Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Radlrb in WP:WPM

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

The main argument is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#1234_(number), though I'd like to mention that there are other complaints about Radlrb's edits in other places as well. I think this issue needs admin input because this is a chronic issue involving willful ignoring of Wikipedia policies. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

There can be no doubt that Radlrb has good intentions. However, I think there may be an difficult-to-reconcile difference between Radlrb and others about what the purpose of Wikipedia is and what policies are. For what it's worth, I still maintain my hope that there is a resolution that will make everyone happy and that doesn't make Radlrb feel like they are being kicked off the website. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I am about to quit, I think. Radlrb (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest (really) that you take a copy of the entire contents of the number articles and move it to your own blog / wiki / whatever, then you can expand it as you wish. Almost nothing you have added is actually wrong, so you could have you own wiki with a vastly higher relative truth content than WP. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

My fear is that if I make a blog, that it will quickly be hacked because of obvious reasons (too much truth), I feel WP is a stronghold that can protect this content. Also, as an anonymous editor here in WP, where there is also a type of vetting that can validate these delicate number-theoretical synchronicities. This being said, we can remove the deemed-superfluous material, and I'll make my way. Radlrb (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there are any hackers out there who have an agenda in mathematics that they want to advance by force. If you were writing a blog criticizing the government of Russia or North Korea, I could see worrying about hacking...but math? -- Beland (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, seems very unlikely. Rolando 1208 (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

arXiv is where I'll head over to first, most likely, then set up a blog and forum thereafter. It's been an idea I've been contemplating for some time. I appreciate your suggestions. Radlrb (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is the main concern. I believe as with the example I added recently to the thread at WP:WPM, that these points will naturally accrue, and some will coincide, lending to an appearance of SYNTH. I make no statements of consequences, as they generally are out of scope.

I would also like to mention, and will link later diffs, the bias against my heated exchanges, without taking accountability in these exchanges, of the many-a-times demeaning behavior against my position or my person.

I would also like to express that my intentions here have only been of the highest I can give, and honest. An important note, is that my edits have stood for 2.5 years almost, without much backlash, aside from a small number of editors.

Respectfully yours, Radlrb (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The project page discussion is illuminating. Seven editors have objected to Radlrb's edits. Radlrb's response in all cases was long paragraphs of weird purple prose that did not engage with the complaints but ranted and philosophized: "Do you have any idea, of how difficult, and challenging, it is to find synchronicity and sense in mathematics? Be grateful, for the love of our very existence and subsistence, that these facts exist.", "we are ants still, trying to understand a landscape of truth far larger than you or I can even conceive, proven every millenium by the next mass discovery that upends everything once conceived.", "And im being kind here, there's no telling how complex Mathematics really, really is. There's no living organic-born or ethereal angel in our Universe that has a real-idea of all Math. Thats for the stars to contemplate.". Also boasting about the brilliance of their edits, arguing that the fact that all of their edits have not been reverted means that their approach is right, and a quite offensive comparison of their disregarding policy with fights against historical racism: "You know, as with many peoples, black folk were unnallowed to do many things in America, against "laws" inhumane to them. They broke free, and are breaking free more every day, teaching us along the way to not hold back against unfair and limiting barricades. In like manner, I am unafraid of breaking this Wiki "law"". The main issue seems to be a lack of willingness to work collaboratively with other editors, based on an assumption that anyone who opposes any of their edits lacks understanding. CodeTalker (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it is important to gauge the scale of this problem. Over the last year or two, Radlrb has expanded number articles so that probably 50% of the total content is his additions. And has been extremely persistent, making several personal complaints to me in particular, because almost all of the editing I have done is removing stuff - this is true, and the complaints are not remotely offensive, but they illustrate a total unwillingness to consider whether something is really relevant or notable. (See the diagram I just removed at Talk:2.) Imaginatorium (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Lets make a laundry list of the properties that should be removed, and we can remove them (or go article by article Radlrb (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)). However, I'm really way to depressed with this and other things in my life, to hold a healthy state of being. So I think it's probably time I take my leave, and unfortunately leave my personal goal of improving all of the first 100 articles to proper standing. I know I take some liberties, I was hopeingRadlrb (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC) they were in good conscience and in the direction of where we are headed. Radlrb (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding one point you mentioned - I was not boasting about brilliance in my edits. I affirm my inputs, equally as I affirm others, and laud our collective work. There is nothing wrong in appreciating one's work, and welcoming it, at whichever stage of fulfillment perceived (usually, it always come short of actual worth, a lesson history teaches over and over). Also, these "rants" were also rooted in dissapointment I felt at ignoring my pleas of non-triviality over some of my edits, as well as affronts that were directed at me, passively or directly. This is all water under the bridge for me, I am not going to hurt myself or depreciate Wiki space any further, anger in the end always ends in lament. Radlrb (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

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

FWIW, in response to my question, an IP editor who is unable to contribute to this discussion due to the semi-protection at the moment, has responded on my talk. It is a much more succinct and direct statement of the dispute than what we have here, so thanks to them for that. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 on that. "Tension arises" tells us nothing (and, after all, ANI discussions get pretty dern tense), and a third of the active user pages on Wikipedia burble about barnstars and articles created/taken to GA/DYK/FA. A little less on Radlrb's verbiage and more on how this diff or that diff illustrates a genuine policy violation? Ravenswing 19:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for administrative intervention. Editors should remove material they consider to be original research, off topic, undue weight, out of scope, etc., and any resulting disputes can be resolved on the relevant talk page(s) or at WT:WPM. With that said though, user:Radlrb can you please tone down the weird puffery and try to keep discussions cooperative and on topic? –jacobolus (t) 20:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Because this board is about conduct not content, perhaps this is the place to point out Radlrb's bad-faith assumptions in WT:WPM#1234 (number), where another user started the discussion by pointing to Radlrb's past block for personal attacks [1] and Radlrb immediately responds by questioning the other user's impartiality merely because they had some past interactions with me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to comment on this. We can also bring up David Eppstein's examples of bad-faith, and with regard to the article at 1234 (number); it might be time to show his absence of good-faith, especially when others try to cooperate with him. That would be for a seperate AN/I, though. I did not assume bad faith here, I pointed to his possible willing miscontrusion of what occurred, which is different (i.e., one is the assumption that I did assume bad-faith, while the other is me seeing an incomplete introduction to an issue that occurred in the past, which is my right to point out, because it was misleading - maybe from favoritism, and therefore, with obvious negative intentions for me. Notice I never actually said anything explicit about me thinking either way, I said it raises questions of impartiality, as mentioning a "block" immediately leads to negative connotations without due context). This is actually a real-time example of a twisting of events he is concocting here, to push me out. Radlrb (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

At that time, I took "one of them was blocked" from Dedhert.Jr (in the diff David Eppstein provided) as hinted at me, since it has been the general experience (I believe) that David Eppstein has not been admonished for his oft-times demeaning attitude with editors (so its less likely to assume that the person blocked would be, David Eppstein). Radlrb (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this combative response, together with the admonishment above it "to keep discussions cooperative and on topic", speaks for itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No combative tone here, actually, just facts defending my response. Some of it is accusatory toward you, however that is not necessarily aggressive, just sharp. Radlrb (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Reading carefully Talk:1234 (number) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#1234 (number) and the edit history of the article, I can offer some tips on how to avoid this sort of personality conflict in future interactions. I don't share this commentary to assign blame or because anyone's supposed to be perfect (personally I'm kind of blunt and generally terrible at navigating emotionally charged conversations) but in the genuine hopes of improving future cooperation.

• This dispute should probably have ended when Radlrb said, "I found it interesting within its class of numbers. Do what you want you with it, I'm done fighting irrationally over things here." If that was your feeling, Radlrb, and there were two editors against and only one editor in favor, I'm not sure why you didn't just accept the removal as you said you were going to, given it's a minor fact and there are probably more important things to use your time on.
• On the other hand, if you actually do want to spend time defending this inclusion, arguing for it with detailed reasons and better sourcing are desirable responses to a removal based on unimportance, and you did that, so well done there. However when doing so, using language like "Seriously, stop, you're being petty now." (as Radlrb did) is not appropriate. It's a bit of a personal attack, and violates the guideline "assume good faith". It also seems to come out of frustration more than from actual evidence. I don't see any reason to think David Eppstein is removing this tidbit for any reason other than what he stated: he does not believe it is relevant to the article or important enough to include. That rationale was already supported by another editor, so it would be arrogant to assume it is without a reasonable, rational basis.
• David Eppstein replied on the talk page "Radlrb please stop edit-warring to add your junk WP:SYNTH non-interesting property to this article. It should be removed. Despite most of this conversation being dominated by your walls of text replying to yourself I see no other supporters of this content." Radlrb was not simply reverting the removed content, but modifying it to try to address other editors' concerns. Characterizing this as "edit-warring" seems to me a bit inaccurate, but regardless of whether it's correct or not, making a personal accusation is more likely to annoy the other editor and make them uncooperative than it is to encourage them to have a rational discussion. Criticizing another editor's talk page writing style in this way is unhelpful; it's almost certainly going to be perceived as disrespectful, and it's not necessarily something that someone can easily change about their personality. My advice would be to focus on the content of the article and the merits of the arguments made, rather than the style or the messenger. You could simply say, "I see you added mention of property X back to the article. The new {phrasing, sourcing, whatever} doesn't establish its importance because ___." Instead of attacking the author's "wall of text" writing style, you could respond on the merits with something like "I didn't see anything in the above reply that convinces me that this property is important." and ideally some specifics indicating you read and considered the good-faith arguments being made. You could wait a bit to see if the reply changed the mind of the other editor in support of removal was convinced, but if not, you could say it's two editors for removal and one against, so the choices going forward are either removal in X timeframe or solicitation of more opinions.
• Radlrb did indeed remark that the previous comment was rude, so I can see why they got upset at this point. Part of their reply was: "Interesting would be to see you respond to some of my points, rather than ignore them. It could give validity to your perspective, however you do not want to engage. In the light of true intellectual pursuit, you come heavily short, and all from substantial prejudice you still hold against me, and people of the like, who are willing to cross bludgeoned barriers of destruction that continue to exist today. But you're not the type to fight such heavy things." Everything after the word "perspective" here is an attack on David Eppstein. It's pretty unrealistic to think that David is going to go, "Oh, you're right. I didn't realize I was doing that. Sorry, let's talk about this rationally in detail or maybe just restore your proposed text." Responding to rudeness with rudeness is probably just going to fray everyone's nerves and reduce willingness to cooperate or find agreement. If you're asking them to engage with you, telling them they don't want to engage is a good way to thwart your own purpose - telling people how they feel or what they think is never received well, especially if - as in this case - it's probably factually incorrect. Accusing them of bias against you and questioning their commitment to intellectual pursuit is going to hurt a lot, and could easily make an enemy out of someone who wasn't actually one to begin with. If you can find it within yourself to respond to rudeness with calmness and rationality, you will not only look like the more reasonable person in the conversation, but you will also be more likely to reach a satisfactory compromise. A better reply here would have been, "I changed the added text in X way to try to respond to your concerns. If that wasn't satisfactory, was there something else that could be added in terms of sourcing or context to address them? Did you find (brief reference to best argument in long previous post) unconvincing?" This forces them to think about possible compromises if they want to look like a reasonable person without accusing them of being unreasonable, and makes it easy for them to engage with your arguments even if they were too annoyed to read them the first time, without accusing them of not engaging.
• When this got taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#1234 (number), Dedhert.Jr wrote: "Previously, both users had already edited war in the article Golden ratio, and one of them was blocked." and then mentioned what the dispute was about and asked for more opinions. Radlrb replied: 'I'm not sure why you mention "one of them was blocked" unless you are purpusefully trying to tilt the scales'. I assume Dedhert.Jr wrote that to explain why this dispute was serious enough to merit WikiProject attention: these editors have been in a dispute before that got so bad one of them had to be blocked, so we need to talk about this in a broader forum and diffuse the conflict. This also sends a signal to other editors that emotions are running high, so it would be good to phrase comments carefully and in a sensitive fashion, to avoid making the interpersonal conflict worse. Radlrb, you were the one blocked in the previous conflict. The fact that Dedhert.Jr did not mention you by name was doing you a favor, avoiding making you look like the worst offender. It's a bit ironic that a comment going out of its way to avoid biasing the conversation against you was used as evidence of bias against you. In general, it's unhelpful to think of Wikipedia editors in terms of friends and foes, of settling into factions. Treating groups of editors as tribal enemies leads to persistent violations of the "assume good faith" rule, and generally prevents otherwise-easily-resolved conflicts from getting settled in a quick and cooperative fashion. It's also usually just plain wrong - most of the time, people who revert our edits, argue with us on talk pages, or complain about us on WP:AN/I, are not out to get us. Usually they just disagree with the changes we're making or the behavior we're exhibiting.
• Radlrb had this idea that because over time so many more people read Wikipedia articles than editors who try to change them, any attempt to change long-standing content must be erroneous because of all the people who didn't object. That's very wrong. I used to work in customer service, where the rule of thumb was that for every 1 customer who called in to complain about something, there were probably literally 1000 others who felt the same way but didn't contact us to complain (assuming it was something that affected everyone and not just that we had messed up their individual order). Most people just don't have time or the emotional energy to engage in that sort of conflict, even though it's actually very helpful feedback for a catalog company and a powerful way to fact-check and NPOV-balance Wikipedia. In general, I assume the opinions of readers are probably proportional to editor opinions, to the degree that editors are a representative sample. If the prevailing view on talk pages seems out of whack and it's important enough to spend more editor time on the question, the best way to determine this for real is to increase the sample size of editors and draw opinions from a larger group, possibly not limited to enthusiasts of one topic, if you need it really representative. (For example, a site-wide RFC is useful if we're figuring out how to clearly explain something to non-experts in a field, but consulting a WikiProject is better if you are seeking enlightened experts who can fact-check a dubious claim or have an informed opinion about sources or something.)
• Radlrb wrote: "Well, if you don't follow what I am saying, then you very likely don't understand the very subject matter we are speaking of, I think." I think it's poor form to assume someone is having trouble following what I wrote because they're stupid, and tell them that to their face, rather than assuming that what I wrote was unclear. A better response is to figure out why the original explanation is unclear and clarify, apologize for unclearness and offer to clarify if that would help, or just ignore the "I didn't follow you" as unproductive to respond to and move on in the discussion, trying to be more clear and concise in future comments. Yes, it's possible the other person simply doesn't have the expertise to follow the argument, but it's much more graceful for them to be the one to say that or for us to politely ignore that while accepting everyone's input as valuable - especially since if something is too complicated for interested editors to understand, most readers are going to have similar problems.

-- Beland (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Great points, thank you Beland, and I agree with most of what you have expressed. Without a doubt, I lament my behavior. I extend my apologies to @David Eppstein, I'm sorry. I do cherish and value your work here on Wikipedia, and more generally the scholarly work you put forth elsewhere; you continue to write with fortitude. I also extend my apologies to @Dedhert.Jr, @Jacobolus, @XOR'easter, @Gumshoe2, and @100.36.106.199, and also extend it to @Dhrm77, @Imaginatorium, and @Certes, as well as everyone involved here and elsewhere that was directly affected, dissapointed, and dismayed at my poor and selfish responses that are not in my character. I know this is not enough, however maybe it can lay a path toward reconciliation and understanding. Radlrb (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Beland Thank you for this thorough response. Much to learn from it I think. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

TBAN for User:Radlrb

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

You could, could give a definitive warning first (an ultimatum on this issue). As I am also willing to undo the edits that are superfluous. Up to administrators, though. See the article for 2, for an example of work that is likely acceptable in your eyes. Else, I'll accept the penalty - I can still provide great quality work if you allow me to finish some pages I think I can put together nicely (the page for 7 is nearly ready for an upgrade in layout of the mathematics section, for example; a well cited mathematics section). Radlrb (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I think Talk:2 would be a good place to start. It includes two bits of your contributions which have been removed. The first is the mysterious "digits of pi" which I spent quite a lot of time struggling to understand, and which I believe amounts to the following: "Consider the initial subsequences of the digits of pi, including at least one digit after the decimal place. (i.e. as strings: 31, 314, 3141, 31415, 314159) Then the first four terms represent sets of consecutive (positive) naturals, excluding only 2. And that's it? Then there are some apparently unrelated equivalences, and I can make no sense of your attempted explanation. And I do not really think that any of the "Transcendental numbers" section is really relevant, because it just amounts to finding expressions including the number 2. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel at least, one is particularly valuable as it provides an actual property of

the number 2: one can generate e very simply with a pattern involving 2. If there is more consensus, let’s remove it! (Certes in his last conversation with me mentioned the example with pi, yet not e as superfluous). The one for pi is a well known example, and one of the simplest, which is why I chose to include it. Maybe a mention is warranted that it is not the only such fraction, and one of many. It still is a property of 2 I believe, since one cannot so the same with 3 nearly as nicely, or 17 say, without making it look much more complicated most likely (one can actually make that formula look like something entirely different if one wishes… by manipulating both sides of an equation). Again, I’m alright with removing them, the one for e is the one I find particularly relevant, feel free to do so. Radlrb (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The strings example has already been removed for some time, and you recently rid the image I had put there. I’ll give my rationale for it on the talk page after work today. Radlrb (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If anything, saying that the articles on 7 and 2 are "likely acceptable in [my] eyes" shows the depth of the problem. I'm a math major and I can tell you that talk of "heptagons in Eucledean space" (just call it a heptagon for crying out loud, we know what you mean and furthermore, should only be in the heptagon article), or "all cubes are congruent to" (pretty irrelevant if you ask me), or the Fano plane (I doubt anyone is looking for that on the article for THE NUMBER 7) or Wythoff symbols, or... I could go on, the point is, that, besides maybe a few short factoids (that could probably be trimmed down for readability), these article's math sections need to go. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like consensus on this from other editors, since it seems to me this is not a proper reading of properties and their validity on the page for 7. The point on heptagons, in Euclidean space specifically, is needed to disambiguate from heptagons in hyperbolic space, which do tile the plane. That's for that. The point on cubes congruent modulo 7 I did not add (it was @Seckends), and it seems very relevant. The Fano plane point describes the smallest finite projective plane, with an order in proportion to 7, with a structure of 7 points and 7 lines such that every line contains 3 points and 3 lines cross every point, whose incidence graph "embeds in three dimensions as the Szilassi polyhedron, the simplest toroidal polyhedron alongside its dual with 7 vertices, the Császár polyhedron". Obviously relevant. The Wythoff points are definitely relevant as well, not only as a count, but to show that 7 is the number of uniform tilings that are Wythoffian (some of this can in fact be reduced some, and I will reduce it here too, in good-fath - to show you that I am serious here in making amends, and further the encyclopedic value of these pages vis-a-vis verifiable sourcing). There are also points of dimensionality, freeze groups (that has been there for a while, here as counts of 7 too), and other valuable points as well. Radlrb (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN - Radlrb has shown they don't know what should be included in a numerical wikipedia article. The section Imaginatorium points out on Talk:2 about the insertion "In decimal representation, after the first two, three, four and five digits in the approximation of $\pi (\approx 3.14159)$ the number 2 is the only digit greater than zero not yet represented (overall, up to the largest appearing digit). [Where also, operations of strings $1\times 2^{2}=4$ and $5-3=2$ are collectively satisfied.]" is ridiculous. It's the mathematical equivalent of playing with dolls. "If you take a constant, and then turn it into decimal, and then take only the first few digits, and then interpret that as a set, then it will have all the digits except 2 (or 0, or some other digits)" - this is no way an interesting property of the number 2. This is like if I went to pear and added "if you peel an orange, you can cut the peel up and rearrange it in a particular way to spell the word 'pear'". It's meaningless WP:OR. When pointed out to Radlrb that this was arbitrary they posted a comment saying It's cool, more than just cool...incredibly interesting and telling if you have the sensitivity to understand how immensely useful and absolute most unlikely to be trivial, if you don't think its meaningful then you don't think so, but if you have any hope for something in mathematics that makes sense, instead of fronting the same arguments over and over, over "trivialities" that I am adding (meaning you are not really clicking with what is going on here), then you will noot want it removed.. Yesterday, they seemed to be heading towards an edit war while adding similiar pieces of trivia to 18 (number). On one re-addition (of a "if you add a bunch of carefully cherrypicked numbers together, they total another number" style fact), they included a very pointy edit summary "that is obviously a nice property (when having normal personal mathematical saliency, that is)". When another editor removed these useless facts and explained why, Radlrb just immediately added them all back in and added another one, ignoring the protests. From what I can see they are (whatever their intentions) creating messes for other editors to pick through and clean up - TBAN is the right way to go. BugGhost🦗👻 09:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You chose select examples. I've written plenty of material, what are your views on the other material I have added on 2, most of which has not been contested? Check the page for 9, for 8, for 7, for 6, as well as for other pages such as 17 (all uncontested so far, care to look through so you will see there are good additions made? Some points I will also remove from these pages). This seems like a biased analysis, as you have not vetted a large pool of my additions, and therefore are cherry-picking. Yes, I agree those additions for 2 were not productive here on WP (I did compound multiple points on that quote, if it's read through all the way, which gives more validity to its substance, however viewed as FRNG or not). Check the material added to the other pages below 11, and please tell us what you think, and if you still believe they are not worthy points added (no contest has been submitted to my additions for those pages I mentioned above, for integer articles between 3 and 10, aside from 5).

Also, in good-faith of this discussion, I have started to revert some of my additions, however I won't get the chance to do real work on these until a week from now, as I am not with my computer at the moment, and am working most of this week at least 12 hours a day. Radlrb (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia:Wikiproject Numbers where I led changes to a now-greatly improved guidelines (will add more on SYNTH/OR), and improved the Project Page into more refined working order. This, so that you see that I do also know what to include in these number articles; I'm not in anyway a "crackpot", like the User IP 100.36.106.199 said of me on the Mathematics Project discussion thread. I do know what I am talking about, putting aside the SYNTH bits (that I thought were relevant additions, but not for here; how people define triviality is defined differently over time, as we understand more intricate details that merge properties together, in light of parsimony, regardless of personal objections to seeming-"numerology"). Radlrb (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The articles pointed out confirms my vote. In the articles you point out as your "good work":

• 9 - your most recent edit adds The regular hexagon contains a total of nine diagonals, and is one of only four polytopes with radial equilateral symmetry such that its long radius (center to vertex length) is the same as the edge-length: (the hexagon), the cuboctahedron, the tesseract, and the 24-cell.. This was added under immediately under the heading "Polygons and tilings", and actually pushes down relevant info like A polygon with nine sides is called a nonagon.. This change includes one tenuously relevant piece of info about the number 9, and then some completely irrelevant jargon-filled info about hexagons, with no citation. People who visit 9 are not looking for trivia about hexagons.
• 8 - no substantial edits since January
• 7 - [2] Cites [3] for the claim the heptagon is the only convex polygon to have a one-to-two ratio between the number of its sides and diagonals., which is not interesting or relevant, and also not in source - either based in WP:OR or WP:SYNTH
• 6 - [4] - you added a piece of useless geometry-based trivial about the number 25 (not 6), completely unrelated to the preceding sentence, which was about aliquot sums.
• 17 (number) - [5] - added far too much detail about the behaviour of subatomic particles (I wish I was joking), completely unsourced.

I didn't cherrypick these examples, they are all the most recent non gnoming/copy-editing edit in each of them. Your changes on these articles only goes to show the breadth of this problem and reaffirms the need for a topic ban. I also would ask you to not add/edit guidelines on SYNTH/OR considering this situation at hand. BugGhost🦗👻 13:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That's definitely looks like a type of cherry picking, with respect. Are there any other facts in those number pages that you disagree with? Because, thats less than 5% of content I added in each of the pages you mentioned. For the page for 8, what you see in the mathematics section, I wrote and expanded most of it (and organized it as you see). I am asking for a more comprehensive summary of your views of content I added in these pages. Could you please do that? In honor of your points that you mentioned as being superfluous, I will remove them now, except for the heptagon point, as I see it worth mentioning, and even @Dhrm77 protected an edit that was trying to word it differently, 1. Radlrb (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not replying further - I presented 2 examples, and then when you wanted more, I posted 4 more examples of your unhelpful changes, from recent changes from articles you specifically cited as your good work. This response is just WP:IDHT and WP:SATISFY. If I post 5 more examples (which I could), you will just ask for 5 more. One final thing I will point out is to show that you should be TBANNED from editing number-based articles is the 2,000 word essay on your userpage that has such insights as: These three unifying states are themselves united into a single state of equanimity (16, a value representing the ninth composite number), such that these two polar opposing states and middle state are united into a healing and sustaining flow of expression (all-feeling, all-knowing, and all-fulfilling). This yields sixteen elements (1-16). A state of rest of this equanimity is full sleep (0, the only number aside from 9 to yield a digit sum that is the same as the original number added to it, as with any final numeral-number in a given base, here in decimal), which is the root emotional and mental element. - I don't think it's a good idea to have someone who has this kind of relationship with numbers to be editing mathematical articles. BugGhost🦗👻 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Correct, your input is not comprehensive and is selective of evidence, so does not satisfy "beyond reasonable doubt" so to speak, your vote, just shows bias you have and are unwilling to actually present wholesome evidence. What's on my personal user page should tell you that I think out of the box, and yes, think critically beyond what we know today. After all, that's how new knowledge is born, not out of stagnation. However that does not change the fact that I added great information in the first 10 integer articles. I will make a list of the points I have added, and will check mark the information that is clearly admissible, so that you can see actually (you likely do not know, by how you are describing my edits) what I have added! Radlrb (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

From my experience with User:Radlrb's edits, he has done a mix of good and some controversial/fringe/unorthodox edits in the WP:WPM area. So, I'm not sure if TBAN means Temporary Ban, Topic Ban or some other form of Banning, and I don't know if that would accomplish the ultimate goal of keeping the peace and keeping Wikipedia both informative and not filled with obscure or fringe cruft, but I support some form of action that would go in that direction. Dhrm77 (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

TBAN is Topic Ban, I believe. Radlrb (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Tban even above Radlrb is showing IDHT. Also some minor bludgeoning Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Tban for the examples given directly above, followed by Radlrb's accusations of "cherrypicking" and excuse that they are "thinking out of the box". Radlrb says to go check out the articles on 2 and 7, and when it's pointed out that they added bad content to 2, Radlrb says to look at more pages. When there are problems on those pages, Radlrb says it's "cherrypicking" again. This is WP:IDHT and arguing in bad faith. "I sometimes add content that hasn't yet been challenged" is not a good excuse for adding bad content. Also, announcing that you're "thinking out of the box" because "that's how new knowledge is born" violates WP:OR. Toughpigs (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  IDHT more from people here, that don't want to see the majority of the valuable points that I have added, so they only highlight the minority points in hope that it will flood over the actual evidence. For this, I can seek mediation from higher Wikimedia bodies, if this unfair treatment still persists, entirely against guidelines (ironic, because I am being framed for violating policies that here I was willing to fix, and after I gave heart-felt apologies). Also, the misquoting, taking my own words out of context. A lot of hypocrisy unfortunately, and worse, deep prejudice that does not want to come out from most (some are more vocal about it). Radlrb (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's "bad faith" to have an overly high opinion of one's own edits. If one doesn't think they are good, one probably wouldn't have made them in the first place. WP:AGF says "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful." I see no evidence Radlrb is playing a game or trying to put material they think is harmful or self-serving or deliberately provocative into Wikipedia. It seems they are simply trying to share information they think is interesting with people interested in that type of information. Yes, it's often original research and excessive detail and meandering off-topic, but that's a disagreement over what is good, not a conflict between good and evil. -- Beland (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Radlrb has posted a declaration of retirement but is still commenting. XOR'easter (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Correct. I can still talk in relevant spaces in retirement since it has to do with me, without editing articles directly. I'm making sure my voice is heard, regardless of people trying to silence me. Radlrb (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  From the template documentation: Do not use this template unless you plan to completely and permanently stop editing. Other templates are available if you might return at a later date, or if you plan to significantly reduce your activity. XOR'easter (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. I am generally a sentimental softie and don't like recommending sanctions, but by now I think it's unavoidable here. Spamming number articles with nearly incomprehensible prose about points that are either esoteric or trivial is bad. Failing to understand the problem after multiple other editors have tried to explain it is worse. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Conversations with Radlrb are uniquely exasperating. Any disagreement will be called either "passive-aggressive" (here) or "combative" (here). They argue for including content because It seems to be "nice" (here) or It's cool, more than just cool (quoted above), while taking offense at being told they are relying on their personal opinion (here again). They'll say that an article needs to read with structure, rather than a seemingly haphazard listing of data (back here), while producing the most haphazard agglomeration of mathematical factoids that I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I don't doubt they're working with the best of intentions, but those good intentions have paved the road to abysmal articles. XOR'easter (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is taken out of context, with old information and quotes that have the effect of distorting facts as they stand today, as I am already removing in good-faith much of the content in dispute, meaning this is an effort to make it seem as if the main issue still persists. Yes, in the past, my commentary was not voiced in the best way possible. The dry tone that you use, and the lack of affirmation of my work already, points to the idea that you are being passive-aggressive, and that you possibly do not hold good-faith intentions in remedying this collaboratively with me, rather just want to push me out of WP regardless. So, given my efforts, it seems yes, that you are not still not understanding that I added much great content. In other words, flooding the good WP:DUE I have contributed with instances of SYNTH, and making it seem as if I have added apparently no good content at all. And no, I have already agreed, multiple times, to reductions, so "Any disagreement will be called either 'passive-aggressive' (here) or 'combative' (here)" is incorrect, and not all articles I have worked on are in an "abysmal" state; this is wrong. Radlrb (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  XOR'easter has been collaborating with you, and I see no evidence they are doing so "bad faith" - that implies they are intentionally sabotaging the collaboration in order make you look bad. They are supporting a topic ban because you have been difficult to work with, and making an accusation of bad faith without good evidence is a violation of WP:AGF and actually does make it hard to work with you. -- Beland (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think he has been collaborating with me, actually. He has possibly been "needing to work through me" in his eyes, is how I feel. Collaboration has a different connotation, where the language becomes much more aggreable between editors. I have tried, and continue to try, to be respectful, however his shortness is definitely frustrating, as are his invalid representations of what is transpiring here, as when he says "Any disagreement will be called either 'passive-aggressive' (here) or 'combative' (here)'", which is not the case, I have yielded plenty. Aren't my reverts evidence of this?? I am not assuming bad faith, I am seeing his very words, where he still persists and lies to say that I write abysmal articles only; that is bad-faith from him because I have clearly attempted to revert some of my SYNTH, and also have great material generated, which he does not comment on. Radlrb (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  You're assuming XOR'easter would agree that some significant fraction of the content you've added to articles is good, which I wouldn't take as a given. I don't disagree that "any disagreement" is a bit of an exaggeration, but I do understand why this has been added to their reasons to support a topic ban.

  My advice, if you don't want to give people ammunition to use against you? Only talk about content on talk pages and don't address the attitudes or behavior of other editors at all. Then no one will have any grounds to come here and complain about the words you are using to describe them or their actions. It will also generally cause them to focus more on resolving the content issues on the merits, even if it involves ignoring sharp elbows and perceived slights. -- Beland (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes (WP:DUE passes many of the points, as with 2, where he has not reverted most points, but why not mention this directly so that it is more a true representation of the altogether possible summary of my work), and Yes (I am trying to not get annoyed, but this all still hurts, because well, I am human, and have lived through thick in thin like many of us, and gee, no one likes to be misrepresented, since that goes straight to the soul and the view of worth in the eyes of others). Radlrb (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have not "reverted most points" in the article 2 because I know that you will just undo my edit and then complain about it! XOR'easter (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, I would ask for consensus, as people have asked to do first. Radlrb (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  It seems as humans we're remarkably inaccurate at determining the thoughts and motivations of people on the other side of the text-only Internet. -- Beland (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  It is such a limitation. I would love to just get on a mass conference-call and speak in "real-life". Radlrb (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Even so, I am starting to think once more that it is moot for me to do any of this self-reverting if all that will be seen is that I have done poor work. Let me point out that Certes said before his retirement on his talk page: "I haven't looked through your contributions in detail but I do think your work has been of worth and that you are contributing worthwhile information", while also stating "However, I do think that you sometimes go into more detail than is ideal, especially when the text is not primarily about the article's topic." 1. Imaginatorium also stated back in December 2023 at Wikiproject Numbers: "@Radlrb: in particular has done a huge amount of work on these articles, most of it in the right direction I think, yet some of it highly dubious to me" 2. This was near the end of last year, a whole almost two years since I started editing. Radlrb (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Certes told you back in June, Yes, it is our duty to reveal published information, which means summarising reliable sources rather than drawing conclusions for ourselves. Mathematics is unusual in that statements can be proven true even if they don't appear in the literature, but we should still follow Wikipedia's general rule that we are reporting knowledge rather than creating it. To be blunt, I don't think you've learned that yet. Less than an hour ago, you called my attempt to re-explain that to you quite the personal attack and declared that it goes without saying that this was a comment aimed at insulting me [6]. Being willing to remove (some of) your additions only after other editors have poured hours into trying to work with you ... well, it's better than never removing your additions at all, but it still means that trying to work together with you is ... I'm trying to think of a more polite term than "time sink", but that's about the size of it. XOR'easter (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Correct, while also stating "I do think your work has been of worth and that you are contributing worthwhile information" first, meaning he acknowledged my good work as well (notice he said I sometimes "go into more detail than is ideal, especially when the text is not primarily about the article's topic"), the word used is sometimes, which some others do not agree with. I wanted to show everyone here that there have been outstanding editors that have seen my good work here. Working with me does not have to be a "time sink" (a bit harsh). Think of it from my point of view, you add substantial important information, but only an adverse side is noticed by someone. It is not fair.
  He said, let me emphasize, that my work (overall, most likely he meant) has been of worth. Radlrb (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Davey2116 is another editor that has expressed such understanding (that's three already). Radlrb (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know why you're pulling quotes from months ago while, when I quote things you've written in the past couple days, that's old information and quotes that have the effect of distorting facts as they stand today. I don't know why you say of me, he still persists and lies to say that I write abysmal articles only; I don't think I've ever said that 100% of your work is bad. That's not the problem. The problem is that too much of what you have written is unencyclopedic, that after days of attempted explanations it is still not clear that you understand why, that you take unremarkable criticisms of your writing in unreasonably harsh ways, that you react by lashing out and then sometimes striking through. All through this thread, you've taken the attitude that people think you contribute apparently no good content at all. Days ago, you called people pointing out examples of poor editing cherry picking and not comprehensive. But the thing is, it doesn't have to be "comprehensive". If 90% of what you contribute is unobjectionable, and 10% creates a massive drain on other volunteers, then that 10% is the problem. XOR'easter (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  These are quotes others gave, and might not be able to reiterate today, so it is different. Your quotations are of things I said, subjects of which I am now reversing, so they no longer stand (maybe only more minor points, even of the sort such as keeping 5! in the page for 744, that I agreed was in the end not worth keeping given guidelines we might agree on in the end). What is too much? I've been asking of a quantification of this, which stands against what editors like Imaginatorium or Certes pointed to. Lets work on that 10% then (if that is the proportion that is problematic - finally some number came out! And is vastly different than stating that "Radlrb has shown they don't know what should be included in a numerical wikipedia article", as editor BugGhost mentioned in his vote.) I am just asking for KINDNESS. I AM A HUMAN, with a HEART. Radlrb (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN, because of the refusal to listen to others' relevant opinions demonstrated well in the interactions with BugGhost above, and the reliance on original research over published sources demonstrated in their number-related edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN. While some of their edits may indeed be good, the need for continual monitoring to pick out the wheat from the trivial and OR chaff is an unacceptable drain on other editors' time. Given their responses here, they clearly don't understand the problem nor the purpose of Wikipedia, and don't intend to change their behavior. If they really intend to retire then the TBAN is harmless but if they return to editing then the TBAN is necessary. CodeTalker (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Imaginatorium has asked me to chime in here. I don't really have the time or care to slog through the entire backstory of what has transpired here, so feel free to ignore this comment if you think I am missing important context. To the extent I am involved, I reverted Allan Nonymous's BOLD edits at the number articles which were wholesale deletions of content. I was then informed on my talk page that some of the removed content had been contributed by Radlrb, who was the subject of this AN/I discussion, and that I should weigh in here if I find their contributions positive. Personally, I believe that much of the content in question is interesting, informative, and useful; the reader who searches for individual numbers on Wikipedia is looking for exactly this kind of information. So, based only on this involvement it is my opinion that pushing away the editor who created this content would be a loss for Wikipedia. However, I should make clear that the reason I attempted to revert Allan Nonymous's deletions was not that I reviewed every single fact in question and determined that they were all suitable for inclusion; I simply disagree that making such large changes all at once is the right way to go about this. Davey2116 (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  The opinion expressed here is exactly the reason I stopped most editing of number-based articles a year ago. It is clear that there is a community of like-minded editors who like having number articles in states like (to pick only the most recent of Davey2116's restoration of material removed in recent cruft-removal) 744, packed with statement after statement after statement sourced to OEIS and almost as interesting as "744 = 723 + 21".

  It may even be accurate that this is what readers who come to Wikipedia looking at articles on numbers in this range expect and want: they intend to find some factoid to say about this number (for instance, maybe as a lead-in to a blog post) and they don't much care whether there is any mathematical depth to that factoid. That's not a use case I care to contribute my energy to, and I'm not convinced it's encyclopedic, but it is a use case. So eventually, to me, the effort of cleaning up what always seemed to me the Augean stables weighed too much relative to the opposite reaction to appreciation for those cleanups from editors like Davey2116 and I stopped. But I applaud others who have the fortitude to continue cleaning this up. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is not a fair representation of what happened. Davey2116 didn't restore the content because they think meaningless trivia belongs in the article, but because Allan Nonymous's deletions went too far, removing high quality encyclopaedic content written by users (including myself) who have been actively removing trivia and developing the articles with GA quality prose. Polyamorph (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your advocacy of the same cruft does not change my evaluation that it is cruft. Also "I worked so hard putting all this cruft into the article and it's unfair to just remove it" does not count for much to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm clearly not advocating for the inclusion of "cruft" but the manner in which it is being removed, taking genuine high quality encyclopaedic content (like that which I contributed to at the article 1) out with it. I'm not impressed. Polyamorph (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your "genuine high quality encyclopaedic content" is my cruft. And your "taking content like that which I contributed" is my "I worked so hard putting all this cruft in". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think you've read my contributions at all, if you had you would know it is not "cruft". Polyamorph (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Please be open to the possibility that someone has read your additions and decided that they are too much detail for that encyclopedia article. Not everyone has the same priorities and interests on a given topic.

