Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. 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:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS

For months now, WMrapids has repeatedly casted asperstions against me and other editors:

To provide some context: editorial dispute with the user started after I proposed a move discussion at the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt article. After the discussion was closed with an outcome they opposed, they started similar move proposals in the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt and Operation Gideon (2020) articles on 24 May, two hours after the first move was closed. The discussions turned quite long and sour, in good part due to the controversial nature of the topics. In the latter discussion, I cited several Venezuelan media outlets and the WikiProject essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources (WP:VENRS). WMrapids would later proceed to describe said outlets as "pro-opposition" in both the essay and the outlets articles, and my opposition to the changes has been the main reason for the accusations.

In the span of around two months, the editor has accused me of WP:OWN at least 6 times ([1][2][3][4][5][6]), WP:CANVASS at least 4 times ([7][8][9][10]) and WP:ADVOCACY at least 14 times ([11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]). Other accusations have included WP:HOUNDING ([25][26]), "I try to focus on the content, though it is difficult when the content is being slanted by users.", [27], and whatever this is: "You two seem to be pretty close in step with each other...", which seems to be an accusation of meatpuppetry. The first accusation of canvassing would be withdrawn after realizing the mistake ([28]) and WP:OWN specifically, which was argued mostly regarding WP:VENRS, can be easily can be easily disproved by just taking a look at the essay's statistics (Xtools), where it is shown that WMrapids has become one of the main contributors to the page, both in terms of content as well as number of edits.

In many of these cases, specifically those that took place in RfCs, were not directed towards me and the main purpose was to support their position during the discussion, and some of them were also levelled against other users, specifically User:ReyHahn and User:Kingsif. I have asked them several times to stop casting aspersions ([29][30]), asking for concerns to discuss the issues directly with me and pointing out that continuing only creates a hostile environment, but they have continued. At the third canvass accusation, I asked WMrapids to strike the accusation ([31]), which other users agreed was unfounded ([32][33]), but the request was ignored. Now, I have asked ([34]) for further accusations be withdrawn from a new RfC (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WP:VENRS), which at this moment really feels like a personal attack. So far, no response has been received.

Lastly, although not the main issue at hand, it's worth mentioning other problems with the RfCs: in the same period of two months, WMrapids has opened five RfCs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), all of which remain open (save for one, closed today) and three of which are related to WP:VENRS. Several editors have expressed their concern regarding them: [35][36][37] [38], including the suggestion to slow down on opening new RfCs ([39]). I fear that with this, along with the mentioned hostility, editors will be discouraged in participating in related topics; not only limited to Venezuela, but also to Peru, the main edit topic for WMrapids where similar issues might have happened ([40]), but I cannot comment about it without further analysis.

I've tried withdrawing from some of the articles hoping that the situation could improve, but I can see with the opening of the last RfC this is not the case. Since two days have passed since I requested the editor to strike the latest aspersions and they have continued to edit, I assume this was also ignored, which is why I'm opening this thread. I think it's important to address these issues before there's further escalation and attacks against me continue. As I have mentioned before, if there are any issues regarding my own behavior, they should be addressed through direct discussion or in a noticeboard in the worst case scenario, not as the opening statement for a new request for comment. NoonIcarus (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Update: I really appreciate that WMrapids has striken down many of the accusations; not only the last ones mentioned ([41][42]), but also one of the first ones about canvassing that I mentioned ([43]). If the user has taken steps to de-escalate the situation and the situation is not repeated, I don't think further action is warranted. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

While the personalization has stopped after this report, and further action (beyond a warning) may not be warranted in that department, the BLP issues are still of concern. It appears from the timeline that the pro- and anti-campaign stemming from the Peruvian discussion was the impetus for WMrapid's pointy Venezuelan editing and from there spilled over to slant Venezuelan BLPs, which can then be used to slant reliability discussions (as most of Venezuela's top journalists had to move to other venues after previously reliable sources were censored and shut down by the Chavez/Maduro governments). WMrapids has become much more cooperative and less combative on talk, but the change in tone on talk has not been reflected by a change in editing. I am still concerned they should not be editing Venezuelan BLPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Timeline: (I declare myself to be friends with anyone who offers me an arepa).

I’ve been watching this trainwreck, including the frequent personalization by WMrapids listed above (and including one aimed at me) unfold via the proliferation of poorly presented RFCs.

The best I can tell, WMrapids had never edited Venezuelan content until they had a disagreement with NoonIcarus and began engaging in what looks like pointy editing.

• 25 February, WMrapids is successful in a move request at Talk:2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt that was prematurely closed.
• 22 April NoonIcarus re-opens the move discussion
  • 19 May WMrapids relists the discussion and oddly does not ping WP:PERU (tagged on the talk page), but does ping WP:Socialism (which is not tagged on the talk page - inappropriate canvassing)
  • 12:26, 24 May the move request closes, not in the direction WMrapids preferred
• Five hours later (17:35 and 17:40), WMrapids makes his first Venezuelan edits.[44][45] (WP:POINT) Neither of these close as WMrapids preferred. One closed 31 May, the other closed 21 June
• WMrapids again bypasses the WikiProjects tagged on talk (Colombia, Crime, International relations, Latin America, Military history, Organized crime, South America and Venezuela) to notify instead WP:Politics and WP:History (WP:CANVASS)
• Until 5 June, WMrapids confines their edits to Peru other than these (pointy) move requests
• 5 June, the series of RFCs leading to the complaints in this ANI began.
• 7 June, WMrapids begins biasing Nelson Bocaranda, a BLP.[46] See #Case study. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• "including one aimed at me"
  • Did not know that I had to read the top of every user's talk page.
• "oddly does not ping WP:PERU"
  • The project would be automatically notified due to the talk page template.
• "Five hours later (17:35 and 17:40), WMrapids makes his first Venezuelan edits.[106][107] (WP:POINT)"
  • NoonIcarus mentioned the article Operation Gideon (2020) as an example. After reviewing this article, I suggested that the same conditions for the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt be applied to those other articles. One can perceive this as WP:POINT, while I was interpreting this as WP:CCC, especially when both articles were handled differently.
• "WMrapids again bypasses the WikiProjects tagged on talk"
  • Again, the projects should be notified via template.
• "7 June, WMrapids begins biasing Nelson Bocaranda, a BLP"
  • After reviewing various articles from reliable sources describing a process how Bocaranda based his career on "rumors" and supported the Venezuelan opposition, I attributed the sources and added such information to the article.

WMrapids (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Case study

(Aside: the WhoWroteThat tool is not working at this article) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• 7 June adds unbalanced content to the lead of Nelson Bocaranda, a BLP, which NoonIcarus appropriately incorporates to the body of the article
• 7 June removes easily verifiable content, labeling it as puffery – this edit alone (because of the popularity of Bocaranda which pre-dates Chavez's cancer), indicates that WMRapids is inserting POV while editing outside of their knowledge base. Further, a Google search easily turns up BBC sourcing this content and others and more. Before removing something so obvious, sources could have been found easily; NoonIcarus had to readd it later, after which WMrapids attributes it without necessity (still not finding an easy source BBC via Google). Again, later fixed by NoonIcarus, who added BBC. A lot of work because WMrapids didn't do a simple search before deleting obvious information easily sourced (POV editing).
• 7 June, further indicating they are editing outside of their knowledge base, and with a POV, WMRapids uses the edit summary "Why he has a following" while subtly misrepresenting (POV) Reuters. Bocaranda increased his social media following after the Chavez diagnosis; he was well among the most popular journalists and television personalities in Venezuela even before that (see sources now in the article).
• 18 July WMrapids installs content sourced to a blog, Caracas Chronicles, on a BLP.
• 18 July installs unbalanced content without mentioning the reports of persecution of journalists and Bocaranda being targeted.
  • And in the same edit, deliberately obfuscates that the Chavez administration was actively denying Chavez's cancer and maligning Bocaranda for reporting it, by changing "veil of secrecy" (quote) to "Bocaranda would go on to gain much of his following covering information on the illness of Hugo Chávez at a time when information about his health was scarce." (Information was not "scarce"; the gov't was denying it, and had to acknowledge same a few days after Bocaranda reported it -- see reliable sources now in the article.)

So, this is one example of what NoonIcarus has been dealing with to address WMrapid's biased editing. I stopped at that point.

I know ANI can’t resolve content disputes, but we should be able to recognize disruption and tendentious editing when it comes in the form of bias combined with frequent personalization of issues. And WMrapids' focus on labeling people or outlets as "pro-opposition" demonstrates another kind of bias; I can't imagine labeling Democrats "pro-opposition" when they oppose the Trump administration, or Republicans "pro-opposition" when they oppose the Biden administration. Or saying that someone "opposes the US government" when they oppose one administration's policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll add real quick that starting from 6 June, the outlets articles edited have been La Patilla, Efecto Cocuyo, Runrunes, El Pitazo, Tal Cual and El Nacional (Venezuela), as shown in the diffs, all of in which WMrapids edited for the first time and nearly all of which were cited at Operation Gideon (2020)#Requested move 24 May 2023. I tried to avoid discussing content disputes unless it helped to provide context, but they further illustrate the pointy and disruptive editing. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I looked only at the first Venezuelan article WMrapids edited, and partly because Nelson Bocaranda is a BLP, as BLPs require editing more responsibly than elsewhere. What I found there was not encouraging, but I don't want to descend further into analyzing the crusade to characterize media outlets; as I said on my talk, slogging through the POV editing in Venezuela topics takes more time than I've got.

But according to The Washington Post, the Associated Press, and just about everyone else (sample 1, sample 2 but there are hundreds to thousands of RS on press freedom issues in Venezuela), it appears there is no longer a single media outlet in Venezuela that is not under the control of the Maduro administration, and those issues-- widely covered in all RS-- are hardly covered in any of the media outlet articles, with a handful of editors assuring that continues to be the case. Regardless of their political stance, the bigger issues are not covered in most of those articles, and tendentious editing just makes it harder to write decent articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, with your extensive history of being involved in Venezuela, I know you know that the term "opposition" is a popular term describing those opposed to the Venezuelan government. So do WP:GREL sources, including BBC (see WP:RSP), with the article clearly outlining sources as "government" or "opposition". Using WP:RS to place verifiable content on the project is one of the most basic processes on Wikipedia. So no, you making a false equivalence of the Venezuelan opposition and political opposition in general is not accurate. My edits were to plainly describe the media organizations as WP:GREL sources describe them, which can be verified. Unfortunately these two descriptions of "government" and "opposition" are a result of the political polarization that exists in Venezuela, but as International Media Support writes, "Overall, it can be said that both pro-government and pro-opposition media have contributed to the escalating polarization of society. Rather than reporting on the challenges facing Venezuela, many media outlets have become part of the problem instead of the solution." WMrapids (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• "7 June adds unbalanced content to the lead of Nelson Bocaranda"
  • It was a tiny article about an individual of questionable WP:NOTABILITY. Where else was I supposed to place the information?
• "7 June removes easily verifiable content, labeling it as puffery"
  • The phrase "is considered one of the best Venezuelan journalists by his colleagues" is not easily verifiable and is WP:PUFF.
• "WMRapids uses the edit summary "Why he has a following" while subtly misrepresenting (POV) Reuters."
  • Reuters plainly says "Bocaranda's investigative work on Chavez's health has brought him more fame than at any point in a half-century media career spanning back to when he was 16". Pretty sure this was properly placed. It is questionable that you are attempting to twist this...
• 18 July WMrapids installs content sourced to a blog, Caracas Chronicles, on a BLP.
  • WP:VENRS said Caracas Chronicles was "run by respected journalists" until it was removed by Sandy today. Again, this information was attributed as part of reception, which is common.
• "18 July installs unbalanced content without mentioning the reports of persecution of journalists and Bocaranda being targeted"
  • Pretty sure wording it as "the Venezuelan government reportedly said it would refuse to renew Unión Radio's license if Bocaranda did not prevent his criticism" is as balanced as you can get with describing potential censorship.
• "And in the same edit, deliberately obfuscates that the Chavez administration was actively denying Chavez's cancer"
  • This somewhat shows your bias. Information was scarce and that is accurate. If you want to change the wording to that it was a "cover up" operation, that seems to have more bias than simply saying information was not available.

Some of these accusations against me seem to be WP:POT. WMrapids (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Now Nelson Bocaranda--widely known since at least the 80s as one of Venezuela's most popular journalists and television presenters, with sources easily found in Reuters, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post-- without even going in to Spanish sources-- is "of questionable notability"? WMrapids, again, I'm concerned that while you are wading into territory you may be unfamiliar with, you aren't reading sources, and are apparently cherry-picking around for which sources suit the content you want to write. If you want to do that on media outlets, have at it-- I don't have time to concern myself-- but you can't do that on a BLP. The phrase you called PUFF was cited. Yes, the Chavez cancer knowledge brought him more fame-- that is even more fame (made him known even outside of Venezuela, while he has been quite well known there since the 80s-- as one of the sources mentions, it brought him fame within and outside of Venezuela-- he always had it in Venezuela). Even if you (or someone) considered that Caracas Chronicles was run by a "respected" journalist, Bocaranda is a BLP, and you shouldn't be using a blog to cite a BLP (and Toro was by no means the only writer at Caracas Chronicles, and they finally took it private because too many people were complaining about their content, making it difficult now to give examples of their gaffes such as we would need for a reliability discussion). Information is not scarce when it's all over Twitter, from a well-known respected journalist.

Yes, I very well know that "opposition" is a popular term used by the media; my concern is with how you want to use it and how you present it in RFC after RFC. Do as you wish in media articles, but I don't think you should be allowed anywhere near a Venezuelan BLP. You don't know enough about Venezuela to know when you're slanting an article about a living person. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Please don't use ad hominems against me by suggesting that I cannot edit in a "territory" that I may be "unfamiliar" with, it is very unwelcoming to a fellow editor. The Nelson Bocaranda article has been of minuscule importance; until I started editing it and expanding it greatly recently, there were hardly any edits (besides bot, link and category edits) since you created the article in 2008. I will reiterate; all of my edits were verifiable from sources and in no way were cherrypicking, attempting to illustrate a point, libel or to canvass, etc. Pinging other users to promote a more broad consensus has always been my goal when using the tool. As for using Caracas Chronicles, okay, maybe that source shouldn't have been used. Information from "colleagues" describing someone as "one of the best Venezuelan journalists" is WP:PUFF, plain and simple whether or not it is cited. Overall, your accusations are not helpful. Please stop. WMrapids (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Reminding you that competence and diligence are requisites to editing a BLP is not an ad hominem. If you intend to edit BLPs in a country where there is no press freedom; where most news archives from what were once the country's reliable sources were scrubbed after the government censored, shut down, and took them over (you have read the abundance of reliable sources on that, yes?); where most independent news reporting happens via social media sites and sources that may be considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards but are the only ones the government cannot shut down because they operate on social media, you had best be prepared to spend a lot of time in a library familiarizing yourself with the living persons whose articles you touch and the actual history of events that can no longer be found in the now-scrubbed archives of the former national newspapers. Even with access to a library, the going is tough when most previous newspaper archives are now gone; it's apparent by now you likely had no familarity with Nelson Bocaranda when you started editing the article, so caution is warranted before editing a BLP considering the difficulty in uncovering sources due to censorship in Venezuela. Nonetheless, your first clue to notability should have been the journalism prize you deleted.

Regardless whether you think an individual meets notability or think they are of "miniscule importance", BLP policy applies to all living people (and your statements here to those two issues further reinforce my concern that you shouldn't be editing BLPs).

Adding two or three sentences and content sourced to a blog is not "expanding greatly"; removing a national prize for journalism from the article, while sticking your personal campaign about labeling pro-opposition and pro-government into the lead, and expanding the article based on a blog source to make Bocaranda appear as having no journalistic credentials behind "rumors" is a gross BLP violation. You did this while real articles in really real reliable sources exist. That's tendentious, POV, and you shouldn't edit BLPs in an area you appear to be unfamiliar with if you can't do so responsibly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

BLP vios continue

See Talk:Nelson_Bocaranda#BLP

I should take this to either the BLP noticeboard or the NPOV noticeboard, but the WMrapids issues are already here at ANI, at WP:AN and at WP:RSN,[47] so this seems to be the most central place. Two days after I pointed out the first BLP issue, and with two of us in this discussion asking WMrapids to slow down (ActivelyDisinterested and me, pointing out that WMrapids should not be editing Venezuelan BLPs), WMrapids returned to Nelson Bocaranda to make a series of POV insertions and BLP vios. This editor should not be touching BLPs; their mission to pro- and anti- every media outlet that remains in Venezuela has spilled over into slanting the biographies of living persons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Slanting and OR continues on 9 August; see points 3 and 6 here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

For concerns about my edits regarding WP:BLP, please see that I successfully advocated for the page protection of an article about a child who has faced controversy about her well-being in the past. This occurred as the child's article was facing a bombardment of edits stating that she had died, all of which was based on unconfirmed reports. WMrapids (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm here because my username was mentioned, I don't think I have anything to add to discussion, but you having asked for page protection for a BLP that is being vandalised is not an endorsement that you know how to edit BLPs. If you think it is, that raises more concerns. Kingsif (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The tendentious issues are in Venezuelan topics; re "successfully advocat[ing]", Lil Tay is so bad that anyone could have gotten it protected. Biased editing is sometimes confined to one content area where the editor is unable to see their own bias; that's the issue here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Response

NoonIcarus has been been performing WP:TENDENTIOUS edits for years and this will be properly outlined in an extensive ANI report that I will subsequently begin myself. Though we have had issues with edits, I have attempted to work with them to determine a consensus across a multitude of articles throughout the project. Both of our actions have perhaps been unhelpful at times and I will admit that I fell for WP:BAIT on occasion. This can be seen when NoonIcarus first attempted to bring me to an administrator noticeboard over alleged edit warring on July 19 in which @Bbb23: said we both needed to improve our behavior. After this, I attempted to extend an olive branch on Talk:Operation Gideon (2020) the same day, saying "Let's move on from different discussions and find a better title for this article. I'll suggest something here soon", hoping that we could collaborate on finding a better article title for Operation Gideon (2020) (its title is almost universally opposed). Before I could make my proposal, NoonIcarus made their own proposal (which had already been rejected before) while I was drafting my own (which I had already told them I was doing).

