Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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:Toa_Nidhiki05: WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.

Toa Nidhiki05 has been guarding the hell out of the Republican Party (United States). They instantly revert any change against the status quo that they don't like, citing a need for consensus, then don't actually engage with discussions around those edits except to call for moratoriums on even talking about them while spewing bad faith assumptions, or trying to wikilawyer away disagreements. I'm not a long term editor at Republican Party (United States) and, frankly, don't want to be, but in the limited number of days I've been editing on this it's clearly an issue.

diff

diff

diff

diff

(The main thing I'm trying to draw attention to in those diffs is the declaration that an edit "will not be made'. Please see below before taking claims of local consensus at face value)

Most recently he decided to just blanket slander multiple editors who disagree with him while again calling for a moratorium on changes he doesn't like. diff

More specifically this line:

Rather than persuade editors, it seems editors are attempting to force these changes through. (right below an entire thread that was made before a controversial change specifically to discuss said change)

diff

I feel this last one is the most important, because it highlights a pattern of what's been going on here: Toa telling editors a local consensus has been reached, and that they're free to read back, and then citing their own requests obliquely as if they're others ("or called for a moratorium on changes") and, most importantly, creating an in-group of who is allowed to weigh in on article content (Only one active discussion-engaged user). Other editors, like @Cortador, have been calling them out for this as well.

Note, actually doing what Toa asks and looking back through old talk page discussions on this largely results in finding Toa telling people the same thing then, too.

There's a content dispute under-riding most of this, which frankly is probably best adjudicated at this point by literally anyone other than Toa or myself. The meat of this ANI is wholly independent of the content dispute, except insofar as Toa's apparently not been engaging in the most NPOV way with editors when it comes to sourcing requirements. I want to point out that despite Toa's reality-bending insistence I've been pretty open to admitting a different proposal for a change from others was better than my own idea. In an attempt to placate his revert-happy self on what I was sure would be controversial (removing 'conservative' from the dominant ideology of the party) I started by making a discussion thread highlighting that the sources that were being used didn't make that claim, including direct quotes from the papers. Except for admonishing editors for wanting change, he's mostly elected to just straight up ignore any substantive discussion over the exact thing he's reverting. This is clearly OWN and POV editing, and it looks like previous attempts to caution him for edit warring were met with 'Are you fucking kidding me.'. I'd honestly like to bow out of editing that page entirely for a while for so many reasons, but I don't want to leave it in a state where one editor has declared an article theirs.

Addendum: this TBAN for the same behaviour is being discussed, but the link is buried in the discussion.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The page-in-question should be stable & at status quo. Best to work out content disputes on the page-in-questions' talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that the content dispute should be decided here. To be clear, 99% of the content dispute is moving one sentence earlier in the article and removing a source that failed verification. We're not talking about seeing how fast we can invoke Godwin's Law in a page about the GOP (though admittedly some editors are). I genuinely don't think the content in question actually substantial at all, which is why one editor increasingly spiralling into mudslinging over it while refusing to discuss changes beyond categorical rejection or highly mobile goalposts for inclusion is a problem. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I am out of town, and don't have time to reply fully to all of this. But the general dispute ongoing at the page is twofold: Warrenmck wants the page to define the party in the inbox as "far-right", and they want "conservatism" to be removed as a majority faction. There doesn't appear to be support for either of these things (an ongoing RfC on the "far-right" designation is trending a pretty strong consensus in opposition, and removing conservatism appears to be equally unlikely to reach consensus). This is a content dispute involving, at this point, probably at least a dozen editors, and should be resolved on the page.

What Warrenmck does not seem to understand is that changing political positions on pages is something that comes up all the time. None of the arguments presented have been new, and a local consensus has been developed with the collaboration of many editors. This took a lot of hard work and compromise to reach.

For editors like myself - who worked on the present consensus versions - this is not a fresh, new discussion. It's more or less an endless string of discussions that have been ongoing for years. This is why several other editors - not just myself (and I'm not even the one who came up with the idea - that was Czello. I was actually the third to support one) have supported a moratorium on said discussions. There is nothing wrong with discussing a moratorium on repetitive topics that repeatedly emerge on talk pages.

I will also note that, I have not, in fact, blindly opposed any changes to the article. I did not object when “right-wing populism” was added as a majority faction; I didn’t even participate in the discussion, iirc, because it was such an obvious changed. And in this discussion I've added additional citations to address Warrenmck's concerns. However, what they want does not appear to be more sources, but instead their preferred changes. It goes without saying that the article is not mine, I have never claimed it is mine, and I have no interest in subverting or going against whatever consensus is reached through talk page discussions, rather than brute force. Toa Nidhiki05 15:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Once again, what I was calling for was including "far right" as a minor faction, per the an absolute ocean of reliable sources. Even you explicitly stated in the RfC it's a minor ideology. You've accused me of wanting to make the page about the republicans being far right multiple times now, and the only time you've responded to me saying that 's not what I'm doing here was to say that having it on the page at all slanders the party as that

Except the RfC isn’t about labelling the party far right, it’s about naming it as a minor ideology, which you here acknowledge?

and you responded

Which is labeling the party as it.

Which isn't how NPOV editing works.

Beyond that I simply don't believe that Toa is accurately representing the discussions that are there now or the historical discussions around local consensus.

I will also note that, I have not, in fact, opposed any changes. In fact, I've added additional citations to address Warrenmck's concerns. However, what they want does not appear to be more sources, but instead their preferred changes

Please, any admin reading this exact quoted line, immediately go look at Toa's engagement on this exact point here. Toa added a source paper, I read the source paper, removed it because it simply didn't make the claim it was being used to make, and instantly started a discussion thread asking for sources and explicitly explaining my removal. I did not make the change I knew would be controversial, that was a different editor later. I also quoted the specific line in the paper which discussed why it wasn't an approprioate source for the claim it was being used for in my removal (diff) Which Toa almost completely ignored. This is simply not an accurate recounting of events.

This is why I think this is an ANI issue. Toa routinely misrepresents or overstates consensus and historical discussions, while running off editors who don't agree, then claiming that only the long term editors should have a meaningful say. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Please find a time where I said you “want to make the page about the Republicans being far right”. I don’t believe I’ve ever said that. I have said you clearly have strong views about the subject, though.

What you are referencing was a typo. Notice that it’s not even a complete sentence? Toa Nidhiki05 16:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Literally in this ANI:

Warrenmck wants the page to define the party in the inbox as "far-right"

That is not the same thing as defining far-right as a minor ideology of the party. Also from the talk page:

Its exclusion is not odd, as academic sources do not widely or generally or even often refer to the party as far-right, which is typically associated with literal fascism or Nazism. Believe it or not, this has been discussed dozens of times - including several in the last few months - and editors have reached a consensus that academic sources broadly refer to the party as center-right or right-wing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You are making a distinction without a difference. Toa Nidhiki05 16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Involved: These are content disputes and should be dealt with at that level. Springee (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Toa_Nidhiki05 appears to have been exceedingly cordial and professional in the differences you provided above. I see no wrongdoing on their part. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  I cannot disagree, except I think that speaking authoritatively about how a change will not be done regardless of sources provided simply breaks WP:OWN:

  An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.

  The other problem is that the consensus they're pointing to doesn't seem to substantially exist. There's an abundance of "go see the old discussions" which themselves say "go see the old discussions" and so on. It's artificial, and it's being used to prevent edits that users don't like, as opposed to edits they can substantively object to. Seriously, just look at his presentation of these previous discussions here [diff] and go back in the archives. While I'm sure there were discussions at some (possibly many) points, there's a hell of a lot of reliable sources being objected to there on a house of cards.

  Additionally, I think that's masking the fact that they're simply refusing to engage editors while reverting the article to the status quo. They're basically holding the article hostage by pointing people to an ongoing discussion they're not engaging in (diff, or on the talk pages with "see previous discussion" as a threadkiller). So the choice editors are left with is to edit war over an inclusion, or give up. The issue isn't that there's a content dispute here, it's that someone has WP:WIKILAWYERed their way into objecting to a specific edit on an ongoing basis, always maintaining a layer of "content dispute". As Cortador said, "Do you have a content-based case to make here or do you just declare editor's contributions to be "low quality" if you disagree with them?" Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  It’s worth pointing out that Toa repeated an argument that the “far-right” claim hadn’t been made by academic sources as the core of the prior consensus while ardently refusing to respond to several editors providing academic sources. Civility can mask sealioning. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  When I recently provided academic sources I was informed that A) Anything associating the Republicans with the alt-right should be automatically treated as unreliable and B) that far-right should not be added unless it could be demonstrated that there is a clear consensus of all RS regarding it. I should mention that this requirement was put in place after I disclosed that Google Scholar has 53,000 entries for the search string "republican party far-right". IE: the idea of cross-referencing everything is patently absurd. So, yes, there aer WP:CPUSH problems at that page. That said I think they're significantly more complicated than a single editor acting with an WP:OWN mentality. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Springee appears to be actively involved in this, and there's comments on their guarding against "far right" in the article going back at least two years of the same argumentation pattern and misrepresenting sourcing requirements and consensus. diff diff diff and diff. I agree this seems more like a CPUSH. For example, this was directed at Springee from the last diff:

  The same failed arguments have been made in several similar discussions of late

  Basically, the patten we're seeing at Republican Party (United States) appears to be ongoing with several of the key users objecting to changes on identical grounds year after year without ever really explaining why these aren't open for discussion in light of sourcing standards. @The Four Deuces appears to be engaging in an identical pattern in many of the same articles. TFD, Toa, and Springee show up all over wikipedia making the same tortured arguments around academic sourcing and consensus when someone mentions "far-right" in an article. Every single time it's a complete slamming of the door of the possibility that RS could ever be met for the inclusion of information they deem controversial. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how I'm supposed to reply to a vague accusation. Springee (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, being vague wasn't my intention. I think you're engaging in the same CPUSH behaviour as Toa, just maintaining civility much better. It's possible to find years worth of identical argumentation from you on this across many articles, always with the same anything-other-than-excluding-content-is-unacceptable, and above you're continuing the relatively nonsensical arguments from Toa with Simonm223 in asking for unique sourcing standards for a claim you really don't like. You pick this fight very consistently on Wikipedia, usually with the same arguments.

  If I'm way out of line here I'm fine accepting a boomerang, but I see several editors going way off the deep end in trying to prevent a very specific change to articles on Wikipedia that seems to be coming from a place of stonewalling diff diff Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I hope my arguments have been consistent because I try to pay strict adherence to content policy and guidelines. TFD (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Accusing other editors of making "low quality" edits instead of making an argument isn't helpful or professional, and neither is demanding a unique standard for edits one is opposed to. Cortador (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article. This discussion should be closed. Nemov (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Respectfully WP:CPUSH and WP:SEALION are behavioural problems. Simonm223 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

As a comment, Toa’s response to multiple users adding failed verification tag was to go tag all the sources making a political claim they don’t like as failing verification en masse (diff).

while these all on their own may be legitimate tags (though other editors have been removing some tags as apparently they did pass verification) I think taking this in the context of them actually refusing to discuss the failed verification tag that lead to this spree at all makes this pretty WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour to me. If Toa wants to discuss bad edits, that’s good and fine. But they can’t have a policy of using bad edits from other people to deflect from any discussion around edits they themselves feel are valid. Apparently he doesn't have enough time to fully engage with this ANI or any of the discussions around his own edits, but does have enough time to read dozens of articles and point by point articulate his issue with each over at the talk page for Republican Party (United States). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Toa was TBANed for this exact behaviour in 2022. The reason given at the time was

Toa Nidhiki05's participation in these two discussions (Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Voter rights in the body and Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Add a wikilink at the top of the Voting rights section) amounts to nothing less than disruptive editing and has the effect of stonewalling their progress. There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any baseis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and which appears to already have a rough consensus in favor of it.

This is the same pattern of behaviour he's accused of here, for the same thing, and that resulted in an indefinite TBAN. Springee and TFD are again involved there, as well. This should make it pretty clear that, civility aside, this is a problem. A long, ongoing one. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I was kind of hinting above with my "there is a problem but it's more complicated than just Toa Nidhiki05" that I thought this whole situation might be relevant to WP:AE more than WP:AN/I. Oh well, it's here now, but I would suggest that if we aren't able to resolve the issues going on at that page here then it will likely end up at AE in short order. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I agree having seen more of this being a systematic issue since making this ANI. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the issue is that good faith editor don't agree. A failure to get consensus to add a controversial claim is hardly proof of CPUSH. Additionally as the number of accused editors goes up it looks more like a true content dispute vs a single editor problem. I will also note that Toa has done quite a bit to review some of the references used to support the disputed changes and makes a good case that they don't support the claims within the edits being pushed into the article. Springee (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Their source review is, if I assume good faith, rushed and sloppy. They have been reverting material that is reliably sourced and then calling said sources a "Gish Gallop." Furthermore they have ignored the multitudinous reliable sources I've mentioned at article talk and, frankly, seem reticent to actually have a discussion rather than simply making pronouncements at article talk. A complaint, I will note, I do not have with your comportment despite my characterization of this problem as broader than just one editor. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Their source review is, if I assume good faith, rushed and sloppy.

And very clearly retaliatory. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article". If the source does not back up the cited claim, it shouldn't be used. This is... pretty ordinary stuff, actually.

You'll notice I did not remove the broader claims, or change the in-article text. All I have done is trim sources that do not back up the claim given, which is something Wikipedia citations are required to do. If you reaction to a source review that results in no changes to prose is to file a report rather than discuss, challenge, or revert, you might have a hard time being successful with that. Toa Nidhiki05 15:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings

Would you please provide the diff where you substantively responded to a thread made directly about a source you added not passing verification, which you were pinged in and did actually participate without addressing the substance of? Because that would go a long way towards convincing me this isn't a smokescreen of policy to mask more sealioning in a thin veneer of civility and plausible deniability. How about addressing any of the comments providing the exact types of sources you were asked for? When I did provide a reason and eventually reverted your addition, you just reverted with "nah it didn't fail verification" ignoring both the edit summary prior and the entire talk page discussion about the entire situation. As I said there, neither I nor any other editor personally needs to run improvements on the article through you, personally. If you object without engaging or explaining, it's perfectly reasonable for editors to simply ignore your perspectives. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

As multiple other users have said above: this is a content dispute. I'll be more than happy to talk on the talk page, but I'm not going to be litigating a content dispute here at AN/I any further. Toa Nidhiki05 15:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No. The content dispute isn't the problem. As I mentioned earlier in this thread I don't agree with Springee about some of their interpretations of appropriate content but I don't think their comportment is problematic except in as far as it gives cover to yours. Rather it's two things: how you insist sources should be interpreted and how you engage with other editors that has become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The diff I asked for had nothing to do with the content and everything to do with you attempting to paint other editors as sidestepping a process you yourself have refused to engage in as a matter of policy, apparently going back far enough for you to have already received an indef TBAN for the exact same behaviour. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

As a perfect example, in [1] this diff they claim that the New York Times piece does not support referring to the Republican party as right-wing populist. This is because it says that the party isn't just a touch more populist. It then compares the Republican party under Trump to the racist populist George Wallace and the fascist propagandist Father Coughlin. This, to me, is more than sufficient to support "right-wing populism" but, because the article uses simile, Toa Nidhiki05 calls it a "Gish Gallop". Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok here's the correct quote now: The overarching pattern is clear. In election after election, Democrats underperformed among traditional Democratic constituencies during the Trump era. Sometimes, it was merely a failure to capitalize on his unpopularity. Other times, it was a staggering decline in support. Together, it has shattered Democratic dreams of building a new majority with the rise of a new generation of young and nonwhite voters.
This overarching pattern requires an overarching explanation: Mr. Trump’s populist conservatism corroded the foundations of the Democratic Party’s appeal. It tapped into many of the issues and themes that once made these voters Democrats.
While the damage was mostly concealed by Mr. Trump’s unpopularity, the backlash to his norm-shattering presidency drew the Democratic Party even further from its traditional roots. The extent of that damage is now clear.

Now this article does compare the Democratic party as a whole to Trump on a purely linguistic level. However context matters here. The first line of the article is It has long been clear that the rise of Donald J. Trump meant the end of the Republican Party as we once knew it. The NYT has as table-stakes that the Republicans were transformed by Trump. In this context I think it's a reasonable argument that "Trump" here is a stand-in for the party of Trump. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, the New York Times introduces the article by saying, "Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, makes sense of the latest political data."[2] Editorial and opinion commentary says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Therefore this is not an acceptable source.

It disruptive that so many unreliable sources have been presented in the discussion pages. It wastes edtiors' time as they discuss sources that cannot be used.

My suggestion is that going forward, unreliable sources that are presented should be struck out and editors who persist in presenting them should face sanctions. That will allow editors to focus on what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

That's an inappropriate request for this venue. I would suggest such a significant punitive action would require the full weight of an arbitration case to be enacted. Furthermore an statistical analyst working for a reliable publication, interpreting statistics, is rather different from a straightforward op-ed. Remember what WP:RSEDITORIAL says When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. Simonm223 (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

In this case the author is a journalist with a BA in politics IOW he has the same background one would expect for the writer of an analysis in a newspaper. Furthermore, when policy says that this type of source is "rarely reliable," the onus is on the person presenting it to explain why it should be deemed reliable. TFD (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page. Maybe it would be best if editors heavily involved there, would avoid each other & allow newcomers room to give their input. Might lower the heat. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page.

It isn't, for what it's worth. It's about a consistent pattern of behaviours going back years that came out, mostly, in the thread after the RfC, though partially there as well. Beyond that, good call. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Is this the type of report that would be better addressed at WP:AE? ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, probably? I misjudged how long this had been going on and the scale of it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be better suited to AE except that it's here now and AE tends not to like having an issue open at two venues. Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why you consider this a behavioral issue rather than a content dispute. I follow a lot of articles that attract editors with fringe views: fascism is left-wing, cultural marxism and Jewish bolshevism are not just conspiracy theories, aspartame is dangerous, climate science is unsettled, etc. Some editors explain why these views are wrong, while others point to previous discussions.

If anyone should be banned, it isn't editors who insist that articles reflect reliable sources, but editors who try to inject fringe theories unsupported by reliable sources.

On your user page, you mention that you have written peer-reviewed articles in geophysics and vulcanology. Certainly you would not rely on an analysis by a journalist as reliable in those papers. For example, you would not use it for explaining why a particular volcano erupted. TFD (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Whatever standards volcanologists demand from academic papers isn't relevant here, or anywhere on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has its own standards for reliable sourcing. You can, of course, challenge those, but the place for that is the sources noticeboard. Cortador (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

See Some types of sources: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."

Can you explain why in determining how to desribe a political group you prefer an article by a journalist rather than a political scientist writing in a peer-reviewed publication? Do you think it is prudent to substitute a consensus academic opinion with that of a journalist?

If I want to know how to categorize a poltical group or know why volcanoes erupt, my go to source isnt't a newspaper. Instead, I would look for an article by an expert. TFD (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I have not claimed that I prefer news sources over academic sources, not that news sources override academic consensus. You are asking me to defend a position I haven't actually taken i.e. you are strawmanning. Cortador (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

If I am following this properly, via the thread on the linked talk page:

1. The OP made a thread on Talk:Republican Party (United States) saying that we should change the article to say that it was "anti-intellectual" and "far-right".
2. Toa_Nidhiki05 said that this was a bad idea, and some stuff about previous consensus against doing this.
3. ???
4. AN/I thread

Is there anything I'm missing here? jp×g🗯️ 21:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Sealioning, a previous TBAN for identical behaviour, and multiple editors weighing in saying this is a CPUSH issue? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 23:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You've said I'm guilty of sealioning three times in this thread, but as far as I can tell you haven't actually defined what you think that means, or what I've done. It's a pretty specific set of behavior - can you explain what I've done that qualifies as sealioning?

But to answer JPxG: yeah, that's essentially it. Like I said above, it doesn't look like either of Warrenmck's proposed changes will make it into the article, and I'm surprised this content dispute hasn't been closed yet. Toa Nidhiki05 23:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You have refused to engage editors in the exact process you demand they engage in, you put forward sourcing standards which, when met, you completely dodge. On one hand you ask editors to discuss and respect consensus, on the other you wield prior consensus as a cudgel to prevent a change you don’t like and have made it abundantly clear that the sourcing standards you demand are not actually sourcing standards you’ll accept, rather, to quote an admin in your last TBAN: There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any basis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines. You’re engaging in vindictive editing patterns, which evidence has also been provided for. You have refused to articulate the actual substance of prior consensus other than pointing at it and saying “consensus, consensus, consensus” and when the exact arguments that lead to said consensus (apparently, you’ve still never linked a prior discussion) are being addressed and met you ignore the editor, as multiple people here have pointed out.

You’ve been doing this for years and were TBANed for it in 2022. Your attempt at denying it here rings hollow when multiple editors have been very explicit and provided diffs for sealioning behaviour. Im frankly a bit surprised at @JPxG’s rapid read of the situation considering the evidence of a TBAN for the exact behaviour raised here and multiple editors chiming in saying they see a WP:CPUSH. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat this link which is referred to above but kind of hidden, here is the discussion that lead to the 2022 topic ban: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive312#Toa Nidhiki05, just in case anyone wants to review it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s also worth pointing out that their reply to @JPxG engages in some of the direct behaviour they’re being called out for here: seemingly reasonably asking for a discussion while ignoring that what they’re asking for was already provided without them participating

You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings

In a vacuum, this looks like a completely reasonable editor engaged in a very civil discussion around edits. In practice this was already done before this comment, and Toa refused to engage in the discussion except one about the retaliatory edits, i.e. only edits they personally felt failed verification were up for discussion, not those they felt didn’t. Here they tell me I’m free to undo the source review, but apparently only on the sources they tagged as unreliable because the ones I tagged, evidenced, and started a discussion thread about were unilaterally removed, twice, with a simple claim that it didn’t fail verification diff diff with no attempt at engaging in the discussion thread about this exact thing except to tell me I’m “very passionate about this” and I shouuld stop editing diff diff.

A content dispute isn’t possible to properly adjudicate if one party is refusing to engage, then pointing to prior consensus. Toa has created a situation where they and their ephemeral prior consensus have right of review on an article. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• As I expected, @Warrenmck: - your claims are simply baseless. Consider this my final response to them.
• First off, let's talk about my topic ban. No, I did not get topic banned for sealioning. It was for disruptive behavior at the Stacey Abrams page - frankly, it was embarrassing, and the sanction was warranted. The fact you're having to resort to a years-old incident instead of right now, though, is pretty telling in terms of the merit of this report.
• Your claims of sealioning ring hollow because you still cannot define what POV I am pushing - I'm still not even convinced you know what sealioning is. Meanwhile, the moment you hopped onto the Republican Party page you demanded it be changed to list anti-intellectualism and far-right as ideologies, and then threaten to add said content unilaterally despite uniform opposition from other editors. See the problem here? I've behaved civilly, while your general response to... any sort of disagreement is make frivolous claims against me. If anyone's behavior should be on watch here, it is yours, because it's been utterly ridiculous.
• You seem extremely caught up on what I told you during your initial proposal here - how I told you your edit would not be accepted, and that while this is a topic you're clearly passionate about, it might be best for you to step away from it if you're unable to distance your personal feelings. I think everything I said is correct. Your proposal was bad. It didn't add any new information to the table, it isn't backed up by high-quality academic sources, and effectively all it's done is waste time. Like I said: your proposal may have been made in good faith, but it is not going to be accepted. And I was right! The RfC you started (after an initial discussion where nobody agreed with you, and an earlier attempt you made at an RfC that was malformed) has opposes ahead of supports by over a 2:1 margin. Your proposal to remove conservatism has been received as equally poorly.
• Similarly, your response to my source review wasn't to contest changes on the talk page or revert them - but instead, to accuse me here of "retaliation"; as far as I can tell, the only one you directly commented on at the talk page is to agree with me.
• Instead of looking inward and reconsidering your contributions, you instead started a frivolous, retaliatory AN/I board discussion that pretty much every uninvolved editor has reacted with bewilderment over.
• I am going to be blunt here: you are wasting my time, you are wasting your time, and you're wasting everyone's time here. Frankly, I think you should strongly consider limiting or ending your involvement in AP2 if your response to a basic content dispute and not getting your way is to post frivolous reports to AN/I. Toa Nidhiki05 13:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  As per link Liz provided above, your topic ban wasn't for disruptive behaviour on the Stacey Abrams page. That page isn't mentioned in the AIN discussion closure comments. The Republican Party article is, and the outcome was a a ban from that page and a topic ban, with the reasons cited being, among others, retaliatory posting, evidence of personal attacks, bludgeoning, and edit-warring. Cortador (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  TN, you have been very selective in what you see at article talk. In one instance you say, regarding the Republican Party's center-right designation, that there should be a moratorium on such discussions because "nothing new" has been presented. That is despite the fact that there are several new peer reviewed sources that contradict center-right and support far-right that have been presented and ignored by you. But the one time I agreed with you regarding a low-quality source you were very fast to point out my agreement in discussion. This is precisely the sort of behaviour that is leading to the complaints of sealioning. Regarding your POV it is that you want to retain the status quo at the page. You don't want to see revision, especially, to any high-level indicators of overall ideology such as infoboxes. That's fine we all have POVs. Mine is that the page is non-neutral calling the Republicans a center-right party. The problem comes when you ignore all evidence that contradicts your POV over the objection of multiple other editors and insist that no sources have been provided despite an abundance of high-quality sources being provided. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  A professional paid editor frankly should have a much more complete understanding of WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:POV. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Nothing you said there replies to the post you responded to. This feels like a gish gallop. One with a reasonable number of falsehoods, at that. For example:

  Meanwhile, the moment you hopped onto the Republican Party page you demanded it be changed to list anti-intellectualism and far-right as ideologies, and then threaten to add said content unilaterally despite uniform opposition from other editors.

  Why not, for the folks at ANI reading along, explain the context in which I said I was going to unilaterally add far-right in? Hmm? Here's a diff.

  1. You failed to actually demonstrate there was a consensus, as one didn't exist in the place you directed me to.

  2. Neither you nor Springee, who you've been tag-teaming with on this exact edit for years, once articulated why it "wasn't going to be included" other than to state tautologically that it was not

  3. In the absence of any substantive objection, WP:RS material should be added in.

  WP:ONUS doesn't assume a stonewalled refusal to engage, and if the only substance to the objection I'm getting is a vague statement about an unreferenced consensus and WP:IDONTLIKEIT then yeah, I'm going to edit it in. I'm very used to editing in contentious article spaces and this isn't the first time I've seen this approach used to keep out changes. You can point to your civility until the cows come home but if it's masking POV editing that needs to be addressed. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• If you're going to accuse @Springee: of something, you could at least do them the decency of tagging them. That being said - the idea I've been tag-teaming with them for years on this is silly, because the page didn't have a political position listed until late last year (something you'd know if you... read the talk page archives, like you claim you have), so I'm not exactly sure what you think has been going on here.
• Moreover: there is, in fact, a consensus. I'm fairly confident I've pointed it out to you, but it was developed in the talk page in archives 32-34; there's not a single thread to pinpoint because it took place over numerous threads. Given what you've said above, however, I don't think you actually did ever read those discussions. The fact you're simply unable to accept that a local consensus exists (or, evidently, the fact that editors do not agree with your proposed changes by a 2:1 margin) is on you.
• With that, I'm done. If you want to waste your time litigating a content dispute at AN/I, go ahead. I'm no longer engaging with this. Toa Nidhiki05 15:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Others should note that this is the exact same pattern of behaviour that Warrenmck and I both highlighted previously: selectively responding to arguments that they can refute while ignoring those they cannot, pointing to a vaguely defined local consensus without pointing to a specific decision, and a fair bit of diversion with the whole complaint of not tagging @Springee, who is already quite thoroughly engaged in this thread. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Why are you presenting arguments that can be refuted? TFD (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think I am, being honest, especially since you and I agree on source quality and I've taken great care to base my arguments on a large number of reliable peer reviewed academic sources rather than news media. But there are multiple editors involved in this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm generally following this discussion. I think it would be helpful if we all try to assume good faith. It's clear there is a disagreement here. If editors feel they have successfully made a case against the status quo and feel the objectors are wrong I would suggest starting a RfC to confirm the answer. That's the best process for establishing that a consensus exists. I would also note that, right or wrong, rather than pushing edits into the article when consensus etc isn't clear, those wanting change should start a RfC so we can at least finish with a declared consensus on the question. We all ready have a "far-right" RfC open so half of this fight should be addressed when that one closes. Springee (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Warrenmck, you've replied to this discussion 20 times since you started it. I advise you to reign it in a bit, as this has been treading towards WP:BLUDGEONING. You don't need to reply to every single comment in this discussion. Just mentioning this because the constant replies actually dissuaded me from reading through it all. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I can back away Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Reading through this, it does seem that Toa is engaged in polite POV pushing and dismissing any source they dislike, along with some WP:POINTy tagging in retaliation for their own cites being questioned. At this point, I think an WP:AE filing for the American Politics CTOP is needed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you please explain what POV I am pushing here?

Additionally: I want to emphasize that my source checks have resulted in no change to the prose of the article - this is because each of the source groupings (which had over a half-dozen, or verging on a dozen citations each) have at least one or more source(s) that actually meet the claim in question, and I think the claims in question are, demonstrably, pretty accurate. The source reviews are simply removing cases of citation overkill that don't actually meet the specific claims in question. As far as I can tell, none of these citation groupings were added by Warrenmck or other involved editors in question here; I didn't object on page to the inclusion of content related to right-wing populism, I didn't object to it being added to the infobox, and I didn't object to it being added to the lead - and I don't object to the inclusion of said content now. The only thing I object to is the inclusion of citations that don't back up claims. Do you have any specific objections to the sources that I've tagged? Toa Nidhiki05 15:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I've been heavily involved in editing this page with Toa for a while now, although I haven't been that focused on it recently. Basically, what happened is that several months ago there was a general consensus over what to call the factions of the Republican Party and its ideological position. We used a lot of academic sources, and Toa was helpful in this regard. There's a lot of back and forth about whether or not to call it center-right to right-wing or just right-wing or right-wing to far-right. From my understanding, the majority of sources supporting calling it far-right are opinion pieces or slang in news articles, although I think a case could be made that the party is right-wing and not center-right if a few more good sources came out that specifically said that. (This may have changed, again, I haven't been that involved but I probably should be reading this now.)

I don't 100% remember as it was about a year ago now, but I think I added a lot of citation overkill to the page in the past. I think going through and removing some of the excess is a good thing, and I don't believe Toa is attempting to "remove" any content on the page. Seeing as this is a heated and controversial topic, I think it is natural that there is a lot of colorful discussion over it. BootsED (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'm losing the point of this discussion as it has become rather forumy so going back to the very beginning, the complaint is that User:Toa Nidhiki05 is showing ownership over one article on the Republican Party. Is this still the main concern or has it expanded? Please give me the summary version so I can tell whether or not any action needs to be taken or whether this discussion can be closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  It has expanded to a general CPUSH concern, and I think AE is the better venue as this is more than one editor, and probably more than two.

  1. Toa has been sealioning and ignoring contributions they don’t like, then insisting those contributions don’t exist. I.e. repeatedly asking for academic sources, refusing to even see that those have been provided, and then insisting nothing new has been provided and there’s no need to change the prior consensus.

  2. Toa respectfully responds to conversations while artfully dodging any discussion topic which would cause him to have to reflect on his own behaviour or challenge the edits (see: still refusing to engage with discussions around the sources they added which failed verification), but demanding editors engage them at the talk page before any change can be made, then simply not engaging users on the talk page. As a result, the D portion of BRD never happens, and the article never changes, and the edits they want to avoid never happen. Then he points to “this comes up all the time” and requests a moratorium.

  3. He routineley misrepresents facts of discussions, and has done so at length in this thread. That, coupled with some editors taking those misrepresentations at face value, resulted in several users (me among them) feeling highly defensive and like we needed to respond to a constant firehose of bullshit and accusations. See: His mythical consensus. The number of times he’s said “nothing new has been presented” while actively refusing to respond to new information. Insistence that he’s civilly invited people to discuss things on talk pages (which he then doesn’t engage with). He either didn’t remember what his TBAN was for (unlikely) or felt he could get away with straight up gaslighting the admins in the hope nobody would go verify the claim in an ANI. I’m REALLY failing to see any possible good faith reading of that one.

  4. He’s engaging in retaliatory WP:POINT editing, going on a sloppy source failed verification spree in response to one of his sources failing verification. Many of these sources he’s tagging as failing verification do not. For all his civility here at ANI on this he is uninterested in discussing this in detail except to insist he’s right. This has become a mask to avoid talking about the edits he made that fail verification, which in this ANI and at the talk page he’s judiciously dodged while demanding editors engage him on the talk page

  5. Toa has clearly fundamentally understood consensus to be a simple majority. He has argued that in this ANI, he has argued that at the article talk page. In light of this, and the fact that he’s never provided evidence of the aforementioned consensus that isn’t tautological, I’m uncertain why every single edit to the page requires his personal assent, or why other editors should be expected to weigh his unarticulated standards seriously. He also tagged about twenty editors when the RfC came up, which means his understanding of a simple majority and that behaviour combined looks suspect. One editor involved in prior discussions who disagreed with Toa explicitly said they weren’t tagged in that wall of tags.

  6. Toa was indef TBANned for this exact same behaviour at this exact same article, a fact he tried to gaslight this ANI with.

  7. Toa is a professional, paid editor and should have a better understanding of consensus, NPOV, and WP:RS

  8. In a very real way, every single point being discussed here has come up in this ANI, as in the behaviour in question has directly occurred in here. I understand and accept the criticism of the frequency of my responses here, but complex cases are complex cases. Sometimes substantial reading is required to understand what’s happening, and we’ve had a few admins chime in now clearly frustrated with the length of this thread. Uninvolved editors who have read it have seen the issues that multiple users are highlighting, and agreed there are CPUSH and sealioning concerns.