  And folks, just typing back and forth "it's cruft!" and "it's not cruft!" isn't getting anywhere. We're discussing changing the guidelines on what should and shouldn't be included on integer articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers. Being more specific about what is and isn't important in a huge pile of changes would be helpful, as would be specific reasons for why readers would be interested. -- Beland (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Beland that it would be more productive to discuss specific things at WP Numbers than to back-and-forth about whether Polyamorph is a "cruft-pusher". Mathwriter2718 (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment the wholesale removal of the content at the integer articles by Allan Nonymous were totally reckless, removing high quality prose written collaboratively by multiple authors in addition to the so-called WP:CRUFT. It is for this reason they have been reverted, not because anyone wants to keep trivia. It's a case of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There is a discussion about this at the numbers wikiproject. Polyamorph (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN seems moot at this point as Radlrb appears to have retired. Some of their comments suggest they are not in the best state of mind. My interactions with them suggest they are a good faith editor that tries to do the right thing. I also note Radlrb's apology above. I'm not impressed that the user that proposed this TBAN has been systematically mass deleting content on numbers articles without consensus. Polyamorph (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  People often announce that they're "retired" during ANI discussions, and then come back shortly after the discussion is over. Radlrb announced their retirement two days ago, and then kept posting here. The topic ban is still necessary to prevent further disruption. Toughpigs (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  On the basis of what policy infringement. It just comes across as a content dispute with a few disgruntled editors taking there chance to dismiss an editor that annoys them. Polyamorph (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  This dismissal of alternate opinions, well represented in the comments here, as "a few disgruntled editors" is exactly the same pattern of failing to consider seriously any disagreement that has been so problematic in the behavior of Radlrb. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  How pleasant. Polyamorph (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  They never actually declared that they were retired. They added a "retired" template to their user page but did not mean that they were leaving completely, which is what the template is supposed to be used for. Any claim that a TBAN would be moot because of their retirement is unfounded. XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I still plan to retire after this is done, I only came back because there was misrepresentation of my work, and because I wanted to clean up after myself. Radlrb (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I gently urge that further discussions about specific removals of content we should make, comments about recent reversions made by editors other than User:Radlrb, and generally material relevant to WikiProject Numbers but not relevant to sanctions against Radlrb, be placed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Help remove WP:CRUFT on number articles! and not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathwriter2718 (talk • contribs)

  Of course, but when it comes off the back of a kneejerk reaction to Radlrb's additions and is by the very same user who is proposing a TBAN, then it is of relevance for the admins reading this. Comes back to this essentially being a content dispute. Polyamorph (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Mathwriter2718 (talk) Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment it is clear, with all the edit warring now occurring at the integer articles, that this is about more that just one problematic editor. this accusation of "continued cruft-pushing brigading" is both untrue and a personal attack and was met with further hostility and doubling down by David Eppstein when challenged on their talk page, to the extent that they accused another admin of also being part of a tag team. There is edit warring by Allan Nonymous at the numbers pages, and refusal to engage in the very discussion that they initiated at wikiproject numbers. Folks need to calm down, engage in discussions, stop throwing around "cruft" as if it's a valid reason to dismiss good faith editors contributions in their entirety and frankly start being a lot friendlier to your fellow editors. Polyamorph (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Radlrb has officially come out of retirement (as predicted by some) and made 45 edits this morning to math based articles. Seems to be a combination of restoring deleted content (with pointy edit summaries) but also removing (presumably their own?) additions to numerical articles, citing wp:synth - from first glance it looks like they have taken the criticism in this thread on board and are attempting to course correct - but still are very much against Allan Nonymous' bold deletions. BugGhost🦗👻 11:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  This edit warring needs to stop. The discussion is open at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Proposed_update_for_integer_guidelines. Polyamorph (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Polyamorph with respect I think you are commenting a lot on this topic - it is already very long. I was able to see this project talk topic the other times it was posted. BugGhost🦗👻 13:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  The link to the discussion was not necessarily meant for you but to those who continue to force their opinions in mainspace instead of at that very discussion, in an attempt to prevent any further escalation. Perhaps that is a futile hope, but your comment is noted with thanks, I will not comment further. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not very much against his BOLD deletions. More so, I am against non-consensus removal, as I explained in the edit summaries, as well as question some of his extreme removal of WP:DUE content. Thank you for your words @Bugghost. Please do see that I intend to remove all of my SYNTH, and the reverts on Allan were based on the need to seek consensus before removing mass-content, as multiple other editors asked. Radlrb (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN, given the above return to the exact same problem area editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Notice the changes that I have made since the beginning of this AN/I, and the good-faith edit-removals I have made of the synthesized material I added in the past (that was also in great-faith, of course). Notice that my reverts of the very information described by editors as being worthwhile (see above, as well as words from Mathwriter2718 1) have also been substantiated by other editors recently. The editing of recent mass removals was in consensus with five other editors at least (Beland, Polyamorph, Davey2116, QuicoleJR, and Johnuniq a b), regarding the over-deletion of information that has remained for a long while in various number pages and deleted by Allan Nonymous without consensus (see the pages for all single digit integers aside from 0 as well as select other two-digit integers, actions which he is not repeating nearly as much - gladly the last occurrence was earlier today at 1), and seen as unjustified since it can lead to deletion of valuable information. There is also currently good-faith collaboration over the very requirements that we are seeking to make these articles be of the highest quality that could be, at least for now; for my part, I just recently joined that discussion peripherally, so to speak 2 , and I will also express my own input and proposals for the guidelines in question at WP:WP Numbers (shortly, I hope!). Radlrb (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  None of this absolves you of the issues at hand. You need to step away from this area of editing, and I think a TBAN to force it is the appropriate measure. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Of course it does, undoing bad work is an example of good-faith - it shows that I do understand the transgressions and can be a generator of good content for our number articles. And as other editors have noticed, I have done plenty of good work and is against the idea that "I don't know what to include" - care to comment on my good work, or just notice the bad? Even XOR'easter noted, the 90% and 10% balance, why kick someone out for only 10% of the work, when the other 90% is seen as worthwhile and of quality? It seems you are not being impartial either, as with most of the votes against, and therefore not following assuming good-faith: your point assumes overall bad-faith, and hurts your position, as excluding me from the project clearly is a case of hurting Wikipedia. Also, the vandalism of Allan Nonymous, by which the page for 1 had to become protected, shows hypocrisy at play here to remove valuable information that you are not even willing to vet yourself. Worse yet, you are simply trying to be hurtful, by not providing an avenue for reconcilliation. Radlrb (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not taking a position on sanctions, but I'd like to respond to some unhelpful points made above.

  XOR'easter did not say that 90% of your contributions are acceptable to them, only that even if that were the case, it wouldn't matter if the other 10% were sucking up a huge amount of time from other volunteers.

  Wikipedia:Vandalism says: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Allan Nonymous' changes do appear to be motivated by a desire to reduce clutter and improve Wikipedia; they are not "vandalism" in the sense used in Wikipedia policy.

  Whether other people are hypocrites or have behaved badly as well doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not your behavior is tolerable.

  I would not expect anyone not-voting here to be impartial, and they don't have to be. Many have formed strong opinions that certain behavior is unacceptable and that's why they are here complaining. -- Beland (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I am not convinced that Allan Nonymous was not trying to mass-delete information without consensus on purpose. It's on him after so many iterations of telling him to stop, even after he said he would, did not come through. Also, I asked explicitly for an evaluation of my good work versus that which is superfluous, and it is still not being given. So that a proper assessment of "whether or not I do not know at all if I can contribute material" stands. Whether people are hypocrites does have bearing here, since it gives less validity to their points of view. I am being honest here in calling out bad behavior, as people are calling out mine, and this needs to be taken seriously, and I see no true sign of that, or intention to identify it. I hope this changes, from editors here who have commented here, and from those who have yet to comment that want to, so they also give their honest opinions. I am not going to kneel to unfair treatment. Radlrb (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the point of the quote above is that even when something is done on purpose, against consensus, in a disruptive fashion, it's not necessarily "vandalism".

  If we're supposed to ignore an accusation of bad behavior if it comes from someone who has engaged in bad behavior, then we should ignore your complaints about other editors. If you want us to take your complaints about others seriously, then we should take their complaints about you seriously. Admins here tend to look more at the evidence being pointed to and not who is doing the pointing, which to me seems like the only fair and rational way to operate.

  Politely pointing out the bad behavior of others might help reach a more fair outcome if their behavior would otherwise be unaddressed, but going overboard with name-calling and insinuating bad motivations just provides more evidence that you need to be sanctioned in order to avoid disrupting the project.

  Based on the above conversations, it looks like the percentage of your significant contributions considered "good" ranges from "none" to "some", depending on who you ask. I don't think you're going to get a more quantitative answer than that. The general complaint seems to be that for a long time, you put up an unreasonably big and somewhat uncivil fight over additions which seem to go well beyond what anyone else finds appropriate for inclusion, and arguably run afoul of various Wikipedia policies. Given that you've apologized above for incivility and are now helping clean up all those additions, it's possible this thread will simply be closed with no action taken. I'd say the best way to maximize the possibility of that is to stop commenting here, stop commenting on other editor's actions and motivations on talk pages and in edit summaries, and focus on content and guidelines. Or you could take a break and let other folks deal with the cleanup, and come back later refreshed and more focused on content that has consensus for inclusion. -- Beland (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Somewhat, fair Radlrb (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC) Fair, regarding your advice. My patience is running on almost 0, so we'll see if I survive this emotionally, else you'll know why if I don't, everyone has limits. Radlrb (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think this is a better summary of things than any I could give. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Radlrb's edits restoring bad content to number articles have resumed: see Special:Diff/1239791869. And their unencyclopedic mysticism is on full display in their most recent addition to my talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  This response to the re-removal of that trivia is untenable. Leaping from the assertion that there is no consensus to "and therefore I must be right" is antithetical to collaborative editing. XOR'easter (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't the only person to return that content? Anyways, I'm going with it, I'm not taking it personally or anything, as people here have been wanting me to avoid. Cool? ; ) Radlrb (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, mysticism, and logic! Good friends. Radlrb (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I will soon start removing the SYNTH I added into all the remaining articles; the focus was first on 5 and 744, which were the more developed articles I contributed to. Please allow me some time (no more than a week), to complete this task. I appreciate your patience. Radlrb (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  While I appreciate the gesture here, this doesn't seem to have amounted to a huge change in practice. The behavior that is the subject of the complaint still seems to be here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe, "subject of your the" complaint, however, *respectfully* Radlrb (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC) in agreement with other editors seeking consensus before removal of information at the relevant pages, where other editors also reverted your mass-removals; I have agreed with removals of other edits in the meantime (see, Talk:1, Talk:5, 744, and Talk:1234), all of which have been under greater consensus. I have also continued to work on removing my own SYNTH found elsewhere (please do see my editing history, of course). You also have been forcing guidelines in your edit summaries currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers, which have not yet gathered a vote of consensus to move into the mainspace of the project page, so I am not quite sure why you think my behavior here is not in line with policies where my only retractive additions have been to protect the material other editors are seeking consensus to keep or remove. I would appreciate it a lot if you could clarify your position further. Radlrb (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  If you have not understood after the numerous explanations in this entire section, then I don't think you'll ever understand. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  I showed I did, and am continuing to show it. Radlrb (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding User:CriticallyThinking

The user CriticallyThinking has repeatedly ignored feedback regarding edits made to a handful of articles, and regrettably discussion has been reduced to mudslinging on more than one occasion; on this most recent occasion I am attempting to curb falling into this behaviour by warning the user and subsequently filing a report.

For example, on more than one occasion, despite my best efforts to adjust the structure of Tom & Jerry (2021 American film), specifically the visual effects and animation section, the user has often removed quotes I have attempted to embed from sources, in favour of paraphrasing that usually only serves to make the relaying of information more confusing. It has sometimes come down to hasty edits to the page for the sake of dominance.

Here is a passage I worked on embedding quotes from in order to make the production process of the film clearer:

Revision as of 20:22, 23 July 24

To evoke the original Tom and Jerry shorts' character designs, movements, and expressions, animation director Michael Eames stated that Framestore "developed new rigs that enabled us to squash, stretch, and at times totally deform the characters." A 2D draw-over phase was introduced in which 2D artists guided the 3D animators with hand-drawn poses and expressions of the characters over a rough edit. Eames explained that the draw-overs were a reference for the 3D animators to "refine and better sculpt shapes we were not fully able to achieve in the production process." An automated tool was also developed to generate 2D outlines into the models. Story described this technique as "2D-plus animation."

This was admittedly my preferred iteration of the paragraph. During our dispute, CriticallyThinking would make changes that were grammatically poor, complicated the intent of the original source and removed those quotes.

Revision as of 20:29, 23 July 24

To evoke the original Tom and Jerryshorts' character designs, movements, and expressions, and their 2D finish,the production introduced software for every traditional animation technique, ranging from the models' outlines to their deforming potential. A 2D draw-over phase was also introduced, where 2D sketchviz artists guided the 3D animators with hand-drawn poses and expressions of the characters over a rough edit. Animation director Michael Eames explained that it's to help "refine and better sculpt shapes we were not fully able to achieve in the production process", to bypass CGI's creative limitations and replicate their 2D execution.  Story described this technique as "2D-plus animation."

This was quite frustrating, as not only were what I felt were concise and easy-to-follow quotations being removed, but they were being replaced with passages that were hastily written without much thought, and contained an implicit and recurring bias that frequently veered into original research despite defences to the contrary.

Thus, I am adding this topic to protect the sanctity and integrity of my own contributions, and to hopefully take a step toward preventing further disruptions like this again. I would also like feedback on how I could have handled a situation like this differently, because I think I could have prevented it from becoming quite so volatile in hindsight. Thank you. Ciscocat (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Read the paragraphs and the cited sources again. You are outright trying to re-write history and removed insightful information and sources that proved the direction and how high the demands were for the production and animation. Admins, because of you, protected this page from vandalism and called you out for being biased. In the end, you'd be better off seeking therapy rather than throwing a fit because it's not done your way. CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If it wasn't for how obsessive you are over stalking me day after day, which you always do on every social media platform I am in, you wouldn't have an issue and moved on with your life. Regardless of how you feel, the production behind it innovated and was a first-ever attempt at a CGI workflow cloning the look and feel of traditional 2D and with many software tools introduced to achieve the part. This isn't me trying to make the film look like it's postivitely received. It's just a fact behind its production, and the sources proved it. Take it with a grain of salt and move on, because it's better than being a biased, uneducated vandal. CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't exactly have a horse in this fight, but can you cool it with the personal attacks? MiasmaEternal☎ 22:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If you did not have a history of attacking peers of mine, unprompted, across multiple platforms (because people would not defend the 2021 Tom & Jerry film and you would literally beg them to like it) and gotten yourself temporarily suspended a number of times, I would not have gotten myself involved. Any flippant jokes I may have made were in response to your behavioural pattern of harassment, insults and self-victimization, and a shared amusement/frustration among those communities. Also plagiarism, which is why moderators removed you from Letterboxd and a good reason to be concerned about you editing Wikipedia. Ciscocat (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

And one thought off the top for you: you had better, right the heck now, take a look at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You've already had a block for edit warring, in your short Wikipedia career, and an insult like you just levied against Ciscocat is blockworthy in of itself. Stop that at once. Ravenswing 22:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Some more insults have been directed at me. CriticallyThinking (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Ciscocat (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Please explain to me how embedding quotes directly from a crew member is rewriting history. And no admin has ever admonished me for being biased in this ordeal. On the other hand, considering your opinion on this film is very apparent in spaces such as the edit logs–

"Stop throwing a fit because a movie you didn't like managed to be unique."

"Creative and artistic liberties are shown, regardless of how much you want to re-write history."

–I would say you’re leading with a certain agenda. You’ve also demonstrated that you have misread the sources you have often coveted by, for instance, referring to it as “the first project in all of animation to introduce software for 2D animation techniques.” You have amalgamated sources and came to a conclusion that does not exist within them, or taken phrases that were partial or subjective and extrapolated them as fact (i.e. believing that the visual effects vendor’s description of the animation as “hyperkinetic” is factual). Ciscocat (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

One thought right off the top, without respect to the issue of your complaint: there's no protection to be had for the "sanctity" or "integrity" of your contributions. Any articlespace edit you make is subject to being changed, replaced or removed, and we all agree to that as a precondition of any edit we make. Ravenswing 22:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. Ciscocat (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. Ciscocat (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There was a very long drawn-out edit war between these two users on 23 July at Tom & Jerry (2021 American film) that required an admin to fully-protect that article for a week. It looks like some of that edit-warring behavior between the two has since carried over to The Looney Tunes Show, albeit to a lesser extent. The reported user has a history of being blocked for edit-warring, though that doesn't exonerate the filing editor's conduct from being examined as well; it takes two to tango. We may need to consider topic bans and/or blocks from specific articles, especially if this behavior persists. For feedback on handling this type of situation, it's simple; don't edit war, and use the article talk page. Left guide (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this heated dispute is over Tom & Jerry (2021 American film)? I just want to be sure because it's not stated in the initial complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Well yes, mostly, at least from the on-wiki perspective, which is the lens through which I made my initial reply. From reading this thread, it also appears that these two users have had skirmishes with each other on other websites, and their "rivalry" has spread to this site. Pinging @Star Mississippi: who made the full protection, in case you might have additional insight as to what's going on. Left guide (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Zero interest in article content; it appears that CriticallyThinking’s version is simply subpar at a WP:MOS and grammatical level, introducing syntax errors, (unencyclopedic) introduction of contractions, and jargon. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way that can be rectified? Ciscocat (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Some insults/name-calling have come my way.

Just face history and re-writing it won't change anything. Find something better to do than to stalk people on the internet, even after deliberately cutting ties with an egotistical jerk. At this point, I can assume you're either a bot or a troll. CriticallyThinking (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Ciscocat (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Buster7\sandbox/Kamala

User:Buster7\sandbox/Kamala This was in the mainspace. No idea if the well-established autopatrolled account is compromised or if there are previous issues, but this seems completely unacceptable and needs swift action. Fram (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

They're a non-Trump supporting Republican, so. SerialNumber54129 13:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

A few more of these seemingly non-encyclopedia-related political invective sandbice: User:Buster7/sandbox-Trump lawyers, User:Buster7/sandbox- MAGA. jp×g🗯️ 14:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought the plural of sandbox was sandboxen. EEng 14:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record I mostly do not care if people have weird or dumb stuff in their userspace, Lord knows I do. For the sake of BLP, I don't know, maybe we could just find-replace all the LYIN' HILLARY and MOSCOW DONNIE stuff with "guy #1" "guy #2" etc. Is this anything? jp×g🗯️ 15:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Members of The Osmonds would work. SerialNumber54129 15:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Allowing some dumb stuff is one thing, but a ton of this seems to violate WP:POLEMIC even outside of the severe BLP violations. There also looks to be extensive copyvio here, pasting entire paragraphs from other (often uncited) websites. There's also User:Buster7/False Biden memory claims, User:Buster7/Sandbox-Paid Operatives, User:Buster7/Great Replacement Theory, User:Buster7/King v Burwell, User:Buster7/Sandbox-Walmart, User:Buster7/OBAMA, User:Buster7/On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder, User:Buster7/On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder, and plenty more at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Buster7/. Since it's in Userspace I think we can give a little time to respond on most of it, but a lot of it probably needs to be deleted as U5, G10, or G12. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the other speedy deletion criteria, but in my reading U5 doesn't apply when the editor has edited constructively outside of userspace (i.e. they have to be a "non-contributor" for U5 to apply). I suppose the purpose of that condition is to give an experienced contributor a chance to defend their pages to the community at MfD or similar, whereas someone who never does anything but use their userspace to host their RPG stats or something needs no such opportunity. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As the two articles I mentioned have now been deleted, I will now clarify that they did not actually say "Lyin' Hillary" or "Moscow Donny" or anything of that nature -- they just had a bunch of claims about how a variety of politicians were lame and crappy etc (which I assume everybody here would have agreed with at least one or two of). jp×g🗯️ 19:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked. The Kamala article is so out-of-line and seemingly also out-of-charcter for this user that I've blocked as possibly compromised. A user on their very first day here should know better than to post something like that. The older page probably qualified as an attck page but the one today was way, way worse. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  For the record, after reviewing this a bit more: the Kamala page is also a copyvio, the entire thing is word-for-word from an article written by conspiracy theorist Josh Hammer. So, I guess it is possible Buster intended to use this for something, but I can't imagine what unless it was to write about examples of the lowest type of foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric that still manages to get published somehow. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well: the one titled "Trump lawyers" said:

  • MAGA in a nutshell: loud, threatening and, in the end, impotent"

  His own userpage had (still has, as of right now):

  • "The last time...despite knowing every evil he committed...74 million people still voted for Trump."

  The one titled "MAGA" said:

  • "An elephant or other large entity, such as a former president, having been rejected by the voting masses, isolated in his Florida castle, living alone and apart from the herd, and having savage or destructive tendencies toward all who have ever slighted him"

  It seems to me like calling Kamala:

  • "intellectually challenged and an empty vessel for Democrats to project their basest desires"

  is around the same tier of thing. Why would this indicate a compromised account? jp×g🗯️ 07:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with JPxG, I don't see anything here that implies that a compromised account. The page referenced in the complaint initially was in mainspace because they mistyped a slash, I don't think it was deliberately published to mainspace. The userpages aren't great but they do fit into the user's general contributions dating back to approx 2013. Sohom (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I've requested a quick CU (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Compromised account check) to check if the account is actually compromised. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 06:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need the busy work stuff at SPI. FYI Just Step Sideways, Buster7 'confirms' confirms they're in control of the account. SerialNumber54129 12:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Imo, this was a heavy handed and bad block to begin with. There wasn't any actual evidence of a compromise, just a few userpages that looked odd and a obvious mistyped slash. Instead of waiting for an actual explanation from the editor, we jumped straight into "what if this is a compromised autopatrolled editor". :( Sohom (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. (WP:BLOCK) With compromised accounts, damage can be any amount at any time, and from what I can grasp, it looked like a big serving of Wiki disruption was on the way, with those pages. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 13:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The various user sandbox pages have been accumulating over years. Buster7's editing track record points to the opposite: no disruption was imminent. I agree that any copyright violations should be dealt with, but a block isn't necessary in my view, when the content in question was being collected in user space as potential sources for future content. (I agree with the suggestion made on Buster7's talk page that it would better to keep this information off-wiki somewhere.) isaacl (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's clear now that the Buster account was not compromised. He showed poor judgment but it was a mistake, and I am sure it won't be repeated. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's morning where I am and I've just logged back on for the day. As it does appear Buster is still in control of the account and that was the sole reason for the block I have unblocked them. The rest of these weird sandbox pages are a different issue, but we probably don't need to discuss them here when WP:MFD is a thing. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  When I say "he showed poor judgment," I am doing so on the basis of how the page in question was characterized. I have not seen it. If Buster made a mistake I am sure he won't repeat it. He is a longtime editor and scrupulous. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Just a note that this kind of thing happened to me a few years back, although I wasn't blocked. I was working on an article about the history of climate deniers in my user space, and a fairly new user at the time (they are still pretty active and well known in the climate change space, but I won't name them) indirectly alluded to my work and misinterpreted what I was doing as promoting climate denial. I think, even to this day, this user thinks I'm pro-climate denial, which is somewhat funny. So I can sympathize with Buster7 here. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Let me just say while I have the chance and the inclination to be more than a Malcolm Milquetoast waiting for people to step on my feet and then thanking them for the privilege of their attention. In the words of Coach Walz....."Why don't you people mind your own bizness"!!!! I am determined to make a nice big pitcher of Lemonade out of this fiasco, drink it all down and move forward. Someone I admire said I should be Proud to be Blocked. I'll work toward that state of mind over time as I bump into other ex-cons along the road. Anyway. I needed to say that. I hope you wont tell my parole officer! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Edits to James Longstreet by User:Beyond My Ken

Beyond My Ken has recently begun making changes to the James Longstreet article. I reverted their changes, as I had many objections to them which I outlined on their talk page here. Basically, with their edits, they added information which was unsourced, changed sentences and moved citations around in a matter that corrupted source to text integrity, and made stylistic changes that I felt were unhelpful. These changes included changing the Bibliography section so that the citations and the works cited were all one section and eliminating the sub-sections, which I felt made it more difficult to navigate when editing. My version is permitted by MOS and the article passed featured article candidacy this way. Beyond My Ken also broke up paragraphs in ways that left numerous one-sentence paragraphs alongside much larger paragraphs, which I found to be stylistically and aesthetically problematic. For all of these edits, Beyond My Ken failed to use edit summaries to explain why their version was better. I brought the matter to their user page rather than to the article talk page because I found their corruption of the citations and failure to use edit summaries to be a user conduct issue.

Instead of responding constructively to my criticisms, Beyond my Ken simply re-reverted me. They added some sources to things that weren’t sourced but restored their unhelpful stylistic changes and their damaging edits corrupting the citations in the article, and even adding a new problem with citations by inserting two citations to a new source in the middle of text cited to two different sources without duplicating the original citations. Meanwhile, Beyond My Ken did respond on their user page, but failed to address my concerns about the citations that I had already voiced and did not explain why their stylistic changes constituted improvements. This is against the advice given in Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I reverted again. As I explained here, my objections were not to adding new information and new sources. Rather, my problem is with corrupting the citations already in the article and with making changes to the style that do not appear to be helpful and without a proper explanation. Beyond My Ken has reverted me once again, saying that they removed my latest comment on their user page without having read it.

I have brought the matter here for intervention because it seems as though Beyond my Ken is not interested in explaining their changes and only wants to edit war me into submission, and as I do not wish to get into trouble by continuing to engage with someone who I feel is behaving in a disruptive and uncollaborative manner. Display name 99 (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

On the one hand, it appears to me that User:Beyond My Ken has provided an explanation of his edits at Talk:James Longstreet, which is the preferred place to discuss edits to an article. I see that Beyond My Ken has requested that User:Display name 99 not post to BMK's user talk page, which means that the article talk page is again the preferred place to discuss. On the other hand, if this is a content dispute primarily, and it appears to be a content dispute, I am ready to conduct mediation at DRN. I will start by telling both users not to edit the article while mediation is in progress, and by asking each editor to specify exactly what they either want to change in the article that the other editor wants to leave alone, or what they want to leave unchanged that the other editor wants to change.

Are User:Display name 99 and User:Beyond My Ken agreeable to moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You write it seems as though Beyond my Ken is not interested in explaining their changes. There's a long explanation of them in the correct place, the article talk page, at Talk:James Longstreet#Well-sourced material being forcibly excluded from this article, posted 5 hours before you posted the above. NebY (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I will add that their recent content additions made after the latest revert, and which I have just looked over now, also appear to have problems. While they are sourced, they consist of adding what is mostly fairly trivial information to an already long article. I also have some concerns with sloppiness; there are two spaces between paragraphs at one point, and a reference to "Teddy Roosevelt" was added to the article without a link. ("Teddy" is also not his official name). Display name 99 (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Display name 99: "I brought the matter to their user page rather than to the article talk page because I found their corruption of the citations and failure to use edit summaries to be a user conduct issue." Not even considering the WP:AGF issue here (do you really and truly believe BMK is trying to deliberately damage that article?), this was not a good approach. BMK is free to do (just about) anything they want at their user talk, including ignoring and deleting any and all messages others leave there. Even if you preferred not to take it to the article's talk page, you still should have since BMK would not have been allowed to delete your messages there, nor would they have been free to ignore you there while continuing to revert you at the article. City of Silver 20:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I would not be opposed to moderated discussion, but I believe that Beyond My Ken's failure to use edit summaries and continued reverts without explanation warrant a reprimand. NebY, if Beyond My Ken was interested in discussing the edits with me on the talk page, they should have pinged me. Their failure to do so meant that I was unaware of the post. I have since read the message on the talk page and it does not address or attempt to satisfy any of the actual problems that I voiced with the edits. So no, it is apparent to me that Beyond My Ken has no intention of explaining their changes but simply wants them to be accepted without question. This view is strengthened by the fact that they have not only banned me from posting on their talk page but also said that they did not even want me to ping them. Clearly, they are not interested in discussing this with me. Display name 99 (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I very much share Dn99's concern here. This isn't even close to the first time that a good-faith editor has been upset and confounded by Beyond My Ken's refusal to substantially explain what they're doing. If I correctly understand this message by User:Rhododendrites, BMK's edit summary allergy has been a major point of contention for over fifteen years. A lot of this complaint is regarding content but there are behavioral issues that need to be addressed here. City of Silver 20:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The post directly below that by Buidhe about reference sections rings very true. BMK altered a perfectly fine reference section at the Longstreet article without explanation and ignored my objections that doing so made editing it more difficult. On their user talk page, they simply stated that my objections about style were "noted and rejected as irrelevant," with nothing further. Maybe going to their user page was not a great move on my part, but it doesn't excuse changes to content without explanation and re-reverting without attempting to address the concerns that had been raised. Display name 99 (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Leaving informative edit summaries is a good practice and I recommend it to all editors including Beyond My Ken. But edit summaries are optional and an editor cannot be disciplined for not leaving edit summaries. Editors are not required to explain each edit. The same with pinging, which is often helpful but not required. Some editors complain when they aren't pinged and other editors complain that they are pinged too much. The best place by far to discuss content is on the article talk page, not on user talk pages. Cullen328 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Sorry if this is me sticking you with a big reading assignment but could you please go through this discussion from last December and give your thoughts? That thread, which is packed with editors (including several administrators) who were all exasperated about this exact issue, makes me think BMK came close to being the exception to the summaries-are-optional rule. That is, if there were a technically feasible way to force summaries on an editor-by-editor basis (and if not for real-life extenuating circumstances), BMK would have been under that restriction for a while now. No? City of Silver 22:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, I know that edit summaries are not officially required, but they are very strongly encouraged whenever making changes to existing content. Not pinging me on the article talk page was not a technical violation of a rule, but it certainly doesn't indicate a desire to collaborate with me. The same goes for "banning" me from pinging them, which Beyond My Ken also did through a post on my user page. And even accepting that I should have gone to the article talk page rather than to their user talk page, does continuing to revert while largely not addressing the problems that I had with the original edits sound like a good idea to you?

Additionally, regarding Beyond My Ken's changes to the references section, I would like to draw people's attention to a post made on the article talk page here by Isaidnoway, which states that, per MOS:STYLEVAR – When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. Unjustified changes from one acceptable, consistently applied style in an article to a different style may generally be reverted. If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, seek consensus by discussing this at the article's talk page. Isaidnoway then goes on to say that Beyond My Ken's changes to the references should be reverted, and I agree. Display name 99 (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Per Help:Edit summary - According to the consensus policy, all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. While this is just an information page, and not a policy/guideline, I would suggest that help page has community consensus, and leaving edit summaries explaining your changes is also considered the communal norm. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd also point out that as recent as January 2024, an editor was blocked with one of the three reasons being "missing and unhelpful edit summaries", which linked to the above help page. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, there is a very big difference between a missing edit summary, which is not blockable, and a deceptive edit summary which is lying, disruptive editing, and a blockable offense. Cullen328 (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• There is no excuse for DN99 deleting relevant sourced information because of an supposed MoS stylistic problem. I described the sourced information that DN99 was deleting from the article in the correct venue, the article talk page. Because they deleted without proper discussion on the talk page, and on the flimsy pretext of needing to revert stylistic changes to the reference section, I restored my edits, and continued to add more properly sourced information. I haven't been to the article or the talk page since then (and probably won't be able to until Sunday night or Monday) to see if DN99 has deleted that material or the old material again.
  I suspect, however, that DN99 actually gave away their real motivation above when they described my additions as "fairly trivial information". What I'm seeing in this is that DN99 feels a strong WP:OWNERSHIP stake in James Longstreet, and they are repeating the kind of behavior that @El C: partially blocked them for on Andrew Jackson and its talk page. If DN99 feels that the added information is trivial, the place to make that argument is on the article talk page, not on my talk page or on ANI. They do not OWN the article, and cannot make decisions about it ex cathedra simply because they have contributed to it heavily in the past. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, you are still failing to address my primary concerns with your edits: corrupting the citations by adding citations to a new source in the middle of text already cited to other sources while not adjusting the original citations and unhelpful stylistic changes that you did not explain. When referring to trivial information, I was speaking mainly about the content that you have added more recently, not so much what you added originally. I have major problems with your edits and explained them to you clearly. Even if it was not done in the ideal place, you still should have attempted to resolve them somewhere, whether at your talk page or the article talk page, rather than continuing to revert, per BRD. (The post that you eventually made on the article talk page ignored the core concerns that I raised and instead focused on explaining how the content that you added was reliably sourced, which I never questioned.) Instead of discussing these problems with me, you are instead stonewalling me and using whatever weak excuse you conjure up (me posting on your user page instead of the article talk page, bringing up my prior history, etc.) to avoid justifying your problematic changes. Me posting on BMK's talk page may have been a mistake, but it's not the main problem here, and is simply being used as an excuse by the editor to avoid explaining their changes.

Another editor has posted an objection to your changes to the reference section on the Longstreet talk page. Since you are so averse to discussing your edits on your user page, there is an opportunity to justify them in your preferred venue. Will you do it?

New pertinent information and new sources may be added to the article. The Varon book looks interesting and reliable; I have no problem with it being used. But this cannot be done while disrupting existing citations, and one cannot make sweeping changes to the article paragraph structure and references without explanation and while disregarding objections. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

BMK, you were once a frequent visitor to ANI and you know that the correct response to an editor's complaint is not to ignore their points and make counter-charges against them. Can you respond to the issues they bring up about your edits to this article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to block an editor for failing to use edit summaries because use of edit summaries, although encouraged, is optional and is not required by policy. That would be misuse of my administrator's tools. If any editor thinks that use of edit summaries should be mandatory, then they are free to go to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and make that proposal. Only if such a policy change was implemented could an administrator impose a sanction for failure to use an edit summary. Perhaps that policy could be enforced with a software tweak disallowing any edit without a summary. As for formally asking another editor to stay off one's talk page except for required administrative notices, that is a well established practice. I think of myself as a pretty easy going guy usually, but there have been a few occasions over the years when someone was so obnoxious on my user talk page that I made the same request. This is not a policy violation. Same for the ping or don't ping question. Any editor who wants to be pinged can say "please ping me" and any editor who does not want to be pinged can say "please don't ping me" and other editors should try to comply but should not be pilloried if they forget. Heck, I cannot even remember the names of the editors who I asked to stay off my user talk page over the last 15 years. I am 72 and do not hold grudges. The most striking thing that I observe here is that well into this discussion, Display name 99 has still not commented at Talk: James Longstreet. That seems bizarre to me. Perhaps it has something to do with the anti-Wikipedia screed on their user and user talk pages where they rant about the atheist and globalist ideology of the Great Reset, but on the other hand, maybe those two data points are unrelated. In my opinion, Longstreet is one of the most fascinating figures of the American Civil War, and that talk page is the place to discuss improvements to that article, not ANI and not another editor's user talk page. That article should be the best that it can be, and only collaboration on the article talk page can advance that goal. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, my underlying point in regards to the January 24 block, was that the blocking admin had linked to Help:Edit summary. In your opinion, do you think that informational page has community consensus? Or can it just be ignored altogether?

But leaving that aside for the moment, in this particular incident, BMK is an experienced user who knows that the communal norm is to always leave an edit summary explaining your edits. And per our editing policy, an editor should be helpful and explain their changes. I would also argue that in a FA, an editor should especially be mindful of explaining their edits, when those pages are on so many watchlists. And when BMK first started editing the Longstreet article on August 6, 7 and 8, he made a total of 22 edits with no edit summaries. That's not helpful. And then on August 10, after a dispute to changes of the content/style had been established by reverts, he went on to make another 13 edits with no edit summary. That's not helpful. Perhaps if he had been helpful in the first place and explained his changes via edit summaries, this whole fiasco could have been avoided. And speaking of collaboration, BMKs initial edit to the Longstreet talk page was a tad bit combative and accusatory, and not really an ideal path forward to collaborating with his fellow editors. At this point, I don't see a need for any sanctions, but I do think there is room for improvement to the behavioral issues raised here, and that should be acknowledged by the relevant parties involved in this incident. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, that help page you mentioned says All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Note the use of the word "should" instead of "must" and also the "either/or" formulation. Beyond My Ken explained his edits on the article talk page, which is clearly the best place to discuss content disputes. On the other hand, Display name 99 has said nothing on the article talk page at the time I write this. I have twice encouraged Beyond My Ken to use edit summaries in this conversation and so, again, for the third time, Beyond My Ken, please use edit summaries. I will say it a fourth time if you want, but who other than me is encouraging Display name 99 to use the article talk page to reach consensus on the content dispute? Cullen328 (talk) 09:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Right, so the 22 edits on August 6, 7 and 8 made by BMK had no clear edit summaries, so it was not obvious what the reason was for the changes. And you shouldn't have to encourage him to use edit summaries when he already knows edit summaries should be used. If you think a fourth reminder will change his behavior of not using edit summaries, please feel free to make that request, but personally I think it would be a waste of time. And yes, Display name 99 should go to the talk page to reach consensus on the content dispute, should I say that another two or three times as well, when he too, already knows this. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Mixed Conduct and Content Dispute

I said earlier that this appeared to be a content dispute, and was told that there are also conduct issues. I see that that is true. I will remind both editors that the ultimate objective should be to improve the article on James Longstreet. What we can do is either to identify and correct the conduct, or to focus on the content and minimize the distraction of the conduct issues. I don't think that focusing on the conduct is likely to be useful, because it is likely to result in more back-and-forth allegations of conduct issues. I think that the more useful approach will be to focus on the content. I am willing to act as a moderator. If the editors don't want to rely on my moderation, I would suggest that we ask for an uninvolved administrator to volunteer to moderate or mediate the content dispute.

I don't think that an inquiry into conduct issues is likely to be useful. It is too likely to result in one or both editors being topic-banned. However, I think that both editors can contribute to improving the article, so arguing about conduct will probably be counter-productive.