Observing this behavior, it seemed that NoonIcarus was intentionally attempting to block my edits and proposals before they had even occurred, showing WP:HOUNDING. So I continued editing as I had in the past. The main concern I had with Venezuela-related articles was that though government sources were described as unreliable and partisan (as it should be), opposition sources were not described the same way despite reliable sources describing the two parties in the same manner. This was obvious in WP:VENRS, so I opened a discussion about the issues on WP:RSN in order to establish a more broad consensus. In the replies @ActivelyDisinterested: suggested that if I had issues with NoonIcarus, that I open an ANI myself. I replied, saying "Ok, I will keep your recommendations in mind if further action is needed to remedy these persistent problems. My only goal is to maintain an accurate and neutral project." Upon seeing this, NoonIcarus opened their own ANI in a similar manner to what occurred with the Talk:Operation Gideon (2020) move proposal (mentioned above), apparently trying to jump the gun with an ANI, though I had no intention on opening one. Seeing this behavior from NoonIcarus was truly disheartening as I showed before, I was attempting to bury the hatchet with them, though they seem to have taken things too personal.--WMrapids (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, I would like to specify that none of my descriptions of NoonIcarus' behavior were in any attempt to personally attack the user, it was to describe editing behavior plainly and call it how it was. Maybe I could have been more WP:CIVIL, but it seems like the user would have taken my edits personal either way. Ultimately other users can interpret my behavior however they like, though it should be known that my edits were to protect the integrity of the project, not to attack a single user who I had attempted to make peace with.--WMrapids (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll be clear on this, hoping the comment won't be long: I opened this thread because you casted aspersions at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WP:VENRS RfC, cut and dried. This has been a persistent issue that I have warned you about and before coming here and I specifically asked you to strike the accusations, which you have not done. If I have attempted to avoid further content disputes for the time being (Operation Gideon and outlets articles), but the aspersions have continued in the form of yet another request for comment, it begs the question: when will it stop? Addressing the issue here is a first step, and withdrawing your accusations for the RfC is still pretty much an option. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Striking that I will open an ANI. There is no need for it as previous users have said that we are both responsible for these disputes, so I won't add on to the fire. My interest in Venezuela-related articles was limited to the reliability of sources after there were concerns related to Peruvian topics. I seek to distance myself from both topics in the future as they were not why I initially began my editing.--WMrapids (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment from ActivelyDisinterested

I was going to try and ignore this discussion, but as I've been pinged I'll comment. WMrapids has an issue with WP:VENRS, as can been seen from the many discussions on its talk page, and that's fine. Editors are allowed to disagree with each other, but project do as a normal activity maintain such lists. As I said at VENRS (in an RFC that isnyet to be closed), and reiterated at RSN, the lists are fine as long as the project does try to maintain them against a higher level of consenus. So if you have a problem with the way a source is discribed bring it to RSN, this is what happened with La Patilla (the close of which is currently at AN). There seems to be two problems, first is that WMrapids is raising questions and multiple RFC without waiting for the final consenus. This has left a confusing trails of discussions without any clear consenuses, I feel WMrapids needs to slow down and allow the processes to finish before starting a new discussion. The second problem is the one under discussion here, my comment at RSN (mentioned by WMrapids above) over aspersions of WP:OWN could have been stronger but I was hoping to softly direct rather than bludgeon. I suggest that WMrapids strike all such comments that NoonIcarus has objected to at VENRS and RSN, simply as neither is an appropriate forum for such discussions and as a sign of good faith. If they then won't to bring those accusations here, with diffs showing prove, they should do so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem striking those comments. I did not know if there was such a policy requiring me to do so, but as a gesture of good faith, I'm more than willing. WMrapids (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:CIVIL both make comments about how to treat other users. Personally if another editor is working in a way I feel is negative I'll raise it with them and if they disagreee either drop it or (if it is actually problematic) I would raise it here with appropriate evidence. Making continued accusations against another editor on talk pages or noticeboards doesn't foster a good editting environment. I feel that if you struck those comments it would certainly be a step towards de-escalating the situation. This is only my personal advice though, I'm just another editor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Also, I attempted to remove the templates from multiple RfCs believing that it would end the discussion (see here and here). The new RfC is genuinely an attempt to achieve more inclusion as the other discussions had already stopped. Sorry for dragging you in here and your recommendations are appreciated! WMrapids (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the best direction, as other editors have already replied to them. Best to let them run there course, and work from whatever consenus emerges. Also the current RFC at RSN has many problems, I suggest closing that one. Once the others have closed maybe start an RFC with clearer objectives (specific details of VENRS that you disagree with) and a much more neutral statement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is a formal RfC at RSN, just an outline of topics that I was concerned about, so nothing to really "close". I'll keep the neutrality in mind for opening statements in the future. WMrapids (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids, I told you months ago in one of these many discussions somewhere that you needed to slow down and better understand processes, policies and guidelines. I'm pretty sure I told you that before you started editing a BLP, which is not a place one should go when one is on a roll about a topic like VENRS. And your excessive pinging of the world to every discussion is another bad look. Would it be possible to get you to agree to 1) stop with the personalization and casting of aspersions towards NoonIcarus, b) refrain from editing BLPs of Venezuelans for the meantime (you need to be either better versed with Venezuelan common knowledge or how to follow policy and guideline, and no one remotely associated with Venezuela doesn't know who Nelson Bocaranda is, and I'm saying that going back to the 1980s, and he certainly is not of "questionable notability"-- by definition the content you deleted about a National Journalism Prize probably alone makes him notable), c) slow down on the RFCs, d) read and digest WP:BLUDGEON, and e) stop the pinging of the world and other borderline canvassing? Your actions have now spread from articles, to the reliable sources noticeboard, to WP:AN, and are probably making it very unlikely that anyone will want to wade in to those RFCs anyway (I sure didn't). If the personalization and bludgeoning stops, I won't press for a topic ban from BLPs, but I don't think you should be editing there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

A quick comment

Good luck sorting this out. I am sure there are faults on all sides. Haven't read everything in detail but some thoughts are:

• We should blow up the VENRS essay and scatter it to the four winds. It is the hobby of a small number of editors which is misused to justify the insertion and deletion of text. There is already a process for assessing the suitability of sources.
• The Caracas Chronicles was mentioned somewhere in the middle of this mess. It has been used in many Venezuela related articles, including BLP's. As far as I can tell, the heaviest user is Kingsif (talk · contribs). However, Noonicarus has used it as a source a number of times, including for BLP information. SandyGeorgia has also used it as a source. In the interests of transparency, I have also used it once.

Burrobert (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your input is unsurprising here; "the hobby of a small number of editors" are words you might contemplate more carefully. I'm most interested to hear I used Caracas Chronicles once, and would like to see a diff for either context, or so I can correct that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"Your input is unsurprising here": keep your eye on the ball, not the editor.

"the hobby of a small number of editors": I went back three years. These editors had a small number of edits during that time: SandyGeorgia (1 edit on 7 August 2023), Ira Leviton (1), ReyHahn (6), John of Reading (1), Buidlhe (1), Kingsif (6), Novem Linguae (2), Stephenamills (1), Wilfredor (1). WMRapids bravely entered the fray on 5 June 2023 and has made 47 edits, a large number of which were reverted by Noonicarus. The remaining several hundred edits over the last 3 years were made by Noonicarus. Burrobert (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You did not supply a diff for where, as you say, I used Caracas Chronicles as a source. We all make mistakes, and I'd like to know if I did.

Based on what I've seen at Nelson Bocaranda in only three days of engagement, essentially everything WMrapids has written has needed to be removed, substantially corrected, or has outright bias POV and faulty sourcing and original research, so I'm unsurprised to hear that NoonIcarus has had to revert often. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

As expected, your diffs show I have not used Caracas Chronicles to source text. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

As suggested earlier, the VENRS page is largely owned by one editor. At times, their view about NPOV with respect to Venezuela has conflicted with that of other editors. On VENRS, there is often no attempt to justify the categorisation of the listed sources. The problem would be solved if Noonicarus hosted the VENRS content on their own talk page so that they would not be bothered by other editors with different views changing the content of the page. It would also stop them using their essay as a justification for "Removing unreliable source per WP:VENRS".

Your use of Caracas Chronicles came in those heady regime-change days of February 2019. You created the article Juan Andrés Mejía containing an External link to an article in CC. The link is still there.[48] You also used CC as a reference when you created the article Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis. The CC reference you used is still on the page and a second reference has since been added.[49]

You may also be interested in Noonicarus’ use of Caracas Chronicles as a source. Here is the list:

Poverty in South America [50], Economy of Venezuela [51], Cine Mestizo [52], Greg Abbott [53] (On September 15, 2022, Abbott sent two buses with 101 migrants detained after crossing the U.S. border with Mexico, mostly Venezuelan, to the residence of Vice President Kamala Harris, at the Naval Observatory in Washington, D. C.. Rafael Osío Cabrices in Caracas Chronicles compared his tactics to Aleksander Lukashenko's, who provoked a migrant crisis in the European Union Eastern border as a reprisal to criticism, and Fidel Castro's, who released released common criminals and mental health patients during the 1980 Mariel boatlift and shipped them to the United States.), Alfred-Maurice de Zayas [54], 2021 Apure clashes [55] [56], Special Action Forces [57], Crisis in Venezuela [58] [59], Venezuelan presidential crisis [60]

Btw, I am not saying either you or Noonicarus did anything specially egregious by using CC. I only mentioned it because you introduced the subject with respect to WMRapids. Burrobert (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Thanks for the in-depth review. It seems that most of us can be burnt for participating in similar actions. Going forward, we should maintain WP:CIVILITY and if we have disagreements, seek WP:CONSENSUS before plowing ahead. WMrapids (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Your diffs of my use of Caracas Chronicles show nothing more than I expected, which is that I have never used Caracas Chronicles to source text.

• Juan Andrés Mejía has Caracas Chronicles in external links (feel free to delete it if you think providing something in English for our readers as an External link is inappropriate).
• In this diff, where I am copying from another article, Caracas Chronicles is used to provide a translation from Spanish to English, and for that purpose, it is not unreliable.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Stalled with feedback from only one independent editor

[Note: The above section header does not belong to me, despite my comment following it: it was introduced in a refactor/reorganization of the discussion by another editor. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)]

Stalled with feed (back)

-EEng

It seems we're now talking about two issues, so let's try to tease them apart and see what we can say about each. With regard to WMrapids' conduct that lead to this discussion, they seem to have made a substantial (if somewhat protracted) mea culpa above: they have struck some content, made apologies for others, indicated an intent to take feedback on board and revise their approach to certain issues, and said they have no particular attachment to the topic area where the issues giving rise to this report arose and that they are looking to exit involvement there. It does seem to me, based on a reading of the above and a superficial follow up on the diffs, that their conduct did cross the line and was moving towards tendentious. But at the moment I'm not sure what more is to be done in light of their responses: they've done more than enough to justify an extension of WP:ROPE in my opinion. Does anyone substantially disagree with that, or can we say that part of the discussion is resolved with, if not exactly complete satisfaction to those who were on the receiving end of the aspersions, at least enough to let the matter go with the hope of real change from WMr?

The second issue is VENRS. This is nuanced. VENRS is undeniably an WP:Advice page and an WP:essay, as I am happy to see it has been correctly labelled (which does not always happen with WikiProject issue-specific recommendations). Policy is very clear on this and came out of major community discussions and ArbCom cases where the WikiProject cohorts attempted to apply their idiosyncratic, non-community-vetted 'guidelines' to every article they perceived to be in their purview: it is not permissible or helpful to cite such advice page guidance like policy, and can often be viewed as WP:disruptive if pushed in certain ways. Anyone who has so much as cited VENRS in an edit summary in order to justify a possibly controversial addition or removal of content probably will want to rethink that perspective and habit, since (again, per the relevant policy) this 'guidance' has no more effect than the opinion of a single editor. Anyone who has gone further to try to leverage VENRS to justify an edit in an edit war or to try to shut down discussion on a talk page or bootstrap their personal opinion with the "consensus" of VENRS (and I don't know if that has in fact happened) has definitely stepped into problematic territory.

Unfortunately, because of the weird place that the community has chosen to host the Advice pages guideline and discussion of the relevant distinction between WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on an individual article's talk page (or a policy talk page or noticeboard) vs. advisory discussions at a WikiProject, unfortunately this distinction is often lost on new editors durinjg onboarding (and even sometimes experienced ones over time). We really should have moved it to its own policy page a decade ago, frankly. But for those who don't know, there was past mass disruption that necessitated making this rule a formal one, so by all means, subscribe to VENRS if you think it makes sense, and repeat it's arguments on individual articles if you think they are sound. But do not wave it like a talisman indicating "consensus to do it this way with regard to all articles of type X". That's a one-way ticket back here to ANI. All that said, it seems to me that the remaining content issues can probably be resolved at the relevant talk pages? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise, you made no mention of the BLP issues, which WMrapids is still not understanding days in to this discussion. At the NPOV noticeboard, hours after your post and with many reminders about BLP, WMrapids puts forward a source for a BLP described by The Guardian as a "pro-Maduro tabloid". Yes, WMrapids has gotten much more polite since this ANI, but the tendentiousness has not abated, and a polite POV pusher is the most concerning kind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

That discussion is taking place at RFN, not in the edit summaries of an edit war or some other inherently disruptive discussion. Why should we take action on what is basically a content dispute between the two of you, one which at the moment no other editors have weighed in on, and in which you have actually outpaced them in volume by about 7:1? WMR's relatively tepid and single comment in that discussion does not rise to the level of tendentious by even the most liberal reading, in my view. Let alone disruptive to the point of validating sanction or other action. If you are that confident of your view on the matter, why not let the discussion play out? Clearly the two of you have diametrically opposed views on a few things here, including the two most recently discussed sources in particular. But the mere fact that you feel BLP is implicated does not obviate the need for discussion. So long as WMR does not violate WP:BRD on the article itself and attempt to shift WP:ONUS in some sort of way, they are merely participating in process at this point. If they do edit war, by all means let us know immediately. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise don't look now, but I always outpace others because "brevity is not the soul of my wit" and it takes me ten posts to make one. :)

It doesn't help that I have to digress in the midst of a neutrality discussion to explain reliability in relation to BLPs. [61]

The VENRS discussion in my mind pales in comparison to edits that defame living persons. The BLP issues at #Case study and #BLP vios continue date to August 7 and 8 (only four days ago). Until the NPOV noticeboard posts within the last few hours, I would have agreed that we are making enough progress on the BLP issues to close the thread, as no further content issues have occurred. But with discussions (eg at NPOV noticeboard) sidetracked by an ongoing failure to understand BLP, it becomes less likely that others will engage a topic already made difficult because most sources are in Spanish. I don't think we're done here and wonder how progress is possible without more input from Spanish speakers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I'll drop by just a second. I mentioned above that further action might not be needed considering WMR retracted from the comments, but I wanted to comment on this since you specifically mentioned WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. There has been edit warring in the outlets articles mentioned above, namely Efecto Cocuyo, El Pitazo, Tal Cual, El Nacional (Venezuela) and Runrunes, of which the last one is directly related to journalist Nelson Bocaranda. I have added tags to the disputed sections and the discussion about the issue has restarted, but the onus has in practed shifted to me to restore the articles stable versions, where WMR is the proponent of the changes, currently does not have consensus and the restoration has meant edit warring. I did not start the ANI about this because I believed that it could eventually be solved through discussion, but for WP:BRD to be respected I believe the best alternative would be to have the articles original versions and discuss based on them. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, without question the status quo versions (if they have been longterm stable) should be left as the standing versions during the BRD cycle, until consensus for the changes has been achieved. Anything else is likely to fall into the category of tendentious edit warring and refusal to follow process, in most circumstances.

That said, I continue to have concerns about how all of you seem to be approaching dispute resolution with regard to the specific articles and sources involved here. In my opinion this amount of dedication to trying to resolve these issues on the talk page of an essay and advice page is just setting yourself up for trouble. You can't cite any conclusions you arrive at there as "preexisting consensus" that has to be applied to the WP:LOCALCONSENUS issues on individual articles, and yet at the same time, this amount of debating those same points on that talk page for the essay is going to make you all very attached to the conclusions you form there and very inclined to leave that space expecting you can use the page as shorthand to win "consensus" arguments on particular articles.

It's all very much likely to funnel you all into disruptive loggerheads. Most of this discussion should be taking place on the talk pages of the articles in question, with the WikiProject reserved for coordinating and notifying about those discussions, not as a space to centralize the discussions themselves. To the extent that you do need broader forums to resolve some issues, RSN, NPOVN, and the talk pages of relevant policies are where those discussions should be focused. I'm a little concerned that I'm observing the slow build up to a 'VENRS' ArbCom case some ways down the line. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise I agree with your broader point about activity at the VENRS talk page, but the devil is in the detail. First, I finally engaged at the talk page of VENRS to try to understand the thinking on a few cases or whether there are points I'm missing, and to save examples that can be used at centralized RFCs. I think that's a necessary precursor to going to WP:RSN and to minimizing disputes. Second, talk pages of articles have been used inappropriately in the past for RFCs, so don't want to encourage that. Third, the activity you describe as necessary is also happening at article talk pages. Encouraging more use of talk is a good thing, and it's good the aspersions have stopped as a result of this ANI. I'm seeing discussion on previously empty talk pages, and issues coming up that go back years including paid editing. There are very few editors in this area, and help is needed. Venezuelan-topic editors have sought that help, here and at other fora.

But fourth and most importantly, when the NPOV noticeboard has been used appropriately when a difference reaches the level of needing feedback, while feral cats are all the rage, Bocaranda just above the cats (exactly like this ANI) has gotten not a single independent response (other than you and Actively Disinterested). Same applies to the BLP noticeboard. So if this is a "slow buildup to a VENRS ArbCom", we can thank the whole community for not engaging while Venezuela-topic editors have used the appropriate fora, and I would encourage the arbs to reject a case for that very reason. We're asking; no one is answering. Even an acknowledgement that others don't weigh in because they can't read the Spanish sources would help, because we would at least know if that's the problem. Thank you for at least responding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

That all sounds pretty reasonable--well I'm not sure why the particular RfCs you cited were not appropriate for article talk pages, but otherwise, I follow your reasoning. I'm sorry you all are having trouble flagging down more community involvement: as you know, some areas just get hit by a dearth of available man power for periods, even with abundant sourcing to work with. Perhaps I can do something small to help: would an extra hand translating sources improve feedback for when you have need of a WP:3O, WP:RfC, the noticeboards, or anywhere that you trying to get eyes on the sourcing? I'm not perfectly fluent, but proficient enough to deliver polished translations, which I used to do more regularly. I don't know if you feel that would actually do a lot of good in these circumstances, but please consider it a standing offer if a translation by someone not involved in the underlying dispute would be helpful. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Any additional eyes to help with conflicting opinions is always welcome from me. I always advocate for additional participation to help establish a more accurate consensus. Thank you for navigating your way through this discussion as well! WMrapids (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm very happy to be of some small help with feedback. I think you made this discussion much less intractable than it could have been, by being open to striking some comments and amending your approach in some respects from early on. It made a big difference here, I feel. As to any additional bit of help I can offer to you guys, I think I may be more helpful in the role of a neutral for setting up any RfCs on the sourcing issues, or translating sources or some such. But if you disagree at any point and feel a WP:3O happens to be the most helpful thing I can supply to the process, please feel free to ping me. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer! But I'm not (yet) sure translation help is needed, as it's not clear that is the problem. Also, while (many) years ago, I routinely complained about the quality of Google translations, they have now gotten to a point of being generally usable.

I was left wondering if the NPOV noticeboard might have gotten more response on a simple question (are these sources due weight for this content?) if it hadn't had to veer off into explaining the use of tabloids to source a BLP. So we still have no community feedback there; that's what's needed, but the 3O offer is also a good one. Thx, again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"Also, while (many) years ago, I routinely complained about the quality of Google translations, they have now gotten to a point of being generally usable.

Yes, now that you've said it, that does seem obvious now! I guess I am still adjusting to this reality: all my adult life the ability to produce translations for multiple languages has been a value-added skill, generally separate from but useful for my main work which I could interject to offer for help here and there. Presumably it was much the same for many similarly-situated, going back through generations of our forebearers. And now, very suddenly, the same results are trivially available (with increasing reliability, at least in the basics) everywhere. I guess my mind is still catching up with that. Thing is, even when talking just about the immediate future, it probably won't be nearly the last task with analytical elements that I am used to occasionally doing that I will now have to get used to being done through automation. Will I sound old, wistful and slowing with respect to keeping up with the times, if I opine that the times, they surely are a'changin'? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yep ... but thanks for the offer nonethelss, as I do still worry that others have not jumped in for the translation issue. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Respectively, I think we should be done here as I have agreed and participated in plenty of discussions with these two regarding improved content. ActivelyDisinterested provided a lot of help to me not only here, but in other discussions as well, so I have to thank them for their behavior. Unfortunately, this has not been reciprocated by Sandy, who responded harshly after I asked for help regarding a sensitive BLP. In addition, I recently saw some edits that would support my argument about an existing double standard used by NoonIcarus (since my similar edits were reverted here and here), though I recognized that these edits were in the past and we should move forward after we discussed the recent issues at hand. I already said I would de-escalate here and not place an ANI regarding NoonIcarus despite ample evidence that they are not innocent, though I have WP:GOODFAITH that their edits will improve in the future. For Sandy, maybe you should take the advice you gave me and slow down too? Again, I’m saying this with with the best intentions and in an attempt to focus on collaboration. So let’s just all drop this. WMrapids (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I've already mentioned my position regarding the ANI. Avoiding to talk about content (particularly seems some of your claims can be easily disproved), I don't appreciate the accusations of a "double standard" unless they are discussed in the article's talk page before, as the main point of why the thread was opened can be pretty much in effect until it is closed. I look forward your feedback regarding my last proposals on the topics. As for the dispute with Sandy, I cannot comment much on the activity about Bocaranda's article (at least in the recent days). --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

As I said, my intention was to be as respectful as possible when raising this concern, but it's important to call a spade a spade, so sorry for the boomerang. The main reason this should end is so we can focus on improvements and the proposals, not on conflict. Again, I have good faith that we can move forward and that lessons were learned. WMrapids (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

What boomerang? Even if nothing else comes of this ANI, getting the aspersions and BLP vios, along with acknowledgement of maintaining the consensus version during the BRD cycle, to stop was worthwhile. I do see that Burrobert continues to allege ownership because most of the edits were NoonIcarus's, even though the talk page shows ample engagement from others, with NoonIcarus being the one to make the edits. This is similar to the FAR of J. K. Rowling, where I show up as the author of a lot of content because I was the one who installed the consensus version developed on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Burrobert is correct about some of the reports and the “consensus” is dubious at best. And like the poster, who you say you’re “friends” with, your behavior has been questionable. Though I appreciate and accept your apology, it seemed half-hearted and somewhat similar to WP:BROTHER as you blamed your dog for your behavior, which you are responsible for. This circumstance reminds me of the adage “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”, which has recently helped me remain WP:CIVIL in these situations. Again, this is in no way to be condescending, but while we are all here, we should all work on improving our behavior and civility in order to collaborate more effectively in the future. WMrapids (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, that's all fair enough--and the last point in particular should be taken to heart by all involved. But that said, the back and forth is leaning back towards passive aggression again. And for the record, you really shouldn't keep making a point of saying that you are being cooperative because you didn't file an ANI against someone else who was discussing your conduct here (if I am reading that correctly). It's true that that's the right thing to do in the circumstances, but it would have been disruptive to have done so anyway: anybody who is involved in the underlying dispute can have their conduct reviewed in this discussion, so counter-filing would have been perceived as retaliatory and unhelpful.