  I don’t know how a case like this can be made in the succinct form you and other admins clearly want. I’m open to feedback and suggestions, but it’s not a great experience as an editor to bring a case to ANI and have uninvolved third parties read it and see the arguments being made and then getting “tl;dr” from the admins.

  I’d be fine with admins closing this and this going to AE instead, considering the full context. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  Points 1 and 2 have been particularly frustrating since the effort required to identify, read and categorize multiple academic sources is significant and having TN ignore these then claim no such sources exist is exasperating. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  Why not open a RfC if you feel the new sources are that strong? I think one of the concerns Toa has rightly noted is that many of the sources, even the academic ones, are being used in ways that are questionable in terms of WP:V. That's not an issue if the sources are put on the talk page first and people get a chance to review both the sources and the proposed change before it's added to the article space. Instead we have had a number of cases where editors push something to the article space first and then get frustrated when those changes are reverted. I feel like CPUSH is often used by editors who may out number others but who's arguments aren't as strong as they may think. If Toa is truly wrong about these changes a RfC will solve the issue (in fact there is a "far right" RfC active right now). If the changes are that obviously correct then I presume a RfC would support the outcome. However, if this is just 3 editors vs 1 in most of the discussions, it's harder to view that as true CPUSH vs just a few like minded editors who haven't convinced others. Again, this can all be solved with a combination of proposing changes first, using a RfC second if a consensus can't be reached via normal discussion. Springee (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• It's incredibly frustrating to be accused to things I have not done, let alone be accused of them by an editor who seeming does not grasp what he is accusing. Before I response - again - to this, I want to way that this is a content dispute, and Warrnmck's proposed edits to the page (adding "anti-intellectualism" and "far-right" to the infobox, and removing "conservatism" as a majority ideology) are, in the ongoing discussions, clearly not going to happen. The current RfC on adding "far-right", which has over a dozen contributors, has editors opposing it by a 2:1 margin. Warrenmck opened this up after it became clear this edit is almost certain not to happen, and numerous uninvolved editors above have said they see nothing wrong. Going to respond succinctly to the claims here:
• 1) Warrenmck has repeatedly refused me of sealioning. However, they haven't said what POV they think I am pushing. They simply appear to dislike what I have told them - that their edit lacks the necessary academic sourcing and consensus to be added, and won't be added as a result. In the RfC, a 2:1 majority of editors have rejected their edit so far.
• 2) This is patently false. You can go to the talk page - literally right now - and see discussions where I am literally discussing the edits I made and debating the source verifications. It's worth noting: not a single source I tagged for removal appears to have been untagged, and these source checks have not impacted the article prose at all. It's simply trimming down claims made with 8-10 sources to only include sources that back up the claims. The claims themselves are fine. The sources are the problem.
• 3) This is Warrenmck once again claiming there is no consensus for the political position on the page, even though I've shown them the archives on the talk page, and other editors here - including BootsED above - have corroborated that there is one. Warrenmck is simply refusing to acknowledge what both myself and other editors are telling them.
• 4) None of the sources that I've tagged have been re-added. In fact, on the talk page you've agreed with my removal of several of them. As I said above: you can literally go to the talk page, right now, and see this being discussed - and none of my source checks have resulted in prose changes to the article. None. If I am POV pushing here, I'm doing a terrible job - Warrenmck is lying.
• 5) This is a really frivolous claim. Pointing out that a 2:1 majority of editors are opposing a proposed change in an RfC is entirely valid. While consensus does not mean majority, I can't recall the last time an RfC for a page addition was accepted (especially for something extremely contentious) when only a third of participants supported said change. Obviously, Warrenmck is going to think they - and by extension, editors that agree with them - have better arguments. But it is ridiculous to suggest sanctioning other users for disagreeing, which is exactly what they are doing here.
• 6) I was topic banned two years ago for disruptive, embarrassing behavior. Warrenmck is insisting I gaslighted here - but I simply forgot this also involved the Republican Party page (this did happen over two years ago!). What I remember vividly was the dispute on the Stacey Abrams page, which was part of this as well. Regardless: my block was not for sealioning. It was essentially for edit warring, and to a lesser degree various other disruptive behaviors (most of which boiled down to a lack of civility, if I remember correctly). More importantly - regardless of whatever happens to me, Warrenmck's edits are not going to happen. There is no stonewalling going on. I am not blocking anything - the 2:1 majority of editors that disagrees with Warrenmck's edits are. As usual, Warrenmck is stretching reality to present a narrative that simply isn't real - whether that's revenge for my opposition to their edits is not up to me to declare.
• 7) This is completely unrelated, and doesn't make any sense. Like above: Warrenmck is repeatedly accusing me of things which either aren't true, or boil down to "I disagree with Toa's editing style/arguments". Rather than accusing me of not understanding how sources work, Warrenmck should maybe consider the fact that the vast majority of editors oppose their edits.
• 8) Warrenmck is not adding anything to the table or being complex. This is a warrantless, baseless waste of time, as uninvolved editors have repeatedly expressed above.
• This is, fundamentally, a content dispute, that should be resolved on the talk page - and it is. There are multiple discussions ongoing about everything in this RfC - including Warrenmck's proposed additions, my source checks, and more. Warrenmck's repeated false or exaggerated claims really fall flat if you actually look at the page, and that's really the thing: content disputes should be litigated on the talk page, not at AE/I. Obviously, Warrenmck can't report everyone who disagrees with their proposals - if he did, there would be over a dozen entries here. So they simply appear to have picked out one user (me). You'll notice in their original claims, they talked about my support for a moratorium on certain topics - what they failed to mention is that two other editors had supported this before I did. They appear to have since dropped this line of attack entirely, but it's indicative of how shoddy this thread is. And again - this is all because of a dispute over a proposed edit that, in an accompanying RfC, has seen 2:1 opposition. I am not the only one objecting to Warrenmck's edits here. Toa Nidhiki05 15:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  Almost everything here has been directly responded to prior to its repetition here, with diffs. I'm going to just hope any admins take the time to read the whole thing, as much as I understand it's a lot. That said, I want to address one quick point that was raised:

  This is Warrenmck once again claiming there is no consensus for the political position on the page, even though I've shown them the archives on the talk page

  Diff to the post Toa is referring to, which contains links to the following:

  • Archive 1 No apparent consensus
  • Archive 2 Only Toa responding, citing prior consensus and sidestepping an academic source in the post he replied to
  • Archive 3 Just Toa saying the same thing again, no local consensus

  This was the only link to prior consensus Toa has provided at any point. It is just, as far as I can tell, Toa referencing his own omnipresent opinion as historical consensus. This is why I said I was going to unilaterally add in far-right in the absence of a substantive, policy-based objection to its inclusion.

I do hope the relative difference in willingness to directly provide diffs to our claims isn't lost on people in the sheer volume of writing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Warrenmck:, at this point you've been:

• 1) Told there's a consensus by me.
• 2) Presented with the talk page archives where the consensus was made.
• 3) Told there was a consensus by others, including the dozen-or-so I notified who had engaged in said discussions, editors posting in the still-ongoing RfC that you started, and editors posting here.

Your response to all of these was to, in turn, accuse me of sealioning (which you still haven't defined, or identified what POV I am pushing), deny you can find it in the archives, and wantonly accuse other editors (including Springee above) of lying about the existence of a consensus (when in fact it does exist). That last one is really concerning - your AN/I thread and key arguments are based, in large part, on literal falsehoods, and they don't just extend to me, but to other users. You might not want to hear there's a consensus, but at this point you are basically riding solo against reality.

At this point, it's time for you to stop beating a dead horse on this subject. You've posted to this thread 24 times now, and yet you can't identify something as fundamental as "what POV is Toa pushing" or acknowledge you're wrong about a core conceit of the thread (the consensus about the political position). It would probably be best if both of us stop responding here to prevent any more time from being wasted by whoever has the unfortunate task of reading this entire thread. Toa Nidhiki05 13:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Toa, you need to show a link to where this consensus was established, or else you've not got a leg to stand on. If the diffs presented by Warren are correct, they don't actually show a consensus resolution, just a lot of back and forth that eventually petered out.

Alternately, one of you needs to start an RfC to actually establish consensus on this topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I did send links, and I notified literally everyone involved in said discussions (because there were more than one!) over the last two years about the RfC as well. As I've said - this consensus was hashed out over multiple threads with dozens of editors. Linking to any one discussion would present a less-than-clear picture of the process (which occurred over months, with discussion from, if I remember correctly, at least a dozen editors).

As I linked, pretty much the entirety of talk page archives 32-34 are devoted to debates over the political position and factions section - in fact, most discussion on the talk page is about this period, which is why multiple editors have supported a moratorium on these endless discussions. The most relevant discussion would be this one. There was an earlier RfC which indicated support for "right-wing", as long as reliable sources backed it up. However, editors later decided this RfC was fatally flawed, as it did not actually include any discussion of what reliable sources said, and no discussion of which sources to use was made; after a thorough look at reliable academic sources, the present wording was agreed upon, and it has been local consensus for over half a year. These discussions included more editors than the original RfC as well.

As I said above: it is NOT just me saying this is the case. Other editors here, including Springee and others at the current RfC on far-right (one of the two proposals Warrenmck has made to this page - both of which seem likely to be rejected), have as well. There is no actual debate on whether there's a local consensus, other than from Warrenmck, who as I said above has accused myself and others of lying about this, and has said you cannot find anything in the archives. Once again though, this is clearly a content dispute, and should be dealt with at the page (as Warrenmck's proposals are, right now), not at AN/I. Toa Nidhiki05 18:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Where are the links to the discussion that ended in a consensus? Your post in which tagged some of the editors supposedly involved doesn't have any such link. Cortador (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

When a topic has been extensively discussed by many editors and a consensus hasn't emerged then we should assume no consensus for the proposed change exists. Even now it appears the discussion is roughly 3:3 for/against. Rather than come here and attempt to litigate a content dispute, the easy, obvious answer is run a RfC to settle the issue. Springee (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Precisely. WHich is why Toa's insistence that consensus has been established is frustrating. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

However, editors later decided this RfC was fatally flawed

I tried finding this in the next two archives, and in Archive 32 Toa starts this thread to relitigate the sources from a just-ended RfC. A complete list of editors who would appear to have determined the prior RfC was fatally flawed is just Toa himself, unless I've missed something. By Archive 33 we see, in this thread:

As other editors have mentioned - the last RfC was not based off reliable sources, and the close itself was only for "right-wing" (even if you accept a consensus without sources as binding). It was based off of editor opinions. Reliable sources have since been shown to establish a broader spectrum.

Which doesn't appear to be even slightly an organic conclusion, rather it's Toa complaining and then later on referring to his own arguments in a plural third person as best I can tell. It also misrepresents the linked RfC, which says the change should be made based off reliable sources. Toa is attempting to use the fact that the specific sources at the RfC weren't adjudicated on to dismiss the conclusion of the RfC as insufficient to change anything.

This is a textbook gish gallop, and we're all falling for it. Toa has refused to engage with the sources they'd asked for from multiple editors while insisting nothing new has been provided, even when those sources meet the exact standard they themselves claimed WP:LOCALCONSENSUS required. We're getting bogged down by half-details and incomplete diffs backing up their arguments from Toa which only ever show a partial picture, and we end up discussing literally anything other than their direct refusal to engage editors, discuss, or back up their claims for consensus. This is WP:SKYBLUE POV editing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

As I said above (which posted just after your comment here), when there have been extensive previous discussions that ended in no consensus it's not reasonable to assume a new consensus with just a few involved editors. Also, at this point with many of the edits in question we are at roughly 3:3. Rather than try to deal with legitimate concerns from TN via ANI, just run a RfC to address the question. Springee (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, Springee, you made the exact same vague arguments as Toa did about sourcing and vague claims of consensus, which you continue here. You are the primary person Toa continuously refers to as "other editors" not just in recent discussions, but in the archives going back years. You were at Toa's last WP:AE (and appeal) insisting there (diff, diff), just as here, that is overblown while going full WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at the multiple editors chiming in saying that Toa has not deigned to actually engage with the sources he himself requests, but rather he ignores them and say nothing new has been presented. I can find references to this behaviour in the talk page in question going as far back as 2021.

You are beyond WP:INVOLVED here and I don't think it's appropriate for you to pretend like you're some neutral mediator trying to calm everyone down when you were an equal partner in dancing around sources provided to you (by @Simonm223) over and over. You went as far as to make the claim that any source that says far-right fails WP:REDFLAG and should be discounted (diff, context that Springee is mapping far-right to "nazi adjascent" is all over that talk page but her if someone needs a direct link) This is not a new development from me, and if I'd really realized how far back the interactions went I'd absolutely have raised your behaviour here as well. I am fully aware for the possiblity of a boomerang with this statement and am 100% willing to have my behaviour scrutinized (bad behaviour that warrants sanctions is bad behaviour that warrants sanctions), but my initial "Hey, do you have a point to make or are you just stonewalling?" wasn't just at Toa:

Springee and you both objected on "possible bias in authors given the source", which isn't the same as a substantive argument that it doesn't belong in the article given a plethora of WP:RS

You and Toa appear to be referencing each other, obliquely, nonstop when discussing consensus. Toa's CPUSH isn't happening in a vacuum. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't recall claiming I wasn't involved. Regardless, if you opened a RfC you could clearly establish if there is or is not a consensus for your desired changes. Springee (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This has now spiralled from a complaint about my responses to your proposals, to allegations of a years-long tag-team conspiracy of editors on the page to suppress content. I'm getting big Pepe Sivlia vibes from this discussion, really. Toa Nidhiki05 16:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I recommend this ANI report be closed. If one wants to add something significant to the Republican Party article? first, get a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. About the first bit. This is better adjudicated at WP:AE. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Harassment and personal attacks

Riventree called another editor and myself a moron, said to track down the editor who approved the DYK, and called me an idiot. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Indef'd. Completely unacceptable behavior. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I agreed, as I wrote on their talk page, but indef for a user who has, generally, been making productive contributions for over 15 years without being blocked once? Daniel Case (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The "track down" comment crossed a huge line, in my book. That's not cool. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It did. And 'indefinite' is not 'infinite'; once they acknowledge their error, the block can be lifted, but not before. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I would further posit that a user who has been around for fifteen years really ought to know not go on the attack like this. There are ways to discuss content you don't agree with, there was no need for the blown gasket here. I edit conflicted with the above I also was going to add that Indefinite does not mean infinite, they can request an unblock as soon as right now. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I endorse this block. The insults were bad enough, but the "track down" comment was utterly unacceptable and quite shocking from an editor with extensive experience. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Noting that the editor has already requested an unblock. Part of their reasoning is this: 'twas a crime of passion (politics got the better of me)- I really would hate for Wikipedia to get drawn into the petty politics of the USA). Since when was a DYK about feminism about petty American politics? I don't usually deal with unblock requests so I'll leave this for another admin, but I don't think they entirely understand why their behaviour is considered problematic. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks to me like they understand what they did was wrong, but aren't quite grokking the why (what with further comments about the DYK being somehow political). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I tried to see if I could convince them to understand and apologize for it, and I'm confused about why a long-time editor would go off the rails about feminism or politics. It wasn't fruitful. I wish you admins good luck. SL93 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Per our own internal classification (e.g. WP:GGTF/WP:GENSEX) it is formally a "contentious topic", and the article feminism is in the {{political ideologies}} navbox. While it might initially seem confusing that a thing called "feminism" could be a political subject, it has been one for about the last century (e.g. suffrage is a central aspect of politics, and civil rights for women in the United States were often pursued through legislation and jurisprudence). Moreover, many issues that do not directly involve the apparatus of government are often referred to as "political" if they are the center of substantial cultural discourse or disagreement. jp×g🗯️ 11:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I have heard people use the phrase "track down" in colloquial speech for decades, and in the overwhelming majority of cases (when applied to a person) it means to get in contact with, or locate:

• "The machine in booth 7 is shorting out again, I'm going to see if I can track down the repairman."
• "Someone track down the QC inspector and tell her these parts are out of spec."
• "When we get into town, we should track down a food truck."

I am not really sure why these sentences would, prima facie, constitute a violent threat. Perhaps if the speaker was loading a shotgun and wearing a blood-spattered "I HATE FOOD TRUCKS!" t-shirt -- but absent that, I would assume they just wanted a sandwich. In this case, I would assume the obvious straightforward meaning of the person's sentence -- that the person responsible should be admonished, or complained to, or sanctioned. jp×g🗯️ 11:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

So okay, I looked up the hook. Apparently, it was this:

... that the retelling of stories can focus on female characters to reflect the feminist perspective?

From time to time we do have some DYK hooks that are controversial or edgy, so I was expecting something like that, but this is not that.

I must confess that not only does this DYK hook not offend me, I am not even sure what part of it (the DYK hook) someone else might find offensive (the DYK hook). The best I can come up with is that bro was having a really bad day and decided to randomly flip out at the first thing that he found mildly politically annoying. This is really not great behavior, and probably it warrants some warning or admonishment or block. However, if someone has been editing for sixteen years with no problem, I feel like this is not a sign of utter incompatibility with a collaborative editing project, and I am inclined to grant the unblock request, as they have explained pretty succinctly what the problem is and I am fairly convinced they will not do it again. On this same page, a few sections up (Special:Permalink/1271035842#User:TTYDDoopliss_and_gender-related_edits), it seems like we have something of a recent precedent when someone is engaging in blatant personal attacks with regard to the topic of feminism: they are handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology, refuse to do so multiple times, and are only blocked when they go too far and it is unrelatedly discovered that they are a sockpuppet. Moreover, we can easily find many other instances of people doing and saying far worse stuff than this, dozens of times, and then all their buddies show up to glaze them at the ANI thread and they get a strong admonishment. I do think it's bad to flip out and call people idiots, but I don't think they need to be forever removed from the project. jp×g🗯️ 10:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

As a compromise between zero and infinity, reduced to two weeks. jp×g🗯️ 11:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@JPxG He very clearly did not explain or show why what he did was wrong, nor did he give an apology (which was halfhearted ay best) until prompted three times. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

TTYDDoopliss was blocked indefinitely for trolling by Canterbury Tail [3] before being found put as a sock by spicy. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Amended, thanks. jp×g🗯️ 15:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@JPxG: Did you discuss this with the original blocking admin beforehand? And I agree with voorts that they do not completely understand what they did was wrong. I don't think it's appropriate to change the blocking time without a consensus at this point. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

No, he did not, and I agree that this unblock should not have happened. This attempt to downplay "editor X should be tracked down" by comparing it to tracking down spare parts is frankly bizarre. You shouldn't be unblocking people if you don't understand why saying that (even if not serious) can be extremely scary to that editor, who now might need to worry about a sociopath from the internet trying to hurt them. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Also RE the TTYD block JPxG should know that "what about X" isn't really a good argument on wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

If you think I am lying (?) about this phrase being used in normal contexts, I will look it up in the dictionary. Here is what Cambridge's definition says:

to search for someone or something, often when it is difficult to find that person or thing:

I’m trying to track down one of my old classmates from college.

Dictionary.com says:

Follow successfully, locate, as in I've been trying to track down that book but haven't had any luck. This term alludes to the literal use of track , “follow the footsteps of.” [Second half of 1800s]

Collins says:

If you track down someone or something, you find them, or find information about them, after a difficult or long search.

She had spent years trying to track down her parents.

I'll go and have a quick word, then we'll track down Mr Derringer.

The last time I had flown with him into the Sahara to track down hijacked weapons.

There had been some spectacular busts in recent history, but even the FBI could not work fast enough to track down these people.

Do you think that "trying to track down her parents" implies that the person in the example sentence is a "sociopath" who is "trying to hurt them"? I agree that this was a very dumb choice of words, due to the potential for being misinterpreted, as can be seen above. Indeed, one of the examples (the last given) does imply hostility. I would not say this. I do not think that all of these dictionaries are engaged in a "frankly bizarre attempt to downplay" the phrase, nor do I think that is a fair summary of what I did. jp×g🗯️ 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm saying that I agree that there are other ways to read tracking someone down but it still wasn't appropriate to adjust blocking time without consensus. This was more than simply calling a person an idiot. They said Get this politically divisive Dog Whistle off the damned front page and And: You're an idiot for approving political flamebait for the front page. Their unblock rationale is not good enough, in my opinion. Just because incivility isn't enforced enough as it should be isn't a reason to just not apply it all. Indefinite does mean infinite, but the editor in question should come up with a better unblock request instead of simply waiting out the two weeks and going back to editing like nothing happened. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I suppose you may be correct. Well, I am going to bed; if a bunch of people come up and say the guy is really that much of a menace that the block needs to be lengthened, I will not be around to do so. I will abide my general practice on administrative actions, which is that if someone is so convinced of my idiocy they feel the need to undo it, then sure, I guess. jp×g🗯️ 15:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you're lying, just a bit naïve. If someone says "Get this politically divisive Dog Whistle off the damned front page! And then track down the editor who put it there." on the internet to a stranger, the common sense interpretation is that it is a threat of violence. Your examples of other uses of the wording are all well and good when discussing in-person, normal interactions. But the pseudonymity of social media emboldens the craven. Threats of violence come easier to the keyboard fingers when the perpetrator is safely out of reach. Zaathras (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, when confronted, he said that it was not meant to suggest anything be done to the person: I mentioned no one by name,and suggested no action. Therefore neither puposefully OR blantantly nor would that constitute harrassment. This seems pretty straightforward to me, although I get that people want the guy gone, so do what you want. jp×g🗯️ 15:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm still confused about how one sentence mentioning feminist retellings is "political flamebait" as Riventree said. Can someone explain to me how anyone could come to such a conclusion? It was going so nicely with a little over an hour and a half left on the main page. The DYK had a little over 3,000 clicks with no other issues, so I am stumped. SL93 (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I am also completely stumped, but I feel like it'd cross a line if I speculate on why they reacted so strongly to something completely uncontroversial. I've changed my own position to a topic ban but I admit to not being that confident that this will be the end of things. There's a slight chance they might change their ways so if it goes that route we can at least say we tried. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: commute block to topic ban

Self-explanatory, I think. Riventree's outburst, and the follow up discussion on their talk page, show that they hold views incompatible with neutral editing about this topic. Furthermore there clearly was not consensus to unblock (the blocking administrator explicitly said no) and JPxG's cowboy admin action should not stand, but a wheel war isn't going to help anyone. A topic ban from AP2, gender-related controversies, and/or feminism as a broad topic, would serve to prevent future disruption in these sensitive topics; meanwhile Riventree can appeal the sanction later once they've taken time to reflect on their behaviour here.

• Support as proposer; interested in further comments on the scope of a topic ban. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Lengthen the block if you want. jp×g🗯️ 15:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• They've made a total of 135 edits since the beginning of 2022, 17 of which have been in the last 24 hours. I'm not sure how much a topic ban really matters. Never the less, I'd support a topic ban as a bare minimum, especially considering their follow up edits to Retelling (1, 2). Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think a topic ban is needed. This editor has never edited in that area before and I presume will not after this debacle. I would like the indef to be reimposed until we actually get a sufficient unblock request. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Considering this is such an old account and the bad edits are all recent, is it possible we're dealing with a compromised account situation? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Problematic edits in the AMPOL area and with other users aren't recent. Never say never, but judging from some of their older edits:

  • [4][5]: unsourced switching of the language from "break free" to "resisted arrest" in the Killing of Rayshard Brooks. (Followup conversation at Eeng's talkage, wher they justified the change as original research [6]; note that at the time, the BLP policy still applied to Brooks so accusing him of a crime without a source is a major no-no)
  • [7] Removed the fact that the counterfeit bill Floyd was accused of having was a $20 bill with the edit summary "Exclude trivia" in Murder of George Floyd.
  • [8]: Changed "it is widely believed that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" "it[sic] feared that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" with the edit summary "Forgive me, I abhor emotion-laden politics, but this is actually relevant here" - note how it is very similar to the language and tone they used at DYK yesterday
  • User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2020#Do you even READ my comments anymore, or do you just click "revert" out of habit? shows the same pattern of coming in very strong with personal attacks and aspersions, then backing down and apologizing a while later.
    • Similarly on other talk pages Did you just revert it because you hate change, or was there some actual reason?[9]
  • Talk:Holocene extinction/Archive 3#Softening of exceedingly authoritative language and some attempting to desribe the Holocene Extinction as "theoretical", something something "the knee-jerk alarmists who were happy to simply assert human causation as the cause of an eco-disaster".
  • [10] Tried to make the article Millennium Challenge 2002 more neutral by adding an unsourced paragraph called "The Argument Over 'Scripting'". When questioned on the taklk, they justified this by saying UM, no. It's just deduction. It's certainly not 'military propaganda', because the neutrality flag pointed out that the military perspective (not side, not propaganda) wasn't included at all. 1.

  Additionally, and I find this especially relevant given @JPxG's concerns about a double standard because they weren't "handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology", they were given a final warning for harrassment and personal attacks by Yunshui in 2020.[11]. Follow up here:[12], though I obvious do not know the severity of what Riventree did, given that it apparently needed revdel. Can any admin give insight? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  @GreenLipstickLesbian: He posted a sarcastic comment that contained links to Wikipediocracy, RESTRICT and something called Wikizero that doesn't seem to be up any more. The WPO link was to a thread that, even then, was seven years old, it referenced this ANI thread which was itself about WPO, has comments from quite a number of people who are banned for various reasons now, and hilariously, was closed by me.

  So, while I'm mildly amused to have discovered that, it looks like a personal issue with him not really liking the person who left the comment and trying to mock them by linking to material that he thought made them look bad. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 18:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Whether the account is compromised or not I don't think we want to have an editor who responds this way to something as bromine as the idea of the feminist retelling editing in the various contentious topics that this overlaps. I'd want to see such a TBan encompassing at least WP:GENSEX broadly construed. As for AP2 I'm a bit worried of the tendency of Americans to turn every social issue into a domestic political issue, especially immediately following a governmental transition but AP2 needs fewer hot-heads, not more, so I'd be weakly supportive of that one too. Simonm223 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• I do not think that a topic ban is the solution to this problem. The colloquial phrase "track down" can certainly be used benignly as the various quotes above show, but context is all-important. In this case, as it was actually used in the context of the rage filled rant, I read it as either a threat of outing (most likely) or a threat of violence (distinctly possible). In my opinion, this editor needs to show a deeper understanding of why what they said was intimidating and totally wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per my comments below. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban from AMPOL per GLL. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  Also support indef topic ban from GENSEX per Special:GoToComment/c-Riventree-20250125002300-Clovermoss-20250124232900. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support for an indef topic ban from GENSEX. Their reaction to a rather mundane DYK both in the form of personal attacks and unsourced additions to Retelling does not give confidence that they can edit in this topic area neutrally [13]. Their characterization of a simple link to feminism as egregious flamebait [14] also gives cause for concern. The purpose of sanctions are to be preventative, rather than punitive, so the argument that they haven't really touched the subject area in the past doesn't seem like a compelling argument to me for why they should not have a TBAN. If their first reaction to seeing the word feminism was the kerfuffle above and they're still equating seeing a link to feminism as flamebait as well as making an unsourced edit seemingly toward their POV then I feel a TBAN from Gensex, broadly construed, is appropriate to prevent any further outbursts and disruptive POV editing. --Emm90 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support an indef topic ban from GENSEX. After the initial outburst and the follow up conversation(s) on their talkpage, I have no faith that Riventree can edit this area without letting their bias(es) affect their editing. -- Mike 🗩 16:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Reinstate indef

A discussion is needed on this to prevent WP:WHEEL from applying. Proposal is pretty much the title, reinstate indef until a more convincing unblock rationale is made.

• Support as proposer. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Noting I'm a bit more conflicted given recent events (such as voorts expressing support for unblock). Support a trout to JPxG for the "cowboy" action (please discuss with the blocking admin in the future), but that isn't really a reason to hold it against the blocked editor. The recent DYK interaction was really bad and I worry about competence when someone thinks that pedestrian DYK is something outrageously offensive, but I generally prefer to see more before I would indef. The previous interactions with Andy also make me seriously uncomfortable, even if the victim sees it as all in the past. But it was five years ago. I'm generally a sucker for giving people second chances so maybe that's what should be done here. I support the previously proposed topic ban, given the pattern of behaviour in the area. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support with the conditional modifier that I would like to see the tban discussed in the proposal above remain in effect should they subsequently become unblocked. Simonm223 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose reinstating indef, support gensex/ap2 topic ban. If they can't handle that, then indef. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support It shouldn't have been lifted in the first place. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Unblock. Riventree has finally acknowledged why their comment was so egregious. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Voorts and the long pattern of sub-optimal behavior and previous warnings as documented by GreenLipstickLesbian. GLL, as for the revision deleted content, in the process of mocking an editor they disagreed with, this editor linked to another website that criticized the mocked editor and outed a third editor. It was ugly in general but linking to the outing was what led to the revdel. Cullen328 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support given the history—particularly the outing, which correlates with the “track down” comment in the current case. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support given the history documented by GreenLipstickLesbian, the revdel'd content described above, and the obvious foot-dragging in the appeal. If they are let back in then it should at least be an AP2 / Gensex topic ban given the user's inability to control their strong emotions in that topic area; but the previous outing coupled with the "track down" comment in particular crosses the line. --Aquillion (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support I can’t for the life of me explain why the indef was overturned in the first place. The PAs were bad enough, especially when you consider how tame the blurb that instigated them is. The Kip ^(contribs) 14:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it would be better to see what they do after the two-week block and what it would merit, re-indeffing already is a bit premature. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. That was unacceptable, but a first offense, and two weeks is plenty. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Blocks aren't punitive. They're preventative. We don't reduce block lengths because it's a first offense. Riventree made a threat and doesn't understand what he did was wrong. Until he understands what he did was wrong and commits to not doing it, a preventative indef is warranted. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  My opposition is based on the understanding of blocks as preventative, of course. That it's a first offense is evidence that there's not a high risk of re-offending. He's said on his Talk that he's sorry about everything he said. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  See GreenLipstickLesbian's comments above; this is not a first incident. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support and would support defining this as a community ban. The outburst was unacceptable on its own, but as it's been shown that it's the latest in a pattern of unacceptable actions constituting harassment, combined with a history of blatantly POV commentary and corresponding edits in article space, this editor should not be editing Wikipedia at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think this would count as the exception mentioned there: A third-party block review that results in a normal administrator block being endorsed is not converted into a community ban. This proposal was started because of JPxG's somewhat unconventional unblock. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, it's not the typical situation where a community block discussion can convert to a formal ban, which is why I said that I would support such a classification explicitly. But our peculiar terminology and process about blocks versus bans is very inside baseball, and in the grand scheme doesn't really matter. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Well the reason I brought it up is that I'm under the impression it's somewhat easier to appeal a regular indefinite block compared to a CBAN. I think of the latter as being on a way different level in my scale of "a Wikipedian did things wrong". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support: I think an indef for an editor who has behaved the way they have, historically and recently, will be a positive preventative measure. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a massive overreaction. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 07:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Given Cullen's description of the old edits, if Riventree wishes for a third chance to edit, they should demonstrate a much better understanding of the harassment policy than a <shamefaced grimace>[15]. Asking other constructive editors who actually do things like understand sourcing guidelines and NPOV to spend time putting up with personal attacks and harassment will drive them off. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support For the moment, I'd like to think they can get unblocked but I'm not convinced from what I've seen from them so far. However, I would also note my comments below about the alleged outing. What they posted was ill-advised, but it was one time five years ago and I think it is clear to those that can see it that their intent was directed not at the outed user but at the user they were replying to. I'm not defending it, it was a dumb thing to do, but I don't think we can honestly call it malicious outing. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  switching to oppose/unblock I feel like at this point if I were a single admin reviewing this situation, I'd be inclined to unblock. Riventree knows they screwed up and has repeatedly said they will endeavor not to make such ill-advised and unpleasant comments in the future. The final warning from five years ago is not really related to anything that went on here. I do strongly disagree with the decision to shorten the block, but that was not Riventree's doing. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Cullen328. Gamaliel (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support for the purposes of bringing this back to the initial status and allowing the editor blocked to appropriately seek an unblock rather than having others do it for them. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Riventree's subsequent conversation(s) on their talkpage gives me no indication that they understand why they were blocked. -- Mike 🗩 16:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the outing

You can see from Riventree's contribs in January 2020 that a few edits were revision deleted. Admins can see that the offending edit contained two offsite links. One seems to have been to something on Wikipedia Zero, which is defunct, so I don't know what it was but it probably was not the reason for the deletion. The other is to a quite old Wikipediocracy thread from 2013, which absolutely did contain what Wikipedia defines as outing, aimed at a now-blocked user who many believe is literally a nazi.The thread provided supposed evidence of linked online identities making extremely racist postings at places like Stormfront

Of course, the outing policy does not grant exemptions if the user outed happens to be despicable, but this was clearly not the intent of the edit, it was intended to mock another user, who was not outed (they edit under their real name) but was discussed/mocked in that same thread. It was still linking to outing, but that seems incidental, and as far I can tell has not been repeated. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm noting here that the victim of the revdelled harrassment supports an unblock: [16]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This is Riventree's response to this ANI thread: [17]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I've seen similar issues before, where someone says something that is open to interpretation and they insist they did not mean in it in the way it was taken. There's no real way to know what was in a person's head when they wrote something, but it does seems like Riventree at least understands that that was a poor choice of words, regardless of their actual intent. That's something. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

My personal instinct is that they didn't realize it would be read that way, given they have no idea what ANI is or that they were being discussed here [18]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

If this ends in a topic ban, I suggest the closing admin be very clear about what a topic ban actually is, because there's a good chance they wouldn't have any idea what that means either. I learned about ANI way before I learned about topic bans and I suspect that's the normal state of things. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Mass Removal of External Links by User:Dronebogus.