Are User:Display name 99 and User:Beyond My Ken willing to agree to moderated discussion aimed at improving the article on James Longstreet? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Between them both, they have been here for nearly 28 years and wracked up 19 blocks. 28 years. With hindsight, I'm sure moderated discussion is just what's been missing. SerialNumber54129 12:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I said before that I would; I await a response from Beyond My Ken. I have posted on the article talk page; maybe the content issues can be resolved there. Display name 99 (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken's refusal to use helpful edit summaries is permitted by policy and a constant source of disruption

I really didn't want to ping everyone from that December 2023 discussion that I've linked twice but I don't know what else to do. This thread has the potential to reach a constructive, permanent solution for this longtime, ongoing problem but not if the only administrative input it gets is User:Cullen328 lecturing people over and over and over on the right to not leave edit summaries while pointedly refusing to address the decade-and-a-half-long history of BMK weaponizing that right. (Note that BMK is also not saying anything about others' concerns regarding how they use edit summaries. I wonder if they've ever acknowledged this.) Here, again, is last year's thread and in order of participation there and with no other consideration, @HTGS, RegentsPark, Mackensen, Paul August, City of Silver, EducatedRedneck, Ivanvector, Swarm, Springee, Drmies, Rhododendrites, Buidhe, Morbidthoughts, Beyond My Ken, Andrevan, Ganesha811, and 78.26: can we figure this out once and for all? City of Silver 21:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

So, offering my sincere assessment as an administrator is "lecturing" now? And after I asked Beyond My Ken three times now to use edit summaries? How about assuming good faith instead? Other administrators are of course free to comment as well, and I hope that they do. Cullen328 (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: So, offering my sincere assessment as an administrator is "lecturing" now? Yes, if you're going to do it like this. You've said, over and over and over, that edit summaries are optional. Not one single person you've said that to doesn't know that. Not one single person you've told that to needed to be told that. At no point was that relevant to this discussion. You knew all of this so what were you doing? Friend, you were lecturing. If this is how you give administrative input, you shouldn't bother because you're very bad at it. How about assuming good faith instead? Can't. Either you haven't read that old thread, in which case your input is uninformed to the point of being useless, or you have read it, in which case your stance that edit summaries should be optional for Beyond My Ken is you deliberately trying to disrupt this website. Other administrators are of course free to comment as well, and I hope that they do. As I said, I didn't even want to pester those other administrators. Like you, I hope they speak up but it's because I know that they, unlike you, have read that old thread so they'll create a wide consensus that BMK has to leave edit summaries exactly like they did last December.

I don't think you'll respond to this but if you do, read the old thread first because I'll be able to tell if you don't. (Hint: if you read it, you'll agree that BMK's refusal to leave substantial explanations is majorly disruptive to the point that it's in violation of policy and if you don't, you'll just declare, yet effing again, that edit summaries are optional.) City of Silver 06:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

City of Silver, I read that thread last December and I read that thread again the other day. I simply disagree with your conclusion. I do not appreciate your repeated assumptions of bad faith. Please stop with that. Also, please do not call me "friend" since you are obviously not my friend. Cullen328 (talk)

Given BMK's response in December I was hoping this sort of issue wouldn't occur again, but here we are. BMK's behavior toward other editors often falls into an uncomfortable place between the letter and spirit of the law. I'll repeat what I said then: BMK is a good editor who does good work. He's also a confounding editor who digs in his heels over trivial things and makes mountains out of molehills. I don't like the idea of BMK getting blocked, but I also don't like that BMK's approach to collaborative editing guarantees that we'll be back here again. It's a waste of his time, our time, and the time of whichever novice editor accidentally crossed his path. Hello everyone, we're back here again. Mackensen (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll let the discussion about edit summaries and BMK's history play out without intervening (especially because I have quite a colorful editing history of my own), but I have already commented at the article talk page and would appreciate if some editors went there as well to add some opinions to supplement those of Beyond My Ken and myself. I believe that BMK's edits to the article were on the whole disruptive and unhelpful. Is this the truth or have I gone crazy? I encourage anyone interested to take a look through the article history and let me know, either here or on the article talk page. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Since I was pinged... article space edits without a comment should be discouraged. It's always best if the nature of an edit is clear to others. Looking at the original complaint, it does seem like BMK has violated NOCON by restoring their own recent edits to an article without addressing concerns raised by another editor in good standing. If this is a long term problem then perhaps a 0RR restriction on challenged edits is in order. It's not really a bad thing to say that editors must discuss changes when challenged. Springee (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I am responding to the ping. I've spent a solid hour and change reading through this thread and the linked diffs, and while I wish BMK would just use informative edit summaries, I think the sizable explanation on the talk page satisfies WP:UNRESPONSIVE; there was substantive communication.

I'm also guilty of removing what I view as "bad" edits instead of trying to fix then, but per WP:IMPERFECT, the policy does seem to say it's better to leave the work in so it can be refined. I feel like this issue would have been much smaller had DN99 used a surgical approach to fix or tag the bad parts, rather than remove it all. I don't think DN99 should be censured for this, however. If anything, I wonder if that policy actually reflects community norms, but that's a WP:VP issue, not an ANI one.

I am not familiar enough with the article to see if BMK has fixed the issues raised by DN99. If they have, then I don't really see a problem. If they have not responded to the concerns, then there might be an issue with edit warring, but I'm not familiar enough to opine on it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck, thank you for the post. I had issues not merely with some of BMY's original edits but nearly all of them. I explained these clearly on the editor's talk page. Although I probably should have gone to the article talk page instead, I still believe that it was inappropriate for BMK to forcibly re-insert their content into the article without attempting to satisfy my objections. As for their post on the talk page, as I have said both on the talk page and here, it is inadequate. It does not address or seek to satisfy any of the actual problems that I voiced with the article but instead mixes personal criticisms of me with trying to explain that the information that they added was sourced, which wasn't what my problem was. It does not seem like a sincere attempt to solve a problem. To date, the article still contains the changes made by BMK; the only issue that I raised which they fixed were adding some citations to content that was not sourced. But even that created additional problems, as I explained on the talk page. Display name 99 (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

For my own curiosity, has BMK made anything that could be interpreted as an effort to fix any of the errors they introduced? I don't trust myself to judge given the multitude of edits BMK has made and my unfamiliarity with the topic.

And for what it's worth, I do agree that for BMK, once reverted, a wiser way to go about it would have been to add it back in piecemeal, as you'd suggested. I also agree that them claiming WP:OWN behavior on your part wasn't great, and could arguably be a violation of WP:CIV. This section was opened as discussing edit summaries only, which is why I'm mostly commenting on that. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe this sub-section was opened to address a longtime, ongoing problem, according to the opening paragraph in this section. This particular incident is just a sliver of that longtime, ongoing problem. I've looked at BMKs last 1000 edits, and he has only left an edit summary roughly 4% of the time for those 1000 edits. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That may be, but for good or ill, the policy seems clear that edit summaries are not required. If you've found one that says otherwise, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, perhaps I could borrow from an archived ANI thread where a similar situation arose: nothing was a blockable offense, but it was also clearly against best practices. Therefore, we just tell the offending party that the behavior (in this case, not using edit summaries) is not cool, and then move on. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Our editing policy says - Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change.Try to use an appropriate edit summary. It appears to me he is not even trying to be helpful to the community by explaining his changes. If he was trying, that would be a different story, but he's not, so simply saying; not cool, let's move one, seems kinda lame to me, when our policy and information page says otherwise. If that policy and info page doesn't have community consensus, then I apologize for my misinterpretation of those pages. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, and certainly wouldn't be disappointed to see the community make edit summaries a de facto requirement. With respect to this specific page, there was a note left on the article talk. While it did not satisfy DN99, I do feel it qualifies as leaving a comment, which in my view satisfies WP:UNRESPONSIVE as written.

To be clear, I interpret leave a comment to be a requirement, which a TP post satisfies. I interpret Try to use an appropriate edit summary as optional due to the use of "Try". Do you have the same interpretation?

If you do, then I get the feeling you're implying that BMK's edit summary-less contribs do not have corresponding talk page posts, and thus do not satisfy WP:UNRESPONSIVE. That would be a good point. Taking my inspiration from you, I looked over the last 100 contribs, in which BMK made 10 mainspace edits without an edit summary, but only had 2 corresponding TP edits. (I ignored summary-less edits to articles that had previously been edited with a summary.)

I guess the next question is what to call that. WP:DE for violating the WP:Editing policy? I'd also like to hear from more editors on whether WP:UNRESPONSIVE is compulsory. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I interpret "try" as - is he making an attempt or an effort to leave an edit summary? So, I believe the question should be - is he trying to comply with our editing policy. I don't think he is. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

He used some edit summaries, so some effort was obviously expended. I'd say yes, he is complying. I also respect your interpretation as valid. Hopefully others can chime in and form a consensus on this matter. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

As are others, I'm responding to a ping. As before I agree with what Mackensen said above. I have not looked into the details of this current event yet, but right now I'm inclined to accept that some formal sanction is needed. Paul August ☎ 17:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

These two diffs, diff 1, diff 2, show where BMK changed the existing style of using section headings in the Notes and references sections, to using bold for the headings. No helpful edit summaries explaining why his preferred version should be used, instead of the existing style. And then on the talk page, states here, the change to the existing style is because his preferred version is "more efficient", without explaining why his preferred version is more efficient. I can't edit with a mobile device, which is how these edits were made, so is there a preference among mobile device editors for using bold in headings, instead of regular editable section headings? I don't get the efficiency of his preferred version, over the existing style. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

BMK's continued refusal to engage in discussion

Isaidnoway, Robert McClenon, City of Silver, NebY, EducatedRedneck Cullen328, Mackensen, this continues to get worse. I made a post on the article talk page clearly articulating my problems with BMK's edits. BMK answered with a brief snarky reply which absolutely refused to answer any of my objections, and insisting that I needed consensus to undo their changes, whereas it is my understanding that, per BRD, as the person seeking to add new material, the obligation is on them to discuss and seek consensus when met with opposition. Further down the page, in response to Isaidnoway's protests to their changes to the citation style, they claimed in a message here that MOS is optional. I can hardly believe that.

As I explained with this message [7], because they have refused once more to engage in discussion, even though we are now on the article talk page, am re-reverting them. I feel justified in doing so, as trying to resolve the matter through discussion is evidently pointless and because they should not have restored their changes without answering my original message in the first place.

I believe that formal sanctions are now warranted. Display name 99 (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I concur that as explained in the essay WP:BURDEN, BMK should not revert back to the work-in-progress version. If it's challenged, you need to get positive consensus before readding. I'll also note that the policy on editing WP:CAUTIOUS is very clear on this: Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. The refusal to discuss the issues DN99 alleges also seems to fit into WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #4.

Moving forward, I think DN99 might want to consider identifying some specific passages or edits they object to and state why. This would make it easier for BMK to fix them. BMK might similarly wish to consider grouping their edits into a number of proposed edits for workshopping. This would make it easier to implement any requested changes. I also feel that if BMK reverts their work in progress back into the article without a positive consensus, it may be worth considering a short p-block from that article for edit warring/disruptive editing. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you EducatedRedneck. With all due respect, I have explained both on BMK's user page and the article talk page numerous specific details about which changes I object to and why. I encourage you to look there. I've told BMK what problems I have. They don't want to listen. Display name 99 (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see it on the article talk page, which is why I mentioned it here. You described things that are bad, but I didn't see where you linked that to specific edits or parts of edits from BMK. For instance, you wrote, In one place, you... but didn't specify which place. Perhaps I missed it, (the text-block is more difficult to parse than, e.g., a bulleted list) but if I did miss where you pointed to a specific area, it's not unreasonable to think perhaps BMK did as well. As for posts to BMK's talk page, I didn't look there because I don't typically associate article discussion with user talk pages. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, but I did specify on their user page. It's also reasonable to point out that, if they were unclear, they could have asked. I don't think that a lack of clarity is the problem. They literally failed to justify every problematic edit that I identified. Surely they can't misunderstand what I mean when I say that the final sentence in the third paragraph of the section "Later life" is missing a citation due to their edits. And yet they didn't fix it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I'm assuming too much good faith. I can see where you're coming from, and agree that the result of their behavior has not been great, whatever their motives. I also agree that, if they don't get consensus (presumably through fixing the problems you've identified, or else convincing you they aren't problems) then they should leave the article as the status quo.

While I still don't see this as rising to the level of sanctions, I've been wrong before. What sanctions are you envisioning? On a related note, if BMK does not revert again, do you still believe sanctions are warranted and preventative? EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

As for reverting their content changes along with the stylistic issues, let me restate my reasons for that, as I know that EducatedRedneck called that into question. The content additions were problematic in themselves primarily due to the careless placement of citations. BMK added citations to new sources in the middle of text cited to old sources while not adjusting the original citations. I do not see it as my job to surgically pick apart their changes so that the 5% that were good can be saved. The best path forward, as I stated on the talk page, is to revert back to the beginning and then from there work on restoring some of the content that BMK added, with properly placed citations this time. I feel justified in having taken the initial step myself because of BMK's failure once again to engage in constructive discourse. Display name 99 (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck also asked above whether BMK made any attempt to fix their mistakes. The answer was no. Even basic obvious stuff that I pointed out on the talk page that could have been easily fixed, like having two spaces between paragraphs, leaving a sentence at the end of a paragraph without a citation, and adding a president's name without a hyperlink was unaddressed at the time that I restored the article. Display name 99 (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

We have two editors who have both exhibited substandard editorial conduct, who are both alleging that the other editor is removing well-sourced added content. BMK rarely uses edit summaries. Their use is strongly recommended, except that an explanation on the article talk page is an alternative. Sometimes BMK has used the talk page to explain, and sometimes BMK has used the talk page to not explain. At the start of this quarrel, it appeared that BMK was using article talk pages constructively, and that DN99 was avoiding their use, giving an inadequate reason. As this quarrel progresses, BMK seems to be also avoiding the article talk page. The recent history of the article is a slow-motion edit war. I will introduce two proposals at this time, a topic-ban from the article James Longstreet against User:Beyond My Ken, and a topic-ban from the article James Longstreet against User:Display name 99. I am not at this time supporting or opposing either of these topic-bans, but I think that proposing topic-bans is more likely to result in some signal in addition to the noise, rather than just continuing the name-calling. I will also be outlining a possible content RFC, as more likely to result in some signal than just continuing to bang away. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to highlight that in Special:Diff/1239061662 BMK deliberately introduced pseudoheadings in the references section. He's been told, repeatedly and at length, why these "headings" are accessibility problems and shouldn't be used. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1004#Proposed image-placement topic ban for Beyond My Ken where this and other accessibility issues were raised, and which resulted in BMK being placed under certain restrictions regarding image placement. A personal preference for one editor that creates accessibility problems for readers isn't permissible. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The restrictions regarding image placement were suggested by myself, and are completely and totally irrelevant here. There is no accessibility problem with using colons to create pseudo-headings, only with using semi-colons to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

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

---

Proposal 1: User:Beyond My Ken tocic-banned from James Longstreet

For slow-motion edit-warring, failure to use edit summaries, and failure to discuss constructively, Beyond My Ken is topic-banned from the James Longstreet article. They are encouraged to use the article talk page, Talk:James Longstreet.

• Oppose for the time being as premature. Let's see what develops on the talk page first. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose per Isaidnoway. My vote may change if BMK continues reverting or a long-term pattern can be demonstrated. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. BMK made edits, some of which seem pretty positive (adding add'l sourced info), engaged with explanations on the talkpage, agreed not to push through changes if they didn't have consensus, etc.; that's all as it should be. As near as I can tell, the only valid complaint here is about lack of edit summaries, but I find the explanation on the talkpage to sufficiently address a need for communication. Grandpallama (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - A ridiculous suggestion, tantamount to using a rifle to kill a flea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 2: User:Display name 99 topic-banned from James Longstreet

For slow-motion edit-warring, and failure to discuss constructively, Display name 99 is topic-banned from the James Longstreet article. They are encouraged to use the article talk page, Talk:James Longstreet.

• Oppose - this one is not necessary in my view. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose: While there are certainly things DN99 could have done differently to avoid escalation, the only thing approaching violation of policy has been reverting a large edit wholesale instead of combing through it to pick out the good bits. As this seems to be fairly standard practice for the community, I don't think that even moves the needle in terms of disruption. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - An equally ridiculous suggestion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 3: RFC

Since BMK and Dn99 will not discuss constructively, the next step may be an RFC. My first thought is that the RFC should be to restore all of BMK's edits that were reverted by Dn99 at 2132 GMT, 12 August: [8]. The guidelines for before an RFC specify that discussion is the best practice before an RFC. In this case, the best practice is not possible, but the worst practice can be avoided, and the worst practice will be to allow unproductive behavior to prevent improvement of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, this does not seem helpful to me. To begin, you say that both BMK and I are accusing the other of removing sourced content. That is actually not what I am accusing BMK of doing. You add: At the start of this quarrel, it appeared that BMK was using article talk pages constructively... As I and several other editors have pointed out, their initial talk page post was not constructive. I have since explained my objections thoroughly at the article talk page, which you fail to mention. You add, As this quarrel progresses, BMK seems to be also avoiding the article talk page. That is also false. BMK has made additional posts to the article talk page, only they too were not constructive as they once again did not explain the reasons for their edits despite my clearly articulated concerns. Lastly, you argue that BMK's edits should be restored. Under what theory? Per WP:Onus, they are required to have consensus, not me. Additionally, there are two other editors who have posted on the article talk page criticizing BMK's edits. Consensus is on my side.

Also, what would the RfC say?

Your inaccurate description of what has been taking place here makes me question whether you have looked thoroughly enough into the dispute before initiating this query. Display name 99 (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The RFC would ask whether to restore the edits that BMK made that you reverted. I did not say that I wish to restore BMK's edits. I said that the RFC will ask to restore BMK's edits, and an RFC is the usual vehicle for determining consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Very well, but an RfC is not "the usual vehicle for determining consensus." It is, as Isaidnoway stated, generally a last resort used only if the contributors already at an article cannot reach consensus. Already on the talk page, there is a consensus forming against BMK's stylistic changes, which BMK refuses to defend, while I am working towards restoring some of their content additions. An RfC is not necessary at this stage, and restoring all of BMK's changes seems completely out of the question. I also certainly don't feel as though I have done anything that should leave me banned from editing the article. Therefore, I do not believe that your proposal accomplishes anything productive. Display name 99 (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: I concur with DN99. Per WP:BURDEN, if BMK cannot establish a consensus for the changes, the changes should be discarded. If BMK does not believe the consensus on the TP, it falls to them to initiate WP:3O or an RFC. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. However, 3O does not apply here because it is designed for disagreements between TWO editors, and the talk page tally is currently 3-1 against BMK. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as premature. Retaining the existing style appears to have an early consensus, and BMK said that if a consensus here disagrees [with his change], I'm not going to buck it. So restoring all of BMKs edits should not be the question asked. There is some discussion taking place on the talk page, so let's see how that goes first, with a RfC as the last resort. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck, sorry, I didn't see the post above from a couple of days ago until now. I'm posting it here to try to keep the chronological flow of the thread as much as possible. I'm not totally sure what sanctions might be necessary and maybe should have left that part out of my post. A one revert restriction could perhaps be considered. Maybe we could do a restriction requiring them to use edit summaries when altering existing content, although I don't know if that's even a thing. I'll leave any further discussion about that to editors more familiar with BMK's history and who have a less extensive history of sanctions on Wikipedia than I do.

Talk page discussion is currently stalled. In my latest post there, which was more than 48 hours ago, I assessed some of BMK's content additions and said that I would be willing to agree to their inclusion with certain copyedits. They haven't responded yet. Some of these content additions are good, and I might actually restore them on my own with the copyedits if I don't hear back. But I think that they've conceded that they aren't going to be getting all of their changes back into the article, hence their recent silence. Display name 99 (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You think incorrectly, I have not conceded anything (except that consensus is against the formatting of the reference section, which I undid), least of all am I conceding to your obvious attempt at WP:OWNERSHIP of the article. Unfortunately, you do not get to unilaterally decide what is and isn't trivial, nor do you get to dictate what edits are required to allow material to go into the article. If and when there is a consensus on the talk page to support your demands, then I will, of course, acquiesce to that consensus. In the meantime, you do not own the article and you cannot attempt to single-handedly dictate to fellow editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - An RfC is not needed at this time, discussion about the removal of sourced information has only two participants at this point. There is, however, a clear consensus there to restore the original formatting of the references (this is the "3-to-1" referred to above), so I have done that. (And please note, using colons to create pseudo-headings does not cause accessibility problems, using semi-colons does, and should be avoided. I wish people would remember this.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Proposal 4: Beyond My Ken is P-blocked from James Longstreet for 31 h

BMK has just reverted their content changes which are alleged to mess with the references back into the article, claiming that there's no consensus to NOT include them. Per WP:ONUS, this is incorrect. They did use the talk page to assert their edits are acceptable, but other editors are not satisfied, and there is no consensus for their inclusion. BMK's most recent talk page edit engages with the formatting concerns, but not the remainder. This appears to fit the description of disruptive editing (#4 in the linked list). Thus, I propose BMK be P-blocked from James Longstreet for 31 h for slow-motion edit-warring and disruptive editing. A longer or broader block may also be necessary. This behavior does not appear to be new. Last hear, he was brought to ANI over edit-warring against the MOS. In 2022, he was brought to ANI because he was edit warring to keep a non-free image, and was there reprimanded for misunderstanding WP:ONUS, precisely the issue here. The ANI report earlier this year is the same issue but from the other side; BMK edit warred against changes, requiring them to gain consensus first. (N.b.: There were extenuating personal circumstances at the time.) This shows a pattern of demanding positive consensus from others, but not requiring that same level of consensus from his own edits. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC) EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Your summation of the situation is inaccurate. On the talk page, objections were raised by 3 editors to the change in formatting of the references. This is a consensus, and I undid my edits to that material. WP:ONUS says: "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. In this instance, only one editor addressed the sourced material I had added, so there is as yet no consensus regarding it. Properly sourced information should not be deleted without a consensus, particularly when the reverting editor shows strong WP:OWNERSHIP behavior regarding the article in question. 13:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs)

Which part is inaccurate? I wrote, BMK's most recent talk page edit engages with the formatting concerns. The only thing I can think is that my summary made it sound like you reimplemented the formatting edits. I have edited my post accordingly. Is there anything else inaccurate?

As for your quotation, you seem to have missed the sentences immediately before and after. Before, While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Meaning there is no obligation to have information, sourced or not, in an article. After: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Meaning if you want it in there, you need to build consensus for inclusion. Nobody is obligated to build consensus against inclusion to keep it out.

As for there being WP:OWNership in there article, perhaps there is, but edit warring is not the correct response to a conduct issue. If you'd like to provide diffs to evidence those accusations, I recommend starting a new section. I have not seen it demonstrated in this thread yet. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, and there's so much ownership at that page (not by BMK), and misrepresentation in this overlong thread, that this frothing to enact sanctions against him is encouraging me to support boomerang efforts. Grandpallama (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

User:CarterPD editing against consensus and ignoring talk page messages

This editor is changing the "start of term" date for newly-elected British MPs from 4 July to 5 July with edit summary "can't assume office until votes are counted", although it has been pointed out to them on their talk page that the UK Parliament site uses 4 July (example) and that this has been discussed in the past at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 17#"Term Start"

Please block them briefly to stop them continuing. And has someone please got a way to revert all their edits of today, rather than them all being reverted manually? PamD 21:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Just picked up this message and have not looked at notifications yet. There is a subtle difference between date of election and date of start of office. CarterPD (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong CarterPD. One could try to argue that we should use the date of swearing in because MPs can't vote until then. Its still wrong. They started on the 4 July. All your edits to the contrary will be reverted. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 21:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It is long-established practice in Wikipedia to use the date of the election as the "term start": I've just checked Tim Farron (5 May 2005) and Diane Abbott (11 June 1987), to confirm this. PamD 21:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It's possible to mass revert their edits but I've asked them to self-revert. Let's see if they cooperate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, the date of election is not the same as the date of assumption of office, which is the wording on Wikipedia so the confirmation of the former does not apply to the latter for reasons I outlined. An MP is applying for a job with the electorate at large. That application needs to be fully processed and known for the office to be assumed. Gavia, you state the opinion is wrong based on your reported conversation with two MPs but you argue with a strawman that glosses over the entire argument. To make it clear: if all the constituency ballots were destroyed in a fire would the person for whom the most votes had been cast be able to vote on bills, for example, or conversely have a duty to action their constituents casework? They would not. Thus while it's possible to say, in a very Shrodinger's Cat, metaphysical way, that they were elected, it cannot possibly be true that they assumed office. It is thus false to say that a UK MP "assumed office" on the 4th of July 2024, since no total vote tally was counted by then. It could be arguably true to say they are elected on the 4th, so I would be more than happy to edit the text to say that. CarterPD (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

CarterPD, everything you say above is, i'm sorry, irrelevant. The discussion here is not about content ~ who is right (and there are reasonable arguments made and to be made on both sides) ~ but about your conduct ~ that you are editing contrary to established consensus and practice and, possibly, reliable sources. Please re-assess this conduct and revert yourself. At that point you can start a discussion (not here) about how we should phrase and date the start of MPs' terms. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 11:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

CarterPD Per WP:BRD, please revert your edits before arguing further.--Launchballer 11:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

As another example to illustrate the consensus: Liz Truss is a featured article, so has been subject to intense scrutiny by experienced editors. It shows her service as MP for South West Norfolk as "In office: 6 May 2010 – 30 May 2024". The 2010 general election was on Thursday 6 May. (Found by looking at the list of Political biography FAs and picking one which I recognised as a UK MP). See also FA Ellen Wilkinson: elected for Jarrow on Thurs 14 Nov 1935. PamD 08:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Pending a discussion, i've reverted most of the changes. (To be clear, user:Kahtar is me, just an ID i use for semi-automated edits.) Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 09:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Lindsay for taking care of this. CarterPD, this is something you should have handled, other editors shouldn't have to clean up your errors once they have been pointed out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Mass addition of unsourced degrees to BLPs

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

I'm not sure why this guy's still a "pending changes reviewer". He's added unsourced degrees to an awful lot of BLPs (see this, this, this, this, this, etc). I warned him, but he has removed the message with no valid explanation and refused to stop the behavior. Thedarkknightli (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

First – setting aside that you templated an editor of 18 years tenure with 173,000 edits, and with a very aggressive template warning at that – he's allowed to remove warnings from his talk page at any time. (If he were currently blocked, he's not allowed to remove the block notice while the block is in effect, but he may remove it once the block has expired. That is the only restriction to warnings and block notices.) Second, I checked all five pages you linked and every single one of them is supported by inline sources in the body of the article. I'm left wondering why you ran to ANI so fast instead of just, you know, asking him nicely. Katie^talk 00:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

might be worth checking out WP:INFOBOXCITE on this one :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I also checked the text of the article for the first diff only, for Aisling Bea. Therequiembellishere added to the infobox claims of a bachelor's degree (BA) from TCD and a second BA from LAMDA. The article text states only that she studied at those two institutions; it says nothing about what degrees she might have from them. The article source for TCD does state that she has a degree from TCD but not that it is a BA. A nearby source (21 in the diff numbering), used for an unrelated claim, does say she has a BA. The article source for LAMDA says nothing about a degree. So for both of those degree claims the specifics are neither in the article nor in the sources for the related claims in the article. Therequiembellishere should be admonished to be more careful. Whether this requires templating them and dragging them to ANI is a different question. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @KrakatoaKatie, @Theleekycauldron and @David Eppstein, thanks for your timely replies. Actually, I'd been well aware of WP:INFOBOXCITE when I started this conversation; while I agree the subjects' alma mater is well sourced, (I still think) none of the degrees are. The reason I "ran to ANI so fast instead of just asking him nicely" was because this editor'd been adding unsourced degrees to BLPs for a pretty long time, and I didn't find him civil (per comments like this, this and this). I admit my impetuousness, though. Thedarkknightli (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll just note that your examples of incivility are from 2 years ago and that this editor has not edited since before you started this discussion. It would be nice to hear from them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Imane Khelif should get 1RR Arbitration Enforcement

It appears there is large amount of edit warring happening on the article. I suggest it gets set to WP:1RR under CTOPS WP:GENSEX. It also appears that the two users User:M.Bitton and User:JSwift49 may need a temporary timeout as they're well past even 3RR. Raladic (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've filed a report for JSwift49 edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JSwift49 reported by User:TarnishedPath (Result: ). I must have been filing it at exactly the same time that this was filled. TarnishedPath^talk 02:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Regardless of the outcome at WP:ANEW, I would concur that this should be classified under WP:GENSEX with a 1RR. This is the second time this week the article has made its way to ANI as a result of arguments around that topic area. Grandpallama (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  There's already a CTOP notice for GENSEX at the top of the article's talk so I agree that active arbitration remedies of either 1RR or compulsory BRD should be put into place given the edit warring and incivil behaviour from some editors. TarnishedPath^talk 04:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Appears that JSwift49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has cast aspersions in that discussion on two occasions based off a quick skim.[9][10], in addition to the blatant 3RR vio. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those is an aspersion. They're characterizations of another editor's conduct based on what's in plain view—whether or not they're accurate characterizations. An aspersion would be something like calling someone a pedophile without evidence. Accusing someone of proceeding in bad faith, POV-pushing, and violating NPOV are the same sorts of accusations that get made at this noticeboard all the time. I have no opinion on whether any of those happened here. Just chipping in because I hate seeing that term genericized to mean "saying something negative". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 04:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree there. Any negative characterisation of another editor's conduct which is lacking is appropriate specific evidence to substantiate such characterisation is an aspersion. Per WP:ASPERSION, "On Wikipedia, casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe". Therefore, repeatedly stating to another editor that they are not engaged in good faith discussions without evidence to back that up is an aspersion. TarnishedPath^talk 04:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

1RR would be welcome. Note that edit war and incivil behaviour were shareed by both sides. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to strike the "good faith" comment, as it was not focused on a specific policy and that is not helpful. However I'm not sure why the other comment linked, where I mention specific policies, is an issue. JSwift49 12:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You can't possibly justify your personalization of the discussion by claiming that your aspersions were in "good faith" (while doubling down on them on this board). The fact that you initiated a 3R report about me, after engaging in this one, speaks volumes.

Your only explanation for persistently violating the WP:ONUS policy, in a WP:BLP article, is according to policy good-faith additions should remain in article pending consensus (another claim of yours that has no basis in reality). M.Bitton (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Re. my policy comment that was a misunderstanding from an essay, which I have corrected. However, you still violated the 3R policy I'm afraid (as well as, as I outlined, sealioning). We have both received warnings and I think that is a fair call. JSwift49 13:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Your so-called "misunderstanding" doesn't justify the persistent violations of the WP:ONUS policy, nor does it explain your aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Accusing someone of proceeding in bad faith, POV-pushing, and violating NPOV are the same sorts of accusations that get made at this noticeboard all the time. That is because this noticeboard, WP:ANI, is one of the few appropriate places to raise such concerns - though even here, only with evidence; without evidence, as they were posted there, they would obviously still be WP:ASPERSIONs. But the purpose of an article talk page is to focus on the article, not to attack other editors; it is completely inappropriate (and obviously contrary to both WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL) to outright accuse an editor of bad faith there. And, more importantly, it is precisely the sort of behavior that WP:CTOPs exist to prevent - those are the sorts of comments that routinely get editors blocks at WP:AE. I'm baffled that a longstanding editor would attempt to defend it - do you really believe that a comment consisting solely of It's pretty clear here this isn't a good faith argument or one ending with Sealioning and disregard for WP:NPOV are also issues I've seen with you, I'm afraid are remotely acceptable behavior on an article talk page in a WP:CTOP? --Aquillion (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi; not aspersions, I think it’s reasonable to point out if another editor is sealioning, which consistently was the case here. (This involved repeated asking of the same question while refusing to engage with other peoples’ arguments.) I would support 1RR. JSwift49 10:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No one is here to WP:SATISFY you. I'm cognisant that your first edit after me leaving you a notice about a discussion concerning your breaching WP:3RR was not to remedy your breach by self-reverting, but to come here and further cast aspersions. TarnishedPath^talk 10:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm just sitting down now to look at all this :) happy to revert my violation, though someone had already changed it and added their own content. JSwift49 11:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you might have lost your chance at self-reverting then. That's a risk when you engage in 3RR violations. TarnishedPath^talk 11:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a baseless claim, just like the one you made about the fictitious policy that you keep mentioning to justify your multiple violations of the real policies. M.Bitton (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Sidenote, if Imane gets 1RR, arguably so should Lin_Yu-ting which is another olympic boxer caught up in same controversy with IBA Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Janjaem Suwannapheng should be subject to same rules too. The Thai boxer is vulnerable to same hatred Khelif received. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

In agreement with adopting 1RR & it also appears that the disputes have spilled over into this ANI report, as well as the EW reports. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I note that the disputed material, in clear defiance of WP:ONUS, and despite an obvious lack of consensus for its inclusion, has been restored to the article by JSwift49. It takes two to edit war, but policy around BLP matters, and if JSwift49 doesn't remove the challenged material, sanctions should be applied. Grandpallama (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: JSwift49 said above that a self-revert might have resulted in a block since their addition had since been edited by others. In light of administrator Ingenuity's designation of this as a 1RR matter, I just removed the contentious text in the hopes that everybody will stay on the talk page and off the article. City of Silver 17:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver Related question: I understand the policy in this case as this is text that I had added and people objected to. So delete until consensus. However, I also started another discussion Talk:Imane Khelif#2nd lead paragraph: "public scrutiny" vs. "misinformation" where consensus seems quite far off re. which term/s to use in the lead. As far as I can tell the current term was added a few days ago and got reverted and re-added twice before I weighed in.[11][12][13][14][15] What is the best practice if no consensus or compromise can be accepted by both sides, and it’s a matter of word choice and not content addition? JSwift49 03:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49: I've reviewed this whole mess as best as I could and I keep having the same question: why hasn't anyone started a request for comment for this? and that? and the other thing? Everybody hates RFCs for all kinds of reasons but it simply doesn't matter because they're the only workable way to get past a situation where every editor has dug in their heels, which has certainly happened at Khelif's talk page in several discussions. Don't you get tired of citing the same policies, the same guidelines, the same essays in response to editors who you have to know won't be convinced by anything you say? Aren't you tired of those same editors over and over citing the same irrelevant stuff to you? (If I were you, I'd have absolutely lost it by now at how many times WP:ONUS has been thrown at me by people who don't know that it can't come into play before a discussion is closed. Every single editor who's cited ONUS in response to you doesn't have the first clue what it actually means.) To my understanding, an RFC is the only way to get past issues where there's a completely, totally intractable "both sides" problem because it'll attract editors who aren't on any side at all. City of Silver 06:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver Why does WP:ONUS not apply here, because there was not a discussion/consensus when the term was added? If so, should the contentious lead material be removed until consensus is reached? JSwift49 10:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Your parenthetical is not a correct understanding of the entirety of WP:ONUS. RfC is a good suggestion, though. Grandpallama (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I have taken your suggestion re. RfC. JSwift49 14:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Grandpallama, City of Silver, Ingenuity, TarnishedPath, and GhostOfDanGurney: please have a look at these two edits (12:10 and 14:37) that were made today by JSwift49 (after casting aspersions and accusing me of sealioning). M.Bitton (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that they've at least moved past aspersions and are bringing diffs, but nonetheless, this isn't exactly lowering the temperature in there. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

They are still commenting about me (this editor has a history ...) in unrelated discussions, which is the continuation of the aspersions that they started and doubled down on (in this discussion). M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Both of these comments were in fact direct responses to assertions by M.Boli that I 1) "ignored what everyone else said" and 2) "keep repeating the same argument that has been addressed multiple times". Especially the first comment crosses the line to an aspersion as they assumed I was "ignoring".

In my responses, I took care to only mention the fact that M.Boli had repeatedly asked the same questions verbatim, and I did not (by contrast) ascribe negative intentions. JSwift49 17:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding this editor has a history ... to a RfC is beyond the pale. M.Bitton (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is an accurate statement; and I have intentionally avoided reporting you for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing to give you a chance to weigh in. If you don't want other editors to mention that you asked the same question verbatim 4-5 times in a row, don't do it, and certainly don't accuse others of purposely ignoring you. In fact, my RfC proposal is based on a compromise that was in response to your original concerns. JSwift49 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, adding this editor has a history ... to a RfC is beyond the pale. As for the above baseless assertions, that's all they are, and serve no purpose other than to exhaust my diminishing good faith stock. M.Bitton (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Jswift has racked up an impressive number of notifications for contentious topics. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies, three of those were mine that I provided to them in a bulk message. TarnishedPath^talk 04:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Now subject to 1RR. —Ingenuity (t • c) 16:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 1RR should not be used lightly. It effectively "freezes" an article and should only be used for a limited amount of time. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Kcmastrpc, I disagree, but I'm sure Ingenuity, who's a bit of a noob, appreciates your opinion. Drmies (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

      You can make snippy remarks all day, but look at the edit history of Marjorie Taylor Greene after May 2023 and prior to see an example of how chilling 1RR restrictions are. Most edits are now superfluous and the activity has dropped nearly 50%. I suppose maybe that's a good thing, I don't know. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

      Article stability is always a good thing. Presuming of course that there are no issues with the article. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

      With someone as active of a public life as MTG, I might disagree. However, in this instance, Imane, through no fault of her own, is a very notable public figure now. Perhaps I'll do some research on how heavy arbitration remedies impact the encyclopedia both short and long term. (when/if I get laid off from my FT job). Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Behaviour of JSwift49

JSwift49 has engaged in repeated synthesis or outright misrepresentation of sources on the talk page in order to insert their POV.

Their current RfC,[16] which has been described by several users[17][18][19][20] as whitewashing the abuse faced by Imane Khelif, selectively uses quotes from sources in order to support their POV, and omits information in the very sources used that support the status quo[21][22].

Between this RfC and the preceding discussion,(version as of writing) JSwift has replied to every single !vote opposing them and has commented on many replies to support !voters. They have engaged in personalization of the discussion.[23]

They attempted to support the inclusion of a meeting between the far-right Italian Prime Minister and the head of the IOC (the locus of the above edit war) based on "textbook synthesis" (struck after this was pointed out to them, only to create the above RfC with a subsequent support !vote based on synth).[24]

I am quickly losing my good faith that JSwift is able to productively edit in the GENSEX topic area based off this behaviour and at this point am close to supporting a topic ban if they don't commit to quick behaviour changes. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok; let's look at each of your points here.

• Main point: the RfC does not selectively omit anything. The point of the quotes is not to say "misinformation" doesn't feature, but to show the ways each source describes other types of attention beyond misinformation. I made this clear below:
  • I believe "misinformation" is important to mention in the lead, but that the lead focuses too narrowly on it. Most reliable sources mention misinformation/false accusations, but these sources also include broader descriptions of what occurred:
• The RfC has nothing to do with the Italian Prime Minister; and regardless the part where I wrongly used synthesis was a small part of the argument. This was my main one [25] Getting banned for a mistake which I acknowledge and strike is nonsense. Learning from mistakes is exactly how we become better editors. It's why I started the RfC and am attempting to work toward consensus/a compromise solution.
• Re. personalization, I am happy to take a step back (was not aware too much involvement was unacceptable unless you were blatantly repeating yourself), however several comments were necessary to respond to. This has included:
  • Stating I want to remove the term "misinformation", which was a misunderstanding I felt the need to correct [26]
  • Providing explicit clarity on a question you had [27]
  • Responding to an aspersion of "ignoring" other users [28]
• Re. whitewashing accusations, this has been a contentious debate, but I believe my arguments are well-reasoned, and users have weighed in on my side re. adding "scrutiny" or "attention" alongside "misinformation". [29][30][31][32] In fact, my RfC is a compromise proposal based on concerns of all editors, as I outlined here: [33] (Also, one editor you cite said they opposed whitewashing because I wanted to remove "misinformation", which was inaccurate.[34])

JSwift49 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition, I directly addressed your concerns about the RfC selectively omitting quotes here,[35] an hour before you posted this. JSwift49 20:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Multiple people opposed your proposal as a SYNTH/cherry-picking of sources; your "compromise" still contained the offending part that people were opposing. Obviously the Meloni part isn't related to the RfC, but it's directly related to your misuse of sources to push your POV, which is what you are doing again in the RfC.

