. You can't substantiate an accusation of WP:BLUDGEONing with statistics, and you can't substantiate an accusation at ANI with the fact that they are trying to defend themselves against that accusation. (Also, WP:BLUDGEON is an essay; the actual enforceable thing it refers to is a type of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.) Loki (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Although it would be too voluminous to quote WP:BATTLEGROUND in full, a few excerpts might fit and be fitting: Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. ... do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making unilateral changes to policies. ... Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion.
Would someone please point out to me what part[s] of this I have violated?
As distinct from the intimidation directed at me? – .Raven  .talk 19:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"Also, WP:BLUDGEON is an essay; the actual enforceable thing it refers to is a type of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior." This is not entirely accurate for two reasons. First, while WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, it has been used as a basis for sanctions in the past (in .Raven's first ANI for example). Second, the essay does not refer to WP:BATTLEGROUND at all, but instead refers to WP:DISRUPTIVE. Combefere ★ Talk 21:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That an essay "has been used as a basis for sanctions in the past (in .Raven's first ANI for example)" looks like a problem in itself, since essays don't go through the consensus process — they may be one editor's opinion — and are neither policies nor guidelines.

WP:DISRUPTIVE gives definitions I find very interesting. E.g.:

1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editors not only add material; some engage in disruptive deletions as well, e.g. repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors. [emphasis added]
   (Note that the wikilinked WP:TENDENTIOUS concurs on this meaning, e.g.:
   ... repeated biased edits of a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. [emphasis added])
   Interesting because I've been accused here of tendentiousness by BilledMammal (twice), by Snow Rise, by Display name 99, by Parsecboy, and by CodeTalker, even though the complaints weren't about my repeatedly editing any article or group of articles at all — but about my comments on talkpages, where I commented specifically to avoid edit-wars. Am I to have blocks/bans waved or thrown at me based on "disruption" and "tendentiousness", when the definitions on those pages don't even refer to such edits as mine? Or can these be redefined on the fly to fit any chosen target?
   The remaining entries are even more clearly about article-editing.:
2. Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
3. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
4. Does not engage in consensus building:

   A. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for
    explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;

   B. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

5. Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.
6. Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, or Wikipedia:Ownership of articles—or sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry that might not exhaust the general community's patience but still operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive, rule-abiding editors on certain articles.

Again, I've been criticized here for a single substantive edit to article Eight-circuit model of consciousness (my only other edit there was a minor fix to 3 {{sfn}} templates), not for "uncivility" -through- "__puppetry" (there was an unfounded slam at Randy Kryn!), but for mere quantity of talkpage comments and definitely for defending myself here at AN/I. Was I, perhaps, supposed to "read the room" in one commenter's phrase and confess like a show-trial defendant? And not mention that trying to "demotivate unwanted members of discussion" is mentioned in WP:False consensus#Harassment as "against Wikipedia policies and should be dealt with accordingly"? – .Raven  .talk 04:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to beg the community's indulgence of a bit of a wall of text: I believe .Raven's recent comments and queries want for a substantial reply:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I never quoted WP:TEND--I happened to say that you were being tendentious. I presume you know it was a word with a more generalized meaning long before it was a Wikilink. And if I'm being perfectly honest, if I've ever known an editor for whom that word applied better than it does for you at this present juncture of your engagement with the community, I'd have trouble remembering their name.

For that matter, with regard to those who did cite the policy (admitedly quite a few), let's look at what some of the language there that you didn't cherry-pick says. For starters, four of the six behvaiours listed in the lead as common propensities that tend to define tendentiousness (in the formal policy meaning) include "abuse of process", "wikilawyering", "disruption to make a point", and "I didn't hear that", which I would say aligns pretty pricesely with the points the community has been trying to focus on when talking to you here. People have also broached essentially the exact principle of WP:REHASH with you repeatedly, in terms almost identical to what is in that section.

But I don't want to argue with you about whether someone citing that particular policy supplemant was justified, or the verity of whether any of it's subparts apply to you--I really, really don't. What would be the point? No matter what metrics (or basis, or principle) anyone uses here to try to get you to consider your approach may be probleamtic, you're never convinced. No matter how someone arranges the math, or which diffs or behaviours they refer to, or policies they cite, you always have reason why the rest of us aren't seeing things clearly. You want to know the only figure you should be concerned with at this juncture? The fact that dozens of your fellow editors/community members are telling you that there is a serious issue. There's one or two people saying "Ehh, it's not too bad..." and the rest of us are responding with "Uhhh...it's pretty bad." And it's telling which group you are convinced you should be listening to.

You really want to know the real problem here? Bluntly: it's your arrogance. You think you are entitled to say as much you want, whenever you want. And the rest of us just have you give you whatever you decide is a fair amount of time for the airing of your opinions. I'm sorry, but no. That's not how things work here. There are limits, even for a community that embraces open discourse as a conerstone value. You are disrupting these talk pages and community spaces. There is clear consensus that this is so--back and forth across this and multiple other discussions, including one that lead to another sanction thart you just returned from. We do not need to adjust to you--you need to start respecting community guidelines and moderating yourself accordingly. This community can and will act if you are not capable of that.

I'm telling you as my last effort to give you some insight here: your inability to just not go nose-to-nose with everyone, about anything you disagree with, is the only reason you are about to get blocked. You were going to skate through this discussion, but then you just couldn't not argue with every single person who saw things just a shade differently from you. I.e., the very behaviour this thread is predicated on.

You can't argue your way out of this. Your argumentation style is what got you into this. And for a certainty, this newest strategy of yours--casting yourself as a victim of everyone else's bullying--that's not doing you any favours either. You do realize that when you make unambiguous accusations of WP:harrassment by way of False consensus (which begins with "False consensus applies to any "consensus" arrived at through canvassing, vote-stacking, or any other manipulation of a process or discussion contrary to policy or to ArbCom decisions."), you are casting unjustified WP:aspersions on other editors, seemingly for no other reason than because they dared to find fault with your conduct first? How could you possibly think that would improve your position here? Or do you even care about that? Is not ever stopping in making your points that much more important to you than being here?

Again, you need to not be focused on this discussion any further. You need to be thinking about what you are going to do after the sanction elapses. Because I do not think I am alone in that I am starting to question if you can competently contribute here with your current temperment. And not just because you are now openly accusing anyone who has qualms about your approach of WP:Malice (if there's a section of TEND you should read at the moment, it's that). Rather it's because the amount of community attention/efforts at restraint that you are sucking up are simply unsustainable. For my part, I'm certainly done: good luck to you finding a way forward. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

> tendentious... a word with a more generalized meaning..." — Google-define yields Oxford's "expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one." Quoting/citing/linking Wikipedia's consensus-created policies, guidelines, and MOS is certainly promoting a particular point of view — that to follow these is a good idea — but if these are controversial, why haven't they been changed?

> "let's look at what some of the language there that you didn't cherry-pick says." — I quoted those 6 items, out of 6, from the examples section in WP:DISRUPTIVE (the page Combefere linked), verbatim and in full, no cherry-picking. I did not try (or pretend) to re-post the entire page here. But subsequent sections continue the theme of editing articles in disruptive ways:
"Point-illustrating" refers to WP:POINT, illustrated by examples like...

• If you think someone unfairly removed "unsourced" content...
  • do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source.
  • do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced.

(Incidentally, compare item 1 of my reply above to JoelleJay; who did the do, and who did the do not, on that article?)

"Failure or refusal to 'get the point'" clarifies:

The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with".

I'd point out there's a two-way street of "hearing" involved in communication. If one side (even if it's multiple people) continues to repeat factual misstatements after those have been pointed out (also by multiple people, in this case), perhaps that's not the minority's fault. Having heard those misstatements does not oblige anyone to agree with them. And one implication of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY is that the majority in a discussion is not automatically right; following vs. not following policy matters, as closers are instructed.

"Distinguished from productive editing" (e.g. Editors often post minority views to articles. ... The burden of evidence rests with the editor....) -and- "Attempts to evade detection" (e.g. edits may be distributed over a wide range of articles) -and- "Dealing with disruptive editors" (e.g. If reverting continues, and they are inserting unsourced information:) likewise focus on articles... though I note that the complaint about WT:MOSCAPS#Capitalization of "Marine" seems to involve how much I have been providing sources. – .Raven  .talk 12:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support a temporary block and comment limits upon .Raven's return. Something very clearly needs to be done, as this individual has not been able to hear what a number of editors in the community have had to say, in regards to how their participation has been viewed as dominating and disruptive. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Disagreeing, with cites of the very page others thumped upon, is not inability to hear. Threats of being silenced are not the same as persuasion re rightness or wrongness, especially when the accusations rely on misstatements.

He that complies against his will
Is of his own opinion still

— Samuel Butler (1612-1680), Hudibras, Part III, Canto iii, lines 547-548

– .Raven  .talk 15:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Update: .Raven has now been warned on their talk page regarding WP:BLUDGEONING a talk page that .Raven only started editing on July 5, after this WP:ANI discussion started on July 3. The warning editor is entirely uninvolved with this ANI discussion. starship.paint (exalt) 12:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, typical response. "How am I doing wrong?" This is an editor that doesn't get it. Can we get a close here, there's a pretty clear support for actioin and dragging this out is a tax on the community. Nemov (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested close at WP:CR. I also want to add that if you read Talk:Transsexual#Transgender and Transsexual Merge (the discussion being warned about), you’ll find that .Raven is once again the #1 commenter in the discussion, despite arriving around two months after the discussion originally started. In those roughly two months, I believe that no user commented more than three times (not sure about IPs though), while Raven then arrived and proceeded to rack up twenty five comments, ignoring one humorous comment. starship.paint (exalt) 12:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Recap: partial block from Jordan Neely talk page, reached #1 commenter at WP:VPP RfC, Marines RfC, Transexual discussion… starship.paint (exalt) 12:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Usually citing evidence, links and quotes after links and quotes, as at Marines RfC. This is editcountitis again. – .Raven  .talk 12:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Raven, at this point you're going to recieve a two week block. There is no longer anything you can do to prevent that, and I would suggest you step back from all the discussions you are currently engaged in, including this one, before you dig yourself a deeper hole.

I understand that you don't think you're doing anything wrong - but the community does, and that is what matters. If you when you return you resume acting in the way you are currently acting you will be back here in short order for an indefinite block, so I will strongly encourage you consider your behavior, consider why the community might consider your level of engagement in discussions disruptive, and even if you disagree consider how to act within community norms. BilledMammal (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

> "Also, typical response. 'How am I doing wrong?'" — Misquote. In reply to a comment saying "While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend.", I replied, "Gladly! What specifically was offensive?"

Since the requestor hadn't specified – and as Starship.paint points out below, I had multiple comments there – that seemed a reasonable question. Would someone please tell me what was offensive so that I can take corrective action? The person I asked has not yet replied.

I might guess that this exchange was intended, but I replied there too, and that requestor did not reply there either. If repeating what our articles say is offensive, then we have offensive articles. Is that the case? – .Raven  .talk 13:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

User:.Raven blocked indef

User talk:.Raven#Indefinite block. El_C 13:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Good block. BusterD (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes it is. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Venezia Friulano

Venezia Friulano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have now lost count of how many incidents he/she is responsible for. It is typical of Venezia Friulano to wage edit wars, change articles against the consensus and/or during an open debate, make personal attacks, and unjustly accuse those who in good faith stop him/her. On top of this, Venezia's behaviour is toxic: he/she constantly claims others act the way he/she acts, (accusation in a mirror); for example Venezia would make significant changes with no consensus and accuse those intervening to clean the situation to be violating wiki rules...or, again, Venezia would try to force a doubious source or a fringe view and say that those academic sources in contrast with it are not respectable nor credible. Venezia perfectly understands to be wrong, but pretends not to. Venezia has been told many times not to continue with this behaviour by several users, but continues to do it anyway. Even worse it's the disruption he/she tries to cause to the articles. Some examples:

-Venezia waged edit war on the Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba article, trying to water down the moorish roots of the current cathedral. User:R Prazeres stops in good faith Venezia and explains how consensus and Wikipedia works; at the end of the edit war, Venezia insinuates that RPrazeres is doing what he is doing 'cause he is a muslim, and accuses him of having an Islamic bias (the parts highlighted in black were highlighted by Venezia)

I understand that you like Islamic culture or architecture, your whole profile revolves around that, you could be even Muslim, I don't know, but please, at least try to hide your bias better next time. You are disregarding the official website of the Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba, established sources of the article and twisting in a kafkaesque way everything to prevent the reader from seeing that it might originally have been a basilica before a mosque, something that obviously bothers you as a fan of islamic architecture. You're basically reflecting, the POV pushing is all yours. You screwed up deleting another user's editions saying that "obviously" the Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba didnt have Gothic and Baroque architecture. You have deleted official sources and sources of the article just to remove small clarifications that bother you personally because of your Islamic bias. 

Needless to say that it's Venezia that has a bias there. Anyone looking at the talk page and history of the article can see who was acting in good faith and who was not.

-Venezia changes content on the Spanish empire article with no consensus, right during an open debate on the talk page (basically wants an anachronous map, showing a bigger empire, I would have no problems with it if correct, but the method is not acceptable ). Reverted by User:Cinderella157 and told there is an ongoing talk, Venezia just did it again. And note that Venezia was aware that a debate was open already when he/she made the first change. Venezia went on the talk page to claim that the Spanish empire was bigger than what User:TompaDompa says (which, btw, it does not look like to be what TompaDompa say, but rather what the sources used on various articles for a long time have said). For that, the user TompaDompa is called a despot by Venezia:

I must admit that the language of TompaDompa is simply unbearable, biased and arrogant. TompaDompa is quite an inquisitive user on this topic, he uses Taagapera (1997) as if it were the Bible and avoids other users to use any other alternative source at all costs. Articles like the List of the Largest Empires are simply impossible to edit due to this user's despotic attitude.

Needless to say that Venezia here perfectly described how he/she talks and acts, not TompaDompa.

- User: 2A0C:5A81:302:1D00:954A:5080:3B4A:5418 in good faith corrected Venezia, who was causing an edit war, for obviously misusing and misinterpreting a source in the Romance languages article regarding the level of closeness of Spanish and Italian to Latin. I intervened to express my support to the user. Venezia pretended not to hear it for a while, at the end, shown to be wrong, insinuates I am a far right Italian nationalist (Then Venezia proceeds, but i won't write the whole thing here, with an absolute pointless and long rant on the Italians).

>I'm not saying that you are that, but there are traces and I recognize well an Italian nationalist. I am not at all surprised by the current political situation and inclination of Italy or that it has the only far-right government in Western Europe

Yesterday, I have been called to see what was going on in the talk page of the Spanish empire. I asked Venezia not to make personal attacks on TompaDompa.

The answers of Venezia were another personal attack on me (this time I have been accused of chasing him/her and I am sarcastically told to go edit Mussolini's page),

Barjimoa, I knew you were going to chase me here, you are very predictable. You are the only troublemaker here and you already lost in a recent discussion for not wanting to accept the basic Wikipedia rules for the Lead. Anyway, thanks for your great input. I suggest to edit the Mussolini article, it sure need your edits.

and today attempts to say that TompaDompa is the abuser (with a sarcastic offense directed towards him):

 in this article his only fetish source Taagepera (1997) prevails, unilaterally deleting all those alternative sources that he doesn't like. The article is in fact an article almost just for Taagapera's views, its just surreal. I even thought that Taagepera could be a relative of his, due to the insane obsession with this specific author

Either all these wikipedia users Venezia has come into contact with are abusers and troublemakers or Venezia is. I believe it is evidently Venezia.

(There are several other examples, but I think this is enough material. To sum it up, Venezia disrupts articles, disregards consensus and debates; when confronted, Venezia often ignores what's been told and resorts to personal attacks, gaslighting, strawman, denialism. He/she tries to change argument, tire you, get on your nerves, manipulate, and this how Venezia wants to prevail, or, rather, prevaricate. Not acceptable, constantly creates tensions with other users and edit wars.)

Barjimoa (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

In addition, I am asking for a check. All these articles involved (Spanish empire, list of largest empires, African admixture in Europe, Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula, expulsion of the Moriscos, and similar themes) have historically been targeted in the past by the Spanish user User:JamesOredan with his infinite list of sockpuppets, and the debates always ended with his defeat and blockings. JamesOredan too was known for having a similar "style" of proceeding. So it's also necessary to look into this. I wonder if that's him again, we should see if that's the case. I have this doubt 'cause the interests of (and the content introduced by) Venezia (and these IP adresses 2A02:2E02:D90:1F00:E4ED:2388:F4F9:96A4 and 2A02:2E02:D90:1F00:1D7F:A2DA:CFC0:4ACE, probably his/hers) look suspiciously similar to some of JamesOredan's socks, such as User:Itagnol and User:DavideNotta. It's curious that the word "Itagnol" is an Italian blend word for Italian and Spanish, and Venezia describes himself/herself in the bio as an Italian in Spain; Venezia is evidently Spanish, but he/she hides it by pretending to be Italian. Davide Notte too is an Italian name, and was picked by that Spanish sockpuppeter. Other users who suspiciously fight the same fights and/or have similar aggressive language are User:JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa and User:Bandeirantedopaulo, (both Spanish users faking to be Portuguese. Maybe a pattern?), Norprobr, as well as El Gran Capitán and Kev31zz, who have been shortly active some time ago. I have doubts on others as well. So i believe we need a big check on sockpuppetry here, just in case.

Barjimoa (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Posts by Venezia Friulano at Talk:Spanish Empire (starting with this one on 8 July) consist of allegations, incivility and personal attacks. They are unacceptable. They have no place on WP. If this ANI had not been started, I would have done so myself. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

As a general comment, Barjimoa, rather than present a long narrative statement or your selective quotes, it's preferred on noticeboards that you present "diffs" or edits that support your each of your claims. Then other editors can verify the case you are making. You can see in Cinderella157's comment that they present a diff from Talk:Spanish Empire. Editors who are considering this complaint are not going to go through an editor's entire contribution history but they will check out a limited number of diffs (I'd say 5-12 is reasonable depending on the extent of the accusations). I know I'd also like to hear from Venezia Friulano but they haven't edited in quite a few hours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

some of the personal attacks, note the toxic attitude.

[49]

[50],

[51],

[52],

[53]

For the context, also for recurring edits and edit wars made against the consensus or with an open debate, see the talk pages of talk:Spanish Empire, Talk:Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba, talk:Trajan, talk:Romance languages

In the process, this is some of the times Venezia was told by other users to not do what he/she continues to do.

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

Barjimoa (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Some of the above qualify on Arbcom's definition of personal attacks, but not that much on ANI's definition. Don't get me wrong, Venezia should not be speaking the way they have -- accusing someone of being a relative of another person, berating another of being an Italian nationalist, asking derogatorily to edit Mussolini's articles.... are not the right way to discuss. But not much will come at this desk for the personal attack, apart from advise to Venezia to cool off their discussion style (they have apologised in the past for their inflammatory comments, so they are prone to understanding). Lourdes 08:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Lourdes, the thing is that I believe Venezia already fully understands that it should not be done, but it's a tactic employed to delegitimate the person he/she is talking to.Barjimoa (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Barjimoa, take the sock evidence to WP:SPI. I would recommend not repeating the allegation anywhere until you have filed at SPI. Thanks, Lourdes 09:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Done that. Barjimoa (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Jacquesparker0 and User:Nofoolie

I am disappointed whist reviewing and accepting a draft by Jacquesparker0 that I have to bring notice to ANI in regards to incivility by Nofoolie. On 19th June 2022, Jacquesparker0 had a draft for Graham Baldwin accepted and on 29th July self-accepted a draft for Ian Haworth. Only (just over) 3 months ago, Nofoolie comes along on Jacques talk page requesting information in regards to a potential COI, the discussion being here. Jacques, as part of this discussion asked Nofoolie in what way they thought that Jacques had a COI which Nofoolie all but avoided answering and just asked more questions of Jacques, which to their credit, was answered in full. Towards the end of the thread, Jacques again asked Nofoolie for 'evidence do you have that I have a CoI' to which Nofoolie replied, again totally avoiding Jacques requests 'You are being avoidant; have refused to answer the questions and I am taking this further', a comment with ZERO teeth as no actions were taken by NoFoolie, no WP:COIN thread was opened, nothing.

Fast forward to a few days ago, 17th June 2023, Nofoolie has taken it upon themselves to totally cut down the Graham Baldwin article and also remove a good chunk of Ian Haworth. At this point I believe Nofoolie to be WP:HOUNDING, not being WP:NICE in their replies and actions (or lack thereof) and not Assuming Good Faith towards Jacques who has put in some excellent article creation work and absolutely has a WP:CLUE

This is not the first time that Nofoolie has made empty threats of escalation after this warning from Nick on 19th April 2022.