I’d like to bring attention to the actions of User:Dronebogus, who has been systematically removing entire external links sections from several hobby-related articles, including Knitting, Origami, and others. While they cite WP:LINKFARM and reliability concerns, the external links guideline (WP:EL) explicitly permits some links that may not meet reliability standards but are still useful to readers (e.g., learning resources from knowledgeable sources). Other users oppose these actions but this user is not willing to compromise.

Here are some examples of their removals:

Pitman Shorthand Removal diff

Origami Removal diff

Knitting Removal diff

These sections are standard for hobby-related articles, and the wholesale removals appear to go against community norms. Despite discussions with other editors (most recent discussion here: [[19]]), they have continued this behavior without consensus.

I’ve already notified the user about this discussion. Input from administrators or the broader community would be appreciated to address this recurring issue.

Thank you, JD Gale — Preceding unsigned comment added by JD Gale (talk • contribs) 15:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I found one of the discussions you refer to: for interested readers—Talk:Pitman_shorthand#External_links ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

And pertaining to that discussion and article, these are the external links Dronebogus removed.

And at Origami, these external links were removed.

And at Knitting, these external links were removed. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

On Origami, they removed links showing Robert J. Lang talking about and performing Origami folding despite him being one of the worlds leading theorists on Origami. On Knitting, they removed links to the trade associated for knitting yarn manufacturers which is a common link on a subject, a link to the UIllinois LibGuide that has librarian curated links to in-depth research material about knitting, and all the categories and authority control templates. They did go back and add back the categories it but the first swipe shows carelessness. Everytime I see Dronebogus at ANI, it seems to be for taking some guideline and going hard core enforcing it without any nuance or care. @Floquenbeam: summed it up best: "I'm pretty tired of Dronebogus wandering around hunting for stuff to be outraged about." spryde | talk 20:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I have zero useful opinions on this particular issue, but since at least one person has said "per Floquenbeam", I do want to make sure it's clear that I was talking about much different behavior, a long while ago. This isn't really that. Just a clarification, not a defense of whatever is happening here. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Understood and apologies if I made it appear you were commenting on this behavior. I was wondering where I saw DB's name before and I finally put two and two together with the previous XFD discussion and other ANI discussions. I saw your quote and thought, at least in my mind, applied to this situation and I could not state it better. spryde | talk 21:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sp: Editing some random topic and getting into an argument is not “wandering around looking for something to be outraged about”. It’s a fundamental part of editing Wikipedia. I prune external links pretty regularly and without controversy. I was not wading into some obviously contentious issue looking for trouble. Dronebogus (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

These should be reverted, per sp and especially Floquenbeam's comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

In Links to be considered, WP:ELMAYBE lists Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. Dronebogus thinks that line is "oxymoronic to the point of uselessness" and doesn't "buy that guidance". Dronebogus thinks external links need to be "notable" (whatever that means). It isn't unusual for an editor to disagree with some bit of guidance on the project, but the productive approach is to try to get consensus to modify the guidance, not to make up their own version and apply it despite objections. Schazjmd (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Notable means WP:NOTABLE. What else? Dronebogus (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately disingenuous here? We know what WP:NOTABLE means. The point is that it doesn't apply to ELs. You appear to be applying a 'notability' test to ELs, which is just wrong. Doesn't matter if you can also cite an unrelated policy called 'notability'. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I meant something like it should be written by a notable author or a notable source Dronebogus (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Why? Notability is a test for whether we should have a stand-alone article. Why should we only allow external links written by someone with an article (or should have an article) or published by an entity that has an article (or should have an article)? Schazjmd (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I was just clarifying my previous argument, not that I think it’s any good Dronebogus (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley See Floq's response above. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The quote still applies aptly. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks like a content issue that should be addressed on the talk-pages of the respective articles. If I've followed correctly, I believe the timeline is:

• Jan 8: Dronebogus removed EL on Pitman article with the comment how about none
• Jan 10: JD Gale reverted with no edit description. Dronebogus then removed them again with the edit description Reverted good faith edits by JD Gale (talk): No rationale provided for restoring a huge link farm of seemingly WP:OWNed personal opinion
• Jan 16: JD Gale opened a discussion on the article talk page.
• Jan 22: JD Gale made this comment referencing the Knitting and Origami pages. Dronebogus then removed the external links in those articles ([20] [21]).
• Jan 23: Dronebogus opened a discussion on the External links talk page asking for clarification. Around 7 hours later, JD Gale opens this ANI.

As it stands, I'm just seeing a content dispute and a difference in interpretation of EL guidelines that is appropriately migrating to the EL talk page for clarification. Is there some context I'm missing here? CambrianCrab (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

These link removals strike me as extremely bad, in the sense that they are deliberately making an article less useful to readers as an educational resource, with apparently very little in the way of justification. This would seem in some sense to be a content dispute, but there is indeed a recurring issue where DB ends up at some noticeboard over pointlessly rude and aggressive behaviors, over the span of some years now. jp×g🗯️ 04:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Opening a thread on the external links talk page is at least a step towards wisdom, but frankly, if I am unclear on the purpose or meaning of a policy, I would not go around trying to enforce it by removing giant reams of stuff. jp×g🗯️ 04:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@JPxG: I feel like every time this happens it’s someone criticizing me for doing the right thing a little too slowly. Dronebogus (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the main factor common to these incidents is not ineptness or imperfection, since Lord knows everybody has to learn everything somehow. I think the relevant thing is that you tend to choose removing things rather than adding them -- which you're free to do because it's a volunteer project -- but the expectations are considerably higher since imperfection at this sort of task can destroy dozens of hours of work with a stroke of a pen. Contrariwise, if you work on a stub about some lake island in Idaho, the worst you can do is waste your own time, and nobody will yell at you on AN/I for that (unless you make literally ten thousand microstubs). Similarly, when I was figuring out how to code templates and modules, I did not do my "hello world" stuff in {{cite web}} or {{rcat shell}}, as even the slightest mistake would break millions of pages and cause hundreds of people to show up at my talk page fuming mad. Like I said, you can choose what tasks you want to be involved in, but I think if you just insist on tasks that remove a bunch of stuff, you will find yourself always being held to very high standards. jp×g🗯️ 15:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I feel like people overreact slightly to this, because nothing is really gone forever on Wikipedia. It’s a mess people have to clean up, sure, but it’s not “destructive”. I wish people would be more concerned about user retention than content. Dronebogus (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean, this is the metacognitive problem that is prolonging this thread: you have a lot of feelings and intuitions about how Wikipedia works, or should work, that are not supported by most other editors. You can be heterodox and disagree with the community and struggle to "JuSt REad tHe rOOm" and still be a Wikipedian in good standing, but you have to recognize your limitations and be prepared to have your opinions regularly overruled when you express them. While there are some rules that are pretty unambiguous (i.e., en.wikipedia is written in English), whether certain content is appropriate or improves Wikipedia is a question that usually requires a lot of context to settle, and that context is often hard to express in a way that generalizes over every possible article. We could try "writing more stuff down", but when we try putting that into practice, we often find that simple, concrete rules generate a result that is right in many cases but seems very wrong in others. (This is not just a Wikipedia issue, but a broadly social one; it's why codes of law are extremely complicated, and why "rules-lawyering" is a thing.) If you struggle with high context environments, like passing judgment on other editors' content, but push into them anyway, this kind of trouble will occur.

JPxG and others are nudging you towards adding content because that's an activity that tends to require less awareness of context, and the context it does require is often content knowledge rather than human behavior. Perhaps this is a good time to ask, "What is it that you enjoy about being a Wikipedia editor?" An answer to that might help people suggest ways to fulfill your desires that won't result in you regularly being haled to AN/I. Choess (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

That’s certainly one of the best takes I’ve read in a while Dronebogus (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry I bulk removed the stuff on the origami and knitting pages. It was poor form in the midst of a content dispute. I still think I am justified in my interpretation but since other people disagree I opened a thread on the subject. I personally don’t think this needed to escalate this far, especially since I received no talk page warning before ANI. It was a content dispute that got a little heated and I overstepped my reach on. I see nothing in my conduct here that would rise to the level of sanctioning when you take into account some established contributors are repeatedly allowed to walk back on grossly insulting people and generally dancing on the limits of acceptable conduct. Dronebogus (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

"I still think I am justified in my interpretation but since other people disagree I opened a thread on the subject." the problem here is that when you were told the official guidelines on external links like Schazjmd laid out above, you completely disregarded them and went by what you think the guidelines should be to you. It's one thing if you don't like the guidelines, that's perfectly fine, but to blow them off the way you did just isn't on. Every Wikipedia editor (probably) has policies/guidelines they don't like, but they don't get to violate them just because they don't like them. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 08:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Then what is WP:IAR? Because it’s been evoked both ways in this argument, and it seems like it’s only valid if it’s against me. There are no rules on what can be an EL, except when there are, and those rules are Dronebogus cannot remove any of them. Dronebogus (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Dronebogus, you know damn well that IAR is only applied in really rare extenuating circumstances that this obviously doesn't fall under. IAR also isn't a "get out of following policies and guidelines" card either. Someone can't e.g. change the British spelling of colour/armour/etc. to the American spelling all willy-nilly and shout IAR in their defense, because that's disruptive. (Not equating this to that, but am using this as an illustration). And the latter is a complete strawman. You were told the guidelines on external links and brushed them off. Removing irrelevant links is one thing, removing relevant informational links is another, and relevant informational links are permitted by the current EL guidelines. Now you may argue if the latter are important enough in the article to keep, that's fine, but those are debates for the individual article talk pages. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 09:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

No, I don’t “know damn well”, because that’s not what the WP:IAR page says. Am I just supposed to infer this from some mass of case law that is not discussed there? In any case I am no longer doing it, I acknowledged that some of my edits were sloppy, I took it to the talk page of the policy, is there something else I need to do? I apologize for being somewhat curt but I personally think that JD Gale isn’t entirely in the right either by taking this directly to ANI instead of discussing it on my talk page. I don’t know if they know this but “summoning” someone to ANI is generally regarded as “taking the kid gloves off” at best and vexatious hostility at worst. As with most of these situations I’d like to let it drop and actually discuss the issue at Wikipedia talk:External links like I was attempting to do. Dronebogus (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:IAR relates to edits directed to improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Removing useful ELs serves neither purpose. Narky Blert (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Not everyone considers them useful. I don’t agree with the maximalist school of thought that’s apparently prevalent on Wikimedia— the idea that adding is the greatest good and removing is at best a necessary evil, or that WP:BOLD only applies to adding content. If the overwhelming consensus is that what I just said is, to some extent, true, then it should be an official guideline. But this is a grey area, which should be settled by discussion rather than yelling at me that I broke a deliberately vague rule. Once again, I acknowledge removing a bunch of links in the middle of a content dispute about removing a bunch of links is not good, and I wouldn’t have edit warred it back after it was inevitably reverted. But you can’t sanction me for having a different definition of “useful” than an apparently longstanding consensus I was unaware of. Dronebogus (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

[A]n apparently longstanding consensus I was unaware of.

You're aware of it now. Narky Blert (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, after the fact. Dronebogus (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This is why I opposed IAR when it was proposed. It's just too ambiguous and prone to misuse. But at this point, we're stuck with it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t realize it was so young, I assumed it’d been floating around in the primordial soup at the dawn of Wikipedia until Jimbo put it on a stone tablet or something. Dronebogus (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that @HandThatFeeds is saying. The Wikipedia:Ignore all rules page was created in April 2002, they made their first edit in May 2008. Thryduulf (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I had an account prior to this one, but it was easily traced back to my IRL identity, so I abandoned it when people starting getting harassed for their editing actions in certain contentious areas. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Generally speaking, when making similar edits across multiple articles it's a good idea to stop or slow down when someone raises an objection in order to avoid WP:FAIT problems. Edits made across a large number of articles are more difficult to reverse, so editors are generally expected to be more receptive to objections and more willing to discuss them if one comes up. --Aquillion (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I probably should have stopped sooner. But I only made two similar edits after the objection, which is not hard to reverse. This level of escalation would have made more sense if I had just kept going and going. Dronebogus (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Deleting links is not a solution in the spirit of WikiPedia. Better would be fixing links by converting them into references and so on. It seems, WikiPedia is becoming more a plattform of infowars than of collaborative writing! Martin Mair (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn’t camelcase Dronebogus (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I wonder what the supposed improvement is from removing the link to The Dark Side of the White Lady, a documentary by Patricio Henríquez on the website of the National Film Board of Canada about the ship from the article Chilean barquentine Esmeralda. Your incorrect arguments about the links needing to be notable clearly don't apply here.

Similarly, under the guise of pruning a "link farm" from two to one entries, you removed an interview that Daniel C. Tsang had on KUCI radio from Bill Andriette. No idea either why you e.g. removed from Schoolly D the link to his entry on Lambiek#Comiclopedia, a reliable source used extensively on enwiki and here presenting an aspect otherwise not touched upon in the article. It looks as if your external links mission has done more harm than good, even in those cases where no one objected so far. Fram (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The first two would be much better used as sources. The link to White Lady would be much better used on the article about that movie. The Comicpedia one was a mistake and I’ve restored it. Keeping these arbitrary links tacked on to the page does not improve the article. Using the information in them would. I stand by these as legitimate, non-disruptive edits even if you disagree with them. Dronebogus (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

How does removing a link to a good source improve an article? You didn’t cite it, you just erased it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s not erased, it’s in the history. But I’m salvaging some of the links right now and will try to do this in the future before deleting them. I am more than willing to learn from my mistakes; it’s just that whenever I end up at ANI I assume it’s because someone wants me removed from the project, or otherwise punished, because that’s just what ANI is used for. Dronebogus (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't particularly want to see anyone removed from the project. But when it's the same behavior over and over, that is a concern for the integrity of the project. Before you take on another area you haven't dealt with before, look how others have dealt with things, ask questions, and get the feel before reading some guideline and seeing things as black and white. This is at least the 4th area I've seen concerns with your editing at based on a quick bit of looking at the ANI archives and my own history of reading this page. spryde | talk 16:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Why does WP:BOLD even exist if you have to undergo a primer course in case law and guideline exegesis and get consensus in order to do anything more advanced than a typo fix? Dronebogus (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

To avoid the need for another section in the near future: please don't switch now to removing information from articles because it is already in the infobox[22]... Fram (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This seems more like a content dispute, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

One or two articles? I would agree. But it seems to be a systematic issue covering many articles. I hate going back and looking at an editors history but I took a look at a few of the recent removals with "link farm" as the edit summary. Jazz Funeral had a number of news and journal links removed from PBS and the highly regarded journal Southern Spaces. The link removed on Adam Purple was a video about Adam from Nelson Sullivan, a noted New York videographer who chronicled life in NYC. In my opinion, he got a few right. But he got a LOT wrong. I don't know what the solution is to this other than don't remove external links unless you know what you are doing. The issue with that is this keeps coming up over and over with various areas so if they stop with External Links, what area is next? spryde | talk 16:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

How am I supposed to know have of these things are notable when the links don’t provide context and the sections are bloated and look like crap? And I reiterate my question of why these sources aren’t just being used in the article? Dronebogus (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

You could actually look at the links and say "Subject is X, video is about X and from a source that really isn't someone's personal blog. I'll let it stay." Or... "Subject is X, blog is about X and written by Y. Y is a notable person in the subject of X, I'll let it stay." or "Subject is X, site is about X but it seems this site is pretty obscure even when I google it. This may need to be removed." As Tamzin said to you, this is a high-context site. Not everything is written down. Not everything is black and white. There are shades of gray, context matters, and you absolutely need to read the room. Or in this case, research what the current practice is concerning whatever it is your doing. spryde | talk 17:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t read her assessment of the current situation as a flattering one. Why can’t we write more things down? Because if the unwritten rules are as functionally as good as written ones, nobody is helped by leaving them unwritten! Dronebogus (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend editors against making any sweeping changes to articles where they are unfamiliar with the topic area and unable to judge the merit of the content. jp×g🗯️ 15:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

That’s fair. Dronebogus (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

As I wrote in another discussion, it's endless work to try to codify all guidance to avoid exceptions, as they have a fractal nature: the closer you look into different scenarios, the more variations become apparent. I've also written about the practical difficulties in trying to write rules for everything, not the least of which is that too often they end up as links to brandish in discussions, rather than preventative measures. isaacl (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Have the external link removals ceased? GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and I systematically went back through several months of edits to check the ones I removed and add any useful ones that got thrown out in the process. Dronebogus (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Well then, this ANI report should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Nothing has been fixed on Pitman Shorthand. I'm going to add back the links that were removed. JD Gale (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think any consensus was formed in the discussion about that but I’m not going to object. Dronebogus (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I also removed the giant hidden message as it seemed inappropriate. I hope you don’t mind. Dronebogus (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. I didn't put it there and I thought it was kind of ridiculous. JD Gale (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Removal of article talk page comments

So, after the removal of external links was criticized, they started removing stuff from articles because it was already in the infobox, which they stopped after I pointed out above that this is unwanted. Apparently they have now found another type of edits which is unwanted, removing (very) old talk page posts they don't like for some reason.

These three edits remove a decent question from 2007 (asking for info about military families in an article about the military isn't farfetched), an undated question about what the service pistol is (again, nothing wrong with that), and an IP edit from 2024 complaining about non-factual edits, which were indeed present and reverted the next day[23]. Misjudging one comment as notforum and removing it can happen, but doing it three times in a row looks once again like trying to impose imaginary standards for no benefit at all. I don't know what method can be found to steer Dronebogus to productive edits, but this is getting very tiring. Fram (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Did you not notice this was one mistake (I’m counting them together) out of a mass of productive edits over the past several days? Once again, I delete WP:NOTFORUM comments all the time; occasionally I get reverted for being wrong without incident. I was tired when I made the edits and might have been overzealous. You reverted them; I wouldn’t have objected or been offended. I would have noted my error and used it to inform further judgement. I think you are the one “wandering around for things to be outraged by” here. Dronebogus (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that this isn't something new. I see e.g. that earlier this month, you removed a 2022 comment for "not a forum". The editor was asking, in the talk page for "flag icons for languages", if there was a flag icon for Spanish. At the time, no such icon was present in the article. Now there are two. It seems that, instead of being a "forum" question, this was a pertinent, actionable question. And also from this month: [24]. This is a 2006 comment about what the article had to say about the British use of "twatting" for "hitting", which you removed as "nonsense". Why would you go around removing relevant comments from 2006 from talk pages? Create an archive, sure, no one will object. But this?

So, of the four instances where you removed article talk page comments in 2025, three were wrong. Fram (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

You’re right, I shouldn’t remove talk page comments like that. It’s disruptive and unhelpful. I’ll be more careful in the future and only remove obvious troll comments. If I see something I’m 99% sure is a NOTFORUM violation or otherwise inappropriate/unproductive I’ll only collapse it so as not to disrupt the archives. Dronebogus (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest, especially when it's been on a talk page for almost 20 years, not touching it at all. There is no need. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Reasonable. Dronebogus (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unless an old comment is actively harmful, then doing absolutely anything to it other than archiving (including collapsing) is always going to be the most disruptive option. This includes troll comments - remember the absolute best way to deal with trolls is ignoring them. Removing or collapsing old comments is not ignoring them. Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I don’t agree with your assertion on troll comments. Keeping a comment is still inviting easily baited users to engage with the troll, and it’s still unpleasant clutter for users that don’t take the bait. It’s basically talk page vandalism— and we remove vandalism for the sake of the page and its readers. That is not “giving the trolls attention”. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion we could say blocking trolls is giving them attention and have a policy of just letting them run out of steam. Tl;dr I have a narrower interpretation of DFTT that is “don’t reply to them” and stand by deleting their comments. Dronebogus (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Please stop doing this altogether. At best, it is disruptive and breaks the fundamental purpose of the talk page (e.g. for editors and readers, regardless of experience level, to discuss improvements to the article without being aggressively gatekept by insiders and self-appointed censors). At worst, it has been a means for you to make your own troll comments in collapse templates and edit summaries.

The comments you remove are almost never trolling: maybe one in every ten is an attempt to troll. I would ask that you familiarize yourself with the concept of assuming good faith, or not intentionally biting newbies. Sometimes a stupid comment is just stupid, and not an intentional attempt to sow discord by enemies. A stupid comment, or a stupid question, does no harm by existing -- it may be answered, or it may be ignored. There is no need to "do something" about it being there, unless that something is answering it.

I have tried to be polite in asking you about this multiple times over a period of years: User_talk:Dronebogus#Please_do_not_use_the_hat_templates_to_dunk_on_people. Please stop doing this. jp×g🗯️ 19:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Mr. Accuracy Specialist

Mr. Accuracy Specialist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This week-old account has a talk page filled with warnings (mostly deleted). Some of the warnings include:

• User:Iiii I I I warning here about using AI chatbot.
• Me warning about unsourced content.

Mr. Accuracy Specialist responds with short comments like:

• Thanks for clarification!.
• Thanks for your clarification!.
• Got it.Thanks for clarification!.

I have asked three times for specific details about an edit--[25][26][27]--but was ignored, while this editor continued their mostly error-filled editing. This may be a user with limited English, using AI. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I would support a temp block warning him in several different languages (my gripe when dealing with users like this) if he continues after the first block an indef block would suffice
Off topic but user talk:Iiii I I I is straight gold I’m gagging lol •Cyberwolf•talk? 18:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

To explain my warning a little, I think Mr. Accuracy Specialist is using AI because of edits like one, two, three – the links have the URL parameter ?utm_source=chatgpt.com and the cited websites do not back up what was written. He has also made suspiciously well written, but unsourced, edits to sea snails that are likely LLMs: four, five, six.

I was actually debating reporting Mr. Accuracy Specialist to SPI a few days earlier because I thought he was a sockpuppet of 202.57.44.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but I held off because I wasn't sure about it. The IP was previously reported at this ANI post for making edits to Philippine film articles. User:Borgenland mentions there is possible COI - maybe they would like to provide input here? Here's the gist of what I was going to write:

• 202.57.44.130 makes tens of edits to articles related to GMA Pictures in a short period of time, then stops at 13:35, January 18, 2025 (UTC) and has not edited again as of this moment.
  • Mr. Accuracy Specialist is created five hours later, then continues the same pattern of making dozens of edits in short bursts.
• After a hundred minor edits (to build credibility?), Mr. Accuracy Specialist also starts to edit the same articles related to GMA Pictures.
  • On Uninvited (2024 film) the two accounts have made identical changes: first by IP, then by user.
  • On List of films produced and released by GMA Pictures the two accounts have made large, partly unreferenced additions: by IP, then by user.

Since January 19 there's been no overlap, which is why I'm not confident about the connection. Iiii I I I (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed 139.135.241.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has also made a dozen edits to List of films produced and released by GMA Pictures with edit summaries very similar to 202.57.44.130. For example, the same threats: this vs. this.

See also the Interaction Timeline, where there is lots of overlap. Iiii I I I (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, "stops editing as an IP and makes an account" isn't sockpuppetry, it's what we ideally want editors to do. And IPs are dynamic, so it's not surprising two diffferent IPs are the same user.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

My comment is the type of Tongue-in-cheek remark that I hope contains a core of truth. Any editor who voluntarily chooses a boastful, arrogant username such as Mr. Accuracy Specialist ought to be held to an exceptionally high standard of conduct starting with their very first edit. Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This editor still has not responded to me on their talk page, but continues to edit. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

And now deleted it without responding! Makes me madder mosquito in a mannequin factory. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Special:GoToComment/c-Mr._Accuracy_Specialist-20250127170400-Magnolia677-20250120113200 Is literally ai •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that alone deserves at least a pblock from article space until they can assure us they'll stop using LLM generated responses, and start discussing things by themselves. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

They've now filed a separate ANI report without responding to anything here. @Mr. Accuracy Specialist would you like to comment? --Richard Yin (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I've merged that retaliatory report into this one, to keep things centralized. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Report this user for continuing editing without adding proper citations

This user @103.53.59.22 has been engaging in disruptive editing behavior, repeatedly adding unsourced content to Juan Rodrigo, Celia Rodriguez and Chanda Romero. Despite previous warnings, the user continues to ignore Wikipedia's sourcing policies.

This report is being filed as a final warning was issued to the user, and further action may be necessary to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia.

Diff links:

- 1st edit without source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chanda_Romero&oldid=1272338933 -2nd edit without source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celia_Rodriguez&oldid=1272339521 -3rd edit without source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Rodrigo

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Mr. Accuracy Specialist (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Literally ai •Cyberwolf•talk? 18:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Cyberwolf, your telegraphic comment seems to be saying that MAS's (once separate incident) report obviously was entirely generated by AI. I don't see much here to come to that conclusion, although some of the language is kinda stilted or repetitive. Some people can have naturally produce such writing at times. The semantics of the "report" seem clearly human generated. What's your thinking behind "Literally ai"? -- R. S. Shaw (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

User:BrightBanana45 for disruptive editing WP:DE

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

---

• BrightBanana45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• This editor always add inaccurate and uncited information on List of equipment of the Vietnam People's Ground Forces, List of equipment of the Vietnam People's Navy, List of equipment of the Vietnam People's Air Force.
• Recognizing that the user is likely Vietnamese due to his pattern of editing and his "cited sources", I tried to warn the user many times (sometimes in Vietnamese, recognizing that the member is Vietnamese and likely ignorance) and fix his edits but he never responded to such action.
• Still continue his stubborn editing. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwi.padam (talk • contribs) 22:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hello,

  It has been brought to my concern that I have been flagged for disruptive editing, but I would like to address this regard. I respectfully disagree with this assessment. The information I have contributed has been properly cited from reliable sources, including both Vietnamese and reputable Western outlets. I strive to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of all the information I add to Wikipedia.

  
  

  For example, one of my recent additions regarding the procurement of C-130J aircraft was unfairly removed. The information was sourced from CNA, with confirmation in two separate videos: Video 1 (where the purchase of 13 C-130Js is mentioned around the 1:04 mark) and Video 2. Additionally, I believe my edit regarding the co-development of the HS-6L by Vietnam and Belarus, listed in the "Development" tab, was unfairly removed. The information was sourced from this article, which provides reliable details on the collaboration. There are more examples, but I believe these were the more notable ones to mentions. Additionally, I take responsibility for not properly citing the addition of the aerial practice bomb. The information was sourced from QPVN, the Vietnam National Defense Television Channel, and can be verified in this video.

  
  

  Lastly, I feel that the removal of the "development" sections from both the List of equipment of the Vietnam People's Navy and List of equipment of the Vietnam People's Air Force was unjustified. Many other articles, such as those for the List of equipment of the United States Army and List of equipment of the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force, include similar sections discussing future developments. I believe it would be more consistent with Wikipedia's standards to retain such information. BrightBanana45 (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  1. TikTok and general's narrative (lời nói không rõ ràng của ông tướng) is not qualified to be cited on Wikipedia. Only scholarly or mainline media source or press release is counted.(lời nói của ông tướng nghe được trên tiktok không được tính trên wikipedia. trên thực tế, định mua 3 con mà các bạn nghe nhầm thành 13 con rồi các bạn add lung tung vào đây là sai, mà bản thân cái 3 con trên kia cũng chưa có văn bản công khai mà chỉ mới có văn bản nội bộ của Bộ Tổng tham mưu không thể xét trên đây được, đừng có add 13 con lên đây để rồi bị xóa. Thậm chí các thương vụ đã có MoU còn không được phép liệt kê trong các page lĩnh vực hàng không-không quân kìa, chỉ có hợp đồng công khai mới tính thôi nhé)
  

  2. HS-6L never entered service of any Vietnamese military branch and it was practically a scrapped project (dự án HS-6L là dự án bánh vẽ và về cơ bản đã bị hủy bởi Bộ Công An, không đi tới đâu và không liên quan tới quân đội, không được bất cứ quân chủng nào của quân đội biên chế.)
  

  3. You added the practice bomb but lacked sufficient information to be listed on the page (bạn thêm quả bom tập nhưng thiếu thông tin, và Wikipedia không chấp nhận cái kiểu "để đó ghi sau". Mình sẽ phụ trách ghi thêm về quả bom đó khi mình tìm được thông tin và định danh của nó)
  

  4. It is the "equipment" page, not potential equipment (đây là page "trang bị hiện hữu" hoặc "chắc chắn sẽ có", không phải "có tiềm năng có". Không phải sản phẩm nào được ra mắt cũng sẽ được biên chế cho quân đội). Và thú thật Quân đội đã không mua nhiều sản phẩm đã được ra mắt của Viện lẫn Viettel, và bạn đâu có thông tin gì về quân chủng mà nó sẽ được biên chế. Còn nữa, bạn thêm mớ radar phòng không vào page của Lục quân và Hải quân là sai bét nhè, hay mớ UAV của CSB vào page Hải quân và nhét UAV của Hải quân vào page Không quân cũng là sai, và bạn cũng nhét cả tên lửa phòng không của Quân chủng Phòng không-KQ vào page Lục quân đấy. Những cái đó là sai rành rành và mình buộc phải xóa, không phải là unjustified đâu. Nói về các sản phẩm đã giới thiệu nhưng chưa biên chế như mấy con UAV của Viện hay Viettel, bạn có thông tin là nó sẽ được biên chế cho quân chủng PK-KQ, Hải Quân, CSB hay Lục quân không mà bạn đòi add? Đây là page trang bị, không phải là page thành tựu.
  5. Thừa nhận quả flag disruptive là hơi cực đoan nhưng đó là cách duy nhất để thu hút sự chú ý của bạn (yeah, it worked) khi bạn phớt lờ note của mình khi edit bài :)  Hwi.padam   20:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  This response comes across as dismissive and unnecessarily passive aggressive. I’d like to clarify some points to ensure a constructive discussion. The information I provided is not sourced from TikTok, but rather from reputable Vietnamese and Western sources. For example, the information about the procurement of the C-130J aircraft is sourced from CNA, a Singapore-based news network with a strong focus on the Asia-Pacific region.

  
  

  Regarding the HS-6L, information about its status is indeed limited, which makes it difficult to definitively claim that it was never inducted into the military or that the project was entirely abandoned. Regardless, the HS-6L was a noteworthy development, which is why it was included in the "development" section. I also believe it’s reasonable to discuss potential or developmental equipment in the article. Many similar pages already feature sections on former equipment that is no longer in service, so dedicating a section to potential future procurements is consistent with established practices. Additionally, I prefaced the section by clarifying that not all entries would involve confirmed procurements, ensuring readers understood the purpose of the section. By including a "development" section, the aim was to provide a balanced view of the military’s progression—covering the past, present, and potential future advancements. While the list should primarily focus on current equipment, it shouldn’t be restricted from mentioning significant developmental or future projects, as this offers a fuller picture.

  
  

  Furthermore, my additions of certain equipment to the Army, Air Force, or Navy pages were not done arbitrarily or with malice; they reflect the shared usage of equipment across different branches of the military.

  As for the messages sent, they were not ignored. I reviewed them, understood your perspective, and adjusted my contributions accordingly where I deemed it appropriate. Since I agreed with parts of your assessment, I didn’t feel it was necessary to respond further.

  
  

  Finally, I believe it may have been unnecessary and careless to take space in the Administrators’ Noticeboard/Incident Board, for a response you considered to be disproportionate. A more reasonable resolution should have been considered beforehand. BrightBanana45 (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  1. Even though it is based on CNA, the CNA report itself based on unreliable social media reports (oh yes a random TikTok video of a Vietnamese general that even Vietnamese people can not confirm if he said "ba" or "mười ba". And as I have a document from the military saying that it was 3, I decided to not letting that C-130 section exist until there is an official report). And again, only a firm order is counted, even memorandum of understanding is not qualified to be listed, let alone an unverified media report.
  

  2. Info about HS-6L is limited? Then don't include it. This is not "rumoring", "hoping" and "spreading conspiracy theory" page as we only count verified reality. Do I need to remind you that HS-6L is a project of Vietnamese Ministry of Public Security (BCA/MPS) and not even a military project? If there is no formal report that Vietnam People's Army and any of its service branches have been procuring the type, then don't include it. We don't even have the information about it even had maiden flight (can't even confirm it could fly), why is it still a "development"? Only list it when procurements are committed. And even when seeing it as a "development", this is where common sense work: you don't list a development when there was no updates and news in the last 10 years.
  

  3. "Additionally, I prefaced the section by clarifying that not all entries would involve confirmed procurements, ensuring readers understood the purpose of the section. By including a "development" section, the aim was to provide a balanced view of the military’s progression—covering the past, present, and potential future advancements. While the list should primarily focus on current equipment, it shouldn’t be restricted from mentioning significant developmental or future projects, as this offers a fuller picture." I understand your intention, but we don't do that here. You can create a page about potential Vietnamese development or whatever (for example, Future equipment of the German Army or Modernization of the Polish Armed Forces), but this page is wholly about existing equipments and committed procurements. And as you can not confirm that which service branch will those new products go to as if they will be actually procured, you technically have no basis to mention it. And this page does not accept projection e.g. "I assume that it secretly entered service", not at all. And I came here because you refused to talk in your account's talk page while managing different threats from different pages' talk pages are troublesome, but of course I glad that you finally responded.  Hwi.padam   22:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  Your claim that CNA sourced its information from a TikTok video is disingenuous. It is far more plausible that the TikTok video derived its content from CNA, a reputable news source, rather than the other way around. Furthermore, you have provided no evidence to suggest that CNA is unreliable or unverified. As for your assertion that a memorandum of understanding (MoU) is not a qualified source, that is a subjective opinion open to debate. MoUs are often one of the initial steps in formalizing agreements between parties, which is why I included it in the procurement section rather than the main section.

  
  

  Regarding the HS-6L, the fact that information about it is limited does not justify its exclusion from the list. The project is neither a rumor nor a conspiracy theory; there are documented reports of its development and cooperation between Belarus and Vietnam. For example, this source explicitly states that the HS-6L was intended for both civil and military purposes. The also article stated that test flights would be conducted during the second quarter of 2016. A project does not need to be successful or ongoing to merit inclusion—historical and developmental projects are valid contributions to an encyclopedia. This is why it was included in the "development" section, which is prefaced with a message clarifying that not all projects listed would progress to procurement. Encyclopedias are meant to document knowledge, even when it is limited, to provide a fuller picture.