The opposers are not looking for a compromise solution; they feel that the status quo is perfectly fine and does not need to be changed at all. Additionally, you are continuing to demonstrate WP:IDHT behaviour by doubling down against the latest editor to enter the talk page and say you are cherry-picking.[36][37] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Whether the opposers are looking for a compromise solution is immaterial. The facts are, several editors besides myself supported some form of change [38][39][40][41] and the text arguably did not have a consensus to begin with, [42][43][44][45][46][47]

See my below post [48] re. cherry-picking and WP:IDHT. JSwift49 16:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This looks like an attempt to undermine the current RfC. The RfC has been described by several users[131][132][133][134] as whitewashing the abuse faced by Imane Khelif, selectively uses quotes from sources in order to support their POV - what??? The "several users" are M.Bitton, TarnishedPath and GhostOfDanGurney themselves, who is literally quoting their own comment, plus Drmies, who apparently misunderstood the RfC: the RfC doesn't propose to remove "misinformation" from the lead - there's been plenty of misinformation about Khelif, and by all means "misinformation" must remain in the lead (no one is arguing otherwise). The point of the RfC is not to "whitewash abuse", but to acknowledge that alongside fake news and hate speech, there have been also legitimate concerns and meaningful public debate about eligibility standards in women's boxing competitions.

JSwift49 is very much involved and perhaps they should be reminded of WP:BLUDGEONING, but there is no reason to doubt their good faith and competence. The RfC is the correct path to follow, and should not be disrupted by frivolous accusations at ANI. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Gitz, I'm not known for my understanding, but saying there's been "legitimate concern...about eligibility" is just--how shall I put it, absolute fucking bullshit. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies, this is the exact bullshit that @M.Bitton, myself and others have been putting up with in the article's talk. Editors constantly trying to POV push language which makes what Khelif has faced to have been on the basis of at least some reasonable concerns. Frankly anyone pusshing that bullshit should be topic banned from GENSEX. TarnishedPath^talk 04:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree, and I plan to post excerpts from articles and op-eds later in the RfC, which show that the "Khelif affair" has also been the subject of a reasoned (not bigoted, not hateful) debate on the criteria for inclusion of intersex people in women's sporting competitions. In the meantime, I suggest you and others take a look at this piece in The Atlantic [49]. You can agree or disagree with Helen Lewis, but you should not dismiss her arguments as "absolute fucking bullshit". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Why, exactly. Or look at the sources posted here [50] by two scientific experts in the BBC and WSJ. I have never argued that misinformation didn’t exist, but that the sources also support other reactions. @GhostOfDanGurney as I explained here [51] and here [52] the quotes I shared were meant to prove the narrow presence of something and not that other things don’t exist in the sources. Why report me to ANI instead of responding to my initial explanation? JSwift49 11:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

All three references in that diff [53], [54] and [55] are opinion species. Notably only one of person out of all those is a subject matter expert in developmental biology, being Dr Emma Hilton who is very briefly quoted in the first. The fact that the author of the second reference may be a scientist is entirely irrelevant as they are not subject matter experts in the content under discussion and more seriously for the judgment of their reliability on the subject they make the disinformed assertion that Khelif is a "biological male" when there is no reliable evidence for such a claim. The third reference is again a opinion piece by someone who is not a subject matter expert. Going back to the first reference, Emma Hilton does not directly address Khelif in the parts in which they are directly quoted and the only further information presented is that she is associated with a charity that thinks that Khelif shouldn't be boxing until further testing is perforemd. The opinion of the charity is not attributed to Hilton and no factual basis is given for such opinion. So no those sources absolutely do not support the argument that there are any reasonable concerns. Trying to pass off that there are any reasonable concerns is complete bullshit. Reasonable concerns have a basis in reality and such basis has not been appropriately established. TarnishedPath^talk 13:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record, your BBC assessment doesn't tell the full story. "Dr Shane Heffernan has a PhD in molecular genetics in elite sports", and the article both quotes him and says "He believes that the International Olympic Committee is not basing its eligibility criteria on the best available science".[56]

But to avoid getting bogged down in details: the threshold of my claim all along has been that Khelif prompted "attention" that did not only include "misinformation". [57] Given that people including scientists have weighed in with reasoned arguments helps corroborate that fact, in addition to how reliable sources both use "misinformation" and broader terms to describe the reactions. JSwift49 13:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if they are scientists if they start weighing in and making statements about reality without sufficient evidence then that is misinformation. Statements about the nature of reality are not and never will be reasoned when there is no evidence to support such statements. TarnishedPath^talk 13:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

But that's the thing: the sources do not support that. The sources, as I outlined in the RfC, support that there was misinformation, and at the same time she received attention that was not. To state we should disregard the opinion of a PhD in molecular genetics in elite sports as "misinformation", whose opinion was published in a significant, reliable source (might I add, as part of a news story) it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. JSwift49 14:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It's an opinion peice. Per WP:RSOPINION, Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. The source made a statement about facts and notably did so without a providing a reliable evidentiary basis. Sorry striking that last bit because I got confused between the sources we were discussing. However in regards to Dr Shane Heffernan, he does not address Khelif and concerns himself with discussing DSD. Notably there is no reliable evidence that Khelif has DSD and Hefferenan does not make that assertion. His words do not demonstrate that there are any reasonable concerns about Khelif. You continuing to push it as some example of reasonable concerns which demonstrate that there was anything other than misinformation is a further example of your WP:POVPUSHING. TarnishedPath^talk 14:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not basing my argument on the opinion piece; reliable news sources mention that Khelif was the subject of "scrutiny" or "attention", or caused a "debate", in addition to mentioning abuse and misinformation.

Besides, if we can't consider the opinion of a PhD in molecular genetics in elite sports re. the IOC's criteria for women's sports eligibility, by that standard what opinions can we consider? JSwift49 14:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The hate campaign was exclusively because of the misinformation that was propagated by celebrities and the like (and their millions of followers). Whitewashing what really happened by cherry picking (again) part of the NPOV policy (while ignoring WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:WEIGHT) is wrong on so many levels and speaks volumes about your inability to edit a BLP. M.Bitton (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll address the repeated "cherry picking" accusations here:

• Cherry picking, according to Wikipedia, is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position"
• My RfC position is this: reliable sources describe that Khelif was the subject of both misinformation and other types of attention.
  • I believe "misinformation" is important to mention in the lead, but that the lead focuses too narrowly on it. Most reliable sources mention misinformation/false accusations, but these sources also include broader descriptions of what occurred:[58]
• I looked at thirteen major, reliable mainstream news outlets, I didn't find any sources that only mentioned "misinformation". Each also referred to some broader form of attention ("scrutiny", "debate", "accusations", "controversy") Khelif was the subject of.
  • If I was cherry picking, I would specifically ignore sources that described misinformation only.
  • In fact, I explicitly invited both M.Bitton [59][60] and TarnishedPath to share such sources. [61]
    • M.Bitton replied with an opinion article from The Nation, a partisan source.[62][63][64]
    • TarnishedPath simply replied by stating Many reliable sources say "misinformation" or "disinformation", which is what actually occurred. I have never disputed this.[65]
• As I outlined in the RfC, I support Khelif being the subject of "misinformation" remaining in the lead. So did the editors who opposed my proposal. The term "misinformation" was not a subject of debate.
• The main subject of debate was whether the term "attention" should be added, changing "misinformation" to "attention and misinformation".
• Therefore, all I needed to do was show that reliable sources referred to other forms of attention, in addition to referring to misinformation.
• I explained my rationale to GhostOfDanGurney in response to his concern,[66] and instead of replying or asking questions, they reported me to ANI.[67]
  • I later asked for more of an explanation, and did not receive a reply.[68]
  • I had previously engaged in good faith discussion with them about concerns they had.[69][70]

In short, I do not understand, nor agree with, these accusations at all. JSwift49 15:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You are simply refusing (at this point) to listen to multiple editors who are telling you that any other type of "attention" was the direct result of mis/disinformation and that your repeated proposals dilute that fact. Until you get that through your skull, I have nothing to say to you. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the crux of our disagreement is, you say if it's a reaction in response to misinformation, we should count it as misinformation. I think if misinformation brings attention to a situation, and non-misinformation discourse/debate occurs as a result, then we should mention both misinformation and attention more broadly as sources do.

Assuming (for argument's sake) that a reaction prompted by misinformation counts as misinformation, I had another look at sources. Most sources describe the IBA and/or Carini fight as causing the reactions toward Khelif, but they don't describe IBA/Carini as misinformation. So since the sources don't describe all reactions as misinformation, or all of their causes as misinformation, I still see a reason to include some other term. [71] JSwift49 00:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49, he wasn't even quoted with his opinion on Khelif's eligibility. He was quoted discussing DSD and eligibility in general. There's not even an assertion from them that Khelif has DSD and if there was it would speak against their reliability on the topic given that there is sweat fuck all reliable evidence for any such assertion. That you try and spin it as evidence of reasonable concerns about Khelif demonstrates that you are engaged in WP:POVPUSHING. TarnishedPath^talk 02:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Why, I think it's usually good to defer to experts unless we are experts ourselves. :) As I've always said though, let's look at how reliable sources describe this discourse.

"A frenzied debate has raged over the International Olympic Committee clearing the duo to compete in the women's boxing in Paris, despite them having been disqualified from last year's Women's World Championships for failing to meet eligibility criteria."

Sounds like the BBC views this as a debate that was spurred by Khelif's/Lin's disqualification, not just "misinformation". JSwift49 03:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? The expert didn't address Khelif as a subject matter. They were quoted in regards to DSD and eligibility and nothing else. You continued pushing just confirms what I and others have said which is that you are POV Pushing. TarnishedPath^talk 04:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t dispute that re. the expert, that’s why these opinions were never the crux of my argument. My argument is based on how reliable sources describe the attention she received. (As I said I do think generally disregarding expert testimony, unless they already have serious credibility issues, is not something that should be normalized.)

No point continuing to discuss ad nauseam, we’ve both made our points multiple times. JSwift49 10:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is just further WP:POVPUSH. You presented these sources because they had experts in them, but close analysis of the sources shows that any subject matter experts don't support your position of reasonable concerns because any reasonably put positions don't even address the subject. You have not made any point and continue to engage in WP:IDHT. TarnishedPath^talk 11:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You are doing POVPUSH, by engaging in a conversation with me where I simply stated my opposition to a suggestion. I am only stating facts that there is no evidence against. I elect not to engage in further discussion with you on this topic. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think perhaps you replied from the incorrect account there. MrOllie (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I hate when that happens. Remsense诉 11:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

They pinged me saying that I am doing POVPUSH under my comment. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems that I replied under the wrong comment. I will move it to the place where I intended to reply. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie you can check the other subthread where "tarnished path" is accusing me of POVPUSH, replying to my statement about XY chromosomes. Since I have notifications on for the entire discussion and they published a comment about JSwift49 doing POVPUSH shortly after replying to me, I mistakenly thought this message was another reply to mine. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That's one explanation. MrOllie (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

These accusations are honestly tiring. I did not expect to face such baseless claims for joining wikipedia. You could just check the first IP address I have used to comment before creating my account, it is from Switzerland. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is hardly a baseless claim. MrOllie (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Then just check the IP address. I have nothing to add. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Kindly stop trying to edit or remove the comment in question. MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Kindly explain if it is not allowed to edit your own comments? Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It isn't. See WP:REDACT. MrOllie (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's one explanation. TarnishedPath^talk 12:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

From a mobile device, it's impossible to read this discussion; one letter per line... JacktheBrown (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that they've been called out for synthesizing or cherry-picking sources numerous times in a contentious topic area and demonstrating IDHT in response is not at all frivolous. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

See [72] strongly disagree re. "cherry picking" accusations, including w/ your referral of me to ANI while ignoring my explanation/question. The instance of synthesis had to do with one source and I struck it after being informed. [73][74] JSwift49 16:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There has been exactly zero legitimate concerns about Khelif's eligibility to compete. Any such characterisation is an attempt to minimise and at least partially WP:WHITEWASH the misinformation and disinformation which has been pushed by various bad faith actors on social media platforms. TarnishedPath^talk 04:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Seeing the section below that JSwift49 started without signing (a very convenient "oversight"), the persistent aspersions casting (highlighted above, which also suggest that they hold grudges), the cherry picking to push a POV in a contentious topic (as well as in any discussion, including the below section) and their battleground approach to everything (editing, discussing, etc.), I think it's high time the admins started considering taking some kind of action. M.Bitton (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney, I appreciate you've not been part of a lot of discussions, but you missed them engaging in WP:CANVASING to further their POV pushing. TarnishedPath^talk 05:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If you’re talking about this, [75], I rectified that by pinging all the editors from the (related) neutrality discussion, in response to your concern. [76] so the effect was notifying all editors who had weighed in on a similar topic. (Of course, M.Bitton violated WP:CANVASS on this very board, as I described) JSwift49 11:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Your misrepresentation of what people do and say has no limits. Pinging (on this board) those who are discussing the issue on this board to highlight your continued aspersions casting is not canvassing. M.Bitton (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you worry about the baseless aspersions you made about me “ignoring” you, and not when someone posts diffs proving you repeatedly asked the same question :) and for the record, you didn’t ping all users in the discussion such as Gitz6666 and GoodDay, only a group you selected, so yes that’s a violation. When you pointed out to me I was violating WP:CANVASS, I rectified it by subsequently tagging everyone in that conversation (as I hadn’t know the policy). Will you do the same? JSwift49 11:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Either you don't know what you're talking about or you're just being disingenuous as usual (more than likely). M.Bitton (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging any editor in a discussion that they are already involved in is not WP:CANVASSING and never has been. TarnishedPath^talk 12:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Given that they start a new portion of the discussion by selectively pinging five editors it seemed to me like that would cross the line. JSwift49 12:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Further pinging other editors from an unrelated discussion (so that all editors from that unrelated discussion were pinged) does not change the WP:CANVASSING. You should not have been pinging any editors from unrelated discussions in the first place, let alone only those who you thought would agree with your stance. TarnishedPath^talk 12:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It was very much a related discussion; concerning the neutrality of the lead paragraph, which my proposal also concerned. [77] JSwift49 12:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Now you're just playing with words: unrelated here means not the same discussion (I'm certain that you know that). If that's not the definition of being disingenuous, I don't what is. M.Bitton (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I actually didn't know that; but I appreciate you letting me know. What is the issue with pinging all editors from a discussion if that discussion is closely related to your own? JSwift49 12:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe you and every reason to believe that you're being disingenuous. M.Bitton (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes exactly, that was what led to the wrong reply that @MrOllie pointed out. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes exactly, that was what led to the wrong subthread comment @MrOllie pointed out. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX

For failure/refusal to WP:LISTEN to others' concerns about their editing and proposals with regards to their POV-pushing/whitewashing of gender-based abuse faced by Imane Khelif, and their WP:BLUDGEONING of discussion with repeated "compromises" that don't address concerns, JSwift49 is topic banned from the GENSEX area, broadly construed. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer - JSwift49's first edit to the Imane Khelif article was to insert their POV that Khelif faced "intense public scrutiny about her biological sex" and removed the word "misinformation."[78] Ever since, JSwift has disruptively persisted in their attempts to add some form of language which dilutes the fact that Khelif was a victim of misinformation. They previously violated 3RR,[79] and since stopping the edit warring, have refused to listen to repeated concerns that their proposals whitewash the abuse faced by the article's subject. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Lack of basis for this, and here's why:

  • My original addition [80] was based on the use of the term "scrutiny" in multiple reliable sources [81][82][83][84][85] I acknowledge it would have been better if I had sought consensus- at the time, I didn't see my change as controversial. However, the original "misinformation" lead was arguably not the subject of consensus before I weighed in.[86][87][88][89][90][91]
  • My original proposal, or changes along those lines, was supported in some form by several other editors.[92][93][94][95] (update: [96][97] [98])
  • After a discussion on the lead where there was no consensus, I proposed a compromise solution that incorporated the concerns of all editors who had weighed in. [99] This proposal gave "misinformation" prominent weight and changed the word "scrutiny" to "attention", as editors felt gave "scrutiny" gave too much weight to negative attention.
  • After further disagreements, I explicitly, and in good faith, invited editors who disagreed with me to submit sources that promote their POV.[100][101][102]
  • Failing that, I started an RfC, which was also a compromise proposal. I used thirteen reliable sources to promote my argument. [103]
  • I was accused of cherry picking, but don't understand why. The sources were reliable, and the quotes were meant to support the addition of a term, not that the existing term did not exist. Concerns, as I understand, have to do with not including quotes that support the (undisputed) existing term. For more information see my writeup above: [104]
  • I tried to resolve concerns about my proposal, before this, with GhostOfDanGurney in good faith.[105][106]. I explained my argument re. cherry picking accusations,[107] but before I was responded to, I was referred to ANI.[108]
  • Being accused of WP:WHITEWASHING does not hold water in my view; I wanted to account for the variety of attention Khelif received while still noting the significance of "misinformation". (One accusation also mistakenly claimed I wanted to remove 'misinformation' from the article. I want no such thing.[109]) Regardless, my argument was sourced and in good faith.
  • I am guilty of edit warring with M.Bitton, and we were both warned for violating the 3RR rule. [110][111] I have refrained from that behavior since and have tried to find consensus on the Talk page. Whatever other policy violations I was made aware of, I remedied or struck. This has been a learning experience, but I do not believe my conduct merits a ban whatsoever.

  JSwift49 17:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. As an uninvolved editor, the rationale for a tban doesn't add up. Wikipedia never required every edit to be perfect nor prevent editors from having opinions. The WP:3RR violation was already dealt with at WP:ANEW and the bludgeon often swings both ways. The content dispute is just a content dispute even if a handful of editors strongly oppose it. Yvan Part (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support: JSwift49 has constantly WP:POVPUSH to insert language that would at least partially WP:WHITEWASH or minimise the misinformation and disinformation in regards to Khelif by suggesting that there were legitimate concerns. This sort of POV pushing has no place in the CTOP area and therefore JSwift49 should be topic banned as a preventative measure to minimise the current disruption that they are causing. TarnishedPath^talk 01:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support:: It is exhausting to even skim this thread. No wonder M.Bitton sought help with this. The gender topic area is already highly toxic and absolutely does not need this sort of contribution. I may have more to say later if I can find time to look at this in more detail. JSwift49, answering every single post is not required and is in fact strongly discouraged as counterproductive to discussion. Elinruby (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as uninvolved: based on the section below, the overall picture is much more complex than what is described by the topic ban request, the other faction of the dispute is guilty of the same behaviours, particularly with regards to the "failure/refusal of WP:LISTENING" and "WP:BLUDGEONING of the discussion", as well as being WP:BITEy and hostile towards anyone slightly disagreeing with them. I would certainly be in favour of banning from the article both JSwift49 and M. Bitton (and perhaps others), as we need a more collaborative environment and not a war between opposing POV pushers. --Cavarrone 09:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I am happy to step away from the article voluntarily; I and my opponents have made our points multiple times, so I agree it’s now better to let others pick it up. This is definitely a learning experience re. not feeling the need to weigh in on every point you disagree with.

  I will emphasize that I think a difference here with some is that I have made efforts toward compromise/consensus, and to revisit arguments in response to others’ concerns. (More examples: [112][113][114][115][116][117][118]) JSwift49 11:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Given that it is not clear whether the person is a victim of all the claims or not (the claims about them having XY chromosomes are neither proven nor disproved), it is better to use a neutral word about controversies in this topic. While it is not true that the person is male or transgender, the XY chromosomes is a question without definite answer. The article currently looks as if both the male / transgender claims and the "XY claim" are misinformation. There is at least a need to point out that the "XY claim" is not disproved and therefore cannot be classified as misinformation. Therefore, I support JSwift49 and think that they are right. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"the XY chromosomes is a question without definite answer". The person has stated that they are female. Any assertion otherwise should require appropriate reliable sources. This muddying of the waters is entirely inappropriate and constitutes WP:POVPUSHING. TarnishedPath^talk 11:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I am simply stating that while the gender is not under dispute, having XY chromosomes (or the claims about it) is worth mentioning. Most of the sources that I have seen are saying that the person has XY chromosomes, not that they are male or transgender. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think your previous statement is mudding waters by intentionally interpreting my statement as something that I did not state. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point with your further comments. TarnishedPath^talk 11:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You are doing POVPUSH, by engaging in a conversation with me where I simply stated my opposition to a suggestion. I am only stating facts that there is no evidence against the person having XY chromosomes in addition to reports that state they do have. I elect not to engage in further discussion with you on this topic. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice WP:GASLIGHTING. By your logic you could argue that there's no evidence that the earth isn't flat. I'm sorry, that doesn't cut it. TarnishedPath^talk 12:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There is the report by IBA about XY chromosomes. While that one cannot be regarded as proof, it can still legitimately raise doubts. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

IBA as a primary source is completely and utterly unreliable. For you to even put forward any suggestion about a report from the IBA is further WP:POVPUSH. You need to stop now. TarnishedPath^talk 12:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Where do you justify your claim of it being unreliable? Is that not POVPUSH? Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

They were suspended by the Olympics in 2019 and completely banned in 2023 for lack of governance and transparency. Their boss has been described by US officials as having close ties to Russian organised crime and heroin smuggling. Claiming that it is POVPUSH to state that the IBA is unreliable is absurd. TarnishedPath^talk 01:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

That is just one point of view. Even if what you said were true, the US officials' statement should not be taken as veridical either, especially when it comes to Russians, given the political tensions that are enough to justify why they would not be fair and neutral towards Russians. And describing other points of views as "absurd" is also absurd and POVPUSH. But I will not discuss any further in this topic as it is a waste of time, does not lead to anything and it is going in circles. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

And last part really means: I will not reply to this subthread from now on. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

after accusing people (and countries) of Russophobia it is probably a good idea to stop talking, yes. Look, if you are the good-faith new editor you say you are it would probably be a good idea to re-read WP:RS with particular attention to what is a primary source. I also would recommend Firehose of falsehood or if you prefer, some other source on disinformation. Elinruby (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

One can only argue this if they choose to put weight on the position that the configuration of one's sex chromosomes is ever of note to nearly anyone else for any reason that is unrelated to social categories of sex and gender. Remsense诉 11:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Not getting involved in further arguments; but for clarity I do not support mentioning XY chromosomes in the lead.[119][120] JSwift49 12:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• 'Support at minimum' Given the IDHT-ness displayed above. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that JackkBrown (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
• Support, given what I've seen here and at the talkpage. The bludgeoning alone is exhausting, and it is not equally distributed on "both sides". Grandpallama (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support There is no evidence that this poor women is anything but a biological female, indeed not a single iota of real evidence has been presented to show any facts that support an alternate thesis, yet a whole of series NPOV positions have applied to the article by JSwift49, in what is essentially misinformation and conjecture. I sincerely hope she is not reading this article. We must have a higher standard of quality, on what is WP:BLP article. The churn on it for more than a month has been shocking, for such a small article. I've never seen that. Topic ban is ideal. scope_creep^Talk 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  My RfC proposal of “Khelif became the subject of attention and misinformation regarding her gender” – which I arrived to after learning and hearing concerns from both sides of editors, and which seven other editors have at least partially supported – has a basis in reliable sources and is certainly not an NPOV violation. Disagreeing on content is one thing and I welcome it, but your characterizations and arguing for a ban based on that do not hold water. JSwift49 21:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  No. I see you still trying to WP:BLUDGEON folk on here instead of letting the conversation develop naturally. I don't think you know what WP:NPOV is or how to apply it. The clearest evidence for it is that RFC you presented, which should have been never been posted. That RFC is a form of misinformation, because its based on false conjecture because there is no facts to support it. It exists in own pocket universe detached from the original facts. It doesn't add anything and instead if passed would have npov'd it further. You shouldn't be working in this article or indeed any article of this type. I could say more about the sources you presented. Everyone (ones I was able to read) are categorical in their statement that she is a women and no evidence has been presented otherwise. Yet the quotes you are stating in the RFC, don't represent the full article or even the gist of the article. They are completely arbitary in nature and NPOV and don't represent reality. scope_creep^Talk 07:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  I started the RfC based on above recommendations from @City of Silver [121] and @Grandpallama [122]. JSwift49 14:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Those editors did not give you recommendations on the specific wording of an RFC. Don't put words into other editors mouths. TarnishedPath^talk 00:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per proposer. Jdcomix (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a dispute about content, not behaviour. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support No,the contemt dispute became a behavoural one. Opposing because it was a confuct dispute at one time is incorrect. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The WP:BLUDGEONing, failure to WP:AGF, and misrepresentation of the sources are all serious conduct issues that are way below the standard expected for a WP:CTOP. And the fact that their responses here continue to try and rehash the content dispute rather than engage with the fundamental problems with their behavior makes it clear that they're unlikely to improve. Things like "It's pretty clear here this isn't a good faith argument"[123] and "Sealioning and disregard for WP:NPOV are also issues I've seen with you, I'm afraid."[124] are obviously unacceptable in a WP:CTOP and I'm baffled that people above would try to defend them - these are both straightforward WP:ASPERSIONs and clear failures to WP:AGF. And the behavior here and in the section immediately below it is classic WP:BLUDGEONing; by my count nearly half of the comments in that fairly massive section are from them. --Aquillion (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Happy to directly address each point re. behavior:

  • The 'good faith' comment was a response agreeing with another editor who initially questioned M.Bitton's good faith.[125][126] I later decided to strike the comment anyway,[127] as I agree it was not constructive and did not reference Wikipedia policies.
  • The 'sealioning' and 'NPOV' comment, I believe, has validity, As I detailed in the below thread, M.Bitton asked the same questions five [128][129][130][131][132] and four [133][134][135][136] times near-verbatim, and repeatedly cited an opinion article from a partisan source in support of their POV. [137][138][139]. If I should have phrased it differently or posted about it elsewhere, that's fine, but it was in no way an aspersion.
  • It's also worth noting that there was a clear pattern of incivility on their side in response to me and other editors, which I detailed in the thread below.
  • As Tamzin said re. my comments:[140] Neither of those is an aspersion. They're characterizations of another editor's conduct based on what's in plain view—whether or not they're accurate characterizations ... Accusing someone of proceeding in bad faith, POV-pushing, and violating NPOV are the same sorts of accusations that get made at this noticeboard all the time.
  • I did a count of the comments in the sections you mentioned: '2nd paragraph'[141] and 'Meloni again' [142], plus the RfC [143], all per the following diff [144]. (Note figures could be off slightly each way).
    • 2nd paragraph. JSwift49: 48, M.Bitton: 35, TarnishedPath: 10, Others: 19.
    • Meloni again. JSwift49: 20, M.Bitton: 15, TarnishedPath: 4, Others: 5.
    • RfC. JSwift49: 12, M.Bitton: 13, TarnishedPath: 13, Others: 36.
  • I fully acknowledge, in the first two sections, that I weighed in too much. I had originally thought it was OK since I had started/prompted the sections and had made some efforts to find consensus.[145] In context, it is nonetheless important to point out that those two threads were primarily two-way discussions between myself and M.Bitton (and to a lesser extent, TarnishedPath).
  • After those two sections I posted the RfC. The numbers show I have taken a much more proportionate role in the process since receiving feedback. I have still responded to editors if I felt I could meet them re. their argument [146][147], address their concerns about something I did not spell out in the RfC, or if I felt they had misunderstood my proposal, but not to everyone who opposed me.
  • This has been a learning experience about discussions in many ways (yikes: [148]) and I think it will serve me well.

  JSwift49 14:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  This very reply encapsulates why people are supprting a TBan, by continuing to bludgeon/badger with repeated points that have been stated before, by cherrypicking the lone established user to (wrongly) say "no these weren't aspersions" and by continuing to defend their personalization of, and casting aspersions in discussions in a CTOP. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  It’s not bludgeoning when someone raises a concern that you didn’t address a certain topic, and then you address that topic. JSwift49 16:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, I don't like people misusing the word "aspersion". It's part of the toxic "Okay when I do it, sanctionable when you do it" culture here at AN/I. That does not mean, however, that I think your statements were correct, or that I think you have behaved appropriately here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Imane is busy dealing with hatred as of this comment. A TBAN is enough to stop JSwift from further disruption. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support for reasons outlined by other users. For transparency, I have been involved with the discussion at Talk:Imane Khelif, but my direct interaction with this user has been minimal. --AntiDionysius (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Behavior of M.Bitton

For the record, I would like to submit these cases of sealioning and personal attacks/aspersions by M. Bitton on or regarding on Talk:Imane_Khelif, as I am questioning whether their conduct is conducive to editing contentious topics.

We have argued back and forth a lot, and I have not been blameless myself, in part due to lack of experience with applicable policies and in part due to not questioning my own assumptions (has been a learning experience). However, the pattern of personal attacks and sealioning by M.Bitton seems quite consistent here, not just toward me. I don't see any will by them to compromise or address concerns of editors who disagree, even after I worked on a compromise solution, [149] started an RfC based on that, [150] struck a remark I made that they saw as an aspersion [151] etc.

Sealioning

• Same question 5x near-verbatim, despite receiving replies [152][153][154][155][156]
• Same question 4x near-verbatim, despite receiving replies [157][158][159][160]
• Opposed incorporating description based on in five, later thirteen, reliable sources (including AP) due to "cherry picking" [161][162][163] while repeatedly citing an opinion article from a partisan source in support of their POV. [164][165][166]
• Pretty blatant example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT [167]
• Attempted to discredit three opinion articles (two of which by scientific experts) published in significant, reliable sources as "nobodies" by tying them to opinions from "nobodies" [168]
• Stated "I don't want anything" in response to editor seeking to understand what they wanted [169]
• Violated WP:CANVASS to assemble people in response to my pointing out sealioning (specifically, the 4 and 5 question repeats, with diffs) [170]

Personal attacks/aspersions

• Accused me twice of not reading/ignoring their POV [171][172]
• Called my statement (with diffs) that they asked the same questions 4 and 5 times "aspersions" [173][174]
• Reverted a 17-year-old new user twice asking to resolve a dispute on their talk page, stated "you're not welcome here" [175][176]
• Reverted user who posted to talk page expressing concerns about archiving of a Talk thread, stated "you're no longer welcome here" [177]
• Said "what a surprise" in response to editor who disagreed with his position [178]
• Stating "not an improvement (that's a generous way of describing it)" in response to a good faith proposal by a new editor [179]
• Goaded users on their "lack of courage of conviction" to report them three times in a row [180][181][182] even after asked to stop [183]
• "You're not fooling anyone with that extremely poor excuse" in response to a concern about unsourced lead material [184]
• Stating "you have an issue with silence" to editor during discussion [185] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSwift49 (talk • contribs) JSwift49 01:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"Violated WP:CANVASS to assemble people in response to my pointing out sealioning (specifically, the 4 and 5 question repeats, with diffs) [186]"; I read it now.
M.Bitton accused me (rightly) of being improperly invited to this discussion (obviously I'm not at fault); however, the user in question has violated this rule. A very serious incoherence, which adds to all the other problems. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding to this (new) point re. incoherence, M.Bitton accused me of violating WP:CANVASS for pinging one editor who was already part of a discussion [187] even though they pinged five editors here. [188] JSwift49 17:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

That diff of M.Bitton's comment is clearly not an example of WP:CANVASSING. Pinging edtiors already involved in the discussion in which you ping them is not and never has been canvassing. TarnishedPath^talk 00:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This retaliatory hollow section by JSwift49 (who conveniently "forgot" to sign it) is a perfect example of their out of context cherry picking to mislead the readers while pushing a POV. It also highlights their battleground approach to everything. M.Bitton (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This is confusing, it looks like M.Bitton filed a complaint about themselves. But, M.Bitton, do you have any comment about these specific instances? It would help if you provided a more thoughtful response as these do not all seem frivolous complaints. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton's behaviour has been very poor - very confrontational and harsh, and frankly unwarranted, since no one is trying to dismiss or belittle the notion that Khelif was subjected to idiotic fascist abuse. They are presenting a relatively minor disagreement over article content (should we mention in the lead that there's been also public debate about eligibility standards in women's boxing competitions?) as a fight between Right and Wrong, the ultimate resistance against fascism and bigots - I find it ridiculous. Anyway, their behaviour towards the young newcomer (who was quite civil and cooperative) is appalling. It's also worth mentioning (as a sign of their battleground mentality and WP:ownership) that they've made 8 (eight!) non-consecutive reverts in less than 24h (as I documented here) and the result was... that TarnishedPath reported JSwift49 at 3RR/N and not M.Bitton! These two users are blowing things out of proportion and disregarding common sense and civility - admins should step in. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for glossing over that JSwift49 had pissed all over WP:3RR in as much as the third revert shown in my report had a message in the edit summary in which JSwift49 lectured M.Bitton not to breach 3RR and then they breached it 4 hours latter. TarnishedPath^talk 10:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You're very much part and parcel of the problem, so don't pretend to be a third party.

no one is trying to dismiss or belittle the notion that Khelif was subjected to idiotic fascist abuse then, why did you keep citing the crappy Italian sources (that you described as RS) that violate BLP?

Their behaviour towards the young newcomer (who was quite civil and cooperative) is appalling. that's a lie. The so-called newcomer is more than likely, like a sock who started casting aspersions (your stance is not neutral and that you are biased towards) and kept doubling down on them (this means you admit you are biaised), etc). M.Bitton (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, you have made personal attacks against several different users on this one topic. At some point it becomes a concern for all contentious topics.

Re. 3RR this was reported and dealt with with a warning, and we’ve both done a good job since sticking to the talk page. JSwift49 11:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The section that you created to justify your aspersions casting and your usually cherry picking and misrepresentation of the sources, as well as what editors said, has been addressed. M.Bitton (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49, the fact that you lectured another editor to not violate 3RR in an edit summary and then proceeded to violate it yourself is not reason to say that you've done a good job. It was demonstrably wilful behaviour engaged in to push your favoured version. That fact that you both got away with only a warning is largely due to the existence of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's not forget that JSwift49 was edit warring while citing a fictitious policy to justify their multiple violations of the WP:ONUS policy (in a BLP article). M.Bitton (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I meant we had done a good job since receiving the warning :) JSwift49 12:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

that's a lie - I think you're wrong, M.Bitton. I have reviewed Fanny.doutaz's contributions - which is easy to do, since they amount to 79 edits - and I'm persuaded that they are a newcomer, not a sock, and that they are sincere when they describe themselves as 17y || Swiss || CSE @ MIT on their user page. You can check their comments in this thread - they are sensible, but are the comments of someone who is not aware of WP:RS. No experienced editor would make this comment. it will be up to Wikipedia to verify it in this comment is also the talk of a newcomer, as well as chat history in this comment. Here they ask M.Bitton about the meaning of ONUS - M.Bitton's reply? Onus is an English word. If you don't know what it means, you look it up in a dictionary. M.Bitton's behaviour in this thread and on their user talk (hereand here) was a disgraceful violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NOBITE by an experienced user who should know better. I'm pinging Bbb23, who closed the previous thread at ANI. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Others disagree with your baseless assertions about the potential sock. Regardless, what you said about me is a big fat lie given that they started casting aspersions and doubled down on them (see my previous reply to your comment).

Regarding the "Onus" word, they filed this report on the 9th and my response to their so-called question was on the 10th. The fact that you didn't provide the diff for my response cannot be an oversight.

Also, why did you keep citing the crappy Italian sources that violate BLP and that you falsely described as RS? This explains why you're defending those who share your POV. M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Since you pinged the admin, I will also ping the other editors (10mmsocket and GoodDay) who shared their views on the so-called "new editor". M.Bitton (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved, but I also doubt that the "new editor" is all that new. The fact they immediately referenced IP addresses and UUID's on M.B's talk page makes it kind of obvious. WP:MANDY. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Friendly reminder to WP:AGF - looking at their edit history of another very young student from Switzerland and the talk page there with mention that they know the other student, I believe that this editor may very well also be a young talented student, which per their user page is studying computer science, which means they would be well aware what CS terms such as IP and UUID's are, those are not magical terms of Wikipedia, but of computing.