I would like Nofoolie to explain themselves as to how they came to the conclusion that Jacquesparker0 had a COI, and how they came to decide that the sources were 'Unreliable' on the Graham Baldwin article

- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 23:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you Rich_Smith. I am sure there are things here that I don't see, about content and connections, but what I can see is that this, "As of June 2023 Catalyst's own website fails to state Baldwin's qualifications or association to any therapeutic professional body's code-of-ethics", is completely unacceptable, it's editorial commentary, it's not neutral or backed by secondary sources. I'm looking at those and other edits, and by the time it's done Nofoolie might end up with a partial or full block. At the very least, Nofoolie, your line of questioning is not acceptable--even if the other editor has a conflict of interest, which they deny. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• I restored Graham Baldwin. I reverted the editor on Ian Haworth, though that article needs serious pruning. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sure Jacquesparker0 will have zero problems with cleaning up the WP:REFBOMB - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your help Drmies and everyone else. I would like to point out that the WP article on the Cult Information Centre had a similarly large removal of material occur on it by Nofoolie, which I would like for someone to evaluate as well. I am still pretty new to WP all things considered (only been on it for about a year), so I am happy to learn about how I can improve my articles and others. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

After reviewing the links you provided... wow. Just wow. Nofoolie better have a pretty good explanation for this behavior. He has completely disregarded WP:AGF, and WP:CIVILITY. While I understand his criticism of Jacque's citation, him insisting there must be a CoI, and the way he acted was unacceptable. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Nofoolie: I am going to ask you a very straightforward question, and I expect you to be clear and factual with your answer. Do not try and duck around the question, as it will make your situation worse. Can you provide evidence showing that Jacquesparker0 is a paid editor? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• This has been pulled out of the archives (thanks Drmies) to allow @Nofoolie: to response to the above - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 23:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I’ve swept contribs for both, but to keep it relevant to the wonder of if WP:HOUNDING is in play, Toollabs checks on Foolie return 11 ‘User Talk’ edits on Jacques’ Talk Page. Jacques’ TP is the most visited one by Foolie, besides his own. This is as opposed to Jacques’ 24, where he hasn’t touched Foolie at all. Big difference on 24 (with no; shall we say, controversial? edits) versus 67 (with 11 of same controversial-possibly, edits), no? MM (Communicate?) ^(Operations) 08:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No, that isn't really evidence of hounding. All 11 of those edits were made within a single thread in a two-day span [60]. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. Mistake noted. No problem with being Minnowed if so felt. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 10:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Meh. We all make mistakes from time to time and I've never felt that trouts/minnows serve a useful purpose (in the Wikipedia context, that is; I'm not anti-fish). LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Since we seem to have a case of ANI flu, I've put a noarchive template on this section for 7 days. @Nofoolie:, you really need to answer the questions posed here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

ANI flu, I like it, just hope it's not contagious. Appreciate the noarchive - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a well-known ailment; there's an essay, WP:ANIFLU. Narky Blert (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

A piece of advice for @Nofoolie : If you dont reply here, it will not make this go away. Your actions will be reviewed in absetia where you will lose the opportunity to explain yourself, apologise, or otherwise seek to improve the result of this discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I removed citations to the subjects own youtube channel and non-reliable sources.

I also removed citations for reliable-sources where no article can actually be found where there is a maintained news-archive.

I removed assertions not affirmed by the citations.

It appears these poorly constructed articles have been restored.

Is it Wikipedia's place to assert someone is a therapist when there are no known qualifications and no known professional-body membership?

I have also requested that page numbers be offered for offline sources which has been refused. There must be some effort when citations are offered to show the contributor has read the offline-source. I am astounded that this request has been refused. Nofoolie (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Additionally the subject has a history of self-promotion, using his "clients" to publicly declare their "expertise". I have consulted with "fellows" of this expert and none assert it. You will note the comment in the article made a long time ago of the litigious behaviour of the subject. Additionally one might ask reasonable questions as to the debacle that happened on 2007.

There is much more I can contribute on this subject. Nofoolie (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Good that you have chosen to reply now @Nofoolie. I must now direct you to answer this question posed earlier:

I am going to ask you a very straightforward question, and I expect you to be clear and factual with your answer. Do not try and duck around the question, as it will make your situation worse. Can you provide evidence showing that Jacquesparker0 is a paid editor? JML1148 ^{(talk contribs)}  06:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to post evidence here on Wikipedia.

See the long time comment in the source of the subject's article.

I do not take your condescending tone to be constructive or appropriate.

I seek for the page numbers of offline-sources to be provided -- has the contributor read the books? How are others contributors to confirm these sources?

Additionally, the page is littered with self-promotion.

I have no interest in a worsening situation that you are suggesting. Nofoolie (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

There are mailing lists for off-wiki evidence to be dropped to. WP:OVERSIGHT and CU mailing lists immediately spring to mind. All members of both lists have an agreement signed for handling sensitive info appropriately. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 14:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Ibarrutidarruti - vandalism, edit warring, uncivil behavior, no intention to stop

Ibarrutidarruti seems to be a vandal account and sanctions are in order. Already posted to AIV but felt it was necessary here as well. The majority of their edits add WP:OR, unreliable sources, and violate WP:NEUTRAL. They also engage in delayed edit warring to avoid warnings, general uncivil behavior, removed a vandal warning from their talk page, and edit warred on my user talk page. My impression is they don't intend to stop their behavior, and I have concerns that they are a sockpuppet given the infrequent editing, knowledge of wikipedia, and focus on specific articles.

Here are some examples:

• Removed warning
• Edit warred on my talk page
• OR edits with gun lobby youtube as a source
• Pro-life activism
• Obvious vandalism
• Complete overhaul that made article opinionated with delayed edit warring
• OR edits

The void century 18:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, it's already here. ANI is right, AIV is rather unsuitable for such detailed warnings about not-necessarily-bad-faith disruption.

The void century, removing warnings from one's own talk page is generally fine (WP:UP#CMT), although of course that doesn't apply to the edit summary used there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Scammer reaching out to AfD article subject

Regarding Malcolm Collins (author), which is currently at AfD, someone emailed the subject, claiming to be an admin, offering to help save the article after a "service fee". (feel free to move this to COIN or elsewhere if more appropriate) Opencooper (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Opencooper, this is a common scam. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning for more information and how to report it. Cullen328 (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks for the link. I'll email the subject and point them to it. Opencooper (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

request for service fee

Sections on the same topic merged. Abecedare (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if this is already being handled somewhere else.
I was just browsing Reddit and read a post where a screenshot is provided of somebody claiming to be a senior WP-administrator asking for a service fee. I have no idea if the post and/or screenshot are legit. To be honest I don't even know if there is such a position as senior admin, but it certainly raised my eyebrows and I thought it best to notify you guys (sorry if this is the wrong place for this issue. If it's a legit problem I trust 1 of you will make sure it gets to the right place.)
Here is the Reddit post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikipediaAdminReport/comments/14szgp5/tom_a_sr_admin_is_running_undisclosed_editing/
The last sentence of the second of 3 pages is the fee request. Dutchy45 (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

See two threads above, there is already a thread about the same scam. --Cavarrone 07:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, yes I see. Thanks for pointing it out @Cavarrone Dutchy45 (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dutchy45 Extremely obvious and very common scam that falls apart with any kind of research or even just reading the email carefully. I'm sort of amazed that someone fell for it, let alone creating an entire reddit post over it.

Among the more obvious things wrong in that email chain:

1st email

• Tom is not an admin, and has not been an admin for 4 1/2 years.
• Tom has not edited the site since 2019, their talk page contains a large banner that they've MIA.
• Tom has not disclosed their surname and does not use the name "Cooper" anywhere, their account used to be called User:Tomf688 so their surname actually probably starts with an F.
• The email has been sent from the very obvious fake address "thewikipedians.com", wikipedia's url is, of course "wikipedia.org".
  • According to WHOIS the domain is registered via a proxy to hide who actually owns it.
• There is no such thing as a "senior administrator"
• There is no such thing as the "spam list", and there is no 5 year/lifetime block after a page has been deleted.
• Per the WP:COI guidelines we would not be recommending that the subject of the article add references themselves.
• We do not resolve deletion discussions by "removing the tag" from the article, they are resolved by evaluating consensus in the discussion.
• We do not do any "clearing [of] our records" after a page is deleted, what does that even mean?
• What on earth does "sent over the deletion log" mean? It's utter nonsense.
• Page titles can be reused once a page is deleted
• Page content can be restored, it doesn't become blacklisted/unusable because it was part of a deleted page.
• If we delete a page we would not tell someone to recreate it at a different title, the page would just be WP:G4'd

2nd email

• There is no such thing as a moderator
• AFD's are not votes or surveys
• Bureaucrats do not close AFD's or delete pages
• You do not need to get a "certain amount of keep votes" to stop a page being deleted, you need to demonstrate that the page meets the inclusion criteria.
• There is no such thing as a "certified wikipedia administrator"
• Anyone can contribute to AFD's, you don't need to be certified.

It's very clearly a paid editing company impersonating an inactive admin to try to sign someone up for paid editing services, the entire email is full of nonsense that doesn't make any sense. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@192.76.8.82 >"I'm sort of amazed that someone fell for it, let alone creating an entire reddit post over it."

Somebody making that post doesn't mean they fell for it. Redditors are regularly willing to go through all that effort for other reasons. i.e.:shitstirring, karmapoints or, what I suspect in this case, a beef with WP. Don't take Reddit serious, says the Redditor with over 40.000 karmapoints.🙄 Dutchy45 (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

> "It's very clearly a paid editing company impersonating an inactive admin...."

Or an individual without any company doing that exact thing, in the hope of getting paid. 🙄🤥 – .Raven  .talk 02:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I emailed the subject of the article and they responded to me, so they have been made aware of the scam. Opencooper (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Opencooper He (I'm assuming) also commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Collins (author). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

not neutral Nationalist

Hi , a moderator is absolutely not neutral, and when I speak of not neutral I speak of recurring nationalism, which totally ruins the experience of wikipedia, he tries everything to get me banned, and deletes reliable sources, the incident which makes me want to talk to you, it's the haik incident, on all the wikipedia pages (French, Spanish, Italian, etc.) the haik is sourced as traditional Algerian clothing, apart from this moderator who, moreover, has a lot of links with Morocco, find things for deleted sources for no reason, so I want an investigation if it’s possible : the moderator is :

R Prazeres  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillToons (talk • contribs) 04:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC) 

I think the editing history of WillToons will speak for itself, but I'm happy to provide more specific evidence of their abuse if needed. The only reason I haven't reported them here already (so I'm not sure what they mean by "tries everything to get me banned") is because I filed an SPI instead with more pertinent evidence a while ago. I prefer to await the outcome of that SPI, assuming they don't further escalate their disruption of articles in the meantime. Note: they also failed to notify me of this report, I had to learn of it from another editor. R Prazeres (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

R Prazeres' recent edits on Haik (garment) ([61], [62]) look perfectly appropriate to me; they have also started a discussion on the talkpage. Unless WillToons provides some compelling diffs of bad behaviour, this is at best a run of the mill content dispute. And though ANI is not a forum for solving content issues, one where it looks to me as though R Prazeres has a point: other language wikipedias are not a reliable source and we don't defer to them in deciding what our article says, and the source that WillToons cited did not support the claim that the haik is specifically Algerian. (Also I note that contra the original description of R Prazeres as a "moderator", they are not and apparently never have been an administrator.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's the link to the SPI. M.Bitton (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Abel and POV pushing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

The user has less than 10 edits. Some of these are POV pushing (removing Russian names of Ukrainian localities where Russian is predominantly spoken), others are rsnt on their talk page. They refuse to accept that new users may not edit articles on these topics (see their talk page). Could we have a block please. Ymblanter (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

And to be honest this happens multiple times per day. Extremely tiring. Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Fourth revert on Kreminna now [63]. I guess their attack on Avdiivka is not much better, and this is pretty much theor only contribution. Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Attack? You are attacking by renaming Ukrainian cities. On what basis do you do this? You should be blocked for mystifying and misleading readers

So why do you commit illegal actions several times a day - renaming Ukrainian cities? Are you the government or the parliament of Ukraine? What laws do you follow? Abel (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you implying that adding city name translations is actually illegal? That it's against the law? 〜 Askarion ✉ 19:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Cities have an official name. What drives a person to change their name? Does he have such authority if it is a matter for the government of the country? Abel (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

This comment shows that you either are not aware of our policies, or do not care about them, or, likely, both. Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been registered on Wikipedia since 2019, so I'm curious: since when did it become Wikipedia's policy to deceive people, what are you doing renaming Ukrainian cities at your discretion? Abel (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

So why do you commit illegal actions several times a day - renaming Ukrainian cities? Are you the government or the parliament of Ukraine? What laws do you follow? Abel (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Could someone urgently block please? I am not sure why I should be forced to read this bullshit. Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope someone blocks you. Because what you are doing is called quackery. You cannot change the names of cities at your discretion Abel (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Cities have an official name that can only be changed by the country's parliament. Are you the parliament of Ukraine that changed the name of Ukrainian cities? Abel (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, four reverts at Avdiivka as well. Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

On what basis are you renaming Avdiivka again? Abel (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Because 1) you may not edit this article, and your edits should be reverted on the spot; 2) I did not rename anything; 3) my edits correspond to a long-standing consensus; 4) you are disruptive user and all your edits in fact degrade the quality of the English Wikipedia. Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Five reverts at Avdiivka. Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Avdiivka is Avdiivka. You keep adding a name to the city that doesn't exist. Stop deceiving people and using Wikipedia for political purposes Abel (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there any quality in lies? The city has an official name. What gives you the right to change it?

If I start renaming Russian cities in the Ukrainian manner, this will also "improve quality"?) You are spreading lies and using Wikipedia for the political purposes of the Russian Federation and you should be blocked Abel (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, have you ever looked at Belgorod for example? And this is a clear and patent LIE that I spread anything in the interest of the Russian Federation. It is a pretty clear personal attack, and you have no place on this project. I am a community member in good standing, and you have no right saying this to me. Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You have a Russian-language Wikipedia, where the rules of the Russian language apply. In English, names are translated from the original language of the country. In English, we write New York, not, for example, Nueva York Abel (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure whether their denial of being new is a sock puppetry admittance, or the 2019 creation date. One week was generous for the RGW. Star Mississippi 02:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

They are talking about their 200+ edits on the UKR-WP since 2010. Though this still doesn't allow them to RGW in EC-protected topic area, of course. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 15:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked Abel for a week. Won't stand in the way of a longer sanction if somebody sees fit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. Abel knows about UTRS, and sort of how to work it. This suggests to me that his previous presence here turned into a TPA revocation. I mean… Unless Ukrainian Wiki uses UTRS, too? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 18:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems like pretty clear WP:RGW. If the week long holiday works, great, else support further action. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked indef + TPA revoked due to egregious misconduct at WP:UTRS, where their full text reads: (Redacted) ← disturbing content attached in-line (edit to view). El_C 23:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, seems justified. Ymblanter (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:EmilyWilson2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Has received fourth warning regarding proper MOS:LQ (logical quotes), but continuing to add. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

EmilyWilson2 is a newish editor who doesn't seem to have discovered their user talk page yet. Schazjmd (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, she seems to be editing in good faith, and seems to be editing on her phone (which, unless something has changed, sometimes makes getting to your talk page difficult). Should we issue an attention-getting block to point her there, which any admin could lift as soon as she acknowledges the messages on her talk page? Or wait to see if she stops now? Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I did find that her first edit was an edit request on this very issue, where she stated Commas and periods ALWAYS go inside quotation marks, and was pointed to WP:LQ at that time.[64] (No idea if she ever read the response to her edit request.) Schazjmd (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure her device, but if you log in via Safari (and not an app), you get a notification in the top right, when you get replied to, mentioned, reverted, or a new addition to your talk page. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 07:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hm, I don't see any exception for enforcing MOS:LQ in the rules about edit-warring... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Technically, it isn't edit warring, as she is adding new "corrections" each time, and Hyphenation Expert is reverting each of those. I don't believe either one of them has re-done a reverted edit. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe @Writ Keeper is warning the OP to be cautious of reverting material of EmilyWilson2 to avoid overstepping 3RR. If @Hyphenation Expert made one more revert to Roald Dahl in the next 23 hours they would technically be a bright-line violation. Although I don't see anyone making a fuss over it, it's good to be aware of some of our more idiosyncratic rules. Also HE why would you wish such malaise upon visitors to your talk page GabberFlasted (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

yes, I deliberately stopped on Mt. Rushmore / Roald Dahl at 3RR. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

While we're here @Hyphenation Expert:, can you please remove the disruption to the standard interface that is on your user talk page as per WP:SMI. I'm talking about the anti-accessible tilting and overlapping of the text on the page that makes it unaccessible. Also when you revert someone, please include an edit summary, otherwise it comes across as a disruptive edit. Canterbury Tail talk 19:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe p-block from article space with an edit summary directing her to her user talk? I hate to even do that, but how else do we get peoples' attention? Valereee (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It might help prevent future problems if we can somehow get her attention to explain the problem. She appears to have stopped editing today. Schazjmd (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee, Emily has apologized on her talk page and says she will stop. Schazjmd (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hyphenation Expert you really need to change that talk page... It is unreadable. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

They did change the angled look and overlapping after my comment above, but I agree the graduated coloured background would prevent many from being able to interact with it. Canterbury Tail talk 12:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe its different for you but when I go to their T/P all the discussions are squished to the right side, with one-two words per line. Quite hard to read. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm personally not seeing that on my browser/OS/monitor setup, but they have made a lot of HTML overrides to the standard interface that it wouldn't surprise me that there's an issue with rendering it for some. This is why WP:SMI is there. @User:Hyphenation Expert we request that you remove all your HTML overrides to the standard wiki interface and skin on your talkpage as it's quite clearly causing issues for many people. Please don't try and snazz up your talk page, it causes problems for others. Canterbury Tail talk 13:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like EmilyWilson2 has found their user talk page and has begun discussing their edits (they haven't made any mainspace edits since then) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocked user spamming their own talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warnings. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, TPA removed. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuous trolling

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello! There is a continuous trolling on Hungarian related articles a long time ago, first by IP users, now by several accounts, and always the same: "Hungarian Cyrillic" which is a fake non existent thing. These edits are usually instantly reverting by other standard users, however it unnecessarily consumes the time of the real Wiki users. All edits are the same trolling:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_language&diff=prev&oldid=1157186278
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/199.7.157.98
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_language&diff=prev&oldid=1155394786
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/199.119.232.216
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_alphabet&diff=prev&oldid=1118819638
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_alphabet&diff=next&oldid=1118805541
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_alphabet&diff=prev&oldid=1118819096
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/121.58.222.107
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stairsonysanta
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Saintpetersgate
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Discospinter26
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FlorenceMull
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fusionmanfixer
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Soniawentobri
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kindanymph
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wattssaxon158
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mugafatov (+1, JSoos (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC))
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Itsmemodi (+1, JSoos (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC))

OrionNimrod (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting musings about an arcane content side issue, not relevant for admin action.

"...the Hungarian Cyrillic alphabet, or маЃар цирилл, was invented by Samuel P. Bateman, who wanted to make it easier for Hungarians to learn Russian as a second language"... (Iliev, Ivan G. "Short history of the Cyrillic alphabet." International Journal of Russian Studies 2.2 (2013): 1-65.). No comments on the trolling though... Lourdes 10:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Hi @Lourdes, thanks for the feedback! As a native Hungarian I really has no clue about this "Hungarian Cyrillic". This was upload in 2015: [65] (no more upload by this user) I found only this [66] which is only the same sentence what you wrote (no more thing). Searching in the internet in Hungarian I do not find anything about "Hungarian Cyrillic" or "Samuel P. Bateman" (Even this is not a Hungarian or Russian name, if we suppose a native linguists). I suppose this is a hoax. If not, still it is really irrevelant to add to the first part of the Hungarian language and Hungarian alphabet article as a very long section, max it should be a separate article, but still I think it is hoax as no Hungarian sources about an allegedly Hungarian language thing. Btw the sourced document also say "Such systems were created for other languages, too, even for Hungarian" which means should we add this irrevelant big Cyrillic chart (which was allegedly created 100+ years ago) for every other language articles however nobody use those created unknown script? Also the mentioned users use many accounts and unreasonably add on the lead a Cyrillic texts of many Hungarian articles: Special:Contributions/Stairsonysanta, Special:Contributions/Saintpetersgate, Special:Contributions/Discospinter26...etc OrionNimrod (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC) @Lourdes: It is true that google gives back this academic document as a result, however, when I tried to find it in the text, I failed. So which page contains this sentence? There is a cross reference however for the Omniglot blog, which I mentioned on the talkpage already but as OrionNimrod mentioned there is no any source on the blog, and there is no any clue when and where Samuel P. Bateman was teaching Hungarians, and there is no any other mention of this man can be found. If you think of as a help this alphabet works the opposite way: can be a guide for those who already knows Cyrillic letters, and so able to pronounce Hungarian words written like this, and not Hungarians to learn Russian. JSoos (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC) On some blogs I found the same reference but specifically mentioning that Bateman was teaching in Vojvodina, which could make sense, as there they could already been familiar to Serbian Cyrillic. JSoos (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Hi @Lourdes, he created more sockpuppets to aggressively spreading the same thing. Based on this behavior I can suppose perhaps those minimal sources regarding this on the internet created by this user. Special:Contributions/Itsmemodi Special:Contributions/Mugafatov @JSoos, page 35: "However, a system for Cyrillic transcription for the Japanese language, called Rosiadzi or Kiridzi, was created in 1917 by E. Polivanov (Such systems were created for other languages, too, even for Hungarian: the Hungarian Cyrillic alphabet, or маЃар цирилл, was invented by Samuel P. Bateman, who wanted to make it easier for Hungarians to learn Russian as a second language)." And true this refers to Omniglot blog, it seems it is a circular reference. I also do not see any allegedly Cyrillic variants in the Japanase language article or spamming there this irrevelant info if this exist. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Thanks, I did not find it, as I was looking the characters: "Hungarian cyrillic", which is on a page brake. JSoos (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC) DuckDuckGo shows me a preview of the deleted article Cyrillization of Georgian. It starts: "The Cyrillization of Georgian was a Cyrillic alphabet designed for the Georgian language during the period of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic. It was devised by American-Soviet linguist Samuel P. Bateman who was notable for designing the following system and the alternative Cyrillization of Hungarian. The system was created in order to standardize and establish Cyrillic as the official writing system of the Soviet Union and, subsequently, of the assimilation and standardization of all people under communism." The article was deleted in 2018 as blatant hoax. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Just for info, can you tell me when was that page created? Thanx! JSoos (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Unfortunately no. The preview only shows what I quoted. And the information about deletion is from Cyrillization of Georgian. But maybe an admin can figure out when and by whom it was written. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I do not know Russian and Cyrillic or the mentioned Serbian Cyrillic. I do not know what is the reality because I was unable to find any Hungarian sources (even not academic) about this. Which means this things is a really irrevelant and unknown or a fake. The user use a lot of accounts to force this unknown thing many times to many Hungarian related article, no talk page usage (that is why I moved the issue here), it is clearly a trolling behavior. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC) For example this article has no references: Cyrillization of Japanese, we know Japanese alphabet is very unique, why Hungarian is Latin. I know Arabian, Russian, Japanese, Korean, Chinese… words have Latin transcription for understanding, which mean I can imagine that unique Japanese could also have Cyrillic version but I do not know anot nothing about the usage. Hungarian alphabet is not so unique, it use Latin alphabet with some special characters, also historial and nowadays the Old Hungarian script is used for several purpose. However we can see this is a separate article in the case of Japanese, but the sockpuppet user wanted to force this unknown Cyrillic Hungarian thing to many Hungarian articles and morover as lead part. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I think that there could be some context, but I do not find relevant sources either. However my sister had a napkin collection when we were children and one of them contained Hungarian text written in Cyrillic, which I found very funny that time. So may be there could have some system existed, but I doubt that it was created for to help teaching Russian language. JSoos (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Another editor opened up a report at SPI regarding two of the accounts listed here. I have added the rest. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saintpetersgate.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Sidenote: If Hungarian Cyrillic looks strange, what to say about Filipino Hangul? 헛소리 같네요. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 15:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Or Japanese Arabic. Canterbury Tail talk 15:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC) It is not questioned if cyrillization exist, but for Hungarian there are no relevant sources at all, only pure one blog page, while in the above mentioned two "strange" articles have many relevant citations. JSoos (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Hi JSoos, relevant sources are perhaps there. I could find one on Google Scholar searching for your term (and that's what I have quoted above). You possibly also reached the same source. Like I said earlier, no comments on the trolling. Lourdes 16:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Rolled up an interesting discussion as not relevant here. Mathglot (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Back on track