  
  

  Excluding a "development" section solely on the basis of "we don't do that here" is not a substantive argument—it's opinionated and insufficient. Additionally, your examples of future equipment sections for the German and Polish militaries further support my argument. The extensive developments in those countries justify dedicated pages for weapons development, but Vietnam, by contrast, lacks sufficient documented equipment to warrant a separate page. This is precisely why I referenced the List of equipment of the United States Army and the List of equipment of the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force as more fitting comparisons. The volume and scope of Vietnamese equipment development align more closely with those examples, which incorporate similar "development" sections into their main lists.

  
  

  Finally, I want to reiterate that my lack of response was not out of refusal for your concerns. I reviewed your feedback, understood your perspective, and adjusted my contributions accordingly, leading to the creation of the "development" section. I did not respond further because I felt it was unnecessary to restate my agreement and the steps I had taken to address your concerns. I believe your concerns could be better substantiated with evidence to support them as it leans towards unproven or untrue accusations and is rather dismissive. BrightBanana45 (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  • CNA can not prove where can it get the number 13 from, while information from Vietnam proves that the number 13 is not correct. In one way or another, there was no official confirmation from Lockheed Martin nor Vietnam Ministry of Defence and since it did not become a firm order, it is NOT qualified to be added. Your claim of "TikTok video derived its content from CNA" is technically ridiculous since CNA has to derive its news from any first-handed account and direct record, which is the record of Vietnamese personnel allegedly mentioned the number "13", and the TikTok video inarguable absolutely claimed the primary source in this matter, making the whole C-130J thing unverifiable at this moment.
  • About the HS-6L, as there was literally no further development in the last 10 years, we have no reason to list that. It is, practically, no more an existing development, unless you can find an official source stating that it still exists in 2025. Citing an 2015 American source doesn't help, and your explanation of "can be used for military" is not evident for any potential existing VPA procurement of the type.
  • "Excluding a "development" section solely on the basis of "we don't do that here" is not a substantive argument—it's opinionated and insufficient." - so do your intention of adding future developments. The title of the page "List of equipment of the force" literally refers that it talks about existing inventories and committed procurement and is subjected to the uncodified standards between many existing Wikipedia pages of separating already-materialized matters versus potentials and unrealized plans. Try to do that in another page and your edits will be reverted immidiately by maintainers, and it would not be even my turn to do that.

   Hwi.padam   20:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  The claim that CNA obtained its information from a TikTok video is speculative and unfounded. It is far more likely that the TikTok video iterated information originally sourced from CNA, a reputable Singapore-based news organization. CNA had reporters and crews present at the Vietnam Defense Expo to collect footage and information about the event. Furthermore, the absence of an officially confirmed order for the C-130J does not justify its exclusion from the article. In fact, the examples you previously cited perfectly illustrate my point—Future equipment of the German Army and Modernization of the Polish Armed Forces—use color-coded rows to indicate equipment in various stages, such as consideration, negotiation, procurement, or delivery. Similarly, Vietnam's ongoing negotiations for the C-130J, as reported by Reuters in July 2024 and Defense News in January 2025, make it reasonable to include the C-130J in the procurements section with a note indicating the deal is still under negotiation.

  
  

  Regarding the HS-6L, I disagree with the assertion that it should be excluded because its most recent source is from 2015. An older source does not diminish its reliability unless newer evidence contradicts it. The HS-6L’s development and its dual-purpose design for civil and military applications are documented, as indicated by this source. The "development" section explicitly states that not all projects will progress to procurement, and its purpose is to document any endeavors whether it failed or succeeded. Thus, including the HS-6L serves to provide a balanced and comprehensive account of Vietnam's military advancements.

  
  

  The argument that the List of equipment should include only existing inventories is inconsistent with current practices across similar pages. For example, the "Former" section includes retired, discarded, or reserve equipment, and similar sections exist in the Navy and Air Force articles. Excluding future developments while retaining past inventories creates a double standard. Other military pages, such as the Indonesian Army and Turkish Army, document historical inventories, while pages like the Russian Ground Forces and Indian Army include sections dedicated to future procurements. These examples demonstrate that including developmental and future equipment is both within Wikipedia’s boundaries and aligns with the standard format for such lists, ensuring a well-rounded article.

  
  

  Finally, your last sentence comes across as unnecessarily aggressive and confrontational. I carefully consider the information I add and ensure it aligns with the purpose of the page. Unfortunately, this discussion has felt more argumentative than constructive on your part.

  BrightBanana45 (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  What I can parse out of the above back and forth is that this is a content dispute? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  Pretty much yes, I brought it here since I could not notice him via talk pages (because there were many pages that I don't think we could solve all of them effective via many threads) and his own user talk page. Sorry if it is the wrong place to mess around.  Hwi.padam   02:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  • The TikTok video was about a Vietnamese general officer talking about an unspecified number of C-130 (3 or 13), and as it is from the mouth of the Vietnamese personnel, there is no way that it is "derived from CNA" and that unclear video was the origin of the speculation about the number 13.
  • You are still unable to prove that HS-6L is a surviving project and to be potential for any future procurement. By your standard, HS-6L would still be an upcoming procurement for PAVN in the next 100 years as long as Wikipedia still exists.
  • You can not compare your "future" section with the "former" one, since the military actually used and commissioned everything in the former section, but there is nothing to ensure that the military will ever touch anything in the "planned" ones.
  • All of the equipments listed in the respective future section of your listed pages are all committed to be procured by the MoD or at least passed state trial. Back to Vietnam, with the C-130J, there is literally no formal confirmation of intention that Vietnam is procuring the type, and with the HS-6L, it did not even make its first flight to pass state trial to be procured.
  • "Finally, your last sentence comes across as unnecessarily aggressive and confrontational. I carefully consider the information I add and ensure it aligns with the purpose of the page. Unfortunately, this discussion has felt more argumentative than constructive on your part." Just trying to show you how things work here, but if you found it insulting then I can't help. Remember, it was brought here because you refused to notice my noting in the page's edits and in your own talk page, and my effort trying to explain that to you is already more constructive than the cold and straight unexplained reversion that you would potentially face elsewhere. Well, it's up to you, no more my business when you dislike my desrciption of what might happen. Maybe give me your personal Facebook account or whatever and we can talk.

   Hwi.padam   02:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hwi.padam: You are required to notify editors you report at ANI. Please do so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I note that none of the article talk pages have been edited for two years. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Kansascitt1225

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kansascitt1225/Archive

User User:Kansascitt1225 was recently unblocked after years of requests. This has caught myself and other long time editors by surprise, as this is a long term abuse account (7 years now), hyper-focused on the Kansas City Metro Area. Their edits throughout the years have been extremely disruptive and time consuming to a number of editors and administrators. Their edits center around Johnson County, Kansas and its relation to Kansas City, Missouri. They can be quite subtle and I ask that you comprehensively familiarize yourself with the KC topic area and this user's history. Kansascitt1225 is extremely good at gaming the system and appearing to act in good faith. here are the sockpuppetry cases that accumulated throughout the years. I should emphasize that sockpupptry is not the central problem, the problem is their unique crusade to right their perceived wrong on the Kansas City topic area; this has remained consistent for 7 years. The introduction of sometimes quite subtle POV/Biased information by cherry-picking statistics on density/crime, basically anything to make Johnson County, Kansas look favorable in comparison to Kansas City is disruptive. Especially because some of it looks (is even?) quite credible, unless you are familiar with this users long history. I do not believe due diligence was done by the unblocking, at the very least a topic-ban should have been required. We are basically right back where we were a few years ago as evidenced by these diffs, [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] please compare these to the information complied in the sockpuppetry cases and the deleted information on Kansascitt1224 talk page. I want to stress that in the last few years Kansascitt1225 has learned how to appear contrite and in good faith, but we are dealing with the exact same problematic material being introduced as the previous 7 years. The past is the best indicator of the future and there is not reason to think this will not becoming increasingly disruptive if allowed to continue. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's important not to relitigate past editing mistakes and just focus on any problems that exist since the unblock request was approved. So, you're claiming the policy violation is POV pushing, that's what the current problem is? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The diffs above are all current, but won't make much sense without the historical context. Essentially it is POV pushing, albeit I think a POV unique to this individual, things like overemphasizing crime in KC, awkward insertions of "car-dependent" as an adjective in KC articles, inappropriate comparison of density, insistence on removing suburban from articles about Johnson County (despite municipalities like Overland Park literally describing themselves as suburbs of KC in their internal city planning documents). I should emphasize this is not a content dispute so much, but long term effort by this user to essential spread bad things about KC, and good things about their home suburb, for whatever reason. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, all of the edits are WP:SEALION WP:SPA. And they're all over extremely extraordinarily complicated and intricate subject matter, which would require the equivalent of a specialized degree to discuss and cite. Basically like WP:MED or WP:MILHIST or WP:BLP. Most intensely interested people are barely qualified to even discuss extremely complicated history, urban development, census, and sociology; and they're maybe qualified to identify and revert this abuse according to Wikipedia policy.

This is a person who sits at Dunkin Donuts to propagandize the WP:OR that the census population of every city fluctuates daily by the existence of commuting to work and back. After years of specific lectures, this is an untrainable person who in the last couple days still claims an WP:RS is maybe an opinion, and does NOT know how to sign a post.[35] Just re-cited an extreme right-wing propaganda group that I only know of due to his spamming it.[36] Just posted a wall of text including his own warning template that one of the sources was unreliable. I can't even bring myself to find that. — Smuckola(talk) 23:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

This is one of the worst LTAs I've ever seen in my research of the SPI archives of legendary LTAs. I adamantly propose a site ban. @Yamla: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kansascitt1225/Archive

To vigorously agree with my most esteemed and embattled colleague Grey Wanderer above, the other best indicator of the future is the *present*! The LTA immediately repeated the identical abuse. All of this abuser's unblock requests are actually just blatant demands that were nakedly couched in years of brutal weaponized civility (WP:SEALION) and weaponized incompetence (WP:CIR). The last unblock demand is virtually identical to every other unblock demand, which were all categorically rejected as mindlessly abusive demands. Countless admins told him for years that he's community banned and that something inexplicably even worse will happen if he doesn't stop all requests and edits for X time period, but all he heard was "so you're telling me there's a chance".

He simply kept WP:GAMEing the system with endless unblock demands forever until he accidentally found a different set of admins who knew nothing of the case. That unblock demand was simply his patented topic rant about righting great wrongs, plus the innovation of "but I'm not trying to right great wrongs". It is identical to all other unblock requests that had been correctly denied as categorical abuse. However, from these people, the only stated and effective criterion was that he had already "waited" one year with allegedly no editing on the wikipedia.org website, plus a one sentence blurb about believing in unexplained, unprovisioned, magical, spontaneous, self-rehabilitation of an extreme LTA. They did not notify anybody previously involved in this mile-long SPI archive, not even a blocking admin. They did not link to, mention, or consider, that SPI archive. They mischaracterized his magical rehab duration as being six years, which is actually the entire period of abuse. The years of unanimous consensus was handwaved away as being inexplicably nonexistent. The thread was conducted effectively in secret from all of us and handwaved through. That brand of WP:AGF is called toxic positivity. That's not assuming good faith, but wishfully projecting good faith. And I know they do it in good faith. :)

And that culture is why we endured six years of this abuse. And if it wasn't him, it'd be another one.

They thought a person who had already elevated this to personal WP:HOUNDING of anybody who disagreed, and who had posted a Wikipedia comment detailing his daily plan of traversing the metro between each public wifi network for the express purpose of block evasion with sockpuppets while saying he DID NOT KNOW that any of this behavior was in any way wrong, was miraculously healed while repeating the identical abuse. Just because he did the abuse this time without a sockpuppet or block evasion.

Just look at the SPI archive. Grey Wanderer and I lost zillions of hours of our lives, our peace, and our sanity, to exhaustively cataloging and chronicling this abuse. Just for hope. This has broken us. Consider the human suffering and pain, instead of building an encyclopedia or doing anything else. All dismissed as a minor misunderstanding and inconvenience.

When unblocked, he immediately just resumed exactly the same abuse, performing automatic reverts of us reverting him. He still has absolutely no concept or concern of what constitutes a WP:RS, and citations including nothing at all or including an extreme right-wing propaganda think tank or anything else that's tinder thrown on the bonfire of his single-purpose propaganda. He talks and acts like an WP:RS is just some kind of opinion, but it's actually just whatever doesn't get reverted. Any action or inaction simply must be in service of this WP:ROBOTIC WP:SPA agenda.

What had he spent that year doing? Getting blocked on reddit for zillions of sockpuppets spamming zillions of these identical rants on zillions of subreddits, to try to recruit people to brigade Wikipedia for this one topic. All of it is weaponized helpless incompetence and sealioning, as if to say "but I *simply* want to ask *one* question ten miles long for the millionth time" and "but I *simply* don't understand". I know at least one of those reddit mods. Countless redditors in countless subreddits (all dedicated to these topics of KC and of urban planning), said all the same things as us here. Many of the replies were simply to ask him why on earth he had just spammed an identical post on countless subreddits, again and again and again. Then repeat *that*. Even the few who agreed with some points advised him to back off. That's just one website; I have no idea how many others he might have brigaded.

If ya can't tell, yeah there's a concern about posting specifics, so I guess maybe I could look that stuff up privately if I had to, but that would be beyond the already beyond-the-pale. (edit: I found a screenshot of the wiki-brigading reddit post, in which he claimed that this SPI case had "no answers". NO ANSWERS. No explanation from anybody in six years of LTA, never, not one, just blocked for no reason with no explanation. He's talking about the SPI archive page which he relentlessly and directly attacked and was reverted on for years. But that reddit sockpuppet was deleted with countless others, leaving apparently no online record.)

This week, I reported this to WMF's Trust & Safety. The response was vigorous agreement and encouragement for this ANI post but while claiming no authority for this category of abuse. Yet. — Smuckola(talk) 23:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

There was a mention of a Kansas-related topic ban in the ban appeal discussion. I think immediately resuming the same areas of conflict from before merits that much at least. Schazjmd (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: Yes thank you, but that was simply a desperate suggestion which could not be the minimum. — Smuckola(talk) 00:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry if dealing with this editor has caused you stress over the years. But for admins who patrol this board and who didn't live through this odyssey, we need to see diffs of conduct you believe is unacceptable. Or, if there is an admin who is familiar with this editor from past encounters, please ping them to this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: We did all that, immediately at first, in this thread. I issued a ping @Yamla: (the admin who had said this LTA is under "community ban" when denying the spam of unblock demands) and Grey Wanderer posted a flood of current, post-unblock diffs! And he linked to the SPI archive which, as I said, we already exhaustively curated for exactly this reason. Or just see the current page of the LTA's edit history. I am quite heartened to see Liz in on this, because I have always seen that your still waters run deep, and this is the test. Thank you so much for your kind and patient attention. :( :( :( :( — Smuckola(talk) 00:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, that is very kind of you. I don't have a reputation of acting quickly but I do like to see complaints on ANI to move along and not get stuck in limbo land. However, I do always like to hear from the editor whose activity is being scrutinized and they haven't been active for a few days. But comments from them about a dispute often can quickly reveal whether or not they "get" what the problem is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, DoubleGrazing, and Yamla: Yes you have always been patient and kind but also technically fair, that I have seen, which is a rare gift in life. Ok I just posted another comment evaluating his comment here today as being more of the same abuse. Have you learned to love it yet? Are we all sorry for being wrong yet?

My questions to you as an admin is, was his latest unblocking conducted in a valid way? Did they follow procedure by notifying 0 past participants, providing 0 links to the SPI archive, discussing and factoring 0 past offenses, categorically rejecting 100% of all past evidence, and rubberstamping it based solely on the unverified allegation of having done no Wikipedia abuse for 1 year? With no followup involvement or responsibility whatsoever. All that actually meant is that Grey Wanderer and I, the LTA's unwitting and un-notified slaves, haven't done all the work to file a new set of offenses on Wikipedia yet and they don't care what he did elsewhere.

They blasted him through the chute as simply somebody else's problem. In normal life outside of Wikipedia, this is what people call a kangaroo court or a "boys' club". As an American, I know what the pardon process is worth.

Does it matter to Wikipedia policy (such as WP:SO) that he actually spent that last year getting himself blocked on different websites for all the same offenses? Including attempted brigading of Wikipedia, in which he lied to redditors that no Wikipedia admin had ever explained any offenses or reasons for blocking? Again, I personally know one of those blocking moderators on Reddit, so ask me privately if you want. There are tools to access deleted reddit content, because all his accounts were mowed down. — Smuckola(talk) 18:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi user:Liz and user:Schazjmd. I’ll try to explain myself, my past edits and what my interests are here on Wikipedia along with my past issues in dealing with civility and multiple accounts. I will also show my viewpoint in dealing with these editors and my disruptive past, most of which was simply block evasion and using multiple accounts along with ip addresses to evade my past block which hasn’t happened in over a year. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Kansascitt1225, I look forward to seeing your explanation and your response to these comments about your editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi user:Liz and user:Schazjmd I’ll just address the concerns in each paragraph above. I list them below by paragraph because there is a lot on there.

The first paragraph states that “Their edits throughout the years have been extremely disruptive and time consuming to a number of editors and administrators”. Yes I fully admit they have been as this was a behavioral issue and I was younger then also. Bypassing my block and using multiple accounts was a very disruptive thing to do an I already apologized to these editors for wasting their time.

It was also quoted that “Kansascitt1225 is extremely good at gaming the system and appearing to act in good faith”. This is because I am acting in good faith other than that, I was simply jumping IP addresses and bypassing my block with new accounts.

It was also quoted that “ the problem is their unique crusade to right their perceived wrong on the Kansas City topic area; this has remained consistent for 7 years. The introduction of sometimes quite subtle POV/Biased information by cherry-picking statistics on density/crime, basically anything to make Johnson County, Kansas look favorable in comparison to Kansas City is disruptive. Especially because some of it looks (is even?) quite credible, unless you are familiar with this users long history “. I’m not trying to right any wrong, I am just simply trying to make the pages more up to date and more accurate. You can easily google Kansas City urban decay, redlining or white flight or crime to verify the past quickly which is why it’s credible. There are many before and after images of how the city of kcmo has deteriorated and become basically completely car dependent. I’m not cherry picking and trying to present thing more neutrally than I did 7 years ago. I have learned about looking at biases in references and how to present them better. I never said Johnson county was “better” than KCMO. It simply has more jobs, a higher income, higher overall density than surrounding counties, and much less crime than kcmo; basically regardless of how you present the information. To them I guess it seems as though I’m trying to “promote” Johnson county and they are angry that I was unblocked because all the reverting they had to do when I was bypassing my block.

I am being accused of “sea lion”. When I was editing from the IP addresses back when I was blocked, I would say “same person here” because I thought if I made better edits I could get unblocked which was a terrible idea. I said “same person here” so people knew I was the same person and was later just slapped with it being a sea lion confession. I am also getting labeled as having a right winged agenda which seems uncivil to me especially since I’m not even right or left winged and don’t associate with a party.

The other user quoted. “This is a person who sits at Dunkin Donuts to propagandize the WP:OR that the census population of every city fluctuates daily by the existence of commuting to work and back” which I wrote on the Overland Park, Kansas page.

Clearly this user is uneducated on the topic. It’s called commuter adjusted population. It’s how many people are in a city during the working day. This user gets offended by this and says it’s wrong for some reason.

As far as the rest. I was mostly upset because I got blocked on here and went to Reddit to ask questions and post demographics, Census and economic things. I want to work collaboratively with people on here and already apologized for incivility on here and quit Reddit. The first user on here was upset with me and I felt as though he assumed bad faith since the beginning when he removed the fact of urban decay in Kansas City as can be seen here [37].

Sorry I’ve caused disruption in the past but just want to see how we can move forward. I also learned about proper copyrighting and that you can’t use any picture. I agree to follow Wikipedia policies and think most my edit summaries on the KC area articles have been well referenced since I’ve been unblocked. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I must say this comes across as a rather unconvincing account of what happened and why ("sorry not sorry" is an expression I hear young 'uns use, which might apply here?). Putting that aside, on one hand we have real or alleged POV-pushing in a clearly-delineated topic area; on the other, an editor who claims to have seen the error of their ways and is wanting to demonstrate better editing behaviour going forward, which assurances the community have accepted. Wouldn't TBAN on KC-related topics therefore be the obvious way to reconcile this, at least until such time as this promised better editing has been demonstrated in practice? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing, Yamla, and Liz: Well done. Yes, it's "I'm sorry that you're all totally wrong for disagreeing with me for absolutely no reason (because there couldn't possibly be one), but most of all I'm super sorry for having been caught. So anyway, get on my level. Here's your coursework again." WP:SEALION WP:GAME WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:NOTHERE WP:CIR

Except no, instantly violating the premise of wrongfully unblocking an LTA does not result in remaining unblocked. A mere topic ban would be complicit, implying that the previous block was wrong, that the wrongful unblocking was right, and that the current repeat block defiance on the articles and in this ANI thread are ok. Anyway, if it did, then no a topic ban does not apply only to Kansas City. The topic is demographics, and he also instantly pumped the same topic in many localities. WP:SPA WP:TENDENTIOUS

Every single message, including unblock requests, has been a relitigation of a POV-pushing topic rant, including right now to your face. All of us fools have been schooled and served once again. ANI just became a fake lecture hall because he was invited here. The only thing he's learned (through pure power, aka blocking, and only for YEARS) is to save the "so anyways why are YOU so mean to ME for disagreeing?" part until later, while talking you to death (arf! arf! arf!) forever on a specific talk page. Just kidding, it's actually down below in this thread where he addresses sounding defensive. He said basically "Yeah I was defensive just now. So you say you want defensive. Oh I'll SHOW you defensive. You're all so mean to me, and WP:SO says I'm innocent. Just like a pardon changes 'guilty' to 'innocent', this is not the zillionth chance but only the second one."

How many ANI threads need their own References section? It's as if "I won't ever push my POV on those articles without approval. So, I'm forced to do it here on ANI; my class is in session; you're welcome, students!"

You see the relitigation of the sealion hedging here: "The first user on here was upset with me and I felt as though he assumed bad faith since the beginning when he removed the fact of urban decay in Kansas City as can be seen here [163]". He lets you assume this is an apology, but it's actually a passive-aggressive broken record. He's so very sorry that everyone else is wrong. The sealion is the cutest predator ever, only yummy fish ever see those fangs! Why did you need to be so yummy?

He didn't learn anything through magical rehab; he only memorized one single consequence of having been blocked, and never should have been unblocked.

The same POV and POV-pushing will exist in any other such topic too. His only area of interest (WP:SPA) whatsoever is actually unfathomably complex, which some university professors could get wrong. But he thinks he's God's gift to sociology, history, and demographic research with an honorary self-made PhD in riding around town. The rest of us have the sense to stay in our lane, or find a qualified expert. The closest I tend to do is occasionally formatting existing census citations.

Recidivists gonna recidivate. WP:CIR. Wikipedia's magically wishful toxic positivity does not work. Site ban. — Smuckola(talk) 18:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Smuckola yea I did learn something. I learned how to conduct my behavior better and not to bypass my block especially during a disagreement. I learned that if I have a disagreement, which does happen I can use the talk page, and work collaboratively. I was even thinking of going to the NPOV notice board with this a couple days ago to get an outsider perspective on the edits since my unlocking. (The edits before were my unblocking were unacceptable yes). You seem to have a personal grudge against me honestly and I feel like you’re making it sound like I’m trying to utterly destroy Wikipedia and belong in prison or something. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Yamla, Liz, and DoubleGrazing: Admins, my informed and consulted understanding is that this above comment explicitly violates WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:AGF exactly as always before. This brand of WP:SEALION is called DARVO ("deny, attack, and reverse victim & offender").

In this way, he

1) violates universally established consensus

2) creates (maintains) his hostile environment

3) ignores and defies established processes

It defies respect for community and contradicts all his trained lip service thereof. This above offense stands alone, it stands upon the mountain of violations of this ANI thread, and it trounces the galaxy of violations in the six year SPI archive.

One of the many pillars of his past block is that he constantly insists that every disagreement is wrong (or can't be understood, or simply doesn't exist) and that he has assumed bad faith of those people. This above paragraph alone is one of many statements in this very ANI thread that repeats the past block offenses, and is why he should never have been unblocked.

It continues the WP:SEALION lip service and gaslighting projection of a standard domestic abuse tactic called DARVO ("deny, attack, and reverse victim & offender"). He effectively says "But I was just about to perform the bare minimum of civil conduct that I always knew is right! If only you hadn't suddenly interrupted and discouraged me." After he had already filled the same articles with walls of the same repeat offense against the unblocking admins' warnings. That's DARVO, blaming the victim and reversing it to seem like he's the victim.

Other, far less severe, chronic abusers have had admins require them to propose sample content and reactions to sample scenarios, on their own Talk page, as a condition for considering unblocking them. They didn't get the automatic unblock that he got. Here we have him failing it all within ANI, after he already did it immediately post-unblock, and without him even being asked. Again, even a topic ban would be complicit. Site ban. — Smuckola(talk) 21:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I won’t edit the topic until a decision has been made. I am genuinely sorry for the past disruption tho. Additionally I just wanted to point out that on the Economy of Kansas City page I found another reference that says the GDP is split almost evenly between the 2 states. The first one says it in the article which sites the second one, from bookings and shows that 51.2% of the economic output (GDP) is in Missouri while 48.8% is in Kansas. I understand my past poor behavior but genuinely don’t understand what the issue is with this edit tho. This brookings study has about the same results as the “right winged biased one” on the GDP numbers. I tried presenting that neutrally saying that the economy was split fairly evenly between MO and KS. Please show me where I went wrong here Kansascitt1225 (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Hi user:DoubleGrazing yeah after I read that it sounds a little bit defensive, which it kind of is. I’m sure to other people it was more sock puppetry for deception than it was to me because they couldn’t tell I was the same person. Most of those were so blatantly obviously the same person because I would edit with a new account like 10 minutes later the exact same thing. Most of them were just to bypass my block years ago.

I know I’ve been VERY disruptive in the past It’s just frustrating being told you are acting in bad faith over and over after getting unblocked. I thought I would get a second chance and never felt like I really did after my initial block. I apologized on my talk page and to each of these editors personally. I promised on my unblock page that I would only use 1 account this time and work collaboratively with others Kansascitt1225 (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Sanctions

• Support Topic ban from the topics of Kansas and Missouri, broadly defined - Kansascitt1225: you were given a chance, and you've blown it very quickly with this POVpushing/right-great-wrongs behaviour (something I and others explicitly warned you against in the unblock discussion). Go and edit something other than Kansas City-related articles and show you can actually be a net positive on here. FOARP (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support User needs time away from this area to demonstrate they can edit productively. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey User:FOARP and User:HandThatFeeds I’m ok editing in other things to prove I can be a good contributor to Wikipedia. I must have been mistaken about what the main disruption was. I thought my main issue on my unblock was to not repeat the behaviors such as sock puppetry and edit warring and only editing one account. After my unblock, I used the talk pages on these articles instead of edit warring. I was genuinely trying to be cautious not to go back to those behaviors and be non disruptive. I explained in my unblock that I simply wanted to make clear there were more jobs in the Johnson county area and there was a higher density in those cities, with some having less single family housing. I don’t think these would have been looked at as disruptive if it wasn’t for my past behavior.

Looking at my past disruption tho, from before my block you may be correct that I might need to prove elsewhere that I can help the project. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Based Historian 1122

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

---

Moved from WP:AIV, heading added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Based Historian 1122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

mightily messed with some articles, was given "the last" warning , but this didn't prevent them from messing with an artcl on my watchlist. --Altenmann >talk 01:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC) P.S. this edit shows they are WP:NOTHERE. --Altenmann >talk 01:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The user received one single message on their talk page, an only warning from Remsense. The only edit they have performed in the last 48 hours is [38]. If I understand correctly, Based Historian 1122 is editing uncollaboratively and pushing a point of view? I'll ask them to comment here and block if it's just ignored. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit[39] made it abundantly clear they're here to vandalize regardless of whether they have legitimate goals to accomplish. Remsense ‥ 论 03:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

This is one edit, the same edit that was shared earlier in this discussion. Is there more than this one edit? They have only made 60 edits total. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I only commented here because I was asked for my view. Apologies. Remsense ‥ 论 15:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

What's your view, Shirt58? Serial (speculates here) 12:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

This is familiar to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NormalguyfromUK, who has frequently used "based" usernames, but normally targets articles on Albanian conflicts. Checkuser is coming up inconclusive but that's normal for this case. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Shirt58 has p-blocked Based Historian indefinitely from article space ([40]); a notification here might have been useful. (Although personally, since they've never shown any interest in editing any other area, it might as well have been site wide...) Serial (speculates here) 19:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm curious if there are any productive editors with "based" in their username. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

It would account for a lot... Serial (speculates here) 20:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

This made me curious so I looked on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. I found one editor on the list with a name like that, but then..."has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the account's owner has abusively used multiple accounts". Sigh. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Hesselp, again (4th ANI notice)

Since October 2024, Hesselp started a disruptive behavior on Exponential function and Talk: Exponential function that is very similar of the one for which he was indefinitely banned for editing about series (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive968#User:Hesselp again).

In the article, this disruptive behavior consists of adding controvesial content to the article and, then, edit-warring for keeping his controversial changes. These edit wars are conducted in a way such that 3RR is formally respected and they may appear as content dispute to people who do not know the subject.

In the talk page, the disruptive behavior consists mainly in walls of text that can be summarized as "I am not competent in mathematics, but the few things that have learnt from my random readings must be verbatim in the article".

Before Hesselp's edits, the article was not in a good shape, and it was a fructful discussion for improving it. This has been stopped by Hesselp behavior. There is a consensus on the talk page that the current state of the article is worse than before (@Jacobolus, Quantling, and Malparti:)

My opinion is that Hesselp must be, at least, indefinitely banned form editing mathematical articles and their talk pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Lazard (talk • contribs) 10:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that Special:Diff/1260791212 and Special:Diff/1260795817 (on Talk:Exponential function) are direct violations of the topic ban on editing "articles on or related to mathematical series as well as the article talk pages on or related to the mathematical series in question". It's not merely that the exponential function is commonly defined as a series, but the first comment writes as a formula the usual series for the exponential function (commenting that certain assumptions would make it "not exponential") and the second comment directly refers to the series definition. But since the previous topic ban did not curb the problematic behavior a broader ban seems warranted. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

If they're just going to ignore the topic ban, a block seems to be the next step. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Hesselp violated also the topic ban in the main space by repeatedly adding to Exponential function a (poorly written) section comprising the series expansion of a function: 2 December 2024, 8 December 2024, 25 January 2025. In these edits, the series is not presented as an infinite sum (as usual), but as the limit of its partial sums; this seems a way for allowing arguing that this is not a formal violation of the topic ban. D.Lazard (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

October 2026? The AP (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. I fixed the typo in my preceding edit D.Lazard (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive User:Vax'ildan_Vessar

• Vax'ildan Vessar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vax'ildan Vessar has been reverting since 20 Jan and continued removing information and sources from page Kanguva after placing a comment on article talk page before the discussion even took place today. After my response to comment, questioning and clarifying things, Vax'ildan Vessar reverted again while the discussion was still in place. I posted a warning message on Vax'ildan Vessar talk page and to reach consensus or get 3O but Vax'ildan Vessar retaliated by posting edit warring message on my talk page. Finally Vax'ildan Vessar also walked into WP:UNCIVIL, calling my logic and English poor. I am not asking for a block but the editor should be told to comply to Wikipedia norms, rules, and proper practices. RangersRus (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note:. Editor reverted again now and again with incivil description while this ANI is placed here. RangersRus (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: the editor will continue to be disruptive so need your hand here. Discussion and this ANI does not stop the editor from removing reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Discussion continues further down at section Disruptive User:RangersRus. Departure– (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC) Redundant. Departure– (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The edit summary from Vax'ildan Vessar at here Is that a threat child ? What you are doing right now is also edit-war. How come you are acting like a saint over here ? is not helpful and needlessly hostile. There's a talk page discussion at Talk:Kanguva#Box_Office, but as noted by RangersRus, the last comment in that talk discussion is also hostile. Ravensfire (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Vax'ildan Vessar, I make it four reverts (violating WP:3RR) by you and three (not violating it) by RangersRus in under 24 hours, but you are both edit-warring. Just cut it out and follow the steps at WP:DR. I have no idea myself (and don't want to) about the content issue but you both seem to be treating the gross earnings of a film as the most important thing in the world, when it is really extremely trivial. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Vax'ildan Vessar has been reverting from Jan 20, reverting edits made by another editor Tonyy Stark. He too explained in discussion and then the revert continued again yesterday and I got involved and had discussion. Vax'ildan Vessar finds the source he is removing reliable (also reliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES) but does not agree with the boxoffice figure it mentions. So he keeps removing the source and the boxoffice figure it shows. I even told Vax'ildan Vessar to get 3rd opinion on his talk page which can be found in his talk page history but Vax'ildan Vessar ignored and continued with revert. I realized this will only end for Vax'ildan Vessar by making his revert the way he wants and that is why I stepped away. RangersRus (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Nice work RangersRus, sucking off literally everyone including Tonyy Starkk, Phil Bridger and The Bushranger. Your sucking skills are indeed pro RangersRus. Vax'ildan Vessar (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't know if it has a particular meaning in Indian English, but calling someone a "child" is extremely condescending, so uncivil, in British English. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Can an admin please block Vax per his response above, immediatelycoming from his 24h edit warring block. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, please indef that user. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  And here I hoped this could be put to bed with a 24 hour block and some trout. Concur. Indef seems appropriate at this point. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, the above comment by Vax'ildan Vessar (Nice work RangersRus, sucking off literally everyone including Tonyy Starkk, Phil Bridger and The Bushranger. Your sucking skills are indeed pro RangersRus) is a completely inappropriate personal attack. Indef is necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  And indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive User:RangersRus

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

RangersRus continues to showcase agenda-driven editing on the page Kanguva. Even after clearly explaining the rationale behind an edit, they seem to ignore this, and let ego get the better of their actions. It is evident from the article's revision history that they are not trying to resolve a dispute. In a vengeful spirit, RangersRus came over here and posted an ANI topic against me. I gave them a clear warning about the consequences of edit-warring. However, they ignored this and continued to edit-war.