Some of the behavior cited above definitely does look a bit WP:BITEy as it appeared to come from a position of assuming a new user would know policies without having linked them from looking back at the discussion. Raladic (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That's what they claim. They started casting aspersions and doubled down on them. That much, I know for a fact and see no reason to let myself be attacked by a so-called "new editor" (who strangely found their way to ANI after a handful of edits). M.Bitton (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you please share the diffs with the serious personal attacks by the newcomer that provoked your hostile responses? They are needed also to assess the "big fat lie" accusation that you just levelled at me, when I said that that newcomer's behaviour was overall civil and cooperative - they just happened to disagree with your POV. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I already have cited some of them (in green) and highlighted your bad faith comments (in bold). Now, feel free to answer the question that I asked you (about your POV pushing in a BLP article). M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok... So in conclusion it was not a lie? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

the young newcomer (who was quite civil and cooperative) since they most definitely were not "civil" (see this and their talk page), what does that make Gitz's baseless assertion? M.Bitton (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If I understand you well, their personal attack on you was to say so this means you admit you are biaised. Well, keep your chin up... But what did you spotted on their talk page? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The above response wasn't meant for you (as far as I'm concerned, you made yourself irrelevant the moment you exposed your bad faith). Your refusal to answer the question about your POV pushing in a BLP speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Your refusal to answer the question about your POV pushing refers to the question why did you keep citing the crappy Italian sources that violate BLP and that you falsely described as RS?. I think this is called deflecting, grasping at straws and wasting my time, but WP:EQ and civility require that I share the relevant diffs: [189][190][191]. Anyone can check them and assess whether my behaviour on that talk page was questionable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You can call your POV pushing in the BLP whatever you want. Collecting some shitty Italian newspapers (that you falsely described as RS) to refute "there is no RS to support such a contentious label" speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The shitty Italian newspapers were ANSA [192], Adnkronos [193], la Repubblica [194], Il Messaggero [195], La7 [196], Radio DeeJay [197], and I shared them on the t/p not to argue that they should be used to describe Khelif as intersex, as they do (we shouldn't) but to argue that we should not suggest that the allegation that Khelif has DSDs is false: that allegation may be true, and many professional NEWSORGs and subject-matter experts ([198], [199]) either take it for true or debate the potential presence and nature of her DSDs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You cited those shitty Italian newspapers (with shitty headlines) and described them as RS to refute "there is no RS to support such a contentious label". I don't believe for one second that you didn't know what you were doing (you've been around long enough to know what RS and BLP are). M.Bitton (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I found my way to ANI after that you have threatened me to report me to ANI. Now you are using this to spread false information about me, saying that I found it without any context. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I said I will report you if you continued to cast aspersions. I specifically said "you're new, so you get a pass". This is how you thanked me for giving a chance to concentrate on the content. M.Bitton (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have not been involved in anything here except for the one day when I reverted Fanny.doutaz's contributions and subsequently posted in support of M.Bitton when Fanny.doutaz took the matter to ANI. I stand by my assertion that Fanny.doutaz was not a new editor, was someone very family with Wikipedia editing and Wikipedia administration and was, in my opinion, very likely a sockpuppet account. New editors simply don't gain that level of knowledge within a few hours of coming to Wikipedia. On that occasion I thought M.Bitton's behaviour was entirely reasonable in response to an antagonistic editor. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet account. The knowledge that I have about Wikipedia comes from a friend who used to be active in this community. Apart from this, "M.Bitton" did not act in an acceptable way and nothing justifies their actions, given that my proposal about the article was legitimate, but they started to refute it without enough justification, and eventually started attacks such as the ones that I have mentioned. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I am replying after being pinged. Thank you for raising the issue about "M.Bitton". I have not raised it before, because I am currently busy with an academic project and therefore would not like to be overly involved in online disputes. I am glad that other nice people are helping to report this person, for their (in my opinion unacceptable) attitude towards multiple people including me. This attitude includes, but is not limited to, calling other people's opinion "useless" and saying that other people's proposal is bad without any justification. "M.Bitton" provoked me multiple times saying that I lacked courage and that "empty barrels make the most noise" when I pointed out their disrespectful behaviour. I found this behaviour unacceptable for an encyclopaedia community, especially given that they also refuse to resolve an issue that started to consist of personal attacks, while I proposed to resolve it.

I will not be able to bring much more information in this discussion, but I wrote this message to thank the people who raised this issue, for their help to make this community more welcoming (to be honest, "M.Bitton" scared me quite a lot as I make my first steps in this community). Fanny.doutaz (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

+1. JacktheBrown (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fanny.doutaz: I remain available for any questions or curiosities you wish to ask me; I'm here to help you.
I advise you not to focus on users who don't treat you well (in this case the user you're referring to), as you would only waste energy that you could use in a healthier way. JacktheBrown (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Says the editor who has been been canvassed for their extreme views that led to them violating the BLP policy on more than one occasion (discussed at the ned of this report below). M.Bitton (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"Extreme views"? Which ones? Extreme views just because they don't align with yours? Furthermore, it's not my fault if, unfortunately, I was improperly invited to the discussion.
I advise you to avoid this behaviour towards me. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Bada bing and Bada boom. M.Bitton (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You calling me a sock puppet is defamatory. [I have retracted the rest of the message, I was not aware that it was not allowed here, thank you MrOllie for pointing out] Fanny.doutaz (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

WHOAH, you can't make legal threats on Wikipedia. That's a big NO-NO. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

[retracted]. If this is not tolerated on Wikipedia, then thank you for letting me know. I will not say this again here. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That is plainly a legal threat. Per WP:NLT you should retract that immediately or you can expect to be blocked. - MrOllie (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

After that you have told me, I declared that I retract it. I was not aware that this is not allowed here. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Fanny.doutaz (the "new editor") is now WP:CANVASSING. Please see this comment. M.Bitton (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Liz:

First part:

• The first two is what they keep plastering all over the place with this editor has a history ... (to justify their persistent attacks). The claim that the questions were answered is has no basis in reality. They are also part of the edit war in which JSwift49 kept mentioning a fictitious policy to justify their multiple violations of the WP:ONUS policy (I have every reason to believe that this was done intentionally and not reason to believe otherwise, given that this is an experienced editor).
• I opposed the inclusion and explained why.
• Their irrelevant opinion of mine.
• A lie and another example of their bad faith: I described those who started the hate campaign as nobodies (as in non RS).
• The full comment speaks for itself.
• More bad faith: pinging (on this board) those who are discussing the issue on this board to highlight the continued aspersions casting by JSwift49 is not canvassing

Second part:

• Their repeated "as I said ..." to what was addressed by multiple editors is a prove that they are ignoring what is being said by others.
• Stating this editor has a history ... in a RfC is beyond the pale.
• My right not to discuss anything on my talk page (especially, with a suspected sock who has nothing but aspersions to offer).
• Same as above.
• The editor in question violated BLP more than once (I can prove it and I'm certain that they won't deny it).
• Not an improvement means "not an improvement" (that's my opinion and I stand by it).
• The previously mentioned sock repeatedly attacking me while refusing to either stop or take it to ANI.
• I fully stand by that comment: trying to remove the easily attributable content that is being discussed in a RfC (that they started), while arguing that it's unsourced is a very poor excuse indeed.
• My response to an editor who kept repeating that "silence is often considered an admission" and describing it as "the silence issue", to insinuate that she is what they think she is. M.Bitton (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this is quite revealing here. Not least the response to the sealioning by turning it around on me (Whataboutism). Even now, they call me "disingenous as usual"; [200] it seems the default response to any concern is to just turn it around on the other person.

• I will strike one point as they are right: the "nobodies" on second look was in fact referring to people who started the hate campaign. However, I still think it's concerning that they would discredit articles by experts by associating them with opinions of "nobodies" that happened before.
• The facts are, the pattern of behavior deals with content that several editors supported some form of change to [201][202][203][204] and which arguably did not have a consensus to begin with, [205][206][207][208][209][210] and this is not how someone editing contentious topics should generally behave.
• I hate to play into the "both sidesing" of this issue, but I couldn't find a single instance where M.Bitton expressed a desire to compromise or admitted they could have done something better, despite the consistent pattern shown above. And for my faults, I did make a good faith effort to achieve consensus and incorporate feedback. [211][212][213][214][215][216][217][218] JSwift49 12:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Your disingenuous assertions have been addressed. M.Bitton (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Noting here that User:Fanny.doutaz made a legal threat in this section and then deleted the subthread after WP:NLT was pointed out. - MrOllie (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I retracted it, my original message was stating that the sockpuppet claim against me was defamatory [and all the rest], but I was totally unaware that it is not allowed here. I have retracted it since MrOllie pointed it out. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

P.S. @Yamla told me that I should only edit my own message. Therefore the thread stays and I have now only edited my own one. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Did Yamla say that you can engage in WP:CANVASSING (like you you did with that comment)? I will also ping Doug Weller (the admin who warned you on your talk page) and see what they have to say about your continued disruptive behaviour. M.Bitton (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If you ping them, then you should make sure they see the entire conversation. I did not say anything for days, until I have been pinged in this conversation. I pointed out your continued disruptive behaviour, and warned you about your defamatory claims. I was not aware that it was not allowed here to make such warnings, and retracted it immediately after that other people told me. But it does not make defamatory actions better and you should be aware of that. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Their behaviour proves beyond doubt that they are a new editor. WP:NOBITE is there for a reason. By disregarding this guideline, M.Bitton has made Fanny.doutaz's experience on Wikipedia quite unpleasant. I hope that admins will take action without repeating M.Bitton's mistake. It is clear who deserves sanction here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It's your POV pushing (in a BLP) that they should look at. A living person's reputation is far more important than the feelings of some random editors. For the rest, even if they are new (which I and others doubt), that still doesn't excuse their behaviour, and you're obviously defending them for the simple reason that their POV aligns with yours. M.Bitton (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: "By disregarding this guideline, M.Bitton has made Fanny.doutaz's experience on Wikipedia quite unpleasant. I hope that admins will take action without repeating M.Bitton's mistake": exactly, it's not correct for a collaborative project like Wikipedia to allow this kind of behaviour. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that JackkBrown (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

• First of all, when you get canvassed, it's usually good practice to state it before commenting.
• Did you or did you not violate WP:BLP? M.Bitton (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to ping (to make sure you don't miss the question). @JackkBrown: Please answer the above question. A simple yes or no will do. M.Bitton (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Was your behaviour, based on what is reported here at ANI, disrespectful to several users (including me) or not? Answer my question and I will answer yours. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No. Please answer the question about your violations of the BLP policy. M.Bitton (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

What I imagined; you never realised your repeated disrespect towards other users (you admitted it yourself: A living person's reputation is far more important than the feelings of some random editors), and, unfortunately for you, this is very serious for a collaborative project. I'm fair and respectful towards users, so I will answer you sincerely: yes, I made an error in a comment that I later deleted; for the rest, I didn't make any mistakes. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You violated BLP on more than one occasion. This is important to note because it explains what you've been up to and why you've been canvassed to this discussion. I'll let the admins draw their own conclusion. M.Bitton (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I was invited to this discussion because I, unlike you, was kind to the user: [219]; however, I'm not responsible for the invitation, don't accuse me. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't asking (you were canvassed because of your extreme view, as evidenced by your BLP violations). Also, please don't refactor your comment once someone has already replied to it. As for your "I'm fair and respectful towards users" claim:

Why did you write these (on the article's talk page) and can you please substantiate the last part of the second?

• unfortunately, a user (you already know who I'm referring to) is too convinced of their (questionable) ideas
• M.Bitton is a good user, but, unfortunately, also because of them the article isn't neutral.

I'm leaving now, so you have all the time you need to justify these and your other baseless assertions. M.Bitton (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• • Really? After the enormity of disrespectful comments you've written over the weeks do you think I'm the user who's wrong? Furthermore, you're contradicting yourself, because in the second comment I wrote: "M.Bitton is a good user" (are you complaining about a compliment?). Anyway, I wish you a very good night. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

    because of them the article isn't neutral is not a compliment and neither are the other baseless accusations that you're throwing around to whitewash the fact that you violated BLP to push a POV. M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

    You never realised your repeated disrespect towards other users (you admitted it yourself: A living person's reputation is far more important than the feelings of some random editors); what do you think about this? You admitted it yourself. Let's talk about what you were reported for, don't change the subject. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This is generating far more heat than light. It needs to be closed, but as I've been pinged I'm not the right person to do this. And yes, it's more important to enforce WP:BLP than worry about editors' feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: "And yes, it's more important to enforce WP:BLP than worry about editors' feelings." Of course I'm aware of this.
I quoted their comment to demonstrate that they themselves have confirmed their lack of respect towards other users, a lack which unfortunately occurred in many situations. I have nothing against this user, in fact I have said and repeated that they're a good user; however, it's their behavior that's not at all cooperative and collaborative. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Your disingenuousness knows no bounds. M.Bitton (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The insincere user isn't me: [220]. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@JacktheBrown: As a regular at BLPN, IMO anyone who cares more about editors feelings than BLP should probably just leave Wikipedia. But failing that, they should voluntarily refrain from editing anything concerning living persons, before they are rightfully topic banned. Such behaviour is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. Yes especially if editors are new, there is room for education, but this cannot come at the expense of BLP. If the editor isn't able or willing to understand that they have a lot to learn, and while doing so they need to take great care how they handle anything concerning living persons, then we should warn and block them in short order. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: so is it right to insult all users? In any case, I believe that when working on Wikipedia the BLP is, fortunately or unfortunately, more important than people's feelings, but if a user exaggerates and, even more seriously, is allowed to do so, in my opinion it's right for them to take a break from Wikipedia. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@JackkBrown: also if you care a lot about new editors, maybe consider changing your signature to match your username. While it's allowed, even as a long term regular, I find it needlessly annoying and occasionally confusing. I'm fairly sure most new editors find it very confusing. Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: no, I only added "the". JacktheBrown (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Fanny.doutaz and legal threats

Earlier in this discussion, User:Fanny.doutaz made a clear legal threat, which they doubled down on after an initial warning. After more warnings they edited those comments to remove the threats, but did not really retract them. Just now, they made what looks like another such threat to me on their user talk page. I think something needs to be done here. - MrOllie (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I wish you two would stop fighting. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@JackkBrown I do not know how to forward edit history to another page, could you please help me showing the current version of the page where the "legal" statements happened, where I clearly stated that I retracted my statements (unlike what @MrOllie is trying to make others believe by showing an older version of the page)? Thank you Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fanny.doutaz: date and time of the edit? JacktheBrown (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@JackkBrown I cannot find the time of edits, but a message where I stated clearly that I retracted it was on 21:16, 13 Aug 2024, in UTC time. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fanny.doutaz: here. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Just so this is clear: I stated that defamation is bad (literally just this), because @MrOllie accused me of things that are completely untrue. Stating that defamation is bad does not mean that any legal measures would be taken. It is just from a moral point of view, and I do not see where the legal threat comes in. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I also did state clearly that I retract all the legal statements yesterday. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie As I clearly stated on my talk page before you brought it here: it was not a legal threat, and it was only a moral blaming against you. Would you explain what your intentions are, as you accuse me of legal threats in a statement like "defamation is bad", despite that I already explained clearly previously that it does not mean any legal actions will be taken? Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the admins can handle it from here, I don't plan to argue back and forth in this section. MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Summary message for admins: @MrOllie is making fake accusations of 1) me not retracting a "legal threat" after it being pointed out, I was not aware of it being disallowed on Wikipedia (I am new) and I did retract it clearly after being told it was not allowed, contrarily to what he claimshttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1240155873

2) Calling a message from me, namely "you do know that defamation is bad, do you not", a threat, and bringing it to here after being told clearly that it was only moral blaming and not a threat. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• @JackkBrown. please stop pretending to be a third party: a) you have been been canvassed by anny.doutaz and b) you violated the BLP policy on more than one occasion (discussed at the end of this report). M.Bitton (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Are you stopping me from expressing my thoughts? Could you kindly finish justifying what you were reported for and stop trying to accuse and blame other users, including me? I can't stand you anymore. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Fanny.doutaz: a veiled legal threat (after making explicit legal threats) is a legal threat whose intimidating purpose is crystal clear. What you think is neither nor there. M.Bitton (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton I never explicitly threatened @MrOllie nor veiled legal threats. Also you seem to be obsessed with me, following discussions about me even where you were not involved. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Administrator note @Fanny.doutaz: This was certainly a legal threat. Thank you for retracting it. If you feel you have been the subject of a defamatory statement on Wikipedia, you should email info-en-q@wikipedia.org with details of the article and situation. Please do not post any further legal threats like this, as they will lead to a block on your account.

Re the other comments mentioned in this thread: you're certainly correct that calling something "defamatory' is not the same as threatening to personally take legal action. However per WP:LEGAL it is important to refrain from making comments that others may understand as a threat. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret it as a threat. This appears to be how other editors have interpreted some of your recent comments. Can you therefore please stop using this terminology to describe posts by other editors, as it is disruptive to the editing environment. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Euryalus thank you for your message, I will keep that in mind. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Behaviour of JackkBrown

This list of some of the statements that were made by JackkBrown (JacktheBrown) should highlight a) what they think of the subject (Imane Khelif) and b) their behaviour towards those who stand in the way of their POV pushing.

• I also think they are a transgender.
• we still know little about her (or them, in the case of transgender).
• I believe Imane Khalif is Intersex, but it's largely correct to report the official comments (via social networks) of her opponents. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view This is the edit summary of their addition to the article.
• I think Imane Khelif is intersex, but the attitude of not deciding to include different opinions of important people is very strange; this is an encyclopaedia, not a political campaign. When I asked them to delete it, they did, but not without making another point in their edit summary.
• in my opinion it's not correct; it's right to leave the freedom of criticism, and not only what interests you, even if the user (in this case the IP) isn't very good at writing a thread. This is their response to me after I reminded the IP. who wrote what follows, that Wikipedia is not a forum: IMO an issue with the article is that it looks as if Khelif is a VICTIM of false allegations. Right now the situation is unclear and the tendency is to believe that she does have XY chromosomes.
• Undid revision 1238981048 by Mellamelina (talk) everyone is free to express their thoughts, whether it bothers you or not. Here, they restored a comment that states most likely Imane has Swyer syndrome.
• @JSwift49: unfortunately, a user (you already know who I'm referring to) is too convinced of their (questionable) ideas. This comment is clearly about me.
• @JSwift49: M.Bitton is a good user, but, unfortunately, also because of them the article isn't neutral. If there was any doubt about the target of the previous comment.

There are others, among their "exactly" and "I agree" to any comment that aligns with their POV, that I didn't bother mentioning (the above statements are more than enough). Personally, I believe that they should be banned from the Khelif article, and ideally topic banned from BLP and the GENSEX area, but I'll let someone else propose what's appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I never wrote the following sentence: "I also think they are a transgender." Please report truthful comments, thank you very much.
To avoid making further mistakes, I suggest you post the links (obviously only the latest version, because some comments were changed a little later). JacktheBrown (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear M.Bitton, I kindly ask you to address me with "he" (not "they"); see here. Thank you and have a great day. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I never wrote... this diff says otherwise. M.Bitton (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear M.Bitton, what you didn't understand about "obviously only the latest version, because some comments were changed a little later"? SEE. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Behaviour of TarnishedPath

TarnishedPath has been repeatedly accusing Vegan416 of POV-pushing in response to good-faith contributions to talk page discussions:

• 10:47, 14 August 2024 Quite frankly it strikes me as WP:POVPUSHING to be making fringe arguments on the basis of sourcing which doesn't explicitly back you up (in response to this comment by Vegan416)
• 12:12, 14 August 2024 I'm not going to waste my time and read the rest of your WP:POVPUSH (in response to this comment by Vegan416)
• 12:32, 14 August 2024 You continue to push a position which is not based on "reasonable concerns" while stating that it is (in response to this comment by Vegan416)
• 10:13, 15 August 2024 Referring to others who are engaged in POVPUSH as backup isn't the victory you think it is (in response to this comment by Vegan416
• 10:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC) No, I'm suggesting that YOU are engaged in POVPUSH by seeking to selectively use quotes (in response to this comment by Vegan416)
• 23:52, 15 August 2024 Now a better question is why are you pushing material in a manner which is presumptive that the IBA (an unreliable source) is correct? (in response to this comment by Vegan416)

None of these accusations are warranted: please see Vegan416's comments that prompted them.

At 09:16, 15 August 2024 I warned TarnishedPath that this conduct was not acceptable, especially since we already had this thread at ANI for discussing user behaviour. It didn't work. I repeated my warning on their user talk page, and they asked me to never post there again. They also opposed a proposed edit, and when I asked for the reasons, they twice refused to give them (03:38, 16 August 2024 and 13:40, 16 August 2024), showing unmitigated hostility. Since it is impossible to cooperate on that article talk page, I'm reporting this user. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

But not telling them I see. They seem to have logged off. perhaps until tomorrow afternoon. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't want be involved in this, and I am against this complaint that was filed without consulting me. I have already stated in the past with regard to other attacks that were made on me (by another editor) that I do not need any protection from the admins, and I can handle aggressive behavior against me on my own.

I won't comment here any more. Vegan416 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I warned TarnishedPath that this conduct was not acceptable you're in no position to judge an editor who's enforcing BLP. I already mentioned an instance of your POV pushing (based on some garbage sources that you collected online). M.Bitton (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the complaint right now, but heads up, Gitz your last two links are both to the same diff. CambrianCrab (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks and bludgeoning by Berchanhimez and Samuelshraga

Berchanhimez has been repeatedly calling me a liar and refused to strike this assertion even after having been asked multiple times (see first diff above), and even after I provided evidence for the claims in question. He also has been bludgeoning this and related discussions with repeated aggressive assertions that he's totally 100% right and no disagreement on any point could possibly be had in good faith (see first diff above again but also this reply to him as an illustrative example). Other users have tried to lower the temperature to no avail, and I've repeatedly said that it's fine if they think I'm wrong, I'd just like them to strike their very aggressive claims about me lying deliberately.

Samuelshraga similarly accused me of lying and refused to strike when asked. (But he hasn't been bludgeoning the thread, so I'm much more willing to let this one slide.) Loki (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Loki has continued to say things that they themselves have disagreed with in the past. They have provided "evidence" that does not support their claims. It is in fact Loki that has been bludgeoning the discussion - he has only tried to provide evidence at this point after replying to so many comments asking for evidence without having provided evidence. And his evidence is not even supportive of his claims. I will not strike claims of lying that are substantiated by the evidence present in the discussion, and if Loki continues to claim he is not lying by providing evidence that substantiates the fact they are lying, I will continue to call it out as lying. Ultimately, Loki is on a quest to use Wikipedia to designate groups they don't like as hate groups, to prevent sources that report on viewpoints they disagree with, and to censor Wikipedia to only things they agree with. And that's the true problem here. Loki refuses to accept that the arguments in the original discussion did not result in a declaration that a source that reports information they don't like must not be used on Wikipedia.

This has been going on with Loki since the original Telegraph discussion - where many users (both in that discussion and since) have pointed out that his initial claims are at best intentionally misleading. Loki seems to think that because enough other users want to engage in the same advocacy on Wikipedia that they do, that nobody can call out the misleading, misrepresenting (of the original sources), and blatantly false claims being made by Loki and others. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This [221] by Loki includes: I didn't even catch this one the first time TBH, but Sex Matters is not that, it's an anti-trans hate group. Sex Matters is a registered charity:[222] It is difficult to see how anyone could seriously describe it as a ‘hate group’ in good faith. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No, Sex Matters is an anti-trans hate group, allied with other anti-trans hate groups.123 Woodroar (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't Loki argue this in the discussion rather than say that act like people must take anything he claims as fact? That said, an article from a LGBTQ-allied program at a university, another one that is basically an oped in a journal, and an advocacy group masquerading as a news magazine aren't really proof that they're a hate group. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

When did I say you have to take anything I claim as fact? Loki (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

By bludgeoning the discussion (with your opinion) even when editors requested specifically you provide evidence. The one time you tried to provide evidence, it did not support what you were claiming. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

For heaven’s sake, Loki, are you now saying that none of your statements about the Telegraph are intended to be taken as factual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet6970 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

...no? And what a wild misrepresentation. I'm saying, as I've repeatedly said, I don't care if you think I'm wrong. It's the specific accusation of lying that bothers me. Loki (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Loki, I said are you now saying that none of your statements about the Telegraph are intended to be taken as factual?. This is a question. I do not see how, in good faith, you could categorise it as a ‘misrepresentation. Because I asked a question, you are accusing me of misrepresentation, i.e. dishonesty, as well as Battleground Behaviour. How about you strike that comment? Sweet6970 (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that wasn't a rhetorical question, and that you did not in fact mean to say or imply that there was a reasonable possibility none of [my] statements about the Telegraph are intended to be taken as factual? Loki (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't Loki argue this in the discussion rather than say that people must take anything he claims as fact? Please can you provide a quote for Loki saying this as I don't recall it and haven't found it on a quick ctrl+f. In contrast I do recall you spending a lot of time asserting your opinion as indisputable fact. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I've updated my statement to be "act" rather than "say", because while he did not explicitly say that, his repeated refusals to provide evidence and then when finally providing evidence that evidence not actually supporting his assertions are an "action" rather than a "statement" that he said. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, you can read articles on Sex Matter's own site: "A person’s biological sex cannot change", canards about protecting children, "they do not have the right to compel anyone else to pretend they are a member of the opposite sex or to force anyone to share intimate spaces with them on this basis" or "We also believe that ideas and behaviours promoted in the name of gender ideology are misguided and harmful", more about defending children, etc. Woodroar (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

None of these sources say that Sex Matters is a hate group. And a flat statement that Sex Matters is a hate group which is not intended to be taken as true is just disruptive. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Having an idea/opinion you disagree with does not make them a "hate group". Wikipedia is not the place to advocate for your preferred worldview. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect here, I do not want to re-litigate the underlying issue, I want to litigate their behavior. I'm taking it you agree that their accusations are unfounded and I think we can leave this there. Loki (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You brought this here, and your own behavior should be expected to be evaluated too. Including your bludgeoning, your refusal to hear that your initial claims were inaccurate, and your clear attempt to use Wikipedia for advocacy purposes. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar: yes, I believe their accusations are unfounded. Quite frankly, I'm surprised at some of the replies here, like citing WP:ADVOCACY while defending a hate group. Woodroar (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, a group having a viewpoint you disagree with is insufficient for them to be a hate group. Trying to cover up advocacy by labeling groups you disagree with hate groups is tendentious and not appropriate on Wikipedia, which does not cater to one viewpoint or another. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sex matters is a registered charity, taken seriously on controversial topics by mainstream media sources like the BBC. Void if removed (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Both of those are independent of whether it is or is not a hate group. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This misses the point. Loki is claiming that any description of Sex Matters other than "hate group" is a direct falsehood. The fact that this group is a registered charity and quoted in sources like the BBC is evidence, as if it were necessary, that this is not so. Of course a different publication could call Sex Matters a hate group and still be reliable, it's just a question of POV. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

While this doesn't matter much either, in Britain, campaign groups and advocacy groups can register as charity, and that's the type of charity Sex Matters has registered as. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

To Thyrduulf: If you have evidence that Sex Matters is a hate group, then you should report this to the Charity Commission for England and Wales. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that it is or it isn't a hate group. I'm just pointing out that being a registered charity is not proof that it isn't one, only that the Charity Commission did not consider it a hate group at the time they granted it the status. There are multiple possible reasons why that might be the case:

• It is not a hate group
• It was not a hate group at the time but it is now
• It was a hate group at the time...
  • ...but the CC were not aware of that
  • ...but the CC could not at the time deny registration due to the combination of the evidence presented and the wording of the rules
  • ...but the CC made a mistake
  • ...but the CC deliberately granted the status anyway (for multiple possible reasons)
• There was no consensus at the time about whether it was or was not a hate group
• The definition of "hate group" (generally and/or as defined by the rules CC uses) has changed between then and now.

Whether a group is taken seriously on controversial topics by mainstream media sources is also not evidence of anything other than the media source(s) concerned consider them a relevant organisation in regards to those topics. Groups that are, by widespread consensus, undeniably hate groups can be and sometimes are treated as relevant and serious by mainstream media sources. Not that I think anybody is arguing that Sex Matters are not serious. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It does however sort the claim into WP:EXTRAORDINARY territory, as the regulator being incompetent or corrupt requires evidence, and makes accusations of being a "hate group" more likely hyperbole. Continuing to baldly state it as fact is not at all a reflection of the balance of sources.

The issue is that in the infamous telegraph RFC, not treating Sex Matters as a hate group was offered as evidence against the reliability of the Telegraph. As I pointed out at the time, that's a slippery slope indeed and one which begins by begging the question. If the Telegraph and BBC are in agreement, it's a mark against unreliability. That argument should have been dismissed, but here it still is, bubbling away in this discussion and the endless interminable debate over that RFC, weeks later. Void if removed (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Where does the BBC take sex matters seriously in that article? They only mention it because a Dr is a member. Looking through other times they seem to be viewed as a campaign/advocacy/lobbying group by the BBC and always seem to be balanced out with charities that help transgender people or just transgender people. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Loki and I have a long history of being buddies and colluding via emails regarding how we should both respond to common topics. <- That is a lie. I said it knowingly and I know it to be false. I don't view Loki's comments as lies even if I don't agree with them <- That is not a lie. I actually might be incorrect in that Loki may have said something that I would consider to be a lie but since I'm not aware of this, I can, hand over heart etc, say I wasn't lying. Looking at the evidence provided I don't see "lies". As an editor who has been accused of lying I do think such accusations should be used very sparingly as they are hurtful and uncivil. If I can't convince an editor that my ideas are correct, well it could be I'm wrong or just that I wasn't able to articulate what is "correct". However, when someone says I'm lying it says that I'm acting in bad faith with the intent to mislead. That certainly does make it much harder to stay civil. Even though Loki and I seem to disagree most of the time and I may find their logic flawed (as I'm sure they would reciprocate), I don't see being "wrong" as the same as "lying". Accusations of lying should be reserved for when an editor is deliberately trying to deceive. If I truly believe the Earth is flat then I'm not "lying" when I tell you as much. I'm only lying if I don't believe it but try to convince you otherwise. I don't see any evidence that Loki doesn't believe what they are arguing thus I do not believe it is correct to accuse them of acting in bad faith. Berchanhimez and Samuelshraga, I would suggest retracting the accusation of "lying" as it implies an intent to deceive in bad faith that just isn't supported by evidence. That doesn't mean you have to say Loki was correct or even that it was logically sound. It just acknowledges that Loki wasn't trying to deceive or promote an idea they personally don't believe in. I suspect no one actually thinks Loki doesn't believe what they are arguing regardless if we agree with it. Springee (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe Loki is, at this point, engaging in the form of civil POV pushing that Liliana points out below and is intentionally trying to mislead people. They have been pointed out multiple times how their claims from their start of the original RfC until now have been inaccurate, at best, and they have refused to recant them. They are intentionally trying to deceive/mislead. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Come on, I was obviously referring to y'all, not to Loki. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

How is this a response to what Springee has said? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Springee was discussing whether there are technically lies or not. As such, I pointed out how Loki has been given an opportunity to correct their falsehoods multiple times and has not done so - leading to the only assumption being that they are intentional at this point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I see the connection, then. But still, a horrible argument is not a falsehood. WP:DONTGETIT is one thing, and lying is another thing much more serious. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't see civil POV pushing as lying. I've been accused of civil POV pushing. I don't think the accusers felt I was lying or didn't personally believe what they might have felt was total BS. If you think Loki isn't listening to reason and is constantly pushing a claim that others have debunked, yeah, that could be ICANTHEAR or POVPUSH but it's isn't "lying". Also, if Loki doesn't feel they have been corrected or that they are incorrect, regardless of the evidence, well that might lead to an issue but it wouldn't be lying. I think Aaron Liu is correct here, a horrible argument (that the speaker believes) isn't lying. Since the specific concern is the claim of "lying" I would hope that making it clear that, regardless of the validity of Loki's arguments, you aren't accusing them of willfully trying to deceive should whole mess up. Springee (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be lying - if they've been shown their statements are wrong, there is a consensus (as there was at the original discussion) that their "opening statement" (and others) were wrong, and they still refuse to admit it and stand by their claims. I wasn't trying to say civil POV pushing is lying - but lying is certainly civil POV pushing. One doesn't have to accept that their statements are false for them to be intentionally making false statements - otherwise nobody would ever be "lying" because they would just claim "I believed it". Again, I ask others to think of someone parroting the Trump Big Lie ("the 2020 election was stolen"). If in the face of evidence that it was not stolen someone continues to make the claim that it was, that is a lie at that point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez How many times do you need to be told that whether or not there was consensus is your opinion, not fact before you start listening? Or are you listening and intentionally being disruptive? I hope for your sake is incompetence rather than malice Thryduulf (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I could ask you the same thing about your refusal to see the clear consensus (when weighting !votes accordingly) in the original discussion. You are also engaging in civil POV pushing at this point, and making personal attacks against me when you do. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The one thing that nearly everybody other than you can see from the original discussion is that there is no "clear consensus". Whether there was a consensus is disputed, but if there was one it was not remotely "clear". It is neither civil POV pushing nor a personal attack to point out when someone repeatedly bludgeons discussions with claims that their opinion is fact - especially when multiple people (involved and uninvolved) have called them out on it multiple times. Thryduulf (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, many people opined during the close review that, had the closer evaluated and weighted the comments appropriately, there would have been a clear consensus. So you are now misrepresenting the consensus in the close review to further your claim that it was not a clear consensus. It is also absurd that you are claiming I alone am a problem when Loki has been bludgeoning both the original discussion and to an extent the close review itself. Being louder/having more people agree with you is not how Wikipedia operates. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The close review contained an explicit part where participants !voted on their preferred outcome of the discussion. Only a bit less than half of 1 !vote (JoeJShmo's, which also favored no consensus) believed that the close should've been overturned to a consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with this analysis because it counts the !votes rather than the arguments. There were a significant number of people who voted for option 5 (reclose by another closer) - or in fact didn't comment in that section at all - under the understanding that another closer would've properly weighted the original discussion to result in the consensus that is clear when proper weighting was applied. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

From a sample of 10 uninvolved overturn !votes, only 1 thought that it should be consensus for G while 4 though it should be no consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see "no consensus" as a valid result. There should be a consensus found in a discussion where "no consensus" means an effective change (i.e. a backdoor downgrade of the source's reliability) - if it is at all possible. If no consensus is evident, the way !votes are being weighted down or up should be reconsidered. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works - you can't just manufacture one when one doesn't exist. The claim that no consensus is a "backdoor downgrade" has been discussed in at least two other venues and (imo) thoroughly debunked each time. Thryduulf (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that's how consensus works. But "no consensus" should not be a cop out for not fully weighting the commentary of the discussion, especially when it results in a backdoor downgrade of a source's reliability. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

As has been extensively discussed at other venues, it should be a downgrading, and you should not be diverting the topic to something that should be discussed at WT:RSP. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Were any of these "other venues" for PAGs instead of the RSP essay-class page? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

RSP is a WP:INFOPAGE project page, not an essay, as it simply summarizes past consensus, thus not requiring any consensus of its own to vet itself. It holds the acceptance of the entire community and the entire RfC was towards changing a listing at RSP. Not being a PAG does not magically degrade its status as the correct venue in any imaginable way. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I correctly said "essay-class", just because an editor gave it a title doesn't negate that "In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, and can reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting." Since you didn't answer my question I'll take it your "venues" have nothing to do with PAGs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

RSP is a list of how the community assesses sources according to WP:RS. The original RfC is all about changing the RSP-status of a source, and what a no-consensus outcome means for a source's RSP-status is of course best discussed at RSP. Whether RSP itself has PAG-level consensus is irrelevant. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That is your view, which a ton of people disagree with. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Further comments: It’s late where I am and I’m going to bed. So these are sort-of pre-emptive comments as to what might happen while I’m asleep. From my previous experience of dealings with Loki, I believe that Loki believes that he is acting in good faith. But from the evidence of all the discussions involving the Telegraph, it would be entirely reasonable to think otherwise. Loki started this thread because he objects to being accused of lying. He has now accused me of misrepresentation i.e. dishonesty, because, for heaven’s sake, I asked a question. I think it would be a good idea if he voluntarily stepped back from anything to do with the Telegraph for at least the next 3 months. Sweet6970 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Loki has not edited since you asked them to recant. I believe that both of you made perhaps slightly pointed ("for heavens sake", "misrepresentation" linking to BATTLEGROUND) remarks in good faith, and perhaps waiting and then apologizing would be a much better way than sanctions. I'm saying this as a near-native (i.e. none-native) speaker who thought that this was like the difference between disinformation and misinformation: the former has malicious intent. I'm surprised the word "disrepresentation" doesn't exist. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You asked what I believe to be a very pointed rhetorical question. If you didn't intend it that way I'm perfectly willing to retract my accusation. Loki (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was a request for clarity despite the intensifier. I can see how one may read it that way. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I can see the possibility but I still don't think it's the most likely reading. If it was a request for clarity, it surely was a very aggressive one. Loki (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar:You are mistaken. It was not a rhetorical question. It was a serious question. You said When did I say you have to take anything I claim as fact? as if you were denying that anything you said should be taken seriously. I was gobsmacked. Are you now ready to strike your comment? Sweet6970 (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not what I meant at all, but I will accept that it's not what you meant either and strike the bit about it being a misrepresentation. Loki (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Everyone in this discussion may be interested in this essay. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think perhaps I haven't lived up in every instance to Wikipedia:Civility standards here. However, bringing this dispute here is ludicrous. First of all, Loki's sudden indignation about accusations of lying is ludicrously hypocritical.

Moreover, the key difference is that I backed up my accusation (the diff that Loki shared in his complaint), and therefore stand by it. If not lying, I don't know what to call it. Reckless disregard for the truth? Loki said things that are false, this has been pointed out at length and repeatedly, by multiple editors over months, and Loki just repeats the false claims. I don't know what to call this other than lying.

I don't know how to engage in a discussion if such tactics can be engaged in so shamelessly and this is taken to be legitimate. Obviously I can no longer assume good faith here, and I don't think behavioural guidelines call me to either. I will go along with whatever de-escalation @Liz or other admin conclude, but frankly the brazenness of the complaint here is just a small taste of the shamelessness and gaslighting that we've seen from Loki over the past months. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Your accusations in the third paragraph are a (relatively) extreme amount of escalation. As I have pointed out (though to Bercham, not you), "lying" is an interpretation of bad faith while WP:IDHT is right there. It implies that Loki is intentionally trying to damage and disrupt the encyclopedia, which I heavily doubt. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

On reflection, I have lost my temper (being dragged here only exacerbated the situation). We can call it WP:IDHT. If "lying" is the bridge too far, fine. I will stick by what I said lower down: Loki makes false claims about the contents of paywalled articles in order to try and get sources with different POVs downgraded. Loki repeats those claims even after they have been thoroughly refuted. I'm gobsmacked if that's not a long way worse than anything I've done in any of these discussions.

As I say, I've lost my temper and don't want to continue to engage too much, but it seems to me this is an important point to keep emphasising. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that any of the articles I've talked about is paywalled, at least they aren't for me. But I have fairly strong anti-JS extensions running so it's possible I might have missed something.

I also don't think that my claims have been refuted, but honestly that's a matter of opinion so I don't care about it here.

The rest of this I will take as an apology. Thank you. Loki (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Boomerang?

Personal attacks - specifically aspersions - are where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, emphasis mine. Evidence was presented, so that isn't what is happening here. Bludgeoning has occurred, but the complainant is equally guilty of that, so I suggest all parties step back.