That said, my initial inquiry was whether or not the other parties here were satisfied with your response to the need to avoid aspersions, and it seems to me that with fair caveats (going both ways) everyone here seems to be a willingness to move forward and try to work together. The major concern right now (and I honestly do not yet feel up to speed enough on all the ins-and-outs to know whether to endorse or reject this claim) is that your sourcing may not be up to snuff for some BLP purposes. Under the circumstances I feel like I can only ask you to be open to the possibility. WP:BLP is afterall regarded as a cornerstone of content work on contemporary issues. But again, we seem to be sufficiently back in to the content side of things at this point, that I think further discussion should return to relevant talk pages. Please consider running RfCs if you are still at loggerheads on the same couple of articles in a few days. If you do not have experience with that process and are at all unsure about the formatting or approach, please let me know and if it is helpful to you all, I will consult with each side and draft a prompt which hopefully fairly and neutrally presents each side's arguments as to the acceptability and sufficiency of the sources. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree and thank you for your help. No more responses from me here (unless something major happens). WMrapids (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It's unclear to me why WMrapids believes this conversation on a topic completely unrelated to Venezuela and unrelated to WMrapids about an article in which I have no interest in participating required an apology at all-- I offered one anyway just because apologies never hurt when one has been short. (On an earlier question, the RFCs on the talk pages were going to generate no more than the same local consensus.) Further, I did not say I was friends with any poster; I made a joke about arepas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I propose to turn this case to WP:Arbcom. -Lemonaka‎ 06:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Seven days and still no feedback on the BLP question at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Nelson Bocaranda. If some folks would not mind glancing in there, perhaps we could get the related ANI closed up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

User: Bluthmark

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

---

Editor has been given multiple warnings to explain edits.[62] The disruptive behavior continues.[63]. Nemov (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Not a single person, not you nor anyone else, has tried to start a conversation with them. A bunch of hard-to-understand, barely applicable, and not-obviously-useful "warnings" have been left on their talk page. They did try to communicate themselves with another editor, this conversation shows they are clearly trying to edit in good faith, but no one is even trying to help them be a better editor. At best they have received a few curt replies, and a bunch of inapplicable warning templates accusing them of things they aren't doing. Before you go dragging someone to ANI to get punished, maybe try talking to them first. Maybe try to help them learn how to use Wikipedia. They aren't a vandal. They aren't disruptive. They just don't know how to do the right thing because no one is teaching them how to. --Jayron32 17:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

They've had 15 edits reverted in the last 24 hours and several editors have left messages on their TALK. When I see an editor remove a note from an article without explanation and then check their TALK/edit history and all I see is carnage then what else is there to do about it? The edits are disruptive. Nemov (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What did they say, to you, when you asked them directly about it? Not a warning template, I mean, what happened when you said, politely as possible "Hey, I don't understand what you're trying to do here but I think your edits aren't helping the article. Do you think we can maybe talk it over and maybe come to some way to improve the article together?" When you did THAT sort of thing, what was their response? --Jayron32 17:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you see on that TALK page that suggests that anyone should waste more time trying to reach out to an editor who isn't responding to any messages in 4 months and continues to make disruptive edits. It's an issue, this issue noticeboard, sorry that it bothers you. If you don't want to deal with it that's fine, but this isn't someone who started making edits a couple of days ago and just needs a hand. Nemov (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF is the lens I look at their editing history through. What I see on that talk page is basically zero attempts to talk to them in all the months they've been here. Just stupid, useless warning templates that are no good to anyone. --Jayron32 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What's goin on Bluthmark (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. Maybe Nemov can explain what the issue is. I think that there's been some issues with some recent edits you've made, but Nemov has neither explained to me, nor apparently to you, what the specific matter is. Nemov, can you patiently explain the specific problem you're having and what Bluthmark can do to fix it? Thanks! --Jayron32 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you find templates stupid if you're confused about the issue. Nemov (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bluthmark You are not explaining any of your edits or responding to anyone leaving messages on your TALK. You could be blocked in the future if you don't change your behavior. Nemov (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Nemov, can you explain why you left the templates in the first place? It isn't clear which edits Bluthmark has made that are the source of the problem, what is wrong with them, and why you and others are reverting them and leaving the warnings. Please explain so they can get better. Some diffs, and an explanation would help Bluthmark to understand the problem. --Jayron32 18:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't left a template. I came to the TALK page to leave a note and noticed several other editors had already done so... apparently I didn't know the templates and warnings were not approved by Jayron32, the admin who thinks they are stupid. Had I been familiar with the Jayron32 policy, I would have left notes on every editor's TALK who used the stupid template and let them know that templates are stupid. Nemov (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

My point is, Nemov, we aren't going to block someone acting in good faith and just not understanding how to use Wikipedia. You've provided no evidence that Bluthmark is acting in bad faith. You've said that a bunch of oblique, hard to understand templates are evidence of that. I am saying that templates left by others are not evidence of bad faith, they are evidence of impatient Wikipedia editors who have better things to do than be friendly and helpful. If you want Bluthmark blocked, provide some diffs and an explanation of what they should be blocked for. If you can't be bothered to do that, well, then I'm not going to block them. Feel free to wait around for another admin to do your bidding if you want. I've made it quite clear that you should probably be a little better about assuming good faith, even on editors who have a bunch of useless warning templates on their user talk page, and also that if you want admins to respond to a situation, you have to actually explain the situation in detail and actually provide diffs showing the problem and actually show where you and others have tried to fix the situation previously (and not just left a bunch of warning templates). If that's too hard for you to do, don't bother with ANI in the future. We're busy enough around here without having to figure out what you want without any explanation or evidence on your part. --Jayron32 18:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't ask for anyone to be blocked. I brought an issue here. While you're asking others to act in good faith the same could be asked of you my dear admin. Maybe you should dedicate your precious time on removing stupid templates from Wikipedia if you find them so unhelpful. Nemov (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Some german guy didn't like that I added the producers, the people credited for writing Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order, rather than just one of them, and the fact it's in a series and said he would ban me or something. Also I forget to explain my edits which I didn't know you had to do, but I'm trynna get better at that. And the reason I don't respond to stuff on my talk page is because people have just sent me statements. What, should I just reply "ok, i get it"? I'm not some evil supervillain trying to spread misinformation. Bluthmark (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You're still continuing to make edits without an edit summary.[64]. Nemov (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

My bad I'm working on it Bluthmark (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You're still[65] doing[66] it.[67] Nemov (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I promise I will do it next time Bluthmark (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

On 5 August 2023, you changed

• "vous" to "vois" in French personal pronouns[68]
• "In Spain, northern dialects" to "In Africa, east-western dialects" in Spanish language[69]
• [[Urdu language|Urdu]] to [[Urdu language|Durdu]] in Official languages of the United Nations[70]

That was all "misinformation", as you call it; we call it vandalism and you were rightly warned for it.[71] You did not respond. Would you care to do so now? NebY (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry Bluthmark (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bluthmark Can you provide a more substantive reply? Shells-shells (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the editorial distruptivness Bluthmark (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

A few minutes ago, you changed the infobox entries for programmer and artist at Steep (video game), without explanation and contrary to every source I can find. Is that also "editorial disruptiveness"? NebY (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Check Mobygames Bluthmark (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The video game infobox guide WP:VG/MOS says the person who is credited as technical director should be credited as the programmer in the infobox, and two of the people credited as artists where concept artist. I removed those two and left the person credited as art director for the game, and I added Renaud Person who is credited as "world director". I feel as if his work on the game is pretty important since the game is pretty much just an open world, and since world design is a part of the artistic process, I found it fitting to credit him as an artist. Bluthmark (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

concept artists* Bluthmark (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Mobygames does not explicitly support your changes. You made arguable choices as to how to interpret the Mobygames listing, choices not based on WP:VG/MOS (though Template:Infobox video game/doc could apply to one), you did not provide any edit summary or link to any source, even though you have been reminded of that on your talk page and here, and we have seen that when we find you've vandalised articles, you first don't respond and then only say "Sorry". If you want to be trusted, if you want your edits to stick, you need to do the work to show that they're reliable and not just vandalism again. NebY (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It absolutely does explicitly support naming Grégory Garcia as programmer, given the guidance in the template documentation (which is incorporated by reference in WP:VG/MOS). But that's a bit beside the point; communication and referencing are absolutely important, and it's good that more of it seems to be happening now. Shells-shells (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

"Some german guy", pardon me? If you're going to refer to me in a veiled way, at least do it correctly: I'm from the Netherlands, not Germany. I didn't say I would ban you, it's not something I can do and it's not Wikipedia jargon, but I did issue you a warning for edit warring. When you've been reverted so many times and I've pointed you to the fact that per WP:VG/MOS we only list the head writer or someone in a similar position, the message should've been clear: stop adding it back in. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Whatever man. You never told me anything about WP:VG/MOS, and there are several games where not only the lead writer is credited, including Jedi: Survivor. Bluthmark (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No, not "whatever man". I am a person, a fellow editor. You should not refer to me, or anybody else for that matter, as "some [x] guy". That borders WP:UNCIVIL behaviour. And you are still edit warring. WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Soetermans Can you point out where you linked to WP:VG/MOS as an explanation? All I see is a series of five rather poorly-explained reverts (four by you, one by another) at Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order with no attempts at starting a discussion. Shells-shells (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shells-shelss, I mostly edit on my phone, I guess I forgot to mention it. But again, they're still edit warring and as NebY pointed out, several of their edits are plain vandalism. Edit warring isn't a beginner's mistake. They've been here for over half a year, they should know better. They've been issued several warnings, not just by me. Even if you consider those to be poorly explained, they should've at least gotten the message they're doing something wrong. Like adding writers and producers to an infobox. Ferret, care to chime in? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Soetermans In regards to Bluthmark and infobox credits? Nope, not really. I reverted one change, and they accepted my revert. I'm on team "we should remove credits from the infobox" :P The rules for those fields on {{infobox video game}} are arcane, and barely defined in relation to modern large scale video game production. Just context-less lists of non-notable BLPs, with no prose or reliable secondary coverage. Changing the producers to senior producers, when the infobox doc says "exclude executive producers", is really an edge case call. Disclaimer: I didn't read the rest of this ANI post, just responding to the immediate ping for where I crossed this editor's path. -- ferret (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Soetermans, I absolutely agree they should have gotten the message that they were doing something wrong; the problem seems to me that they had little way of knowing exactly what they were doing wrong, since nobody made any effort at communication besides the sublimely unspecific stock warning templates. They even asked you directly for help and received little more than a hand-wave towards 'consensus' and 'the guidelines'. And maybe it's true that they should have known better than to edit war; but doesn't that apply doubly to you? You violated WP:3RR on that page as well (also, what's up with this unexplained revert?). I guess I would just like to see more helpful communication here. Shells-shells (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the editor who made the most effort to communicate here was Bluthmark. They made multiple attempts to address the other editors' concerns, despite the others refusing to explain it. That he was taken to ANEW and ANI doesn't look good for those other two editors. That said "some German guy" was uncalled-for, but if I was Bluthmark, I'd be fed up, too. Levivich (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe sanctions should be taken towards @Bluthmark per the two threads above.

TL;DR:

The persons involved have done negligible effort in creating constructive criticism with @Bluthmark to improve his editing and has given, at most, modest evidence of vandalism but no evidence of bad faith. Furthermore, some persons involved have also been found to be hypocritical of their own accusations towards @Bluthmark in regards to edit warring. Among editors, @Bluthmark has given the most effort to create dialogue though has made an uncivil remark. UnironicEditor (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I still think I'm right about my edits on Jedi: Fallen Order but, like misrecognizing his nationality from a glance at his user page, they seem to really upset Soetermans so I'll quit it out of respect. It's an infobox about a Star Wars game after all, it doesn't mean the world. I'm sorry if I've broken any other of these rules that are hidden in secret articles with names that sound like abbreviations of mental disorders (WP: VG/MOS, wtf?). My bad for not giving a "substantial apology" for putting the letter D infront of "Urdu" that one time, and a big sorry for any other misunderstandings caused by me not always understanding this outdated ass interface. I'm not in my 30's like y'all, I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text. Plus I've had an account for like 7 months and I don't really edit often. Bluthmark (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC) (sotermans taught me to sign like that instead of explaining why he reverted my edits)

Unfortunately, the only visual puns I could muster for outdated ass interface are not publishable under current US law. (For those not familiar, see WP:ASSPERSIANS for the general idea.) EEng 21:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Y'all are taking some Swedish guy adding nonessential info about a game he likes and calling some guy "some guy" waaaay to seriously. A bit sad tbh Bluthmark (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that you strike that. user:Soetermans has already indicated that they find that form of address uncivil. Meters (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Comparing Wikipedia Guideline shortcuts to mental disorders isn't a great look either, on top of doubling down on referencing people by nationality. You've had some folks in this thread come out in your support, but this last response is really... not great. This "outdated ass interface" didn't cause you to deliberately disrupt past articles. -- ferret (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

"I'm not in my 30's like y'all, I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text."

Sir, I'm 21. I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text either. In my opinion everything you have said after my previous post was unnecessary. We are not taking these things "to [sic] seriously". Communication is the art of understanding how details in dialogue can cause or resolve conflict.

The reason why people deem your use of nationalities in addressing others as uncivil or offensive is because it implies you perceive others superficially and it negates their humanity. I wouldn't like it if you referred to me as some American because I am just as human as you. My nationality doesn't make my real emotions, complex life, and vulnerability to suffering any different than your. No single noun is complex enough to describe a person. When you do this you're taking the first step in the march towards being racist. Not to mention bringing up someone's nationality is irrelevant to the heart of what we are trying to convey to you. As the idiom goes "missing the forest for the trees."

And nodding towards the previous point, its just ignorant to perceive any abbreviation as akin to the abbreviations used in medicine for with mental illnesses. Would it be a safe presumption to believe that you would also call ASL and IMF abbreviations for mental illnesses too? You are perfectly capable in using sympathy.

Currently your optics show real insensitivity and, though not overtly uncivil, you are treading precariously close to crossing the line. You don't know who here is living with mental illnesses or racism. Still, being ignorant is not a crime but I strongly recommend you exercise your right to silence before you say something out of emotion that will cause me to retract my previous post above.

Remember, I stated that you shouldn't be sanctioned and I believe this event should be something to learn from as feedback in your time here at Wikipedia — not punitive. If you sincerely don't like Wikipedia, you have the choice to leave. There are many other amazing things waiting for you other than Wikipedia. Please use your faculties and agency in making good choices. ~~~ UnironicEditor (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Some human guy just gave me a whole life lesson cause I was being slightly rude at someone I though was sabotaging me. No shit you're life is complex, but this isn't life, this is wikipedia, and the only reason I brough up mental disorders is cause I was at the psychiatrist the other day and I swear to god there was an illness called WP:VG/MOS. I'mma go now goodbyyye x Bluthmark (talk) Bluthmark (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

"I was at the psychiatrist"

That explains a lot.

"No shit you're [sic] life is complex"

I'm genuinely curious to why you're so hostile?

"Some human guy...I though [sic] was sabotaging me."

So what are you trying to accomplish from all this? What is your endgame? I'm actually really curious.

It legitimately seems you are unhappy with Wikipedia but you're still here. Unironically ironic. UnironicEditor (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Now I'm curious what does it explain Bluthmark (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Wait who ever are you? You showed up to wikipedia like two weeks ago and you're here talking big shit. Half of what you've done on wikipedia is THIS, talkin bout sumn "I strongly recommend you exercise your right to silence". Like just tell me to shut the fuck up you don't have to do all that. Bluthmark (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

UnironicEditor, in response to someone saying they see a psychiatrist: "That explains a lot."

UnironicEditor, mere hours before posting that: "You are perfectly capable in using sympathy. [...] Currently your optics show real insensitivity [...] You don't know who here is living with mental illnesses or racism."

Sarcastically jabbing at someone else's mental health right after proclaiming the need for sensitivity does not make you look like the bigger person. Nor does pettily inserting [sic] every time you quote them. If you're going to go that route, it helps to proofread your own words; "any different than your [sic]", "its [sic] just as ignorant", "used in medicine for with [sic]", "perfectly capable in [sic] using"...

You've been on Wikipedia for two weeks, and already 50% of your non-userspace contributions have been here at ANI. May I kindly suggest spending as little time in the WP:CESSPOOL as possible? 2600:1700:87D3:3460:1054:F245:2910:3A5A (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm quiet flattered you made an account just to respond to me. Not sure why you need to hide behind a sock. Considering 100% of your non-userspace contributions have been here at the "cesspool" is very ironic.

How was I "Sarcastically jabbing" at mental heath? By just stating that gives a lot of context to the behavior seems pretty neutral.

"pettily inserting [sic] every time you quote them", like you just did in the following sentences?

Not sure how being this ironic is accomplishing anything. And may I refer to you that this thread is not about my behavior... not a very concealed attempted of derailing the conversation. UnironicEditor (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm quiet flattered you made an account just to respond to me. Not sure why you need to hide behind a sock. Considering 100% of your non-userspace contributions have been here at the "cesspool" is very ironic.

Don't flatter yourself. I have no accounts, nor am I a sock. IPv6 editors' IPs change regularly. You can just check my /64 to see that I've been editing at my apartment's IP range long before you ever made an account.

How was I "Sarcastically jabbing" at mental heath? By just stating that gives a lot of context to the behavior seems pretty neutral.

Sure, Jan.

"pettily inserting [sic] every time you quote them", like you just did in the following sentences?

Yes, that was indeed the point — that using [sic]s to make someone sound less cogent than you is A) petty and pointless, and B) not a wise strategy when your own prose is just as prone to error.

And may I refer to you that this thread is not about my behavior... not a very concealed attempted of derailing the conversation.

Please don't cast unfounded aspersions about someone more experienced than you gently and genuinely suggesting that spending the bulk of your time on the drama board isn't a good way to start your editing career here. (And while I have no intent of making anything about your behavior, for future reference, boomerangs don't discriminate.) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:F020:6764:843A:8FD5 (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Would someone uninvolved like to close this? NebY (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the problem with that is despite this being a travesty of an AN/I where almost nobody seems to be able to keep their head on straight, there is genuinely problematic behavior here. For what its worth, Bluthmark has made multiple deliberate attempts to inflame another user ([72], [73], [74]) but I can understand why people might not be chomping at the bit to MOP up this mess considering how messy it is. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Bluthark at least needs a serious WP:Civility warning, and to realize that antagonizing people on the admin notice board is a really bad idea. Beyond that, I don't think we need specific action. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Please. This thread is 10% rational discussion and 90% tangential sniping. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 17:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Persistent misuse of talk pages

• Special:Contributions/95.149.166.0/24

A lot of WP:FORUM posts (e.g. [75] [76] [77] [78]) going back to late April 2023, despite being warned multiple times. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Ahh, IP on IP reporting: don't see that every day. But the OP is correct: the first of the four diffs is arguably defensible as it is pulled (kinda-sorta) around to a content-relevant inquiry at the end. But the other diffs and various other comments raise a substantial indication of WP:NOTHERE: in addition to the NOTAFORUM issues, there's pretty continuous WP:RGW, WP:POVPUSHING, and WP:SOAPBOXING behaviours. However, not only did the OP not notify the other IP of this discussion (93.72.49.123, please see above about the standard template for notifying someone that you have raised their conduct on this board), but neither they nor anybody else has reached out to raise these issues on their user talk. OP, can you please show us when and where the multiple warnings you are referring to took place? At the moment, I think action to block the IP may be premature if we don't have at least some showing of pro forma discussion. Don't get me wrong, given this apparent SPA's bias, I am dubious much will come of trying to get them to contribute more neutrally in this area, but policy mandates that we typically at least give it a try. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure:

• User talk:95.149.166.130 (three warnings)
• User talk:95.149.166.138
• User talk:95.149.166.153
• User talk:95.149.166.156 (one warning, not for misuse of talk pages but for trying to whitewash an article)
• User talk:95.149.166.186
• User talk:95.149.166.192
• User talk:95.149.166.194 (one warning for addition of their opinions to an article)
• User talk:95.149.166.231

93.72.49.123 (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I've notified their most recent IP assignment of this discussion. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Unarchiving this since the user continues this behavior: [79] [80]. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It does seem that a range block is going to be in order, if only to get their attention. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Many of the comments did make an argument about editorial decisions (77, 79 and 81 explicitly do). I dont think the IP address warrants a penalty, or even a warning.