Just to get this discussion back on track: perhaps it could've been worded better, but this report is not some arcane content question about whether Hungarian Cyrillic exists; it is about a large amount of vandalism by sockpuppets inserting text prominently in either the lead sentence or the Infobox of numerous articles relating to Hungary. Typical is this edit at Pál Schmitt:

−

'''Pál Schmitt''' (<span class="IPA-label IPA-label-small">Hungarian:</span> <span class="IPA nowrap" lang="hu-Latn-fonipa">[[Help:IPA/Hungarian|[ˈpaːl<span class="wrap"> </span>ˈʃmitt]]]</span>; born <span class="nowrap">13 May</span> 1942) is a Hungarian Olympic fencer and politician who served as [[President of Hungary]]

+

'''Pál Schmitt''' (<span class="IPA-label IPA-label-small">Hungarian:</span> <span class="IPA nowrap" lang="hu-Latn-fonipa">[[Help:IPA/Hungarian|[ˈpaːl<span class="wrap"> </span>ˈʃmitt]]]</span>; ([[Hungarian alphabet|Hungarian Cyrillic]]: Пял Шмитт), born <span class="nowrap">13 May</span> 1942) is a Hungarian Olympic fencer and politician who served as [[President of Hungary]]

Thanks are due to OrionNimrod for raising this here. SPI can be found here, with a couple dozen blocked so far. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2607:FB91:3E81:C078:AC39:3BD7:6592:4AF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP user repeatedly adding unsourced content to multiple articles despite four warnings. Has reverted corrective edit with scornful remark. Rift (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 36 hours, but please file vandalism reports to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism moving forward. Thanks. El_C 03:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scammer reaching out to AfD article subject

Regarding Malcolm Collins (author), which is currently at AfD, someone emailed the subject, claiming to be an admin, offering to help save the article after a "service fee". (feel free to move this to COIN or elsewhere if more appropriate) Opencooper (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Opencooper, this is a common scam. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning for more information and how to report it. Cullen328 (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks for the link. I'll email the subject and point them to it. Opencooper (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

request for service fee

Sections on the same topic merged. Abecedare (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if this is already being handled somewhere else.
I was just browsing Reddit and read a post where a screenshot is provided of somebody claiming to be a senior WP-administrator asking for a service fee. I have no idea if the post and/or screenshot are legit. To be honest I don't even know if there is such a position as senior admin, but it certainly raised my eyebrows and I thought it best to notify you guys (sorry if this is the wrong place for this issue. If it's a legit problem I trust 1 of you will make sure it gets to the right place.)
Here is the Reddit post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikipediaAdminReport/comments/14szgp5/tom_a_sr_admin_is_running_undisclosed_editing/
The last sentence of the second of 3 pages is the fee request. Dutchy45 (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

See two threads above, there is already a thread about the same scam. --Cavarrone 07:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, yes I see. Thanks for pointing it out @Cavarrone Dutchy45 (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dutchy45 Extremely obvious and very common scam that falls apart with any kind of research or even just reading the email carefully. I'm sort of amazed that someone fell for it, let alone creating an entire reddit post over it.

Among the more obvious things wrong in that email chain:

1st email

• Tom is not an admin, and has not been an admin for 4 1/2 years.
• Tom has not edited the site since 2019, their talk page contains a large banner that they've MIA.
• Tom has not disclosed their surname and does not use the name "Cooper" anywhere, their account used to be called User:Tomf688 so their surname actually probably starts with an F.
• The email has been sent from the very obvious fake address "thewikipedians.com", wikipedia's url is, of course "wikipedia.org".
  • According to WHOIS the domain is registered via a proxy to hide who actually owns it.
• There is no such thing as a "senior administrator"
• There is no such thing as the "spam list", and there is no 5 year/lifetime block after a page has been deleted.
• Per the WP:COI guidelines we would not be recommending that the subject of the article add references themselves.
• We do not resolve deletion discussions by "removing the tag" from the article, they are resolved by evaluating consensus in the discussion.
• We do not do any "clearing [of] our records" after a page is deleted, what does that even mean?
• What on earth does "sent over the deletion log" mean? It's utter nonsense.
• Page titles can be reused once a page is deleted
• Page content can be restored, it doesn't become blacklisted/unusable because it was part of a deleted page.
• If we delete a page we would not tell someone to recreate it at a different title, the page would just be WP:G4'd

2nd email

• There is no such thing as a moderator
• AFD's are not votes or surveys
• Bureaucrats do not close AFD's or delete pages
• You do not need to get a "certain amount of keep votes" to stop a page being deleted, you need to demonstrate that the page meets the inclusion criteria.
• There is no such thing as a "certified wikipedia administrator"
• Anyone can contribute to AFD's, you don't need to be certified.

It's very clearly a paid editing company impersonating an inactive admin to try to sign someone up for paid editing services, the entire email is full of nonsense that doesn't make any sense. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@192.76.8.82 >"I'm sort of amazed that someone fell for it, let alone creating an entire reddit post over it."

Somebody making that post doesn't mean they fell for it. Redditors are regularly willing to go through all that effort for other reasons. i.e.:shitstirring, karmapoints or, what I suspect in this case, a beef with WP. Don't take Reddit serious, says the Redditor with over 40.000 karmapoints.🙄 Dutchy45 (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

> "It's very clearly a paid editing company impersonating an inactive admin...."

Or an individual without any company doing that exact thing, in the hope of getting paid. 🙄🤥 – .Raven  .talk 02:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I emailed the subject of the article and they responded to me, so they have been made aware of the scam. Opencooper (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Opencooper He (I'm assuming) also commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Collins (author). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

not neutral Nationalist

Hi , a moderator is absolutely not neutral, and when I speak of not neutral I speak of recurring nationalism, which totally ruins the experience of wikipedia, he tries everything to get me banned, and deletes reliable sources, the incident which makes me want to talk to you, it's the haik incident, on all the wikipedia pages (French, Spanish, Italian, etc.) the haik is sourced as traditional Algerian clothing, apart from this moderator who, moreover, has a lot of links with Morocco, find things for deleted sources for no reason, so I want an investigation if it’s possible : the moderator is :

R Prazeres  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillToons (talk • contribs) 04:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC) 

I think the editing history of WillToons will speak for itself, but I'm happy to provide more specific evidence of their abuse if needed. The only reason I haven't reported them here already (so I'm not sure what they mean by "tries everything to get me banned") is because I filed an SPI instead with more pertinent evidence a while ago. I prefer to await the outcome of that SPI, assuming they don't further escalate their disruption of articles in the meantime. Note: they also failed to notify me of this report, I had to learn of it from another editor. R Prazeres (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

R Prazeres' recent edits on Haik (garment) ([67], [68]) look perfectly appropriate to me; they have also started a discussion on the talkpage. Unless WillToons provides some compelling diffs of bad behaviour, this is at best a run of the mill content dispute. And though ANI is not a forum for solving content issues, one where it looks to me as though R Prazeres has a point: other language wikipedias are not a reliable source and we don't defer to them in deciding what our article says, and the source that WillToons cited did not support the claim that the haik is specifically Algerian. (Also I note that contra the original description of R Prazeres as a "moderator", they are not and apparently never have been an administrator.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's the link to the SPI. M.Bitton (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Tool abuse by ToBeFree?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As the OP requests, I have acted accordingly by hatting it as not worthy of further analysis. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

On 22 June 2023 ToBeFree blocked an IP for "personal attacks or harassment." The editor had written "Drive-by" = stymied by goofs like you who stalk the page daily. To hell with you and your Fuehrer! His previous block for "Personal attacks or harassment" had been of an IP who had written "One of your administrators, Graham87, has a disability which means that he is not the best person to handle this situation." What? The IP is referring to a fast-moving situation in which good edits have to be weeded out from high-volume vandalism. Graham87 managed to block the one editor who was repairing the vandalism, saying (s)he was "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia." ToBeFree plays the piano. Would he have blocked for "personal attacks or harassment" an editor who had written "Beethoven had a disability which meant that he was not in a position to continue conducting and performing"? Co-ordinated high volume vandalism is like terrorist threats. Writing in the Observer on 25 June, Chris McCausland says: 'Eventually, I got refused because of my eyesight. The job was identifying terrorist threats, which obviously you need to do in a limited amount of time. They were like: "Honestly, we just think it's going to take you too long." I was like: "OK, that's reasonable. I don't want that burden around my neck!"' The behaviour of Floquenbeam also requires scrutiny. He introduced the F-word into his criticism of the IP's comment, apparently to deflect attention from the fact that his criticism was baseless. It is requested that an experienced editor decide who should be notified of this discussion and act accordingly. 92.19.91.89 (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Misconduct by Black Kite

On 4th July BilledMammal opened a discussion on this noticeboard with the heading Broader bludgeoning issue? The matter was duly discussed - the question mark is simply an acknowledgement that it is the consensus which rules, not the OP's view. I am therefore opening a discussion on Black Kite's apparent impropriety in attempting to shut down a discussion on alleged misconduct by two fellow administrators. The EditorInteract facility [69] shows numerous supportive interventions between Black Kite and Floquenbeam, including this [70], where Floquenbeam is accused of an out-of-process unblock and Black Kite says he was beaten "to the unblock by seconds." 92.19.91.89 (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello VxFC. Not worthy of further analysis either Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hair brush2727

Hair brush2727 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Someone should revoke their talk page access. Thanks in advance. Renewal6 (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. Abecedare (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

USER: 2A00:23C5:3FA3:9301:2078:B6E2:5AF2:9257

This user is involved in an edit war over the following pages Oxfordshire and Greater London using verbal abuse and swearing because his attempts at introducing inaccurate material are being reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murgatroyd49 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49: Blocked the /64 for 3 days. Let us know if the user changes IPs and a wider block or page protections are needed. Abecedare (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll keep an eye on the situation. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

IP editor making legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An IP editor (contribs) made a legal threat in an edit summary, stating "if [my edit] is taken down again, I will be contacting my attorney." Their initial edit was also a copyright violation. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for the legal threat. If they resume the threats after the block ends, they can be blocked again. Cullen328 (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NOTHERE IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This IP is editing the encyclopedia according to their POV with offensive edit summaries, please take a look at [71] and [72]. Admins' eyes are welcome.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

For the records, IP is still at it, POV editing and qualifying what some reliable sources say as "lies" : [73], [74].---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I’ve blocked for 3 days. If they come back doing the same nonsense we can assess the IP being static and block for longer. Courcelles (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2607:FB91:888C:A62:AC39:D1F7:4DF2:DE59

2607:FB91:888C:A62:AC39:D1F7:4DF2:DE59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was/is on a revenge SD nomination spree because they thought that if this article was invalid, an arbitrary group of others are too. The rationales were blatantly invalid and frivolous and have all been reverted. Normally I’d AGF and warn them but they’re both being uncivil about it (accusing the creators of COI/paid editing and hypocrisy) and creating unnecessary work for other editors to clean up. Maybe a preventative block from mainspace is necessary? Dronebogus (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

PLEASE. I'm the/a target of this disruption and it's unnecessary and unpleasant. The accusation [[75]] that I've changed my ID and am part of a COI ring extorting people is also both weird and mildly distasteful. Thanks Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Mercenf just changed his name from US-Verified.. Know when people are talking about you. 135.148.233.37 (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dronebogus according to reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/WikipediaAdminReport/) this is the same person who accused tom of being an UPE (i.e. the subject of the article) harassing other editors in revenge for their article being nominated for deletion, per some of the other posts on that subreddit they also appear to be evading a block on Mammach (talk · contribs) for spamming. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Merrymilkman1 is another self admitted sock puppet, clearly they're harassing people logged out and leaving votes to "save" their article logged in [76]. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Another IP of this sock, from the appearance of this [[77]] diff, is 47.181.166.72. They would all appear to link back to Mr Collins. Again with the bizarre COI/Extortion allegations... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Earlier today Bbb23 blocked the IP for a week. I see there is also a SPI report that has been filed so we'll see if anything pops up on that front. Of course, no connection to IP accounts will be verified but all of this activity has been disruptive today and targeted harassment of editors simply because of how they voted in one AFD discussion. Personally, I don't think the IP is the article subject, just a fan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Look at the links that were deleted.. All of them were non existent... if they rotted, he should fix them or leave it.. There were absolutely no bad edits at all. His user page says he is a paid PR consultant..He is just vandalizing and projecting. 135.148.233.37 (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Did you even look at the links that were removed? Seems irresponsible to just accept the word of someone who admits they are a paid pr consultant on their user page, had their 1st barnstar given to them by a sockpuppet, been accused of paid editing and is vandalizing wikipedia and causing a ton of headaches for all the editors. 135.148.233.37 (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Being a paid consultant is a job. It doesn't mean that it affects their editing on the project. They have been here long enough to know that if they are doing paid editing they need to disclose this and I assume they would. Your suspicions don't give you license to undo their edits. And your accusations of "paid editing" and "vandalism" carry no weight at ANI if you don't supply diffs as evidence to back up your claims. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal of all links from four articles and replaced the single broken link in each article. I can happily confirm I do not, and never have, edited Wikipedia as a paid editor. Random International once gave me a free $3 ticket to Rain Room after I created an article about them, which was nice of them. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

BTW, this [[78]] needs to stop now. Really. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Proxy user

The 135.148 IP user immediately above appears to be using a proxy against policy, which I have reported at WP:WPOP. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Repeated WP:BLUDGEONING by User:Redacted II at Talk:SpaceX Starship

Earlier this year at the talk page for SpaceX Starship, there were two extremely long, pointless RfCs ([1], [2]) that had to be started because some people tried to give prototype vehicles some kind of special treatment over fully operational launch vehicles. These discussions mostly centred around people's refusal to accept the status of the flight on 20 April 2023 as a failure, while others had to constantly barge in and remind everyone that some sources were simply uncritically repeating what Musk and SpaceX were claiming.

One of the users who refused to back down from this was User:Redacted II, who had to be warned about such behaviour.

Just two days after the second RfC was closed, Redacted II starts up this section, once again trying to push the same "separating prototypes from operational vehicles" thing, while other rocketry articles, when counting launch successes and failures, either lump prototypes in with production vehicles or don't list them at all. I've tried to explain to the user why this "distinction" is pointless, and also the fact that they've been told this before, but they've refused to back down. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 18:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

That is a stretch.

"Just two days after the second RFC was closed, Redacted II starts up this section, once again trying to push the same "separating prototypes from operational vehicles" thing"

That RFC had been settled for a month or so. The only reason it was still active is (presumably) because no one had gotten around to closing it. I had probably thought "oh, the RFCs finally been ended", before forgetting about it.

"I've tried to explain to the user why this "distinction" is pointless, and also the fact that they've been told this before, but they've refused to back down"

Simply put, this is a dispute over the content of an article. The first RFC (back in April and May) was about the failure v.s success of the April 20th. I will not defend my behavior during the beginning of that debate, and I was corrected by several other users.

The second RFC began with me placing a note in the infobox of SpaceX starship, which DASL51984 opposed. After they started an RFC, they proceeded to remove the note. I reminded them that until the RFC is resolved, the note should remain. They continued to remove the note, and got a 48 hour block for edit warring as a result. Eventually, the note was later removed.

I thought that, since the second RFC was in regards to the note, and not any potential distinction, maybe other users wouldn't be as opposed. After all, in the falcon 9 article, there is even a chart for listing the type of vehicle flown.

No-one commented in the first week, and just two days later, Fehér Zsigmond-03 said "I completely support this". I went to implement my planned change into the article, and discovered that the bar chart was an excerpt of the List of SpaceX Starship Flight Tests article. I posted the same proposal in that articles talk page, and was going to remove the one in SpaceX Starship, but then people began to comment on the first one the next day. As of writing this, no-one has posted in the second one.

During the argument between me and DASL51984, they repeatedly stated that it was a "waste of everyone's time" and was "beating a dead horse", while I offered potential compromises.

Something similar to this happened before, where a user went after me for starting the previously mentioned RFC (which, btw, was started by DASL51984). After discussion on my talk page, they withdrew their complaint. Redacted II (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, I was convinced to drop the proposal until IFT-2 launches about thirteen minutes ago. Redacted II (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Though there may be some problems with the graph (why include success/failure categories when that does not exist on the graph?), the proposal is reasonable, and does not conflict with the RfCs, which discuss specific issues pertaining to the infobox, not a general notion that the word "prototype" cannot be used anywhere. DASL51984, frustrated by the proposal, said "Do you not understand this, or do you wilfully ignore it?", and doesn't propose a compromise. The reason why I see a distinction between the infobox and the graph is because more space can be allotted to the graph in the body, rather than the infobox, which is supposed to be very brief (unable to capture the nuances of how much of a failure/prototype or not it is). Instead of back-and-forth arguing, the proposal could have been used as a starting point for a more fruitful discussion. For example, a compromise could be to not display "prototype" on the graph, but have a note on the graph similar to the proposed infobox note, or further explanation in the body. It seems that both Redacted II and DASL51984 were bludgeoning (though perhaps to different extents in various places), by the looks of the RfCs and talk page. This seems more like a content dispute and "getting close to" disruptive editing rather than a bona fide violation. Chamaemelum (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I just want to mention: I proposed a compromise in this dif, as well as requesting we go back to peaceful discussion. DASL51984 ignored it. Redacted II (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Somehow I missed this while making these two edits, my apologies to Redacted II.

I'm a bit frustrated by the situation too, but I concur with Chamaemelum. Particularly I still stand by this. While it's annoying to relitigate whether this was a "failure" or "prototype failure", I think (hope) Redacted II has gotten the message that consensus is against them, at least for the time being. This was a "failure". Nevertheless, I anticipate Redacted II will get their way at some point in the future, probably when more launches and reliable sources establish what is a prototype versus an operational vehicle. All in all, mostly content, arguably perhaps disruptive editing, I would not suggest anything more than a warning. Leijurv (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I have. And thank you for standing up for me, especially when you didn't have to. Redacted II (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the overall picture, I think it is quite obvious that there are people who strongly push pro-Musk content and try to erase anything which can be interpreted as slightly negative about what he is doing. From what I have seen this is quite different from various other articles even in the same area, e.g. space flight. This push about removing "failure" from the description of the Starship test flight is a typical example. Trying again and again and again, didn't work, trying again in different ways, now with bars. This is far beyond any constructive discussions. I am no expert on Wikipedia mechanisms, but I think there should be some limits. Zae8 (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that Redacted II can be cocky at times, but I don't think that putting this at ANI is going to solve anything. Something like "let's monitor their future behavior and ban them if they cross the line" is perfect for the time being. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that there have been behavioural issues from both sides. In the RfC on "clarifying issue in infobox", DASL51984 responded to 3 out of the 6 statements in favour of keeping the clarification in the infobox, and proceeded to present the same argument in each one. To me, this constitutes bludgeoning, however, Redacted II's bludgeoning was more prolific and went across both RfCs. However, I have not counted how many statements Redacted II replied to, and it's also important to keep in mind that a lot more editors supported the removal of the clarification in contrast to keeping the clarification. In my opinion, I think that both users need a good talking to so that they remain civil (both RfCs were quite heated, mind you) and assume good faith in the future. I hope that further action isn't needed with both users. Hope you all have a good day or night, wherever you are! Yasslaywikia (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Whit Hertford (Chronic and Intractable)

• User:Whit Hertford
• User:Whithertford43

After removing a ton of unsourced material from Whit Hertford I guesstimated on my talk-page this should end up on one of the drama-boards, and by golly it does. This user (and the WP:DUCK tells me we are dealing with the same person), treats this page as his personal resume. The problems are chronic and intractable and has every red flag an WP:SPA could aspire to. The end effect is disruptive. So here we are. Kleuske (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I second Kleuske on this. I put the page on my watchlist awhile ago because I noticed that it was being edited by him. I don’t think it’s a question of notability because he has a fairly extensive filmography. Afheather (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

A trip through the page history is a rather interesting one. Revealing several other accounts with very similar names and a ton of single minded anons. The other accounts seem to be abandoned and stale, so I'll just leave those out of this, but it does indicate this is a long standing (think 2009) habit. Kleuske (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I've put COI templates on both of them and will block one for a username violation, they need to prove they are them as they could be an imposter (unlikely, more likely to be a dodgy self promoter) Secretlondon (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Might want to look into RyanItlov as he's edited back in the information twice now. Afheather (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

There's no overlap in editing dates so maybe they lost access/forgot the account details of the first one. I've blocked the most recently used one - they need to prove they are not an imposter. I'd also want them to edit on things other than themselves. Secretlondon (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Now it looks like someone has created an account to act as his proxy to edit the page. Afheather (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Just an IPv6 address I think. Secretlondon (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Funkyuggla

Funkyuggla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user has been creating articles on some Swedish nobility, which lack proper sources and (likely) do not meet any notability criteria, violating WP:BLP in the process. These articles appear to be extremely poorly sourced and many of the sources cited do not even mention the subject for which they are cited. Some seem to be notable, but many fail any notability test. Given their single minded devotion to these families I suspect some sort of WP:COI. I have expressed my concerns ([79]) at their TP, but to no avail. He simply created the next article Björn Engwall with the same problems.