@Black Kite: The editor may continue to be disruptive so need your hand here. Discussion and warning does not stop the editor from agenda-driven editing.

(Vax'ildan Vessar (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC))

• Note to Administrators. This ANI is filed in retaliation to an already filed ANI on this editor Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_User:Vax'ildan_Vessar and tries to imitate me with last comment to administrator The Bushranger. RangersRus (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'll add on this case that looking at the edit history that Vax'ildan Vessar has made the same 728-byte edit six times on Kanguva while accusing others of edit warring. I'm going to notify the other editors that participated in this dispute. Departure– (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Blocked Vax'ildan Vessar for 24 hours for edit-warring. Kanguva has been protected for a week by Daniel Case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Hm. Not to excuse Vax'ildan_Vessar's edit-warring, but the source that they are removing ([41]) does not look in the slightest reliable to me for this data, especially as it has a whacking great bold warning at the bottom of the page that "Pinkvilla does not make any claims about the authenticity of the data"! One has to ask why on earth are RangersRus and others edit-warring to keep it in, especially as removing it does not leave the relevant text unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  Pinkvilla is reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force and this is the reason it is used on many Indian film pages by editors. RangersRus (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ask Rs/N then. Simonm223 (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  Discussion takes place in ICTF talk page where consensus is met and then added as reliable or unreliable in the list. Pinkvilla reliability consensus here. When reliable sources have different gross figures, editors take a neutral approach and add range like this. RangersRus (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  I do get a slight whiff of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. You should probably take it to WP:RSN for opinions on Pinkvilla's reliablity. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  No, that's not where a consensus should be gathered about reliable sources. I have startd a thread at RSN. Black Kite (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  Since Vax is back in Tal'dorei for a day maybe trout for the rest and a reminder to avoid obviously unreliable sources? Simonm223 (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

User:XYZ 250706 - P. Shanmugam (CPIM)

This may seem like a minor issue but User:XYZ 250706 has consistently engaged with the P. Shanmugam (CPIM) AfD. All of their comments are repetitive and does not provide any new information. The AfD has been relisted twice and almost 70% of the edits have been made by User:XYZ 250706. They were warned for WP:BLUDGEONING a couple of days ago, yet they continue to add comments [42]. It would be helpful if someone uninvolved could add collapsible boxes to their comments and If the AfD is relisted again, User:XYZ 250706 should be partially blocked from the AfD page. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I just wanted to attach greater importance to my reasonings to keep the article. XYZ 250706 (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

If I wanted (which I don't) to take part in that discussion I might possibly be on XYZ 250706's "side" but I would be put off by the number of edits that user had made, making their approach counter-productive. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

One potentially rather irregular element to that AfD...

User XYZ 250706 appears to have repeatedly altered the definition of "Significant Coverage" in WP:N (e.g. here [43]) and used their revised definition to leverage a discussion in the AfD re: whether certain sources constituted significant coverage (e.g. here [44]).

The user has described the change to the policy wording as being bold (e.g. here [45]) and as I wrote the same thing but more clearly but was reverted twice by two other users on the basis that their alteration to the text was an unjustified and major change to the relevant policy.

Is there any breach of policy implicit in adopting such an approach in an attempt to influence the outcome of an AfD? Axad12 (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was trying to remember where I had seen this user before. There's nothing wrong with trying to change guidelines, but it should be done at a different time from trying to defend a topic at AfD based on the change, or at least the editor should have explained what they were doing at WT:N. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

In another AfD, an editor mentioned that each citation should have significant coverage on the subject (instead of topic). But in the discussion (though it was after my edit) an editor told that I can use multiple sources that have some parts of coverage, but key is that the amount of coverage overall from all sources must be significant. I actually wanted to clarify this only. One of the reasons my edit number is more information AfD mentioned here is that I have edited same comments more than once. XYZ 250706 (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you've claimed before (e.g. here [46] that you were only seeking to clarify the definition, but the impact was clearly to radically change (and generally lower the bar of) the definition for "Significant Coverage" in favour of the line you were adopting at AfD.

Your explanation above also doesn't explain why you continued to alter the definition even after your error had been pointed out to you when your original edits to WP:N were reverted (here [47]).

If you genuinely thought you were just clarifying the existing definition then you have a major WP:CIR issue.

In addition, it seems that similar issues (bludgeoning and altering WP:N) effected another recent AfD here [48], and that in both cases you (arguably) attempted to canvass a user who you had reason to believe would back you up, here [49] and here [50].

To be honest, it seems that you have been quite disruptive at both AfDs. Axad12 (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't canvass anyone. User:Vanderwaalforces told me that notifying users who never contributed, or only made minor edits, to the article is considered unbiased and does not align with WP:CANVASS. The user I notified is seen frequently to edit such articles and is an expertise to edit those articles. That's why I notified the editor. Besides you can check my words that mentioned to put his own neutral opinion instead of mine. And regarding the edit in WP:N, I wrote a topic of the subject (which I should have written the topic/a particular topic as I wanted to focus on each topic of the subject. Besides 'a' and 'the' both indicate singular nouns.) instead of the topic. XYZ 250706 (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, it looks to me as though you (an editor who is an SPA around adding material on the topic of communism in India) spotted another editor (who is an SPA around the topic of communism worldwide) when they were the only editor who supported the Keep stance you took in an AfD (here [51]), and then on both occasions when your own communism-related articles ended up at AfD subsequently you asked that user (and that user only) to attend.

I accept that the wording that you used was neutral but Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate, and I would suggest that that is clearly what you did.

E.g.: Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.

You've made over 8,000 edits in the relevant topic area and you presumably are aware of multiple editors with a knowledge of Indian politics, you just happened to notify only the one whose political views appeared to mirror your own.

However, I said above that it might arguably be said to be canvassing. Either way it is part of a series of actions that you took in a clear attempt to distort the outcome of the AfDs (e.g. making a radical change to the definition of "Significant Coverage") - so the suggestion that your notifications were done with the same intent seems a reasonable one to me.

Also, the (rather questionable) suggestion that you were operating in accordance with advice given by another user is also the (rather questionable) reason you gave for changing the wording of WP:N. It seems that, at best, you are regularly misinterpreting guidelines in way that seems self-serving because you are misinterpreting advice given by others. See also, for example, a similar point made here [52] by user:Jeraxmoira. Axad12 (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I also note that following the deletion of one of your Indian communism articles at AfD here [53] you recreated the article two months later here [54]. I therefore nominated it recently for speedy deletion under WP:G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). Now, I may have been right or wrong in that regard (especially given the time that has passed), but it was clearly incorrect for you to have then removed [55] the speedy deletion tag as article creators may not do so if the reason is G4, e.g. The creator of a page may remove a speedy deletion tag only if the criterion in question is G6, G7, G8, G13, G14, C1, C4, or U1, as per WP:SPEEDY. Axad12 (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

user: XYZ 250706, my purpose here has simply been to indicate what might arguably be interpreted as your consistent disruption of attempts at the deletion of articles you created on the Communist Party of India (Marxist), e.g.:

a) Bludgeoning AfDs.

b) Altering the definition of SigCov at WP:N to leverage AfD discussions on sourcing.

c) Twice notifying a user who was the only one to vote Keep alongside you in a recent AfD.

d) Removing a G4 speedy deletion template despite being the article creator.

I’m not really interested in getting into a back and forth argument over this (as is now happening over several talk pages) so I’ll now stand down to allow others to comment. Axad12 (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I only followed the policies told by User: Vanderwaalforces regarding notifying other editor. Once again I am repeating that the editor is an expertise in editing those type of articles. Besides I can see that you are continuously adding other stuffs here. Besides I admitted my mistake regarding speedy deletion template in my conversation with you. XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Besides editing articles on related topics doesn't mean any editor is not neutral. What I tried to add to those AfDs are based on policies like passing GNG, having inline citations, coverage in reliable sources. XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Besides I edit articles on several topics related to Indian politics. My account is not SPA. Some of your words are not right. XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but the general concept that you have been consistently disruptive at two AfDs and one G4 seems to me fairly clear (albeit that no great harm has been done). I don't intend to comment further, but would simply suggest that you refrain from the relevant behaviours going forwards. You seem receptive to that general idea (on most of the above issues) so hopefully we are in broad agreement. Best wishes for the future, Axad12 (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I encountered XYZ 250706 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uday Narkar where he/she made 18 posts (56 edits), which is far too many. I think this is a learning-thing. It would be helpful if admins gave him/her an arbitrary limit on the number of posts he/she is allowed to make in an ADF or move discussion, and and gave him/her a series of escalating blocks when he/she exceeded that limit. He/she should also be told that a "limit" is not a right, and it is not a target.

My experience with him/her in that deletion discussion suggested to me that he/she was editing in good faith (i.e. he/she meant well, and was trying to follow Wikipedia's rules and procedures), but was making mistakes. He/she needs to learn, and is trying to learn. It is very encouraging that he/she followed my suggestion^[56] that he/she attempts to do source assessment tables. Yes, he/she is making mistakes when doing them, but it shows a willingness to learn and to do things we ask him/her to do.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I found this thread after going to XYZ's Talk after closing the AfD. I have issued further warning against bludgeoning and disruption. I hope they do take the feedback here on board, but if not we're looking at a topic ban at minimum. Star Mississippi 02:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Photos of Japan

• Photos of Japan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AndRueM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have been recently involved in an SPI initiated by User: Photos of Japan. The evidence so far has demonstrated my innocence, but, however, the user continues to engage in personal attacks and harassment directed at me there and elsewhere on wikipedia, going off topic to suggest alternate reasons for blocking me. The user admits to ignoring AGF: "Assume good faith is not "assume blind faith".". I would recommend simply looking through the linked SPI to more clearly illustrate the aforementioned offenses. I have tried my best to remain civil in the matter and adhere to wikipedia rules, but would now appreciate involvement from an admin as this behavior has become incessant and intolerable. Thanks, AndRueM (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

AndRueM is an SPA created last year to push a pro-male bias at Sex differences in intelligence. This month, another SPA named BoneCrushingDog began pushing the same POV until he was blocked on the 20th. By "coincidence", AndRueM returns from a 9 month hiatus to continue BCD's talk page thread days after he was blocked, in his own words stating that he "had the exact argument" as BCD.

The SPI found sock puppetry to be unlikely but didn't rule out meat puppetry, but considered banning them for disruptive editing or opening an ANI thread. I voiced my support for either, citing his usage of WP:OR to discredit the conclusions of studies he disagrees with to push his POV, as well as using a bot to write his replies after having mocked Wikipedia editors for having “far too much time on their hands”.

Examples of using OR to discredit sources:

AndRueM

...your claims regarding female superiority on other areas fail to recognize that the very articles oft cited argue that the dominance only exists in child population, largely either disappearing or reversing in adulthood

Snorgon111 replies with a direct quote from a source refuting this:

In general, findings for the three measures that yielded a female advantage indicated relatively stable sex/gender differences throughout life span

AndRueM challenges the sources conclusions:

While your article notes some areas where women seem advantaged, the authors fail to definitively support the claim about verbal-episodic memory due to the significant publication bias they discovered.

See also, AndRueM arguing that a study's conclusions of no difference in IQ were wrong, and explaining how they should have analyzed their data to show male superiority and AndRueM's jargon-dense OR to argue about how established advantages that women have over men on certain cognitive tasks is merely an illusion.

I first came to this article after recognizing the bot-speech of his post on the Fringe noticeboard. All of his original comments at Talk:Sex differences in intelligence are rated by ZeroGPT as being 2-3% chance of being AI-written, such as this comment (3%)

Afterwards he switches to using an LLM

81% AI, 100% AI, 100% AI.

After I tell other users they are wasting their time arguing with a bot his next comment went back to 2% as well as his subsequent comments. He again argues that this is a coincidence and due to an unreliable AI detection system, and that I am engaging in bad faith for pointing out his bot usage even after I point out that his bot posts use 'single quotes' while his human posts use "double quotes". This user is a huge waste of the community's time and his account exists exclusively to push his POV that men are intellectually superior to women, challenging any source that suggest otherwise with his own original analysis. Photos of Japan (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey, can you explain why, in this edit, you said You can see in my above sections that I had the exact argument as you to no avail. although this is your first edit since 2024? MiasmaEternal☎ 23:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Because as BoneCrushingDog stated "user AndRueM brought up these exact points in Feb. 2024" What he hasn't explained is why he came back to Wikipedia after nearly a year of inactivity, days after BoneCrushingDog got banned, to continue his thread. Photos of Japan (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure. I made the same arguments as that user spanning several earlier discussions on the same talk page last year. I took a break from wikipedia after I similarly experienced reverts by the same user, and become frustrated by the perceived lack of genuine engagement with the core argument that the articles were being misrepresented, so I wrote this as commiseration. AndRueM (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

So what made you decide to return to Wikipedia now of all times? Photos of Japan (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm unsure actually. I'm interested in the subject of psychometrics, namely intelligence, and beyond reading much of the literature, have had some correspondence with several experts in the area. However, I would actively avoid checking the wikipedia article due to the negative experience of one against many. I'm still just a human. In all likelihood, the perceived change of political climate in the US eased the internal tension adequately for me to finally take a gander. AndRueM (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

So in other words it's just a "coincidence" you came right after the guy making your arguments was banned, just like how it's just a "coincidence" your bot replies always put commas inside the quotation marks while your human replies always put them outside? Photos of Japan (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess so. AndRueM (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Be sure to tell your bot to follow MOS:QUOTECOMMA next time. Photos of Japan (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Photos of Japan: This is not the venue to continue your SOCK allegations after the API case has been closed. If you feel there is further evidence that was subsequently discovered or otherwise overlooked you're welcome to open another case over there.

@AndRueM: while seemingly exonerated over at SPI with regards to violating policy regarding SOCK, please pay careful attention to I'm tempted to block AndRueM for disruptive, POV editing as well as evaluate WP:MEAT which was also brought up at SPI. Also be aware of WP:BOOMERANG where by someone lodging accusations against another editor is also under the microscope and brings attention to all involved, including your own edits. TiggerJay (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the warning. However, I did warn the user prior to their opening of my SPI (actually initiated in response to this dif) so, unfortunately, redressment of the continued badgering is necessary regardless of scrutiny onto myself to improve collaboration within wikipedia.

I'm tempted to block AndRueM for disruptive, POV editing

Acknowledged, though I believe I have acted civilly and by the rules, especially after returning, and have attempted to hold myself to a higher standard to accurately portray evidence from the sources. However, I understand that the topic is contentious and editors may have strong opinions in certain directions. As such, and clarified by the admin there, I have refrained from modifying the actual article after disagreement is aired, and have instead chosen to make my case that the article itself fails to adequately prove NPOV within the talk page. Several times, I have listed out that information in the sources directly conflicts with derived statements in the article, which has been echoed by another editor. From the evidence, it should be clear that the literature is much more divided on the subject than the article suggests. However, if my behavior is considered unacceptable, I am happy to face the consequences. AndRueM (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@TiggerJay I have never made any sock allegations following the SPI, but have maintained the possibility of MEAT, as you have. In the past 24 hours this user has written several hundred words criticizing the conclusions of a study, arguing that they are invalid because they didn't do the stats correctly, and it is disheartening that instead of any sort of assistance I am now facing accusations that I am making sock allegations which I have intentionally avoided doing. Photos of Japan (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry if I'm not allowed to comment here as I did not open this case. I want to second user AndRueM(or the robot pretending to be user AndRueM)'s complaint about the frivolous SPI and the harassment from user Photos of Japan. I was banned for 7 days for violating the 3 revert rule (I'm not contesting the ban, I did break the rule), this issue could have been completely avoided if I had access to a second account, whether through sock or meat puppetry. Further, despite agreeing that the article has inaccuracies and does not maintain NPOV, user AndRueM and I have not been arguing the same points and have not made the same edits. As far as I can see, the only "evidence" of puppetry of any kind is that we both think the article needs corrections.

I was personally puzzled by user Bbb23's suggestion of indefinitely banning user AndRueM for disruptive or POV editing as there is nothing that I can see in the article edits or the talk section to justify it.

I would also note that as well as insisting that user AndRueM and myself are pushing a "pro-male bias", user Photos of Japan continues to refer to me as "he", I have not disclosed my gender and I do not intend to because it is irrelevant. If user Photos of Japan was somehow confused, then let this be a friendly correction, please refer to me as "they" or with other gender neutral verbiage. BoneCrushingDog (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

"the only "evidence" of puppetry of any kind"

Is the fact that you both only exist to make the exact arguments on the exact page, and that days after you were banned AndRueM returned from a 9 month hiatus to continue your talk thread and arguments. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know, user AndRueM was never banned, why would they wait almost a year, make a different account or recruit someone else, then get banned within 3 days for the one thing that having a second account would be the most useful for? They spent 9 months planning a puppet attack that resulted in an immediate ban, no collaboration, and no lasting changes to the page? These accusations are specious and a clear attempt to avoid discussing the actual issues on the page. BoneCrushingDog (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You are asking me to speculate as to why they would meat puppet in the first sentence while accusing me of making specious accusations in the last. There are many ways people can meat puppet, somebody could tell their friend on Discord about an argument they had on Wikipedia, friend decides to go to Wikipedia to make the same argument, gets blocked, tells their friend about how they got blocked for making the same argument, then the original decides to return to carry on. There are countless ways people can meat puppet, but it is not my job to speculate as to why, just to bring up the case to SPI of two SPA's who in their own words describe each other's argument as being the "exact" same as each other with suspicious timing of their appearances. And despite your claims that this is a "clear attempt to avoid discussing the actual issues on the page", I haven't made any puppetry claims on the article talk page other than a single post informing users of the SPI. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

"Just an FYI to other users. I've opened an SPI case against AndRueM and I would recommend not wasting your time replying to them until the case is closed."

You posted this on the talk page specifically advising people not to discuss the article. You opened the SPI to discredit user AndRueM and me and avoid addressing our arguments. The SPI is closed and now you've moved on to allegations of meat puppetry, a plainly absurd allegation considering the timeline of events, but one which is still unfalsifiable. You also continue to push the idea that user AndRueM is using AI to write their responses (is this even against the rules?) here and on the article talk page, another unfalsifiable accusation aimed at discrediting them without addressing their arguments. BoneCrushingDog (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I posted a single comment and reply that AndRueM was using a bot after his comments took on a stymied writing style with different formatting that gptzero identified as 100% AI generated while identifying nothing else on the talk page as such. And it's a good thing that I did because immediately afterwards he stopped. I also posted a notification of an SPI which another user at the Fringe Noticeboard recommended opening.

Outside of those those comments I have not mentioned either puppetry or bot usage on the article talk page, and have instead spent my time debunking AndRueM's faulty statistical arguments that he uses to discredit the conclusions of sources he disagrees with, while you make up that I've continued talking about either of these points on the article talk page. Photos of Japan (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You posted more than one comment referencing your claims of AI use, another one is here

You also did not open the SPI in response to a public suggestion on the fringe theories notice board as that suggestion wasn't made until the day after you opened it.

Please stop, please drop this baseless meat puppet allegation. BoneCrushingDog (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I posted a single comment and reply

Yes, you posted my reply, as I stated I made. And yes, I opened an SPI that another user recommended opening. Not sure why you think it matters if they recommended it before or after I opened my SPI, it shows they also thought an SPI was warranted either way. Photos of Japan (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You mention your AI theory in two(2) replies. Are you suggesting that this doesn't contradict your earlier statement because one is not a "reply" but a "comment". They are both replies, as you state here.

"My reply on statistical significance was addressing Generalrelative's proposed text."

Just give this up. BoneCrushingDog (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I commented on him using AI, and then replied to him commenting on my comment on AI. That's it. That was four days ago, and yet here you are making up that I "continue to push the idea that user AndRueM is using AI to write their responses" on the "article talk page". Photos of Japan (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You have left multiple comments on the talk page about your AI theory and multiple comments here, the most recent being less than 20 minutes ago. You also posted a link on the article talk page to the SPI where you make yet more comments relating to your AI theory. How can you possibly argue that you are not still pushing this idea? BoneCrushingDog (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You also continue to push the idea that user AndRueM is using AI to write their responses here and on the article talk page

You wrote this comment a few hours ago. I made a single comment about them using AI, and a reply about that comment, on the article talk page 4 days ago. Will you strike or remove your factually incorrect accusation against me? Photos of Japan (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It has been demonstrated that you left multiple comments directly accusing user AndRueM of using AI on the article talk page. You also link to the SPI where you accuse them again as recently as the 26th. You made the same accusation here, as recently as today and have given no indication of stopping. This absolutely qualifies as continued pushing of the idea that AndRueM is using AI to write their responses. Again, I have no idea whether user AndRueM is using AI, nor do I really care. I honestly don't know why you found this line in particular so contentious. Nothing about my statement is factually incorrect. This will be my last response to this pointless thread so I hope that you can accept reality now. BoneCrushingDog (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It is factually incorrect to state, as you have, that I continue to push him using AI on the article talk page. He used AI, I called him out for it, he stopped using AI. This was two comments four days ago. The majority of my comments about him using AI have been in response to you falsely accusing me of not responding to his comments on the talk page and continuing to discuss his AI comments there. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you unaware that your investment in this, after noting you merely came to the topic after noticing my 'bot reply' through the fringe theory noticeboard, seems strangely close to Wikipedia:Meat?

I can't otherwise piece together why one would dedicate so much energy delving into a fringe theory noticeboard topic despite no clear pattern of doing so, into a topic of sex differences in intelligence despite no pattern of caring about any related area, and into pushing so hard to discredit and get me blocked despite interacting with me a full 2 times before initiating an SPI. AndRueM (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Speaking of specious meat puppet allegations. But since you are curious about my investment, I kind of have a thing against users using bots to type their replies. Photos of Japan (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tiggerjay I gotta say, reading that SPI I am very much feeling that the admins involved were overrelying on technical evidence while disregarding the extremely alarming behavioral evidence. Loki (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of anyone's personal beliefs regarding my sockpuppetry, the discussion has since been closed. If you're further concerned, you are free to open another investigation.

Let us focus on whether the user's behavior constitutes incivility, which I'll remind everyone, regardless of their opinions of my actions: "This applies equally to all: it is as unacceptable to attack an editor who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other.

I believe violations of the following incivility actions have occurred:

- rudeness: 1, 2

- personal attacks 1

- ill-considered accusations of impropriety: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

- belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap"): 1, 2

- harassment, including Wikihounding, bullying, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings: 1, 2, 3

AndRueM (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

In case anyone is confused (I was), I did not say any of those quoted lines "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap", nor have I remotely engaged in a multitude of the things AndRueM is describing from legal threats to emailing users, etc. He is wholesale copying and pasting from our guidelines things that are completely irrelevant, and without making that clear.

AndRueM has spent his year on Wikipedia at Talk:Sex differences in intelligence "urging" other editors to "maintain true neutrality and look at the data and make an honest conclusion", saying that the "individuals on this page and website are beyond biased, and have far too much time on their hands", that there "seems to be a consistent and pervasive tendency of editors to exaggerate conclusions and apply different standards" and for "the bias of these editors be fully scrutinized", and he is now calling on us to "enforce transparency in editorial decisions" by openly discussing our biases and to "hold individuals to a greater standards". My reply, "You are free to openly discuss your bias, I don't think anyone will be interested in joining you", concisely tells him that if he wants others to discuss their biases then he should start by discussing his own biases first, but that I don't believe other editors will be interested in joining him because other editors have expressed a desire to focus on content rather than the biases of other editors.

In terms of civility, AndRueM is both the least civil user on that talk page, and the only user to cite WP:CIVIL (which they done several times across that talk page and here). Photos of Japan (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I've scratched out the "including etc." I can see now that it could be interpreted as misleading, I apologize for this and my failure to trim the final bullet points pasted from the rules. I do, however, as per my original intention maintain that you violated the general rules and principles of civility. AndRueM (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar - criticality of the SPI process doesn't belong here. BOOMERANG doesn't mean that if we've got reason to be critical of the reporter that it completely negates the initial report to ANI. Rather it simply means that all are exposed to deeper review. Even if ARM was a sock or found to be MEAT, actual personal attacks or harassment towards them is still not acceptable. At most it gives license to fast-track administrative actions (eg warnings, blocks, bans, etc) TiggerJay (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Up above AndRue accuses me of "harassment, including Wikihounding, bullying, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings" and his cited diff is my very own comment here in this thread calling his meat puppet allegation against me specious, and linking to a thread I had previously started about use of AI in chats to explain my investment in a topic I have otherwise not edited in, in response to his asking about my investment. I understand you are just stating a general principle (which I agree with) that personal attacks and harassment towards socks or meat puppets are not acceptable, but I would also like to add that making clearly vindictive and groundless accusations of harassment is also not acceptable. Photos of Japan (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

AndRueM has turned the talk page into wall of pseudoscientific original research

Richard Lynn is a self-described "scientific racist" who in his own review of the literature says that there is a "consensus" that men and women have no difference in IQ, before proposing his own theory as an "alternative"

that among adults males have an advantage in abstract reasoning ability of somewhere between 2.4 to 5.0 IQ points

AndRueM has done nothing on Wikipedia except push this point of view on this article, arguing that "all of our most accurate measures of general cognitive ability demonstrate male advantage after adolescence". Most recently an editor posted a source stating:

We found no support in our data for Lynn's developmental theory of sex differences in intelligence.

AndRueM's last 5 lengthy comments have been him creating his own original arguments for why this source's conclusions are invalid, arguing that the methods they use bias them towards not proving Lynn's theory and questioning their honesty. Lynn himself, by the way, uses these methods too when evaluating his own theory, so by AndRueM's own OR arguments Lynn is dishonestly trying to disprove his own theories.

He has turned the talk page into a morass of pseudoscientific original research arguments that discourage others from actually taking the time to read them, causing passerby's to assume via benefit of the doubt that some sort of legitimate discussion is occurring when there isn't. Photos of Japan (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has also become a mess that is hard to follow and seems likes an intense content dispute. Could this dispute move back to the Fringe noticeboard? I think you'll find more editors there who are willing to parse through this all than our ANI regulars. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, a consistent push for "sex differences in intelligence" is rather disturbing, and smells like a cousin of the Race and Intelligence CTOP. Also note the original complaint involved personal attacks and harassment, so I don't think this is just a content dispute. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The "personal attacks" and "harassment" are me telling other users that he had switched to using a bot to reply to his posts, and replying to his reply about it, afterwards he stopped using a bot and I haven't mentioned it on the article since. Two comments. As well as me posting a single comment on the article talk page announcing the SPI I opened concerning him (which other users supported), and my comments at the SPI explaining my suspicions and replying to an admin who brought up bringing him to ANI. That's the sum of my "personal attacks" and "harassment".

Meanwhile AndRueM has been hostile to other editors from the beginning since he returned. In his very first edit since his 9 month hiatus he states:

"The individuals on this page and website are beyond biased, and have far too much time on their hands."

Yet he goes on to continually tell other users to assume good faith which, as I stated at the SPI, it is very odd that two SPA's with zero experience editing other areas of Wikipedia are the only ones telling others to assume good faith when no one else on the article talk page had ever mentioned WP:AGF had only ever been mentioned once in a now-archived discussion 3 years ago. Photos of Japan (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is listed as a policy at the top of the article talk page, but your assertion that it was not brought up previously on the talk page is also wrong, user GeneralRelative brought it up here, though it is hard to link directly because the edit was reverted about a week ago.

Please formally retract the claim that it was not previously mentioned on the talk page. BoneCrushingDog (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I have no problem admitting when I was wrong. Photos of Japan (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

While I understand concerns some may have, I would like to offer a slight correction to the framing, which is slightly dishonest. The main contention that I, like others have, is that the article only reflects one side of the story and fails to maintain Wikipedia:NPOV. The article itself very forcefully concludes there are no statistical differences in g, despite the sources not demonstrating this. There are a few topics that point this out. I clarify my overall position is largely concerned with the article's failure to accurately paint the landscape: "There is not a consensus that there is a male advantage, but [the sources] do showcase the evidence for it, and we should do so here as well, but not argue it as true or conclusive. However, the source is clear that the general consensus is greater variability." Simply as a result of the extreme revulsion and pushback to unsavory conclusions does the argument steer in the manner framed.

My principal concern with the aforementioned user is constant attempts to derail the discussion, resorting to personal attacks to do so, and I believe this is showcased very aptly by their comments here. They are not WP:HERE to focus on building accurate articles and reach a resolution, but acting out of spite and refusing to be WP:CIVIL. AndRueM (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Your examples of "constant attempts to derail the discussion" include three comments that I made on the article talk page 5 days ago. The only reason you made up this pretend ANI case is to derail the ANI case that an admin was considering opening up on you, by casting aspersions on me first.

As far as your NPOV concerns. You are building a collection of primary sources from people including a self-avowed "scientific racist" and another who until his death was the head of a eugenics hate group in order to contradict review articles and other secondary sources which state there is no difference in intelligence between the sexes. Photos of Japan (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, this discussion is centered around your behavior. You have spent the better part of your comments here instead calling me an "SPA", a "BOT", continuing your baseless WP:MEAT allegations, and attacking my positions on an irrelevant topic. You even admit to acting in a manner inconsistent with WP:HERE. You have so far spent no time trying to be more WP:CIVIL and resolve the dispute. This is really not defensible on your part, and I do not feel any further need to engage with you. AndRueM (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You are an WP:SPA. In the year you have been on this site and the 100+ edits you have made, not a single one has been unrelated to your attempts to "correct" the neutrality of the article stating there is no difference in intelligence between the sexes. You've spent that entire year urging editors to be neutral, to assume good faith, to make "honest conclusions", while calling them "beyond biased". And now you've opened a frivolous ANI case because an admin was considering opening one up against you and you wanted to redirect. Photos of Japan (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

If only a minority of WP:MEDRS sources show evidence, that falls into either WP:DUE or WP:FRINGE territory. Attempting to force in mention of them is establishing a false balance, not NPOV. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but the claim that "only a minority of WP:MEDRS sources show evidence" has not been substantiated. My examination of the evidence has shown that most WP:MEDRS sources acknowledge the possibility of both an advantage or parity, though ultimately concluding a lack of consensus. I've demonstrated this multiple times with many citations, such as here.

On the other hand, very few examples substantiating the quoted claim have been presented, and one was even retracted for being fabricated. If my position was truly POVPUSHING, we would expect stronger evidence against it. Moreover, in the article in question, sources explicitly stating nonconsensus are paradoxically being used as argument for a settled consensus. Such an inconsistency would be unlikely if the claim were true. AndRueM (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

You've cherry-picked quotes from sources to give the appearance of them arguing the opposite of what they are saying. Last night I spent over an hour reading the 90+ pages of the two chapters on sex and intelligence by Hunt and by Halpern in order to understand their positions and to discuss them, but instead I have had to respond to your wall of groundless allegations against me, multiple sub threads your started on the talk page where you call for editors' biases to be scrutinized and for editors to openly discuss their biases in order to "hold individuals to a greater standards, while also posting a wall of quotes that misrepresent the sources' positions while asking people to "voice your concerns now".

The reason your latest concern has yet to be addressed is because it takes much less energy to make assertions that are not true, than it takes to actually read through sources and come up with wording that accurately summarizes what they say, while also responding to a bunch of irrelevant side conversations. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I do genuinely appreciate your willingness to read the texts; this is much more than many would be willing to do. I'll eagerly await evidence that my quotations were cherry-picked. AndRueM (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE behavior from 77.22.168.12

A quick review of 77.22.168.12's contributions reveals a general pattern of WP:NOTHERE behavior and whose edits have almost all entirely been reverted.

The user was previously warned by JacktheBrown for engaging in an edit war on the page Brendan Carr (lawyer). In this edit summary, Jack stated "why don't you start a discussion with the user on the article's talk page instead of participating in an edit war?". Roughly 10 minutes later, I received this short personal attack on my talk page accusing me of "adding negative content to slander Republicans". Other edits by the user, such as this one tagging content as "random irrelevant dogshit", removing content with no explanation here or reverting talk page comments by other users is unhelpful.

Today, the user has continued to make inflammatory comments, such as this edit on the Brendan Carr page by calling me incompetent by saying "correcting another incompetent edit by the other user", and accusing other editors of having anti-Trump bias. The user has since blanked their talk page, and has since re-added almost all all their prior reverted edits to pages.