I think a penalty will be perceived as being more for the users opinions than for at most minor violation of policy that has negligible disruption to the project. Jagmanst (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Article Rebecca Bradley (justice) edits

It just hit the news, the Justice herself has been editing her own article and allegations have been made of edit warring on her part. I'm not seeing an edit war, but there is a bit of heavy activity as of today (14 as of now). Can someone look into this, before we get a circus and perhaps, semi-protect the page now that it's in the news?Wzrd1 (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I've semi'd the page for three days and will watch after the protection expires to see if the activity resumes. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Bradley_(justice)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rlgbjd

208.87.236.201 (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The article currently states that the account and subject are the same person, plus the editors talk page, and a report at COIN. All of this is based on one article at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which is turn is based on a tweet from an anonymous twitter user. Some BLP eyes might be useful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article did also include an interview where Bradley confirmed she used the account. Muhibm0307 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks your the second editor to point out my mistake, I'll just slink of somewhere before EENG spellcheks my post. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll just slink of – See WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER (Corollary 1). EEng 01:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

You missed spellcheks my post. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 02:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I scan left to right and stop at the first mismatch. EEng 02:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• I think there's enough sourcing now to include details about her editing of the article in the article itself. EEng 02:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @EEng: I see that this is now included in the body, but has not been mentioned in the lede. I am wondering, does getting caught in the self-editing (or perhaps directed editing) of one's Wikipedia article generally merit mention in the lede? BD2412 T 13:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
    • I don't really think so. I mean, it's a big deal to Wikipedia, but in the grand scheme of the outside world, most people don't care about it that much. Joyous! Noise! 14:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

    I don't believe it should be lead worthy, unless the case is egregious. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

    I've removed the section. This happens every time someone edits their own article (Mike Lawler) or their article otherwise gets media coverage (Emily St. John Mandel). But a single news cycle of attention does not WP:DUE make, especially on a BLP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

    @Tamzin: I see this as almost the opposite of a WP:DENY situation. Calling out those who manipulate Wikipedia in the most forward context possible (noting it in their article, and where it is substantial, in the lede) will discourage such behavior generally. BD2412 T 19:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

    Article content is entirely separate from user conduct considerations. To the extent that we have upheld BLP and our core content policies by omitting from articles the fact that their subjects are/were long-term abusers. More broadly, we do not use articles to "name and shame". We are an encyclopedia, not a wall of shame. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

    But it's not just user (editor) conduct -- it's conduct of the article subject as well. And I can see some logic to using articles to name and shame when the shameful behavior occurred on Wikipedia itself. EEng 22:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

    We don't give ourself any special status in our articles. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

    But what shame is there? WE are aghast because it's a violation of a WP policy, and we know that because we fiddle around behind the scenes all the time, but the average person who reads something like "...and she was caught EDITING HER OWN ARTICLE..." would immediately think "Yeah? So what?" Joyous! Noise! 03:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

    I'm not sure that's true. My sense from following a number of these stories over the years is that a politician (and this justice is an elected official afterall) editing criticism out of their own article is something that is likely to be perceived as socially dubious behaviour--and it's likely to get even more attention where the political figure in question is already a contentious one. I guess you can label me as rather on the fence about discussing these events in general, and in this case with the sourcing to date, but there can come a time when the WP:WEIGHT doesn't give us much choice but to mention such happenings. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Surely we should also block the account for undisclosed COI editing and/or edit warring? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Neither of those usually results in a block on the first offense. And the username is her initials plus "JD", so not exactly an attempt to deceive. Plus the account hasn't edited in 2 months. Warnings should suffice for now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  I take your pro forma point and all, but the behaviour still seems pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE to me. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

POV pushing to whitewash autocratic governments

User:The History Wizard of Cambridge has made about 3,000 edits over three years, during which time they have engaged in extensive WP:CPUSH behavior in favor of autocratic regimes. Their edits are almost exclusively in this area, and a large portion of these edits whitewash atrocities committed under communist states. This editor routinely finds technicalities, often quite tenuous, to remove any content that reflects poorly on China, Cuba, North Korea, the Soviet Union, or Vietnam. For this discussion, I've listed some examples from the last two months, but this is behavior that persists throughout their editing history and more examples can be provided if needed.

• Aug 12: Special:Diff/1169924025 – Wiped the article of a pro-democracy Vietnamese party, justifying some of the removals because of broken links.
• Aug 12: Special:Diff/1169608830/1169920317 – Whitewashed Human rights in Vietnam, removing reliable sources because they disagree with them.
• Aug 11: Special:Diff/1169763206 – Removed sourced information from Human experimentation in North Korea, citing the source's Wikipedia page to say that it's unreliable.
• Jul 29: Special:Diff/1167691330 – Deleted unsourced information, but only the portion that documented North Korean atrocities, leaving the rest of the unsourced content there. This followed a similar edit to that article regarding China and the Soviet Union.
• Jul 28: Special:Diff/1167511860 – A WP:COATRACK edit to criticize Yeonmi Park, a North Korean defector, on the article of someone she was once interviewed by.
• Jul 24: Special:Diff/1166815884 – Deleted sourced information documenting North Korean atrocities because the citation didn't have a page number. Reverted an attempt to restore the content.
• Jun 28: Special:Diff/1162362200 – Promoted Holodomor denial on the article of a Holodomor denier and the subsequent talk page discussion.
• Jun 18: Special:Diff/1160694587 – Deleted sourced information about political executions in Cuba because it was sourced by an offline book and the publisher's webpage didn't verify the information.
• Jun 17: Special:Diff/1160543383 – Deleted information about government oppression of LGBT people in Cuba because the source had no page number.
• Jun 16: Special:Diff/1160426290 – Deleted sourced information about human rights in communism because they felt that the information wasn't right.

I'm aware of the high bar before POV pushing is sanctionable, but this is consistent and sustained, necessitating a restriction on editing subjects related to communism and communist states. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey alien, I was overjoyed when you agreed to review my article on David Ivon Jones so I'm sorry it ended up like this.

I specialise in editing pages on global communist movements and individuals, with example of my best work being Trevor Carter and Billy Strachan. I very often find that wiki pages on the history of communism (especially from the early days of wiki) have very lax standards and a lot of room for improvement. I often find that the editing standards on a lot of Wikipedia's pages on communism is far below what would be normal for most other political topic, especially the wiki pages of countries that United States once considered an enemy. Because of this I am often extra critical of the content of (mostly older) articles surrounding topics such as human rights in countries like Vietnam.

Let's have a look at these cases individually.

• Aug 12: Special:Diff/1169924025 – In the past week I deleted a lot of the information from the Việt Tân wiki. The majority of all the links were dead, most of the information on this organisation was cited as the Việt Tân's own website, whose links were also broken and unarchived. Most of the links hadn't been accessed since the late 2000s. The organisation describes itself as pro-democracy, which I found read like a press release and very self-aggrandising, and is contradicted by the fact the wiki page show Việt Tân supporters flying the flag of a government whose elections were rigged by Ngo Dinh Diem. Most of this wiki was very clearly written by a member of the Việt Tân trying to promote their organisation. I say this because most of the citations just (broken) links to the organisation's own website. I also deleted some of the citations for Voice of America, since I didn't consider an American state owned media outlet to be a reliable source of information on Vietnam, for the same reason I wouldn't consider Russia today a reliable source on Ukraine. It has been almost a week since I made these edits and none of the page's watchers disagreed with anything I did.
• Aug 12: Special:Diff/1169608830/1169920317 – I made these edits for most of the same reasons as the Việt Tân wiki. I do not consider the U.S. State department a reliable source for information on a country the United States bombed. Even if other editors disagree, reliable academic sources on this subject are bountiful, we don't need to rely on primary sources.
• Aug 11: Special:Diff/1169763206 – In this example I deleted this claim because half the wiki page for The Black Book of Communism is one big log of all the history professors who challenge the book's methodology. The claim itself of human experimentation is an extremely serious allegation so I aired on the side of caution.
• Jul 29: Special:Diff/1167691330 – This was a completely unsourced quote with a three year old citation needed tag. I haven't read her book but I tried googling the quotes and she did not appear in the results. Considering this is a living person's wikipedia page I was extra cautious so I deleted the quote.
• Jul 28: Special:Diff/1167511860 – Tim Pool's wiki page contains a lot of information on the media personalities he has been associated (Donald Trump Jr. Kanye West, etc), and the follow-up of his links with these people. When I saw his name appear in The Washington Post (see here) that I was reading on Yeonmi Park, I went to his wiki and left a couple of sentences in the same style as the other editors.
• Jul 24: Special:Diff/1166815884 – Maybe you should include a page number? I often delete cited books that have no page numbers and I am unapologetic about this.
• Jun 28: Special:Diff/1162362200 – I was read Ronald Grigor Suny's work Red Flag Unfurled (2017: Verso Books, 94-95) which discussed the historiography of the famine, which mentioned that most historians of Soviet history no longer believe the famine constituted as a "genocide". I don't "deny" the Soviet famine because there is a complete historical consensus that it happened, just as many of world's leading experts on the topic such as Professor Suny, Professor Stephen G. Wheatcroft, and R. W. Davies, don't agree that the Soviets intentionally tried to commit a genocide. Also some of the claims by Anne Applebaum at the bottom accusing an author of being a Soviet spy are pretty weak. I checked the original source and it seemed more like a rumour than a fact. Shouldn't we have stronger evidence before we allow a wikipedia page of a living person to contain such a contentious claim such as accusations that they worked with a foreign intelligence agency?
• Jun 18: Special:Diff/1160694587 – A sentence in the wikipedia page for Cuba claimed that the Cuban government had conducted over 4,000 poltiical executions. I looked at the source and it sent readers to a dodgy looking blog from 1998 which didn't even mention executions.
• Jun 17: Special:Diff/1160543383 – Again, maybe you should include page numbers when you cite a book?
• Jun 16: Special:Diff/1160426290 – I don't feel as though you bothered to read my edit summaries. I deleted a paragraph by a sociologist who listed both positive and negative traits of communist governments. He listed greater rights for women as a positive and "less freedom" as a negative. How can greater rights for women not be considered a type of freedom? It was very strange. Since the paragraph I deleted also contained many positive aspects of communist states, I don't see how you could use this as an example to demonstrate that I am pushing my POV.

The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It's absolutely not appropriate to remove content cited to a book just because a page number has not been supplied. That's what {{page needed}} is for. Folly Mox (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

If somebody cannot give the page number of a book they cited then I doubt they actually read it. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

People very frequently provide page numbers in books they haven't read, usually in the form of bare URL google books direct page links. Whether someone has or has not read a book is immaterial to whether the book supports the claim cited to it.

I haven't looked into the diffs in this report and thus have no opinion on the report in general, which is context for my next statement, where I reverse your argument to assert that if you can't be bothered to verify whether or not a source supports a claim, you have no business removing the claim. Unless it's violating a content policy or something, just tag it {{page needed}} or {{verify source}}. We're supposed to assume good faith. Folly Mox (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Unverifiable is one thing; merely assuming it is unverifiable is another. I suggest you stop being unapologetic about this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the first time other editors have ever pushed back on this so I'll start getting into he habit of using {{page needed}} or {{verify source}} in the future. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You can also just find the page number yourself. Often (especially for quotes), a Google Books search is sufficient to both find the page number and verify that the book says what the citation claims. --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I think a source to a large book with no page numbers is near useless, and it is fair game for someone to delete it. If an editor chooses to be lenient then they can add page number required tag. In the same way an editor can choose to be lenient and not delete unsourced material and put citation needed tag. It is a choice not compulsion. Jagmanst (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Just on the matter of the first removal, and on the use of VOA as a source, repeatedly over history, the consensus (as explained at WP:RSP) is that VOA is considered a reliable source; not all state-owned media is considered unreliable by default. It is not ownership (who pays the bills) but rather editorial independence that determines the reliability of such a source. VOA is no more state-owned than The Beeb is, and no one seriously questions their reliability. Russia Today lacks editorial independence from the Russian government and it has been documented time and time again that they knowingly publish falsehoods. Russia Today is a false equivalence with VOA. --Jayron32 14:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Special:Diff/1166815884 – Deleted sourced information documenting North Korean atrocities because the citation didn't have a page number. Reverted an attempt to restore the content. - just to be clear, the cited text refers to South Korean atrocities; maybe they misinterpreted it the same way you did, but I dug up the book to be sure because I found it slightly startling (and wanted to confirm the page numbers), and it's very clear. The yeonjwaje bit in question refers to the way the South Korean government (the ROK) would punish the relatives of defectors and even abductees to North Korea due to guilt-by-association. It shouldn't have been deleted but (unless they made the same mistake you did) it's not evidence of the bias you're accusing them of. EDIT: Also, regarding Special:Diff/1169763206, while they could have given the argument better it's broadly correct that the Black Book of Communism is not a WP:RS, certainly not one that can be used for facts unattributed (it's complex because different parts of it were written by different authors; but generally speaking the parts of it that people want to cite are the parts that are not reliable, especially since they're going to be WP:EXCEPTIONAL and require higher-quality sourcing.) See the most recent discussion here. A source's wiki page cannot of course directly make it unreliable (our pages can have their own biases and flaws, which we're all familiar with, and are not themselves reliable) but, as in this case, it does sometimes serve as a quick useful at-a-glance temperature check as to whether it's likely to be challenged, ought to be challenged - or whether it's worth trying to mount a defense of it, if you think it's reliable, as opposed to just finding a better source. --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I immediately recognized this editor's name, as they had made a rather unhelpful comment on the United States talkpage back in May. They certainly have a history of POV pushing in favor of communist regimes and in opposition to liberal democracies (particularly the United States), and they don't seem to be here to build a neutral encyclopedia. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Because I went to the talk page of a country with a torture camp and asked my fellow editors why the lead of said country claims to have a positive human rights record? Am I not allowed to raise my concerns with my fellow editors now? The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  You should address concerns in a friendlier manner. Calling it a "laughable description" instead of actually inquiring why it's there (and thus assuming good faith) is not helpful or conducive to a collaborative environment. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  So what is it? They hurt your feelings or have a point of view you disagree with? Jagmanst (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Their language was not conducive to collegiality. It was abrasive. There were a million better ways for them to express themselves, such as simply inquiring why the statement was there, but they chose to be aggressive instead. I'm not calling for sanctions on them. Also, they're still being aggressive below. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see any aggression. Jagmanst (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  You don't see how calling something a "laughable description" is aggressive? Again, in a vacuum, it's not at all sanction worthy, but it is unhelpful and not conducive to the atmosphere we're trying to foster here. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Actually I thought this was a bit agressive/personal attack: "they don't seem to be here to build a neutral encyclopedia". Jagmanst (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Please don't deflect. Answer the question as was posed to you. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't think their comment about the article was agressive, nor do I think it is sanctionable. It was about content not a person. Jagmanst (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you... I also don't think the comment is sanctionable, but I do think it was aggressive as it was a comment on the people contributing to the article. Ultimately, it doesn't matter though, it's just something to keep in mind. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Again, in a vacuum, it's not at all sanction worthy. Well this is the issue, isn't it? The trademark of efficient civil POV pushing is that each edit looks innocuous in a vacuum, and it's only when you look at the contributions as a whole that the behaviors described at WP:CPUSH start to line up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  You're not wrong; I'm just speaking in regards to my one experience with them. The only reason I'm even commenting here is because I thought I had something of note to mention about them. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  You tell me to assume good faith while at the same time you vote to permanently sanction my account because I criticised a wiki page you contributed to. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Where did I !vote for sanctioning your account? I did not, I left a comment that I felt that people should be aware of when discussing your editing history. I'm not calling for sanctions on your account.-- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. From the discussions, I am persuaded 1) They have an interest and expertise regarding communist regimes. 2) They don't share common pro-western bias we may have come to expect in some corners of Wikipedia. 3) They have reasonable explanations for their edits and there is no evidence of point of view pushing. Not being biased is neutral point of view. Jagmanst (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I largely agree with this assessment. I don't see any damning evidence posted above that warrants the editor in question being sanctioned.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything that is worthy of sanctions discussed here, but I do think that they should be reminded of WP:CIVIL and try to express disagreements on article content in a more polite manner, with awareness that the people who frequent the article talk page are likely the same people who wrote the content being criticized. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems more like they hold an anti-Western bias, which is just as bad as a pro-Western bias. The problem is they edit with that bias.

For instance, they hate the U.S. because it's a "country with a torture camp" yet defend Vietnam, China, North Korea, and The USSR, who are/were all countries with "torture camps." Textbook WP:CPOV, and as User:Thebiguglyalien states, a long history of it. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

That is complete rubbish, I have never once defended torture on wikipedia, ever! The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yet no evidence of "bias" editing was been provided. I don't think this is a forum to attack someone because they don't share one's views.Jagmanst (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

In my defence: When User:Thebiguglyalien accuses me of pov-pushing for 'autocratic governments', his evidence is a short select list of edits from the past few months, all of which I've provided reasonable explanations for. However, of my 3,000+ edits on wikipedia, the vast majority of them are actually made on pages I created, a list of which you can see here. Thebiguglyalien depicts me as some lunatic who is obsessed with dictatorships like North Korea and Joseph Stalin. However glancing at the pages I created, which is a far more systematic record of my behaviour then a few cherrypicked edits, reveals that none of the biographies I wrote held any great levels of political power. The most influential and powerful person I ever created a wiki page for was a woman called Jessie Eden who led a tenants union. My specialist area is Marxist and anti-colonial activists in 20th century Britain and my page creation history reflects this. Thebiguglyalien selection of edits provides anecdotes whereas my page creation history provides proof of my systematic behaviour. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Mass overlinking and poor grammar 'corrections' by relatively new editor

See edit history for A E WORLD (talk · contribs), especially to prominent articles. Not responding to messages at their page, which sometimes leads me to suspect they've been down this road before. At any rate, they ought to be slowed down at the least, and allow for others to clean up in their wake. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm wondering about a possible connection to blocked user Adakaibe (talk · contribs), whose old edits they're now reverting. I'm also looking at a nest of similar accounts editing at articles like this [81]. If it's not sock or meat activity, it could be an organized school assignment, but there's much damage in its wake. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Adding Starheroine (talk · contribs). Same issue, continuing to overlink after being warned and acknowledging the issue. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• And Ayyuha Sideeq (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Please block Starheroine (talk · contribs). Mass disruption. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    Block me for what. Did you go through the articles I edited? Kindly go through them again. And don't be judgemental. Starheroine (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    2601... no there are no edits by Starheroine in the page few days that are problematic. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I suspect there's much still on the table that is problematic, EvergreenFir, as at Christians Against Poverty, where overlinking is in play, but even more so WP:ENGVAR. There's just a lot here that the user isn't yet familiar with, and shouldn't be making mass edits, thinking they're constructive. At any rate, I'll be away for some hours. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It's okay to say that. I would just stop editing for now. It's not like you got to know all of these things in a day too, so pls be patient. Starheroine (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• It's been a week since Ayyuha Sideeq edited. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Ayyuha Sideeq is active again, EvergreenFir. See the most recent edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Starheroine, I have gone through many, but by no means all of the articles you edited. The problems are multiple, and though I'll repeat some of what I've already written, I'm not leaving all the diffs here at the moment. You can easily find my reversions and edit summaries. In brief, the major problem has been WP:OVERLINKing, which looks indiscriminate and often arbitrary. This stands as an example of dozens of similar edits: [82]. Many of the grammar changes have not been improvements--some were misspellings [83], a few didn't allow for WP:ENGVAR [84], and in a few others you rephrased quoted content [85]. Your most recent edit added a source that had almost no relevance to the adjacent content [86]. What's of additional concern is that it's clear that there's a coordinated effort by multiple users--my initial question as to whether one editor was using multiple accounts is hopefully unfounded--to copy edit at some of the same articles, but nobody has yet been forthcoming about this. Instead, there's been much grammatical and formatting error and disruption of some basic copy editing guidelines, explained away with edit summaries suggesting these are all improvements. In fact, they leave behind a ton of clean up for other editors. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd check them out carefully. Thank you very much Starheroine (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir isn't the link validating that there's an Ontario park? since that's also a news about the same location Starheroine (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, we learn everyday. I'd really pay attention. Starheroine (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Another one, EvergreenFir, Lourdes: Pmanofficial (talk · contribs). Deforestation is protected, so I can't revert the edits there. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• And another, Prowriter101 (talk · contribs), with a patently inappropriate username. They've also messed around with some locked articles that I'm unable to mend. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Apologies--though Prowriter's edits are disruptive, they don't appear to be related to the other accounts. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

User:M.Bitton

I've had a series of reverts with this user who gave me two disruptive editing warnings, for two edits I made to address the neutrality of the lead in Dakhla, Western Sahara (the latest revert).