Examples include, but are not limited to

• Mona Przanowska (AfD)
• Greger Helin (tagged, but not yet nominated)
• Inger Marianne Helin
• Edward Przanowski
• Stefan Przanowski
• Helin family
• Engwall family

Kleuske (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Many of these articles are very nicely done compared to our standard fare. Complicating the notability issue is the reliance on paper books for some of the historical figures-- perfectly legitimate but not readily checked by others. In some cases, there's no corresponding article on the Swedish or Polish Wikipedias; that's not a requirement but it can be telling as to notability when the subject lacks an article in their native language.

Björn Engwall looks clearly non-notable.

Funkyuggla has made only a handful of edits in User talk and Wikipedia talk.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Essenafzillie
• Essenafzillie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The use of two accounts, while unacceptable, seems benign -- I don't see any abusive use. As the CU noted, they just need to choose between the 2 accounts.

I hope this editor will engage with us on these topics. We can use their skill here but they need to collaborate and not just proceed unilaterally. I'd hate to see them have to be sanctioned.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not being more involved in this matter. I apologize for any confusion, but I actually have two accounts—one for my PC and another for my mobile device. They serve different purposes and are used separately depending on the device I'm using. I was not prior to your notice aware of the “Sockpuppet” rules.

With regards to the articles that have been created, I must clarify that I have no personal connection to them. Initially, I held a keen interest in Ivar Kreuger and Paul Toll. However, during my research on the subject, I came across the Engwall family, prominently featured in Magnus Toll's book titled "Paul Toll 1882-1946, ingeniör-entreprenör."

Subsequently, I initiated communication with the "Engwall Stiftelsen" and acquired relevant materials pertaining to the subject. During my academic tenure, I composed my gymnasium essay on this topic, incorporating the information I had gathered to create additional articles. I acknowledge that certain articles may not possess the requisite level of notability.

I established my account on a relatively recent basis and have not yet fully familiarised myself with the practices and regulations of Wikipedia. While this does not serve as an excuse to neglect them, I kindly request everyone to consider this fact and take it into account. Funkyuggla (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I’d say you’re probably ok with the sock puppet issue if you just explicitly abandon one account and do all your editing with the other account. Many of us use multiple devices with our one account.

I’m not an administrator so this is not an “official” decision but I expect they’d say the same thing.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You're allowed to have two accounts for this purpose (it's not unusual), Funkyuggla, but it has to be clear it's you in both instances. So if you you work to WP:RENAME the Essenafzillie account to something like Funkyuggla (mobile), then you'll be good. HTH. El_C 15:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Okey, will do! Funkyuggla (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Some of these articles look plausibly notable and some (e.g. Stefan Przanowski) clearly notable. But the content centered around WP:INUNIVERSE fantasy claims to defunct titles, extinct decades before the subject was born, and the detailed genealogies listing many non-notable relatives, are unencyclopedic and need to be removed. This is especially problematic in Mona Przanowska. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

IP user disruption on araucarian conifer articles

I've become extremely frustrated with a dynamic Sydney based IP user, who edits articles about araucarian conifers, particularly Agathis and Wollemia. Their additions, which span several months since this April are often completely unsourced [80] [81], or have basic grammar errors [82]. I have tried to communicate with them on several occasions, [83] (I regret making a personal attack here, but I was extremely frustrated by their silence)[84], but they have refused to communicate whatsoever. Recently they appear to have made an account Mcteamtnt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which they appear to have promptly abandoned after I made a post on their talkpage asking them to communicate [85]. I am at my wits end. Their edits continually degrade the quality of the articles, and I think semi-protection may be warranted.

A complete list of addresses:

• 49.179.4.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) late April
• 49.186.239.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) late May (this is the only time they ever appear to have used an edit summary)
• 203.219.174.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) early June
• 49.181.68.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) late June
• 49.181.65.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) late June
• 49.181.207.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 3 July
• 49.179.27.255 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 10 July
• Mcteamtnt (talk · contribs) 12 July
• 49.179.19.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) today

This seems like too wide a range to rangeblock. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Notified the most recent IP (49.179.19.172) and Mcteamtnt of this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

User:AlphabetFIXER making mass edits and refusing to communicate

User:AlphabetFIXER (contribs) started editing in June. Their edits have quickly become disruptive; they seem allergic to using the preview button and make massive numbers of small edits (here's 26 small edits in 13 minutes, here's SEVENTY straight edits adding all sorts of trivial and unencyclopedic information. Their talk page is littered with warnings and pleas to at least communicate from 5 editors including myself, all of which have fallen on deaf ears. An indef block is necessary here to stop their disruptive edits, essentially all of which contradict the MOS. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems like classic WP:RADAR behavior, having a closer look now. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I've partially blocked them from article space, which appears to be the only namespace they have edited in, and informed them that they can and should comment here if they wish to be unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. (I’m late joining the discussion here because I had a long day yesterday—my wife had surgery—and I turned in pretty early last night.) I don’t have anything to add to the several comments I left on the user's talk page, the final two of which regarding state abbreviations seem to me to demonstrate the crux of the issue about the combination of pointless edits and ignoring other users' comments. I suppose I also find it frustrating that, as noted in my original comment there, the user's edit summaries aren’t useful, but at least now that the user has settled into a semi-predictable pattern of mostly adding state postal abbreviations it's easier than it was at first to figure out what’s going on. I’m inherently skeptical of edit summaries that say "added word" or "added content" because over the years I’ve come to associate those with vandalism, but at least "added state" has come to reflect a pattern in this user's case. 1995hoo (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/142.134.96.119

Special:Contributions/142.134.96.119 has been making track list changes which are disruptive as the editor has had it explained to them why they are incorrect, yet continues to make them. I don't think AIV is appropriate as its not vandalism. I believe a short block of a week (24 hrs is not enough as the edits have been sporadic over 3 days) may be needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavalizard101 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Hello, at least go add the topic at the top of the screen and inform the IP address. Also don't forget to sign using four tlides. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/ _(logs) 12:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Range around 197.144.98.197

Moved from User talk:ToBeFree

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

197.144.64.0/18 (range copied from WHOIS) has a history of removing content without explanation going back to 19 February. Please block whichever range is responsible for this.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

They apparently also edit from 105.71.145.0/24 but that range hasn't been active for awhile.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Now I see that I've interacted with them before.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess 197.147.0.0/18 is also them.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, well, well. I found a blocked proxy with the same MO.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, I'll move this to ANI as I usually don't create rangeblocks of this size in response to a talk page request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk pages receiving WP:NOTAFORUM violations

I have been patrolling talk pages for quite some time, and I see violations of WP:NOTAFORUM on some of them. There are certain pages that get this treatment more frequently than others, listed below:

• Talk:The View (talk show)
• Talk:Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum
• Talk:English Wikipedia
• Talk:XNXX (the inappropriate discussions it recieves are more on the nonsense side)
• Talk:YouTube
• Talk:TikTok
• Talk:Instagram

I am requesting to any admins who see this and are interested to make edit notices, like this one, to discourage inappropriate discussions (even though they may not do much). Thank you. Zoe Trent Fan🎤💍 20:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

-Removed troll comment. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 23:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Zoe Trent Fan. I recommend that you (and all other editors) remove NOTAFORUM talk page posts on sight, with an edit summary of WP:NOTAFORUM. That's what I do. Cullen328 (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my standard. If no one has replied, just delete it with the edit summary pointing to NOTAFORUM. 90% of the time that's the end of it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Another rangeblock needed for Youngstown music vandal

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Youngstown music vandal
• 174.251.192.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Youngstown music vandal is an ongoing problem. The range Special:Contributions/2603:6011:5401:34A7:0:0:0:0/64 was recently blocked for a month, but the person is evading that block by using IP4 addresses. To me, it looks like the range Special:Contributions/174.251.192.0/19 would cover the problem, with just a minor amount of collateral. Perhaps a smaller rangeblock could be crafted. Below are the involved IP6s from the last four weeks. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• ‎174.251.209.214 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.251.209.255 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎174.251.208.72 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.251.209.148 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎174.251.192.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎174.251.192.31 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎174.251.208.243 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎174.251.192.62 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎‎174.251.209.136 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎174.251.209.50‎ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎‎174.251.209.139‎ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I blocked 174.251.192.0/19 for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by Chamaemelum

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(Given the exigent editing by Chamaemelum even while these discussions are onongoing, I am going ahead and closing this thread with the unanimous evident consensus that Chamaemelum is indefinitely topic banned by the community from aspartame/alternative medicine topics, broadly construed. Standard UNBAN conditions apply. Thank you, Lourdes 12:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC))

• I have reopened this discussion to allow the community to explore whether the scope of the ban should be extended to include all medical related topics, broadly construed. Thanks, Lourdes 04:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

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

This novice user (< 1500 edits since first in April) has been highly disruptive on Aspartame, warring against talk page consensus, and an admin revision (29 June, DMacks) with page protection (1 July); examples (among numerous in article history):

• [86]
• [87]
• [88]
• [89].

On Talk:Aspartame, the user has been warring against comments and clear rebuttals by several experienced editors; examples:

• Tgeorgescu - [90]
• Draken Bowser - [91]
• Psychologist Guy - [92]
• Valjean - here and here
• acknowledging that consensus was opposed, here, but continued warring on the article and talk page
• encouraging blog trivia and even trying to dispute WP:NOTFORUM with this.

The user has been warned for disruptive editing by several talk page notices.

• Support WP:TBAN on the aspartame and related articles. Zefr (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I caused page protection by posting on a noticeboard to prevent edit warring due to a recent series of reverts he made. I first added the news story, which was widely reported as fact (~100 media outlets), that the WHO is reclassifying aspartame into possibly carcinogenic. Once I concluded this was not reliable (the result of "possibly carcinogenic", not the reclassification consideration) despite widespread secondary coverage, I instead added the non-disputed, also widely reported (including on the WHO's website) fact that they are considering reclassifying aspartame. This was in response to confused editors wondering why there was no mention of it. To be clear, at no point did I advocate for saying aspartame is unsafe or causes cancer, and I believe it doesn't, though I and multiple other users thought the widespread factual coverage of the WHO's reclassification was notable enough for inclusion.

Multiple editors (e.g., WhatamIdoing, Little pob, cdh1001, TypistMonkey, many IP addresses, and countless other editors who made edits but didn't use the talk page) were on the side of the inclusion, and multiple were on the side of the deletion of the excluded content. There was no consensus.

I repeatedly tried to open a dialog with Zefr, for example regarding the POV tag, but he didn't respond, instead removing it. The edits linked by Zefr [93] [94] show me deleting or rephrasing (to be closer to the source text) a non-independent source written entirely by a current employee of Cadbury about sweeteners. Per the talk page and my edits, I always tried to facilitate discussion to avoid editing disputes. Zefr said I acknowledged consensus was opposed but "continued warring" here [95]. This was in response to the comment "I think it would be appropriate to mention the certain facts, namely that a review will be happening. Just mentioning this fact (which is an "event", not Wikipedia:Biomedical information). . . ," by WhatamIdoing, and my comment intended to indicate a willingness to compromise "if" consensus was reached; it is not a claim about current consensus (indeed, multiple users had a dispute in that thread). I understand and respect the rules against disruptive editing and it's never my intention to go against consensus. I shouldn't have mentioned the trivia [96]; I was just surprised to see a peer-reviewed article about a Wikipedia user. Many of my edits or comments such as this [97] should be read in context of the discussion on the talk page. I left warnings on Zefr's talk page relating to edit warring (many reverts of multiple editors), improper template removal while declining discuss ([98][99][100][101][102][103]), and deleting others' talk page comments that have relevance to the article ([104][105][106]) or article discussions [107]. Because of the widespread nature of Zefr's disruptive editing here, but also with many other users on aspartame, I think it would be wise to consider Zefr in addition to myself in this report. Of course, I am also happy to revise my editing approach as necessary. Chamaemelum (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is very hard to take that final sentence at face value due to a general inability to understand and listen to consensus over the last few days. Draken Bowser (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Chamaemelum on aspartame and related articles. It seems to me that this is simply classic WP:IDHT. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Why the hurry, Chamaemelum? Just wait a week or two for the report to be published and we can then report accurate information, rather than selective speculation by the media. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree. If I remember correctly, only my first edit was an attempt to include this media speculation. Afterward, I wanted to include only the information on the WHO's website regarding the situation (not related to the decision leak), and I still could wait with that, too. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support at a minimum whatever it takes to get them off the Aspartame/talk for the next few weeks. They moved from edit-warring on article, to talk-page discussion with substantial comments not directly aimed at improving the article, to now edit-warring on the talkpage over a discussion about a discussion about a disucssion that isn't directly about the article. I have not looked closely at their edits beyond that page and its talk to see if there is a wider problem. But I note that disruption of the article resumed after protection lapsed. DMacks (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Based on spread of edits and parallel disruptive behavior that is continuing even now, I now support TBAN on medical-related. DMacks (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Upgraded !vote later. DMacks (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support WP:TBAN. Unacceptable behaviour on the Aspartame article and talk-page from Chamaemelum. The same user has also made some bad edits on the red meat article, including copyrighted material. There seems to be a theme here of ignoring scientific consensus and what mainstream health authorities say, and ignoring advice from other users. Off-site Chamaemelum has been doing some research into Zefr's Wikipedia account and pasting in various websites. This is not outing because of anonymous account names but this has been done to me in the past and it is not very pleasant. I do not think that was being done in good faith. The user has also edited articles and talk-pages related to Water fluoridation, Ephebophilia, child sexuality, criticism of Islam, the age of Aisha, irreducible complexity, Innocence of Muslims, Richard Lewontin and articles related to race and intelligence. I have never edited any of these articles, I find it odd a brand new user would start editing all of these controversial topics within the space of a month. The user has posted that they had an older account on Wikipedia. This is definitely not a new user. My advice would be to edit non-controversial topics for a while and stay out of drama and edit-wars. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  I absolutely did not post Zefr's name into any offline website in any shape or form. It's offensive and wrong that you accuse me of that, and I would never react that way over a simple disputed edit. Chamaemelum (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think you might have misread that sentence, it says pasting not posting. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Pasting implies posting: for the paste to be published it must be posted. I mean "in any shape or form" which means no even tangentially related activity that could in any way be construed as something close to pasting Zefr's Wikipedia account in various websites. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  You have misunderstood what I wrote. I was referring to websites you pasted onto Wikipedia, I never claimed you were writing stuff off this website. I would agree with others users here including the user below. This is a massive time sink. Lot's of time has been wasted addressing concerns about your editing. I also have a bad feeling you are a returning banned user. I will not be responding again. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Chamaemelum: frankly IMO Psychologist Guy and Zefr and whoever else dealt with your talk pages posts have been very generous IMO. What you did seems to be a clear cut violation of Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. Please do not make such posts again. If you have evidence of an editor behaving inappropriately, post about it in an appropriate place using only on-wiki evidence, not based on what someone else has said in some other site. An exception would be if there is some serious discussion of including the content in some article, but that clearly wasn't the case here. Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, I never posted external links relating to an editor on the aspartame talk page. Chamaemelum (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yet, even though other editors deleted it and explained why in their edit summaries, you insisted on edit warring over it and restoring the negative content about another editor found off-wiki. That's a serious BLP violation. Editors here should not be harassed, and we get literal and serious death threats, so your actions were seriously bad. So far I think you are a net negative here and am seriously wondering if you shouldn't just be site banned as a massive time sink. When you meet resistance from other editors, and that is often in the form of a revert, immediately stop. Don't persist or repeat. If it's important to you, then start a discussion, but that brings us back to where much of your disruption has been. It is in many and long discussions on talk pages. Your IDHT behavior wastes our time on long and fruitless talk page discussions. SMH. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  The comment which was deleted included discussion about the article. My proposal, to paraphrase the intent of the comment while deleting the link, was reasonable. Chamaemelum (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Chamaemelum: I admit, I missed that it wasn't you who initially added the link and so I apologise my comment was not as clear as it should have been. However your claim "I never posted external links relating to an editor on the aspartame talk page" is still bull. You reverted the removal of the comment wholesale which included adding back the link at least three times. Your reversions are still visible in the edit history clear as day. I'm not going to link to it since unlike you, I do not believe in contributing to off-wiki harassment, but these include 1164101590, 1164112776, 1164123422. If you are claiming someone else took control of your account and made the reversion, then your account needs to be blocked until we can be sure you have full control over your account. If you are not making such a claim, then please understand you are responsible for your all edits made via your account, which includes any harassment, BLP violations, or whatever else you choose to revert. While it's accepted that sometimes editors may sometimes inadvertently make mistakes e.g. add back BLP violations mistaking their removal for vandalism, in this case having done so 3 times and when you were clearly aware there was a problem with the comment, and where the problems with the comment were plainly obvious, there is no excuse for doing it once let alone 3 times. Whatever else you may have proposed, you did make such reversions so please don't come to ANI and try to bullshit us. And BTW, your highly belated proposal is still highly flawed. Removing the link is not sufficient. Again, either report the alleged inappropriate behaviour somewhere suitable which would not be an article talk page using only on-wiki evidence, or don't. But don't bring what other people on other sites have said about editors into the discussion unless you are proposing that we add this to some article. Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I reverted the deletion of a comment supporting the inclusion of the WHO's reclassification consideration, and this comment also had a the external link which discusses the editor if you pay to view the article. I have no issue with anyone's "inappropriate behaviour" and I had no desire to keep a link to the peer-reviewed paper which discusses Zefr: my issue was that Zefr, who was against the inclusion of the WHO's reclassification, deleted an opinion he disagreed with off of the talk page without a note that said something like "Comment removed due to unwarrant linked, editor voiced support for the mention of the WHO's reclassification in the article." Notice that the second paragraph, not containing/discussing the link, was deleted as well. Chamaemelum (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Rschen7754 and I have called this user out for WP:PRODding 1/3 of the Nigerian road articles and, when that did not work out, WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A236 highway (Nigeria). The latter discontent was only expressed by me, unless I missed something. Chamaemelum's behavior at the Nigeria national roads and the problems indicated above are extremely time consuming for the WP community that can use its time much better elsewhere. gidonb (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting, gidonb, about a month ago, in my regular activity at AFD land, I noticed two editors who were focusing their attention on nominating bios of Nigerian people for deletion consideration. Undoubtedly, there are frequently a lot of poor sources in those articles but it seemed like a very specific focus. I wasn't sure what to make of it and when I contacted one of the editors about an unrelated AFD issue, this activity stopped. I kind of filed it away in case there were problems in the future but your comment brought it back to mind. I'm not suggesting coordination, it's just an odd coincidence. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for being vigilant, Liz, against such threats! In general, the more people AfD or PROD, this affects precision. The only possible exception I presently notice is a user who always addresses sports and refrains from arguing. Someone who compensates the negative effects of quantity by being a subject matter and standards expert. When WP:BLUDGEONING is thrown into the mass PRODding or AfD mix, and it often is, the combination will become a brutal nuisance. This in general. As I mentioned in my responses at the Nigeria A236 AfD, specifically for Africa and many other regions, it is difficult to maintain good coverage, while balancing both quality and quantity. gidonb (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi gidonb,