I am requesting an IP ban for repeated violations of the no personal attack policy and disruptive editing. BootsED (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, that last one is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the comment being responded to. The rest are not on, though. Given them a formal level 3 warning for NPA for the edit summaries. Up to other admins if the overall behavior rises to the point of blocking (not banning). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The edit warring on that IP editor's TALK isn't covering anyone in light. Nemov (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Persistent unexplained removal of content by 2603:8080:2FF0:CD70:0:0:0:0/64

2603:8080:2FF0:CD70:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - /64 keeps removing large amounts of sourced content from articles without explaination - including several instances of removing all mention that the subject of a biography is dead - hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of unexplained content removal: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:AIV? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the thing is too stale to go to AIV at this point... What now? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

They're baaaack! I've pblocked them from article space for 31 hours and included the link to this discussion both in the block notice and the block log. They'll be able to see that if they try to edit again, so perhaps we'll see them here. It's hard to communicate with IPv6 users, as their full address may bounce around in the /64 space from time to time. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Stevencocoboy

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

I have held off on this report for as long as I could, but I have reached the end of my patience with Stevencocoboy. They have, for quite some time, demonstrated a battleground mentality, refusal to compromise, inability to follow Wikipedia's MOS, inability to follow other Wikipedia guidelines, persistent edit warring, but the biggest issue I have with them is their inability to adequately communicate in English. I have explained that competence in English is necessary in order to edit the English-language Wikipedia. I broached the issue here on January 3rd. I again addressed their poor level of English on January 23rd. Their response included "But let me tell you, my english standard is poor because I'm not American, but it doesn't mean I can't editing the english-language wikipedia. It's my freedom..." That freedom does not extend to including edits like these:

• This entry at Ilia Malinin: "In January 2025, Malinin complete the 2025 U.S. Figure Skating Championships. He scored 114.08, taking a lead in the short program. In the free skate, he attempted and landed all six types of seven quads, success finish in quad flip, quad axel, two quad lutzes and quad salchow, but fell on quad loop and earned 219.23 points, bringing his total score to 333.31 and securing his third consecutive national titles." When I deleted this mess, his response was the usual revert with the comment: "You can correct it, but shouldn't remove the imformation with references." I shouldn't have to correct it; it shouldn't have been included in the first place.
• This previous entry at Ilia Malinin: "In December of the Grand Prix Final, Malinin breaks new ground with seven quad attempts to defend the title. He scored 105.43 and secured first place in short program, then he attempted seven quads in his free skate and scored 186.69, total scored 292.12 and won a gold medal. He is became the first figure skater to land all six types of quadruple jumps in one program."
• This at Simone Biles: Changing "Biles was named Sports Illustrated 2024 Sportsperson of the Year for not only winning..." to "Biles was named Sports Illustrated in the category of Sportsperson of the Year for not only winning ..."
• etc.

Look, I don't doubt they’re good faith, but I am out of patience here. I told them to not post on my talk page again, yet I received another message this morning: "Hi there, which terrible grammer I've edit it, can you explain and make me improve." Their talk page is littered with complaints going back years. At the very least, Stevencocoboy should be enjoined from editing prose on the English-language Wikipedia. Pinging Flibirigit who also recently had numerous difficulties with this user at the hockey project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgsu98 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my english is poor because I'm not American, but I love edit english wikipedia and I have fully passion and good faith. I revert it because he remove all the imformation with references. Also I want to improve my grammer mistakes and send the message in his talk page, but he don't teach me and how can I improve it? But I know grammer mistakes is my main problem so I've already remove my edit first and I'll asking others for help. Also I can promise that I'll edit no controversial content, such as update a result. This is the most things I always edit in wikipedia. The other summary before I edit it, I'll asking other users first and make sure no any grammer problems. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Stevencocoboy, the English Wikipedia is not a good place to come to learn English. Standards are high here. Have you considered contributing to the Wikipedia in your native language or The Simple English Wikipedia? If your mistakes outweigh any positive contributions you make, you will likely find yourself losing your editing privileges here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I unterstand and I'll edit no controversial content only, such as update a result. If I want edit a paragraph, I will ask other for help to check it, maybe edit in a draft first and make sure no any grammer problems. I need carefully in here. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to say this nicely but each editor has work they want to spend their time on. You can't ask other editors to supervise and check your editing to see if it is okay and it abides by policies. If this is the case and you can't work competently on your own, I don't see a longterm future for you here. You could see if another editor wanted to "adopt" you but asking them to check your work is an unfair burden to ask another editor to take on.

If you have specific questions on editing on this project, you can bring them to the Teahouse but they can't walk you through the editing process either. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry. I can work competently on my own, If I'm update a result only, there aren't any problems. Thanks for you suggestion. the Teahouse may solve my problem and answer my questions. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your writing here demonstrates otherwise. Your writing here is littered with misspellings and grammatical errors. If you do want to edit on English Wikipedia, it would be best to do so in your own sandbox so you don't disrupt actual Wikipedia. If you would like someone to check your grammar, you can do so there. guninvalid (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay I understand and thanks for your suggestion. Stevencocoboy (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Look, I didn't go for the nuclear option and request that this user be blocked from the English-language Wikipedia altogether. I simply asked that they be blocked from making prose edits to the English-language Wikipedia. They can still make other edits, such as entering scores, formatting tables, etc., even though they have proven to be problematic in those areas as well. I'm trying to be as generous as possible. His most recent edit to Ilia Malinin still demonstrated numerous grammatical errors and errors in terms of the FS MOS.

Additionally, Draft:Greta Myers was just sent back to draftspace by another editor. Imagine thinking that article was of sufficient quality to publish to mainspace! Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Bgsu98, how exactly would such a specific editing restriction be enforced? Would another editor have to review every edit to determine what is prose and what isn't? Would the editor themselves be easily aware of what they could and could not contribute? I'm not sure, logistically, of how this restriction would be explained to them and imposed and, right now, I don't see enough participation in this discussion thread to assert a consensus to carry out your suggestion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Ideally, this user would take it upon himself to not edit prose, and instead limit himself to entering scores, formatting tables, etc. I'm trying to come up with the least intrusive restriction that stops the most problematic behavior. The next solution would be to ban him from editing anything that falls under the umbrella of the WikiProject Figure Skating. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

New edit: In January 2025, Malinin competed in the 2025 U.S. Figure Skating Championships. He scored 114.08 and lead in the short program. In the free skate, he attempted all six types of seven quads, success in quad flip, quad axel, two quad lutz and quad salchow, but fell on quad loop attempts. His free skate earned 219.23 points, bringing his total score to 333.31 and securing the third consecutive national titles.

I've already try my best to improve grammar problems, see Wikipedia:Teahouse#Grammar_problem and listen other users opinion to use grammar-check system check the mistakes. I believe that the new edit isn't have any problem. Otherwise I'll focus update a result information only. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

"He attempted all six types of seven quads." I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean. "I believe that the new edit isn't have any problem." Irony aside, while this doesn’t suck as badly as it did before, it is still grammatically terrible. Additionally, Lutz, Axel, and Salchow are all proper nouns and thus should be capitalized. It’s also “quadruple”, as this is an encyclopedia and not a figure skating chat forum. Anyway, this edit clearly demonstrates that you have no business editing prose of any kind on the English-language Wikipedia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that Stevencocoboy be blocked from article space. Their English is too poor to be making edits there, and they don't know when they're making mistakes. The user can make edit suggestions on talk pages, or, better yet, help make their native language Wikipedia better. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Just as an example, from their best attempt at good writing (assuming I deciphered the text correctly--it was hard to figure how many jumps of each type were taken): "He scored 114.08 and lead in led after the short program. In the free skate, he attempted all six types of seven quads of quadruple jumps, success in succeeding to land the quad quadruple flip, quad axel quadruple Axel, two quad lutz quadruple Lutzes and quad salchow a quadruple Salchow, but fell on his quadruple quad loop attempts attempt. His free skate earned 219.23 points, bringing his total score to 333.31 and securing the his third consecutive national titles title." — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I support User:Rsjaffe's proposal as the one who initially brought this issue to ANI. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks user bgsu98 correct my grammar mistakes. It's okay. I'll focus update a result only from now, the others I'll not continued edit because grammar mistakes is my main problem. I feel sorry for guys. I have a promise in here and if I break my promise, you can block me whatever you want. And one more thing I have a hoilday in three days and I have a travel trip so I can't respond in here cuttent days. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As an occasional copyeditor I'd be very concerned if I suddenly see a large jump in {{copy edit}} tags filling up the backlog. I support Stevencocoboy being blocked from articlespace and would like to reiterate that editing Simple English or whatever language they're proficient is probably a better choice for everyone involved. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Also Support a block from article space for now. While I am glad Stevencocoboy is promising to do better, their grasp of English is clearly not sufficient for editing our articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Stevencocoboy agreed to not make prose edits in their latest post above. Looks reasonable to me. Others' opinions? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Drbogdan misuse of talk page while blocked

• Drbogdan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Community ban discussion
• Recent declined unblock appeal

This morning user Warrenmck left a message on my talk page advising of banned community-indef-blocked user Drbogdan potentially misusing their talk page to post news articles as edit suggestions for other users, and other users taking up those suggestions (i.e. WP:PROXYING). Last year Drbogdan was blocked after a long discussion about their posting of similar low-quality churnalism articles as citations and then leaving it to other users to determine if their material should have been added, which made a mess of things for other users to clean up. To me their talk page posts (for example User talk:Drbogdan#Glucose - *Noninvasive* Monitor?) are a continuation of the exact behaviour they were blocked for, and plainly an inappropriate use of their talk page while blocked. However, Floquenbeam replied to Warrenmck's post on my talk page suggesting that maybe Warrenmck is too close to the situation to be objective, and I have generally experienced pushback over sanctioning banned editors who are trying to edit in good faith despite their sanctions, so I'm posting this here for further input.

Should Drbogdan be warned about misusing their talk page in this manner, per WP:BMB? And at what point is revoking talk access warranted? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment, involved: I think it warrants mentioning that beyond the WP:PROXYING concerns, he was also continuing to link his own New York Times comments on his talk page as part of this, which is basically the other half of the thing he was CBANned for. This all comes hot off the heels of an unban request with a core argument of "I did nothing wrong"

Following his CBAN he went on a spree editing in promotional links to his user page on other language Wikiprojects, including using a specific diff from a Luxembourgish wikiproject as his “profile” on his linked livejournal which was deleted by an admin there. I understand that this is outside the scope of an English wikiproject ANI (and, as pointed out above, I’m probably heavily biased) but given his cross-wiki response to a CBAN was to fortify the presence of promotional content and the multiple times he was caught lying about promotional edits being accidental it feels well past time to treat Drbogdan as a WP:PROMO/WP:NOTHERE editor and skip the warning.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes to final warning Might seem heavy-handed but the fact that it directly touches on why the indef happened makes it inevitable, doesn't it? Plus the use of the talk page is borderline social media. DeCausa (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Their using Wikipedia as a social network was also a concern that contributed to their block. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access now. Thinking about that, Meters post below, the post-block spamming of promotional links across other language WPs (above), and the "I did nothing wrong" appeal, cumulatively it's obvious this user is putting on the faux naive-slightly-confused-academic front to push the boundary of what they can get away with. enough. DeCausa (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• I have learned that, if the community wants to be heavy-handed, there is little I can do to stop them. I've tried several times to type a sentence after this one, and each time it turns out bitter and angst-y and angry depressed, so I guess I won't type one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• I'm largely uninvolved, and see no good reason not to revoke talk page access now. Talk page access for blocked users is supposed to be used for appealing the block, not some sort of backchannel. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• Revoke talkpage access - Unless the Wiki-rules have changed, one isn't suppose to use their talkpage in such a fasion, when banned. I wasn't able to do so, when I served my ban over a decade ago. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• Final warning As irritating as their behavior may be, Drbogdan has agreed not to do it again: Special:Diff/1272191615. It will simplify the appeal process (if there is another appeal) if talk page access is preserved.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't see a promise "not to do it again" there. I see the equivalent of "sorry, I didn't know I wasn't allowed to do it", which is something we've seen before from this user. Meters (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Revoked talk page access. WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Well, Bushranger has pulled the trigger on the talk page access. I planning to say that revoking TP access would be a bit overkill for just posting something about glucose. Suggesting an edit on their own talk page is not very disruptive, a warning probably would have been fine BugGhost 🦗👻 00:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
• Is 40 lashes out of the question? He promised not to do it again, probably didn't reason out that he was running afoul of something. If he has something to say his talk page seems the place to say it (otherwise what, cut off all his access to the project that Dr. has contributed so much to?). An observation. Lots of articles Dr. was active on are on my watchlist, and since he left those pages, and is gone from related science and space pages, many if not most just are not being updated. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  Nobody is too important to block if they become a disruption to Wikipedia. Look at Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits#1–1000. Of the top ten, three are no longer allowed to edit here. The loss hurts, but we can't take all that bad with whatever good was associated with it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  This discussion is about letting him use his talk page, that's all. He colored outside the lines there, apparently not becoming aware that he was doing so until being called on it, and has apologized. Doesn't seem to deserve total banishment. The high loss rate in the top ten seems an underappreciated interesting factoid. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  I totally agree with you. My reply was meant to address your lament regarding the lack of updates of many articles formerly edited by Drbogdan.

  That said, revoking talk page access was a very reasonable action, just not one that I personally would have done this time. Perhaps I'm too big a sucker, but I would have given Drbogdan one more chance: mainly because if you look at their talk page you'll see there was an issue with an apparently fake (third party filed it, not Drbogdan) UTRS appeal User talk:Drbogdan#UTRS appeal #99007, which wouldn't be an issue if talk page access were still available. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  Note that if any other admin disagrees with my pulling the talk page access, they may freely restore it without needing to ping me first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for your flexibility. I have restored TPA and left a stern warning about misuse and its effect on any chances of regaining editing privileges. I've also put the page on my permanent watchlist. I can only hope that I don't regret this decision later. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  p.s. According to WP:PROXYING, nothing incorrect seems to have occurred. Maybe I'm wrong, please let me know. If I'm reading it right the policy allows banned or blocked users to post editing suggestions (I guess the only place they can do this is on their talk page), and all that is required for somebody to go ahead and use the information is that they have to take total responsibility for its accuracy. What, may I ask, did Drbogdan do wrong? Randy Kryn (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) No you're misunderstanding policy. That solely refers to what happens if someone takes action from something Drbogdan has suggested somewhere. No one is suggestion action over anyone doing something about what Drbogdan has said. Drbogdan however is only allowed to use their talk page to appeal their block. This might include asking questions to help them understand their block but it doesn't include them posting edit suggestions beyond those covered by WP:BANEX. They're free to start their own blog somewhere outside the English wikipedia if they want, and if anyone takes action over what they say in their blog, these will be dealt with how we handle proxying . Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'd add that I'd consider it acceptable for them to post a link to this blog on their user talk page one time, something like "I can't continue to discuss here but feel free to visit https://....." where we can continue discussion. But others might disagree and especially with Drbogdan's existing post block actions, I think it's understandable they've lost community tolerance. Nil Einne (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  As part of the unblocking of the talk page, I told Drbogdan: "Do not use the page as a social network. See, for example, WP:NOTBLOG. Use this page only for unblock requests or other necessary communications. Do not suggest or link to article topics or content suggestions."

  I would view posting their blog address as an attempt at social networking and would block TPA. I mainly wanted to retain TPA to simplify developing and processing unblock requests, so it was for our potential benefit, not Drbogdan's. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I will acknowledge this perhaps isn't that well explained anywhere AFAIK. While the earlier linked banning policy page talks about how to appeal if you have talk access and the Wikipedia:Blocking policy talks about when to revoke talk page access with vague references to "abuse". Wikipedia:User pages#Blocked and banned users talks about retaining the wide latitude but may lose it for proxying and some other things although as noted above proxying itself doesn't actually say editors aren't allowed to use their talk page for proxying. I think this arises in part because we don't generally bother if a blocked editor makes the very rare comment which is unrelated to their block provided their comment itself isn't too disruptive. However at the same time even without any sanction, user talk pages themselves are supposed to be primarily used for discussing Wikipedia content which isn't something a banned editor can do. Therefore anything they do other than request an unban or ask for clarification to help them understand their ban is technically off-topic. And so it quickly goes to the point where the editor is doing way too much off-topic stuff on their talk page. In this case, it's made worse by the stuff they're doing now is the same stuff that significantly contributed to their ban and continuing the behaviour that got you banned is definitely not something tolerated. Nil Einne (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Accusations of “racism” at WP:ITN/C and admin’s talk page

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

---

Could we get some fresh eyes on the Gloria Romero nomination at WP:ITN/C? In all my years here I don’t believe I have been called a “racist” before, a term I find to be extremely offensive personally and which is being directed at numerous editors who disagree with the nominator. The term is being used at the blurb posting admin’s Talk page as well, and in my view this personal attack calls for corrective action. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest if somebody is actually making actionable personal attacks at an admin's user talk page an AN/I posting may not be necessary unless the admin is WP:INVOLVED in the dispute. Do you have diffs? Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Since they didn't give proof to these claims, here's the proof; comments from Royiswariii (talk · contribs):
• Comment This is the LAST TIME I will entertained the comments about this blurb, 'cause it's too exhausting and some nonsense basis why they're opposing just like being racist just because it's not well known or not covered with BBC, CNN or on AP News. I do respect all your votes but WP:FUCKVOTES and I'll ignore it. If your past blurbs about a well-known or not posted and you just attacking my nomination cause it's not well known or their basis on notability and quality of the article and not posted, IT'S NOT MY RESPONSIBLE OR LIABLE IN THAT PAST BLURBS AND I DO NOT KNOW WHY OR WHY NOT POSTED DEATH BLURBS. Hope doing okay and thank you for your time. from Royiswariii (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) RD: Gloria Romero (actress).
• Hello, Robertsky [he]! I'm asking if I can close my nomination? I'm not withdrawing my nom but I want to closed the nomination of ITN of Gloria Romero, I do respect their votes, however, their explanation on opposing are so confusing and nonsense. Some votes on the oppose are valid, but mostly they're just attacking (or probably attacking) my nomination just because it's not well known and "Not featured on CNN, BBC or AP News". Tho, I don't care their votes per WP:FUCKVOTES and WP:IGNORE, They're uncivil on my nomination feel like so racist on my nomination just because it's not "super" well known. I want to hear your reply, thanks! from Royiswariii (talk · contribs) at User talk:Robertsky#ITN: Gloria Romero.

I know I'm not an admin, and shouldn't be clerking, but these seem like pretty serious WP:ASPERSIONS at the minimum. E_F⁵ 14:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Have there been any further personal attacks since the comment at Robertsky's talk page? Because I'd say, provided they drop the matter, and especially if they follow Robertsky's advice and strike the statements, that's kind of that. An admin gave direction and chose not to sanction further. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

(Several EC’s) Beat me to it. Thanks. And yes, I agree these are serious. And Simonm223, the attacks have not been struck. Jusdafax (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There have been no further activity since their last replies to my advice and in ITNC. It remains to be seen if they will take my suggestion. xtools' Timecard seems to indicate that it is past their usual peak editing time. – robertsky (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Per Robertsky above then I'd suggest we wait and give them some time to strike their comments before bothering with this further. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I’d have to question that, to be frank. Letting accusations of racism stand against numerous editors for an indeterminate length of time seems dubious. The admin’s suggestion on their Talk page that the accuser “might” consider striking the accusations, well, … really? Wow. Jusdafax (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Generally if an admin is already on the case and has provided direction to the person at the core of the incident I'm going to defer to their expertise in the situation. Others may feel differently but I'd like to trust that Robertsky knows what they are doing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jusdafax I understand that being accused of being a racist does not put one in a nice place. It is a label which was thrown at me in a blindsided manner before as well. However, while it may seem to be an indeterminate length of time, in this case given the lack of continuous activity from them, it is simply waiting for the sun to rise up in high in the sky with an assumption of knowledge of his timezone, presumably that it is late at night at where they are, so that there's enough time for them to cool off and rethink about what had been said. (Otherwise, the clock of any sanctions would start while they slept if a block was immediately imposed.) As for 'might', contextually, it was written almost right after they left the message on my talk page. Empathically, stronger words may end up leading to stronger emotions and it would be counterproductive if there had been room for apologies and peace, as below.

Nonetheless if anything, I could have highlighted on some of possible consequences in my reply if the word remained hopefully to bring this to a quicker resolution. So, my apologies for that.

@Simonm223 thanks for the trust! Just to note though, being WP:INVOLVED by virtue of processing that ITN nom and tehn this subsequent follow-up on my talk page, it would likely be another admin carrying out the sanction(s) if it went down as such. – robertsky (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi people! First of all, I would apologize if I say some inappropriate words. Like I said, I do respect on their votes whether it is oppose or support, and I do not entertained about that on my ITN Nomination. My argument on the ITN is the blurb that some editors are off topic because they did not nomination because of not well known. On Romero's blurb, I nominated the blurb because the article is high quality and passed on notability. The other editors perspective, they opposed because it's not well known in the world which is I strongly disagree, because they should based on the quality of the article, notability and the significance the impact of a country, not in the world. I said racist because they commented that Romero are not "well known" and "not announced on BBC, CNN, or AP News", which this is the most worst I read votes in my 6 months here in Wikipedia and they comparing on a Sports biography or US Baseball Biography. Again, you heard my side and I apologize if someone hurt what I said but, i will insist that I didn't off topic on my arguments on ITN. Thank you. ROY is WAR Talk! 15:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

That time, I'm not angry or frustrated, If you misinterpreted the quote bold, I would clarify that I'm not angry, I'm just explaining that I'm not liable in past blurb because I do not involved on the past blurb that might related on ITN blurb of Romero. ROY is WAR Talk! 15:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Royiswariii: You can strike 'racist' in your comments as instructed on your talk page. -𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor _{Ping Me🔔} 15:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Royiswariii| has struck the accusatory words at Wikipedia:ITN/C. Schazjmd (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

One problem is that "racism" is used by almost everyone these days as a stand-in for "ethnocentrism". When Royiswariii called an editor who complained about "trivial third world figures" a racist, he should probably have used the more accurate term. I do find it a little depressing that no one here has complained about Dr Fell's comment, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean... you're correct. Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I certainly find Dr Fell's comments troubling. People in many countries seem to feel empowered to make such disparaging comments about less developed parts of the world these days. But, Royiswariii, you can't tar all of the people who have a different opinion from you with the same brush, and I'm glad you struck the word "racist". Since he has done so, and this discussion serves as a warning, I don't think any further action is needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Noting that this is a regular occurrence on ITN, where questioning the significance of any non-Western subject results in accusations of discriminatory bias and racism. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  No, there are rarely any accusations of racism. Systemic western bias, absolutely though. Stephen 00:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Moribundum: incivility and problem editing reported by User:Zenomonoz

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

Moribundum has been edit warring to insert mention of 7 cases of anal sexual abuse into the fecal incontinence article [57][58][59][60], writing "In one study, all 7 included individuals with history of unwanted anal penetration had structural damage to the internal anal sphincter". The article already mentioned of "anal sexual abuse" as a cause of incontinence, citing a secondary source (Wolff et al. 2007).

But Moribundum cited Kumar et al, which does not actually mention these cases with respect to fecal incontinence. Nor does Moribundums inserted sentence. Page 4, under anal penetration cites these 7 cases (from Engel et al.) to talk about general damage, not incontinence, writing In contrast to passive AI, unwanted anal penetration was found to be associated with structural internal anal sphincter damage in all the 7 patients who were studied by Engel et al.

On the talk page I have tried to explain that while Engel et al. (a primary source) does discuss incontinence in these cases, we probably can't cite Kumar to include mention of this. WP:MEDRS. Moribundum repeatedly made WP:SYNTH arguments.

Regardless of who is correct, Moribundum did not engage in good faith and began making WP:UNCIVIL comments and WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE:

• [61] "This is ideologically motivated removal of content. No arguments on talk page" – I had replied extensively on talk page.

• [62] " Edit history would seem to suggest the explanation for your behavior on that article... that you have non neutral point of view and want to push a narrative that anal penetration has no correlation to incontinence. If you cannot stop your personal ideologies from affecting your editing, you should not edit, or at least not edit on those topics for which you are unable to suspend your bias"

This is most likely a derogatory reference to my editing in LGBT topics; but I actually wrote the paragraph on anal sex as a potential contributor to fecal incontinence, so this claim is baseless.

I warned Moribundum and asked them to apologize. Moribundum doubled down, refused to acknowledge a problem, told me to stay off their talk page [63]

Moribundum reinserted the sentence for a fourth time, falsely claiming "No response on the talk page. Disruptive editing". I had actually replied on the talk page 10 hours prior and pinged the user. Moribundum only replied after this revert and false claim.

Despite account creation in 2022, Moribundum says they have been editing Wikipedia since my account creation 14 years ago. And in this 2022 comment, says "I used to edit wikipedia many, many years ago but lost access to my email". Per WP:COMPSOCK, I believe they should disclose their original account. They also complained about the "toxic aspects" of Wiki, which might suggest another issue at play.

User Ratel looks to have had issues with Moribundum, noting they have been inserting problematic sources into med topics here, and having to revert them for inserting primary sources and excessive detail.

As seen in this extended argument, Moribundum has previously disputed administrator removal of their copyright violations, refused to accept guidelines ("what is wrong seems to be the guideline") and dismissed input from other editors. It appears there has been little improvement 2 years later.

Zenomonoz (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

AI causes fecal incontinence? Now I've heard everything. EEng 11:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I have partially blocked Moribundum from article space as this is a rather long standing issue. They are welcome to contribute here and make edit requests until they show they understand the underlying issues. Star Mississippi 02:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me but what issue? The argument that that content is not directly relevant to fecal incontinence is objectively false. This user has not presented any coherent argument about why it should be deleted and is just disruptively editing it over and over. As I have in detail explained on talk but been largely ignored while the counter argument consists of repeating the same unfounded claim over and over. They have also misrepresented my position above. The content is based on a reliable source, not a primary source. This user also continued to edit my talk page and make accusations at me after I told them to stop. A discussion about removal of Rome diagnostic criteria is also not grounds for ban. They have been uncivil to me also. You have banned a productive editor who created quality articles in favor of someone who will only contribute in creating conflicts on talk pages.

My editing on pudendal nerve entrapment was bringing the article into line with mainstream medical opinion. I removed unsourced content and some primary sources. This user is not competently checking the sources. All my edits are based on reliable sources.

Regarding old accounts, this is not a crime. I had 2 old accounts if I remember. I chose to stop using those accounts voluntarily, they were never banned. When I made a new account I never used the old one again. Not least, I don't think I have access to the email accounts that were linked to those accounts anymore and I couldn't log in if I tried I suspect.

Honestly this seems like a malicious attack, trawling through my edit history to dig up things, misrepresent them, make insinuations and accusations, make false representations of my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moribundum (talk • contribs) date (UTC)

If you have privacy concerns, please disclose the prior accounts to ArbComm. You're welcome to edit here, talk pages and elsewhere until consensus is clear that you should be able to edit articles. Indefinite can be lifted at any time, but your argument here does not show edits that refute the points raised above. Please provide diffs Star Mississippi 13:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

There are a lot of points above and I resent being forced to waste so much time

Moribundum has been edit warring

What has the other editor been doing if not exactly the same?

Kumar et al, which does not actually mention these cases with respect to fecal incontinence.

Yes it does. All they do is repeat that it doesn't relate to FI when it is beyond doubt that it does relate to FI. I reproduce the core points of evidence for this again below for reference:

1. The authors divide all pathology of IAS into high pressure and low pressure

2. They state low pressure pathology usually manifests as incontinence

3. They discuss this section, including reference of Engel, in the low pressure pathology section. Meaning that it is a low pressure pathology which they say usually manifests as incontinence. If I am writing an article about diabetes, and I write a causes section. Then I write a subsection about some factor in the causes section, I wrote it in that position because that factor is a cause of diabetes.

4. There is also a table which lists trauma from anal penetration as an example of low pressure pathology

5. Also, in the "high pressure" section, they state: "Low pressure in the anal canal due to the above mentioned pathological disorders usually leads to FI." In case it was not clear, "the above mentioned pathological disorders" includes the section in question. And you still claim this is not explicitly linked to FI?

6. The source the authors are referring to is called "Unwanted anal penetration as a physical cause of faecal incontinence" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7866814/

Kindly appreciate how irritating it is to be faced with such behavior. All of this drama is based on the claim that this content is not related to FI? It's nonsense, and they are too stubborn to admit it.

Nor does Moribundums inserted sentence.

Not every sentence in an article has to mention the title of the article. Do I seriously have to explain that? I explained on talk that both the source and our article relates to FI, points mostly ignored.

while Engel et al. (a primary source) does discuss incontinence in these cases, we probably can't cite Kumar to include mention of this

"Probably" they say. So happy to start a long, time wasting and pointless argument because they "probably" feel that that my edit was wrong. :Kumar discusses this content in relation to FI. I have explained this evidence in excruciating detail. At least form a believable argument that the content should not be included since, although it is discussed in a secondary source, the original study included only 7 patients and therefore is not notable. I'd have most likely ceded that decision to remove the content. Instead we get this tirade of nonsense. It's also misrepresentation of my position. I never suggested to add a primary source or content based on it.

oribundum repeatedly made WP:SYNTH arguments.

False. I did not make any claim that was not explicitly defined in the source. Zero synth, edtor just repeats the same accusations again and again with no evidence. Editor also made no coherent answer to my points, at one point contradicting themselves (claim the edit is duplication + claim the edit is not related to the topic) - both false claims, which are also mutually exclusive in nature. Content is not duplication - add details to a short section which could do with expansion. Again, they just repeat the same stuff ad nauseum with no evidence and no coherent counter argument.

Moribundum did not engage in good faith and began making WP:UNCIVIL comments and WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE:

By the exact same logic, this user engaged in the same kind of communication and accusations of malice. It's OK for them to act like that but not anyone else? Further it is incredibly hard to assume good faith in the face of such annoying, disruptive, illogical behavior. The tactic seems to be to irritate other editors until they react. I am normally able to interact with other editors normally, but this is another level.

I had replied extensively on talk page.

At that exact time I was not aware of the latest comment on talk. It is my general assessment of that edit war that my comments on talk were ignored unless I made a revert. When answer was given, it contained no valid rebuttal of my points. Just extensive repetition of claims with no basis

This is most likely a derogatory reference to my editing in LGBT topics

No evidence + Accusation of malice. I actually barely looked at edit history, because I was searching for some explanation of the very strange behavior. All I see was someone who is not editing medical articles a lot, and is removing content with nonsensical claim that it is not related to the article. If someone acts very irrationally there is usually a reason for that.

I actually wrote the paragraph on anal sex as a potential contributor to fecal incontinence, so this claim is baseless.

This article has contained info about anoreceptive sex since at least 2012. Look at earlier diffs. All they did was change a heading and move some content that was written by another editor. Doesn't matter though, just past the diff which looks good, no-one will check. This does not disprove any non neutral point of view. The basis of this suggestion of non neutral point of view was exactly that the editor obsesses to remove content which connected trauma from anal penetration to FI for with the flimsy argument that it was not linked to FI. At the same time they insert their own edit (from the same source) stating that anal penetration has no connection to FI. This is misrepresenting the content of the source. What about banning the user for that action?

I warned Moribundum and asked them to apologize. Moribundum doubled down, refused to acknowledge a problem, told me to stay off their talk page

I received inappropriate warning messages. Essentially this user believes they can edit war, be uncivil, make accusations of malice, but this behavior is not allowed for other editors who object to their disruptive behavior. The inappropriate threats and accusation messages on talk constituted harassment, at which point I asked to stop. The user ignored this and doubled down on wikilawyering and seeking to ban me. All because they have no coherent argument to support their behavior and I was pointing this situation out.

Moribundum reinserted the sentence for a fourth time, falsely claiming "No response on the talk page. Disruptive editing". I had actually replied on the talk page 10 hours prior and pinged the user. Moribundum only replied after this revert and false claim.

I did not see any reply. Maybe I did not renew the talk page or something, or there is a delay in notification appearing. Or the editor is mistaken (they have been mistaken about a lot else here)

Moribundum says they have been editing Wikipedia since my account creation 14 years ago

So what? I stopped using the old accounts and took long breaks. Coming back I didn't use the old account again and started a new one. Accusation of malice.

Per WP:COMPSOCK, I believe they should disclose their original account.

How about no. I have done nothing wrong in my old accounts or current account.

They also complained about the "toxic aspects" of Wiki, which might suggest another issue at play.

Toxic refers to this exact kind of drama. I do not enjoy unnecessary drama. Some members of the community are indeed very toxic to work with. It is why some editors prefer to edit without engaging in the community, especially editors who are not interested in drama and only want to create quality articles. It's often simply not worth the time.

which might suggest another issue at play.

Accusation of malice. No evidence

I took a look at another one of Moribundums recent edits

It's highly likely this was the best "dirt" they could dig up from my edit history. Probably spent hours, much like they spent hours carefully drafting this nomination and weaving a narrative. I suggest to check my contributions at random rather than carefully selected "examples" to get an accurate pattern of my edits.

"Usually patients go home within 24 hours of the procedure" – not at all in source.

False. Check the current article. Sourced to Chowdhury, SK; Trescot, AM (2016). "Pudendal Nerve Entrapment". In Trescot, AM (ed.). Peripheral Nerve Entrapments: Clinical Diagnosis and Management. Springer International Publishing. pp. 499–514. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27482-9_47. ISBN 978-3-319-27482-9.

Page 513: During laparoscopic surgery [...] Manipulation is minimal, and usually patients can go home within 24 h

"varicose" not found in source.

Source states: and swollen varicose veins (also on page 513)

"Surgery is generally considered to be successful if pain and other symptoms are reduced by at least 50%" – not supported by source.

Page 512: Surgery is generally considered successful if there is at least a 50 % reduction in pain and symptoms

Great abilities to read a source on display again. Slow hand clap. Suggest to the editor to apply this realization that perhaps they are not very good at looking at sources to their original behavior. Such a waste of time.

As seen in this extended argument,

Constructive debate. The editor in question disclosed their non neutral point of view on talk but was able to edit without bias. Where is the edit war or incivility? Behavior of that editor was reasonable. Consensus was reached.

Moribundum has previously disputed administrator removal of their copyright violations

This editor has literally gone through years of edit history trying to find dirt. This is the best they can do. Discussion about removal of diagnostic criteria. Where is the edit war? Where is the incivility? Weak. Is it a crime to disagree with some rule? I still maintain all the points I raised in that debate and think that removal of such diagnostic criteria is both unnecessary and essentially constitutes vandalism. But tell me, where have I since added diagnostic criteria from DSM or Rome? I was not aware of the rule, I debated the rule, now I still disagree with the rule but have followed it. I get banned for that?