However, it is worth considering the complainants behavior in more depth. Specifically, they claimed that the Telegraph endorsed the Litter boxes in schools hoax, and in support of that claim presented this source, which explicitly calls it a hoax. When this was pointed out to them, they refused to retract the claim, and have instead repeatedly doubled down on it. This is source misrepresentation that amounts to POV pushing, and is not acceptable. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose boomerang, obviously, because there is only one correct POV here, and losing one's cool when someone is trying to push a different, and wrong, POV is very understandable. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's absurd and violates the essay you plugged yourself. Wikipedia isn't for you to convince the world you're right. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for you to convince the world you're right. This goes both ways. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You're the only one that's said there is only one correct POV here. Others (including Loki) have acted like that's what they really want to say. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, when the other POV can actively harm me, you should at the very least understand why I'd state that. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

We completely understand and support your right to be, but radical-ish censorship can go both ways. It is important for us to avoid a POV so that both sides can correct each other's POV in case we are in the wrong. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. I don't want to censor anyone for thinking differently than me, but I'm bummed that people consider a newspaper that deadnamed a trans teen who was murdered a reliable source for LGBT issues. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I would entertain a discussion on The Times, but that is a different source. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

To think I wrote my reply talking about the NYT's opinion piece on J.K. Rowling the day after Ghey's murder, then changed it to The Times after realizing I was talking about the wrong paper. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Having the right POV doesn’t justify source misrepresentation, nor mean that misrepresenting sources to advance said POV is not POV pushing. BilledMammal (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I sympathize with this reasoning, but this sympathy conflicts with the amount of !voters in the RfC that chose to accept the POV pushing, which conflicts with WP:Consensus is not a vote and would convert the "POV" into neutrality (as I believe bias to be relative). Compound that with the contentious nature of the discussion which boils everything on Earth, I kinda wanna wait this out on Mars. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose boomerang. Whether Loki is or is not right about The Telegraph they have consistently argued their position in good faith, and (broadly civilly) explained their reasoning in the face of personal attacks, misrepresentation and bludgeoning. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

A source that says "it's a conspiracy theory that JFK was shot by the CIA but here's a bunch of people who could have shot him that aren't Lee Harvey Oswald" is still pushing JFK assassination conspiracy theories.

I will cop to the fact that I consider "litter boxes in schools hoax" to be a bad name for that hoax because I personally don't consider the litter boxes to be a central aspect of it, and it was apparent during the RFC that many people disagreed with me on that point. In retrospect, I should have phrased that more precisely as something like "a conspiracy theory very similar to the litter boxes in schools hoax", but except that one change I stand by what I said. Loki (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

it's a conspiracy theory that JFK was shot by the CIA but here's a bunch of people who could have shot him that aren't Lee Harvey Oswald

That's not what the source did, though. If you want to follow that hypothetical, the source said "it's a conspiracy theory that JFK was shot by the CIA, but here is a teacher scolding two children for bullying a third for believing in the JFK assassination conspiracy theories."

Claiming that that is equivalent to endorsing JFK conspiracy theories would be source misrepresentation and POV pushing, and what you have done here is source misrepresentation and POV pushing. BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Err, no, the analogy would be "here is a teacher who appears to claim she knows who really shot JFK" or something like that.

But, I'm not here to relitigate this. I'm trying to focus as cleanly as possible on Berchan's battleground behavior, and not on whether or not I was right to try to downgrade the Telegraph. I don't care if you think I was wrong about that. I understand many people disagree with me, and that's fine. That doesn't give any of them the right to repeatedly accuse me of lying or to respond to half the comments in every thread about this with very aggressive accusations that they are 100% right and everyone who disagrees is malicious. Loki (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Loki, you did lie. You said that they endorsed the Litter boxes in schools hoax; they indisputably did not. The fact that you have since redefined the litter boxes in schools hoax to any support for Otherkin - including "support" as limited as "bullying is bad" - doesn’t change that, and in fact makes the situation worse, as it involves significantly misrepresenting facts to advance your preferred POV. BilledMammal (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I am again not here to relitigate this. You already know my opinion on whether any of this is even false, much less "indisputable". Loki (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And this is why we have a problem, and why I think a boomerang is appropriate.

You provided a source that explicitly disproves your claims, and then rather than retract them you tried to redefine the litter boxes in schools hoax to match the sources.

However, this didn’t rectify the issue, both because your redefinition is unsupported by sources, and because we know the "support" provided - a teacher telling off children for bullying - occurred.

Rather than at any point backing down and admitting you made a mistake, you kept insisting you were right - kept trying to push your POV despite the sources contradicting the allegations you made. This is disruptive behaviour. BilledMammal (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I provided a source that supports my claims. I have already explained at length across many discussions how the source supports my claims, and in response to that many people agreed and supported downgrading the Telegraph. I don't care if you don't, but I do think that coming here to accuse me of more stuff is also clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Especially since you have already tried to accuse me of, among other things, this exact same thing at AE, and got slapped down pretty hard. Loki (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You provided a source that says the exact opposite of your claim. Editors are allowed to make mistakes, but you’ve continued to make this claim long after your mistake was pointed out to you. BilledMammal (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Just a general question based on diffs. Is this dispute coming out of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliables ources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues discussion from July? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Liz It's that discussion, but the offending comments are much more recent. Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Support boomerang Loki dragged me here because I accused him of lying. I of course provided evidence. Loki has made the same accusation, in the same discussion, but without evidence. This was pointed out to Loki before this complaint was opened, in a diff shared in the complaint itself. I think it's therefore pretty axiomatic that Loki's behaviour has been at least worse than my own, so I don't know how a boomerang could possibly be opposed.

(Added to the fact that bringing this here is clearly a tactic to stifle anyone from pointing out that Loki lied. He claims things about the contents of paywalled articles that he shares as evidence in RfC, that are untrue.) Samuelshraga (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I offered a resolution that would allow the discussion to come to an end without any of the disruption from “my side” (so to speak) or the “other side” (Loki and Thryduulf being the biggest two bludgeoners and IDHT on that side). Loki refused to accept it. They want me to be removed from this topic area so they can continue to push their disproven (time and time again) claims about the Telegraph. They are on a quest to censor a source that doesn’t typically support their POV and are attempting to use administrative intervention to further that quest. Loki’s continued misrepresentation of sources after being pointed out is what is truly disruptive - both in the original discussion and in the close review. For these reasons, if Loki is unwilling to agree to not comment further on the subject (for a period of time), I support a boomerang. The time has long past for Loki to correct their false statements or accept they were disproven. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I specifically do not want you to be removed from this topic area, and that was the main reason I rejected that proposal.

I think you're a fine editor except for making up wild accusations about everyone who disagrees with you. That is the behavior I want you to stop. Please just listen to any of the many people who keep on trying to lower the temperature. Loki (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The temperature isn’t high because me and others have been pointing out your inaccuracies (at best). The temperature is high because of your IDHT behavior and others (such as Thryduulf) who act like you are blind to the consensus present in the original discussion when it is weighted appropriately taking into account that your initial claims, which were the only “evidence” many people used for their !votes, were sufficiently disproven. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Loki has now openly admitted in this thread multiple times that their goal is not to bring an end to the discussions, but to "win" (or in their words, get anything). If that doesn't show that they're in this topic area to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, I don't know what will. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what you're quoting. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's the diff link. Sorry that I'm not experienced enough with the diff templates to just post it as the template diff. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with that comment nor how it's POINTy. I think what Loki wants, an affirmation that such an assumption of bad faith is not accepted by the community which would hopefully push the discussion to be more civil, is entirely reasonable (although I do think the best solution to the bigger conflict which would also resolve this one is from the 3 involved parties to stop interacting for a month). Unfortunately it currently seems to be pretty much just you, Loki, and me commenting, so such an affirmation would be a long ways away. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I would be happy to agree mutually to no farther interactions with Loki for a month. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, of course my goal of bringing this to ANI was some sort of sanctions against the people I reported. (Well, or a retraction of the offending comments in this case.) Loki (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You're digging your hole deeper. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It's explicitly the point of ANI that this is the place you report people if you think they should be sanctioned. And I do think you should be sanctioned, because you made multiple personal attacks against me and refused to retract them, so I reported you here. I'm not sure why you seem so surprised by this.

Like, the point of ANI is not to resolve the RFC. I have in fact been trying hard to keep this thread focused on your behavior and not the underlying RFC explicitly because this is not the place to resolve the underlying content dispute. This is also why I wish I'd gone to AE to start, because AE is much better at focusing on behavior and not on the underlying content dispute. Loki (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If you had taken this to AE, your own behavior would've been evaluated too. Your bludgeoning, your WP:ADVOCACY violating behavior, and your own IDHT behavior would've been evaluated there just as much as it is here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Possible resolution

In the interest of bringing this entire debacle to a closure sooner, I will agree to not comment any further on the current AN thread (close review and assorted sections) or regarding the original discussion anywhere if Loki and Thryduulf agree to the same. I firmly believe that both of those users are engaging in civil POV pushing and are ignoring their own behavioral faults in attempting to bring this thread, and I do not think this will be enough for a closure of this thread without considering a boomerang against one/both of them, but I will agree to this condition if it helps bring this to a closure. The IDHT behavior of both of them and civil POV pushing does need to be addressed still. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• I would LOVE to close this complaint which I'm afraid looks like it could continue indefinitely without any admin action being taken at all. We just need the participants to agree to go to their separate corners, abide by civility policy and stop trying to antagonize each other. This discussion is murky and I really don't see any patrolling admins laying down any sanctions. At most, you all deserve warnings but you're experienced so it's nothing you don't already know. You just need reminders. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Yep. I am more than willing to accept and admit that I have behaved less than ideally in the close review if the other users who have done so are willing to admit the same. Sadly, I think that it is unlikely they will do so - they don't see a problem with their civil POV pushing behavior even when it has led to them bludgeoning the discussion as bad as I purportedly have. But I figured I'd split this out so that, if they're willing to admit they have behaved just as poorly, this can simply be left to the eventual closure (of the close review and original discussion) without any of us further bludgeoning it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
    • I reject your proposal but I would like to propose a counteroffer. If you strike the accusations that I deliberately lied and stop making them, I'll drop this whole thing. I doubt you will, because I've already asked twice, but if we're trying to end this quickly I feel the need to offer again. Loki (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      Nope. You chose to bring this here, and if you're unwilling to take my offer of resolution by agreeing to stop your own bludgeoning, your own conduct - from bludgeoning, to IDHT, to civil POV pushing - will be evaluated as well. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      I mean, if you say so. But I don't think anyone else shares your view of the situation. Just wanted to note that I did offer. Loki (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      Did you mean to include or exclude the part about ceasing activity? If nothing else, we won't have to deal with the high volume of kinda repetitive comments coming from Berchan and Samuel. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      The part about ceasing activity is the specific part I meant to reject. My problem here is not that Berchan posts a lot. My problem is the aggression with which he posts. I'm looking for a logged warning or some sort of custom anti-bludgeoning sanction here, not any kind of removal from the topic area.

      So I don't want to accept a trade of no activity for no activity, because I'm not getting anything. I don't want Berchan to stop posting, I want him to apologize for making personal attacks. If he'd offered striking his comment for me apologizing for misrepresenting the sources or something I probably would've taken that. Loki (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      You are claiming that an allegation (that you are lying) with specific evidence provided by both me and other editors (that you have refused to accept statements you have previously and continue to make are untrue) is a "personal attack". So you basically brought this entire thread to try and gain "first mover's advantage" for an issue that, frankly, isn't an issue except for your continued misrepresentation and attempt to use Wikipedia to push your POV on others. I will not strike a true comment just because it makes you feel bad. If you feel bad about being called out for your behavior, the solution is for you to actually listen to others who've told you you're wrong repeatedly and own up to the fact your original claims in the RfC were disproven, and your continued parroting of those claims amounts to intentionally being misleading. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      Are you Aaron Liu? If not, what are you doing here? I'm not talking to you here. Loki (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      This is a discussion between all users involved and administrators (and other users). Way to show that you are being disruptive and trying to silence others. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      Throughout the close review, the only people accused of bludgeoning are you, Berchan (both of which have made a similar amount of comments), and Sam. Even though my non-admin opinion is that the label of bludgeoning is overused, the arguments used by these three do seem to be getting repetitive. While I believe that an apology to you would be essential even ignoring the bludgeoning accusations, the best resolution to the latter part would be to refrain from discussing the source for a while, in my opinion.
      I do not condone nor recommend "combining" the two offers as I agree that the others' unapologetic behavior is quite awful, but I do urge you to consider this later when we are ready to consider the bludgeoning and STUBBORN actions. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

      Eh, on reflection I probably should disengage anyway. I do admit that I probably have been too active in those discussions.

      I don't really anticipate much more discussion there (there really only needs to be one more close and then hopefully it'll be over) but I will try to not get involved with any future discussions about it, if they do happen. Loki (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that while both have a few thousand edits each, neither Berchanhimez nor LokiTheLiar seem that interested in building an encyclopedia. Both of them are here almost exclusively to participate in contentious discussions (stats can be seen at Xtools for Berchanhimez and LokiTheLiar). While I won't go as far as to declare WP:NOTHERE, I propose that these two stop participating in project space and that they limit talk page activity to articles that they're working on. The question is whether they'll do this by choice or if it will need to be enforced. Otherwise we'll just be back here in a few months and do the whole thing over again. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, yes, 4 good articles but just not having time recently (for the past couple years - ever since people started doing stuff again after COVID while not treating it as a real disease, my work has been hell) to do the immense research I put into those good articles for others means I'm NOTHERE. This is just another person trying to silence a POV they disagree with. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I definitely wouldn't see that for Berchan, who has 26% of mainspace contributions (compared to 16% of projectspace, most of which are WikiProject discussions on various specific article issues). I wouldn't say "exclusively" applies to Loki either, who has 18% mainspace compared to 26% projectspace. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Note that I also mentioned their activity in talk namespace. And take into account that Berchanhimez only became active again in May but most if not all of their contributions since then have been arguments, disputes, and other contentious discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thebiguglyalien, I'm trying to deescalate this dispute while, for some reason, you want to prolong it. I don't see any urgent problems here. This is not a noticeboard to use to complain about other editors or share suspicions about them. There need to be policy violations for action to be taken and I don't see any in your remarks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Then I suppose we'll close this thread, ignore the underlying problem, and let things get worse like we always do. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  The underlying problem is those trying to civilly push their POV and censor reliable sources just because they report things these users don't like. The underlying problem is not that I've not had time to put the effort I think our articles deserve into articles recently. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Participating mainly in a contentious topic area is not the same as participating mainly in contentious discussions. I edit mainly trans topics, which are a particularly contentious part of GENSEX. As such, a lot of changes need to be hashed out on talk pages before being finalized. Statistics aren't everything and I don't appreciate you accusing either me or Berchan of being WP:NOTHERE.

  (Also for the record I'm not accusing Berchan of being WP:NOTHERE either. I do think that his behavior in the discussions spawned from the Telegraph RFC have been pretty suboptimal but I don't really see any reason to accuse him of anything more.) Loki (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with your sentiment here that a user participating mainly in project space doesn't mean you aren't here. And I hope I've never suggested you aren't here to build an encyclopedia - even though I think you are trying to civilly push your POV, I do believe that you're doing it to try to build an encyclopedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I was going to say that in the interests of not wasting more of people's time on this, I would be happy if Loki and I could mutually agree not to interact for at least the duration of any farther discussions about the Telegraph's reliability on trans issues.

However, if an admin is going to look into the conduct issues from the Telegraph saga, then I think that would be more than warranted. I know I wouldn't come out exactly smelling of roses - I have admitted that I lost my temper. At various times I was probably sarcastic or aggressive to some editors. I will try not to lose my temper further. I'll try to limit my farther involvement in the Telegraph issue too.

However, Loki has dragged me here for accusing him of lying. Loki has engaged in exactly the same conduct in exactly the same discussion, along with much worse, as I have said here - misrepresenting (not to use the L-word) paywalled content in order to get sources he doesn't like downgraded. I have evidenced my claim that Loki lied. Some here think it is important that we differentiate, that we still assume good faith about Loki's intentions, that this is just a case of Wikipedia:STUBBORN or Wikipedia:IDHT.

I disagree. Wikipedia:Assume good faith contains a caveat "unless there is specific evidence". Loki's own admissions against interest at the RfC are the evidence I brought. Loki did accept that the evidence was fatally undermined, and then spent the next two months pretending that it all stood up to scrutiny. That's not IDHT, it's gaslighting. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, This may not be obvious, but STUBBORN and IDHT are the same link to the same section of WP:Disruptive editing.
Secondly, as Loki has said below, he did not post inaccessible evidenced in bad faith. From this diff discussed, I believe that Loki still doesn't believe that quoting unreliable sources with proper attribution that characterizes these sources positively  or making misleading claims doesn't hurt the reliability of the quotee. He simply does not get or respond to the refutations that have held many including me and you, yet no one is obliged to WP:SATISFY you or me. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Broadly accurate, yes, but I've responded to the alleged refutations multiple times actually. I understand you don't find those responses convincing but I did make them. In fact I'd say it was the majority of my comments on the original RFC. Loki (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You can check for yourself which arguments you repeated despite not responding to refutations (sometimes of your refutations). Aaron Liu (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Look, at the end of the day... the underlying RFC probably reached some variation on no consensus, the overturn has probably reached no consensus, both have been contested and reversed in various ways now. The one thing we can say for sure is that there isn't a clear-cut obvious consensus here, which means that your arguments simply weren't as strong as you thought they were. And that in turn means that accusing people of IDHT for refusing to accept them isn't going to work; if you're going to go "this person keeps disagreeing with me and won't accept my obviously correct arguments, therefore they are a civil POV-pusher", then you need to be on more solid ground yourself, consensus-wise. Even then it gets complex because being in the minority and holding an unpopular view or interpretation is not, itself, against policy - there is a very important difference between "willfully ignoring all arguments" and "hearing them but disagreeing with them." But in this situation in particular, where a huge number of people have weighed in and are clearly sharply divided, the aggressive presumption that people who are reading things differently than you are acting in bad faith seems unwarranted - is everyone who !voted for some flavor of less-than-full reliability in the RFC or who opposed overturning the result acting in bad faith now? ---Aquillion (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  there is a very important difference between "willfully ignoring all arguments" and "hearing them but disagreeing with them."

  The reason I feel this falls into the former are that some of Loki’s claim are indisputably false, and proven so by the sources they provided.

  Specifically, they promoted the litter boxes in schools hoax is incompatible with one of the sources supposedly supporting the claim saying tales of schools providing litter trays to cater for children identifying as cats have turned out to be hoaxes.

  As a whole, perhaps the topic is less clear - but that lack of clarity doesn’t permit the repeated statements of obvious falsehoods. BilledMammal (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  No consensus is a cop out. If arguments are weighted appropriately, based on their actual factual validity, there is a clear consensus in the original discussion - and this is why the the close review came to a consensus to overturn. There mere fact that tons of people voiced their opinion that isn't based on policies/guidelines does not mean there's no consensus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is the third time you have STUBBORNly ignored what many have repeatedly told you or diverted this conduct discussion into the content dispute. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Do something: Here is what I know. Berchanhimez is definitely bludgeoning and the accusation of forum shopping is a personal attack. Accusations of lying probably are also. I am pretty sure that Loki, despite the user name, is not a liar. And yes, the Telegraph has a paywall. For the record, as best I recall, I voted in the original RfC but have not commented since. Not sure if that makes me involved or uninvolved. Since I can't see that source and don't want to subscribe, I am not convinced that Loki misrepresented it. I guess I have an open mind on that. But at the moment my takeaway here is that several people are to varying degrees trying to discuss, and one editor keeps repeating himself over and over. Elinruby (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I wonder if it’s possible that these accusations happened because of Loki’s username? His username is LokiTheLiar (emphasis on the “liar” part) and while I don’t mean that in bad faith; I can see how someone can maybe get confused by it and assume that the user is here to cause problems. Usernames have meaning to them; for example, if I was to have my username changed to “Banned from Wikipedia”, what are you going to think? You’ll think I’m a sockpuppet of a banned user. So if I make my username “(Insert name) the liar”; there’s going to be people out there that think that I’m a liar, even if I am a perfectly honest person. See where I am going? West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  i am not in the head of the editor who keeps calling him a liar so I don't know. Nor am I in Loki's for that matter; we aren't especially close, although we have interacted a bit. What I do know is that he has never impressed me as a liar. also, in the Marvel movie franchise Loki is a rather sympathetic character, or at least I thought so, but that is pure speculation when it comes to his username. I have never asked about it. Loki is one of a number of trickster characters in various folklores such as Coyote who may or may not be emblems of the human condition, in case anyone doesn't realize that. And for the record I deeply regret choosing a female-sounding user name. But a username does not exempt other editors from AGF. Elinruby (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Off-topic, but your username sounds pretty elvish neutral to me. You can set your preferred pronouns (which default to they/them) at Special:Preferences#mw-input-wpgender.
  I wouldn't think Loki's username has much hold here since his signature doesn't include the liar part. Anyone who would be distracted by that part probably wouldn't be paying attention to his full username. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with this except that the accusation of forumshopping is a personal attack. It's a reasonable reading we disagree with.

  Also, would you like to move this to the subsection below? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Remind Berchanhimez not to bludgeon or assume bad faith

FWIW, in the discussion fora I've got watchlisted or have participated in, virtually the only things I've seen Berchanhimez do are bludgeon discussions stridently presenting his opinions as settled facts, and periodically assume bad faith of editors who disagree, despite (as noted above) the efforts of various other editors to tone things down. (For diffs beyond the ones already provided above, it's likely easier and more informative to just Ctrl-F his name in even just the past week's edits to e.g. this rather than me pulling each comment out into its own link you have to open individually one by one, but one recent comparatively tame individual example is this asking me to square something I'd written with a "consensus" that was in fact just his individual opinion; obviously, no single comment in isolation can be bludgeoning, but see the other diff for [a one-week slice of] context.) He may be a stellar editor in other areas of this site, but based on the areas I've seen him edit — in which his actions have been raising the temperature in contentious topic areas where we need the temperature to come down — my suggestion is to issue a formal Reminder to refrain from bludgeoning, avoid assuming bad faith (re OP's diffs), and refrain from misrepresenting his opinions as established facts/consensus(es). -sche (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I've never interacted with Berchanhimez before this discussion, so I don't know about his general conduct. However, in this case bad faith hasn't been assumed, it's been demonstrated. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You are assuming that Loki is acting in bad faith based on behavior that's just WP:STUBBORN. You have not demonstrated that Loki is claiming things he doesn't believe. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that even in the diff Loki shared as evidence of my behaviour opening this thread, I demonstrated exactly that. So I don't think it's an assumption, I think it's a conclusion based on experience.

I also think my accusation is a much less serious behavioural issue than Loki's direct and knowing repeated misrepresentations of paywalled content in order to push a POV/get sources with the opposite POV downgraded. See same diff. Happy to keep providing evidence along the same lines. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Honest question: what content that I've posted has been paywalled? I don't know if it's because I block most JS or if you're talking about something different, but as far as I have been able to tell there is no paywall on the Telegraph. Loki (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The Telegraph does have a paywall. If you allow allow scripts can read the first ~paragraph of articles but to read more it wants me to subscribe, however due to the way it is implemented if you block scripts you will be completely unaware of this. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see.

Genuinely was unaware, sorry. If I'd realized I'd have linked to archive.org or similar. Loki (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oh, just to be clear: I would prefer a "warning" not a "reminder" but that's a tiny distinction and overall I support this. Loki (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• I also support this. After discharacterizing Lokis IDHT behavior, Berchan is now openly exhibiting the same IDHT behavior as well. For example, in this very discussion, right after Thryduulf and I had to restate the rebuttal for Berchan's claim that there is consensus for reliability above,[ see thread starting around #c-Berchanhimez-20240812015500-Thryduulf-20240812015200 ] Berchan proceeded to repeat the same argument below, unmodified, without giving any mind to arguments that we have extensively offered.[ #c-Berchanhimez-20240813005900-LilianaUwU-20240812233700 ] Aaron Liu (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's move this to AE

This is a mess. The discussion is going off on all sorts of crazy tangents, the underlying RFC is being relitigated in several different places, Berchan continues to refuse to admit that he can ever be wrong in any circumstance, etc etc. I sort of anticipated it being a mess, and would have taken it to AE (since AE is usually much better about preventing CTOP issues from devolving like this) except I thought at the time that we were far enough removed from GENSEX that AE wouldn't be a valid place to file this. But now I've seen this discussion I'm reasonably confident that's not true. This definitely feels like a GENSEX discussion, broadly construed, and so I'd like to move this to AE where it has any shot of a productive outcome. Loki (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice attempt to FORUMSHOP. You don’t like that your behavior is being brought up too so now you’re trying to move it. You’re the only one who’s refused to admit you’ve been wrong. I’ve admitted that I didn’t need to be as repetitive as I did, but you still refuse to admit you were spouting falsehoods (provably so) and you are doubling down on them. If anyone needs to be removed from the topic area, it’s you.

Put another way, you don’t want to move it to AE for any shot of a productive outcome, you want to move it there because you want to avoid scrutiny here for your own behavior. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This would not be forum shopping, as Loki isn't taking it to AE unilaterally while this is open. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think that AE will be particularly friendly or merciful to anyone involved in this debacle, unless you aren’t opposed to yourself becoming one of those sanctioned. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The RFC itself was handled with little uncivil behaviour, but since the close the behaviour of core editors on both sides has been very poor. I would support moving this to AE and I completely agree with The Kip that doing so would likely cut both ways. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I've done here that makes you or The Kip think that this would cut both ways. Like, I sure have accused Berchan of stuff, but I have also given evidence and this is ANI, the place to raise behavioral issues. Loki (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I've done here that makes you or The Kip think that this would cut both ways.

That you still seemingly refuse to see how you’ve been about as disruptive in this mess as Berchan has is exactly why it will cut both ways. The Kip ^(contribs) 00:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see any suggestion of what might be gained by moving this to AE. It looks to me like such a move would just mean more time lost and more acrimony generated. What is really needed is a resolution to the RfC. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

We already had a resolution to the RfC, but people who wanted a different outcome are trying to overturn it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, as it currently stands the RFC was closed the way S Marshall closed it.

Someone really should close the close review, again. Ideally an admin or a panel. If it doesn't get closed officially, which I'm increasingly worried about, it will be difficult to interpret. Loki (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Please keep engaging in the very behavior your essay warns about. There was a clear consensus at the original discussion (after !votes were weighted appropriately) that The Telegraph is a reliable but biased source. The close was a supervote, as confirmed by the consensus in the close review. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

We are not discussing the contents of the content dispute again, especially not one we have repeatedly demonstrated to you (Berchan) as frivolous. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus at the original discussion Are you not listening, are you not understanding, or are you trolling? Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• I will just state the obvious since editors weren't getting the hint from my comments. I'm 99.9999% certain that no sanctions will come from this unwieldy discussion unless a frustrated admin trying to make sense of all this decides to issue sanctions to all involved parties due to disruption being caused. But it's much more likely that nothing will come of this so at this point, you are just continuing to argue for argument's sake. My advice, since this complaint has virtually zero chance of action being taken, that you simply stop responding to each other at least here on this noticeboard (ANI). Go do some productive editing, work on an article that brings you joy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  While I agree that sanctions are probably a bit far gone, warnings would be great. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Advice taken, thank you. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Time for an ArbCom case?

The disputes in the transgender topic area look to me to be intractable and to have reached a fever pitch. It seems to me there is a good case for an ArbCom case specifically dedicated to the transgender topic area separate from the original GamerGate case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

As discussed in the above subsection, AE is a smaller and much better escalation Aaron Liu (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Putting together an ArbCom request is quite a commitment and a roll of the dice since, in my experience, cases, if accepted, rarely close with final decisions anticipated by those who initially filed the request. A case, if opened, typically lasts 3-4 weeks so it's not a venue for a quick resolution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

At this point I don't think any quick resolution is going to solve the problems in this topic area. The GENSEX CT designation that allows for the use of AE has been around since Feb of 2021 and yet the temperature in this topic area continues to rise. ArbCom cases are long and messy, but the chain of events that led us to this point has been longer and messier. Pinguinn 🐧 02:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• An Arbcom case about trans people is absolutely inevitable, but it doesn't have to be now. January or February would be the ideal time, when there's a new intake of arbs at its most active, focused and principled.—S Marshall T/C 07:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Resumption of incivility by EEng and suggestion of self-harm

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

---

If I've tallied this right, EEng has been blocked by a bunch of different admins in:

• Aug 2014 for personal attacks or harassment (2 days)
• Oct 2014 for 3RR violetion (3 days)
• Nov 2014 for 3RR violation (1 day)
• Jan 2015 for personal attacks and incivility (2 days dropped to 1)
• Jun 2015 for disruptive editing and personal attacks (1 day)
• Jan 2016 for "not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" (indefinite dropped to 1 day)
• May 2016 for personal attacks or harassment (3 days dropped to 2 hours)
• May 2017 for personal attacks or harassment (2 days dropped to 4 hours)
• Nov 2018 for edit warring (1 week dropped to 4 hours after promise to stop)
• July 2019 for "repeatedly restoring tasteless mockery of a living person, even after warning" (1 day dropped to 30 min)
• Sep 2019 for 3RR violation (1 day)
• July 2020 from a user talk page for "gravedancing and trolling" (4 days)
• Feb 2021 (by me) for continued incivility (1 week dropped to 2 hours)
• Mar 2021 for insulting a BLP subject after being asked to stop (1 week, dropped to 1 day)
• Jan 2022, from WP:ANI for joking about an editor being harassed (3 days)
• Jun 2023, from an article for 3RR violation (1 day)
• Jan 2024, for "long pattern of incivility toward other editors" (3 days)
• Jul 2024, for personal attacks or harassment (1 week)

I see in this edit, pretty much as soon as the latest block expired, EEng went right back to attacking other editors. Another editor made a legitimate request for sources to back up text containing a strong aesthetic opinion. EEng could have chosen to simply supply those sources and ignore the sharp opinion that unsupported text was "not a good look", but instead chose to berate the requester, sarcastically referencing the existence of search engines and saying "you could answer that question yourself instead of demanding that other editors do it for you (which is also not a good look)". I'm sure EEng is well aware of WP:BURDEN, which makes this response not only uncivil, but unreasonable.

EEng has made a number of helpful edits, though also many, many unhelpful edits which are simply jokes on talk pages. (Xtools shows fewer than one third of EEng edits are in article space.) In some cases, those jokes have been insulting and offensive enough to merit blocks. Useful contributions are welcome, and tasteful jokes are fine, but given this history, it appears dozens of editors have been exposed to personal attacks and incivility bad enough to block for, and extrapolation suggests a whole lot more editors have been exposed to unacceptable levels of incivility that was not reported or which did not result in a block.

I was recently shocked to read a comment EEng made in the month before the latest block, mockingly urging another editor to commit self-harm. Even if other editors are being annoying or are clearly in the wrong about content changes, that type of comment is wholly unjustified. At some point we need to limit the harm these attacks are causing to the Wikipedia editor community, and the short blocks so far have been ineffective. Many editors have argued at past WP:AN/I discussions for indefinitely banning EEng, which would certainly accomplish the goal.

If we want to take intermediate measures to try to keep good contributions, looking through the contribution history it appears EEng's edits in article space are mostly tolerable, though the edit summaries are often sharp-elbowed. The worst chronic behavior problem is abusive berating of other editors whose edits EEng disapproves of, which provokes the other editors, distracts from content-writing, and is just demoralizing to read as a third-party editor. If we want a bright line, I would propose asking EEng to avoid commenting on other editors at all, and keeping edit summaries and talk page comments strictly to content and its merit. Avoiding derogatory statements about BLP subjects seems necessary given the past block for this reason. Given the history of 3RR violations, I would also impose a 1 revert per 24 hour limit, to encourage constructive talk page dialog and less antagonizing of other editors with edit summaries. EEng has also had a history of warring and attacking on WP:ANI itself, so I would apply the "no commenting on other editors" even there. This allows for defending one's own actions, but not abusive defenses like (my words) "this editor was acting like an idiot so of course I was enraged, what do you expect" and avoids tasteless and unhelpful jokes about uninvolved cases.

In order to avoid the ability of EEng to continue bad behavior indefinitely by simply going back to business as usually after the occasional short block, I propose that a finite number of remaining chances be given. I'm open to other suggestions, but to start I'd propose tripling the block length for each violation of any of the three rules ("don't comment on other editors", no derogatory statements about BLP subjects, and 1RR) on a set schedule, rather than tailoring each block to the severity of the latest attack. So the next block would be 3 weeks, then 9, then 27 weeks, and so on.

Sad that I had to write this, Beland (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Turning that comment into "suggestion of self-harm" is so pathetically over the top that I choose to ignore the rest of this. Playing that kind of rhetorical game disgusts me. People encouraging others to self-harm is an actual real horrible thing that happens, and you cheapen the victims of such when you smugly use that term here. Don't worry, I'm sure others who are more upset about the occasional use of the word "fuck" than an admin making such a loaded accusation will be along shortly to support you in your feud. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I take it the gravamen of it here is the single diff you linked, where he provides a full ten sources in response to the request? jp×g🗯️ 21:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If Beland is sad that he posted here, I'm also sad that he posted here. If you think that was telling someone to self-harm, oh good grief, I don't even know what to say. Somebody please shut this down, before it becomes a shooting gallery. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

No, you didn't have to write this. It would have been a lot better if you hadn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The comment that prompted this thread doesn't even come close to meriting a filing here. The rest of your post is a wall of character assassination, including an egregiously inappropriate distortion that the other commenters have rightly disputed. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

While I am also fed up with EEng's inane, rude commentary... this example doesn't even rise to being in the ballpark of WP:NPA. And calling the other comment "encouraging self-harm" is the height of melodrama. I suggest withdrawing this report. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by Beland

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

---

The most notorious occasion this problem arises is probably with the self-appointed civility cops. Someone can make a talkpage comment which twenty different people see and conclude is non-problematic, but it only takes one admin to misinterpret it and the editor in question gets blocked. EEng is probably the most obvious example of this ... [223]

Like it says at WP:NPA, accusing someone without evidence is a personal attack. Not mentioned there, of course -- because it's too obvious to require stating -- is that accusing someone using falsified evidence is a far worse form of personal attack. Beland's list of my "incivility" blocks, omitting the fact that almost all have been overturned, is just such a personal attack.

I'm not looking for action against Beland at this time, and it matters not to me whether this gets discussed before it's reclosed. But with apologies for the delay (very, very busy IRL) I'm putting the facts on record here in the same thread in which Beland presented their falsifications. I'm also putting Beland (and others of their ilk) on notice: make such deceptive statements again and I will seek sanctions against you.

Let's start with the block that Beland themself imposed:

Beland's story (from their list): Feb 2021 (by me) for continued incivility (1 week dropped to 2 hours)

What really happened: Beland's block of me was immediately overturned at AN, the closing summary being

unblocked by overwhelming consensus, Beland is reminded of the dangers and standards of adminship as well as the nature of blocks.

Community comments along the way:

• far outside of what we’d normally consider appropriate
• massive trout to Beland ... no valid reason ... punitive.
• punitive, not preventative
• Seems a bit silly
• you really don't know what the basic blocking policy is
• punitive ... block may have gone un-noticed if it were not of a high-profile editor ... could've led to an otherwise low-profile but productive editor to leave forever
• A block like this is not going to do anything for editor retention ... another example of a legacy admin out of touch with policy.
• Beland was involved ... ridiculous ... this is admin abuse and I would like to see a review of Beland's admin actions
• block was clearly punitive
• Beland lacks the necessary competencies to be blocking people
• not a good look
• Support unblock
• Support unblock
• Support unblock
• Support unblock
• Support unblock
• Support unblock
• dumbest decision I've seen for a while. Shame on you, Beland [224]
• Purely punitive

So let me ask you, Beland: How did you manage to turn the above into 1 week dropped to 2 hours -- as if the jury convicted me but then I was somehow shown mercy? Did you simply forget being raked over the coals as an abusive and incompetent out-of-touch legacy admin? But of course, for forgetfulness be the explanation you'd have to be willfully blind as well, since in extracting this block from my log you managed to avert your eyes from the adjacent unblock entry reading Per Special:Permalink/1005484396#Intent_to_unblock, linking directly to the discussion quoted above -- the one that was closed (it bears repeating) with an admonition that you remember the dangers and standards of adminship as well as the nature of blocks.

Or did you, Beland, in the certainty of the righteousness of your cause, deliberately falsify your presentation of my block history? It can only be one or the other, so while you ponder how to answer that I'll take the community on a tour of your forgetfulness, willful blindness, and/or mendacity. (I'm not saying which -- that's for you to tell us.)

---

Here's another of my blocks ... according to Beland:

Beland's story (from their list): Jan 2016 for "not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" (indefinite dropped to 1 day)

What really happened:

• Block overturned in 5 hours (not "dropped to 1 day"), the closing summary warning: this case can be used in the future for demonstrations of "administrator misbehavior" with respect to desysopping.
• The blocking admin apologized [225].
• The editor allegedly being attacked/harassed said they had appreciated and enjoyed my post [226].

Community comments along the way: [227][228][229]:

• this case is clearly that of a bad block
• clearly an unjustified block ... not acceptable
• that was a bad block
• I am appalled
• strongly suggest you undo this block immediately
• very, very bad block
• What kind of discouraging message does your action send to the rest of us?
• Only nine days in, and we already have the winning candidate for "worst block of the year"
• I've overturned your block of EEng, which was unjustified ... poor block and AN consensus was emerging to confirm that.
• a mistake
• block is extraordinarily bad
• someone else has to step in and reverse the block
• clear Nakon's block of EEng was in error
• has all the hallmarks of a block by mistake
• Extraordinarily bad block
• Clearly a misunderstanding
• error in judgement for sure
• looks like negligence or recklessness
• words fail
• hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers
• Frankly I was shocked
• Piss poor block
• totally unwarranting a block
• question why Nakon is still an admin
• wholly unacceptable behavior from an administrator
• malicious
• biggest boomerang I have ever seen
• righteous unblock for sure
• block was a serious error

Unblock log comment that Beland managed to overlook: Unjustified block [230] clear consensus to unblock

So again, Beland, did you deliberately falsify your presentation of my block history? Or do you just not know how to read a block log?

---

Beland's story (from their list): May 2016 for personal attacks or harassment (3 days dropped to 2 hours)

What really happened: Block lifted after two hours because my post didn't contain any personal attacks. [231]

Community comments along the way: None, since MikeV made no attempt to have the block reinstated or submit it to community discussion. Six months later he abruptly vanished an hour after filing an AE request which boomeranged into calls for him to be desysopped (see second thread headed "The Rambling Man" at [232]):

• if anyone deserves blocking it's Mike
• Remove MikeV's bit. This temper tantrum is unbecoming of an administrator
• Mike V. has apparently been acting autocratically and vengefully and without consequences.
• seems like retaliation for the rebuke Mike got at AN
• Appropriate action would be a block of Mike V

Comments at MikeV's RFA [233][234] turned out to be amazingly prescient:

• I question this user's ability to discern when blocks are necessary and when they are not
• Does seem to prefer drastic action rather than attempting to discuss matters first
• Talk page archive reveals a number of contentious or over-hasty actions
• eagerness to take punitive action rather than problem solving
• Over-eager with his desire to block

Unblock log comment that Beland managed to overlook: Per rationale at [235]

MikeV has been desysopped, but of course my block log lives on so that you, Beland, can misrepresent it. So again: was that really because you somehow overlooked the unblock log entry? Or did you, in the certainty of the righteousness of your cause, deliberately falsify your presentation of my block history? It has to be one or the other.