My comments there (and the PRODs) were due to my not knowing that a local consensus existed, having never interacted with road articles before. I know more now, but at the time I saw it akin to having articles for every individual tollbooth. That was my first deletion discussion and I'm more aware of the best practices now, like not responding to too many comments. I hope we can edit and discuss collaboratively in the future. Chamaemelum (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I reacted to what I saw. If the next encounters will be better, that would be good. gidonb (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Aspartame and Alternative medicine topics. A huge timesink with RGW, BLP, CIR, and IDHT issues. I suspect (I'm applying an extreme degree of AGF) there are also language issues involved which create misunderstandings. Editing here requires a minimum of English language comprehension. If that is not the case, then the problems are more serious and warrant a Tban, at a minimum. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. These edit wars put unecessary strain on the Enwiki community. gidonb (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Not only alternative/aspartame; I'm having a heck of a time with this user at Alzheimer's disease. My sense is that they want to be a good editor, but the amount of damage repair needed at Alzheimer's was a constant over the last few days, and Chamaemelum hasn't gotten yet a good grasp of even how to create a section heading[108] or a good understanding of how to apply WP:MEDMOS or WP:MEDRS. And there are organization, flow, prose issues as well as other (MOS) stylistic problems, along with the introduction of factual errors (Aducanumab was not fully approved, info not supported by source). Alzheimer's is a highly viewed article, and we just can't have factual errors added there. Perhaps this editor should build expertise outside of the medical realm entirely in the meanwhile. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  While I mixed up lecanemab and aducanumab (a single factual error) and some technical concerns (e.g., a different citation format), my overall contributions to the article have been net positive. This include major cleaning up and organization, [109][110], adding information [111][112], and improving misleading/wrong information (late-onset Alzheimer's is not inherited, mutations alter the Aβ42 ratios without increasing Aβ42 generally), etc. I wouldn't think my edits on this page support a ban on all medical articles. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  One if your own diffs is [113]. I agree with SandyGeorgia that the way you just tacked that on at the beginning didn't really improve that section. Per the talk page, you have been taking on feedback about your edits and trying to improve. I'm concerned though that your comments here suggest you still don't really understand why your edits can be problematic. Nil Einne (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I agree: it's true that I tacked it on, which wasn't great for flow. However, consider how I subsequently improved that section in my following edits. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on aspartame broadly construed. From their postings on the aspartame talk page and here, it's clear this editor has a great deal of RGW. Further while I appreciate it's always tricky when there are concerns readers may be confused by a lack of information, it seems particularly silly that we're wasting all this effort on something which they agree is likely to be resolved in 1-2 weeks which to be clear includes their long effort to get some mention of the current review in the article. Especially, since as was fairly easy to predict IMO, after a massive spike in the first day, we're now down to about only 3x normal page views [114]. While I am deeply concerned about their apparent blase attitude to links and discussion of off-wiki comments on editors, it's not clear to me a wider topic ban will resolve that. Holding off on further discussing a wider topic ban for now due to EC with Sandy Georgia. Nil Einne (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I remain concerned. The Genetic section at Alzheimer's is not improved; it was in bad shape to begin with, but it's still quite a jumble of poor flow and organization and confusing text. The research section is also jumbled now. And as I mentioned on talk, the idea that we can compromise on facts is just odd (wrong is wrong). And I only happened across this ANI; it's always troubling to see a user talk page where all past commentary is blanked. It doesn't yet seem that Chamaemelum understands how medical content is built; in their defense, all of the NOTNEWS errors in that discussion were not Chamaemelum's, but their edits made clean up of the errors more difficult (in fact, it still has not been finished). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't believe that one should compromise on facts. That diff was intended to incorporate both perspectives from both you and the other editor to avoid a continuance of the dispute, as these types of compromise edits have been very constructive previously. Chamaemelum (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it matters what you believe. What matters is what Wikipedia policy is. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Groan!!! Will it never end? Now they're making nonsensical edits at Multiple chemical sensitivity. A Tban from alternative medicine and all medical topics is really needed and needed yesterday. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  See the diff: [115]; "Although" casts doubt on the following claims by the AMA and WHO. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Chamaemelum, stop arguing and start listening to the community. Please. Or you're probably going to get blocked. If I were you, I would voluntarily refrain from making edits to topics related in any way to medicine for a period of several months. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Chamaemelum, no, it doesn't. There is no conflict between the existence of debilitating symptoms and the non-recognition of MCS by mainstream medicine. These people present with real and debilitating symptoms which they mistakenly attribute to MCS. Some of those symptoms may be caused by serious conditions and some might be psychosomatic. The long-standing version is accurate. Stop messing with articles at Wikipedia. You're treating this places like your own private website, and you do it at a dizzying pace and complexity that indicates you are likely a block-evading experienced editor. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I understand these concerns. I will be sure to not argue or revert for my preferred version of an article. I hope, since I believe we have similar worldviews in general and philosophies pertaining to pseudoscience, that you think of my edits more positively than warranting the suggestion of "Stop messing with articles at Wikipedia. Stop all editing. Just disappear." I believe, despite hiccups, that I will be a net-positive contributor. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  You are quite determined to push an emerging treatment of marginal benefit with serious risks into the lead of Alzheimer's disease as if it were a standard treatment protocol. I don't think you are getting the message. Talk:Alzheimer's disease#Immunotherapies continued. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  PS, for those unfamiliar with the state of Alzheimer medication research, I'll add here that a) it's a cash cow because of the projected growth in the number of cases due to the aging population, and b) emerging therapies are the subject of intense lobbying by patient advocate groups, resulting in fast-track approvals for drugs with serious adverse affects and unproven benefits. New York Times 1, New York Times 2, BMJ, NPR, CNN, New York Times 3 ARStechnica, Neurology Wikipedia is not a place for WP:ADVOCACY and our medical content should be uncorrupted by it; adding this emerging therapy to the lead is UNDUE. The information is appropriately added to the correct section, but Chamaemelum (having hopefully read all the info on talk), adds it to the lead with sourcing issues, as if it's a standard treatment protocol (maybe we should also add Gingko biloba to the lead then?). This is editing while under ANI scrutiny; I don't believe Chamaemelum should be editing medical topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Lourdes, SandyGeorgia has expressed legitimate concerns that Chamaemelum should not be editing medical topics, and there are a number of other editors who have similar concerns. Please revise the close and ban accordingly. This editor is a wild bull in a China closet and needs very tight restraints if allowed to edit at all. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Valjean, I have reopened the discussions. Thanks, Lourdes 04:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Beginning here is the discussion of ban of any medical topic or a site-wide full ban, as opposed to the above discussion of an aspartame/alternative medicine ban. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

In total, my edits to medical topics have been beneficial to the encyclopedia, and there have been no disruptive editing, policy violations, or edit disputes that warrant a such a complete ban from all medically-related topics.

My track record on medically-related articles is overall positive. See these medically-related articles I created: [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122]

(And many more planned that are off-wiki drafts.)

Or significantly contributed to: [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128]

And numerous contributions, in:

Biomed: [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137]

Maintaining NPOV with people or organizations: [138] [139] [140]

Other: [141] [142]

Including minor edits to accurately represent the (il)legitimacy of fringe pseudoscience: [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] ([150], page at the time: [151]) [152] [153] [154] [155]

And a large number of grammar/other small corrections on medical articles.

SandyGeorgia’s medical-topic criticism comes from the Alzheimer’s disease page: [156]. Look at the difference between the “causes” section before [157] and after [158] my restructuring of the causes section. (Also note that there hasn’t been disruptive editing, long arguments, or edit disputes here.)

Throughout my medical editing and in my interactions with SandyGeorgia, I’ve accepted criticism of my edits and improved them (e.g., citevar), which I will continue to do. I don't claim that all of my edits are flawless.

Being banned from medical topics means I won’t be able to fix pages like this [159].

I hope that my steady, quiet work improving a variety of medical topics is not overshadowed by a single, noisy dispute on aspartame: it would be a clear net-negative to permanently ban all of my future contributions in this regard. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Support T-Ban for all Medical Topics — per SandyGeorgia's comments here and on the Alzheimer's Talk Page, this is an advocacy issue. Moreover, it is my opinion that this user's edit count and behavior much more resemble a very experienced Wikipedia editor with an agenda than a 3-month old editor learning the ropes and trying to improve the encyclopedia. Combefere ★ Talk 08:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I added a new FDA approved treatment to the lede--SandyGeorgia pointed out that it is too emerging to be in the lede, which I acknowledged and accept. I don't think a topic ban on all medical topics is the correct response. As I have said before, I am a returning editor: "I had an account a long time ago (I stopped about 8 years ago).... Since then, when I was in college, they forced us to edit Wikipedia instead of giving us assignments for one of my classes." I would be interested to know which agenda I'm suspected of having. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You admit to being a returning editor but don't identify which one. Our concern is whether you are evading a block or ban.

1. Are you the indefinitely blocked editor Rayner111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? That editor was blocked on 15:00, 8 May 2023 by Doug Weller. (User talk:Rayner111 is instructive.)
2. Is J. E. R. Staddon (John Eric Rayner Staddon) your biography?
3. Is Theoretical behaviorism an article you created and have returned to editing under your new username?

While we really like having subject matter experts and published scientists editing here, sometimes they refuse to manage their COI appropriately. We even had to ban a Nobel Prize-winning physicist for this reason. Such achievements do not mean you have more rights than any other editor. Here we are all equal in that regard, and editors who run roughshod over other editors, do not respect WP:PRESERVE by making substantive deletions without discussion, and refuse to collaborate are not worth keeping, regardless if they are God herself. We effing don't need them! They are a huge time sink. We shouldn't have to analyze every single edit they make. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No. If you believe that's me, investigate further as needed, but don't base a reason for a ban on suspicion. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"when I was in college, they forced us to edit Wikipedia" This would be an example of such an agenda. Again, this is only my opinion, but it seems like you are more interested in meeting some sort of quota than in collaborating constructively with the rest of the community. It is impossible for any of us to know specifically why you are behaving this way (student assignments? paid contributor? CIR? something else?), but the effect is the same regardless: 'like a bull in a china shop' as another editor put it. I would also support a total ban from Wikipedia as it seems to me that you are not interested in collaboration which is a pillar of our project. Combefere ★ Talk 17:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't assume that I'm acting in bad faith. That doesn't make sense: I was a student a long time ago, and my edits don't push any sort of "paid" agenda. It would be helpful if my critics would provide diffs to claim that I have "deep state conspiracist views" or are pushing some quota/agenda. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support total ban from Wikipedia. Whatever the case, your lack of collaborative skills, CIR issues, and political "deep state" conspiracist views make you unsuitable for editing almost anything here, so I support a complete ban from Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my sole interaction with Chamaemelum has been at Talk:Justyna Zander, where their lengthy rationale was irrelevant to the article's issues, including citing a foreign language wiki that was written by the article's subject, and a reliance on WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. Probably all of this is beside the point if we're dealing with simple block evasion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No foreign language wiki was cited. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Siteban. Enough. Even now, they are trying to control the narrative of the discussion about them, and not understanding that now we are still continuing what began in the now-reopened discussion rather than a "after this point is the start of the discussion" of an already-in-play topic. We've spent enough time here, no matter what we do in one realm just leads to a spread or new problem at some new target. CIR/timesink/sealion, take your pick. DMacks (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• For reasons including those explained at User talk:Lourdes, I really don't have time for this timesink right now. So one brief observation only; politely interacting on talk does not assuage the concerns-- the proof is in the pudding/edits. I look at the first line only in Chamaemelum's long response above, and I see the CIR issues ... "My track record on medically-related articles is overall positive. See these medically-related articles I created: ... " and from there Cham lists a number of bios including one put up just yesterday in draft space, and they all have the same issues that had to be corrected by others. Medical editors learn quickly about MOS:DOCTOR, yet Cham doesn't take that on board even after creating multiple Dr. So-and-so bios. Something is off here. Cham is now engaging on talk at Alzheimer's, rather than pushing through edits, and that's good; are they engaging overall and listening, or creating work for other editors? I don't think anyone reading of the serious advocacy issues that have plagued Alzheimer medications would be still pushing towards altering text to account for the possibility that these medications may eventually provide, while people who are using them are dying while hoping for a mere few months of cognitive improvement. Spending time on that content is a timesink; wait for the secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support siteban—I had reservations and issues with this editor on the Nigerian road PRODs/AfD, and seeing the rest of the commentary here about other issues, I don't think this editor is here to contribute productively. For the good of the community, I think we should ask this person to leave. Imzadi 1979 → 22:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Sadly, I feel like we are banning a high-profile editor. But they have been given enough WP:ROPE. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment: (This is not an argument against a ban.) I'd like to continue editing on Wikipedia, so I want to make sure I understand what I can do to, frankly, not annoy people and to edit more collaboratively. I'd like to define what the issues are and receive feedback to see if I'm missing or misunderstanding.

  1. Adapt much more quickly to other editor's opinions, or simply drop the argument altogether, regardless of the correctness of the argument or if there is support from other editors. (Relevance: aspartame discussion, A236 highway AfD.)

  2. Make large edits slower or smaller. (Relevance: Alzheimer's disease, highway PROD.)

  • Combining 1 and 2, my plan is to, instead of bold->revert/get reverted->discuss, to do non-bold (to minimize reverts in the first place), get reverted or criticised, move on (don't discuss much if at all). Basically, treat every article like a hot potato: touch it only briefly and drop it quickly.

  3. Pay more attention to detail. (Relevance: SandyGeorgia's mentions of saying "Dr. First Last" instead of "First Last" on new articles, and matching the article-specific citation format.)

  I'm new to medical editing so I won't claim that I will never make a mistake again, but I hope that my proposed strategy will help minimize the frequency and the severity of any future mishaps. Is there any operationalization that I'm missing or misunderstanding? Chamaemelum (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support siteban User is not listening to others, nor acting in good faith, they have now joined WikiProject Medicine [160]. This is not the sort of user that should be editing here. The user has been given so much patience and time from other users but never listens. They are not helping or improving Wikipedia, they are nuisance soaking up users valuable editing time. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Support siteban, this user is not paying attention, the same disruption continues at other articles, and the repetition of the same kinds of issues across multiple topics and articles, even after explanation, is suggestive that they might be using AI to generate content. WP:NOTHERE, and someone else will need to decide whether to fully revert at multiple sclerosis or attempt to salvage something from the 2022 review; I don't have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

And they've done the same thing at rheumatoid arthritis; that is, contrary to the promise above to make slower and smaller edits, and to pay attention to what they've been told, they've made broad edits introducing non-MEDRS sources; all will need to be checked or the whole thing reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Creating articles using book sources without page numbers, sample, Butterscotch Tart. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Adds primary source at Type 2 diabetes, after multiple times having been pointed to WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've modified all edits on multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis to align with MEDRS. I hadn't looked at what counts as biomedical: I read MEDRS thinking that "biomedical" means pertaining to "medicine based on the application of the principles of the natural sciences"; for example, the efficacy of a treatment for a disease. Instead, on Wikipedia, biomedical includes "the molecular or cellular basis of a disease", which I'm now aware of. If my edits are bad, they are easily fixable by a single revert (edit summary, e.g.: MEDRS).

I'll continue to improve the work-in-progress articles I created (the URLs often take you to the specific page; not ideal, I know). Chamaemelum (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: my edits aren't always perfect; however, anyone advocating for a site ban should look at the totality of my edits and articles created to see why they are a strong net-positive contribution. The few edits I have had that I have needed to correct are a small fraction of my 2000+ largely uncontroversial and constructive edits. Chamaemelum (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Support site ban asap. Since the first edits in April, this user has consumed the energy and time of multiple editors across 818 diverse articles and talk pages. There has been WP:FANATIC editing and talk page behavior that draws others into editorial quicksand. No one can competently provide encyclopedic content across such a range of topics. The Wikipedia project will be just fine without this disruptive user. Zefr (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Requested close at WP:CR. Combefere ★ Talk 16:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bgsu98

User:Bgsu98 A consistent disregard to rules, uses discriminatory language against IP editors and implements changes without taking to the talk page first. Suggesting a warning 2A00:23EE:13F8:30C3:200F:9DEA:4AE5:AD46 (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Diffs please? Anything other than a wild accusation? RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

IP, you have failed to notify Bgsu98 of this discussion. I have done so for you. I would also like to note to passing editors that this entire /64 range has been edit warring on these Big Brother articles, nonstop, without providing sources for their edits. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 20:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

There you go https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_24_(American_season)&oldid=1164737635 , again probably nothing is going to come of this as you have an attitude also. Wikipedia is made BY everyone FOR everyone. Not just the odd few chronically online editors. Thank you. Sources have been provided. 2A00:23EE:13F8:30C3:200F:9DEA:4AE5:AD46 (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

A passing note to editors that User:Yoshi24517 should not be involved this dispute due to a conflict of interest and biased to the user involved https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&oldid=1164739879 "I hate to do this to you" is inappropriate. 2A00:23EE:13F8:30C3:200F:9DEA:4AE5:AD46 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Making a note here, that the underlying /64 range was blocked by Jauerback for disruptive editing. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 20:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not about to continue an edit war over this nonsense. IP uses the phrase "official title" to refer to "Walked" vis à vis "Quit" or "Withdrew", like there is such a thing as an "official title." Maybe "walked" is a phrase used in the U.K. - the "source" IP provides references only self-evictions from the U.K. version of the show. Here is an example of a source using "quit" in reference to the American version of the show: https://screenrant.com/big-brother-contestant-quit-show/ IP has also edited in bad faith: I offered "withdrew" as a compromise to "quit" since he didn't like "quit" and his response https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_24_(American_season)&diff=prev&oldid=1164735151was: "We'll [sic] compromise on "Walked", the title that has been used on WikiProject Big Brother for the past twenty years." As if "It's always been that way" is any excuse at all for anything. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree that Bgsu98's comments sound like personal attacks and are inappropriate regardless of the underlying content dispute. Bgsu98 previously cast aspersions against me as well, trying to ban me for sockpuppetry even after Blablubbs's investigation came up negative. I think that Bgsu98 should work on their civility, especially with newcomers.  — Freoh 12:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Per the BRD process, users who find themselves reverted should take it to the talk page, it is not the onus of the reverter to discuss it. The first change was initiated by the IP address in Special:Diff/1164620739, so they should've taken their own advice and headed to the talk page. Don't see anything particularly wrong, even the fly-by-night comment (if we're being really technical it's a non-static IP, so Bgsu98 isn't wrong in that regard). Two diffs in a recent discussion don't point towards a pattern of incivility either X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 22:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying I particularly covered myself in glory here, but in my defense, I had just dealt with an IP editor last week, who also geolocated to the U.K., and who was given a one-year time-out from Wikipedia for disruptive editing on the Dancing on Ice pages. The M.O. was also the same: persistent reversions, staunch "that's the way it's always been" B.S., etc. For all I knew, it was the same editor. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It would not be unhelpful to extend a bit of empathy in understanding Bgsu98's frustration; personally, I do not see them straying too far from the straight and narrow. An uncooperative user is a handful, registered or not. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 09:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Did you have any evidential basis for assuming it was the same IP editor - or when you say "for all I knew" do you mean you made an un-sourced assumption? Did you stop to consider that mobile internet providers like EE assign the same IP address to multiple users over the course of the same day, or that 21 million UK citizens can/do access the internet via an EE cellular network connection?

Hopefully all you "registered" users can figure out some way of reining in people who try to elevate WP but will never register as users because of the dismally sad ramifications of doing so (aka those "handful[s]" you so detest). 2A00:23EE:1268:522D:D460:320A:BDDD:8B3F (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have diffs to add to this complaint? [161] certainly doesn't seem like it rises to an ANI issue on its own and your statement here seems like it boils down to you having an unrelated grudge against the editor being reported. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

FYI to admins: The reporting IP here, as well as the one responding above, are A) likely all the same person (they're going onto editor's talk pages connecting complaints that no one else had actually connected yet (see [162]; presumably this is about this ANI filing for totally unrelated IPs) and B) likely a known LTA (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Best known for IP). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Disruptive editing and refusal to engage

I am currently in dispute with WikiEditWaste regarding the content of the Economy of Afghanistan page.

The page is littered with a vast amount of misinformation, that has been noted by myself and three other individuals in the talk. I have since taken steps to remedy this by producing a lengthy explanation in the talk on why I believe this article is promoting misinformation and suggested better alternatives. I also took steps to correct the article. It is highly concerning given the amount of time such misinformation has been left to view, and it also is included on many search engines instant answer functions.

WikiEditWaste believes that their source is accurate, which inflates the size of the Afghan economy 60-fold. The source itself acknowledges this is extremely poor quality data, and I have been told that this source should be taken with skepticism from editors on the [source noticeboard]. They have gone so far as to produce false statistics surrounding nominal GDP, when the article itself only discusses GDP in terms of PPP, and has falsified various parameters such as HDI. All in all, it seems that there is an attempt to produce a heavily biased (and false) article that paints the Afghan economy as far more developed than in reality.

I have attempted to engage in discussion on the talk page, and even on the user page. I have been met with point blank ignorance and continued disruption of the article, which has now been reverted back and forth multiple times over many days without any progress being made.

LeoHoffman (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WikiEditWaste correction LeoHoffman, this is primarily a content dispute but there may be a behavioral aspect as well. You are required to formally notify the other editor as explained on the top of the edit window on this page. Since you haven't done so, I have done it for you. Let's wait to hear from WikiEditWaste now. Cullen328 (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I think you meant to ping LeoHoffman.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I pinged the wrong editor. Thanks for noticing, Bbb23. Cullen328 (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought I'd already done so. Thank you. LeoHoffman (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive POV pushing and aspersion casting by BobNesh

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

I reported BobNesh last month at ANI after he attempted to canvass editors to an RfC at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut in order to influence the outcome of the RfC to change the battle's status to "Russian victory." My complaint specifically focused on his canvassing and subsequent edit warring, during which he removed a comment I left at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut four times. He was blocked for edit warring for 1 month by Cullen328.

BobNesh's block expired around four days ago, and he resumed editing several hours ago, his only contributions being comments at Talk:2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, where he is pushing the same idea that Ukraine lost the battle of Bakhmut. Constructive comments are of course welcome, but BobNesh's comments are disruptive and don't help improve the article: "Ukrainian Ministry of truth didn't admit it, and NAFO blindly follows their directives.", "Bakhmut as fallen to Russians long time ago, yet that fact is still negated, because is contrary to NAFO agenda", "shameful example of distorting facts and wishful thinking". Apparently, an edit of his was reverted from FGM-148 Javelin, and he proceeded to cast aspersions at the editor(s) who reverted his edit: "NAFO fanboys deleted the entry, claiming that the Russians are not 'legal' operators". After I warned him about this at that talk page, he proceeded to post this comment in response: "Russian victory in Bakhmut is not an idea, it is a fact, no matter how much you hate the reality and the truth.". I again warned him to not cast aspersions, and then a minute later, he said this in response to another comment: "NAFO fanboys have no shame. They will disruptively push their agenda and false claims until the very end."

BobNesh's comments to that talk page involve casting aspersions and making personal attacks by referring to editors he disagrees with as "NAFO fanboys." Editors are welcome to discuss POV issues, but personal attacks are not acceptable. I don't believe BobNesh is here to constructively contribute, and their previous block doesn't seem to have put an end to his personal attacks (which, as can be seen in the ANI report linked to above, included accusations of sockpuppetry). Nythar (💬-🍀) 02:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It looks like they've since been whacked indef for the community CTOP vio. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 02:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, though I logged it as ARBEE, which overlaps with the community GSRUSUKR. Courcelles (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

TPA revocation needed on an old sockmaster

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This account has been blocked in 2017 for sockpuppetry, and woke up today to ping a bunch of people. Could anyone revoke their TPA? (Also, not sure where to send ANI notices in this case.) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Trinity wants to edit Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At User talk:Robin 1972 09 10 an editor insist they are the Trinity, a God, and thus entitled to WP:SOAPBOXING their own religion at Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Consider me a blasphemer. Blocked for NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I pointed out to them that Wikipedia accounts are for one individual only, role accounts are not permitted. The other members of the Trinity would need their own. Canterbury Tail talk 15:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Well I guess I know where we will be meeting later. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Meh, it’s fine: all my friends are going to be there too. — Trey Maturin™ 18:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

ANI is already Hell. I guess we're going to some sort of super Hell? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Do I get a seat in the ‘close’ section of Hell? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 22:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Considering my namesake is a necromancer, I would assume I'd be prioritized over you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Bringing gender equality to the skeletons, zombies, and other undead. You’re alright, Lili.