The user then started attcking me saying "You know very well what I'm talking about (the sources about the occupation)" and "Don't play games with me"while also claiming that "(It's an undisputed fact that is used throughout wikipedia.)" that the Western Sahara is "occupied" despite the fact that the whole place is called a disputed territory.

Its worth noting that nowhere in my edits did I say that the place is not occupied or disputed, and I actually expanded the infobox to say that the place is claimed by both Morocco and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, as done in the Laayoune, another disputed city in the Sahara.

I think the user doesn't have a NPOV when it comes to the Western Sahara conflict, as 1. I feel that my edits were appropriate, 2. The reaction was personal, 3. Almost all of the user's top edits revolve around the Algeria, Berbers, Morocco and the Westen Sahara conflict. Vyvagaba (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I left two warnings on your talk page because you kept replacing sourced content with your POV. In the discussion that followed, first you said I'll submit a NPOV to see whats wrong with your pattern of reverts, then acknowledged the issue (that you had a preference for a word) and later started pretending not to understand what you did. If anything, your persistent source misrepresentation to push POV is the real concern here. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Why are you changing your replies? Vyvagaba (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

and "pretending" and "persistent source misrepresentation" are far from Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Vyvagaba (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You don't start a ANI report and expect good faith. As for your question: I'd say, because I can, but mostly, it's because I think you are here to push the political POV of the UAE (your preferred subject). M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Please explain how? Vyvagaba (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It's for you to explain why you misrepresented the sources to push a political POV. M.Bitton (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I did't misrepresent anything, I made the lead more neutral, while acknowledging the political dispute. You can disagree with me on that, but the way the article is phrased is not neutral. Vyvagaba (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not open to debate. You misrepresented the source (about the occupation). This is a fact that is visible to anyone who checks this diff. Keep denying it if it amuses you, I have better to do than repeat the obvious. M.Bitton (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute with a lot of holes being dug deeper. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's been closed as not being a content dispute, but a behavior dispute at WP:NPOV.[87] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  The source Vyvagaba removed as it doesn't contain the word occupied, was never supporting text that said occupied. That part of the sentence only ever said disputed, which is support by the reference. Also having removed that reference they added additional text, without any new reference. The part of the sentence containing the word occupied (before it was removed) was supported by a reference to this document from the UN, which does specifically say that Western Sahara is occupied by Morocco (point 3 top left of second page).

  So sourced content was removed and apparently unsourced content added. I can certainly see why M.Bitton has little patience for this.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Could you please view this version as @M.Bitton is still being difficult. Vyvagaba (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  You restored the reference that should not have been removed, but you have still removed the word occupied which was properly referenced. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I restored the reference in the second edit, I kept the word occupied, and kept the reference while acknowladging and refrencing other reliable sources that administer/control rather than occupy. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  You misrepresented the two sources by attributing what they say in their own voice to the Polisario (see explanation and diff in the note below). Once more, your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV has to stop. M.Bitton (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  No what you did was change it to but is also claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco. The source is a UN declaration, to turn that in "the Polisario Front says" is most definitely a misrepresentation of the source. The fact that you then say that you kept the word occupied, without saying how you changed the wording doesn't engender trust in your argument. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Please go through the sources I added, which clearly don't use occupy. Assuming one characterisation over widely used others is the reason why were having this debate. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think we wasted enough time with your nonsense. Your responses have been rightly described by others on the NPOV board as "pointlessly evasive and disingenuous". M.Bitton (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes but there is both a primary source and a secondary source that show that the UN considers Western Sahara to be occupied. You can't use those sources to say also claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco as that's not what they say.

  It appears quite clear that you intent is to downplay the word occupied, even if that goes against the sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I represented the views of both sides of the issue, we can add a sentence on the views of other bodies, but the article is on a city of 100K not the Political status of Western Sahara. Thw word occupied goes with SOME sources and not all of them. The whole point of downplaying the word occupied is to consider both sides and not lean on the "occupied" view on the issue. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Nope, you misrepresented the sources to push your POV. Btw, reliable sources supporting the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied can be cited ad infinitum. M.Bitton (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  The status of WS is disputed, your using your POV (that the place is occupied) to push your view over all others in the lead. There are many sources and countries that dont agree with your charchtarisation of "the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied". I included your view in the recent edit on the PF side of the story, and the Moroccan side of the story. We can add a line or two to include the view of NGOs or rights groups, as done in other disputed territories (Israeli-Palestinian conflict). Vyvagaba (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  International law is not based on the opinion of some countries, so no dispute there. In any case, none of this is relevant to the fact that you misrepresented the sources to push your POV. M.Bitton (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I got that. I'm looking to improve the neutrality of the lead of the article, and I'm here to debate that. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Please don't debate that here, it's not for ANI to weigh in on content issues. The discussion should be on behaviour issue alone. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Regardless of what both sides of the view are, you can't use sources that say the UN considers the Western Sahara to be occupied to say that the Polisario Front say the Western Sahara is occupied. That isn't a matter of showing both sides, that's misrepresentation of sources. You could rewrite the lead to include the Polisario Front's claims, but you would still need to include the UN's opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, the UN itself avoids using the term in recent publications. Example 1, Example 2 to the extent some claim that the United Nations supports the occupying Power. Vyvagaba (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  First, that's your irrelevant opinion (as the OUA source says otherwise). Second, you keep ignoring what others told you: the ANI board is for behaviour issues. M.Bitton (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Why are you changing the subject? :) Vyvagaba (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Again that's not the point, this discussion isn't about content. The sources that are currently in the article don't support how you changed the article. Why did you change the article to something not support by the sources in the article without supplying sources to support your changes? It is also very easy to find recent sources stating that Western Sahara is occupied, 1 2 3 4. You appear to think that NPOV is neutrality, it's not. NPOV is representing all major and minor views present in reliable sources by the weight of those sources, not bothsideism. Removing that Western Sahara is occupied or that changing the sentence to state that the Polisario Front say it's occupied is WP:FALSEBALANCE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well I disagree with your characterisation of my edits as WP:FALSEBALANCE. Based on your what I think you're saying, I should keep sources that support the view that the place is occupied, and not add or mention any sources that the place is administered by Morocco; this is far from "representing all major and minor views present in reliable sources by the weight of those sources" please see the sources I listed below. I think that the state of the lead shows a clear bias to the PF (and some rights groups) view. Is that the gist of it?

  P.S. its also easy to find many reliable sources that say the place is adminstered, controlled or de facto controlled by Morroco, including the UN and rights groups. Examples

  United Nations Mission For The Referendum In Western Sahara "MINURSO continued to assist both parties in maintaining the ceasefire across the ‘berm’, which stretches along the entire length of the disputed territory and separates the Moroccan-administered portion (west) from the area that is controlled by the Frente Polisario (east)."

  ICRC "Both parties eventually accepted the Settlement Plan and a cease-fire formally took effect in September 1991, with Morocco controlling the vast majority of the territory and Polisario controlling a sliver along the eastern and southern borders."

  BBC "This ends with a UN-brokered cease-fire which sees the Polisario controlling about 20% of the territory, the rest being controlled by Morocco.",

  France 24 "Morocco de facto controls 80 percent of the vast desert region, rich in phosphates and with a long Atlantic coast abutting rich fishing waters.",

  Childrens Rights Research "These two dominant narratives are the narrative of the Moroccan nationalists on the one hand, and of the Sahrawi activists on the other. According to the Moroccan nationalists, the Western Sahara is Moroccan territory. According to the Sahrawi activists, Morocco is illegally occupying the Western Sahara, a territory that belongs to the indigenous Sahrawi people."

  Crisis Group "In 1979, Mauritania withdrew and left Western Sahara solely under Moroccan control. Over time, Rabat solidified its grip on most of this area by constructing a barrier called the “sand berm”, with the Polisario retaining control of the remaining 20 per cent, which it refers to as “liberated territory”."

  Al Jazeera "Rabat controls 80 percent of the territory, including its phosphate deposits and its fishing waters.

  Morocco, which maintains that Western Sahara is an integral part of the kingdom, has offered autonomy but insists it will retain sovereignty.

  The Algeria-backed Polisario Front, which fought a war for independence from 1975 to 1991, demands a referendum on self-determination.".

  New York Times "Despite that recognition, Morocco controls most of the country, including the entire 500-mile-long Atlantic coast, while Polisario is limited to occupying parts of the desert interior." Vyvagaba (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  When you stop comparing apples to oranges and find a scholarly source (like the one used in the article) that says Western Sahara is not occupied, then and only then, you can take your so-called concerns to the article's talk page and talk about balance (a waste of time if you ask me, as I'll swamp it with scholarly sources stating the exact opposite). Meanwhile, this discussion is about your unacceptable behaviour and I think it's time that the admins intervene, because this has gone on for far too long and you're clearly wasting everyone's time with your constant evasion of the issue at hand. @Rosguill: could you please share your views on this? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  No one said the place is not occupied, you're being pretty dogmatic and your not being constructive whatsoever. It's pretty clear you're pushing your political views at this point, evidenced by your demeanour, and history of scouting and creating WS and Algeria-related articles, so let others opine on it since you made your views pretty clear. Vyvagaba (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  You did, when you misrepresented the sources that say so in their own voices and attributed the word "occupied" to the Polisario's opinion. If multiple multiple editors (here and on the NPOV board) can't even get you to admit to what you did, let alone explain why, then maybe the admins will. M.Bitton (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Back to "misrepresented"!!. I'm discussing how to improve the lead, you don't think there's anything wrong with it and you thing, and you believe that "the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied can be cited ad infinitum", which I appreciate, but your phrasing erases any other opinions on the issue.

  I'm providing sources to support the phrasing I'm suggesting, the point of the debate is to get opinions on improving the article, but you clearly have nothing to add, and FYI the discussion is still open so there's room to hear opinions other than the ones made.Vyvagaba (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Note: the source misrepresentation continues: the OP has attributed claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco to two reliable sources[88][89] that say no such thing (both talk about the occupation in their own voice). They are clearly desperate to push their POV by whatever means necessary, including but not limited to sources misrepresentation, forum shopping, etc. M.Bitton (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 Note: I informed @M.Bitton several times about their personal attacks, including in the the original post yesterday, but this seems to be a pattern, which I believe is part of their bias several topics. The latest example in my dispute, and another NPOV dispute hours after mine on Arabic Numerals with the same "misrepresentation" show. Vyvagaba (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the fact that you started following me to other articles that you never edited before (clearly to harass me). M.Bitton (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not harassing anyone, you're literally involved in the NPOV dispute under mine that has your username listed in the second sentence. I had an opinion on the topic so I used the talk page of the article to add mine, and its a opinion that has nothing to do with you. Vyvagaba (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You seem to find an excuse for everything, except for your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV. M.Bitton (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

FYI this thread is about your personal attcks, any disagreements we have should't be personal. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Nope, this is about your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV (a fact that is supported by diffs). M.Bitton (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresentation is not the subject of this message thread, its your personal attacks. We're debating my "misrepresenation" in the thread over this one. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I have news for you: you don't decide what is debated here. M.Bitton (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You should probably read WP:BOOMERANG. Everyone's behaviour is under scrutiny at ANI including even uninvolved bystanders like myself (see WP:VEXBYSTERANG), not just the user reported. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand that we're having a constructive debate, I don't expect personal attacks for my opinons. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

No, we are not. The only thing that I will be discussing (until it's properly addressed) is your persistent misrepresentation the sources to push your POV. You can try all you want, I won't let you change the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I got that, you're not being constructive by pasting what the same mantra in every reply. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for the repeated reply, even if it's not overly helpful, as you have evaded answering the question on why you change that part of the sentence to not match what the sources stated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• The source misrepresentation highlighted by ActivelyDisinterested has been met with unacceptable evasion. I think a tban from Polisario Front is appropriate, although given the level of combativeness it seems likely that it will turn into a block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think that I've been pretty civil and non-combative on this, despite the many personal attacks I got, which is why I decided to bring this to ANI. I'm trying to clarify my edits and give supporting evidence to support my opinions. The whole point of the discussion is to find some consensus on the edits I'm suggesting, so I really don't understand why a tban or block would be needed. Vyvagaba (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  And again the only thing this board is for is behavioural issue, it should never give any consensus on content edits. Also this is, again, evasion to the point raised. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Rosguill and ActivelyDisinterested: Since Vyvagaba has made it amply clear that they have no intention of addressing the raised issue, I think it's time that some action is taken as I don't see how anyone who behaves in such manner can be trusted. M.Bitton (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, @M.Bitton is preventing and all debate diagreeing with his pov, I posted a note on the article's talk page (since this is a behaviour noticeboard and because the NPOV noticeboard said that the complaint was too early to post since we didn't debate on the talk page) to present detailed quotes from reliable soures to support the wording I proposed, and to get feedback to tweak the wording to reach consensus. I dont see why @M.Bitton would keep stone walling any discussion with their "misrepresentation" saga, I provided detailed evidence in that post to see what others would think I'm misrepresenting and to fix that. Vyvagaba (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Procedurally, if I were to have come across this thread without having participated in it, I would close in favor of the topic ban. While I am not WP:INVOLVED in the content disputes here, I don't think it would be fair for me to close here given that I initially proposed the sanction, only one other uninvolved editor has participated here at ANI, and this isn't a CTOP subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• User:Rosguill, I think that Vyvagaba deserves a topic ban, yes, or perhaps a (partial) block. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  If you could spend the time to read the post I have on the article's talk page and let me know if any of the points I raised are completly reasonabale and rational, and with evidence to support it, I'm just asking to know what I'm misrepresinting in the sources I included, since I'm starting to feel a little crazy at this point. Vyvagaba (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• I only started to look into this out of interest of an RS issue, what I found has left me deeply unimpressed. The fact is that even now Vyvagaba can't see past the content issue to the behaviour issue at hand, so I would support a topic ban. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  I still don't undertsand what the behviour issue here is? Vyvagaba (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

A distraction. --JBL (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Not to pile it on, but there's another issue at NPOV/N involving M.Bitton stonewalling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Editors_standing_guard_to_prevent_Arabic_numerals_from_even_linking_to_Hindu%E2%80%93Arabic_numeral_system Most of the editors there are saying he's 100% in the wrong on this one. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431 (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Utter nonsense! In fact in the other irrelevant (to this one) discussion, the editor made made a baseless complaint about unnamed editors and gave a list of diffs, that incidentally include 2 admins (one of whom revert the usual pov 6 times). M.Bitton (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC) I don't think Most of the editors there are saying he's 100% in the wrong on this one is an accurate reading of the linked discussion, or the original discussion at Talk:Arabic_numerals#This_article_should_not_be_cut_off_from_Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system. At any rate, that seems to be a content dispute that is entirely unrelated to this one, and I don't see anything clearly sanctions-worthy in the behavior there. signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC) @Rosguill: Looking at what the IP did to the article (they linked one of the many bolded common names, a redirect to the main article, to another article), I'm not surprised that they found their way here. M.Bitton (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Regular Vandalism by Maphumor

User:Maphumor is continuously deleting portions without explanation or adding unsourced information in Wikipedia articles. He continuously contests in edit warring. User:XYZ 250706, User:Dhruv edits, TheBigBookOfNaturalScience have warned him many times ago. But he has not stopped his disruptions. He sometimes edits on basis of his original research. Please take steps against him and if possible you may block his editing privileges.XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Shaan Sengupta has also recently warned him for his disruptive edits and vandalism. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The user is clearly engaging in original research. Editing sitewide with "likely" tag. He says this party is likely to make impact. That party is likely to make impact. Wikipedia doesn't work on what's likely but on sources. He is adding every national party in state elections pages saying that party can make an impact. Filling too many colours in Infobox headers. Doesn't listen to advices. So many warning available on his talk page by different users. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Promotional editing is making a speedy deletion confusing

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

---

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

Younusr Howlader (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mariyachowdhury first moved the page View to Younusr Howlader. I moved the page back and nominated the resulting redirect Younusr Howlader for speedy deletion. Mariyachowdhury then replaced the article with this, which I subsequently reverted. Mariyachowdhury then proceeded to replace the entire page with a very promotional biography. After I nominated this for deletion for being promotional, they removed the promotional content, so my speedy delete tag doesn't apply, but the subject is not notable at all and the only source is a blog. I do not wish to keep switching the speedy deletion criterion, so I need an admin to deal this. Thanks. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Burninated. —Cryptic 07:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cryptic @Nythar This user has hijacked a couple of other articles as well, Hridoy Islam was moved to Sakib Ahmed Tuhin and replaced with a biography of a different person, Alam Khan discography was moved to Atikur Rahman Mahi and replaced with a spam biography. Could you clean up those pages too please? I strongly suspect this is UPE. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I've cleaned up those pages, I think. I will also be indef blocking Mariyachowdhury for DE (as well as their sock, Samirakhanmahibd). Girth Summit _(blether) 11:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivambangwal? casualdejekyll 23:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

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

WP:HOUNDING, WP:INCIVILITY and WP:PERSONALATTACKS by User:Therapyisgood

Therapyisgood was recently blocked 31 hours for personal attacks made at the Did you know? talk page and at theleekycauldron's request for adminship. While those comments were not addressed at me, these seem to be part of a campaign of his to drive me off the site by commenting at many of the discussions I've participated in and trying to get the opposite of what I want to happen. Therapyisgood has engaged in this WP:HOUNDING of me since about January. His behavior towards me has made me feel uncomfortable, has caused me great stress and has made me think at times about leaving the site. I've been trying my best not to retaliate and to be as civil as possible during this time, but Therapyisgood has continued HOUNDING me again and again and again for months. I didn't want to do this, but I feel I have to take him here now for this as I think it has to stop. I've listed below many of the numerous examples of his HOUNDING, ranging from simply commenting at pages I do to outright nasty comments.

What seems to have started this

Therapyisgood seems to have started HOUNDING me after the I saved several of his AFD nominations from deletion last January. He brought me to ANI, and you can read the ensuing discussion here (in short, there was no consensus for any sanction or warning against anyone there). I admit I may have been somewhat uncivil at the time, but I have since made sure to be extremely cautious about what I say and have tried very hard to be civil in all circumstances (also FWIW, therapy had his fair share of unncivility at the time as well, see for example [90] and [91]).