---

Beland's story (from their list): May 2017 for personal attacks or harassment (2 days dropped to 4 hours)

What really happened: Blocking admin read a post I made completely backward, and clung to his interpretation even after things were explained to him by several editors. Unblocked with this message: I've asked User:John to lift the block, as I think it was based on a misunderstanding ... in case he isn't online, I'll do it myself ... you have been unblocked. [236]

Community comments along the way:

• Astoundingly atrociously poor block
• one of the worst blocks I've ever seen

Unblock log comment that Beland managed to overlook: Block for this comment [237] was based on a misunderstanding IMO

---

Beland's story (from their list): July 2019 for "repeatedly restoring tasteless mockery of a living person, even after warning" (1 day dropped to 30 min)

What really happened: Admin who placed the block unblocked 24 minutes later and apologized. [238]

Community comments along the way: [239]

• Bad block ... you would benefit from reading (or re-reading) WP:PUNITIVE, WP:PREVENTATIVE and WP:INVOLVED
• Next oldschool administrator to lose their tools?
• Bad block. Should’ve been left to someone else if you genuinely thought it was inappropriate.
• Excessive ... abused their tools in a content dispute

Seriously, Beland: When parading someone's block log, do you really think it's fair to list blocks for which the blocking admin apologized?

---

Beland's story (from their list): Mar 2021 for insulting a BLP subject after being asked to stop (1 week, dropped to 1 day)

What really happened: This is the famous incident in which actor Keiynan Lonsdale said, in an interview,

I don’t want to go by ‘he’ anymore, I just want to go by ‘tree.’ I want people to call me ‘tree,’ because we all come from trees, so it doesn’t matter if you’re a he or a she or a they or a them. At the end of the day, everyone’s a tree. I want to call my friends ‘tree’ and me ‘tree’ and everyone ‘tree.’ So, I think, like now, when people ask me what my preferred pronoun is, I’m going to say ‘tree.’ ... I’m not high by the way, this is just me [240]

and I questioned the seriousness of that statement, given that for the subsequent three years, Lonsdale's own PR apparatus had consistently referred to him as he, and he had even referred to himself (in the third person) as he. I was also unsparing in my disdain for the lunatic idea that our article on Lonsdale should use "tree/trees/treeself" pronouns, as in [241]:

Lonsdale was born in Sydney to a Nigerian father of Edo descent and an Australian mother of Irish and Danish descent. Tree has eleven siblings. Trees first acting job was in 2007, with a bit dancing part in the film Razzle Dazzle: A Journey into Dance. The following year, Tree appeared in an episode of ...

One admin chose to interpret this as an attack on Lonsdale and blocked me, but once a critical mass of editors realized that I wasn't "insulting a BLP subject" but rather giving Lonsdale a compliment by adducing evidence that he (of course) didn't seriously intend for people to refer to him by tree pronouns (scroll my post at the very bottom of [242]), I was unblocked.

Community comments along the way:

• In some cases "unblockable" has meant "behaves inappropriately but has too many supporters to keep blocked". But in some cases it may mean "repeatedly triggers others to behave with inappropriate authoritarianism and is unblocked when it becomes apparent that the authoritarianism was inappropriate". I tend to think EEng is more often the second kind, and that this case is more of the second kind. I don't know; maybe that makes me an enabler. But the WP:AGF explanation that EEng thought, maybe accurately, "surely this request for a pronoun was always intended as a joke and therefore it's ok to treat it as a joke" seems to have been repeatedly missed.

---

Beland's story (from their list): from WP:ANI for joking about an editor being harassed (3 days)

What really happened: Beland's description (for joking about an editor being harassed) is complete fabrication; the actual block description was this:

Responding to an editor being harassed, you wrote "For a few seconds there I thought you were talking about the US Supreme Court Justice. And, sad to say, I was prepared to believe he'd do that."

I was poking fun at a US Supreme Court justice, not "joking about an editor being harassed" -- see what I actually posted here [243].

Just to repeat: Beland's description of the block falsely states that I'd been "joking about an editor being harassed". Anyway, since it was a page block no one cared.

---

So here's what we've got so far:

Aug 2014	"Personal attacks or harassment"
Oct 2014	3RR
Nov 2014	3RR
Jan 2015	"Personal attacks and uncivil nature against other editors"
Jun 2015	"Disruptive editing and personal attacks"
Jan 2016	OVERTURNED and blocking admin apologized
May 2016	OVERTURNED
May 2017	OVERTURNED
Nov 2018	"Edit warring"
Jul 2019	OVERTURNED and blocking admin apologized
Sep 2019	3RR
Jul 2020	page block ("Gravedancing and trolling")
Feb 2021	OVERTURNED by overwhelming consensus, Beland is reminded of the dangers and standards of adminship as well as the nature of blocks
Mar 2021	OVERTURNED
Jan 2022	Page block for poking fun at a Supreme Court justice
Jun 2023	Page block, 3RR

And so things stood until recently. Certainly I've gotten blocks that were valid, and though there are things that could be said about some of the others (e.g. a member of Arbcom termed "outrageous" my first block -- in which an admin blocked for criticism of himself [244]) but to keep things simple I'll own them for the purposes of this discussion.

The problem, of course, is that block logs can't be annotated to note bad blocks, making it easy for editors such as Beland to make false generalizations. It took no crystal ball for someone to predict (in 2016);

The potential ramifications ahead for EEng are pretty simple. One day another administrator comes along and doesn't like something EEng did (whether justified or unjustified) and uses this block as basis for his judging EEng in that instance. [245]

And sure enough, this past January I got blocked for a "Long pattern of incivility" in a thread full of phrases such as:

• someone with a long block log
• their extensive block log
• Extend the block indefinitely. Given EEng's block log
• This isn't the first time EEng has been blocked for "doing an incivility", it's the 11th
• blocked, by my count, 17 times

(That count of "blocked 17 times" included a one-second block labeled "Joke block" [246], but hey -- we can't really expect people to find out what the fuck they're talking about before mouthing off, can we?)

So at this point it's like the accretion of planets: as my block log grows it becomes a bigger and bigger target, attracting new blocks through a combination of direct collision and gravitational attraction. As someone put it:

He's had a long history of being blocked for things that he did wrong. He's also had a long history of being blocked for things that he didn't do wrong. And many editors, including me, are troubled by ANI complaints that seem to be "taking another swing" at editors who have been regarded as controversial. [247]

He was talking to you, Beland -- as was this editor:

I would take a dozen of EEng's sarcastic (or whatever) posts over a single one of your "Here's a 10 year old list of blockings, let's see what else we, The Cabal, can get this outsider for next" (yet perfectly) WP:CIVIL ANI filings. That attitude is the most toxic behavioural pattern on WP these days. [248]

I repeat that I'm not looking for any action at this point, but I warn you: you're always saying how sad you are to post your accusatory walls of text, but while AGF requires me to adopt lack of skill as an interim assumption for your behavior so far, if you try anything like this block-log bullshit again, then intentional deceit will be the only explanation and I will ask the community to make you really and truly sad.

In the meantime I suggest you go jump in the lake. Note: Figure of speech only; not a suggestion of self-harm. EEng 16:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Arbor-treeish break

• I jumped in a lake this morning, well technically the mouth of a shallow stream that empties into a lake but close enough. (I was not harmed, figuratively or literally).

Look, I think RickinBaltimore had the right idea above. I have been all about civility in the past (have my badge to prove it) and to some degree I still am. Maybe EEng has been uncivil. I probably have been too. But I think it's more harmful to take a person's comments out of context and try to force it to mean something that is very obviously not intended. It offers no benefit to discourse at all. I doubt a single editor from this community actually wants anyone to harm themselves over edits to an online encyclopedia. To quote the voice screaming in my head when I approach the line...Let. It. Go. (don't sue, not a copyvio) --ARoseWolf 17:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

My esteemed colleague Barkeep49: Perhaps you missed where I said: I'm not looking for action ... it matters not to me whether this gets discussed before it's reclosed ... I'm [merely] putting the facts on record here in the same thread in which Beland presented their falsifications. EEng 21:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
P.S. Brandolini's law.}}

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

SEO Spammer claiming to be Wikipedia editor

I received the following email: David s graff (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Just report the email. See WP:HA. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You should follow procedures listed in WP:SCAM. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

RAMSES$44932

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

---

• RAMSES$44932 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an administrator please take a look at this user's recent edits to Jordan Chiles? (Diff1, Diff2) I promptly reverted the edits and requested revdel so special glasses are needed to see the diffs, but IMO the edits were racist beyond the pale, so much so that I was stunned to see that they were made by an editor with 5,000+ edits. I posted a final warning to their user page but in retrospect I think I should have just brought this issue here to begin with.

While I think this merits a block of some sort, at the very least I think this incident should be documented here so there's a record of it. (This user has been brought to ANI before in this thread, but it doesn't appear that the issue in that thread rose to a level that merited administrative action.) Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparently blocked already for 31 hours for vandalism, which seems to be a quite lenient response. Dekimasuよ! 10:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Happy for any admin to increase the value there. Initial block in reaction to the egregious nature of the vandalism and the editor's response being to continue with their day as if nothing unusual has occurred. Hope to receive some response on their talk but don't expect this to be the end of the situation. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I've raised the block to indefinite. If nothing else, we need an explanation of where that came from in the middle of what are many other constructive edits (as far as I can see). Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Totally in support. Thanks. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If I'd come across that it would have been an instant indef, edits like that require explanation and community convincing to reobtain editing privileges. Canterbury Tail talk 14:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Apparently it was "a joke" [249]. I am going to be AFK for a few hours so another administrator might need to consider this appeal. Black Kite (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Given the ongoing BLP violations which @ScottishFinnishRadish had to redact, oppose any unblock. Being an experienced editor doesn't give license to be a nasty troll because she said it first. Star Mississippi 11:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I've pulled their TPA after the use of further slurs directed at another editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Aye, using a racial slur as part of an appeal against being blocked for using a different racial slur is definitely a suboptimal plan. Black Kite (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Legal threat from Censorscominginlikeavengers

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

This user has made what appears to be a legal threat against Wikipedia because they were censored for saying Australians are upsidedown. See this Teahouse diff. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 17:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked--I think the legal threat is implausible enough that it borders on being something we don't need to respond to with a block, but their overall behavior is clearly WP:NOTHERE beside the threat. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. That was not a serious legal threat, but the user's only edits were vandalism and trolling. (The username is borrowed from an Eminem lyric.) Good block. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad schooling us on Eminem lyrics. Today is a good day.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Who is Eminem? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you not have to use your AK? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Noting checkuser account -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Volkish Kurden, part 2

Volkish Kurden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See the previous ANI thread for more info [250]. On 22 May 2023, Volkish Kurden got indeffed for "Disruptive editing - ethno-nationalistic editing, likely sock or meat". This is amongst the nasty things they accused me (a stranger) right off the bat;

Nasty and random attacks

"rvv, extreme pan iranic edits previously, dedicated to wiping out kurdic history, whilst the short explanation on the Corduene wiki about Carduchoi exists, it is insufficient." (This was their first edit, randomly reverting my half year old clean up edit, which I did in a number of articles at that time, such as Cadusii [251]. Apparently that warrants those random attacks. How did they even know of that edit? And why attack a random stranger like that? Also, including the Cyrtians as part of "Kurdic history" is on par with a Mexican saying that Aztec/Mayan/Spanish history is "Mexican" just because they can trace their ancestry to them) "...considering your pan-iranic bias and subsequently anti kurdish nature" "I decided to skim through your “contributions” to Kurdish articles and have found you constantly use the “right great wrongs” as a way to circumvent the removal of a kurdophobe from wikipedia, I would say that is a very smart move but it is fuelling the misinformation about Kurds." "merely using your logic against you, plus abhorrent kurdophobia is clearly bannable"

After they got indeffed, they then suddenly "realized" that they were on the wrong (imo this all an act, someone doesn't suddenly change like that, let's be real); "I was blocked due to my accusations of ideological bias against the other user which shouldn’t have been said or accused off, I should have taken the steps to appeal any rvs such as a talk/discussion and then leading to a possible admin complaint and such. It was unnecessary of me to label the user as such, and will not happen again.". They got unblocked due to that comment.

Their userpage history is concerning and screams WP:TENDENTIOUS / WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS / WP:NOTHERE;

• just a kurdish historian who believes in the truth and debunking any of our oppressors misinformation for good Who are these "oppressors"? And who is Volkish Kurden to judge what is "misinformation" and "truth"?

• Age matters (in terms of sources) only to those who wish to erase anything they don’t like. - (This is their current userpage) in other words, openly opposing one of this sites policies (WP:AGEMATTERS).

And now we know why they oppose WP:AGE MATTERS, because they're heavily relying on +100 year old outdated sources to push a POV (mostly through WP:SYNTH), something which late 20th-century sources can't help with because they're "anti-Kurdish" (You may disagree with my sources all you want, but they exist for a reason and contributed heavily to Kurdish historiography prior to the “anti-Kurdish” movement of the late 20th century.). Heck, they even admitted knowingly citing non-WP:RS from "infoisrael.net" just because they agree with it! "Whilst I can agree that Honigman (A Middle East analyst)isn’t reliable compared to the rest, his writing sets the basis..."

They showed some of their anti-Iranian tendencies again (the previous one being attacking me for my background, as seen in the list), by claiming "Thus Asatrian’s Armenian Iranian background can be used to explain his possible POV!" Which is very ironic - this user is an Kurd, so by using their own logic they're biased too since its their history that is the topic? Who am I kidding, ofc that logic doesn't apply to them, they're always right.

And Volkish Kurden went against their word in their unblock request by attacking me again, accusing me of having a "problem" with Kurds and their history "I was watching your edits on Kurdish pages, quite a while ago, because I wanted to understand what your problem was with us. My nation and our history." I don't think this user is a netpositive to this site (WP:NOTHERE), they're just one of the many new users who cause trouble in Middle Eastern-related article and end up getting indeffed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Using past arguments? WP:AGE MATTERS - If my past behaviour has upset you, then I’m sorry, but it is set in stone.

///

You abhorrently stated that I was using the race card. I’m assuming in good faith you don’t have any racist views, even though that term alone is heavily adopted and used by racists, however, in the Kurdish community it is accepted that Asatrian has anti-Kurdish sentiments and has damaged the Kurdish historiography due to his pushing of the “Kwrt nomad theory” heavily in Cambridge and other academic circles, where multiple experts have called him out on such.

///

“ Who am I kidding, ofc that logic doesn't apply to them, they're perfect, everyone else of other background are biased, especially Iranians and Armenians! /s ”. Fellows, do I have to be the one to see the absurd nature of this message?????? I have never claimed to be perfect and nobody is, however, I find it deplorable that a certain POV is being pushed on articles about Kurds, but rather than accept this, I have been called a sock puppet… I even stated “Also I will add that M. Izady is unreliable in this context, due to his pro-Kurdish POV…“, I’m not even giving Izady a chance to be cited, I heavily disagree with his type of conclusions, yet apparently I only target “Iranians and Armenians”, so much for playing the race card.

///

Accusations after accusations even when WP:SYNTH isn’t in play: All my cited sources generally conclude the EXACT same thing: Kurds are native, or have been in the area for a long period of time, they all generally conclude that… that isn’t MY research. This is against the asserted Asatrian claim that we are merely “nomads”, which in of itself has anti-ziganistic roots.

///

In the talk, I was constantly told that NONE of my sources are reliable… not even those by academics, so why is that?

I asked “You have said many times about reliable sources, but what is reliable to you?” and even went on to give descriptions of each citation, but still, this wasn’t enough, it wasn’t anything from Asatrian or whatever fit the nomad narrative.

///

Carrying on: Prior to this, much prior, I had even stated a very fair compromise:“The point I’m making is that you cannot just include one side of the debate in the introduction, which PLENTY of people take at face value. When plenty of sources above link the Kurds to Herodotus’ Medes and Xenophons Carduchi. I’m all for having it there, but if I were to add all the information above to the article, not only would it add a new section but it would also mean the amending of the introduction to include all origin theories.”

This is very fair considering the original POV being pushed at the introduction of the article, refusing to mention other theories, only the Kurd Nomad theory.

///

Even after this compromise, it wasn’t enough, only ONE narrative had to be on the introduction… that is NOT fair in the slightest and one does not need to look closely to realize that thus is clearly POV. I believe it is fair to show other theories and have them be known rather than just the one which is degrading, dehumanizing and anti-ziganistic against the Kurds.

///

(imo this all an act, someone doesn't suddenly change like that, let's be real) POV pushing.

"I was watching your edits on Kurdish pages, quite a while ago, because I wanted to understand what your problem was with us. My nation and our history." Remember that they said this "will not happen again" in their unblock request? So much for that. It totally slipped my mind that someone can remember a person’s past just like HistoryOfIran has greatly remembered my past, I too have not forgotten.

///

I even asked “I do recall you stating that the Kurd = Iranian nomad theory is “a fact” rather than a theory, could you confirm that?” - He didn’t answer, so I did some digging to see if my memory was correct - and there I found it:

”It refutes my “claims” (those are not claims, but sheer facts) because he has authored an article you dont agree with?”

The fact here is that HOI clearly has a POV and agrees with a narrative, which I have explained above, damages the Kurdish historiography: Why is that source sheer facts whilst mine aren’t reliable??? No matter how many times HOI copy and pastes the same old “ Asatrian is a leading scholar in Middle Eastern-related studies…” it does not defer the fact, of which I have laid out, there is more deeper info than what is taken at face value.

///

If you want more, I am happy to explain anything, If I am wrong, I am happy to accept criticism or even a ban, but at least give me a chance to explain, because HOI’s years on wikipedia do not exempt then from punishment too (especially not after those claims against me which got ME banned). If those aren’t reviewed then it only goes to show corruption. Be fair and make love not war. Volkish Kurden (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It's telling that when confronted with evidence that you made aspersions against HoI and are only here to right great wrongs, you decide to double down on these claims. You're not exactly covering yourself in glory here. MiasmaEternal☎ 02:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no desire to glorify myself, I hadn’t insulted HOI in the slightest, rather they decide to “play the race card” against me.

Once again, I proposed a fair compromise, only to be met with constant cornering and loaded questions.

If you rally with HOI, there is nothing i can do. Volkish Kurden (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, I find it strange that wanting multiple theories or none to be presented at the introduction is righting great wrongs. Volkish Kurden (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Volkish Kurden, well, I do know that HoI's experience has made them capable of lodging a complaint that is easily followed and evaluated. They presented diffs to specific edits to illustrate the points they are making. You created a very long narrative of randomly bolded phrases that is vague...what are you talking about here, an article (which one(s)?), talk page comments, user page comments? You need to present evidence if you are going to defend yourself or making counter-charges. We don't want your narrative of your interactions with another editor, use diffs/specifics to support your argument or defense. And be concise. No one has the time for overly long narratives. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, I will probably cite those when possible, just on vacation atm! Volkish Kurden (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Using past arguments? WP:AGE MATTERS - If my past behaviour has upset you, then I’m sorry, but it is set in stone.

Volkish Kurden does not even know what WP:AGE MATTERS is despite being so opposed against it. It has nothing to do with "past" arguments and behaviour, it's about sources. This is also hypocritical, since they've opposed it all this time, but now it matters to them? This is classical WP:GAMING, and more proof of WP:NOTHERE behaviour. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

wow… Volkish Kurden (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Reinstate block clearly needed, as editor is seemingly unable to contribute without attacking and insultingly labelling other editors. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  • pings @Deepfriedokra and ScottishFinnishRadish:, the un/blocking admins. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

    how about you read the response and see how my compromise was completely shoved aside… isn’t it wiki rules to discuss and come to compromises? I was only reported after my sources showed a theory HOI does not like. Volkish Kurden (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

    Compromise? Discussion? Those things, you may be surprised to learn, can only be done by people who treat each other with respect. Accusations of xenophobia are about as far away from respect as you can get. Do you understand this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

    Do i have to repeat that those ‘accusations’ were referring to last year? thus i answered his question? Volkish Kurden (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Right so my background was negatively brought up as highlighted in my reply but that’s okay because HOI has longer experience right? Nonsense, READ THE RESPONSE before jumping the gun on the block, HOI has shown on multiple occasions their intent. Volkish Kurden (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  I've noticed that Wikipedia pages about the Middle East often rely heavily on local sources, such as Turkish and Iranian materials, which can be biased or nationalistic. For example, Turkish editors frequently cite Turkish sources, while Iranian editors rely on Iranian scholars like Garnik Asatrian, who has been criticized for his anti-Kurdish sentiments

  Given these issues, I believe that Middle Eastern Wikipedia pages should rely more on international sources to ensure a balanced and neutral perspective. Although I have tried to contribute to these pages by citing more reliable sources, my efforts have often been dismissed in favor of sources from scholars with potential biases.

  Even though the English Wikthree a is generally more balanced compared to the Turkish and Persian versions, which can be quite frustrating to read due to their biased content. Sikorki (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  1. "*English Wikipedia"

  2. This is why I left Wikipedia four years ago and have only recently returned. Unfortunately, it seems that the situation regarding the accuracy and neutrality of Middle Eastern topics remains unchanged, and many Kurdish pages have been altered in a way that I find problematic. Sikorki (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Being “Iranian” does not make your source “Iranian”. Garnik Asatrians work are published by leading academic publishers such as Brill Publishers. This fixation on ethnicity needs to stop. By this logic American historians shouldn't be used for American history either, its ridiculous. This is also largely off-topic, kindly take it to WP:RSN. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  It’s part of the general discussion (or argument since it seems you put me on a pedestal) - thus leading to your reports… so no, they can stay. Volkish Kurden (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Also, By this logic American historians shouldn't be used for American history either, its ridiculous. is terribly incorrect: American = American, Iranian =/= Kurdish, more ignorance towards the Kurdish nation being shown.

  //

  Anyone can easily search up about Kurdish persecution and find the four main candidates being:

  Turkey

  Iraqi

  Syrian

  and Iranian

  Thus, by this logic, using those historians would be unreliable due to their connection to persecutors of Kurds.

  //

  And before you try to say “you can’t just assume…” etc. One can easily search about how Turkey is reported to teach their pseudoscience and pseudohistory in educational institutions - thus influencing the nation, THUS having an effect on the Kurds. Volkish Kurden (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Can an admin please re-instate the block on this WP:NOTHERE user for their persistent attacks, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:SOAPBOX? HistoryofIran (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your instant jump to ask an admin rather than respond responsibly? WP:NOTHERE, Wikipedia prides itself on discussion and compromise: two things you have failed as highlighted in my response. Volkish Kurden (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, as another user also did. I'm done replying to your violations of policies. You don't even know what WP:NOTHERE means, you're just parroting me. And unlike you, I have shown countless diffs your violations, whilst you just keep attacking me and engage in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS/WP:SOAPBOX/WP:TENDENTIOUS. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Accusing me of not reading the rules (after you even told me too, obviously i did) is not helping your argument… Volkish Kurden (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Reinstate block: for WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, casting aspersions, WP:RGW, etc. Clearly the previous block did not stop anything. C F A 💬 21:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  May you kindly reread my response + look at the entire conversation + especially see the hypocrisy I pointed out? Volkish Kurden (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Reinstate block. The first series of edits by Volkish were personal attacks directed at another editor. Enough WP:ROPE has been given by the unblocking admin, but still, after a year or so, Volkish has not shifted their ways of labeling and attacking editors while failing to move on and WP:BLUDGEONing the very same discussion that they had initiated a year ago. Volkish registered themselves just a few days after the reports of off-Wiki coordination that had surfaced on Reddit last year [252]. It is even more troubling to see the timely appearance of a 2-weeks-old, 19-edits account repeating the same arguments that avoid/fail to recognize the general problem of conduct here. Aintabli (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I have reinstated the indefinite block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks ScottishFinnishRadish! HistoryofIran (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish Hi, I believe the recent block on this user was unnecessary. After reviewing his edit history, I noticed that most of his contributions were accurate and in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. It seems that he was blocked for a single edit Here where he requested a source due to a perceived POV issue in the introduction. Considering this, I feel that a long-term block is too harsh for one edit, especially since he was previously blocked for a similar issue, related to his interaction with @HistoryofIran. Additionally, it appears that @HistoryofIran has brought up that past interaction to justify this current block, which seems a bit unreasonable.

I kindly request that the block be reconsidered as temporary, rather than long-term. Wikipedia needs more young editors, particularly on Kurdish topics, and it's concerning that many Kurdish contributors are being blocked.

Thank you for your understanding. Sikorki (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Request to block User:LelandDDDD99

Was previously blocked on the account "LelandDJF" for being a promotion-only account, and making unconstructive edits and creating a unnotable promotion/advertising only draft. This counts as block evasion, I'm pretty sure. Wheatley2 (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Just opened an SPI case. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ahri Boy. Blatantly obvious sockpuppetry does not need an SPI case, -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked by Bbb23. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Hypersilly

Seems to be WP:NOTHERE. Most of their edits are experiments in their userspace. They have also made many inapropriate edits to talk pages (e.g. [253]) and their mainspace edits are either incompetent (e.g. [254]) or downright vandalism (e.g. [255]). (There, however seem to be two good mainspace edits to the article List of inorganic compounds.) Janhrach (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

LOOKS LIKE I SHOULD ADD MORE THINGS TO INCOMPLETE LISTS hypersilly ^(talk) 10:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Please avoid all-caps. See WP:SHOUT. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 12:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

sure ok hypersilly ^(talk) 12:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

ALSO FOR [278] I DONT BELIEVE THERE ARE A MAXIMUM OF 30 IONIZATION ENERGIES hypersilly ^(talk) 10:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

ARE THERE ANY MORE INCOMPLETE LISTS hypersilly ^(talk) 10:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

also i cant write full articles and i also dont do citations hypersilly ^(talk) 10:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Trolling, Not Here. Take your pick. INDEFfed. Star Mississippi 12:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: the editor was active cross-wiki recently. Should a global lock be requested? Janhrach (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure best practices there aside from socks @Janhrach. Defer to someone else on that call and feel free to adjust my block if needed Star Mississippi 13:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. (Just a note: I am not an admin.) Janhrach (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hypersilly has no cross-wiki activity yet after the block. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Please revoke TPA for RealAOancea

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

---

Maybe a revdel too for this blocked user RealAOancea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 12:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Block evasion by IP editor(s) on Johnel (among others)

The Johnel article was created by a blocked user, TheChineseGroundnut, and edited by their various socks. After they were blocked, they've almost certainly continued editing from IP addresses in the 102.88/89 ranges. Yesterday I requested G5 speedy on this, and an IP came along pretty soon to revert that, on the basis that it was created before the user was blocked (all of two days before, but still), so technically it's not eligible for G5. Okay, fair enough, I suppose. But I do find it ludicrous that (what I contend to be) blocked users can just evade their block by logging out and carrying on editing from IP. They're even taunting us with their edit comment ("This page was created before the user was blocked just like many other pages" – emphasis mine), clearly knowing that they've found a way around the system. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a comment: the article Johnel was created in May 2023 while those socks were all blocked in May 2024. win8x (talking | spying) 13:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Win8x: :)) Good catch! (And yes, I do know numbers. I just don't always know what they mean...) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Committee for a Workers' International (2019)

An editor who has identified himself as a member of this organisation is persisting in editing the article Committee for a Workers' International (2019) in a partisan manner and has also copypasted an entire article from the organisation onto the article. This edit[256] appears to be an copypaste of this article. The editor User:Jamesation has made various comments asserting ownership of the article on behalf of his organisation: "I am a member of the International, at least go through the page before, attacking it, stop removing the map and banner from the quick info sections and take a look at the new link I made to the Chilean Section. Like I said before it isn't your International and you have free to say anything you want about us but not on our personal page."[257]. He is also now editing a related article about a predecessor organisation, Committee for a Workers' International (1974) in a similar way. [258] Wellington Bay (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

User is now also engaging in copypasta violations by copying and pasting entire articles from external sources. See (now deleted edits at) International Trotskyist Opposition and [259] which copy material from https://ito-oti.org/ito-lfi-declaration-2024-02-08/ and [260] and [261] which copypaste material from https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/125065/23-05-2024/fifty-years-of-the-cwi/ . Wellington Bay (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Jamesation also removed one of the copyvio-revdel templates I put on one of the articles.[262] Please block this account until they can satisfy an admin that they understand the copyright restrictions and won't repeat their violations. (They should probably also indicate that they understand WP:COI.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the account from article space until they can demonstrate some understanding of WP:PAGs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish I'd argue that it just needs an indef block for WP:NOTHERE, they're now just going around accusing anyone of undoing their unsourced, clearly COI edits as secretly part of a different completely irrelevant Trotskyist "10 men in a shed" organisation. [263], [264], [265] Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've increased the block to sitewide. They're clearly not interested in participating in a communal project if anyone who disagrees with them gets that are as response. NOTHERE and CIR. Canterbury Tail talk 21:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail Good, nay, excellent block fellow comrade of the evil ISA plot! I shall congratulate you at our next secret Congress! Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that for me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Holydiver82

This editor is exhibiting WP:NOTHERE behavior at The Acolyte (TV series). Despite multiple attempts to steer the user to finding a consensus, Holydiver has accused myself and others of being a sock[266] and of ownership[267][268]. After urging Holydiver one last time to AGF they responded by filing a malformed 3RR request against me.[269] Last week, I reported the user to the edit war noticeboard, but the admins instead pointed me to WP:ANI. I was just going to leave this alone, but this latest incident means I'm bringing it here. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I reported you because you revert every edit anyone makes on that page, in violation of the 3RR policy. all anyone has to do is look at the edit history of that page to see that you both revert every edit, and in the last 24 hours you have made 3 reverts. I have no idea why you have decided to take ownership of the page and refuse to allow anyone to edit it, including multiple people simply rewording poorly written sentences. If you simply allowed other people to edit the page there would be no problem. Holydiver82 (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Holydiver82, you know that content is being discussed at the talk page and there is no consensus for your changes. You can't keep making your edits every day or so and then complain that you keep getting reverted. Stop editing, wait for consensus to be found at the talk page, and then respect that decision. In your most recent comments at Talk:The Acolyte (TV series) you pointed out that you are new here and don't understand all the policies and guidelines. You should be taking it upon yourself to learn those rather than doing whatever you want and feigning ignorance. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

multiple different editors fixed some poor wording of 1 sentence, that changed absolutely nothing about what it said. now we need to start consensus every time someone re-words a sentence. hilarious. for reference as I read about all the rules of wiki, The three-revert rule states:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions. ...this was violated by nemov as evidence by the page history Holydiver82 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If you're accusing someone of breaking 3RR (and thank you for quoting what it says as it means you understand it) please provide evidence that they have reverted 4 times in the last 24 hours on the article. As I can only see 3. I do however see you doing a slow motion edit war pushing for your favoured wording without consensus as shown by the fact multiple editors have reverted these edits multiple times. Canterbury Tail talk 19:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe Holydiver82's pattern of WP:NOTHERE editing began with The Marvels where at the talk they showed they would not accept consensus building if the consensus opposed their personal views. Their comments were often WP:BLUDGEONING with accusations that other editors were hiding the truth (ex: "Indeed there is a clearly politically motivated interpretation of the film's Absolutely terrible performance. This talk page is probably the best example of that since people are still trying to manipulate reality even in the face of this clear reliable sourced information on its performance. Will be interested to see if the truth and reality finally wins over manipulation"). From there, they've mostly moved onto other film articles which were classified as bombs and making various arguments around that. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content on Template:South Asia in 1400

@PadFoot2008: has removed sourced information from the template article, Template:South Asia in 1400. He is removing the term Gondwana and adding the vague term "aboriginal tribes" even though this is uncited. The cited source is A Historical Atlas of South Asia on p.39. See the link here:https://dsal.uchicago.edu/reference/schwartzberg/pager.html?object=076

As is clear on page 39, the term "Gondwana" is used to describe the collection of petty states in this region.

PadFoot seems to believe that his opinion supersedes a reliable source. He has also provided no source as an alternative. Please can this removal of sourced content be looked in to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixudi (talk • contribs) 18:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you have brought this to ANI? I believe you do not understand how the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia works. I have additionally not removed any sourced information, the term Gondwana describes a region, similar to the "Deccan". The template has polities listed, not regions. Also, please sign your comments from next time onwards. PadFoot (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately this has had to be escalated because you are clearly unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. If something is cited, you can’t then remove it and add your own opinion. “Aboriginal tribe” is also a laughable addition considering it’s unsourced and a ridiculous term and indicates an unfamiliarity with medieval Indian history.

Your one line replies on the article talk page also demonstrate your unwillingness to engage in a constructive discussion hence outside input is necessary.

I also find it funny how you’ve left me an edit warring notice after just two reverts. Please be aware of what edit warring actually is. Ixudi (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Please be aware of what edit warring actually is. Edit warring is repeatedly making the same change -- two reverts of the same content certainly qualifies. --JBL (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Why all the hostility, Ixudi? You are assuming bad faith here. ANI is where editors come if other forms of dispute resolution haven't succeeded. This sounds like a content dispute best discussed on talk pages, not a conduct dispute for adminstrator attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for my tone. I just think it’s odd that someone would want to replace a reliable source with their own interpretation. The user in question has now added a source from 1907 which doesn’t even address the time period in question. Ixudi (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Clearly a content dispute where no forms of dispute resolution have been tried. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Long-term abuse vandal found a new IP range

• 2603:6013:A640:8700:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Youngstown music vandal

A persistent vandal has been using the IP range Special:Contributions/2603:6013:A640:8700:0:0:0:0/64 to add false sales achievements to hip hop song articles.[270][271] This is the same as past disruption from the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Youngstown music vandal. Can we get a rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

EAPie47

EAPie47 (talk · contribs) has made almost 500 disruptive edits twiddling punctuation—I posted to AIV, but they're about to get ECC and I'm worried if something worse will happen then. Could any admin who has a second please bonk them real quick? Remsense ‥ 诉 00:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but the period is supposed to go before the quotation mark?? Not sure how that's disruptive EAPie47 (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

They are clearly gaming the system. I posted a warning but I hope an admin removes EC status once it is achieved (it's not yet). You shouldn't be extended confirmed after making nearly 500 edits in one day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LQUOTE says the opposite. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking through their contributions I see almost all of it is stuff like this and this. All of these are the specific tasks we recommend for newcomers, and explicitly tell them to do in our policies.

It is true that this violates MOS:QUOTEPUNCT, but why the hell would that be an AN/I issue? Someone can simply tell them that they are incorrect about MOS:QUOTEPUNCT; the rest of their edits look fine. jp×g🗯️ 00:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't make it adequately clear—they're doing and undoing the same twiddling in the same spots. See Dream of the Red Chamber. Remsense ‥ 诉 00:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

They are clearly gaming the system by doing lots of little few byte changes, and then undoing them. Canterbury Tail talk 01:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

They're sitting at 500 flat now, and if I can go out on a limb it seems they know you need 501 to get the role, and I don't think it's wise to let them sit there one edit away from ECC like they're saving it for something. Remsense ‥ 诉 01:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, you can't remove extended confirmed status until they achieve that status. You can't wipe out an edit count, at least I'm not aware of a way to do this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The word from @AntiCompositeNumber:

AntiComposite — Today at 6:10 PM
if they don't have EC yet you can grant it and immediately revoke it
removing a group from someone adds an entry to the user_former_groups table, which is checked before autogranting EC
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:User_former_groups_table https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgAutopromoteOnce https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/g/operations/mediawiki-config/+/70589ca79f65dd80ee12c0a317d4317242dd2da2/wmf-config/InitialiseSettings.php#4386

I think this suffices, and will try it. jp×g🗯️ 02:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

So, JPxG, success? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. jp×g🗯️ 19:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, well, that is BS. jp×g🗯️ 01:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was when I saw them making minor edits and then undoing those edits that I concluded it was unproductive editing and just gaming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Alhitmi123

Alhitmi123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:TENDENTIOUS at Abu Tahir al-Jannabi, attempting to remove "Persian":

• Removed sourced info (Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica) with no edit summary, replacing "Persian" with "Arab" [272] [273]

• Removed sourced info (Iranica), falsely claiming it does not support the info [274], even though it literally does [275]

• Removed sourced info (Iranica) again, this time not only falsely claiming that Iranica does not support it, but also calls Iranica for not "peer-reviewed" [276], which is blatantly false had they bothered to make a 10 second search.

• Earlier they openly demonstrated that they did not even bother to check the citations that they removed (one of them is open access as well..) Not sure why it says WP:RS, do you have the name of the book or the full source? Thanks

• At Qarmatians, they replaced sourced info with their own words [277]

WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA:

• Very mature dig at Persians due to me merely saying their claims are unsourced, replying with another unsourced claim "I guess you are correct, It didn’t make sense at first an original arab would do a genocide against defenseless civilians, his honor wouldn’t allow it. Thanks for clarifying 🙏."

• "It seems that you want him to be Persian so hard for some reason or the other."

• if you are a person of knowledge you would care about learning and not pushing an agenda.