_{No ill intended, but feel free to tell me if that joke’s just one too far.} MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 09:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

idk, technically the Trinity would fall under Tamzin's multiplicity best practices since all 3 members are homoousion and consubstantial. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some users are hiding information from Speak Now (Taylor's Version) article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user Ronherry has reverted my edits in Speak Now (Taylor's Version) article several times. The user is hiding general information in the beginning of the article arguing that my edits are not favorable about the album's critical reviews. The fact is that my edits are crucial for people who look for general information about the album because most users read the articles' first lines and they never scroll down to the critical reception section. Furthermore, I was not the first user who added the general reviews in the first place, and Ronherry removed it just because he/she wanted to. Then when I asked him/her not to do revert my edits, he/she called me a vandal. The user is partial to the feminist agenda, which is why he has deleted my edit multiple times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielin1987 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG suggested. This account was made 6 years ago, but made its first edits 10th July this year, which gives off ‘sleeper’ vibes. That’s before you factor in the The user is partial to the feminist agenda, insult / aspersion in this report.

 No comment regarding article dispute, as that’ll be a WP:DR fit. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 22:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely pageblocked Danielin1987 from Speak Now (Taylor's Version) for edit warring, editing against consensus, and POV pushing. The editor has also been warned that any further personal attacks will result in a sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

And personal attacks are exactly what happened. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for help; named editors are behaving abusively to contributors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just presented multiple examples of this to this board, only to find it immediately deleted. Please help, what should I do? 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

My recommendation is that you stop making spurious reports. Cullen328 (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

But you were the one who recommended I present the information here. I don't understand. Did you get a chance to read my first, lengthy post? There is nothing spurious about any of this- it's documented clearly in my first post.

It's here, in yellow:

Revision as of 00:41, 15 July 2023 (edit)

2601:249:9301:ff80:a107:1d80:84ac:9a1b (talk)

(→‎Belligerent and Inappropriate Behavior from Named Editors: new section)

Tags: Reverted New topic 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Where would you get the idea that any of this is spurious? He's directly insulting contributors, telling them to go away and play, etc. I don't understand this. 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I wouldn't be surprised if this was an IP sock of Jpeterson101, who just got blocked for sockpuppetry for using this account. There's been a bunch of IPs disrupting at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film), a page the sock disrupted. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Why does everyone presume that just because people don't want to register a name that that person is a sock puppet? Based on my experiences and the way I've seen others treated here, I'm very unlikely to ever want to create and account and share my information. Surely you can understand that, as well as how this hostility toward contributors who haven't chosen a handle would alienate many? 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll go further- I don't think there are sock puppets at the Sound of Freedom (film) page- or if there are, they're very few. It seemed to me more like a group of upset conservatives, in various stages of clarity and confusion. Some did have good points, others were hopelessly muddled, but they all seemed like believable individuals to me. And aren't we supposed to assume good faith and at least be polite if not kind?

Funny thing, it's usually easier to create a consensus that way too, as well as weed out the disingenuous and power-seeking. (Referring to the original editors named in the complaint here, not you.) 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You couldn't even have had time to read it. I included enough quotes for a dissertation, showing these editors behaving aggressively and unwelcomingly to newcomers, demonstrating hostility and frequent assumptions of bad faith.

If you really believe me to be spurious, rather than delete my evidence- why don't you put all three of us before administration. That way, at least the other Administrators will be given a chance to view it. As I've repeatedly said, I will accept the judgment of the Administrators- plural- but I cannot trust a system that simply deletes serious charges. Please, bring all three of us before administration, based on my original post here, and whatever the other two wish to argue. 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

If you really want to be blocked I'm sure eventually someone will oblige. You could just voluntarily refrain from editing though. It seems much simpler for everyone to me. Nil Einne (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Do whatever you like. You don't explain yourselves, you don't ask questions or even acknowledge if you've read the material I presented, you just make bad faith insinuations and threats. What is so terrible about what I have said here? 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You say 'Do whatever you like', yet last time someone removed a pointless thread by you, you opened another pointless thread in quick order. So what is it? Nil Einne (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consistent low-quality edits from 2804:1054:3015:EE90::/64

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

contributions

This IP range has been making consistent low-quality edits for about 11 days. Most edits are on the topic of language. About 70% have been reverted; others have required fixing due to, for example, disambiguation links added.

It seems like they mean well FWIW, but their changes have been minor improvements at best, with most others being degradations, some even incomprehensible like for example linking the page Glasgow dialect back to itself under the word "Scots", which is not the same thing (diff).

Mutt Lunker has been involved in reverting a bunch of their edits; see contributions and Ctrl+F for "rv mass". I've done a bunch of the others.

I'm not quite sure how to post a warning for a whole IP range, but I've already put warnings on two of the IP talk pages (1, 2), and I'll put an {{ANI-notice}} on the most recently-used IP.
— W.andrea (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Possibly a bkf ip clone. Blocked for now. Thanks for the report. Lourdes 16:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. What's a "bkf ip clone"? — W.andrea (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:BKFIP MrOllie (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

There is the ring of familiarity about a prolific language topic editor in the broad geolocation, no edit summaries, evident scant understanding of the subjects they are addressing and either a poor grasp of English or a failure to read back their edits in the full context before publishing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker @Lourdes This is WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Helivelto, a Brazilian editor that makes disruptive edits to articles/redirects with particular focus on Scotland, Ireland and Americans. 2804:1054:3010::/44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has just come off a 1 year range block due to disruption from this editor [163], since the same person seems to be using it to continue the same disruption may I suggest that the block should be reinstated? 192.76.8.82 (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continious trolling by blocked IP editing their talk page and keeps making death threats to others

User in question is 101.162.94.218 — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsaacAndHisIsaac (talk • contribs) 09:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

They've been blocked for seven days and shortly after that, their right to edit their own talk page was removed. @IsaacAndHisIsaac: would you mind keeping an eye on this person when the block expires in a week? CityOfSilver 17:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The block expired for that IP address about a day ago, but so far there hasn't been any activity from that person. IsaacAndHisIsaac (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Racist WP essay

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Maxaxax created the page Wikipedia:Topics where reliable sources should be banned from Wikipedia indefinitely in the WP namespace a few weeks ago. This was apparently spurred on by the automated contentious topics message left on their talk page when they edited some other article. The essay is a rambling complaint about a) Wikipedia's consensus against the use of racialist pseudoscience and b) racial penis sizes. Obviously it does not belong on Wikipedia. This user clearly has an agenda which drives them to add bad content to Wikipedia and then [edit disruptively] when it gets deleted. Maybe a topic ban is needed. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I have deleted the 'essay' and warned the editor. If any admin is feeling like a block is warranted, I would not have any issues. GiantSnowman 08:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

A TBAN is a no-brainer here, and I was prepared to impose that just from reading the first few paragraphs of the essay, but...

Environmental factors of racial differences in IQ include social and economic inequalities, malnutrition, and inadequate prenatal and health cares. The blacks are claimed to suffer all the above disproportionally. At the same time, the blacks just happen to be superior athletes with superior penis size. Watching NBA or Blacked.com, malnutrition or inadequate health care is not what comes to mind.

The word "penis" appears another 12 times in the essay, and Blacked.com gets a second mention too. There's a point at which we have to ask whether it's fair to ask editors in a particular demographic (in this case, Black and Asian men) to participate alongside an editor regardless of topic area. Here I think the answer is no, that would not be fair to such editors. We wouldn't be okay with an editor making these kinds of racialized sexual comments about women, and we shouldn't be okay with an editor making them about men. And so I have blocked indefinitely. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I had a moment after making this block of realizing that I hadn't checked whether they had some wealth of constructive contributions that would have made it better to wait for more input here. Then I looked at this, which... I'll let it speak for itself. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't get the nephews bit. EEng 09:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm contemplating creating a userbox with the text "The user is partial to the feminist agenda" with links to Sam Kerr and Bluey. Both of these are all over Australian media at present - and we love them both to bits. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a non-native speaker issue. "Nephew" has a very specific meaning in English now, but the Latin root "nepos" could mean basically any kind of descendent. You'll see they also use "learned" instead of "studied" on their userpage. -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"I had a moment after making this block of realizing that I hadn't checked whether they had some wealth of constructive contributions that would have made it better to wait for more input here."

Even if they had, that essay is unacceptable enough to warrant a block. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:79F7:3A92:7E07:1A5F (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Tamzin: This is a very good indef! Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Tamzin: Agreed. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Playing devils advocate is there any way that this was some sort of malformed attempt at humor or parody? Some of it is really over the top even for a rather committed racist. Their user page says that they're on the spectrum and that one of their two primary goals here is "I like humor, to laugh and make people laugh (short of vandalizing Wikipedia)." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  If so, it's so badly misguided and instead so inappropriate itself that it merits the block. WP is not therapy...if they can't control themselves or recognize what is-vs-isn't ok to say here, they don't belong here. They're welcoe to appeal the indef. DMacks (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Based on their post at Wikipedia talk:No racists, I'd say no. No chance. I'm not sure even the Devil would have wanted any part of this. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 21:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It was a good block (pretending on a supposed "information" page that articles like Cum shot and Bukkake are in the category of human emotion) Cambial — foliar❧ 18:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Dorsetonian

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Violated 3RR, edit warring, and trying to stop me from me getting my rollback request accepted.

Tried to warn him, he didnt listen. Tried to revert, he didnt stop. Now when I request for rollback, it will be denied for edit warring while its his fault. PotassiumLover72 talk 08:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

PL72 appears to fighting vandalism, mostly performing good work. But earlier this morning they reverted what appears to have been a good faith edit and warned the editor so I politely asked why. They removed my message and templated me for "not assuming good faith", which I thought to be a peculiar response. A little later they reverted an obviously good grammar correction so I undid this mistake of theirs and was was promptly reverted myself, and warned for edit warring, which was completely back-to-front. Oh, and I got reported here. It's all very odd.

Anyway, I have not violated 3RR, I do not believe I am edit warring and I have no particular interest in this user's rollback request. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thats not what we are talking about. We are talking about you edit warring. PotassiumLover72 talk 09:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You may want to read WP:BOOMERANG. Kleuske (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Please take edit warring case to related Wikipedia:ANEW, it will be faster than reporting here. -Lemonaka‎ 09:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

PotassiumLover72: you have not provided any diffs in your report. Looking at Dorsetonian's response above, I do see some rather questionable reverts by you there, and some unnecessary templated warnings. Please can you either provide some actual evidence that Dorsetonian has engaged in edit warring, or (if there is no such evidence) do some self-reflecting and consider which one of you is in the wrong here? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

And then there's this, which doesn't inspire me with confidence, especially after warning someone for not assuming good faith. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

check his contributions. PotassiumLover72 talk 11:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Someone whose English is not fluent should probably not be going around making grammar "corrections" which are actually mistakes, and then edit-war over them. Seems like a very good reason not to grant rollback to me. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hey, guys, you may not see me again. I will be fine, I will be alright, and I'll come back soon. PotassiumLover72 talk 11:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked - this is Pyrodude7172. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you for quickly getting to the bottom of this! Dorsetonian (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uzbek.Patriot101

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Uzbek.Patriot101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fail to see how this user is a net worth to this project (WP:NOTHERE).

At Battle of Tashkent (713), they ignored the concerns made here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Tashkent (713), and continued on adding WP:VER, WP:VER and non-[WP:RS]] to the article, which led to a number of reverts by other users (including yours truly) [164] [165] [166] [167]

When I added a warning to Uzbek.Patriot101's talk page for doing that, they replied with this:

"I know you, you are trying to remove Turkic history as your mad that Turks had beaten araps and persians in our history you use your mod power to lie and delete pages you dont like there 4 new sources that show we won"

Notwithstanding the random WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA, I dunno who Uzbek.Patriot is, they made their first edit only a month ago [168]. Seems very fishy that they apparently "know" me.

Another remark they just made in response to another of their article I just nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Bukhara (999)):

"There are many remarks about the battle there are many sources you cant just change history, its just history what are you mad about."

--HistoryofIran (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Confirmed to Uzbek.Khanagan who is already blocked. Blocked for evasion. Courcelles (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lsadout52 and potentially falsified source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Lsadout52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sadou Bah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I recently nominated Sadou Bah at AFD. The article's creator, Lsadout52, then added a citation in this edit. It was purportedly an article published in the French newspaper L'union, titled "La relève du cinéma guinéen a l'international: Sadou Bah". However, the citation's URL was simply a screenshot that was uploaded to ilovepdf.com, a PDF hosting website, rather than L'Union's own website. (Interestingly, the original link stopped working after I raised this on their talk page yesterday, but I preemptively archived it here; note that clicking the link will download the PDF to your computer.)

This all seemed weird to me, so I looked up the article below the one about Sadou Bah in the PDF. The second article was titled "Les experts satisfaits de la motivation des participants", and I did manage to find it on L'Union's actual website, here. Surprise, surprise: the top story is not about Sadou Bah, but rather about some football clubs.

So from my perspective, it looks like Lsadout52 photoshopped a fake article in a French newspaper, uploaded it to a PDF hosting site, added that fake source to an English Wikipedia article in an attempt to prevent the deletion of an article that they created, and tried to take down the evidence when asked about it. I don't think their response to my query on their talk page is satisfactory. Falsifying a source is antithetical to our goal of building an online encyclopedia, and anyone who does that should not be welcome here. DanCherek (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yup, the supposed article on Bah in the pdf is clearly a forgery, and a particularly poor one at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

So obvious, and so egregious. Indeffed. This is completely unacceptable. Courcelles (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Also surely COI (I added a talkpage notice, for future record), and xwiki-SPA (self-?)promoting this person. DMacks (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Well yes, but normally we give self-promotors the opportunity to at least read WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:N etc first, before we show them the door, on the slim chance that they might just hang around to do something useful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course. This is something unrelated they would have to address if they ever re-appear. It's not why we're showing them the door at this time. DMacks (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fortnitegamer3432 repeated additions of unreliable sources

Fortnitegamer3432 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already been blocked once for personal attacks. Requesting block from article space due to failure to understand WP:RS policies per WP:CIR. Despite already having been warned that social media (reddit) is not RS, this user continues to create articles cited to unreliable sources, and to copy content from other articles without attribution, creating multiple low quality content forks that have been reverted. The user used an AI generated source (rebellionresearch.com) and unreliable Youtube video to create this article, and cited an unverifiable facebook page in this edit.

In addition, numerous articles created by this user are unattributed machine translations from Russian wikipedia such as Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, and the user has made no effort to copy edit the page. The user also fails to copy content without verifying that references actually support it, for example Afghan Army (1978-1992) has blatant factual errors in the lead (the name of the military itself) that are not supported by the references cited, demonstrating failure to read references. Kges1901 (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

the Afghan Army was litterly called the Afghan National Army in the 80s my friends grandfather and multiple uncles served, what's your source buddy? Fortnitegamer3432 (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately sources must be from published sources, so that other editors can verify the information. Friends, grandfather's and uncles can't be used a sources. You'll need to find published sources for your changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

the sources i cited in the articles litterly referred to the Afghan Army as "Afghan National Army" Fortnitegamer3432 (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

They refer to the Afghan National Army of the 21st century only as the ANA, while the sources cited refer to the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan's army as the Afghan Army or DRA Army. Kges1901 (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to register my concerns about Fortnightgamer3432 and his use of unreliable and AI sources. He is also creating non-standard categories. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

He is also creating images which have false attribution templates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Afghan_Ministry_of_Defense_Emblem_1978-1992.png. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I talked to my friend and also looked at some sources from Pre 1993 and I misinterpreted him. mb you're right about the name Fortnitegamer3432 (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I’d have WP:UNCONF concerns over anyone using ‘Fortnite’, ‘Grand Theft Auto’, ‘Call of Duty’, etc, in their username, under Confusing usernames can often be a red flag for other problems. I mean, we’re in a report at ‘other problems’ central, right now, so the point kind of wrote itself here, no?

Other than that, is this not a whole load of Content Dispute? Or am I missing something here? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 14:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@MM: There's nothing confusing about having 'Fortnite' in your name? I've seen a lot of vandalism-only accounts with that name, sure; but it's not exactly a deal-breaker. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

MJL? Michael Jackson’s Leader?! Big fan of ‘Man in the Mirror!’

Jokes aside, I was more focused on Some usernames appear problematic without fitting clearly into any of the above categories. and Confusing usernames can often be a red flag for other problems. ^{(the latter? Well, where are we having this conversation, Yaknow?)} rather than This is often the case with confusing or extremely lengthy usernames and if their confusing username contributes to the disruption._{(Please correct me if I’m misinterpreting you. It’s important to acknowledge and understand others’ POV, right?)}

if someone else thinks you’re right, I’ll happily step down, and strikethrough. Cool? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 12:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring and sockpuppet accusations by Filetime

Filetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaged in an edit war at Juris Doctor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for the past couple of weeks. The other editor engaged in the edit war, Anonymous345123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), stopped after being warned and has begun participating in the ongoing discussion in the article's Talk page. Filetime, on the other hand, has continued the edit war. They have also accused Anonymous345123 of being a sockpuppet although they haven't opened an investigation (despite telling Anonymous345123 that they had opened an investigation).

Diffs of Filetime's edit war and relevant warnings and Talk page messages
Previous version reverted to: [169] Diffs of the user's reverts: [170] [171] [172] [173] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [174] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [175]

I reported Filetime's edit warring at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring but Daniel Case closed the report as Filetime hasn't made four or more reverts in the last 24 hours. He then suggested that other fora would be more appropriate and thus I am here to ask for help.

Can someone please block, partial block, or otherwise engage with Filetime to prevent their continued edit warring and accusations of sockpuppetry? ElKevbo (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Ignoring this request for assistance (a) provides tacit approval for edit-warring and accusations of sockpuppetry and (b) demoralizes editors who request assistance from administrators expecting help or at least a response of some kind. ElKevbo (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @ElKevbo, follow the advice at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution as this isn't an administrator matter as there have been no 3RR violations. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 15:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

No, an editor who (a) edit wars despite being warned and there being an open discussion in Talk and (b) repeatedly accuses another editor of sockpuppetry but doesn't open an investigation is not a content dispute. Nor do the technical details of 3RR constitute the only definition of edit warring. This is a conduct issue that regular editors are unable to address. ElKevbo (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I think many admins are less active during these summer weeks, ElKevbo — I know they're regrettably thin on the ground in at least one area I follow. You are surely not being deliberately ignored, especially not a mere 15 hours after your original post. But I don't blame you for feeling frustrated. I've warned Filetime somewhat sharply. And Zippybonzo, admins take an interest in many forms of disruptive editing, not just violations of bright-line rules. Bishonen | tålk 15:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC).

Flamelai

Well, it's my second time came here to request for revoking TPA access against Flamelai (talk · contribs).

After explaining my good faith, they made a threat of harm or something indistinguishable from it yesterday since a month has passed. And this special again reminds me that they may have some other accounts already have been globally banned.

FYI, previous discussions are Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1130#legal_threat_of_user:Flamelai and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Request_a_ban_for_Flamelai -Lemonaka‎ 09:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Done. TPA revoked. Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hello, @Black Kite. Do we need a checkuser for possible other accounts? Since that special global ban me again looks rather strange. Anyway, thanks a lot for your rapid response. -Lemonaka‎ 11:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  It might be useful to create an SPI for this if you believe it is worth it, although of course we have no master account. Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I've never created cases like this one. So I'd like to ask for sysops' advice. It's now on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flamelai -Lemonaka‎ 11:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite Thanks for your advice, Horsemeister (talk · contribs) was found as sockpuppet. -Lemonaka‎ 16:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

User Authenticbigb

Authenticbigb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This editor has made about 100 edits over the past five months, marking all edits as minor, even though many of them make substantial changes to article content, (e.g., [176]). I have notified/warned this editor four times ([177], [178], [179], [180]) to please stop, including a suggestion to not mark any edits as minor to avoid problems. Not only do they continue marking all edits as minor, they have made no effort to communicate on user talk pages or article talk pages. I'm hoping that a suggestion from an admin might change this pattern. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I've assumed they're not aware of their talkpage, and have blocked, with an informative note in the log. That usually works. Bishonen | tålk 21:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC).

Long-term, super-persistent vandalism on The Day Britain Stopped

• 82.22.120.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 94.192.213.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These two are the just most recent IP users who have continued a disturbing trend of adding thousands of bytes of fabricated information on The Day Britain Stopped page, making it seem as though the depicted traffic situation was far worse than it really is. A quick look of the article's history shows that similar information has been added by multiple IP addresses (likely the same person) starting April 2021, and has persisted despite several reversions (from different users), warnings, userblocks, and page protections, sometimes returning mere hours after being removed. I think some drastic action needs to be done here. 49.144.201.128 (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Given that the size of the plot section is wildly excessive, and that none of it is sourced to anything except presumably the programme itself, something needs to be done, for sure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a year. Bishonen | tålk 21:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC).

Community inputs requested: Site-ban of Chamaemelum

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Chamaemelum has posted a request on their page that the imposed CBAN has been via consensus of involved editors (as opposed being decided by uninvolved editors, as per the CBAN policy). The discussions on Cham's talk page are provided below (collapsed). I request uninvolved editors to provide their inputs on Cham's appeal, consolidated in the following question:

• Does the community here endorse the consensus reached at Special:Permalink/1165210433#Persistent disruptive editing by Chamaemelum?