The ban reason is most insulting of all out of this. I was banned for reason of "sourcing problem". This accusation is so completely false. I always try to use secondary, reliable sources. I am a serious editor. Here are some articles I have created or completely reworked.

• Pudendal nerve entrapment - massive rework of article. Removal of some primary or unsuitable sources. Addition of many modern reliable sources. Removal of unsourced content.
• Ventral rectopexy - wrote from scratch. Where is the sourcing issue? High quality, professional standard article.
• Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome - rework of article. Significantly improved. Where is the sourcing issue?
• Transanal irrigation - significant expansion of article. Sourcing problem?
• Rectal stricture - wrote article from scratch.
• Cul-de-sac hernia - from scratch
• Obstructed defecation - massive expansion
• Enterocele - significant expansion
• Sigmoidocele
• Implantable bulking agent- from scratch
• Perianal injectable bulking agent- from scratch

All my edits are high quality and supported by suitable sources. So please tell me, where have I been adding unsourced content or problematic references? It's an insult. Where have I been inpatient apart from in the face of tenacious and disruptive behavior that is on display by this nomination? You understand not anyone can create such articles? You realize as a specialist I don't have to contribute to wikipedia? Why should I be forced to write a long essay to defend myself against malicious, time wasting attacks and bad decision to ban? You understand how irritating such behavior is - someone who makes an impulse deletion of my edit with a poorly thought out justification and is too stubborn to admit they were in the wrong, and then follows up with endless arguing and edit warring, all the while carefully wikilawyering and manipulating the system. And to demand that I apologize for reacting to their disruptive behavior? How much of my time has been wasted for nothing? It takes much longer to debunk nonsense. Where's my apology? Editors like me want nothing to do with such people and the associated drama. We just want to improve the encyclopedia. I'd never even communicate with anyone on any talk page if I had the choice.

This is really the core of why so many editors who just want to improve the encyclopedia are driven away. By the toxic members of the community who themselves contribute little, prefer to delete edits of others in order to generate conflict and then argue, provoke, wikilawyer and manipulate the system on talk pages. So if you don't want me, think my contributions are poor, and prefer to keep such "editors" instead, fine. Moribundum (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the Chowdhury sourced edit to Pudendal nerve entrapment, I have struck that complaint because I was viewing it in visual editor which can display incorrect citation numbers. This was a minor part of the report, the rest of it is completely accurate. The Kumar review does not cite those cases related to incontinence, your incivility is a problem, you won't assume good faith, and you're not interested in adhering to Wiki or MEDRS guidelines.

Another example: you refused to accept that a non MEDLINE journal might be problematic on a MEDRS article: Talk:Psyllium#Review marked as unreliable, writing: "I don't appreciate your suggestions about what I could do. Kindly don't ignore the points I raised. Removing a source because the journal is not MEDLINE indexed without investigating the journal or reading the source - this action is not supported by this guideline that you cited as justification. It seems to me you only read the source later when you were challenged. This behavior is not constructive". You just kept repeating the same arguments over and over, and not accepting MEDRS requirements.

Another example: just last week, you were in conflict again: Ratel had to tell you to stop making accusations and attacks on the Pudendal nerve entrapment talk page. You accused editors of having a "non neutral point of view", baselessly, as you did with me. You then entered into a long winded back and forth against multiple editors about including your undue mention of a surgical technique.

The rest of your response includes a number of falsehoods. E.g. "All they did was change a heading and move some content that was written by another editor". No, I provided a diff that disproves this. This is disappointing. Zenomonoz (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The Kumar review does not cite those cases related to incontinence

It blatantly does, see my points 1-6 above.

in conflict again: Ratel had to tell you to stop making accusations and attacks on the Pudendal nerve entrapment talk page.

That editor disclosed their non neutral point of view involving a cabal of european surgeons who made up the condition in order to make money and carry out unnecessary surgery on the talk page. It's described in posts in the section "This article has neutrality issues" on the talk page.

No personal attacks were made. Suggesting non neutral point of view is not a personal attack, especially if it suspected from edits and confirmed explicitly by the editor

No, I provided a diff that disproves this. This is disappointing.

OK it does seem you mostly moved around existing content written by other editors and made 2 new headings (although "childbirth" is one word, which I already corrected). You did add new content: 3 sentences sourced to : Pelvic Floor Disorders Due to Anal Sexual Activity in Men and Women: A Narrative Review.

Some research indicates anal sex may contribute the development of fecal incontinence, although most persons engaging in anal sex report no issues with fecal incontinence. Associations between receptive anal sex and fecal incontinence are stronger for more practices such as anal fisting. A 2024 review concluded that therapeutic exercises (e.g. kegels) may be sufficient for the prevention and treatment of incontinence this population.

Unfortunately I don't have access to full text (ban prevents wikipedia library access) so I can't make full opinion about whether this content properly represents the source. From the snippets I can see, it seems authors provide a more complicated picture. Why don't we add the exact figures that they provide in their literature review instead of the vague statement "most persons". Most persons could mean 99% or 55%.

Garros et al. (2021) studied the prevalence of fecal incontinence in 21,762 men who had performed anal intercourse with men. The participants answered an online survey relating to stool leakage: "During the last month, have you experienced any involuntary leakage of stools?"; 8% answered that they suffer from fecal incontinence. The mean age of the population was 35.3 years

Moribundum (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

"Fecal incontinence rates were higher among the women (8.3% (CI 6.9–10.0%)) versus the men (5.6% (CI 4.3–7.2%)) who reported performing anal intercourse compared with those who did not. Anal intercourse was significantly associated with prevalent fecal incontinence among men and women. Additionally, men who engaged in anal intercourse at least once in their lifetime reported a higher prevalence of fecal incontinence than men who did not engage in lifetime anal intercourse."

I don't know if we can say this is deliberate misrepresentation of the source. It's not how I would write the info provided by this source. More detail, give exact figures.

We can also find multiple references to IAS damage causing FI Moribundum (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• I think we need some more editors commenting here who are MEDRS-literate as most of us are not that familiar with this subject matter to assess who is on the right side of policy here. Or maybe you both are right in a way, you just can't come to an agreement. But aside from some inappropriate personal remarks, this clearly looks like a content issue and it wasn't obvious to me that an entire namespace block was called for. I can see an article page block might serve a purpose until the differences on sources and language get sorted out but I'm not sure a larger block is necessary. I just wish that these two editors could cool down the animosity and focus on the article, not each other. But we clearly need some feedback here from admins or editors who are familiar with MEDRS requirements.

And as for having previous accounts that are abandoned, there is nothing wrong with that as long as they haven't been blocked. I have a previous account i used before adopting this one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, but I don't know if I've expressed animosity towards the editor, I asked them to apologise which they refused to do. I don't think this is a single content issue:

• Moribundum did not retract their incivility cast towards Ratel. Resorting to calling users biased or non neutral is completely uncivil and the user sees no issue with it.
• Moribundum would not accept that non-MEDLINE journals might be problematic on medical topics per WP:MEDRS, when Zefr tried to politely point this out. Moribundum resorts to dismissing problems with predatory journals and claims Zefr is "not constructive".
• As for previous accounts, per WP:SOCK Editors who have abandoned an account and are editing under a new identity are required to comply with the clean start policy. Per WP:CLEANSTART: It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas. What if they area editing in the same area? This doesn't look like a clean start case, because the user says they only abandoned their account due to loss of email access, which per WP:COMPSOCK: In such a case, you should post a note on the user page of each account indicating that they are alternative accounts for the same person.
• In their above comment, Moribundum still refuses to acknowledge their suggestion I was suppressing info ("push a narrative") as a result of my edit history was an WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE, and claims I'm acting "irrationally".

Zenomonoz (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Another recent example of blatant incivility and attacks, Moribundum tells Zefr: "Verbose because you said so. Secondary info because you said so. Predatory journal because you said so. Unestablished journal because you said so. Not clinical because you said so. You are arrogant and imperious and a very good example of why so many people leave wiki. Toxic editors, constantly removing work just to a get a rise from bullying people. Compensation for dissatisfaction with your position and place irl". Zenomonoz (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if I've expressed animosity towards the editor, I asked them to apologise which they refused to do.

I am happy to inform that I have experienced significant animosity by the words and behavior of this editor, who also gloated at the ban they manipulated and lied into being. Where is my apology for this malicious attack and campaign of harassment, and massive waste of my time? For having to deal with disruptive and ill-informed editing from a wikilawyering, confrontational and toxic editor who can't read sources (demonstrated now 4 times in this thread). Editor also refused to apologize to me

Moribundum did not retract their incivility cast towards Ratel. Resorting to calling users biased or non neutral is completely uncivil and the user sees no issue with it.

No incivility on pudendal nerve entrapment. Also it's not a baseless accusation since 1. that article had significant neutrality issues before I reworked it, and 2. that editor explicitly posted about their non neutral point of view on talk. It's not slander if it is a fact. Saying someone has a non neutral point of view is not attack, slander or insult, especially if they disclose their point of view or edit behavior strongly suggests otherwise. That's why we have notice boards and so on about non neutral point of view.

Moribundum would not accept that non-MEDLINE journals might be problematic on medical topics per WP:MEDRS, when Zefr tried to politely point this out. Moribundum resorts to dismissing problems with predatory journals and claims Zefr is "not constructive".

I searched in the provided lists of predatory journals and that journal was not listed. There is no evidence that it was predatory. The other justifications for removal of my edits also seemed arbitrary. Content was removed anyway, not so politely I may add.

As for previous accounts, per WP:SOCK Editors who have abandoned an account and are editing under a new identity are required to comply with the clean start policy. Per WP:CLEANSTART: It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas.

Editor repeatedly attacks me and makes all kinds of accusations. I never had any sock puppet accounts. I stopped using old accounts and also lost access to the emails. This happened sequentially and no 2 accounts were used at the same time. I'd imagine there were breaks in between their creation too. I am never disclosing a past account to someone who spends hours and hours picking through years of edit history in order to conduct a harassment campaign and character assassination. Perhaps someone will do it to them and disruptive patterns can be found in their behavior.

As for being expected to edit on new topics, that is utter nonsense. If I make a new account after some time and losing access to the password and/or email, I am not automatically banned from editing the same topics. Suggest editor in question stop editing medical articles since they display incompetence.

Moribundum still refuses to acknowledge their suggestion I was suppressing info ("push a narrative") as a result of my edit history was an WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE, and claims I'm acting "irrationally".

There is so far no evidence that they have edited neutrally on this article. They added info saying anal penetration had no link to FI, but edit warred, and sought to suppress info from the same source (so clearly they initially considered it to be reliable) which suggested otherwise, all on the basis of a demonstrably false claim that it is not linked to FI. Even more strange behavior is continuing to claim that this content is not directly related to FI in the source. This is either:

1. profoundly incompetent (considering how many times and in such detail it has been explained otherwise),

2. represents a non neutral point of view of an editor who is pushing a narrative and willingly misrepresenting sources.

3. irrational behavior of an emotional person who believes they have been insulted and seeks revenge, now investing a lot of time into trying to attack me and look through every edit and recruit a mob to their cause.

4. toxic behavior of a deletionist, confrontational editor who has a "hobby" of creating conflict and bullying other users by wikilawyering manipulation of the system

There is increasing evidence for 1. since there is now repeated demonstration in this thread of a basic lack of ability to read a source (although this could be willing misrepresentation of sources due to other motivations like non neutral point of view or seeking revenge). Misuse of medical terminology on talk also speaks to general ignorance of this topic. Anyone who studied FI in detail would never claim that damage to IAS would not be very likely expressed as FI. Harassment campaign also points to 3. and/or 4. But we could be dealing with multiple factors contributing to this kind of disruptive behavior.

Toxic editors, constantly removing work just to a get a rise from bullying people. Compensation for dissatisfaction with your position and place irl

Yes, it's a real problem on wiki. Many constructive editors are driven away because they have bad experiences with editors who delete all their work just to create drama and get a little boost to their ego. It's actually pretty sad behavior that people are so insecure that they act in that toxic way. Such editors are often identified by the fact that they have far more deletion edits and edits on talk than green , constructive edits on articles. They also make extensive use of wikilawyering and manipulation of system to get users banned, and engage in tenacious, irritating behavior to provoke other users.

Moribundum (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Not a medical project member but Food Science & Nutrition (the journal in the Talk:Psyllium discussion) is a peer-reviewed Wiley journal[64] founded in 2013, with an impact factor, and unlikely to be predatory; it might or might not be suitable for supporting medical content, but stating that it is "not indexed on MEDLINE, meaning it is unestablished and possibly predatory" seems absurd to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  There have certainly been issues with peer review quality of this journal, per RetractionWatch. The MEDLINE guideline is in place for good reason. Anyway, it is the generally uncivil/attack responses that are an issue, as evidenced here. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  On the whole, in my experience, editors who meet the medical project tend to leave or stop editing medical content. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  The real irritation is editors who have limited understanding of MEDRS and weaponize it as part of belligerent behavior. Members of medical project on the whole are OK to deal with. Moribundum (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  Re that link. The concern seems to be raised by editors who had their articles retracted and who objected to that decision because they suggested that their articles were initially approved. Reading between the lines, the authors in question seem to suggest that there was some other motivation by the editor for removing their articles. There's no evidence that every source from that journal should be automatically considered non reliable. Further, the psyllium article is not one of the articles retracted. As I delineated on that talk page, my other edits were also arbitrarily deleted at the same time even though they were not connected to that article, with the later off hand comment that they were "verbose". Moribundum (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: kindly remove ban. Repeat CV and sourcing issues

• If CV stands for copyright violation, this is false. Where are my copyright violations? Diagnostic criteria from DSM or Rome Foundation that I added were removed. I debated that, did not add them again since and have observed that policy of the encyclopedia (although I think it is wrong).
• Re sourcing issues, this is false. I have proven that all the accusations that I misused sources are false in the above thread. I pasted a list of articles I created or extensively worked on. All my work is appropriately sourced and high quality.

This ban is inappropriate for these stated reasons. It is a malicious attack by the nominator, nothing more.

2nd day of inappropriate ban. Can't use wikipedia library. Can't edit any article. I have a v large draft that was about to be published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moribundum (talk • contribs) 11:04, January 29, 2025 (UTC)

While I understand this is frustrating, the aggressive tone of these replies and the WP:WALLOFTEXT ones above are not doing you any favors. I'd suggest patience. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• [on COMPSOCK]How about no. I have done nothing wrong in my old accounts or current account. - If you made a WP:CLEANSTART, then you don't need to disclose previous accounts. But if you are editing the same articles you previouslly did with previous accounts, you absolutely should disclose them, because otherwise it gives the impression of avoiding scruitiny. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note that Moribundum made their WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE much stronger: "They added info saying anal penetration had no link to FI".... "sought to suppress info from the same source". I repeatedly provided a diff where I wrote that anal sex may contribute incontinence, and they've seen it. "Emotional person", "profoundly incompetent", "toxic" are WP:UNCIVIL. I also never "gloated" at a block, nor "recruited a mob". Zenomonoz (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Moribundum please sign your posts so that editors may more easily reply to your inquiries and so that your pings work. Thank you @Espresso Addict for the note on my Talk. I am not going to unblock at this stage as I see some extant flags especially with regards to the refusal to disclose prior accounts to ArbComm (I am in no way asking for a public self outing) and I have some concerns about the sourcing. This is simply my opinion and I have no objection to an admin acting on an unblock request if they believe the issues are resolved to their satisfaction. I am not holding the civility issues against them as it appears to me to be a blocked editor's frustration, but this is not the way forward @Moribundum. It is not a ban, and you are welcome to use AfC if the draft cannot wait until such time as you are unblocked. Star Mississippi 02:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  I use a dual language keyboard and my symbol keys do not match up. It's impossible for me to find some keys usually, including vertical pipe, at sign and tilde. Clicking reply usually gives autosign

  I don't know what arbcomm is. My old accounts were not banned, so if that is the only thing I need to disclose for, I suppose I can disclose those as long this editor who is conducting harassment campaign will not be party to that info.

  Re concerns about sourcing, please be specific. Exactly what sourcing? How am I supposed to defend myself without specific info Moribundum (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you made a WP:CLEANSTART, then you don't need to disclose previous accounts. But if you are editing the same articles you previouslly did with previous accounts, you a solutely should disclose them, because otherwise it gives the impression of avoiding scruitiny.

  I will never disclose anything to a person who is conducting a campaign of harassment

  Note that Moribundum made their WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE much stronger

  This editor has made constant accusations at me. It's OK for them apparently

  I repeatedly provided a diff where I wrote that anal sex may contribute incontinence

  It is still in question whether the 3 vague sentences added indeed represented that source or is a misrepresentation and downplaying of the source.

  Emotional person", "profoundly incompetent", "toxic" are WP:UNCIVIL

  Conducting harassment campaign is profoundly uncivil. If such a campaign is for emotional reasons and revenge seeking, then this is an accurate description. People shouldn't edit when they are emotional.

  Failing to accurately extract info from a source would be incompetent. Making demonstrably false accusations about other sources is incompetent. Incorrectly using medical terminology is incompetent. Incompetent is not an insult. Many people, including myself, are incompetent at all kinds of things.

  Toxic is accurate for such behavior in my opinion. Deliberately gaming the system, provoking people, trawling through years of edits trying to dig up dirt, conducting harassment campaign, recruiting a mob, gloating at a ban, making false accusations. These would all be toxic things.

  The main problem here is that this editor has pretty bad behavior, but feels they should have a special privilege and immunity when other people point out this behavior.

  also never "gloated" at a block

  This edit summary constitutes gloating: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fecal_incontinence&diff=1272323603&oldid=1272302582 Posting messages on my talk constitutes gloating.

  A badge of honor in the edit history, to intimidate future victims of their toxic behavior?

  nor "recruited a mob".

  Editor repeatedly pinging any editor they believe would hold a grudge against me. Recruiting a mob, harassment.

  Moribundum (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if my long post is inconvenient for you, but I am supposed to just let all these attacks, accusations and lies stand unanswered? Moribundum (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Evidence of socking/compsock/cleanstart violation by Moribundum

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

---

It's very likely Moribundum is the same user as Lesion, an editor who heavily edited in proctology/anorectal and dental topics before they ragequit in 2014. Lesion (formerly Tepi) has hundreds of proctology edits, and most of their early edits were about incontinence.

• Edit overlap tool confirms a lot of overlap in niche proctology articles.

• Notably, Lesion created a niche article "Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome" [65], but later merged and redirected it to another article [66]. Just two weeks after creating an account, Moribundum restores "solitary rectal ulcer syndrome" as a standalone article with similar content [67]. Page edit history shows it is a niche topic; these two accounts wrote 95% of the content.

• Lesion also created "rectopexy" [68] and then redirected it to rectal prolapse. Moribundum reversed the redirect and created a stand alone article [69]. Given the quantity of page redirects both accounts have created I could probably find more examples.

• Moribundum has rarely edited in pages outside proctology, but has edited some of the dental articles [70] [71] that Lesion used to edit [72][73], and Olfactory reference syndrome [74], also edited by Lesion [75]

• In a deletion discussion, users noticed that Lesion shared their article on a forum writing “I am not a GI doc/colorectal surgeon” [76] but had a personal interest in rectal pathologies. Morundum also wrote “I am not a doctor” [77], and has great interest in this topic.

• Both users would use the ref tags in a unique fashion in their edit summaries:

Moribundum: [78][79][80][81][82][83][84]

Lesion: [85][86][87][88]

• Both users regularly use the abbreviation “rm” in edit summaries, e.g. Moribundum [89][90][91][92][93] and Lesion [94][95][96][97][98][99]

• Lesion was also prone to leaving unsigned comments on discussions [100][101]. Moribundum confirmed they just rely on auto-sign now.

• Lesion also called other users "arrogant": [102]

• Lesion also accused people of "bullying" [103] and complained about Wikipedia. This aligns with the early comments from Moribundum about Wiki being toxic.

This evidence is not exhaustive, their comments on talk pages are very similar. If this is Moribundum, they should have disclosed this immediately when I highlighted WP:COMPSOCK rules. Instead, they said "As for being expected to edit on new topics, that is utter nonsense" and ”I have done nothing wrong in my old accounts or current account”. Ignored the guidelines even when I cited COMPSOCK multiple times.

Zenomonoz (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

This is blatant harassment and attempt at doxing Moribundum (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

And for the record I just completed the email for ArbComm. But thanks for harassment, you're a real nice person Moribundum (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

And I already posted that I was prepared to disclose at ArbComm but this editor decided to continue harassment. This is really doxing and harassment that could lead to real world harm. Moribundum (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a standard practice sock report. There is no identifiable info on your profile. I would’ve posted this at WP:SPI. You’re not helping your case by acting outraged after you repeatedly ignored everything required of you at WP:CLEANSTART and WP:COMPSOCK. Just relax, and wait for an admin. Zenomonoz (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Wrong. You realize that your actions put me at risk of real world harm? Do you enjoy several months of organized gang stalking and having guns fired at your house? I didn't. Nice friend to LGBT you are. Your actions constitute pure harassment. I have sent emergency email to request removal of info that was already disclosed to ArbCom and I had clearly indicated that I was in the process of doing. Moribundum (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I was writing my comment long before you posted yours. it took a while. ArbComm would have had an issue with you editing in the same area.

There is nothing here that constitutes doxxing or harrsssment, it is just Wikipedia diffs. Regarding a block, you can pursue the WP:STANDARDOFFER after a sock block. It’s not the end of the world. Zenomonoz (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Wrong, you have put me at risk of real world harm. It's not the end of the world you say, you have literally no idea what you are talking about. Moribundum (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Doxing requires that personal identifying information be disclosed. Linking this account to a prior account does not disclose any personal identifying information. This should probably have been taken to WP:SPI rather than WP:AN/I but it's entirely correct that this level of evidence is what is expected for a sock puppetry investigation. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

If admins want me to shift to SPI, I can do that. It would wind down this discussion too. Zenomonoz (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The material that was posted can lead to identifying easily.

Further, I already sent email to arbcom and expressed wish for this info to be not public, as 2 admins permitted above. I never had any sock puppet account, everything is disclosed in detail in email to arbcom.

This is harassment and doxing attempt. Editor seeks to cause emotional distress and has, willingly or unwillingly, put me at increased risk of real world, physical harm Moribundum (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Re article Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome - it should not have been part of Rectal prolapse (related conditions, not identical according to some sources). Making a stand alone article is correcting a mistake by inexperienced editor. The work that is left is to remove / merge any useful content left about Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome to the stand alone article, leaving only a short discussion of how it is connected to rectal prolapse. That is a lot of work but note that the stand alone article is much higher quality with better sources now.

I remind that new editors make many mistakes and don't know all rules, most of which have significantly changed over time. It is not a crime to abandon the account and go on a long break. Moribundum (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I see no actionable violation of the sockpuppetry policy here. You keep citing WP:COMPSOCK, but that applies to compromised accounts, not clean starts. A user who is not under sanctions is permitted to create a clean start account. If they make the connection obvious enough that others can easily notice it, that's on them, but it's still not a policy violation. This looks a bit like throwing everything at the wall to win a content dispute. Spicy (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSLATE requires users to edit in new/different areas to the original account. They have not.

And WP:COMPSOCK applies when you are unable to access your account because you have lost the password. Moribundum said they lost access to the account/email [104]

Not trying to win anything. Ive always reported sock violations when I’ve seen it. Zenomonoz (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Reported even after user agreed to non public disclosure via ArbComm ?

Pure, vindictive harassment Moribundum (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I was writing my comment long before you replied, so I genuinely didn’t pay attention to your comment. There was a lot of text there.

ArbCom would review your accounts and see you are editing in the same area, and might’ve sent that detail back to an admin anyway.

Zenomonoz (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I highly doubt you are sorry at all. Deliberate doxing attempt and harassment. I wasn't even familiar with arbcom despite being long term contributor. Probably the last time I was on this noticeboard was several years ago. What does that say about why I am on wiki at all? So I didn't know about some obscure rule when I lost access to old accounts? What proportion of my lifetime edits have been constructive and in article space? Well over 95% I would imagine. I didn't purposely seek to break any of the thousands of lesser rules, but it doesn't count for anything and I am subject to public witch trial, banned, doxed, harassed and treated as a problem user. This is classic wikipedia. The true miracle is that the encyclopedia exists at all despite the ever expanding bureaucracy and toxic elements in the community.

Has it occurred to you that many users are not familiar with every line of the hundreds or maybe thousands of guidelines and essays. It's simple fact that most of these guidelines and rules are created, slowly expanded and protected by a self selecting, small minority of users, some of whom weaponize this knowledge against inexperienced and average users. Sure, the atmosphere is unpleasant and the number of active users declines and declines, but they must get their little taste of power. Considering the vast majority of said rules and guidelines were not written by average users (who are barely aware of the scale of bureaucracy) it doesn't represent the community as a whole. It's really not useful info 99.9% of the time if all you want to do is make quality content and have zero wish to be involved wikilawyering and drama. It is enough to learn the main, important rules. Try to memorize and follow every rule and a user would never even have time to write 1 sentence in an article. Moribundum (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Given there is a six year gap between the Lesion account ceasing to edit (2014) and the Moribundum account being created (2022), I don’t see any socking here, which is generally concerned with using two or more accounts simultaneously. No comment on whether or not they are one and the same. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Good to hear. There are more than two accounts, so presumably the user sent them to ArbCom. From the get-go I pointed to WP:COMPSOCK, which is legitimate, but the policy does seem to say they should disclose past accounts to avoid problems like this in the first place. Zenomonoz (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Agree with Malcolmxl5, there is no clear policy violation here regarding SOCK. The things mentioned about CLEANSTART and COMPSOCK are guidelines to help prevent them from being accused or suspected of being a WP:BADSOCK and are not, in themselves, a violation. There is no evidence presented here (in this sub-section) which represents an illegitimate use of a second account, especially if they stopped using the former account and essentially claim COMPSOCK. I am not convinced that this qualifies as WP:DOXING as defined by policy. TiggerJay (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Therealbey on Islam articles

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

I don't want to bring this user here, as they appear to be goodfaith, but their editing is basically a mix of WP:CIR, WP:IDHT and WP:RGW. Since being blocked from moving pages by ToBeFree last August, the user has demonstrated time and time again how that block was warranted. In November, they tried to bypass their block by performing a cut-and-paste move, which was thankfully noticed by Jay8g. After several failed unblock requests in which they were advised to come back after successful move requests, the user has requested many moves, not one of which was successful. Some of these moves were to move an English name to an Arabic name, however, most troubling, the user has embarked on an anti-Ahmadiyya crusade (is that too insensitive of a word? Maybe), which was noticed by GenoV84, and that Muhammad is worshipped in Hinduism. To advance the latter view, near-universally known as a fringe theory, they created the WP:POVFORK Muhammad in Hinduism, which, unsurprisingly, is at AFD and sprinting towards deletion. The user has also created other POVFORKS, such as Gulf of America, against consensus. Nawabmalhi described their edits as Wahhabist propaganda ([105]), after they added blatant attacks cited to a YouTuber to the Ahmadiyya article, under the guise of recent criticism ([106]). Even outside of this Ahmadiyya debacle, the user has been warned inordinate times for adding their personal POV into articles, just check the maze of warnings that is their talk page. Thank you. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

What!! When I perform "bypass" cut and paste move? My move request was accepted like In Prophets in Ahmadiyya or Jesus in Ahmadiyya. However GenoV84 moved it recently without giving any reasons and without talking about it because of his thinking that Jesus in Ahmadiyya should add the word "Islam" which the main parent title doesn't have. And it go against WP:CONCISE,WP:TITLECON and WP:COMMONNAMES

"the user has embarked on an anti-Ahmadiyya crusade" !! Seriously? Show me where I said something Anti-Ahmadiyya! I said mainstream Muslims don't consider them Muslims is it wrong with source I provided? Also the user GenoV84 had confusion that I am an Anti-Ahmadiyya which I am not at all and for the "confusion" he had I even said I didn't meant to hurts his beliefs.

You said I made a article and wanted to show "Hindus worshipped Muhammad" Where? It's a page on how Muhammad is mentioned in Hindu scriptures and also claims from various scholars and covers that not what you said!

I am not a Wahhabist at all! Associating me with a movement group from Saudi Arabia feels insulting to me, and I strongly condemn it!

Accusations given by @Chicdat are baseless and inaccurate!!! Therealbey (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry if I said anything inaccurate. I am simply quoting other editors, don't take that as an endorsement of what the editor said. I have made no accusations. When I said that not one of your move requests had been accepted, I was referring to the fact that those two article names have both been challenged by GenoV84. I wasn't talking about the actual close. You might be right, you might be wrong, that decision is left to the Wikipedia community. I think you're a good-faith editor and I don't want to see you blocked. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 15:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Therealbey

• You used ChatGPT to find sources, as evident from your this edit: {{Cite web |title=Prophet Muhammad in Hindu scriptures |url=https://www.quranproject.org/Prophet-Muhammad-in-Hindu-scriptures-398-d?utm_source=chatgpt.com}} See this edit.
• Why did you cite a non-reliable source, such as the Rampal cult website, as a reference? See this edit
• Could you also explain why referencing the Bhavishya Purana directly is not considered a primary source, as you claim? See here. Nxcrypto Message 15:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I used chatgpts Search engine tool for finding that specific topic from that specific website cause chatgpt search is a tool right? I knew that Quran project has coverd this topic so I used search feature for that specific website not only this one in another one I used it too for finding that books link to Amazon. I see nothing illegal here. Therealbey (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Therealbey, I did not ask for a response to my first point but I had requested your answers for my second and third points, which you completely ignored and did not address at all. Nxcrypto Message 19:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

For 2nd one I shared mentions of Muhammad and scholarly opinion such as Dr Zakir naik by his book on it but I think I have done mistake on that I ignored again by mistake about Rampal and I say sorry for that.

3rd. WP: PRIMARY mentions "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." I did provided other secondary sources on that page. Therealbey (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Therealbey OK. Now, two questions arising in my mind.

1. Did you use AI to write article?
2. Did you use secondary sources for Bhavishya Purana ? Nxcrypto Message 03:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

1. Yeah sometimes for small articles. In popular or trending article I don't remember I used.

2. Yes! I did like this book of Ved Prakash Upadhyay. Also there were more but was removed. Therealbey (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@Therealbey So, did you use AI to write the Muhammad in Hinduism article?[107] NXcrypto Message 10:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

No not the head part but yeah the claim section I used lit bit actually it's to decorate them with grammaretical. Tbh I am little weak on grammar so that's why I used it. Therealbey (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Then you need to avoid editing English Wikipedia altogether. Not just that, but you are editing main space articles, and ignoring all of the issues with your editing. That's unacceptable. NXcrypto Message 16:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I want contribute in Wikipedia. By fixing wherever I find mistakes and i created pages which are needed like Yunus ministry or Rafʿ al-Yadayn or Muhammad in Hinduism but okay i say sorry for any mistake I done and will remember about those before editing again. Therealbey (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• More to the point, the user in question has made numerous problematic edits, such as:

1. Citing an infamous Islamic scholar, i.e., Zakir Naik, from a random WP:YOUTUBE-EL source or persistently arguing for the inclusion of a WP:PRIMARY source, i.e., the Bhavishya Purana, as previously noted by Nxcrypto. All of this suggests that they are not here to build Wikipedia.
2. Providing an absurd justification for the above addition of Zakir Naik's opinion: Added one of the scholars who claims. This clearly demonstrates that they do not understand what WP:SCHOLARSHIP entails.
3. Repeatedly citing unreliable blogspots: [108][109][110].
4. Engaging in WP:VOTESTACKING for AfD: [111].
5. Boldly arguing here about Wikipedia's functionality while later contradicting themselves with a WP:OCON argument.
6. Creating poorly written, POV-ridden articles, one of which—AfD'd Andh Bhakt—had to go through two AfDs: [112] and [113]. Another, (Muhammad in Hinduism), is based on fringe theories from religious clergies.

These concerning edits by Therealbey are just a small sample from their last 500 contributions. A quick glance at their talk page, filled with warnings, gives a clear picture of their disruptive editing behavior. – Garuda ^Talk! 18:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow Zakir naik infamous! Therealbey (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

In 5 you said I am contradicting myself? how actually? Therealbey (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Go through my above comment twice, if not thrice. Every relevant page and site is linked. Surely, you'll understand then, and I won't have to repeat myself. Best, – Garuda ^Talk! 19:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Sadly, the editor has a serious WP:CIR problem. Over and over, they've been told that they were pushing dubious or contentious material using non-reliable sources. Aside from their talk page, a major example of this drawn-out behaviour can be found at Talk:Caliphate, where you'll find a very patient Remsense (plus some comments from myself) trying to drill this point into Therealbey over two long discussions. Another example after that (mostly involving myself) is at Draft talk:Twelve revivers of Caliphate, where they continue to appear unable to understand the problem. Most recent edits to articles suggest that this behaviour has not improved; e.g., [114], [115] are all clearly contentious points that are cited exclusively to religious sites/opinions, including one on Youtube. R Prazeres (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think they are trying, but it is difficult to understand how to further help them when each point has to be explicitly repeated in every instance, and they do not seem to make logical connections that help them in the future. I don't feel comfortable weighing in for sanctions as someone who's both involved and imperfect (you can see in Caliphate's history that I temporarily made some basic errors in terms of provenance as well), but the track record does continue to lengtheb. Remsense ‥ 论 19:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

References

User:Axhme01's edits to Julio Jones

• Axhme01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Julio Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am requesting that Axhme01 be blocked from Julio Jones for repeatedly adding unsourced puffery/non-neutral editing. To be more specific, they are repeatedly changing the sourced text in the lead from He is regarded as one of the greatest receivers of the 2010s. to He is regarded as one of the greatest receivers of all time (1, 2, 3, 4), which the sources do not support. Additionally, after having been reverted by myself and another user (Red Director), they've tried to simply mention them as the greatest of the decade in two other edits (5, 6). I've left multiple warnings on their user talk page, but they've failed to respond. This has been an ongoing issue since January 20th, and being that I reverted them twice, I do not feel comfortable being the one to issue a block of any type in this situation. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Support on just Julio Jones Yes, this is strange editing behavior. We have explained that opinions are not facts. I support just a block on Julio Jones so the user can contribute positively on other articles while we monitor. User clearly has an agenda based on edit history. Red Director (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Discriminatory behaviour against "Shia Muslims"

Mhb playzz786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not even Muslim, let alone Shia. But for some reason Mhb playzz786 thinks it's okay to talk down to them like this, and just in general behaving bad;

Go read some Islamic books you shia. / go get a life.

get lost you uneducatec Shia.