Worst violations since then

I removed some articles from the WP:LUGSTUBS Olympian removal list in March (also in the below section) that had SIGCOV and thus should not have been draftified, User:BilledMammal reverted it because he wanted to decide who could remove articles with significant coverage. I reverted three times, he reverted SIX - Therapyisgood somehow knows of this and reports ME to ANI for edit warring (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1142842396) - there was no consensus for anything. Then, after there was no consensus for anything at ANI - he went through the articles I improved and started adding maintenance tags (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Hession&diff=prev&oldid=1143131465). A few days later, he had a DYK nomination that needed a QPQ. - Now I had a nomination for Lewis Manly - and one user was complaining that the source was unreliable because of the url name (it was from a university, however, and so is reliable) - it needed a new reviewer. Out of all the nominations Therapyisgood could have reviewed, he reviewed mine, came up with lots of issues (which were incorrect), and ultimately had it failed. April 17 - I was about to finally have a "Did you know" image slot, something that almost never happens to me (I've nominated 80 articles for DYK, probably about 10 have had an image - only Jim Dillard and this one ever had the image approved) - Therapyisgood lodged a complaint about the copyright status (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&diff=prev&oldid=1150250027) right before it was set to appear and had it removed (and his complaint seems to have been wrong, too). Even worse, right after that, he nominated an absurd number of files I had created for deletion for being copyvios and messaged me to "stop uploading copyright violations" - users were outright confused at the discussions at how they could possibly have been copyright violations, and not a single one was deleted (see my commons userpage, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BeanieFan11). April 25 - I had previously nominated Pro Football Hall of Famer Dave Wilcox to be listed at ITN/RD, it was close to being posted but was about to expire - Therapyisgood TAGBOMBED the hell out of the article, including for extremely silly things like the fact that one source listed him at 239 pounds, and another 241 pounds! It was not posted due to this. May 5 - I started a deletion review for the 1991-92 Kilmarnock soccer team, saying it should be relisted from delete - right after - "Endorse - Therapyisgood" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_May_4&diff=prev&oldid=1153242325). AND then, when I pointed out why it should be overturned - his response - "Go cry harder about it" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_May_4&diff=prev&oldid=1153245470) May 28 - there was a discussion on whether a certain DYK hook that I had approved was racist - I pointed out why I didn't think so - right after, "Yes, this is racist - Therapyisgood" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=1157344140) - he even went to Jimbo talking about it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=1157355211). June 2: I had recently been given AFC reviewing rights, and Therapyisgood began going through my accepts and nominating them for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/65th Oregon Legislative Assembly - which had a unanimous consensus to keep, and Therapyisgood refused to withdraw it even when asked to. July 19: one of my DYK nominations was approved, Therapyisgood went to the DYK talk page and was trying to get it pulled for lack of interestingness, something he almost never does otherwise; everyone disagreed with him (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_193#Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1). Then the most recent, which got him blocked, insulting User:Gonzo fan2007 at a discussion over a DYK I approved (again, he seems to almost never participate at WT:DYK discussion except when I am involved).

More minor instances of HOUNDING since then

At the start of March, when the WP:LUGSTUBS Olympian removal discussion started, I !voted "oppose" - right after, "Support, per above. Therapyisgood" [92]. A week later, I went and made a major expansion to Fred Vehmeier to save him from AFD - immediately after I did that, "Delete - Therapyisgood" [93]. Several days after the DYK issue (above section), there was an AFD for Junior varsity, I said keep, right after Therapyisgood made the opposite vote [94]. April 25, there was a close review for the initial close of the Olympian discussion (which was no consensus) - I voted endorse - right after, sure enough "Overturn - Therapyisgood" [95]. May 10 - I nominated Joe Kapp to appear at recent deaths - right after "Oppose - Therapyisgood" for there being sourcing issues (while this was correct, its also odd how he found out about this one yet almost never participates at ITN besides this - he also didn't strike his oppose when all the issues had been cleared up - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=1154170443 ). Also May 10, I commented at an NSPORT discussion, right after he does as well [96]. June 2: I was saying we should keep the article on Tavon Rooks - then "Delete - Therapyisgood" [97] - this contributed to it being deleted. June 8: voting delete at a discussion I was involved in and wanted kept [98] July 2: commenting at a discussion I was involved in [99] July 3: voting delete at a discussion I wanted kept [100] July 8: voting support shortly after I voted oppose at a discussion [101] The lone oppose vote at theleekycauldron's RFA, a discussion I had put a "support" vote on.

Interestingly, looking at Therapyisgood's AFD log, every single discussion at which he has participated since late January was one involving me (minus the nominations, although they were all in either topics I was involved or on articles I worked on) (and in all cases, him voting after my involvement (he commented at Wilson Raynor before me, but that was only after I was involved in a NFL talk page discussion on him)). Also of note, only 51% of his AFD nominations (19-18) were successful and that number drops to 10-16 since October 2021. Since January 2023, he is 8-10. I apologize for the massive amount of text, but I wanted to show just how extensive his HOUNDING of me has been. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment just wanted to note three things: (1) Therapyisgood appears to still have 6 hours on their block, and thus won't be able to respond to this discussion for a bit, and (2) their comment at DYK was definitely unhelpful, but I really didn't take it as much of a personal attack (although I understand how others would view it as such), and (3) although some of the diffs mentioned by BeanieFan11 (like the RFA vote) seem fairly incidental, all taken together there does appear to be problematic behavior by Therapyisgood and it would likely be beneficial for them to avoid interacting with Beaniefan11 moving forward. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • While the RfA comment could be coincidence, I also find it odd how theleekycauldron is one of only two RfAs Therapyisgood has ever participated on (per xtools), and it also happens to be one of only two RfAs I've participated in since last January. Its also interesting how every single AfD Therapyisgood has voted on since late January happens to have been right after one of my votes/right after I discussed the article, and in almost all cases he voted against what I was voting for. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• I was looking this over, and came to much the same conclusions as Gonzo fan. The look on Therapyisgood is not very great, based on the evidence presented; it does appear they are specifically following BeanieFan111 around in a way that really toes the line with WP:HOUNDING. Still, I would like to hear their response before passing judgement entirely; they have a long history at Wikipedia with a mostly clear block log, otherwise. Let's wait a day and see what they have to say for themselves. If both volunteered to avoid each other, it would save a lot of hassle in voting on an interaction ban, which is where I see this going. --Jayron32 18:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  One way or another, I'm convinced that Therapyisgood needs to disengage from hounding BeanieFan11. If he voluntarily submits himself to a 1-way interaction ban, great; if not, I would support imposing one on him. But the course of conduct that he has engaged in over the past several months shouldn't be condoned. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  My concern with a 1-way IBAN is how you would define the scope. What are we saying - just don't participate in areas of Wikipedia where BeanieFan11 participates? Or are we talking about a very specific limitation on behavior? If they both happen to edit in the same subject areas, then it seems inevitable that there will be conflict. Honestly given his brusque comments such as the clearly unpleasant "get a real job" at DYK, a behavioral sanction might be a better idea. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:IBAN does delineate the scope of an interaction ban. We can also impose additional restrictions, such as not participating in the same article maintenance (deletion, moving, etc.) after the other has already done so, not nominating articles for deletion the other has significantly contributed to, etc. If they can't self-manage enough to avoid that, we can look at more stringent sanctions.--Jayron32 12:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment with respect to BeanieFan11 whom I ahve much respect. How about we leave this editor alone for a bit? They have been badgered, blocked and skewered for days. The hits keep coming. Lets see how they act after they return from their putative 31 hour block. Lightburst (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand that he has been badgered, blocked and skewered, as you say, but I felt that I needed to bring this up, because for eight months Therapyisgood has been (intentionally, it seems, from what I have seen) causing me great stress and I really would like it to stop. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with BeanieFan11. The behavior of editors on WT:RFA doesn't excuse continued, ongoing misbehavior towards other editors in any sector of Wikipedia, especially since this is long-term behavior that has apparently been happening for a while. Sorry, but WP:HOUNDING is a big deal; it verges on harassment. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• I unblocked therapyisgood per their request, ownership of their trolling, comments on their talk page and desire to participate in this discussion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you, please see my responses below. Thanks again. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with User:Jayron32. It is better if both editors agree to stay away from interacting with each other for some time. If one gets involved in a dispute (e.g. an AfD on a specific article, the other avoids getting invovled in the same AfD). If one reverts on some content, the other does not revert or comment on the same content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• @Therapyisgood: and @BeanieFan11:, can you both agree to an WP:IBAN with each other? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... I'm not sure I want to have my name engraved on the editing sanctions page when I don't think I've really done anything wrong. I'll have to think about this further. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• I spend a bit of time at DYK and that's where I come across both Therapyisgood and BeanieFan11. I can't say that the latter has ever caught my eye. The former, however, has displayed some unexpected and inappropriate behaviour. Over the last few months, I recall that at various occasions, my thoughts were that "this user needs some of what his user name suggests". What had not occurred to me, though, is that many (or all?) of those behaviours were in relation to BeanieFan11. HOUNDING is absolutely not ok and when this happens over several months, this behaviour is distressing and drives editors away. An IBAN (one-way, to be clear) is the minimum sanction. I would like to go further and given that BeanieFan11 spends quite a bit of time at DYK, a DYK WP:TBAN for Therapyisgood seems in order. Schwede66 21:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support one-way WP:IBAN at a minimum, including not being allowed to cast !votes in the same discussion, given the longer-term pattern presented in the evidence above that appears to target BeanieFan11. No comment on the validity of individual content concerns raised by Therapyisgood: while they have themself contributed some high-quality content, their AfD track record isn't solid, and I don't see widespread similar contributions in projectspace that would serve as clear counterexamples of hounding. As another example, participation at WP:VP in 2023 is limited to two threads in which they !voted opposite to BeanieFan11, though I'm willing to look past the RfA !votes in light of DanCherek's comment. I also encountered a couple of older instances of inappropriate behavior from Therapyisgood (this edit summary, and the original hook of this DYK nomination) – perhaps isolated at the time, but not too dissimilar from the focus of this discussion. I also echo WaltCip's concerns about the sincerity of their apology.^Complex/_Rational 22:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

TIG's response

• I don't have a lot of time but I'd just like to say I'm sorry for any problems I've caused @BeanieFan11: over the past few months. I will voluntarily agree to a direct IBAN but I'm still a bit confused about what that would entail (ie if I can vote in the same AFD they've already voted in, just not directly responding to them). Again I don't have the time to go over everything here but some of the stuff is a bit petty (ie the most recent RFC, which obviously had nothing to do with him). But I really do have to say BeanieFan11 has a way of pissing me off with their insistent and constant AFD behavior (hounding @JoelleJay: among others), which if given time I can find diffs of. The first ANI report was "no consensus", which doesn't strike me as hounding at all given other users supported a warning for him. But if it was again I'm sorry. The Commons stuff I'm sorry for, but at least two of those discussions have continued and appear to have merit. Again I'm sorry for any trouble I've caused and will abide by anything the community decides. The "cry harder about it" comment was out of left field but again BeanieFan11 really does piss me off sometimes. But again I'll abide by anything the community has to offer and once again I'm sorry for what I've done. Take care. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Interaction ban means that if one of you comments on an AfD, the other does not comment there at all. If one reverts on some content, the other does not revert or comment on the same content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    Looking at WP:IBAN it reads to me that you are allowed to take part in the same discussion but not to make reference to the other person "directly or indirectly". SO don't address the other person's arguments but potentially you can address a totally different aspect of the issue. Dronkle (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    That is the typical case for interaction bans, but the community can choose to expand the scope as needed. And given the context, it seems that may be needed. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    If both editors are allowed to take part in the same discussion, that is not a true interaction ban. If one editor votes "Support" in a content discussion, the other can vote "Oppose" just for sake of opposing and annoying the other editor, without making any reference directly or indirectly. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    Indeed, that type of behavior seems to be the reason this thread was opened in the first place. But I can't see why a mutual i-ban is warranted unless someone presents evidence that the wrongdoing goes both ways. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    A one-sided i-ban too would be OK, though I think that it would be better if both agreed to not interact with each other directly or indirectly. If someone would be banned from interacting with me, I would avoid getting involved in a discussion where they are already present. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    Being interaction banned is a sanction, though. Unless someone can produce evidence of misconduct by both sides, a two way IBAN is inappropriate. And I’m not seeing that evidence here. Courcelles (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    If the i-ban is imposed by the community/admins, then ofc it should be one-sided. A two-way i-ban would make sense only if both editors agreed to stay away from each other to calm things down. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    We do not need to calm things down. We need to prevent one editor from continuing to follow another editor around. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    I guess that in a one-way i-ban, BeanieFan is allowed to take part in a discussion where TIG is present, but now allowed to address/make a reference to TIG directly or indirectly. TIG due to the i-ban would not be able to respond, so addressing or making a reference to someone who can't respond to you is pointless, if not ridiculous. Btw, just so you know, WP:IBAN says that A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption.Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    Barring any future presentation of evidence against BeanieFan11, it seems pretty clear which editor is in the wrong. This isn't a no-fault situation, so I'm not interested in a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption. One editor is hounding another, so give them both the same sanction? I don't think so. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    Read carefully what I said above. I did not say BeanieFan should be sanctioned, I made a suggestion to BeanieFan. Up to them what they decide to do. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    I did it read it carefully. Perhaps more carefully than you, in fact, given that there appears to be a typo that significantly changes the meaning of your first sentence ('now' vs. 'not'). LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    Wow, thanks for pointing out the typo: that is amazing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  @ Therapyisgood: look. I see where you're coming from. BeanieFan and I are on diametrically opposing sides of a lot of notability issues. We're both opinionated, active in some of the same areas, unlikely to change our minds, and I grit my teeth a lot ... the same as he must do over me. And that doesn't matter worth a damn. I am required to be civil, no matter what provocations real or imagined exist. I am required to comply with Wikipedia policies governing proper conduct, no matter what provocations real or imagined exist. (Not, by the bye, that I can recall BeanieFan being uncivil towards me.) There are no rationales, excuses, or defenses to violating them, and indeed the relevant policies require you to remain civil no matter what. If you can't do that -- and that "Are you really that thick?" comment in an ANI thread about your conduct, of all places, suggests that you can't -- then you're heading right for a reblock. Ravenswing 02:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• You're apologizing for the problems you've caused BeanieFan11 while also accusing them of pissing me off with their insistent and constant AFD behavior and hounding which if given time I can find diffs of. To me this is not much of an apology. If you want to apologize, then apologize fully; if you want to defend yourself, then do so. Trying to weave a path in between both reads rather insincere. Perhaps others read it differently. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 21:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  You've just summed up what like 80% of ArbCom ban appeals are like. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Beeblebrox, 80%? If that’s all, then things have decidedly improved since I served on the committee. Courcelles (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  The other 20% is insults and threats. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Quite. Possibly the text of WP:BUTTHEYHADITCOMING!!! should read "The invocation of this argument is prima facie ground for an indef." Ravenswing 02:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I would appreciate a frank and honest answer to this question: What led you to comment at that specific RFA, which appears to be only the second time you have done so in nearly four years of contributing? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  It feels like relevant context to point out that the other RfA that Therapyisgood !voted in was theleekycauldron¹, so it's not particularly surprising that they returned for the second one. Even though there is a self-admitted, broader concern with Therapyisgood's behavior towards BeanieFan11, I think the RfA participation is a distinct issue. DanCherek (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  In a peculiar and semi-paradoxcial way, I think it actually bodes worse for this user's ability to contribute competently in the longterm if they weren't trolling: every bit of their !vote seemed contrived from the start, but if they genuinely believed half of what they said about RfC procedure and their reasons for opposing the nomination on those grounds, there's a big problem here, particularly with "user...changes things through RFCs that don't need to be changed." No single user changes anything via RfC. If content or policy was changed as a result of an RfC (albeit one Therapyisgood does not approve of), then it is because a consensus was convinced that the change was for the better, in each of those instances.

  Now one may have less than happy feelings about the results of particular discussions, but someone having a succesful track record with consensus discussion processes is per se an absolutely absurd reason to oppose them for the mop: it can only possibly be a positive thing that a community member has been found to be able to guide consensus through a combination of sound ideas and/or an effective use of rhetoric and the ability to forge agreement. The !vote was therefore either clearly a rationalization to facilitate an effort to get under someone's skin, or such a profound misapprehension about how collective decision making, dispute resolution, and discussion are supposed to operate on this project that it's arguably the worse possibility.

  In any event, the trolling comments that immediately came out towards the first editor to criticize TIG's !vote (and the fact that similar comments had been made to other parties earlier in the day) are issues enough. Adding in this very compelling record suggesting longterm fixation and hounding of another editor, and it's clear some limits need to be set here. I strongly oppose any kind of IBAN on BeanieFan11 here: while looking at the details, I would say their conduct was not 100% optimal towards the start, but it is clear they are not driving this pattern of constant adversarial interactions but rather caught up in it against their will. If we mutually IBAN the pair (even if BF11 agreed to it just to put an end to the hounding), then we would be teaching the truly problematic party how to weaponize a mutual IBAN--which is something we have actually accidentally done in this space before, with the result of much longterm disruption. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  When I said "user...changes things through RFCs that don't need to be changed." I meant they propose changes. Are you really that thick? Therapyisgood (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Additionally "The !vote was therefore either clearly a rationalization to facilitate an effort to get under someone's skin, or such a profound misapprehension about how collective decision making, dispute resolution, and discussion are supposed to operate on this project that it's arguably the worse possibility." I opposed their nomination because I found their taste for RFCs to be bad. Additionally other users were upset over not being informed about the NCOVER changes they proposed, which they didn't inform the WikiProject Songs about. Again, please do not assume bad faith. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  First off, trust me when I tell you that you want to strike that "Are you really that thick?" comment immediately, unless you want to go straight back into time-out block for a PA mere hours after Gonzo fan2007 let you out of the last one early in order to participate (presumably in a scrupulously civil fashion) here. I really could not care less about your propensity for lashing out with petty, immature, temper-tantrum-adjacent ad hominems. The only thing "thicker" about those of us trying to get you to see where your behaviour is problematic here is our skin. But I've seen enough ANIs to be able to advise you that you're about to burn up in the descent from this latest series of explosions if you don't find another, better way to respond to criticism here, fast.

  Second, and more to the point, you are clearly (if not willfully) avoiding the critical point about the defect in your reasoning. It doesn't matter that your criticism is that the things theleekycauldron effectuated through RfC were, according to you, bad ideas. The point is that she (leeky, as an individual) didn't make any one of those things happen. In every case where she got a result you didn't agree with through RfC, the community (local or otherwise) agreed that such was the right result, and it was thereby a community act. So how can her decisions to bring those matters to RfC be a valid procedural knock against her record, such that it supports a rational reason to oppose the promotion?

  We don't avoid giving people the tools because they didn't choose to support ideas cherished by editor A, B, or C, or opposed content option 1, 2, or 3. If you had a generalized complaint that TLC made frivolous RfCs, that would be one thing. But they clearly aren't frivolous discussions--by definition, if we are talking about discussions that actually got things done with community approval. Likewise, you would have some rhetorical ground to stand on if you had argued TLC abused process in some way with said RfCs: but that's clearly not the case either. Your !vote comes down to "she succeeded in winning arguments via RfCs, the results of which I don't like. Which is clearly not a reasonable, rational, or anything other than disruptive reason to oppose a promotion. And honestly, you can ask me to AGF that Beanie is wrong and that you didn't oppose just to spite them, but the problem there is the one I describe above: even if I do give you the benefit of the doubt where that is concerned (and based on the pattern demonstrated above, I'm not sure that I can) it's just as bad (if not worse) a look for you in terms of competency regarding the basics of dispute resolution and consensus on this project.

  Lastly, and along the same lines of the previous point, there is absolutely no requirement that an RfC be published at a given WikiProject that has members that would consider the article in question to be in their particular purview. That is an absolutely ridiculous position that has never been supported by policy and never will be; there are countless reasons why that might not be best practice in a given case and the discussion nominator/proposer uses their best discretion. Anyone can feel free to use notices to inform a local cohort of WikiProject editors, but the OP is in no way required to speculate which groups would want to know about a discussion and inform them all.

  Again, these are extremely underwhelming (if not completely inverted/counter-intuitive) reasons to oppose an RfA and based on your reported history here and the conduct I have observed from you today, I am stuck between just not believing you are being at all sincere with us and wondering if you are being completely honest and just aren't competent enough to contribute without disruption on this project. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This editor has problems beyond hounding BeanieFan11. See this thread from 6 months ago:

• User talk:Therapyisgood#AFD nominations

They gratuitously blew off a very polite request from Liz about pacing AfDs. Lepricavark did a good job of summarizing problematic edits concluding presciently that Therapyisgood was on track to WP:ANI someday. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• @A. B.: Not only that, but he had immediately reverted when I asked him to slow down then and initially reverted Lepricavark with the comment "stay off my talk page". BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Why should I slow down when there's no rule saying I have to? It might be a common courtesy but there's no limit on AFD noms a day, as far as I'm aware. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

    So ”common courtesy” is not a good enough reason?. This is a collaborative project. Comments like yours above just demonstrate to anyone reading this that, notwithstanding warnings and blocks, you still refuse to accept this. That bodes ill for your future. It’ll be a lesser sanction today but, mark my words, you’re on track for a site ban in a few months. I hope you’ll change course but somehow I doubt it.

    —~~<~

    A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

    It's always good to read the room and calibrate, so that you do not cause problems for other editors. It is possible to cause some minor problems and disruption without formally breaking any rules. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  • @A. B.: yet where was I wrong? There's no current limit on AFD nominations at a time, as far as I'm aware. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

    Therapyisgood, you ask, ”where was I wrong?”

    Simple: you were asked nicely to slow down - that your pace was causing difficulty for others. Because this is a collaborative project, you should have slowed down immediately but instead you said you didn’t have to and you continued, thereby making problems for others. The fact that you still don’t even see the problem tells me you are unlikely to succeed here in the long run.