Chamaemelum's relevant talk page discussions

Hi @Lourdes, reading the ban policy, it mentions consensus of uninvolved editors of having the ability to impose a ban. Every editor who supported a site ban was involved, so no uninvolved editors voiced support for a site-ban. Are there different process guidelines that I'm missing? Chamaemelum (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I was not involved and I supported a siteban. Combefere ★ Talk 21:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC) @Combefere This is true; I missed it at the time. You're the only one. Either way, one or zero editors doesn't seem like an uninvolved consensus. Chamaemelum (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Hello Chamaemelum, please write down the names of editors you believe are involved and at least one diff against each name showing evidence of involvement. Once you do that, I / any administrator will take your request/assessment to ANI and let the community decide on that. Thank you, Lourdes 18:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I would like to add a comment saying that although I am banned, the investigation may still be useful because I'm planning to appeal the ban at the appropriate time, but I won't add it if I'm not allowed. Chamaemelum (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Thanks, @Lourdes. Here are the diffs/pages showing involvement: Names and involvement Zefr: select few of many reverts/talk page discussion: [181] [182] [183] Opinion: “Support WP:TBAN on the aspartame and related articles.” “Support site ban asap.” , takes issue with my editing of “diverse articles”. Rockstone35: unrelated editor who did not voice support for site-ban or medical topic ban. Opinion:”STOP” “Support topic ban for Chamaemelum on aspartame and related articles.” DMacks: multiple others; here are a couple [184] [185] [186] [187] Opinion: “Siteban.” Psychologist Guy: around 7 different articles, including: [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] Opinion: Support WP:TBAN due to “behaviour on the Aspartame article and talk-page”, the discussion he was involved in. Then “Support siteban”. Valjean: e.g., [194] [195] [196] [197] Opinion: “Support topic ban from Aspartame and Alternative medicine topics.” “needed yesterday”. “Stop all editing. Just disappear”. ““This editor is a wild bull in a China closet and needs very tight restraints if allowed to edit at all.” * “Support total ban from Wikipedia.” (Note: these comments make it seem that Valjean wants a siteban (as opposed to a topic ban) as a punishment.) Gidonb: multiple comments here [198] (Though we’ve collaborated since then). Opinion: “Support topic ban Imzadi1979: e.g., [199] Opinion: “Support siteban” due to having “reservations and issues with this editor on the Nigerian road PRODs/AfD” SandyGeorgia: e.g.: [200] Opinion: “Support siteban” Nil Einne: uninvolved editor. Opinion: “Support topic ban”, “it's not clear to me a wider topic ban will resolve [issues].” Combefere: uninvolved editor. Opinion: “Support T-Ban for all Medical Topics”, then changed their opinion to “support a total ban” after thinking I was a “paid contributor” or sockpuppet or something. Other clearly involved editors like Draken Bowser, or uninvolved editors, commented but did not voice support for anything. (Even among involved editors, only editors who were against my edits talked on the talk page. Multiple editors (e.g., WhatamIdoing, Little pob, cdh1001, TypistMonkey, many IP addresses), voiced support for my edits but did not see/participate in the discussion.) There isn’t a consensus of uninvolved editors: one voiced hesitancy to a ban broader than a topic ban, the other upgraded to site-ban based off of suspicions that I’m a sockpuppet or paid user. Four of the users based their argument on my ban at least in part on believing I am a blocked sockpuppet user because, which doesn’t seem like a valid reason to count towards consensus. Users who think I'm a sockpuppet Note: I’ve cut out the irrelevant parts of comments. “I also have a bad feeling you are a returning banned user.” Psychologist Guy (talk) You do it at a dizzying pace and complexity that indicates you are likely a block-evading experienced editor. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC) You admit to being a returning editor but don't identify which one. Our concern is whether you are evading a block or ban. Are you the indefinitely blocked editor Rayner111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? That editor was blocked on 15:00, 8 May 2023 by Doug Weller. (User talk:Rayner111 is instructive.) Is J. E. R. Staddon (John Eric Rayner Staddon) your biography? Is Theoretical behaviorism an article you created and have returned to editing under your new username? Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Moreover, it is my opinion that this user's edit count and behavior much more resemble a very experienced Wikipedia editor with an agenda than a 3-month old editor learning the ropes and trying to improve the encyclopedia. Combefere ★ Talk Again, this is only my opinion, but it seems like you are more interested in meeting some sort of quota than in collaborating constructively with the rest of the community. It is impossible for any of us to know specifically why you are behaving this way (student assignments? paid contributor? CIR? something else?) Combefere ★ Talk 17:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Zefr believes I am a blocked user: [201] [202]

Discussions/Support/Oppose

• Support Siteban Well, this is incredibly annoying Wikilawyering. I am completely uninvolved (other than warning Chamaemelum at ANI that he was about to exhaust the community's patience), and I can't help but feel like this is a waste of time.. Chamaemelum has completely exhausted the patience of the community and is now trying to force us to address this issue again, despite the fact that there's a snowball's chance of the outcome being any different. I don't think the requirement that an editor be uninvolved can always be satisfied anyway. The point of a ban exhausting the community's patience is that it exhausts the patience of those involved and those not. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support for ban. Something is very fishy, I also suspect that "Chamaemelum" is a returning banned user. Which is per se not a violation, if he has changed his behavior. What is annoying is his method of discussion disrespecting our rules, as mentioned by other users. What makes it suspicious is his POV, shown e. g. here. Suddenly, the user showed up and cited what the sources don't say, not even what his linked source say. Also this kind of new articles (Genetic nurture) are subject to AFD as they violates WP:OR - this is not (yet) established knowledge. --Julius Senegal (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• It is indeed. I have placed a proposed deletion template on it. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• If Chamaemelum is a returning banned user, then that actually is a violation, per Wikipedia:Clean_start#Criteria. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support site ban, I was on the fence if one was needed, but as with so many editors Chamaemelum response to the site ban being imposed has convinced me those who supported it were right. Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Chamaemelum you've misinterpreted my comment. When I said' “it's not clear to me a wider topic ban will resolve” that', I was specifically and intentionally excluding a site ban. A site ban clearly will resolve all issues with your behaviour on Wikipedia for the obvious reason that you cannot continue to cause problems when you are banned. (Well you can if you violate the ban, but that's besides the point. I will never say I don't support banning this editor because they're just going to ignore it and don't think any editor should say that.) I would also note I only said a topic ban would not IMO resolve certain problems with your behaviour I specifically highlighted. I did not say anything else about whether it may help with other problems with your editing that I did not mention. For further clarity at the time, I saw one specific topic where you were clearly causing problems. There was a proposal for alternative medicine but although I was concerned about some of your editing in general including your poor ability to distinguish between what is support by most sources/the main stream, and what has limited support; there was no specific topic I was sufficiently concerned at the time to justify a wider ban whether for alternative medicine or anything else. I actually wrote a bit more on this but then got hit by an EC with SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia's comments were enough to raise additional concerns but not enough for me to support anything else so I just said "Holding off on further discussing a wider topic ban for now due to EC with Sandy Georgia" and removed the other stuff I had said. To be clear, I did this because I was beginning to wonder if there was in fact justification for a wider topic ban so my earlier comments saying that I didn't see any reason for a wide topic ban were no longer valid. However my comment on a wider topic ban not resolving some specific problems, remained valid as they do now. Okay I should have removed the "wider" part for clarity but the point remains a topic ban will not IMO have resolved those specific issues since it's not really a specific topic but your continued inability to understand our policies and guidelines that were also a problem. I saw various followups including the thread morphing into a discussion of a siteban. I did not discuss further in part because while I was deeply concerned about the problems highlighted by SandyGeorgia and even more by your response to them, I was not quite convinced we needed to go that far. However I was also not opposed to a siteban, and it seemed clear to me from the discussion that was almost definitely going to be the result, so there was no reason for me to pile on anyway even if I had felt a siteban was definitely needed. So I just did not say anything. But your response to the siteban both in the pointless appeal, and your apparent inability to understand that while a topic ban might not resolve certain issues with someone's behaviour, a siteban clearly would; convinced me. Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Chamaemelum's comments on their talk summarizing involved vs. uninvolved editors seems less than accurate. No editor was against sanctions, no editor spoke against a topic ban or a site ban, and several uninvolved editors spoke in favor.
  Uninvolved:

• User:Rockstone35 [203]
• User:Nil Einne [204]
• User:Combefere [205]

I note that the same problematic edits continued across multiple articles during the ANI discussion.

Chamaemelum, you have not answered queries as to whether you are using Atificial Intelligence to write content and responses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll also note that Chamaemelum has claimed to be a returning editor, but has not answered the question: which editor? Combefere ★ Talk 16:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support a massive timesink of IDHT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support amazingly, the user may actually be correct that there was sufficiently few non-involved editors to demonstrate an adequate consensus for the ban in that discussion. Unfortunately for them, even if I choose to ignore a technically correct complaint as further IDHT evidence, there was so much evidence of CIR, IDHT, fanatic editing, edit warring, listed in the original discussion that us needing to reconfirm it is a pretty quick step. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I don't speak up much at ANI, but since input from clearly non-involved editors is being sought: Their behavior at the various pages linked in the ANI thread certainly supports a topic ban; their behavior in the ANI thread, and afterwards, makes a site ban warranted in my opinion. There is always the ability to appeal. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support siteban again. This user has been spamming junk content into articles at an alarming pace, including 500+ edits in only four days while the ANI was open. However, instead of getting mad or annoyed at the situation, let's all just appreciate the Catch-22 levels of supergenius logic at play:

"The few edits I have had that I have needed to correct are a small fraction of my 2000+ largely uncontroversial and constructive edits."

"Every editor who supported a site ban was involved, so no uninvolved editors voiced support for a site-ban."

Apparently if an editor spams promoted content into our articles so fast that it's impossible to fix it all, then those edits are "uncontroversial." And any editor who does happen to see the problem and raise the alarm is by definition "involved" and can't be a part of the sanction process. I mean, come on, it's funny! I hope this brings a bit of joy into everyone's Friday. Cheers Combefere ★ Talk 15:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

LMAO! Indeed, the catch-22 nature of this is absurd. Of course, involved editors' concerns should also count (IOW, the wording should be changed). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support site ban. This needs to stop. Woodroar (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support the ban. Sea lions belong at the water's edge, not in Wikipedia. We also should restate the question by User:Combefere. Asking a question twice is not WP:SEALIONING, even when asked of a otariid. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Life is too short to drag this out longer. XOR'easter (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Chamaemelum has said on their talk-page after this is over they are going to appeal their block. This user is a major timesink for other editors. Their entire editing history has been net negative. I suspect this user will not go away until their talk-page is revoked. I can see this going on for a long time as they will likely appeal their block more than once. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support site ban (note, I may be involved). Not only have they been disruptive in the medicine area, but they've also been bludgeoning AfDs for roads (which is where I guess I could say I'm involved as a roads editor). Also, as Psychologist Guy said right above me, this seems like a time sink when we could just revoke their TPA and move on. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN - Nothing more to say, except that Wikilawyering should almost never be rewarded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• ^{(Definitely not involved, JBL can vouch that all I do is close ANIs.) No offence, Jay)} Support Full Ban, Site Ban, whatever you call it. Nothing I can add, that hasn’t already been said. Wikilawyering, huh? Applied correctly, you could probably get a good job in that stuff, and not need Wikipedia to fill your time, Cham. Just a suggestion. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 13:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support And go away. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Pettifogging like this tends to invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences. You complain that your last ban discussion was populated mainly by involved users? Watch as the uninvolved users come to an unanimous consensus to siteban you because it's clear the argument being made isn't in good faith. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 15:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  And as an addendum, revoke talk page as they've made it clear they're going to waste their efforts immediately appealing it, disregarding the whole "ban" part of it. This is more so that they don't waste their time on a no-hope appeal. Leave email access in place for now, and revoke it iff they make abusive or no-hope appeals to admins, UTRS, or ArbCom (though I am certain going down that last path will end with the ban being upgraded). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 15:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  +1 re: TPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, throw the bum out. Support site ban. oknazevad (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The tone of quite a few comments in this discussion is not productive; I'm surprised to find myself as the first one to say so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yeah... @Oknazevad, there's no need to call anyone a bum here. And @Matticusmadness, humor at AN/I is always difficult to pull off, and your above comment does not manage that, nor have several past attempts at humor I've seen in your AN/I closes. I'd suggest maintaining a more serious demeanor at AN/I until you have a better sense of the rather nuanced norms as to what is and isn't appropriate here.... Or, better yet, avoiding AN/I entirely. (I have literally never, ever, ever, seen someone regret taking the advice "stay off of AN/I".) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oh come on, we're not a jury considering whether to impose the death penalty here, this is not life and death, it's about whether someone will be allowed to edit an online website or not. It's not all that serious, let's lighten up a little. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support, though I will agree with SandyGeorgia that the tone of some of the commentary is, generously, a little bit past the line. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

62.121.132.130 by Alexander Davronov

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

Hi. Please, can someone take a look at this ip contribs? It seems like it's another puppet of a long-term abuser WP:BKFIP. Thanks.
Notice: [Jul 15, 2023, 16:12] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Note to admins, I think it is the filing user who has a problem with wikilinks and easter eggs. See for instance, [206] and recently Talk:Max_Planck#Plank_constant. In my view, all the ip's reverts seem entirely appropriate. - DVdm (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is unrelated to this issue and is of course false. I will take this accussation as another sign of incivility. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Changing a redirect page to an article

Hi, I hope this is in the correct place. Tooxma (talk · contribs) has changed a redirect page into article Swimming at the 2010 Asian Para Games. I reverted and posted a message to their talk page [207]. The editor then reverted [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swimming_at_the_2010_Asian_Para_Games&diff=prev&oldid=1165462993] which I then reverted and posted a message on their talk page [208]. The edit was then reinstated. Tooxma (talk · contribs) posted some messages to my talk page. I think they meant that this was a copy of an article at zh.wikipedia [209] which they then deleted. I did report this to WP:AIV with a request stating I wasn't sure if this was the correct place to report it and asked for advice. The suggestion was to try here. I don't know if any of my actions were appropriate? I've run into editors trying to make an article out of a redirect page before but they've usually stopped. Many thanks, Knitsey (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I should add, the editors additions are in good faith. Knitsey (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Any particular reason that the redirect should not be turned into an article? The target seems like an overview. So if the editor can create a specific article out of the redirect, with references from verifiable reliable sources, I'm not sure that I see an issue? - jc37 13:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I assumed (incorrectly it seems) that new users couldn't or shouldn't create new articles on the main space. Knitsey (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand at all. Explain the law to me. Because I was upset and nervous about this behavior. Tell me if there is a problem with making the article. Because there are two other diversions that I would like to turn into an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tooxma (talk • contribs) 16:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

In general, turning a redirect into an article is not a problem. I did it myself today. Anyone may disagree that the article is worth creating and turn it back into a redirect, but that should be based on whether its content meets the usual notability criteria and not on the way it became an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand the reversion rationale This is a redirect page when the (very incomplete) Category:Redirects with possibilities (>84,000 members) exists. Narky Blert (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Taisho79 vandalism and uncivil

Persistent contrafactual editing by Taisho79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Uncivil and edit warring, too. Examples:

• TNT Equivalent: Changing numbers contrary to citation: here. After reversion and talk page notification, deleting entire section here. After reversion and 3RR warning: Removing a smaller section here.
• Chelyabinsk meteor: Changing numbers contrary to citation: here. After reversion, removing statement entirely: here
• Orders of magnitude (energy): Changing numbers contrary to citation: here. After reversion, removing section entirely: here

Uncivil behaviour on talk page: hereand here. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Nice insults by Taisho… Could a mop wade in, please? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 13:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, all the problematic edits have since been reverted (by other editors, I wasn't going to deal with them any more), and Taisho79 seems to have stopped editing since the ANI notification. Tarl N. (discuss) 07:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion, sockpuppetry by Sir Knson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sir Knson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account was indef blocked by @Courcelles: but persists in reappearing as multiple IPs. Not sure where to go with it, if this isn't the right place?

He's also just reappeared as Lord Knson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

• 2A02:C7C:A739:F700:F99B:374C:3DB0:9C71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A02:C7C:A739:F700:5CD6:7B9F:13A1:224B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A02:C7C:A739:F700:19B4:EF2:F528:2394 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A02:C7C:A739:F700:29A0:E248:7F5F:D277 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A02:C7C:A739:F700:FDD6:C35B:8D05:B4C5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Sock indeffed and IP /64 range blocked for a month. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you, much appreciated. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:NOTHERE behavior by User:CoffeeMeAlready

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Aside from edit-warring behavior at both Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (diffs below), CoffeeMeAlready has demonstrated an unwillingness to accept feedback from other editors and continues to revert to their preferred article version, even in the midst of discussion, such as the current one underway at Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice#That terrible lead. Despite being a newer account, they frequently cite policies/guidelines in hostile Wikilawyering fashion in nearly all of their responses at various talk pages, usually claiming the cited P/G supports a viewpoint that doesn't actually exist. At the BvS article, they are also oddly rehashing old discussions (examples: here and here), settled long ago, which coincidently involved a number of blocked editors and/or sock accounts. The user's talk page also shows another issue the editor recently ran into with casting aspersions.

This editor is clearly not here to collaborate or appears incapable of doing so. Attempting to engage this editor in a patient, good faith manner has only resulted in additional combativeness and aggressive behavior, which is becoming a drain on community resources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

EW is only part of the issue, but here are some of the relevant diffs at Dial of Destiny (much more exist): diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6, diff7, diff8, diff9, diff10, diff11, diff12

--GoneIn60 (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

And I stand by those edits, which were part of a heated debate and necessary process (that often is typical and takes place on film pages over fan-favorite films where there is strong opinions and zealotry), and which ended Im glad to say in a WP:Civil WP:compromise between me and other editors for content that (while I didn’t fully agree with) was more that fair all-around for the sake of the article and everyone involved. My friendships with those editors improved as a result, with us thanking each other. I even thanked this editor here many times, and showed not only gratitude for his contributions but also mostly caved-in to his stubborn demands. I can list examples if needed. @GoneIn60 is simply being a sore-winner here, to quote “Django Unchained” for fun here. Peace ✌️ CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@GoneIn60I look forward to the discussion here and the WP:BOOMERANG given that this editor is fighting to act as a gatekeeper of certain articles and insisting that old, out of date content remain. If you look carefully at my contributions, I am always looking to compromise, and often times have. This is very much a pot-kettle situation if you look at this editor's own behavior. CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

P.S. As a final thought on this, a disclaimer. English is not my first language and I often embarrassingly rely on google translator more than I should. Between that and a disability I suffer from, I am more wordy that I like to be. So, forgive me in advance for being verbose. I'm working on it brothers!

Again, this is a pot-kettle situation as editor @GoneIn60 is belligerent, combative, and WP:NOTHERE to compromise and be civil with me, as demonstrated by his behavior. In fact, in his very first remark to me his tone is combative and threatening, saying ""What are you doing here?!?! You removed almost an entire paragraph. Also, stop trying to introduce "market" or "marketing". We don't yet know what those numbers are..

Also, the problem he's conveniently leaving out is that he takes a "highway or my way approach", refusing to WP:COMPROMISE and only accepting his WP:OWN contributions as acceptable, as demonstrated...

• HERE: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indiana_Jones_and_the_Dial_of_Destiny&diff=prev&oldid=1165544846
• and in another article HERE(for which he's acting as gatekeeper):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/GoneIn60&target=GoneIn60&offset=&limit=500

• and then with the knee-jerk threats to abuse process against me, if I don't 'play ball' HERE (which btw he followed through with this ANI sans a good faith attempt to work things out with me first):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indiana_Jones_and_the_Dial_of_Destiny&diff=prev&oldid=1165581338

• followed by an inappropriate WP:SPADE attempt to WP:CANVASS other sympathetic 'to his campaign' HERE:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Batman_v_Superman:_Dawn_of_Justice&diff=prev&oldid=1165723302

And if you follow these conflicts to their conclusion you will see I mostly caved-in to his demands.

As for me, I try to call a WP:SPADE a spade when the row is obvious but mostly aim at working things out with editors by introducing my spin on things while still incorporating the work of others. Which how is how it should be IMHO when working together as a community. So, I can't blame the editor @GoneIn60 for feeling "drained" when he's stubbornly WP:NOTHERE to find a WP:MIDDLEGROUND but would rather hastily resort to a WP:BATTLEGROUND when he doesn't immediately get what he wants.

tl;dr version- He can't have it both ways.

Well, that's all I got. Can't really spend more time on this, which for me is supposed to be a fun hobby anyways, that I would like to keep that way. Best to everyone! CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week for personal attacks. Rest, follow dispute resolution for the editorial disputes. Thanks, Lourdes 06:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:2A02:C7C:E404:D300:992D:648D:AE05:AEBA and partial blocks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This IP 2A02:C7C:E404:D300:992D:648D:AE05:AEBA with a huge range has been blocked from many different pages for vandalism. Yet this IP seems to keep attacking Bromley Cross. Examples include here, here, and here until an admin had to lock it this morning. Could an admin add this to the list of partial blocks? 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 06:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mohammad Mosaddegh

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone take a look at the history of Mohammad Mosaddegh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to see if protection is needed and to sort out the mess that is various 'new' users calling themselves 'Ryder[X]' and insulting each other in edit summaries? Thanks. — Trey Maturin™ 17:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Someone had already blocked the LTAs. ECP for half a year, persistent target for this particular Socker. Courcelles (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RotaryIsLife

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can I get a mass rollback on high-speed but subtle vandalism by RotaryIsLife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please? Having failed to get a rise out of me, their revenge is changing cited numbers in car articles to different random numbers for some reason. — Trey Maturin™ 19:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Trey Maturin: Working on it right now, I came across the same thing. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 19:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Yoshi! I’m on my phone right now, which is a hiding to nowhere for doing anything en masse. — Trey Maturin™ 19:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Trey Maturin: They are now blocked after I reported to AIV. Thank goodness UltraViolet has a way to revert from the contribs page. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 19:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suluk Çor Kağan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Suluk Çor Kağan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Brand new user that has already caused quite the mess. More or less all their edits have been reverted by different users, and they all have been more or less WP:TENDENTIOUS (attempts at Turkifying stuff) in nature. It has been either unsourced additions or removal/alteration of sourced info, and sometimes even both.

Their talk page is already filled with warnings [210] (I added one too earlier, but they removed it [211]).

• Edit warring at Muslim conquest of Transoxiana, where they have been reverted by two users [212] [213] [214] and also removed sourced info [215]

• Edit warring at Tyrrhenians, where they randomly added a Old Turkic transliteration of it, which three users have now reverted [216] [217] [218]

• Edit warring at Lydia [219] [220] [221], where they attempt to replaced the sourced Indo-European with "Turanian" (Turkic), even making the outlandish claim "There's no such thing as indo european"

• [222] Here, in their own words, they "Added Turkish native name for Alps/Alper. Scythian roots". Yes, the Alps in Western Europe, they added the Turkish transliteration for that. And the Scythians were not Turkic either per its article, it's not even a dispute in Western Academia. And the Turkish language did not emerge until much later, being derived from earlier Turkic languages. In other words, more WP:TENDENTIOUS.