They're also edit warring at Qutuz, adding poorly sourced info, despite being warned about it four times (three of them were related to other articles) [116] [117] [118] --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I've issued an NPA block for 31 hours as a stopgap measure, as the personal attacks are clearly unacceptable, but the edit-warring and poor reference-work may merit further investigation and possibly sanctions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Rosguill! HistoryofIran (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I genuinely think this should just be an indefinite WP:NOTHERE block. Personal attacks + poor quality editing means their presence is a clear net negative for the encyclopedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

User:ThePurgatori (continuation)

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

---

The first AN/I thread has been archived today, so I cannot reply there. Voorts suggested that I start a new AN/I thread.[119]

Following their return from a 31 hour block handed out 3 days ago[120] for repeatedly adding unreferenced material, I just had to remove the same kind of WP:OR from Resonant trans-Neptunian object that ThePurgatori had added previously to the same article.[121][122] During the first AN/I and over the weeks that preceded it, I and other users have tried to explain to ThePurgatori many times that objects like (84522) 2002 TC302 are below the size threshold agreed upon by Wikipedia users to refer to them as dwarf planet candidates. At 540 km, it is even below the size threshold of 600 km that ThePurgatori repeatedly tried to push (being reverted every time because this contradicts established consensus), as discussed in the first AN/I.[123] Our very long List of possible dwarf planets doesn't mention this object, and for good reason. We asked them to communicate, but they just don't listen, and they do not engage in meaningful discussion. Cleaning up just the articles on my watchlist is getting quite tiresome, and I feel like I am fighting against windmills.

For the reasons outlined here and at the other AN/I, I believe that ThePurgatori should be topic banned from working on astronomy-related articles. Renerpho (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

At this point I recommend an indefinite pblock from articles. @ThePurgatori can contribute by making suggestions on article talk pages. The disruption is otherwise too difficult to manage, particularly considering the technical expertise needed to see the problems. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

im sorry for traumatizing you guys, please don't block me, give me chances please. ThePurgatori (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

You've said that before, ThePurgatori. I am trying to give you a chance, and not for the first time, but you're making it really difficult. Every time we offer you help by discussing your editing ideas on the talk pages, you're ignoring it. We ask you to stop the disruptive editing, you're ignoring it. You're asking for second chances, and then continue as if nothing had happened. If you want more chances, please explain how you're going to change your editing behavior, because we can't continue like this if you don't even recognize the problem! Renerpho (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@ThePurgatori: Why are you continuing today to add WP:OR and poorly worded content to dwarf planet articles, like you did in the edits I describe here? @Rsjaffe and Voorts: Please help! Renerpho (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC) I think the partial block suggested by rsjaffe is appropriate. I agree there is no reason why ThePurgatori shouldn't be able to post on talk pages. Renerpho (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

If ThePurgatori continues adding unreferenced and incorrect content to articles, and ignoring complaints and discussion, I'd argue that a permablock on the grounds of WP:NOTHERE is necessary. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 01:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The one reason why I've changed my mind, and why I now think that an outright topic ban may be too much, is that, with good will, I can believe they are trying to listen. Their edit summary to this edit today reads "fix reference, added reference and removed WP:OR at my previous edit". Although they did not actually do that (this edit removed no WP:OR content whatsoever), I think they are trying. The edits they make indicate some technical understanding of the subject, combined maybe with poor grasp of the English language and a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. If they start engaging in discussions, their ideas could be a net-positive for Wikipedia.

On the other hand, there is no reason why their contributions should be any better if they switch to other areas, so a partial block is better. Revisit it when they have learned how this website works. Renerpho (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Nrco0e's comment -- I have no objections against a permablock. All I want is that this stops. Renerpho (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a difficult situation, as ThePurgatori appears well-meaning, and is making some useful contributions, but also making many poor ones. For example, all the edits yesterday were reverted, even after all this discussion with the user. I am going to pblock ThePurgatori from article space. You are still able to edit everywhere else, and can, for example, make edit requests on articles' talk pages when you have something to add or change in an article. That will allow someone else to review your work before it is entered on the page. Once you show a good track record of accurate edit requests, this block can be revisited, and hopefully removed. Any administrator who disagrees with my actions can change this block or remove it without prior consultation, particularly since this is borderline and I am a new admin. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

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

2a01:e0a:b3f:b4a0:2064:bf0e:4c41:5e8d / 2A01:E0A:B3F:B4A0:F456:DE37:6110:5F32 - Disruptive Editing

This IP user has been changing the flags on the page to unsourced ones for about a month now, and have had their edits reverted multiple times by multiple different editors.

When asked for a source, they refused to provide one and instead chose to continue their disruption of the page.

2a01:e0a:b3f:b4a0:2064:bf0e:4c41:5e8d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2A01:E0A:B3F:B4A0:F456:DE37:6110:5F32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Catalyst GP real (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Each of these IP accounts have made one edit. Is this really a chronic problem? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The /64 has several more edits. C F A 01:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The subnet prefixes used by the disruptor (2a01:e0a:b3f:b4a0) can be seen 19 separate times with different IIDs on the Islamic State of Iraq page's Revision history, thus leading me to my belief that there is a problem, as these disruptive edits are coming from the same network Catalyst GP real (talk) Catalyst GP real (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Update, so today (30/01/25) they have the IP 2a01:e0a:b3f:b4a0:c037:8fbf:4d34:dd50, they did reverted at 13:03PM GMT and came back at 19:54 GMT and reverted again, thus breaking the page's 1RR Catalyst GP real (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Catalyst GP real, could you link to the accounts, to the edits or to the article you are talking about? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked the /64 for a week per WP:GS/SCW&ISIL's 1RR restriction. I should note the "active community sanctions" banner at the top of the talk page is not very helpful, as it links to WP:CTOP, when in fact it's WP:GS that applies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Paradygmaty

Paradygmaty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user repeatedly stalks me and vandalizes my work. Currently he mass-reverts dozens of my edits (see his Contribs) and gave me unreasonable final warning for vandalism and is accusing me of vandalism. Please intervene ASAP before he reverts further dozens more of my edits. FromCzech (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Definitely seems to be an overreaction on paradygmaty’s part, but edit summaries help. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Fromczech

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

A user, FromCzech, has recently requested the mass renaming of multiple articles related to Polish stadiums, resulting in significant inconsistencies across Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1272610262#Requests_to_revert_undiscussed_moves. These moves were made without prior discussion and have caused considerable disruption, as some stadium articles are now titled in Polish while others remain in English.

Details: Earlier today, FromCzech requested the renaming of over a dozen articles on Polish stadiums, leading to a chaotic situation where article titles are now inconsistent (see category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Football_venues_in_Poland). This user appears to be engaging in a pattern of nationalistically motivated renaming, which disregards Wikipedia’s established naming conventions and consensus-building process.

The user was aware that these moves would create confusion but proceeded regardless, without consulting the community. Given the scale of these undiscussed changes and their disruptive effect, this behavior raises concerns of potential vandalism and a deliberate attempt to impose a specific linguistic or national perspective without justification.

Request for Action:

Revert the undiscussed moves to restore the previous stable versions. Review the user's editing history for patterns of similar behavior. Require proper discussion before allowing any further changes to article titles, especially in cases involving national naming disputes. This is the English Wikipedia, intended for a global audience, not a localized version tailored to a specific national preference. Such unilateral actions should not be allowed to disrupt the neutrality and accessibility of information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradygmaty (talk • contribs) 21:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be a retaliatory post because @fromczech has already brought you here. You reverted edits with citations and then frankly lied in your edit summaries that the changes were not cited. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Ironically, "restoring the stable titles" and "reverting the undiscussed moves" is exactly what happened here. You performed a series of undiscussed moves, and they were contested by FromCzech. Undiscussed moves are eligible to be reverted upon request. Reverting a revert would constitute move warring, which is especially disruptive. The next step, as your moves were contested, should be to start RM discussions. C F A 00:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

That user has unilaterally moved some articles from English to PL, and you are defending them? What a disgrace. You are directly responsible for the deterioration of article quality, and the longer you fail to rein in this vandal, the worse it gets.@CFA Paradygmaty (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is this being discussed here? Surely it belong at WP:RM? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger - YES! For a while, we already had all the articles (on Polish stadiums) in English, until the Czech vandal came and changed some of them back to Polish. Please, take your time: go through the name change discussion of Białystok Municipal Stadium, which lasted for several months. Thanks to the acceptance of my request, we had ALL the articles in English. This recent move from this month was ruined by a Czech user because he demanded the relocation of several randomly selected articles. I sincerely ask you – please, put an end to this madness. Paradygmaty (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

You should retract your statements against @CFA and @FromCzech. Your comments violate WP:NPA. Comments like that are not going to lead to people being inclined to help you. Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s not about anyone wanting to help me rather than Wikipedia. That would be unprofessional—please, calm down.@Insanityclown1 Paradygmaty (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm. You clearly are not though. Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Then please take professional action. Paradygmaty (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

On the moves, the unilateral moves that you had made earlier can be contested as such (in fact, if FromCzech chose to revert directly, it is within his rights to do so) even it was months ago since the articles had been stable at the old/current titles for years, most of them since 2020. The only way to appeal to this is to open a move discussion, either as single page move for each article (WP:RSPM), or a grouped one (WP:RMPM) if the rationale is the same and you are sure that there are no other factors/variables that will derail even one or two of the articles.

Do note that the consensus arrived for one article may not be applicable to another article in many cases. i.e. it might be that for one or two stadiums are better known by its native name rather than the English one! If you choose to rely on this arrangement, don't be surprised if some others revert the subsequent moves because there were no discussions for the other articles. Through the move discussions, the consensus will determine at which the articles will be and roughly locks them in until the next discussion in most cases.

On Stadion Miejski (Białystok)/Białystok Municipal Stadium, the discussion, Talk:Stadion_Miejski_(Białystok)#Requested_move_5_November_2024, is still ongoing with no closure. – robertsky (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Indef Paradygmaty

• Support as proposer Paradygmaty's behavior has been unacceptable and demonstrably uncivil. In the course of this ANI fracas, they have engaged in what appears to be a prima facie case of retaliatory reporting, interspersed with personal attacks against other editors.--Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Comment: Hmmm… if in our dispute my request for professional action meant that you were asking to block me, then I withdraw it. Seriously, I've thought it over, and I assume we just need to find a solution to fix the mistakes in the category about Polish stadiums. I really care about this, and if anyone felt offended, I apologize. Will you help? 😊🙏 --Paradygmaty (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  I was looking at CFA's talk page and wanted to advice you further on your conduct before an ANI thread would be opened and realised that there is already an ANI thread opened.

  If you are apologetic, be more sincere and apologise for making statements like calling someone a vandal, even with 'potential'; and then doubling down by accusing CFA of causing disorder on @CFA's talk page (Special:Permalink/1272817305#Regarding_the_page_moves_you_recently_made), and strike them off accordingly proactively instead of asking "Will you help?". These are personal attacks. What you mean by "if anyone felt offended, I apologise"? If @FromCzech or @CFA are not feeling offended because it is not in their nature to feel as so, you won't apologise? – robertsky (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  I admit that I was emotional, and I realize now that I shouldn’t have acted that way. I don’t want to burn bridges and I genuinely want to move forward peacefully. 😊 I understand the importance of being more sincere and constructive in these situations. I apologize for my earlier statements, including calling someone a vandal, even with the word "potential," and for accusing CFA of causing disorder on their talk page. These were personal attacks, and I regret them. 😔 🙏 I’m sorry, and I’ll be more mindful in the future. 💬 Paradygmaty (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where this leaves this proposal but Paradygmaty has made a a request for a block at AN and has a self-imposed block for approximately two weeks because of upcoming exams. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Exams and a rather severe case of ANI Flu. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Personal attack

Hello, I have endured fair share of harassment and personal attacks over nearly 20 years of contributing to the project. However, yesterday's attack piece is truly intolerable. I left a message below the post, thinking it would suffice, but I have changed my mind. I will no longer tolerate such blatant attacks by nationalists. I beg you to take a note and evaluate the intensity or severity of this editor's post. Thanks.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that the academic author being denounced so harshly in the attack linked above is John Van Antwerp Fine Jr.. Cullen328 (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Nor should you tolerate it; that was a very egregious attack, and I'd certainly give thumbs-up to any block of that SPA. Ravenswing 19:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I neglected to mention that all of this is happening within the scope of WP:ARBMAC or WP:ARBEE. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Legal threats from IP

2601:243:1F01:2020:7931:D2CD:2122:CFB

From a talk page thread on Joseph A. Tunzi: ...don't really know who he is and to me to be quite frank it looks like you bullied him and scared him to say what he did i will pursue and single out any wiki editor to a higher court if i have to. [124]

Doubled down on these threats on user talk page: That's not my intent at all you seem to have a grudge against me for some reason if i go to a higher court that may be the wiki foundation... [125] Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 23:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

For context, @Daryl77 declared a COI at this Teahouse thread after editing the article for over 10 years and was pblocked by @Cullen328. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 23:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that's a legal threat since it appears from the user talk page that the "higher court" they're referring to is WMF, but given the scattered grammar it's hard to tell. Also the claim that Tunzi is their mentee is...let's go with "unlikely". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I pageblocked Daryl77 from Joseph A. Tunzi only and not from its talk page or any other page on Wikipedia. I commented at the Teahouse when Daryl77 asked how to remove the tags from the article that The promotional tone that pervades and saturates that article would need to be removed, which would be a massive job. Because you created that article, have made 413 edits to that article and are personally responsible for nearly 80% of the content, it should certainly not be you that removes that tag. Daryl77 has been editing that article for 13 years and I stand by my assessment. That massive article is jam packed with trivia including this gem Tunzi supplied photographs of Presley and Tom Jones in which Presley can be seen wearing a 18 carat Corum Buckingham wristwatch, to the auction house, Sworders Fine Art Auctioneers in November 2020. The auction house was putting up the original watch for auction, as it had been gifted to Richard Davis, a member of Presley's entourage and far more trivia like that. If the IP wants to contact the WMF to complain about me pagebocking another person from one article, then I have no concerns because I know what kind of answer they will get. But i will pursue and single out any wiki editor to a higher court if i have to sounds like the start of a harassment campaign directed at me and perhaps other editors, and that I do not appreciate. Cullen328 (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Pyramids09

Pyramids09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), already accused of being a sockpuppet, keeps making controversial POV edits, completely ignoring edit summaries and talk pages, eg. at Template:Genocide navbox and Gaza war, often falsely tagging them as minor edits.[126] – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 06:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you can use the fact that an editor was accused of being a sockpuppet against them unless this is accusation is confirmed. Many editors have been accused of being a sockpuppet who were not sockpuppets. Focus on what an editor might have actually done that can be verified. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: Sure, and I agree on that. I actually have no involvement in the sockpuppet accusation, so I can't confirm nor deny it; I only mentioned that to summarize all the problematics currently involving the user, so you can analyze the case with the most infos at hand. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 09:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The edit in the single included dif isn't great but that isn't enough on its own to establish any sort of pattern of disruption. Frankly I would probably have rewritten that line as the "mass" Hannibal Directive part is painfully clunky although I don't think deletion was warranted. Do you have any further evidence? And I'll note that trying to knock people out of the topic area with big fishnet SPI accusations based on weak evidence is common in this CTOP - that happened to me this week and I'm a pretty well-known anti sock-puppetry person. So I would personally entirely discount an accusation that didn't lead to a block and would recommend against bringing that forward in the future - it doesn't help your case. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Well, while I firmly endorsed mentioning the Hannibal Directive itself, "mass" is not something I personally added or endorsed; other users added it based on current consensus on the article talk page. For me, this is not about the topic area or that phrasing, I'm mostly referring to the lack of edit summaries and the tagging of content removals as minor edits. That's why I considered useful to compare patterns involved in the recent case. But yeah, ignore that. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

OK can you provide some additional diffs of significant edits marked as minor? Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

threat

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

---

The User:RevolutionaryPatriot has been vandalizing the Najib ad-Dawlah page by repeatedly removing sourced information and being rude in their interactions [[127]]. This user has a history of being disrespectful towards others [[128]] [[129]]. Despite my attempts to communicate with them on their talk page, they continue to revert my edits without addressing or resolving our dispute ans forcing their POV. Additionally, there seems to be bias on the page, especially with the Pashtun perspective, but I want to make it clear that my goal is not to be racist. This user has consistently been involved in disputes with other editors, and it is clear that they are not cooperating constructively. You can verify these claims by checking their edit history. They have now started threatening me on my talk page You haven't made a single edit to Sikh attacks on Delhi but instead intend excessive conflict detail on the person's page. Do not add it again not a word of it., and I do not want to engage with them. I wish for administrators to solve this issue.Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like there have never been any substantive comments at Talk:Najib ad-Dawlah. That is where discussion about the article should take place. Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand, but that user is not ready to cooperate. Sir, I already tried to talk to him, but he just wants to force his POV. I trimmed a paragraph with four different reliable sources to make it easier for people to read, as per one experienced editor's advice, but on the other hand, he doesn't want to back down or cooperate. Forget trimming, it is not relevant enough. Especially when the article Sikh attacks on Delhi exists where his 21 thousand worth of characters can be perfectly be placed.

There is no way we're keeping this on the page. Such a ridiculous addition,[[130]]. this is how he behave Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Jaspreetsingh6 has been blocked as the sockmaster for Jisshu and Jassu712. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Descritpion of diff to hide

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

---

• 46.112.104.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Again some IP calls for murder in Polish lauange in this diff. Szturnek_¿? 12:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Second death threat in an edit summary from this IP address this week, so editing permission revoked as well. It probably should be revoked until after the election, but I went with 1 month. Uncle G (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

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

CoastRedwood and elephant-related articles

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

This user has continued to make disruptive edits regarding semantic disputes regarding the nomenclature of elephants (particularly, the rather trivial issue of whether mammoths are technically elephants or not) and has shown a WP:IDHT attitude, refusing to drop the stick despite their edits being opposed by everyone else, see these discussions Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Consensus on topic of Elephant article and the various recent discussions at Talk:Elephant over the last 2 weeks. I think a topic ban may be necessary, as it's clear that they are fixated and unable to walk away from this dispute. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

CoastRedwood has been previously warned on their talkpage about the dispute, and they were recently blocked earlier this month for one week for an unrelated matter of "bothering other editors about their user pages", subject of a previous ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1176#User:CoastRedwood_-_Harassment, and previously warned by an admin for edit warring on the elephant article [131] Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

At the time I mentioned, during one of their unblock requests, that it appeared CoastRedwood had not learned anything from the block and that it would be likely they would be back here in short order. I think, at this point, WP:NOTHERE applies and an Indefinite Block seems relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I would be fine with either a topic ban or an indefinite block Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd be afraid that, if we go with a topic ban, we'll be back here again as soon as CoastRedwood finds some other strict category with an edge case they don't like. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Go for an indef. They then need to convince the community they will change in order to re-obtain their editing rights. Indefinite doesn't mean permanent, but since there's been no change in behaviour or recognition of it a temp block or topic ban won't help to alter it. Canterbury Tail talk 16:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked INDEF.Waiting out a block and resuming the same behavior is the very definition of DE. Star Mississippi 18:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Request for Immediate Block of Sockpuppet IP

I am writing to request an immediate block of the IP address 119.94.236.230, which has been engaging in disruptive and vandalistic behavior on Wikipedia.

The IP address in question has been repeatedly removing verifiable content from Marian Rivera's page without providing valid reasons or explanations. Despite warnings and messages from multiple users, including myself, this IP address has continued to ignore our concerns and persist in its wrongful actions.

Below is a notification I sent to this IP address, which has gone unheeded:

"Notification of Unexplained Removal of Content https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:119.94.236.230

You recently removed part of Marian Rivera's awards without providing an explanation. As per Wikipedia's policies, removals of verifiable content require a valid reason.

1st Removal without explanation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marian_Rivera&oldid=1272852419 2nd removal without explanation [132]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marian_Rivera&oldid=1272852785

I request that you provide a clear and valid reason for this removal within the next 24 hours. This will allow me to review your actions and address any concerns.

Failure to respond or provide a valid reason may lead to escalating these concerns to a higher venue, as other users and my colleagues have already reported your actions and been ignored.

Please take this opportunity to explain your actions."

In light of this IP address's persistent disregard for Wikipedia's policies and its continued engagement in disruptive behavior, I urge you to take immediate action to block this IP address and prevent further damage to Wikipedia.

Thank you! Mr. Accuracy Specialist (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Where's the socking part?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

How exactly would they have heeded your notification? First you sent a "final warning." Then seven minutes later, with no new edits from the IP, you posted a second warning informing the IP that they had 24 hours to provide an explanation or you'd "escalate concerns to a higher venue." Then 14 minutes, or about 0.2 hours later, again with no edits from the IP, you escalated concerns to a higher venue with an extremely aggressive ANI notification. It's good that you're trying to discuss edit warring concerns with the IP, who does appear to be doing that, but the over-the-top-hostility is really uncalled for. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

This is the second thread OP has opened here without responding to any of the concerns in the ongoing thread about the OP. --Richard Yin (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

They also appear to have a somewhat idiosyncratic view of what content should be removed for being unsourced, such as yanking basic cast lists and discographies wholesale from articles as unsourced.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Ratherous

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

Hello! This user has repeatedly engaged in edits that align with Russian disinformation narratives by including occupied territories as part of Russia, despite these areas being internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. When challenged on this, they dismissed concerns and refused to acknowledge established facts under international law. It violates WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View), WP:V (Verifiability), WP:DISRUPT (Disruptive Editing). I have engaged in discussions with this user, attempting to clarify why Wikipedia should not reflect the territorial claims of an occupying force. However, they continue to insist that the issue is “not about sovereignty” and refuse to acknowledge the broader implications of their edits. They have also responded dismissively to multiple editors raising similar concerns. Salto Loco (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

To clarify the situation the above user has uploaded several maps removing disputed boundaries on Commons, despite the maps being in relation to enforced laws (hence the reason they depicted de facto boundaries) and began globally replacing them with his versions. This is clearly politically motivated as evidenced by his previous comments ([133], [134], [135]). The "multiple editors" he refers to is a single user - LeontinaVarlamonva who earlier attempted to do the same thing as Salto Loco and deleted maps that don't align with their political preference after disengaging from the talk page of the map ([136]). In fact, the absolute majority of users have been reiterating the same thing to this user on the different discussion pages he copy and pasted his message to ([137], [138], [139], [140]). User has since continued to conduct cross-wiki edits pushing for his maps to replace the original ones, namely - commons:File:Status of euthanasia in Europe.svg and commons:File:The euro area.svg. He has also recently shifted the discussion to ridiculous accusations of being paid by Russia? ([141]). I have earlier also submitted a sockpuppet investigation for the user with an IP account he sometimes uses interchangeably while edit warring. --Ratherous (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Please also note that originally user uploaded several other maps, most of which have since been deleted for Vandalism and POV pushing, which he also used to globally replace original maps across hundreds of articles across different Wikipedia projects. --Ratherous (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

So Salto Loco provided no diffs while every diff Ratherous provided point to Wikimedia Commons. Is there any activity on this project that we need to be looking at? Because, ironically considering the content dispute has to do with jurisdictional boundaries, I don't believe this noticeboard has any jurisdiction over Wikimedia Commons. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The only diffs I can show are the ongoing attempts of the user to insert his politically-preferred maps to different articles:

Legality of euthanasia ([142], [143], [144])

Template:Eurozone labelled map interior ([145],[146])

A number of articles relating to cannabis ([147], [148], [149], [150], [151])

I go into more detail about the edits made from the IP address in the sock puppet investigation. --Ratherous (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Here both of you hit the WP:3RR brightline - and throughout all the other article histories I'm seeing the same pattern of the two of you tangling over which map to use. Have either of you considered WP:DRN, WP:3O or asking arbcom for a clarification? I've said this before and I'll say it again but an encyclopedia is not the right venue for fighting the RUS/UKR war. Considering the broad scope of the articles you've been tangling on I suspect many page watchers are likely befuddled at why you both keep reverting very similar maps. If an admin wants to take action for the edit warring that's their call but I think most of this history calls for trout and a voluntary break from the CTOP. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

As you mentioned this issue is largely related to Commons and discussions are ongoing, some of which I have linked in my first comment. It was a surprise to me that the user would bring this up on this noticeboard at this point as I was going to refrain from doing so unless he did break the 24 hour reversion rule - 2 warnings ([152], [153]). The user is however continuing to reinsert his map into articles across different wiki sites despite the discussions and oftentimes long-use of existing maps. --Ratherous (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I also want to point out that I completely agree that this is no place to fight the RUS/UKR war, especially on maps that have nothing to do with international sovereignty but depict enforced law. This has been reiterated to the user over commons by myself and a number of other users, which again although has nothing to do with Wikipedia, demonstrates the motives of the user on this platform while politicizing maps that have nothing to do with the topic. I mainly edit maps in my activities on WP/Commons and the distinction between using de facto maps and de jure maps can be seen throughout my edits depending on the context of the map and the relevance of internationally recognized boundaries (Recent examples - De jure: [154], [155], [156] De facto: [157], [158]). However based on Salt Loco's recent responses to the several discussions on Commons, it is quite clear he is unable to separate his political positions from his edits ([159]), once again including a ridiculous claim that I and another user are reverting his POV pushing because we are paid by Russia ([160]). --Ratherous (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• If this dispute concerns which map to use on a Wikipedia article, this should be discussed on the relevant article talk pages. If this complaint is about personal attacks, then highlight those concerns through diffs. If this is really about edit-warring, by any party, then WP:ANEW is a better venue for handling that complaint. If this dispute is about the maps themselves, then it seems like this matter should be discussed on the Commons, not here at ANI. Right now, this is a tangled mess of accusations so it's hard to easily see if this is even the most appropriate forum to be discussing your differences. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Maps regarding the borders of Ukraine regarding the borders of Russian occupied areas? NPOV violation claims? De facto vs de jure? These are ringing a bell... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• I edit-conflicted twice making the same connection. Is this case of great minds thinking alike, or of small minds thinking alike? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Simonm223, Liz, The Bushranger, Phil Bridger, Has a general agreement on similar issues surrounding Ukraine-related maps been achieved previously? I don't think having discussions on every single related article and map is very realistic considering there are probably hundreds. It has always been my understanding while editing maps on Commons that en:WP generally depicts maps with de facto boundaries where it is relevant (namely, enforcement of laws) and de jure boundaries in relation to topics such as international organizations, UN treaties and inter-governmental relations as well as essentially any other subject matter where administrative control is irrelevant. This has always felt like the most neutral approach and has at least been the policy that I generally adhere to when updating maps, as do most other users I've observed in my experience on Commons. I did not consider the Ukrainian conflict to be an exception to this practice, however seeing as how sensitive this topic is to the users who reported this, is there a central Ukraine-Russia conflict discussion board where this can be discussed on a wider scale and settled once and for all to avoid future disputes? Salto Loco seems convinced that maps with de facto boundaries are "propagandistic temporary exceptions" ([161]) and that I am apparently being paid by the Russian government ([162]), so I think input from other users who are less politically-sensitive regarding the topic would be beneficial. A couple of other users have intervened to revert his edit warring on Commons, but I fear similar disputes will inevitably resurface on WP in the future, whether it be from Salto Loco or someone else. --Ratherous (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, the last discussion ended with a boomerang for the editor who brought it here. I'm pretty sure that de facto is the consensus, but that wasn't acceptable to them and they wound up getting indef'd. I just find it interesting that now Salto Loco has brought up a very similar subject, making very similar arguments. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Main Page Error

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

---

Sorry to bring this up here, but nobody responded to the MP/E notice board and I feel that this is urgent. Currently, the "In the news" statement on the Potomac air accident links to American Eagle (airline brand) when it should link to 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision. All that needs to be changed is the link. Sorry for forum shopping, but I really feel that this needs to be fixed ASAP. Thank you. JarJarInks^{Tones essay} 18:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Peter Bergmann photo dispute

I am currently in a dispute between an IP user 61.127.146.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) due to the use of a photo they deem "graphic" on the Peter Bergmann case article showing a morgue photo of an unidentified man only known as "Peter Bergmann".

I intially reverted the edit and added a hidden note before the issue was brought to my talk page.

Per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not censored and it is an encyclopedia and the image pertains to the article. That is my philosophy but it has gotten out of hand so I must bring it to your attention. Stadt64 (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Stadt64, you are correct that Wikipedia is not censored but we also operate on the principle of least astonishment, and avoid unnecessarily offensive images. Seeing the battered face of a dead man in an infobox is not what most people expect. Several editors have opposed including this photo at Talk: Peter Bergmann case. I have removed the image. If you want to restore it, you need to gain consensus among other interested editors on that talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

An assist from an uninvolved admin please?

Please see the recent history at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. I don't want to edit war, but what started as a potential good faith disagreement with a newb has appears to have descended into edit warring and LOUTSOCK personal attacks. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for three days and will next give contentious topics alerts to the new editors. Cullen328 (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Added appropriate ctop notices to the article and talk. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I haven't run a check - that would be inappropriate given that I'm involved - but I would be surprised if the account was not the same person as the IP, whose contributions going back to October of last year are not encouraging. It's almost certainly Civil9095 (talk · contribs) evading their block - much LOUTSOCKING from them previously on 98.118.249.192, which geolocates to the exact same location as 108.44.242.138. If I wasn't involved... Girth Summit _(blether) 20:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like debate has moved to the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I need some help with an IP

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

---

So, IP makes this edit, I revert per WP:NPOV, then afterwards I keep stalking the recent changes page, until I get this notice on my talk page. Please help. Worgisbor (Talking's fun!) 19:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Return to behaviour from K1ngstowngalway1

I’m concerned about the return to problematic editing by User:K1ngstowngalway1, blocked by @Deb: on the 18th, per this previous ANI.

The accompanying issue of leaving no edit summaries has improved but to a still-paltry 21%, if from next to zero. That aside, they have resumed, to quote @DeCausa:, “to introduce tendentious POV edits based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH with frequent misuse of WP:PRIMARY sources. They WP:OVERLINK, often to concepts which are anachronistic or make a POV connection”. They swamp multiple related articles with similar passages of general material, often lifting passages wholesale from other articles, losing specific focus on the article subject. I think this may be partly of a more-is-better approach but suspect a significant WP:COATRACKING aspect, to advance some broader case.

The current main focus of attention is Alexander Cameron (priest). The summary for this edit baldly states the motivation “Cameron.. being promoted for Catholic sainthood is relevant… because an enormous amount of further research will be needed worldwide to confirm a life of heroic virtue and, far more importantly, to search for possible evidence of willful misconduct...”, clearly not the brief of Wikipedia. This is bolstered by the like of this and this campaigning addition.

Another current example, is here at Mass rock regarding large off-topic sections, with no direct mention of the subject, apparently coatracking supplementary material in pursuit of a wider campaign.

As before, the abundance and extent of edits makes it impossible to assess the editor's copious work.

This user will not take on board, from anyone, the problematic nature of their edits, cry persecution, and are evidently determined to carry on as before their block. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

My "campaign" involves the quest for the unvarnished historical truth, which I have always thought was the whole purpose of the project. I have edited articles in the past, such as that of convicted murderer and rapist Fr Hans Schmidt (priest), even though he is a subject which makes my own religious faith and it's clergy look very predatory and evil. I have also added information to the article on Alasdair mac Mhaighstir Alasdair involving his role in exposing the violations of priestly celibacy, etc., by an 18th-century priest of the Highland District of Scotland. Such scandals are part of Catholic history, too, just as much as the life of those that are revered and I would never act to silence or cancel such stories on any account. Regarding Mass rocks, such secret altars, sometimes indoors and sometimes outdoors, existed on both sides of the Irish Sea, rather than merely in Ireland as often believed. Their locations are important, the stories attached to them in the oral tradition are important, even in cases where they cannot be substantiated or are merely folklore. Folklore is used in every culture to teach life lessons. If someone is deemed worthy by an approved Catholic organization to have their life story publicized and their Canonization as a saint encouraged and prayed for, then it becomes so much more important for the facts of their life to be investigated, firmly established, and set in proper historical context, even by those, like myself, who live an ocean away and do not belong to said organization. Let the chips fall where they may, let the search for the facts of history condemn or exonerate whomever it may. Unfortunately, sometimes pseudohistory, that is allegations rooted in the rewriting of the past to advance an agenda in the present, becomes so pervasive that it becomes official history. When this happens, criticism or the asking of hard questions about its claims are at risk of being silenced. Even in cases such as the official Whig history so harshly criticized, not only by G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, but also by Scottish and Welsh nationalists and Celticists like John Lorne Campbell, one sees editors determined not to tolerate even scholarly writings and University Press texts that raise unwelcome questions. But if a historical narrative is strong enough to withstand critical examination, why are unwelcome questions, however carefully referenced and cited from Oxford, Harvard, and Yale history presses, being instantly deleted?K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

One problem with your statement is that Wikipedia editors are not an investigatory body. It's not our job to investigate and publicize what we believe are facts but to source everything to mainstream, reliable sources. If you want to do your own original research on potential saints and their lives or promote a cause, I think that content is more suitable to a personal blog than a referenced encyclopedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) the unvarnished historical truth is absolutely not the whole purpose of the project. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth; Wikipedia is not a place to campaign, to right great wrongs, or to advocate for The Truth. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)