    I suggest that for the next year, as an exercise, you do everything someone nicely asks you to do on Wikipedia, whether it’s what you want to do or not. Whether the rules require you to or not. Make a habit of saying “yes” and “of course” to other editors.

    One final comment: those nasty remarks about other people not having jobs - they were really, really mean-spirited. You can’t stay here if you’re going to be mean like that. Other people ”piss off” the rest of us, too, but we don’t say stuff like that. Why should you?

    —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  • His (BF11) whole framing of this is way off too but unfortunately I don't have the time to get into it. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Really? I'm way off in my whole framing of the situation? When you do have the time, I'd like to hear why you believe that's the case, as what I've wrote is exactly how its felt to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
      • OK, so let's set a few things straight. 1.) There were multiple users who supported a warning for your behavior at AFD discussions involving marginally-notable NFL players. You can just look back at the discussion to find them. 2.) I reported you to 3rr for page reversions on a VPP proposal page. You had actually reverted four time according to @BilledMammal:: [102]. Again, a legitimate reason to report you there. Others took issue with you there too [103]. 3.) That article had a weasel word, nothing wrong with that edit. 4.) "A few days later, he had a DYK nomination that needed a QPQ. - Now I had a nomination for Lewis Manly - and one user was complaining that the source was unreliable because of the url name (it was from a university, however, and so is reliable)" I told you to take it to RSN and you failed to do so. It's your fault it failed. 5.) "April 17 - I was about to finally have a "Did you know" image slot, something that almost never happens to me (I've nominated 80 articles for DYK, probably about 10 have had an image - only Jim Dillard and this one ever had the image approved) - Therapyisgood lodged a complaint about the copyright status (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&diff=prev&oldid=1150250027) right before it was set to appear and had it removed (and his complaint seems to have been wrong, too)." What evidence do you have that it was wrong? 5.) As I said earlier, two of these discussions are still ongoing. I apologize for the others, but again you should have tagged the pages at the Commons with the proper copyright rational. 6.) Tagbombing is common at ITN. If you disagreed with it you should have found sources for the article and SOFIXEDIT. 7.) The "cry harder about it" comment was a bit out of left field and I apologize for that. 8.) I'm not seeing how this has anything to do with you. 9.) Yes, I thought that article didn't meet our notability standards. You know we disagree on those. It turns out I was wrong. No bad faith. 10.) I thought it wasn't interesting. So what? 11.) Again, nothing to do with you. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
        • But my question is, how did you find all of those discussions? (and you're misrepresenting some of those, for example, BilledMammal was not correct in his interpretation of 3RR, as shown by the closer declining your request) BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
          • The same way you found this. By the way, just because the closing admin declined a warning on the 3RR report doesn't make you right. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
            • Thank you for confirming my belief; you've been WP:HOUNDING me by extensively going through all my contributions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
              • "why are you so concerned about how people find discussions?" [104] Therapyisgood (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

                There's a big difference between periodically clicking on various editor's contribs and systematically hounding one person for months. If you can't understand that, you're not long for Wikipedia. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

        There were no warnings handed out as a result of the ANI (closed February 14th) or 3rr discussions (declined March 5th). What has BeanieFan11 done since then that you have an issue with? You keep saying there's evidence that you can gather if you have time but so far everything you've pointed to doesn't appear to be recent and has already been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Some admin needs to make a decision and close this thread. The discussion has become rather pointless with back and forth accusations. Given the issues I raised above with the one-way i-ban and the evidence provided by others that TIG has not had problems only with BF11, admins might find more suitable solutions or sanctions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  The discussion has only been open for just over 8 hours, there's no rush to have it closed. If you really want to move things along then you could start a sub section and propose an outcome for the community to discuss and/or vote on. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  To be perfectly honest, it might very well be for the best if an admin was willing to make a call at this juncture. But for better or for worse, that's just not the culture at ANI: the presumption here is that when the community is actively discussing conduct and it's this early in, it should be afforded the opportunity to examine matters and that swift conclusions (for anything other than the most egregious cases) are precarious for the needs of both the community and the individuals brought here.

  And bluntly, very few admins are willing to stick their necks out and risk drawing the ire of this or that group of community members for rushing to act in this or that way (or even achieve multiple groups lambasting them for jumping the gun and undermining community prerogative). Which, let's be fair to the mops, one of those scenarios is exactly what would happen in a majority of cases. I agree with Walt below that this is never a fun conversation to be had; it's just that the consequences of not having it (or making a rushed job of it) are typically even more unpleasant. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  There are times where swift reprisals from administrators for gross and repetitive disruption are widely praised for initiative and judgment, but those cases tend to be relatively simple and the admins who execute those actions have the benefit of lots of experience and CLUEfulness. It's far less simple when there are two or more people in a dispute with varying levels of activity on both sides, and I certainly don't say this to equate BF's behavior with TIG, but it's clear that more careful judgment is needed before we jump straight to Occam's razor. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Rushing to close a discussion because we find it unpleasant is almost certainly going to make things worse. Addressing incivility on ANI is not a pleasant subject, but you don't have to participate in it. You're free to disengage at any time. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 02:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• (Pinged) I've had possibly the most extensive and lengthy arguments with BF at AfD out of anyone here, and honestly they all just run together in my head so I can't pinpoint anything that stands out to me as HOUNDING. I'm curious which incidents are being referred to? On the whole I'm mostly of the same mind as Ravenswing on this matter. JoelleJay (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm glad you came in, JJ. As you point out, you've had extensive interaction with BF, too many for anyone else to really be able to characterize without doing a ton of work, so I'm glad that TIG's characterization of it as hounding of you by BF isn't what you're feeling. TIG, whether or not an IBAN is made, you probably just need to disengage from BF. As you say, they annoy you, and you seem to have a very hard time staying civil when you're annoyed. So go do other things. There's a whole big project out there. Valereee (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Survey

I believe a structured approach would be conducive to determining consensus and speed up discussion.

1. Impose one-way interaction ban between Therapyisgood and BeanieFan11
2. Impose a two-way IBAN
3. Block Therapyisgood for x duration
4. Something else

Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• 1 with additional conditions beyond what is at WP:IBAN, to include commenting in discussions (XFD, move discussions, RFCs, RFA, etc.) in which BeanieFan111 has already commented, and nominating articles for deletion that BeanieFan111 has contributed significantly (excepting simple things like vandalism reverts by either party of a third party, etc.) --Jayron32 12:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• 3, 1 (+ Jayron), and 4, in order of preference from most to least. The block should be for at least 1 month, recognizing that up to this point TIG has had a clean block log and presumably has been a productive contributor at Wikipedia outside of this apparent long-term harassment campaign (I'm not taking the apology into consideration here as it was not an apology at all). A one-way IBAN should be placed, with restrictions along the lines of what Jayron has suggested. Lastly, a civility restriction along these lines: "If user makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then they may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses." While I say these are in order of preference, it would be best in my opinion to implement all of these things simultaneously, recognizing that this has been a relatively complex case that goes beyond just a vote at RFA. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  TIG was given a 2-week block 3 years ago for using two undisclosed alternate accounts in project space discussions. ArbCom indefinitely restricted him to one account over it. Since then, however, he's been pretty productive (if a bit gruff at times). I don't think an extended block is warranted at this point; I just think he needs to step away from anything to do with BF11. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I would support Jayron's proposal; I don't know if I'd support a one month block or a topic-ban in addition to the IBAN, as proposed by WaltCip and Schwede66, respectively. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 with Jayron's addenda seems like a commonsense approach. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 I think that the best solution is something between one-way i-ban and two-way i-ban. A one-way i-ban is a questionable concept because: BF11 is allowed to address, revert and make reference to TIG, but TIG is not allowed to respond. Such an i-ban can easily become harassment in the eyes of the editor who is not allowed to respond. Instead, the i-ban should have these conditions:
  1. TIG is not allowed to participate in discussions or other disputes where BF11 is already present (including things like nominating BF11's articles for deletion or renaming).
  2. BF11 is allowed to participate in discussions or other disputes where TIG is already present, but not allowed to revert, address or make a reference to TIG. BF11 is not allowed to nominate TIG's articles for deletion or renaming, and is not allowed to revert TIG.
• Such an i-ban is not a "sanction" on BF11, it is a logical and natural step to follow if TIG is sanctioned with an i-ban. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  What you're proposing would be considered a sanction on BF11, as it explicitly restricts him from specific actions relating to TIG. I think BF11 is wise enough to avoid doing things that could be construed as harassment against TIG, assuming the latter is subject to a 1-way IBAN. He probably doesn't need it spelled out for him. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Allowing an editor to revert or make a reference to someone who is not allowed to respond to them is quite ridiculous, though ridiculous things are not uncommon on Wikipedia. Anyways, I had never seen the 2 editors before yesterday so I have no reason to comment here anymore. Got better things to spend my time on. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  The community has applied many 1 way interaction bans in recent years, and I'd say they have a higher success rate than their 2-way counterparts, if anything. Look, I'm half in agreement with you: I think the very concept of an interaction ban is dubious. If an editor cannot comport themselves with our baseline behavioural expectations in regard to one editor, they are certainly capable of violating them with regard to another. The IBAN therefore typically delays addressing the root issues with regard to one or both (or however many) editors, and shifts the burden for keeping conduct within community norms from the individuals who should be exercising self control to the larger community to enforce and regulate the interactions between them. It's a bad idea and I've been saying so for many, many years.

  However, the biggest problem I have with IBANs is that they can be gamed and weaponized, and that's often exactly what happens when we mutually IBAN parties because we just get fed with trying to disentangle a personal dispute and decide it's just easier to keep a given pair of parties apart. If there was one party who was overwhelmingly the more abusive and/or IDHT with regard to community concerns, they will learn that this is a way to get other users out of their way. In these situations, the immediate IBAN also tends to extend the disruption (through petty debates about who crossed the line into someone else's orbit first) rather than resolving it.

  So I actually think 1 way IBANS are more straightforward in that respect. Here we have a clear case where one editor was hounding the other, and the other making every effort to avoid them. Putting aside the voluminous and reasonable community concerns here that is manifestly unfair and problematic to give BF11 a logged sanction for being on the receiving end of discussion stalking, by putting the onus on TIG (because there's is the deeply inappropriate behaviour necessitating the sanction) to avoid the discussions BF11 is involved in, we short-circuit any debates about who really violated the IBAN first and we don't risk encouraging someone whose conduct is already problematic to view a 2-way IBAN as having its silver linings (i.e. restricting the editor they have an issue with as much as they are restricted themselves). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Snow Rise: thank your for your elaboration. I think we can agree that part of the problem is that WP:IBAN is poorly formulated, leaving space for evasion, misunderstandings and unhelpful situations. On second thought I wonder if the best way how to proceed here is a block with a warning that further disruption will lead to an indefinite block. Hounding is an extremely disruptive thing because it is not a group of mistakes made here and there, but well-thought, long-term and persistent disruption. If TIG has been hounding someone, it is doubtful they are friendly with the all other editors. Someone provided a diff where TIG was being rude with Liz. A few days ago TIG got blocked for repeatedly calling other editors "jobless". The Oppose vote at the RfA which was not well-argued and pointless after 300+ Support votes too gives a bad impression. Even worse, here at ANI/I they called you "thick" or indicated that. If somone can't be civil even while the community is examining their uncivility, that is a sign of big issues. Everyone makes mistakes, I am not an angel. But mistakes too have a limit. Hence probably a block and a "final warning" could be better than an i-ban. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Ktrimi991, there's no doubt that a 1-way IBAN is really hard on the editor who is prevented from interacting. That doesn't mean we should also put restrictions on the second editor if they're blameless just to make things not quite as hard on TIG. TIG has been following BF around in a deliberate and disruptive way. Yes, it sucks for them if they end up with a 1-way. There was an easy way to prevent it happening: don't hound people.

  And no, an indef isn't a better answer, and judging by TIG's responses here, I think it might be hard to get unblocked, as they're proving in this very discussion that they have a hard time remaining civil when annoyed. Valereee (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Valereee: I see your point and I agree with it, but still think the issue I raised with the one-way i-ban is a serious one. I am not suggesting an indef block, but a temporary one with a warning that the next block will be indef. I know admins try to be patient and not to rush to block. However, as someone who edits controversial Balkan topics, I know that in many cases that stance of the admins only makes things worse. Balkan topics see harassment, personal attacks and edit warring every single day. The amount of disruption is huge. Most of the good editors have left the project. Why? The primary reason is that admins are too often too tolerant. Instead of blocking disruptive editors, they often give "advice" and "warnings" and ineffective sanctions, and in many cases disruptive editors see that as a sign of "weakness" and keep driving constructive editors away from the project. Based on what others have said, TIG is in some ways a productive editor, so they should be given a chance to reflect. But that productivity should not justify turning a blind eye to disruption that can drive away other (even more) productive editors. TIG's issues are not only with BF11, so I believe wider sanctions, such as a temporary block together with a "final warning" should be considered. In any case, it seems clear at this point that the community will choose the easiest way and just impose a one-way i-ban. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Ktrimi991, no one is talking about turning a blind eye. We're talking about a 1-way, for heaven's sake. And none of the admins who are opposing a limited duration block are trying to be kind; they're recognizing that

  1. A community-imposed block of any duration, fixed or indef, would mean TIG would have to appeal here rather than via an unblock request, which can be an extremely high obstacle to overcome, and
  2. That in this case the block is being proposed as punishment, which is against policy.

  Valereee (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Valereee: a block is a punishment when:

  1. the editor has made it clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they understand their mistakes, have reflected and will not repeat them

  2. the disruption was done a considerable amount of time ago, so it can be concluded that the disruption has already ceased

  TIG made a personal attack here at ANI/I immediately after their block for personal attacks was lifted. So blocking TIG is not a punishment, it is step to stop further disruption. By not addressing the core issue, which is not merely hounding but breaching WP:CIVILITY against several editors, you might actually punish those who have to endure such personal attacks as "jobless" and "thick". If you address the hounding but not the other personal attacks and rudeness, then yes you are turning a blind eye. The message should be that all kinds of uncivility are not allowed and will be addressed; otherwise it gives the wrong idea that the community cares only about the hounding issue and does not give a f about the other cases of uncivility. To do that, an i-ban is not enough because it addresses only a part of the wider issue. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'll reply on your user talk. Valereee (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3: Block and final warning If TIG has been hounding someone, it is doubtful they are friendly with the all other editors. Someone provided a diff where TIG was being rude with Liz. A few days ago TIG got blocked for repeatedly calling other editors "jobless". Even worse, here at ANI/I they called Snow Rise "thick" or indicated that. If someone can't be civil even while the community is examining their uncivility, that is a sign of big issues. The proposed one-way i-ban is a wrong idea for reasons elaborated on above and does not address all issues with TIG. After the block expires, if they repeat their mistakes, the indefinite block should be the next step. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 with Jayron's addenda anything that could be construed as a sanction against BF11 is unacceptable. We don't punish editors for having been hounded by someone else. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1—With the additional restrictions proposed by Jayron32. Even setting aside how unfair it would be for BF11 to be subject to any kind of sanction for this, I don't think he has any intention of discussing or otherwise making reference to TIG on Wikipedia after this discussion; he just wants to be left alone. An interaction ban on BF11 would serve no purpose other than to patronize him, as if to suggest that he's not smart enough to refrain from goading TIG of his own accord. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  I suppose it should go without saying that my support of Jayron's sanction is with the understanding that BF11 will act in good faith and not attempt to provoke or badger TIG with the IBAN in place. I see nothing to indicate that such interactions may happen, but if they did, then I think we'd want to return to the drawing board. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 Although based on their recent behavior I suspect "indef block" is going to be a thing for them at some point. Harassing another user because they annoy you is not something we want to see, ever, and is completely incompatible with a collaborative project. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 I can get behind a solution that gets BeanieFan11 and Therapyisgood back to their work. I understand hounding and the stress it causes. Occasionally an informal process can work if imposed by an administrator. You can ask @Floquenbeam: how to make that happen. From what I have seen in contributions we need BeanieFan11 and Therapyisgood. I understand that Therapyisgood is snippy when they feel put-upon, and that needs to stop now. In this thread Therapyisgood asks an editor if they are "thick". The question and language is likely a violation of our NPA policy by being offensive. Therapyisgood should be advised that they need to strictly adhere to WP:AVOIDYOU in their interactions. Lightburst (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 with additional conditions as described by Jayron32. Therapyisgood must leave BeanieFan11 entirely alone if they wish to keep editing Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• 3, 1 (+ Jayron), and 4 per the exact same conditions described by WaltClipper above. I've gone back and forth considering whether a longer block proposal is justified here, contemplating 3 months, 6 months, and even an indef as reasonable options. There's a pretty problematic complex of behaviours presently evident with this user:
  • severe and chronic incivility--indeed nearly constant with regard to editors they find themselves in disagreement with, if the behaviour on display the last few days and in the diffs above are any indication;
  • longterm, fixated hounding of a fellow editor, which TIG has failed to fully acknowledge as an issue, rather continuing to rationalize it despite the fact that the community response here has been unambiguous that it is unacceptable harassment, and if anything using the discussion to get in more broadsides on their perceived foe;
  • and lastly, an attitude towards community efforts to reign in these issues that oscillates between complete IDHT and naked hostility.
• In short, this user seems to have no sense of how close they are to running out of WP:ROPE. So doing nothing here is actually a disservice to them since, as numerous community members have opined above, TIG is on course for an indef regardless, if they don't make a big change in their approach to communication on this project. Still, I've ultimately decided that Walt's suggestion of a one month block is the sweet spot here as the minimal possibly effective preventative block likely to truly get TIG's attention. I'm going to add myself that such block should be appealable only to the community as it is a CBAN and because the last time TIG requested and received a reduction to a block (yesterday) they repeated exactly the behaviour they had been blocked for within a matter of hours.
  I also support the 1-way IBAN as the only reasonable IBAN option available to us (and clearly absolutely necessary to give BF11 a break from the harassment). As others have noted above, if BF11 were to attempt to game or manipulate the ban to passively harass TIG, we could amend at that time, but I see no compelling reason to believe that is likely to happen.
  Lastly, I support Walt's notion of the "civility enhancement" sanction, if I am to label this habit that has formed here of late of making a sanction out of the regular CIV requirements for the purposes of a close: I don't know that it makes much difference, since any editor is subject to these same principles at all times, but I suppose it can't hurt either. It will, at a minimum, make the record more clear that the community is nearing the end of its patience with TIG's WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:PA proclivities. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• A very broadly intended option 1, and I wouldn't even object to an additional short block (option 3), as based on his recent edits it seems to me that the user is adamant about not taking WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA seriously. Cavarrone 20:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• 1 with additional conditions as per Jayron. And if BF does not support the DYK topic ban that I suggested previously, I shall drop that suggestion. Schwede66 20:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 (+ Jayron) and option 3 based on history of stalking and highly uncivil comments. Length of block should be 7-14 days, which is enough to send a message but maintain the purpose of WP:BLOCK, which is to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Continued disruption could lead to an indefinite block. I think the one-way IBAN is most appropriate but can be amended in the unlikely event it is abused by Beanie. Carson Wentz (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 with x=3 months and 1 (+Jayron). Since the initial comments at TLC's RfA, I've been thinking about TIG's behavior quite a bit. I wasn't involved in the prior discussion nor remember any prior interaction with those involved besides TLC. When editors like TIG contribute exceptional content at the expense of inappropriate interpersonal interactions, the wellness of editors takes precedence. Furthermore, it's evident that much of TIG's non-content activities are very out of step with the community. While dissension ought to be encouraged and appreciated, poorly substantiated contrarianism where other editors get caught in vitriolic crossfire is unacceptable. I've been the target of a now-blocked, content-contributing hounder in the past. It's a deeply unpleasant experience that nearly killed my interest in the project. It's not something our community should tolerate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1, oppose 3 as punitive casualdejekyll 00:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 (+Jayron) and option 3. I concur that a duration of 1 month would not be a mere "slap on the wrist", yet not be overly punitive; the "thick" comment here demonstrates the ineffectiveness of a too-short block. Hounding and personal attacks are unacceptable, and there's a demonstrated pattern of those in TIG's behavior. ^Complex/_Rational 00:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 plus re-blocking for a month. The "Are you really that thick?" comment also implies the apologies were not sincere. It in conjunction with the other personal attacks that resulted in the initial block suggests heavy penalty.Jagmanst (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose 3, prefer moderate option 1 - unless we have an indication that they are harassing other users, then blocking would be punitive on top of the IBAN. Either they don't break it, or they do and are blocked for the pleasure. While an extended IBAN to cover AfDs/DRVs where TIG has commented (or nominating TIG articles, if not covered by a default IBAN) is good, I wouldn't have it cover all discussions. In any of the big-issue topics where lots of individuals participate because they're fundamental to community consideration, I don't think TIG participation as person 10 should prohibit them from participating as person 60. If a closer isn't willing to consider an intermediate option, go for a "pure" IBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  For the sake of clarity, I should note that I'm aware of their comment at Tamzin at the RfA, but if there are other significant incidents please highlight them for me and I may reconsider. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1. A block for X duration is a punishment. I don't think that should even be considered, and frankly if the suggestion had come from an admin I'd be pushing back directly on their understanding of what blocks are for. And a 2-way...has there been any evidence BF has caused a problem? Why would we even consider sanctioning the editor who has been the target of the hounding? Valereee (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @Valereee: Obviously every administrative action (including option 1) results in some sort of punishment for those who are subjected to it, but I don't see how a short block (1/2 weeks in my view) would be just a punishment and not a preventive (and instructive) act. TIG was blocked for personal attacks just 3 days ago, and once unblocked he almost immediately resorted with the same gratuitously aggressive and insulting attitide. Even ignoring his comments towards BeanieFan11, he insulted Snow Rise, and when kindly asked to strike the insult he ignored the request. In his contribution history up to his last comments in this thread, he displayed a blatant Wikipedia:IDONTHEARTHAT approach towards civility. I am the first one to hope TIG changes his attitude, as I see him as an otherwise valuable editor, but it is important he get the point about civility, be it with a block, with a strong warning or with some other means. Cavarrone 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

    Time-limited blocks are less helpful for encouraging change than indefs, which require the editor to address the issue in an unblock request and convince an admin (or in this case, the community) that the editor will change their behavior. Time-limited blocks can simply be waited out. And, no, an IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing.