• [223] Replaced "Umayyad victory" with "Türgesh victory", disregarding what the (GA) article says. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

There is more, as I said, it's more or less every edit. This looks like WP:NOTHERE to me. The fact that they have caused so much trouble in mere three days is baffling. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP trolling

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an administrator put a block on the range Special:Contributions/2600:4040:5E51:5400:FCCF:63F:A372:A61B/64? Their edits look like trolling and usually get reverted. Many of the edits include adding "brutally beaten"[224][225] and other unsourced changes that look like jokes,[226][227][228][229][230] sometimes these are BLP violations. This has been going on for several months, if not longer. Mellk (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked the /64 for a few months. Courcelles (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Mellk (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jennifer Lumma's contributions

See the last sentence of user's talk page. I'm not sure how WP handles this. APK whisper in my ear 05:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• I actually think this is just barely outside the boundaries of anything credible, but in an abundance of caution I've emailed emergency@wikimedia.org per WP:EMERGENCY. I don't think anything more is necessary on our end here at enwp. EEng 07:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. APK whisper in my ear 08:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  For future reference, high-traffic boards are not a good place to talk about potential threats of harm or self-harm (though I really don't think this case qualifies as those). Again, see WP:EMERGENCY for what to do. I'd be archiving this thread immediately except that I think it's good for people to read what I just said. EEng 08:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Noted. APK whisper in my ear 03:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

شايب محمد مهدي 93 CIR issue

شايب محمد مهدي 93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been very active and problematic for the last week or so. They have received warnings from multiple experienced editors, including User:BrazilianDude70, User:Mattythewhite and User:GiantSnowman all of which seem to be about adding unsourced information to articles. My experience with this user is that they have continued to create unsourced articles, including BLPs, and have been completely unresponsive when spoken to about it. None of their mainspace edits seem to be sourced at all and they are continually performing copy and paste moves. For example, Draft:Salah Al-Masnad and Salah Al-Masnad and Draft:Saeed Ghorab and Saeed Ghorab. I don't think that any of their work in mainspace has been sourced and they are becoming a time sink as a lot of their edits require reverting. I can't get through to this editor at all. It's possible that they don't speak any English at all or it might just be a case of WP:NOTLISTENING or WP:CIR. Please can someone intervene? I personally don't think they should be allowed to continue to edit mainspace until they improve. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• No communication at all. I have blocked them from mainspace to see if this prompts them to do so. If they continue to create unsourced drafts I will extend the blocks to all namespaces. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick action on this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Google Translate suggests that this is a name and birth year, in Arabic. Is there anything to suggest that this user knows any actual English? {{subst:welcome-foreign|ar}} is another welcome-foreign that only signposts in English, so no good. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 18:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I personally don't think that they know any English so if any Arabic speakers want to try to talk to this user, then it's worth a shot. Otherwise, they're going to be more at home editing on Arabic Wikipedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Superlog47's WP:NOTHERE behavior

Superlog47 is being a persistent troublemaker by edit warring, removing reliable and relevant sources, and making all kinds of accusations of bad faith and unreliability toward anyone and any source they don't like.

Just hours after registering, they instigated their first edit war at Dyaus by removing an Oxford University Press citation, on the basis of their own original research (they have never cited a single source for their edits).

• [231]

@Chariotrider555: has politely and patiently asked Superlog47 for citations to defend their edits, as can be seen at [232]. Failing that, they have repeatedly insulted the intelligence of Chariotrider555 by implying they are an idiot or a propagandist. In one edit summary, they accuse Chariotrider555 of "mingling too much in Indian culture".

Their WP:OWN behavior extends to Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA), as well. As can be seen at the article's revision history, they remove citations from MIT Press and Manchester University Press, while accusing me of "attacking South Asia". The cited authors are Amrita Pande and Carles Lalueza-Fox.

In my opinion, @Superlog47: is WP:NOTHERE and may have issues with competence or behavioral adjustment that should limit their ability to participate in the project. - Hunan201p (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I would also point out the very similar behavior of @Leemaster2:, who registered just hours after Superlog47, possibly as a meatpuppet, and makes false allegations of "biased sources" and agendas at the Haplogroup R1a article. - Hunan201p (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Initially, I indeffed only Superlog47. However, after the block, Leemaster2 complained on their Talk page, and the writing, which is distinctive, was identical, so now both are blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the rapid response, Bbb23. Wikipedia wouldn't last very long without admins like you. - Hunan201p (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Not that you need confirmation, but these two accounts are very much  Confirmed to each other. Good blocks. Courcelles (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Keeps on trolling as Butthurtmaker –Austronesier (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked that one indef as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Range block request

Apparent socks of blocked user H3sam91 (User:Iraniwiki234, User:Fakeintellectualbuster, and User:Truthseekernotgivingup) have recently caused significant disruption, in the form of abusive personal attacks, here and here. To avoid further disruption could someone (a CU, I assume) please impose some type of range-block upon the sock master's location? Thanks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Examples of the disruptive edits include this, this, this, this and this. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Truthseeker9321 is one of the confirmed socks. Possibly WP:SEMI protection for my Talk page would work in the short term. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

*Muslimintel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a new sock, has just started up anew. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

*Muslimminority352 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) latest sock. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I would like to think, especially after additional edits like this and this, there would be a more effective remedy than whack-a-mole... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Especially galling as I don't have a penis. Knitsey (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

You might want to file a WP:SPI since they look like sockpuppets Qwv (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@User:Courcelles who is familiar with this case and also a Checkuser. WP:SEMI on the affected Talk pages has helped, but agree some type of rangeblock would be better. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I’ve tried, not sure even what I blocked can actually help. Ranges involved here are enormous, so my recommendation is semi liberally. Courcelles (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Mellk

•Mellk (talk · contribs)

I have given Mellk three warnings to cease his no edit summaries and give his rationale in one of the templates, yet he refuses. I subsequently reverted one of his edits on an article after giving him these warnings yet he persists with his no edit summary; this is perspicuous disruptive editing. Nevertheless, I was inclined to revert more edits that he did on an another article but I have thus written this complaint before he fabricates his own perfidious notions on why I should be banned or something to that nature to you admins. Naturally, I was willing to cooperate with him as we did in this latest talk but he has went so far as to not provide his rationale on his edits, warn me for giving him template warnings and finally to persist in his actions. Thus, I desire some action be taken on this user Mellk. Raulois (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I already told you to stop spamming templates on my talk page and to not post there[233] but you still continued[234] so clearly you were not "willing to cooperate". Three times you templated me in less than 5 minutes before I could even make an edit anywhere else. Mellk (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Au contraire, you said: “you are not welcome here, if you template again I will request a block”. Wherefore, then, can you say I was not willing when you grimly say I am not welcomed on your talk page? Wouldn’t that mean I am not allowed to be able to talk on your talk page? Raulois (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You use the article talk page. When you spam the same template immediately after I remove it, I don't want you posting on my talk page. Mellk (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It would’ve been nice if you had gotten rid of your pride and had written your rationale in your edit summary, told me on the talk page or even on the discussion page instead of letting your ego get ahead of you and telling me you don’t want me on your talk page. Raulois (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe don't spam templates then unless you're trying provoke a reaction, which is clear what you were trying to do. I'm not going to entertain you any further. Mellk (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

First of all, why did you revert it in the first place? It was a notice with no bad intentions asking for you to write your rationale. Seems to me that you desire to entertain someone with your prideful reverts. Raulois (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, you did not mention your history of following my edits and WP:ABF[235]. Mellk (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Following your edits? We’ve already discussed this on the Ivan III fracas section. But, I will admit that even if I did have bad faith according to how Wikipedia describes bad faith, it doesn’t excuse you from the actions you’ve done especially as you have more experience than me as you’ve been on Wikipedia for 6 years now. Raulois (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your unsourced changes. You should know better than to make unsourced changes, especially when the text in question is already sourced and I've told you repeatedly to not do this. The issue here is WP:IDHT. Mellk (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, now you want to say “You should know better than to make unsourced changes, especially when the text in question is already sourced and I've told you repeatedly to not do this.”

Please cite a previous time when you’ve said to stop doing unsourced edits. On the Vasily I edit, I provided a source yet you said “why don’t you discuss first” you didn’t say any of that before. Also, you reverted my edit here for no reason, please stop providing your rationale when someone makes a admin notice instead do it immediately. Raulois (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Redrose64 (talk · contribs) RoySmith (talk · contribs) it’d be nice if you admins could overlook this and give your opinion on the matter. Raulois (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Okiyo9228, although edit summaries are strongly encouraged, they are not mandatory. Also, if another editor tells you to stay off their talk page, please do so, except for making mandatory notifications. Continuing to post after being asked to stop is harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Quite questionable, for if someone asks for a rationale for an edit then they should receive it before an edit war commences. I only posted the template on his talk page three times because it was quite weird to me that he reverted it and I ceased to do it once I saw that he said that he would ask for a block. Naturally, if you desire to see edit warring on Wikipedia then that’s fine but I prefer to know the rationale since edit warring is not allowed on Wikipedia. Raulois (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Okiyo9228, i agree that an editor should explain (if asked) why they made a revert. However, I cannot find any diff in which you asked Mellk why they reverted your edit. All I see are "edit summary" templates from you on Mellk's talk page. Also, the best approach, after your initial edit was reverted, would have been to start a discussion on the article's talk page (pinging the reverting editor) to work through the dispute. Schazjmd (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that I went on his talk page to ask why he made his edit so that we didn't have to edit war on the article but I was rebuked by him and told that I wasn’t allowed. Apropos to edit summaries not being required, H:FIES states “It is a good practice to provide a meaningful summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. In appropriate circumstances, a summary can be quite brief ("ce" and "rvv" for example).”

Therefore it is quite mandatory when he reverted my edit and when I inquired why he did such an action his actions persists such as this. The man literally reverted my edit twice without giving his rationale. Raulois (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I was pinged, but since I'm here, I agree with @Cullen328; use of edit summaries is a recommended best practice, but not required. If somebody doesn't want to use them, there's not much you can do. As for user talk pages, I don't know if there's a specific policy about it, but if somebody says they don't want you on their talk page, my suggestion is to just leave them alone and find something else to work on. There's plenty of other things that need fixing on the wiki. RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• I haven't been pinged, but I just happened to notice one of my diffs was mentioned here. Indeed, Okiyo9228/Raulois has a prior history of possibly WP:HOUNDING Mellk, and possibly WP:ABF on the part of Mellk; this incident seems to confirm that pattern. I already told Okiyo9228/Raulois If you are unable to cooperate with another user, I suggest you go work in some other area, or at least take some time to cool down and try again with more patience. I have reason to suspect that Mellk might be right about you hounding him. If that is true, you should stop that. Please be respectful to other users, even if you disagree with them. We do not engage in bullying here, and I will not tolerate you doing that. These latest developments suggest Okiyo9228/Raulois has not heeded my warnings. Mellk is getting tired of Okiyo9228/Raulois following him around, harassing him, and posting on his talk page. As the others have said, edit summaries are strongly encouraged, but not required. I don't see why Okiyo9228/Raulois needed to take this issue to ANI, and then further harass Mellk here above (who already warned he would request a block). I would suggest something like an WP:IBAN might help to prevent Okiyo9228/Raulois further hounding Mellk. A two-way IBAN is also possible if Okiyo9228/Raulois desires not to be contacted by Mellk anymore either, although I don't think Mellk needs to be sanctioned at this point, as they are the target of hounding, not the one doing the targetting. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  “Mellk, and possibly WP:ABF on the part of Mellk; this incident seems to confirm that pattern.”

  “although I don't think Mellk needs to be sanctioned at this point, as they are the target of hounding, not the one doing the targetting.”“These latest developments suggest Okiyo9228/Raulois has not heeded my warnings. Mellk is getting tired of Okiyo9228/Raulois following him around, harassing him, and posting on his talk page.”

• What are you talking about?! Mellk “followed” me on on those articles that I did which led me here, not the other way around, please don’t opine your insensible stupefied assertions, me and Mellk were cultivating good relations (Les Sources) after the Ivan III dispute. I wanted a reason for why he reverted my edit and went to his talk page so that he could stop reverting my edits without giving a reason per H:FIES. Your otiose comments weren’t necessitated here and it’d be better if you had never said anything as you clearly have a biased take and lack understanding of the whole situation altogether. Raulois (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Editor behaviour at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shai Benbasat (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

New editor user:Okoslavia has unilaterally closed thi Afd, stating it was a bad faith nomination. It is not. Can somebody have a chat. scope_creep^Talk 18:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This afd was come out as a revenge just few minutes later to my keep votes to their nominated afds. This is clearly bad faith nominy. Admin can check the time interactions. I have reverted it as per Wikipedia:Battleground. Okoslavia (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This editor also accused our good faith editor Indefensible on their talk page. See User talk: Indefensible. Okoslavia (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no issue if it is nominated again with good faith by some different editor. Okoslavia (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not looking for a fight but I do think Scope creep has problematic behavior. They have been warned by User:Liz on their talk page here and here. They have been called out by User:Oblivy for civility issues here and here. They have accused users including User:A. B. and User:Another Believer of WP:COI on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accel-KKR and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post Alley Pizza respectively. As Okoslavia wrote, they have made comments against WP:AGF about me including on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 July 8#Abdul Monem Limited and my talk page including here and here.

Also note their previous ANI history and block log including:

• 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=105019499
• 2022: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=140650749
• 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive394#User:Scope_creep_reported_by_User:Lqqhh_(Result:_both_editors_advised,_discussion_opened)
• 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028#User:Scope_creep_Revenge_and_disruptive_editing
• 2021: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive444#User:Scope_creep_reported_by_User:NemesisAT_(Result:_Warned)
• 2022: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1115#Disruptive_editing_and_harrassment

That is not to say they do not make good contributions to Wikipedia, but I believe there is a pattern of concerning behavior. - Indefensible (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not too late for everyone to walk quietly away from this dispute and let the AfD (on an admittedly weak-looking article) take its course. A big ANI discussion about motivation is likely to make everyone look bad. General comment: no matter what the motivation, it is usually best to leave an AfD discussion open. Nothing can be deleted without an admin, and they will close based impartially on the subject and article. Elemimele (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection if other want to renominate it. But just a concern about this bad behaviour by scope creep. Not only with me but other editors of this encyclopaedia. Okoslavia (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Also I see another relevant discussion concerning an IP contributor User:2001:1C06:19CA:D600:A70C:5171:67B1:92A0 regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valnet Inc. on User talk:Scope creep#Personal attacks which just came up earlier today. User:Elemimele the AFD in question might actually be valid, but as Okoslavia said any negative behavior should be cleaned up whether some or all of us are responsible. - Indefensible (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but it appears to me that Okoslavia had no business closing the AfD - WP:NACINV states For the avoidance of doubt, editors should never close any discussion ... where they created ... the object under discussion. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, I have tagged the article for speedy deletion G4 because it was recreated just three days after the previous AfD closed as delete. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This condition is for the good faith AFDs not for vandalism. Vandalism should be reverted as soon as possible. Anyways I am pretty sure that your G4 will be declined soon as the article which was written by another editor is totally different from mine one. As It is written from scratch. G4 only applies if the article is identical to the deleted version. Okoslavia (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Editors please see the story of this article creation. Okoslavia (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at the AFD page for more context. I think this is more likely to be a coincidence than bad faith. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028#User:Scope_creep_Revenge_and_disruptive_editing, Scope creep apparently has a history with revenge editing. I think Scope creep might actually be right with regards to the AFD in this case, however the overall context which I outlined above should be reviewed. At least that is my hope. - Indefensible (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Never (I did not bold for emphasis - that's how it is at WP:NACINV) is unequivocal. Labelling the nomination as vandalism is ... not. 19:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Dorsetonian: You might want to learn to sign your comments properly before putting your nose in administrative work. Lol, you haven't sign your comments properly. Okoslavia (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That was probably a typo. Please assume good faith. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This is just the sort of behaviour from Okoslavia that I refer to below. It's got to change

-A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

G4 was indeed declined. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Okoslavia is off to a rough start as an editor. See this exchange with @Liz, possibly our best closing admin and always very polite:

• Liz's comment and Okoslavia's response

My jaw dropped.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Also see the Articles for deletion/Ideal Bread Company Factory discussion; Okoslavia was the nominator. There was BLUDGEONing. In particular, see the exchange with @Gidonb where Okoslavia dragged up an old AfD Gidonb initiated (and later withdrew after refs were found). It was inappropriate, irrelevant and off-the-mark (Gidonb's AfD and Okoslavia's were not at all comparable). Most of all, it was interesting since Okoslavia did not participate in that AfD - did that mean that Okoslavia went back through Gidonb's old edits looking for a problem?

- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This shows that we are not just Okoslavia's plants or supporters, and that we can all do better in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

If you think someone is guilty of revenge nominations the solution is to try talking to them and if you remain unsatisfied with their response open a case here with your evidence. The solution isn't to close an AfD as an involved editor. Nil Einne (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Okoslavia is a very new editor with a poor understanding of AfD and notability guidelines. They should absolutely not be closing AfDs (especially when their first AfD participation was only July 6!). Jumping into dozens of deletion discussions with low-quality "keep/delete per above" and nonsensical !votes[236], making out-of-process BADNACs (as here), and insisting they know better than admins and experienced editors when their behavior is challenged is not going to end well for them. JoelleJay (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Ignorance of the rules is no excuse for being a jerk. Okoslavia will figure out the rules soon enough but unless something about their attitude changes, they’ll still be a jerk.

I support a lenient first step for Okoslavia: just a ban on closing AfDs.

I recommend a draconian second step if the bad attitude continues: total site ban. Note that I’m not talking about procedural errors - I’m referring to antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour is always optional. Many editors accumulate 100s of thousands of edits without one incident so this is very doable if Okoslavia enjoys editing and wants to stay here.

- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support ban from closing AfDs. Frankly I think we're close to a project space ban for this precocious editor, but AfD might solve the disruption and ensuing personal attacks. Or we'll be back here in five seconds because something smells rotten in Denmark Star Mississippi 23:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• @Okoslavia: Have you previously edited Wikipedia under other accounts? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• I discussed above my concerns about Okoslavia and recommended a ban for Okoslavia on closing AfDs.

I have not forgotten about Scope creep. Having been on the receiving end of his assuming bad faith, I agree with Indefensible's concerns above about his behaviour, too. I suggest that we make it clear that he, too, is not allowed to be a jerk. If he acts like a jerk again, he may be banned from AfDs.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I have shrunk the above - my comment about Scope creep, while valid, is for another place, not this one. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think for sanity's sake if Scope's conduct is going to be discussed, it should be a separate (sub) thread. Otherwise this is going to be a mess. Star Mississippi 01:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You're right. -- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Does what I outlined above have merit? If so then I can move or copy it to a new section or subsection. Perhaps I should not have let myself be pulled in earlier but I do not think it should get brushed under the rug either. But if not then I will drop it unless it becomes an issue again. Hoping not to spend too much time here and guessing none of us want to deal with stuff on Wikipedia like this. - Indefensible (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support ban from closing AfDs, with a final warning that any further incivility will result in an indef block. Okoslavia's conduct is far beyond the pale, and hopefully the ban and final warning will improve their conduct. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support ban from closing AfDs. The closure was quite egregious, to be followed by them defending said closure. Scope Creep probably warrants a warning on AGF grounds. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  I respectfully endorse @A. B.'s suggestions and make commitment to not close any afds in near future. Okoslavia (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This editor is cavassing at the Shai Benbasat Afd. scope_creep^Talk 10:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Should we just ban Okoslavia from AfD altogether? The issue seems to have moved beyond the unilateral close. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Im inclined to support a complete ban from AFD given the general disregard for due process.
Also, while I did not go through every single vote by the editor, all of these votes in their recent edits have been "per nom" or "per above". I think a removal from AfD would not be much of a loss for the project.
Im also seeing quite a bit of "keep per Indefensible". Will need to check if interaction is suspicious or not. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems benign and restricted to AfD. [237] Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Do understand that this is less by way of people asking you not to close AfDs than that you are on track to be banned outright from doing so -- which proposal, incidentally, I support. Ravenswing 10:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not canvassing others but ask for their neutral opinion which can be in my favour or in my opppose. Scope creep is again assuming bad faith. Okoslavia (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you read WP:Canvassing including the part about WP:VOTESTACKING? Why did you chose to inform those particular editors? Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Referring to them as "good faith" blows a hole in that. Knock it off, or you will be blocked more broadly. Star Mississippi 12:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Okoslavia - you have not responded to the accusation of votestacking in a way that gives me any confidence you even understand why the accusation has been levelled. This apparent lack of competence, along with the abrasiveness and bludgeoning we have seen, are something the community is unlikely to tolerate for long. Dorsetonian (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC).

• FWIW On the side issue that we're not going to discuss here, I have never had any interaction with Scope creep - particularly at AfD - that hasn't been productive, collegiate and congenial. I appreciate that might not be everyone's experience, but it has invariably been mine. kthanksbi. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support a TBAN from AFD for Okoslavia. She has failed to follow WP:NAC, WP:CANVAS, and WP:CIVIL. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from AfD. Clearly NOTHERE behavior from a "new" account. JoelleJay (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• While I've been critical of Okoslavia's closing AFDs and warned her not to overreach, this is behavior I've seen previously from over-eager new editors. It's not uncommon and I've left messages like the one I left of their page on the talk pages of other editors. I'm not sure that a topic ban would be useful, I think being brought to ANI and hearing editors say negative things about you is often enough to cause changes in someone's behavior. Despite some habits I hope they change (like the "per nom", "per editor" AFD comments), they really have educated themselves on Wikipedia policy and so are not acting out of ignorance but rather over-confidence. I think this discussion can lower that factor. I think they just need to be discourage from taking on too many administrative responsibilities they are not ready for and steered to an area of editing where they are less likely to get themselves into trouble. Despite these bumps in the road, I see the potential here for Okoslavia becoming a productive editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, they shouldnt be closing AfDs anytime soon atleast, so that restriction would be fairly harmless I think. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.