Which are all ironic... considering they were the ones to replace sourced "Persian" with their unsourced "Arab" [278] [279]

Alhitmi123 has been here since July 2023 and made 38 edits. Based on this report, I've no doubt they would have already been indeffed if they were more active (WP:NOTHERE). --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

They're still removing sourced info [280] [281] [282] and adding unsourced info [283]. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I added the fact that Jannaba is mainly Lurs ethnicity and speak Luri and you deleted it for no reason! Why did you do that? Why do you want them to be Persian so bad? Alhitmi123 (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I even added a book source behind my claim abd you deleted it! Alhitmi123 (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You're referring to this [284]. Not only is this hypocritical because you removed sourced info, but your citation has no page, what "Ph.D in middle-eastern History from Cambridge University" does not even know how to cite a page? And even if the citation you added does indeed support it, it's incredibly irrelevant, so what if the city has a Lur minority in present-day or around that time? What does that have to do with the Qarmatians and the era? Also, more WP:ASPERSIONS. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

No the city has always been a Lurs majority. This area always had a Persian minority not majoriry! The claim that Abu Said is Luri is much closer to reality than Persian. I see why this site is not respected among academic and more of a blog, ill leave this playground to you, im “outta here” Alhitmi123 (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

As you've been told countless times, Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not your personal opinion. And you are certainly not helping this site by adding your own opinion, removing sources, and failing to cite a source properly - no academic would respect that. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef block per WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Their account was created in 2019, never edited their user page. and then suddenly becoming "Ph.D in middle-eastern History from Cambridge University" after this ANI report[285][286]?! Is that some kind of justification/excuse for their problematic edits or what? It sounds like trolling in my opinion. Already violated 3RR on Abu Tahir al-Jannabi and Qarmatians. Ignoring all edit summaries/messages, non-stop pov-pushing, and refusing any kind of collaboration. --Mann Mann (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

JR H44

JR H44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Majority of edits (they have made 131 edits so far) reverted since their first edit on November 2023 [287], and with good reason;

1. 30 December 2023 removed sourced info about the Russian casualties, replacing 12,000 killed with 30,000, no edit summary
2. 18 April 2024 Replaced sourced "Russian victory" with unsourced "Ottoman victory", no edit summary
3. Caucasus campaign Edit warring with no edit summary, changing the result in the infobox 18:08, 31 May 2024 18:11, 31 May 2024
4. 4 June 2024 Altered the result in the infobox of GA article Battle of Kapetron to "Seljuk victory", no edit summary
5. 19 June 2024 Added unsourced info about the Ottomans participating, no edit summary
6. 2 July 2024 Added unsourced info about Ottoman casualties, no edit summary
7. 3 July 2024 Replaced "Armenian victory" with "Ottoman victory", no edit summary
8. Russo-Turkish wars edit warring and removal of sourced info, such as attempting to replace sourced "Disputed" with unsourced "Ottoman victory", no edit summary again 09:48, 13 July 2024 13:15, 13 July 2024 00:29, 17 July 2024 00:33, 17 July 2024
9. Battle of Baideng, edit warring and alteration of sourced info, trying to reduce the number of the Xiongnu forces 19:21, 13 August 2024 19:28, 13 August 2024 19:38, 13 August 2024

WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Has never edited a talk page or user talk page, for what its worth. Daniel (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

source hijacking and pov-pushing on the Algeria article

Good morning,

The user Skitash persists in introducing an erroneous reading of the source (CIA Factebook) . While this clearly indicates: « Arab-Amazigh 99%, European less than 1% note: although almost all Algerians are Amazigh in origin and not Arab, only a minority identify themselves as primarily Amazigh, about 15% of the total population; these people live mostly in the mountainous region of Kabylie east of Algiers and in several other communities; the Amazigh are also Muslim but identify with their Amazigh rather than Arab cultural heritage; some Amazigh have long agitated, sometimes violently, for autonomy; the government is unlikely to grant autonomy but has officially recognized Amazigh languages and introduced them into public schools. »

The user deliberately reintroduces the erroneous/POV version which mean that Algerians are 85% Arab and 15% Berber (Amazigh). This editorial does not specify that this is a feeling (« identify themselves ») and aims to make this information an absolute truth. Which is all the more unforgivable since it removes the mention justified by the source (99% Arab-Amazigh, 1% European...). I added a second source which provides genetic data (Dmoh Bacha, Algerie Culture Identite, Maghreb Algerie MarocTunisie, p.233, ). As it does not go in his direction to Arabize the ethnicity of Algeria, he deletes it purely and simply. Please therefore sanction Skitash for 1) source diversion 2) pov-pushing 3) cherry-picking (takes an isolated element from a source which it reinterprets and refuses other sources which do not go in the direction of its idea).

Sorry for my poor English language level :(.

Monsieur Patillo (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this with them first? From what I see, they left a reply on your talk page explaining their arguments, so you didn't have to escalate the matter to ANI. This board is a last resort for conduct disputes, not a way to sanction editors for disagreeing with you on how to interpret the sources. Also, you did not inform Skitash of this discussion on their talk page, which you are required to do. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Personal attack towards me

• 000099999AB (talk · contribs): This user is continuously attacking me personally and making false accusations against me [288][289], even after being warned about it.[290]

M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 10:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@000099999AB: "The user is dominating other contributors" isn't a nice sentence. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

User talk:The 108th vigilante

Continuously adding unsourced, far-fetched and improbable claims about films being based in Bengali films. Please stop him. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure this rises up to ANI yet, as I've just left a level 3 warning for unsourced editing. An example is adding unsourced information here [291], reverted with a summary of "unsourced" [292], then added back by The 108th vigilante [293] with a summary of "rvt unnecessary removals". In part, their talk page is a mess of messages right now as they uploaded a lot of non-free images (film posters) and didn't add anything for the license. They've done that (not as much detail in the license additions as one would hope) for the files. I think that means that the warnings for unsourced edits may be missed. I think they mean well, but don't get the sourcing requirements and right now are making a fair number of edits, so there's a bit of a mess with many of their early edits needing some review. Ravensfire (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Manual note left on their talk page at User_talk:The_108th_vigilante#Unsourced_edits with the issues I've seen. Hopefully it causes a change. Ravensfire (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Kalinators

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

---

Kalinators is here solely for self-promotion. Their first autobio draft Draft:Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player) was rejected, so they created another version Draft:Kalin Stefanov which also was rejected. They are now arguing at the AfC help desk (and this isn't the first thread there!) and on their own and various reviewers' talk pages that their draft must be accepted (and apparently 331dot will be 'fired'). It's all getting a bit tiresome, not to mention a real time sink. Given all that, and the fact that they're clearly !HERE, I would like to ask an uninvolved admin to take a look and hopefully block the user. Thank you, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Double grazing, your blatant accusation that "Kalinators is here solely for self-promotion" is not supported by evidence and will be reported to your wikipedia boss for review. Additionally, your contradicting statements will be reported to them, and you will be fired from your position as a wikipedia editor. The draft must be accepted because it clearly complies with wikipedia's article regulations. Period. Kalinators (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

All Wikipedia editors are volunteers. We do not have bosses but are subject to the same policies, rules and guidelines. No one can be "fired" as an editor. --ARoseWolf 13:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

As the extensive AfC thread has shown, the editor has no interest in anything but promoting one very specific non-notable backgammon player. I have blocked as not here. DoubleGrazing please let me know when you find out who your "wikipedia boss" is, I'd love to meet them! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Are there any notable backgammon players? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Pickersgill-Cunliffe.

I'd love to meet them, also, but they seem to be always travelling on 'important business' and merely phoning in our 1:1 reviews. Still, I did get a substantial salary raise and a new company car, so can't complain. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you get the T-shirt in the mail? --ARoseWolf 13:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: What? You have blocked despite Kalinators's message above, carefully crafted to make it clear that they can edit Wikipedia in a constructive and collaborative spirit? Surely not? JBW (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂😈 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I have clearly misunderstood the editor, JBW. I will isolate myself in my wiki-office and await the wrath of my wiki-boss. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I just heard from the wiki-bosses. They said you will be placed on "administrative leave" but not "fired", this time. --ARoseWolf 13:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree, the "sources" they added in are all of dubious quality. Almost every one would fail WP:RSBREAKING since they are at best a few months old (and some are even three days old) while almost all would also fail WP:NOTNEWS. It's evident the user is not here to contribute to wikipedia but rather to self-promote their achievements.

I'm also interested UKalinators in your statement about this "wikipedia boss". The people who edit here do not have monetary incentive, rather they contribute from their own free time. I have no "boss" attached to my work on here and neither does DoubleGrazing. Unfortunately I didn't read the user's block until after writing this message, oh well. A humorous event regardless HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Alaska4Me2 : is she WP:NOTHERE or just WP:NOTHERENORMS?

Alaska4Me2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over time, I have had a number of interactions with Alaska4Me2 that I took as her overtly making bad faith assumptions. I thought it had been rather isolated and was due to a personal animosity that maybe was best ignored and that she was WP:NOTHERENORMS ("Here with difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms]]"). However, too many recent interactions seem to show that this may be a battleground mentality associated with WP:NOTHERE as displayed by a pattern of disruption.

The examples are full discussions rather than single diffs so context is in the open.

• Recent issues on my talk page show accusations of acting in bad faith & accusations of personal attacks that are not such: [294] & [295]

• Other recent issues involving other editors
  • Several "wall of text" discussions, resulting in needing to be told to WP:DROPTHESTICK: [296] & [297] (To be fair, she was involved in other discussions there, too; and when things went her way, discussion appeared constructive and did not degrade, which is as it should be. If she could do that when her position is opposed, we wouldn't be here)
  • Related to the above, responds to a standard WP:CTOP notice and self-closes it: [298] By itself, that may not seem problematic, as a lot of newer editors not understand the reasons for a CTOP notice, but taken in with the other items, it seems to indicate a battleground pattern.

• Although the following are older interactions, they show that the above are not isolated and this is a pattern.
  • An unwillingness to accept direction on our specific norms; namely, keeping user conduct discussions on user talk, not in article talk space (for complete context, refer to the section I had to collapse as off-topic): [299]
  • Examples of how discussion often degrades into victimhood and conduct accusations: Don't talk down to me, don't lecture me:[300] & Why are you so frequently downright rude?:[301]
  • Not understanding what AGF actually means, where she accuses an experienced admin of a lack of good faith and manners: [302]
  • Here I have provided only what I thought was necessary. If any clarification is needed, or specific diffs requested, I will oblige.

My concern is not the lack of understanding of standards, but that there is an apparent unwillingness to change or correct it and that this has become a repeated pattern over time. She is able to go for long periods without any issues when she edits in spaces where her work is not challenged. But in instances where her position or edits are challenged, especially with an editor who has challenged her previously, it often degrades into battleground and an apparent inability to distinguish between constructive criticism and personal attacks and to separate content discussion from user behavior, often taking any direction offered as personal affront.

I had hoped that a change would take place, but that does not appear to be happening. If anything, it appears that the problems are now spreading from the original topic niche into something broader, hence bringing it to AN/I for discussion. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the bigger issue is with WP:CIR. For example: assuming that you are targeting her even after you explained your AWB edit, refusing to listen to others about providing sources first before trying to nail down wording on the Tim Walz talk page, and insisting on using a deprecated source on List of The Chosen episodes. That lack of competence then expresses itself as IDHT, primarily through accusations of bad faith. (Closing a CTOP warning is not a problem in my view; editors can do what they like with their own talk page.) A warning seems appropriate here.

@Alaska4Me2: A lot of people on Wikipedia are not the best at communication (see, for example, any random thread on this page). People on Wikipedia often make sort of rude comments (e.g., the "This is Wikipedia, not fandom.com" comment that you took issue with). The best way to deal with comments like that is to assume good faith, get to the substance of what they're saying, and respond professionally. Don't get hung up on slights from random people on the internet. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been watching this situation for a while, and I have noticed a pattern of recurring WP:CIR issues, especially with WP:AGF/AAGF. The first I saw of A4M2's issues with Butlerblog was this discussion in December, which I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) was in response to this edit to The Chosen (TV series). In this first discussion, A4M2 alleged without evidence that Butlerblog personally attacked her. In their second discussion just two weeks later, A4M2 first accused Butlerblog of holding a grudge against her and attempting to "stir the pot by reverting one of [her] edits at an article he never edited previously"; accusation that would come to be leveled quite frequently. Probably of note, though I'm not sure how useful it would be here, is this log kept by A4M2 in January and February of interactions and edits made by Butlerblog and Fred Zepelin.

The accusations were repeated in July, when A4M2 once again accused Butlerblog of following her. In response, Butlerblog explained that he was "cleaning up WP:BAREURL refs", but that didn't stop A4M2 from repeating the accusations once again ([303] and [304]), or from making a rather threatening pop culture reference.

I too had hope that A4M2 would eventually overcome this hostility toward Butlerblog. However, her most recent wave of false accusations of personal attacks and her response to the WP:CTOP notice indicated to me that this hostility was neither limited toward Butlerblog nor was it going to stop anytime soon, and therefore I finally suggested that Butlerblog take this matter here. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's relevant to point this out (as it's dated), but for context, while you're not wrong about the edit, the UTP discussion from December overlaps with an ANI discussion I had opened for edit warring,[305] and that is what was being referenced when I said The outcome of this was unfortunate, as she had received a 2 week article block for edit warring. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Per a suggestion from another editor (maybe an administrator? I didn't look at their page to see if that is actually the case), I am commenting here to let you all know that my intention for participation has always been to edit neutrally and according to policy. I think I've demonstrated that many times over since I began editing. As far as assuming good faith, I can't say I've always done that when editors have been, in my estimation, rude and used what I would say is a snobby or caste-related tone. Additionally, when an editor who I feel has been rude and seems to be insisting on their own way suddenly shows up at an article I am editing and they never have edited it before, my radar activates because it feels as if I'm being poked intentionally. Nevertheless, I'll truly work harder on not just exhibiting, but also thinking, good faith. Especially in the situations where I sense something else is afoot. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:PA, WP:Canvassing by user:Artaxias V

Artaxias V(29 edits) was reverted by me on Tigranes the Great. They removed from the infobox: mother: "Alan princess" cited by Mayor, Adrienne (2009). The Poison King: The Life and Legend of Mithradates, Rome's Deadliest Enemy. Princeton University Press, page 136, stating Removed reference to Tigranes the Great's mother having Alan roots due to lack of credible or historical evidence.

Artaxias instead of using the article talk page(in this instance) chose instead to notify user:Revolution Saga on their talk page.

• Stating "I wanted to discuss a user known as Kansas Bear, who is a well-known vandalizer. He frequently employs very discreet methods to avoid getting banned. I have reviewed his edit history and other actions and can confirm that he is a pro-Turkish editor aiming to desecrate Armenian history." A blatant personal attack from an editor, as far as I know, I have had NO interaction, aside from the Tigranes the Great article.

• And further states, "Recently, I noticed that he keeps editing back the claim that Tigranes’s mother was Alan, for which there is no evidence. The book he cites does not provide any evidence to support his claim", a violation of WP:CANVASS, since user:Revolution Saga responded to this request for assistance by posting on the Tigranes the Great article talk page.

Also, user:Artaxias, with their third edit, created a user sandbox replete with complex references, clearly indicating this is not a new user.

I find the actions of user:Artaxias to be unacceptable. As for user:Revolution Saga, they've been here nearly a decade and don't know what WP:Canvassing is? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not canvassing to ask another editor who knows something about a topic to weigh in. Additionally, the references on the sandbox page are not "complex". They're regularly formatted citations. I think someone socking would know about citation templates. The personal attack and aspersions are troubling, and deserve a warning. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I had no intention of entertaining User:Artaxias V's invitation to report User:Kansas Bear, which was clearly inappropriate. However, I don't think that User:Artaxias V's comment on my talk page barred me from contributing to the discussion on Talk:Tigranes the Great. Revolution Saga (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Igoumenitsa1992

I'm putting this report here because it's part WP:NOTHERE, part multi-page edit warring, and part CTOPS. New-ish account Igoumenitsa1992 (talk · contribs) has exclusively been editing a range of pages related to Souliotes, to remove sourced information and replace it with their unsourced preferred alternative. They've been reverted by like half a dozen other editors, warned about contentious topics, and warned about edit warring, but their latest edit summary says "I will change it again and again", so it seems clear this behaviour isn't stopping any time soon. On top of that, they've also been engaging in copyright violation (from here) and some rather unsavoury comments about entire nationalities. --AntiDionysius (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Support indef. This is clearly an SPA with no indication that they understand or will abide by PAGs. I think a time-limited block would just land us right back here. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to do anything further at the moment, but it looks like diff by Igoumenitsa1992 is a copy from mlahanas.de. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was a copyvio too, but the bottom of the mlahanas.de website attributes the text to Wikipedia, and the overlapping text can in fact be seen in very early versions of the Souliotes article (i.e., 2010 or earlier). DanCherek (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:SPA, WP:EDITWARRING: WP:NATIONALIST: WP:NOTHERE. Jingiby (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I have given an initial block for disruptive editing. They've had 10 hours to notice, read, and reply to this thread and the various warnings provided. They have chosen not to address their behaviour and have instead continued their spree. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Пинча, poorly sourced content and personal attacks

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

After their block ended, they have continued requesting that poorly sourced content be added, and making personal attacks to AntiDionysius, who reverted their edits, calling them sick and practically dying. A longer or indef block is needed this time. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Notified. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Their previous block included both editorial and interpersonal behavior problems, and every time they are alerted to any such they say "I'm not doing it", accuse someone else of doing it, and then keeping on doing it. When they continued to ABF an other commentary during the time of their previous block, I warned them that if they continued they would be indef'ed. I think that time has clearly come. Note they also made inappropriate personal comments about User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång in that same HD that CanonNi noted about AntiDionysius. DMacks (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think Пинча is probably correct that the article should mention the subject's blogging/social media activities. That said, the poor behavior and IDHT mentality regarding accusing others of vandalism warrants another block. During that block, I recommend @Пинча read our policy on vandalism before again accusing others of engaging in vandalism. I also recommend that they review our edit-warring policy. If you are reverted, discuss the issue on the talk page and obtain a consensus. Do not restore the material and insist you are correct. To quote Пинча: It is a free encyclopedia, not your own encyclopedia. Part of being a free encyclopedia means working with others. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with voorts, stuff like [306] isn't good. Needs to adapt WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't restored contested content. I found an academic source which stated exactly what I was saying[307]. So it was a new content. You can also try searching for sources and editing articles! Or are you afraid of being banned? Пинча (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Part of being a free encyclopedia means working with others. It means that you have to work with me and assume my good intensions. Пинча (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That goes both ways. Nobody is saying this information can't be included, but you keep insisting on adding it to the lead. Slow down and discuss the issue on the talk page. There's no rush to make this edit. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

you keep insisting on adding it to the lead Where am I insisting on it?[308] Пинча (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

In this very discussion. You keep insisting you're correct, your sources are reliable, and nobody is trying to work with you (even though editors tried to work with you and you refused to budge). The reason you were brought to this noticeboard is because of this very behavior. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You said you keep insisting on adding it to the lead. It is untrue. In this very discussion. No, I say about this edition[309]. Yes, I say that Academic_Studies_Press is reliable source, what else should I say? It looks like the morst reliabe source in the article. Пинча (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

My "very behavior" is to improve the article. Пинча (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

BTW you can try to do it too. Пинча (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Academic Studies Press means poorly sourced??[310] You can try for a change to search for sources by yourself, not just discuss why do you have to revert important information and to ban editors. Пинча (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I think voorts is right that there's nothing particularly wrong with their proposed content addition, but the way they have gone about it has been seriously problematic throughout. The issue extends beyond the dispute on Arkady Babchenko to other pages too. Every time someone disagrees with them about something, they immediately jump to snide remarks ([311] [312] [313]), sarcastically cross-tagging people in unrelated content disputes ([314] [315]), and responding to every mention of Wikipedia policy with "I know you are but what am I" ([316] [317]). Indeed, their response to being asked not to make personal attacks (again, after having this cited as a reason for their first ban) they responded by repeating a worse version of the same personal attack three times in two different places ([318] [319] [320]). I don't know what would be required to get this person to reconsider their behaviour when every previous pushback or criticism, including a ban, has prompted them to double down. --AntiDionysius (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine, thanks. Пинча (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This kind of constantly-hostile engagement with other users is continuing in this very discussion. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: You have false information based on original research but nobody can fix it[321] because everybody is trying to revert true information from academic source[322].

And once again: it wasn't the contested content.[323] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Пинча (talk • contribs) 09:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear User:AntiDionysius, I had found the academic source and added the information from it to the article. So I didn't restore a contested content[324], I added a new content. Yes it states exactly what I was saying but it is just because I am right. So could you explain why did you revert information from the Academic_Studies_Press?[325] Пинча (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You add something. If someone removes it, the content you added is contested. If you add it again, you are literally restoring contested content. If you cannot recognize that, despite many other editors repeatedly noting it, we're into WP:CIR. DMacks (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is the contested content[326] Here is what I added[327] It is the same statement but from the academic source (Academic_Studies_Press) and not in the lead. So it is the new case, and it is obviously not "poorly sourced". Пинча (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Incivility between Tardada and PooSeeDestroyer

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

See User talk:Tardada#August 2024, where these two users have had quite the incivil, name-calling-filled discussion. This seems to be a pattern with both users, and neither seems to be here as constructive contributors. Also, the second username is offensive on its own. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Both notified. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Second user vau-blocked. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Both indeffed now. Thanks @Bbb23! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

IP 2.100.205.41 being transphobic

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:2.100.205.41

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2.100.205.41&diff=prev&oldid=1240576250 https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sall_Grover&diff=prev&oldid=1239503651 https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sall_Grover&diff=prev&oldid=1239504454 https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sall_Grover&diff=prev&oldid=1240451173

IP editing disruptively, now spraying transphobia around and directly admitting that their edits were motivated by transphobia, which they don't see as a problem. GraziePrego (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This is the most calm and articulate "transphobe" I've ever seen. Honestly it's not really disruptive. A block would be just to punish a POV, unless there's a bunch of mainspace edits I'm missing. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The edits to Sall Grover are the disruptive ones. Not sure why you've put transphobe in quotes when that's how they've described themselves? Also I don't see how being calm and articulate is relevant; disruptive editing and POV pushing in mainspace is still exactly that. GraziePrego (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That page attracts a lot of trolls it seems. I've semi protected it for a week. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The disruption is slow and very minor. The page protection should solve it. I'm frankly more concerned with this edit summary than the reported IP EvergreenFir (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I posted a warning to them. I haven't looked through all of their edits but I don't see where they describe themselves as transphobic. Now, they know that the language they used isn't tolerated so any future edits in this vein will be intentionally against policy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Liz In this edit, they say that the justification behind their edits was that they are transphobic. GraziePrego (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff, I missed that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, they shouldn't be editing anywhere near gender and sexuality topics. With a comment like this, they are obviously here to push a POV. Expressing hateful views is a form of disruptive editing. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

They also said they would refrain from editing this article again, so they don't seem to be looking for trouble. I think the problem here was quite minor and has been satisfactorily addressed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the problem here was quite hateful, and it is yet to be determined if it has been satisfactorily addressed. People like that rarely change their hateful POV towards us. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Kelvintjy and SGI promotion

Kelvintjy (talk · contribs) is a Soka Gakkai member who has been editing for more than a decade now. The vast majority of their edits have been regarding SGI and most often have been to promote the organization or slander organizations which have a bad relationship with SGI. For example, here are some of the more blatant, dating back from 2013:

• Adding the SGI-run "Research on Nichiren Shoshu Issues" to the external links section on Nichiren Shōshū (SGI broke from NSS);
• Removing well-sourced criticism of Ikeda and then reverting a rollback without explanation;
• Sneakily removing a mention of Ikeda striking a priest "once or twice" while adding a source about how Ikeda was arrested on "unfounded charges" and how he was exonerated, but that source had no mentions of the events;
• Removing mentions of the alleged cult of personality around Ikeda and sources mentioning the fabrication of evidence against SGI detractors;
• Adding an SGI-run website to the external links section of Canadian Indian residential school system;
• Removing a well-sourced paragraph about how Soka Gakkai's founder might have been influenced by the nationalist Kokuchūkai;
• Significant edit warring over POV with Raoul mishima (talk · contribs) on multiple pages, including legitimate edits, but also doing things like adding back SGI YouTube videos as references among other things;
• Removing a mention of an investigation into SGI corruption by the Italian government;
• And, as I've brought up before, ignoring WP:CITEOVERKILL despite it being brought to their attention-.

In other words, I think it is obvious that the majority of Kelvintjy (talk · contribs)'s edits are to promote SGI and I propose a topic ban. It's strange to me how long this has gone unnoticed.wound theology◈ 07:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Jae winwin, unsourced edits and no communication

Despite prior warnings by multiple editors, @Jae winwin: keeps going on with making unsourced edits. Examples: here, here, here and [328]. Often he(?) makes rather cosmetic changes (removing capitals in source titles) and then adds the unsourced addition. Any attempt for communication failed. He has no contributions outside the article space. User is not a vandal, as some of the edits he does are okay (removing start dates of started connections, removing ended connections). How to proceed? The Banner talk 08:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked user spamming their own talk page

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

Recently blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warnings. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

If they're not interested in making a proper unblock request, then they're not using the talk page for anything useful and have now been blocked from editing it. Not that they'd be a productive editor anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 11:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Joesphew89

Joesphew89 (talk · contribs) made edits to New York, Ukraine and Lysychansk that were clearly cases of vandalism (here is a prime example). Their response to a warning on their talk page was "stfu lil bro" and then "then do it what’s stopping you lil bro" after receiving a level 3 warning. Does this warrant a WP:NOTHERE block? They have over 500 edits (I have not checked the other edits) so I am not sure why they are making such edits now. Mellk (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like they stopped yesterday. If it happens again it's probably obvious enough for AIV. QwertyForest (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually I've just indeffed them. One of their edits was to insert racist and homophobic edits (mild but even so) and that's an instant indef in my books. Zero tolerance for any of that stuff. They can sort it out with an unblock request if able. No one should be able to retain or reobtain editing privileges if they make such edits without convincing the community.. Canterbury Tail talk 11:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

SpacedFarmer

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

Honestly, I don't trust this user, I agree there are issues with the string of articles his just listed on AFD, but the whole process is questionable. At first I was only looking at Tottenham Hotspur (Superleague Formula team) which he nominated for AfD, but as I was going through the process of doing my own google search, I then decided to look at his contrib, hardly any time space between each nomination, which gives me indication he really hasn't done a WP:BEFORE in my opinion. This honestly feels all the AfDs are nominated because he is running WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That and looking at his talk page history, I felt I needed to post to ANI anyway. I am hoping a more sane head can review, I might be overly hotheaded here. Govvy (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

There were some comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 August 7 regarding this editor, that I filed in the back of my mind at the time I closed it. Pinging Hey man im josh, whose comment I especially noted. Daniel (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Govvy: I had nominated them as a whole before yesterday but I was advised of WP:TRAINWRECK with the advice that they can be nominated individually, so I requested to pull them to nominate them again individually. As with WP:BEFORE they have been done in advance for weeks. Nothing other than the football team they're named after. Does this explain why there was little time in between? What time in between should I do these? As with WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you are completely wrong. I nominated them because they have one thing in common, the lack of enduring notability, the series itself might be sort of but everything else is not. The cars and engines is not like most of those in spec series. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I withdrew the original nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China (Superleague Formula team)) despite the sole Procedual Keep vote by 1ctinus. When I nominate them individually, I get this. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you do in your offline wiki moments other than eat and sleep, but in your pattern, it seems you nominated the China Superleague article as soon as you went back to editing wikipedia and you bundled a load of articles together. I've also noticed you like to delete, you like to delete a lot!! Sorry mate, but there are too many red flags from you for my liking. Govvy (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh it's 100% clear they are NOT doing before searches way too often. What I find more troubling is that, in almost every nominating statement they make, they cannot help themselves from disparaging people who might be interested in the content. Honestly, I think their attitude is incompatible with Wikipedia, especially since they've been given a dozen warnings now and haven't improved on that aspect of things. You can nominate pages without putting people down, but I don't think Space believes that or believes in before searches. If you oppose deletion they'll typically badger to get their points across. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Not to mention he has the hubris to post [329] Given your language here, I shall recommend you to wash your mouth every morning and night with a toilet brush to get rid of those foul language that stains your vocabulary. That way, you could be better than those clowns who congregate at pubs every Saturday afternoon and get drunk till May. BTW, you speak of WP:IDONTLIKEIT given by your response. then template my talk page! How civil! :/ Govvy (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I'd block just for that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

They were blocked last month for 31 hours due to personal attacks, namely this screed at another editor. I also agree they should be blocked, probably for a week on this occasion. While I'm probably not administratively involved even with the DRV closure and my initial comment above, playing it safe and leaving it to others to handle.

Additionally, some more back catalogue evidence of spiteful revenge-warning: revert of perfectly fine message on user talk page followed immediately by NPA warning of editor. Jtrainor (an editor who registered in November 2004) hasn't edited since this rather unpleasant interaction.

Finally, some further reading from the ANI archives:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1155#Uncivility,_profanity_and_name_calling_by_user:SpacedFarmer - April 2024.
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Mass_AfDs_despite_warnings_to_gain_experience - May 2024. Outcome inconclusive
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1161#Continued_incivility_from_SpacedFarmer - July 2024. I am amazed this was archived without the consensus for a restriction from AfD being actioned - that is sufficient support in the subsection to implement a community restriction.

Daniel (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• In light of their additional uncivil comments, I'd like to point out there was a conversation about their incivility at the beginning of July, which can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1161#Continued_incivility_from_SpacedFarmer. There was a consensus to topic ban SpacedFarmer from deletion, broadly construed, but it seemed as though nobody wanted to close/enforce the consensus. I think that, at a minimum, the topic ban should be revisited. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked one week for the continued incivility, which does not preclude discussion on a topic ban and/or re-visiting the July discussion that @Daniel referenced. Star Mississippi 13:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I was in the process of clicking the buttons for a week block myself. Mirror the words of Star Mississippi. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I've just got a question about all the recent AfDs he started, do they need to be shut down or are we leaving them up? Govvy (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Govvy my opinion as an editor, not admin/policy but I think the bulk nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China (Superleague Formula team) wasn't going to work so individual noms are the best path forward. Your comment at Tottenham makes me think that PAs aside, there was no isue with the nomination as there "may" be a path to GNG. So I'd say let them go forward. If someone else disagrees, feel free. I don't think there's yes/no answer. Star Mississippi 13:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I didn't have anything against the nominations, just the way he processed the nominations, too me those articles were always a bit on the thin side and I am not an F1 person myself. Govvy (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Support TBan from deletion/merge/split discussions, per my comments at SF's last trip to ANI. My opinion of this editor is unchanged, unfortunately. The DRV reeks of IDHT, and the personalized comments at AfD have not stopped. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Their incivility is unacceptable, while basic statistics show their delete !votes are predominantly in accord with the outcomes and it seems their AfD nominations usually succeed. Might escalating blocks for incivility and PAs be more appropriate? NebY (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I had to sit and watch people defend him purely on his record the first go-around; we've returned twice since already and at this point he should need to prove to us that he can collaborate in a topic area productively before returning to a naturally charged area such as AfD. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I do fear that editing collaboratively in a less charged area wouldn't be any proof that they could handle a more charged area such as AfD. Anyway, it seems their main activity is AfDs,[330] so a tban might effectively be a block anyway. NebY (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN per above. I'd support an indefinite block too, just based on the conduct issues. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN: I supported a TBAN last time, when SpacedFarmer defused tensions by staying off the site for a couple weeks until the ANI discussion was archived. I don't see why editors need to put up with SpacedFarmer's hostility. Toughpigs (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Svito3

• Svito3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has spread false accusations about me of vandalism on Talk:List of countries by system of government, when all I was doing was undoing an edit they made with no clear consensus. They accused me of deliberately ignoring discussions (when I was simply unaware that one was taking place), claiming that I "don't care to participate in discussions at all, when again, I simply missed the final few words of their edit notice mentioning the talk page, and completely mischaracterised me as someone who "ignores [them] and [their] edits completely and [does] not care". Obviously this is a blatant violation of both WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL and I hope it can be addressed.

While I'm on the subject, I'd like to point out their undiscussed unilateral replacement of File:Forms of government.svg on Template:Systems of government with their own File:Forms of government (color blind palette).svg, which is missing information present on the original file and has undiscussed unilateral palette changes. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 13:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I admit to my fault misusing term "vandalism" and being generally rude. Also I still have low opinion about "good faith" behavior of GlowstoneUnknown.

If I may I demand strongest punishment available for myself and spare administrators time. -- Svito3 (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but since you recognize what you did is wrong, I don't think you deserve the strongest punishment. Can you avoid a repeat of this going forward? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, admin action on conduct issues is not meant to be punishment, but to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to be disruptive. I was simply being rude. I think generally my characteristic of User:GlowstoneUnknown is accurate. Their edits are techically under realm of GFE while behavior is actually extremely disheartening and rude to me and my efforts.

I still belive they don't absolutely give a shit about other editors and their contributions, and especially my contributions. -- Svito3 (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

If this characteristic is slander or whatever I don't care. It's my opinion. If I'm forced to change my opinion on that I can't. Svito3 (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

EEng

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

A user who was only recently blocked for uncivil conduct against another editor in July: User_talk:EEng#July_2024 has despite being asked to refrain from doing so multiple times continued to be uncivil, misconstrued points, and posted comments that have been inflammatory and disruptive to the collaborative process at Talk:Memorial_Hall_(Harvard_University)#Rfc_on_use_of_"imposing" (please see the full discussion). Also of note is the following discussion closed on the 30th of July #Resumption of incivility by EEng and suggestion of self-harm.

Leading to this was what I and at least one other editor interpreted as repeat flaunting of consensus, which is also what led me to create the RfC - in order to establish a firm consensus and avoid further conflict. This has unfortunately not been successful.

I removed a disruptive post here [331], which I should perhaps have replaced with {{RPA}} However, upon restoral of this post by the user, followed by further negative comments, I am at wits end. Due to this persistent incivility I am disengaging for the time being from the issue. I am turning to this noticeboard in an attempt to find a more civil and collaborative environment for collaboration in the future, allowing consensus to develop through the RfC. I hope this will let arguments stand for themselves, without disruption or further refactoring. CFCF (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

CFCF accused me of "intentional failure to consider the subject of the issue" and of "being WP:NOTHERE" [332], so I warned him to watch it with the casting of aspersions [333]. That I did it in a humorous and memorable way is irrelevant.

I might also mention that CFCF went out of his way to assert that a list of sources I had given (with quotations) "ostensibly" say what I quoted them as saying [334], which questions my truthfulness -- a most serious AGF failure bordering on a personal attack. What CFCF calls misconstrued points, and posted comments that have been inflammatory and disruptive to the collaborative process, others might call "effective refutation of his narrow and rigid personal interpretation of guidelines and policies". EEng 16:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

But do you always have to be such a wiseass when you are refuting another editor's narrow and rigid personal interpretation of guidelines and policies. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - My use of ostensibly was to signify that I have not confirmed the usage (not having access to most of the books).

It ought be noted that what is being referred to as putting "in a humorous memorable way", was something I did not take as such, but as an directed insult using vulgar language and the image of a behind (please see the comment, which is still live).

It followed my comment that expressly noted my offence in how verbatim quoting of guideline was claimed to be "strawmanning", calling into question the guideline [335]. I further fail to see how the following revision is to be taken as anything but a directed insult [336]. CFCF (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"Tsk, tsk" -ing someone is not "warning in a humorous and memorable way", it's extremely patronizing and only serves to raise tensions, not lower them. Fram (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I would say that EEng's response is no worse than the assumptions of bad faith by CFCF in the message that EEng was responding to, so I'd call it a wash. Everyone, go forth and sin no more. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Not long ago, EEng was also at ANI explaining their humorous and memorable references to boners and cocks. Now we've got a humorous and memorable reference to an ass, with a visual aid. This one isn't even funny, which was EEng's defense of the "cock up" joke. Judged solely on its comic value, "ass Persians" doesn't even work as a pun. What is the purpose of EEng's repeated sexually-charged comedy tour? Toughpigs (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a new thing, see WP:ASSPERSIANS for the whole collection. It's a play on the frequent misspellings of WP:ASPERSIONS. EEng's humor can often have the effect of diffusing conflict in a way that's less combative than directly telling someone to stop casting aspersions against them (which CFCF does seem to have done by calling him WP:NOTHERE). I've endorsed blocks/sanctions against EEng before when they're deserved, but...really? This is why we're here again? Ass Persians? EVERYONEIS SO UNHAPPYAN/IIS REALLY CRAPPYBurma-shave The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Id argue the "joke" could have been made without having to use a picture of a statue ass. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I can say it was not only that comment, but the full interaction that led me to post here. I repeatedly felt myself and my arguments being belittled, being told that I have claimed things that I never did, or met by direct insults. That particular diff is only what broke the camels back. I do not find editing in such an environment pleasant, and it makes me want to avoid Wikipedia. CFCF (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Some might be appreciative and don't mind EEng's humor, others not so much as evidenced by the multiple complaints filed here at ANI in relation to his sometimes crude humorous comments. So keeping in mind the diverse personalities of our editors, and him not knowing how his humor might be received, wouldn't it be best practice for EEng not to assume everyone will think his humor is always going to be acceptable. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I will add that the user in question also mocks other users for their inability to understand what they're trying to say, but often slips in "clarification edits" along without anyone prompting it, implying that their communication wasn't clear in the first place. Seasider53 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

FFS, are we six? Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

EEng has been blocked in July 2020 ("Gravedancing and trolling"), February 2021 ("continued incivility"), March 2021 ("insulting a BLP subject after being asked to stop"), January 2022 (that block rationale not easily to interpret), June 2022 (3RR), January 2024 ("Long pattern of incivility towards other editors") and July 2024 ("Personal attacks or harassment") - so that's 7 blocks to date, at least 5 of which relate to incivility/harassment/trolling. When is enough enough? GiantSnowman 17:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That was kind of my point, we are not 6 year olds and no its not big or clever but is disruptive. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

As a point of order, the February 2021 and March 2021 blocks were overturned as clearly unjustified. Same for many of the blocks before that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that, The Wordsmith; you are a gentle(wo?)man and a scholar. I'll just add that in several cases, the blocking admin ended up actually apologizing, and in several others, the block was placed in explicit recognition of my "extensive block history" -- of overturned blocks. EEng 17:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

OK - some of your many blocks were overturned. Do you think that justifies your continued style of editing, which seems to repeatedly get you in bother? GiantSnowman 18:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

EE’s already covered his entire history of blocks here, if you’re interested. I find EE hilarious (and I ain’t made a secret of it) so, to avoid bias, don’t really want to throw a bone into this dogfight. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

POV-pushing by User:Hystricidae21

Hystricidae21 (talk · contribs) has been adding essay-like content promoting a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist POV to various articles. I have reverted a few of his additions, but he's been at it for a whole year and, while some of it was immediately reverted, much of it went unnoticed. For example, Compulsory cartel contained several paragraphs claiming (in Wikivoice) that public healthcare was "economic totalitarianism" for the better part of a year. I have warned him on his talk page that this is completely unacceptable and asked him to familiarize himself with WP:NPOV.

Due to the extent of his activities, I don't know if I am qualified to handle this by myself. Should I just revert everything to the latest version before he made any edits? Some of his changes may be good, but there's so much to go through, and what about later changes by other people?

I originally posted this at WP:NPOVN, but was told to post it here. Un assiolo (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You need to tell him (on his take page) about this ani (see top of this page). Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I did, 8 minutes before you posted. Is the fact that I didn't use the template a problem? It says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~ to do so. (emphasis mine). I understood this as meaning that the template is not mandatory. Pinging User:LilianaUwU who subsequently added the template (immediately below my message saying that I have reported his activity at ANI). --Un assiolo (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That seems to be a thread about the NPOV thread, not this ani, however, someone has done it for you. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

So the problem is that I didn't add a new heading? Neither did User:LilianaUwU. She posted it immediately under my message. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)]

No the problem is you did not link to THIS ani. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven, they did. Are you reading the same user talk page? Celjski Grad (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? I included a link to ANI followed by a link to this section, which I thought would be helpful since the user has never done anything outside mainspace and may not know how to navigate. That's more than the template does. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You also need to share diffs here. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Here (see lead section), also here, adding political content unrelated to the topic of the article, more of the same. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)