    In addiiton, a block would prevent TIG from doing things they don't need to be prevented from doing, so it's more restrictive than necessary to solve the problem, which at its heart is the hounding. If someone as an individual admin action wanted to block TIG for ongoing personal attacks, fine, but that doesn't need to come from the community. A community-imposed full block of a well-intentioned, competent editor should be for when an editor has exhausted the community's patience, not for making a series of similar mistakes in short order. Valereee (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

    If this discussion results in only the IBAN, it won't be the end of the world: at least something will have been done to protect the community member who is currently bearing the brunt of TIGs inappropriate and vexatious behaviour and to send a message that the community has eyes on the rest. At the same time, I think you're missing the forest for the trees in at least one respect here:

    There are really two issues that need addressing here: 1) The concerted hounding of BeanieFan across a period of months, which is clearly unacceptable and which (we hope) the IBAN resolves, and 2) Petty, continuous, and pretty much instantaneous incivility any time TIG is criticized. These personal attacks don't come after heated back-and-forth's ramping the tension up, though they would be problematic enough in that context too. Rather, these kind of "Get a job--I have no time to argue with losers on the internet all day" / "Are you thick" comments are the very first things TIG says to people they have never had an interaction with before when they feel criticized, including community members contributing to an ANI where the goal is to get TIG to see their are issues with their mode of interaction with others on this project. That's a real problem. And the IBAN does absolutely nothing to address it.

    "Time-limited blocks are less helpful for encouraging change than indefs, which require the editor to address the issue in an unblock request and convince an admin (or in this case, the community) that the editor will change their behavior."

    Hey, I could be convinced to support an indef for that purpose, but I think we're probably both of the opinion that it's more than the minimum that might get TIGs attention here. I think Walt is right: that target is a month. And even if TIG does just wait out the block, at least they are shown that there are lines that this community will not let them routinely and indefinitely cross, and they will have time to consider what needs to change in their approach. Which is, you know, the usual point of any block that is not an indef?

    "And, no, an IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing."

    Correct. And neither is a temporary block for repeated WP:CIV violations. It's not there for vindictive purposes or even to make us feel better that someone's behaviour has been "balanced" by punishment. But if it's necessary to force someone to reflect on problematic behaviour (as it very clearly is here), it's a preventative block. I'm surprised we're even having this debate: this is probably the single most common circumstance for the use of a block.

    "If someone as an individual admin action wanted to block TIG for ongoing personal attacks, fine, but that doesn't need to come from the community."

    Actually, I think it very much does. Because we've seen that TIG can make a very contrite-seeming unblock appeal to an admin, feigning a willingness to comply with community expectations and the feedback of that admin...and then instantly go back to the offending behaviour they were blocked for in the first place. The fact that this behaviour occurs blatantly in view of the entire community in an ANI discussion where that very behaviour is being discussed only underscores how much TIG either doesn't get where the line is, or is completely incapable of controlling themselves and jumping to petty ad hominems in the face of any criticism. A CBAN is necessary precisely because it must be appealed the community.

    "A community-imposed full block of a well-intentioned, competent editor should be for when an editor has exhausted the community's patience, not for making a series of similar mistakes in short order."

    Except, for the purposes of the conduct we are talking about here, calling this user a "well-intentioned, competent editor" is not appropriate. Nobody is being "well-intentioned" with regard to our community expectations when they are making the kind of personalized, spiteful comments TIG feels entitled to make when they see red (which is alarmingly fast in face of any opposition). And they are going to go on to feel entitled to that behaviour until the community draws a line in the sand. I'm sorry Val, normally I appreciate a light touch in an admin, but your description above feels more like enabling to me. And it won't do TIG any favours in the long run: it will just replace a one-month block now with an indef in the near future, I'd be willing to bet. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) "An IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing", I could say the same about a block: "a block is not punishment. It may feel like it to the blocked editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing". None of the editors who support a (more or less brief) block here wants to "punish" TIG, we want him to read WP:CIVIL and adhere to it in in his future interactions. With respect, characterizing his long-term problematic behaviour as "a series of similar mistakes in short order" by "a well-intentioned, competent editor" goes exactly in the opposite direction and IMO sends the wrong message to the user. Cavarrone 19:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

    I'll answer at your user talk. Valereee (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Another Nigerian project dropping poor articles here

I noticed a number of articles about deforestation in Nigeria, and the issues seem similar to some earlier Nigerian and Ghanaian projects/hashtags we have discussed here over the last few years. Through Template:Deforestation in Nigeria, used on some articles and drafts, it seems as if these are the work of a project on Meta The new articles and edits to existing ones have already led to issues, and the edit summaries used by the editors are suspiciously similar and uninformative. Articles involved include (but aren't limited to)

• Draft:Deforestation and small ruminant farming (was in mainspace, I moved it to draft)
• Reforestation and urbanization in Nigeria
• Impact of deforestation on plant species diversity in Nigeria
• Deforestation in Nigeria (the main article)
• Deforestation and food security in Nigeria
• Animal grazing and deforestation in Nigeria
• Effects of deforestation on the paper industry in Nigeria
• Tourism and deforestation in Nigeria
• Fuel wood utilization in Nigeria
• Gender and timber trade in Nigeria
• Spatial pattern of deforestation in Nigeria

Nearly all of these have been tagged with multiple issues, mainly that the pages are very essay-like.

Editors alrady active include User:Ezema James, User:Francisike, User:Tochai, User:Lilianneche, User:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu (university lecturer, so perhaps somehow involved?), User:Emmyglo, User:Ifyeke, User:Festgo12, User:SusuGeo, ... The project lead, identified at Meta, is User:Ngozi osadebe, but I see little evidence of the enwiki efforts being lead in any way, or the participants being instructed in how to improve and avoid the many issues. Most of these editors have recent warnings or even a block.

Apparently, there are more than 60 participants[105], all of them required to create at least one article and edit two others[106], on enwiki[107]. So again a grant-subsidized dumping ground for many subpar articles without any effort to reach out to enwiki or to monitor and improve the issues. Fram (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC) A grant request[108], I might add, based on a falsehood: "A search on Wikipedia on “Deforestation in Nigeria using Petscan, Wikidata and List building tool yielded zero articles. A general search using Petscan yielded 37 articles. A quick scan on three of the articles (Deforestation, Afforestation, and Reforestation) shows that they have no information on Nigeria and very little information on Africa. This creates a content, contributor, and reader gap in Wikipedia. The result is that Nigerian citizens have no culturally relevant information on deforestation." At the time of the request, we already had a lengthy article titled Deforestation in Nigeria... Fram (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggested a multi-merger of most of these into Deforestation in Nigeria some while back, which should allow cutting out the dead wood (sorry...), but lost sight of it due to meatspace concerns. Hopefully will have time to do something about it next week or so. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Can we please not call it "meatspace"? *shudder* JoelleJay (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, we have mainspace, projectspace, userspace... it certainly fits the pattern ;) casualdejekyll 19:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah these are... really bad. Would approve merging them, but am honestly unsure how much good that would do given that most of the info in those essays add basically nothing to the existing article. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Olugold created the page at Meta, so they may know about what is happening. TSventon (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I could almost merge my above report [109] here. Another wave of new Nigerian accounts, disrupting dozens of articles with false grammar corrections and a deluge of overlinking. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all for bringing this to our notice. I'll notify the team about these observations. Olugold (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Olugold for bringing the discussions here to my attention. I will do the needful by informing and guiding the participants in the project to clean up their articles.

However, I do not like the language of User: Fram, for claiming that our grant request was based on falsehood. Please let him/her use the list building tools I menntioned in the grant application to retrieve the article on "Deforestation in Nigeria".

I was unaware of the existence of this article untill we embarked on this project. It is important that we mind how we refer to people. Ngozi osadebe (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

You created a large project about "Deforestation in Nigeria" on enwiki, and asked for a ca. $20K grant for it, but you were "unaware of the existence" of the article Deforestation in Nigeria??? Fram (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ngozi osadebe - Please let him/her use the list building tools I menntioned in the grant application to retrieve the article on "Deforestation in Nigeria". I agree that putting the search term deforestation in Nigeria into Petscan yields no results, however that's not really what Petscan is for (it's for building lists of articles based on categories, rather than a general-purpose search tool). However, you say that you also used Wikidata as part of your search. You do not specify how you used Wikidata, but a simple search for the phrase will take you to Q5251686, which would point you straight to the enwiki article Fram mentions. firefly ( t · c ) 13:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Just flagging that after reviewing the grant proposal and linked spreadsheet, it seems that prizes are on offer for the "best editors" involved. The prize amounts (equivalent to around 25 USD) are small in raw terms, but not in terms of purchasing power in Nigeria, where the average monthly salary is somewhere around 160 USD. I take an extremely dim view of editathons that offer monetary prizes, particularly when they cause disruption that volunteer editors have to clean up! firefly ( t · c ) 14:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Jonteemil

I am truly disturbed by Junteemil's process on image files. I don't think his process is right, for instance he has placed FC Barcelona crest in the FfD queue. Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 12#File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg with the reasoning (Below c:COM:TOO US and relicense to {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Spain}}?) Why on earth does the crest for a major football club need to be in the FfD queue with that? I don't know how many other images there are, but earlier I saw that the file File:Ajax Amsterdam.svg was deleted by admin Fastily and that is to me consider a vital image for the article to help with identification of the team. It then got restored and the process by Jonteemil with happen over and over again maybe in this way?

Could then the same happened to the Barcelona crest, would that get deleted without people watching it correctly?

So to me, it could possibly be detrimental editing here and could result of a loss of multiple icons/crests/images without others realising what is going on. I thought I could have a word with Jonteemil on his talk page, but I feel it's not going to work and felt this needed to be presented to ANI as I believe this is a far bigger issue than realised. Govvy (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting FFD as files for deletion instead of files for discussion. I will reply longer later… Jonteemil (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Govvy, Jonteemil is 100% correct here. FFD is not only for deletions, it is also for other discussions about file licensing and use at Wikipedia. For example, they have specifically said nothing about deletion in the FFD post you cite above. You, Govvy, voted nonsensically as "Keep" on a discussion that said nothing about deleting the file, they only said that the image should be relicensed. I haven't looked at the other discussions they may have started at FFD, but looking at the discussion you've had at Jonteemil's talk page, AND looking at the above post, it is quite clear you aren't reading a single word they are saying, either directly to you, or in those discussions. They aren't doing anything wrong or out of process, FFD is exactly designed for these purposes, and they aren't even asking for these files to be deleted. --Jayron32 12:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Not only for deletion you say, but majority is deletion, look at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 10 as an example day. This process is simple, if a file is over used on some articles, just remove it from some of those articles, it's not a hard thing to do, it's more with how he has been processing what wikipedia has on offer under these processes. There are ways to do things without the need to run FFD. Overt damage in my opinion. Nothing wrong with me saying keep on something as to preserve what could be presumed to be a delete argument. :/ Govvy (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

No, they don't need to but they are allowed to. Indeed, there's nothing wrong with seeking outside input on matters such as image licensing. If you think that maybe something needs to be fixed, like a file being "over used on some articles", but you aren't sure enough to remove it, and want to seek some additional input on the matter, FFD is the exact process where those discussions happen. We aren't going to punish someone for being cautious and asking for input. Seriously, this is ridiculous that you dragged someone to ANI because you think they're too conscientious.--Jayron32 13:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know whether ANI is the best venue for this discussion, but there was another nomination by Jonteemil at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 10#File:Czech Republic national football team logo.svg on 12 August. On 18 August The file under discussion was deleted, Jonteemil complained, the file was restored, Govvy voted keep and the discussion was closed as keep. The nomination does seem to have been treated as a request for deletion, perhaps it should have been worded more clearly? TSventon (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's hardly Jonteemil's fault; the admin in question deserves a tiny trout for not being careful, but otherwise, we're still not going to block Jonteemill because some admin fucked up. --Jayron32 14:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I guess I should have had my rationales worded more clearly, since I didn't quite expect the decision to be kept or deleted… rather Kept in Article A and B, removed from article C, D, E and F. To me it was crystal clear what I've meant and I've seen FFDs of the like before but I guess it obviously wasn't as clear to everyone. In the future I will be more specific. The Barca logo FFD however I feel is as specific as can be, so I don't understand the confusion there. Jonteemil (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The rationales could have been clearer (which for the Ajax one, they are now), but this doesn't require any administrative action. The problem with unilaterally doing something like removing images from articles is that it's likely someone else will revert it. WP:FFD gives a way to get a tangible consensus, so seems fine for all these logos. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Jayron32 I am not suggesting that anything is Jonteemil's fault, nor that anyone needs to be blocked, just that some advice might be useful. The Barcelona nomination hasn't been answered, apart from keep. Jonteemil, it might be useful to explain the reasons why you think it satisfies {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Spain}} but not c:COM:TOO US. TSventon (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, {{PD-textlogo}} should be used for files that are below the TOO (threshold of originality) in both the US and the country of origin. These files can be uploaded to Commons. Commons only accepts these works, whereas Wikipedia only requires that the works are below the TOO in the United States. Hence, sometimes there are logos which are free in the US (can be used freely on Wikipedia) but not free in the country of origin (can't be uploaded to Commons), and for these cases {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Country}} should be used, and for the case where the logo is above the TOO in both the US and the country origin, {{Non-free logo}} should be used. Each non-free file AND each usage of said files need to satisfy all of the Non-free criteria, whereas free files can be used whereever, whenever and how many times you want (there are some WP:Non-copyright restrictions as well but I don't think they are relevant to Wikipedia). If a file qualifies for any of the PD licenses, it is hence better to use one of those licenses. When files are borderline free (either in the US or both), as the FC Barcelona logo case, I bring the files to FFD to let other users give their opinions.

The US has a fairly high TOO (meaning they require more complexity for granting copyright protection) whereas for example Australia has a very low TOO. Even File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg is complex enough for copyright protection in Australia whereas US courts don't even grant copyright protect to File:Best Western logo.svg nor File:Jamba logo.svg (read more at c:COM:TOO Australia and c:COM:TOO US).

My claim is hence that the Barcelona logo is complex enough to be grantes copyright protection in Spain (i.e. it's above c:COM:TOO Spain), but not complex enough to be granted copyright protection in the US (it's below c:COM:TOO US). But since I'm not certain enough to boldy relicense the logo myself I bring the file to FFD, where one user answers Keep haha.

I hope this directly explains at least the Barça logo FFD. Jonteemil (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm pinging Edward-Woodrow who closed one of the FFDs as keep and Marchjuly who spends a lot of their time browsing non-free content. Jonteemil (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't read the whole discussion above, so I'll just say that I closed the crest discussion as a) consensus seemed to be in that direction and b) it was clearly the sensible thing to do based on my understanding of policy and the arguments presented in the discussion. If I closed in error, I apologize; feel free to trout me. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 18:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Alas, I feel like I've entered into a game of Chinese whispers without knowing. :/ Govvy (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Relax. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, but we've got this now. --Jayron32 16:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Come on Govvy, they have a nook around here for us ludites whenever things turn towards file hosting protocols. Well watch something with slightly more sensible and accessible language. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

LTA IP

47.36.43.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Please block this IP range, sock of Chicken Little 2005, self edited and directed, see this, such as 47.36.43.28 and 47.36.43.20, IP is pinged by that sock in zh wiki 14.0.231.93 (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft and related topics

user:CorbieVreccan made a post at Wikipedia_talk:Systemic_bias#Witchcraft claiming that another user had attempted to WP:CANVASS[110]. I checked and found that appeared to not be the case,[111] but it appeared to me that CorbieVreccan had been attempting to exert WP:OWNERSHIP over the page for some time.[112][113][114]

I became involved,[115] was immediately reverted,[116] and after some back and forth attempts at improvement, made a rough move proposal intended to resolve the conflicting definitions by simply disambiguating and allowing the different definitions to be independently developed. The move proposal was defeated[117] with little consensus actually generated aside from "no move."[118][119] However, CorbieVreccan began to claim across multiple pages that it represented consensus for the article, and all other content related to witchcraft across Wikipedia, as they thought it should be.[120][121][122]

About this time it appears that CorbieVreccan identified me as "the main problem" on "a site-wide POV push" and established coordination with user:Asarlaí for further efforts.[123] I discovered at this point that CorbieVreccan was an admin via their deployment of warnings and “admin notes” to influence conversation and project what felt to be attempts at intimidation.[124][unable to access diff on talk page of now-deleted Witchcraft (diabolic)] They have continued weaponizing policy and processes, including two denied attempts to get the Witchcraft page admin protected, use of the admin noticeboards that resulted in at least one editor saying they felt intimidated,[125] and a block against myself on editing a page currently under an AFD where their edits display a battleground mentality, include blanking the page[126] and edits self-described as being to “undercut the premise of the article.”[127]

I have lost count of the times that edits attempting to include sourced material on pages related to witchcraft have been described as “POV pushing” by one or both of these individuals. Meanwhile, CorbieVreccan specifically has attempted to claim sources which are well-known and respected academically are discredited[128], discredit information based entirely on an author's religion,[129] and ignore information challenging their stated point of view.[130][131]

There's more, but I'm not sure what else to add as relevant and I've lost visibility on some of it through page deletions. This has been exhausting. I'm just trying to cover the material in line with what academic sources say - including sources already being used in the main Witchcraft article; but somehow that's insufficient justification. - Darker Dreams (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Darker Dreams, you need to re-check you diffs, because several of the ones I sampled appear to be in error. So please double check. El_C 18:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to provide diffs to deleted pages since a significant part of the ownership issue has been expressed by not being 'allowed' on the witchcraft page and creation of secondary pages being blocked through afd if they don't meet 'approval' regardless of sourcing. Darker Dreams (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The deleted page diffs, and entire page histories, are visible to admins and 'crats. I fixed the diffs to them in the arbcom report and in my comment below. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what that is in reference to, but this thread is growing quite a bit, so as an outsider to this dispute, it's becoming difficult to keep up with. Regardless, all the OP's diffs of deleted content I looked at were mislinked. But when one knowingly submits deleted diffs, they should at least note them as such, along with an explanation of the respective deletion/s (nominal context). Also, several diffs show edits by Asarlaí for some reason. Beyond that, it seems that there are a lot of WP:BOLD changes (edits / forking). And while being bold is fine, once these bold changes face objections, it is usually expected to observe the maxims of WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. El_C 23:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Among those deleted diffs are attempts to meet wp:onus, Including "Such information should be [...] presented instead in a different article." But it's also hard to meet that when people are adamant about demolishing a house that's being built. Again; including blanking the page and edits self-described as being to “undercut the premise of the article.” - Darker Dreams (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

At the heart of WP:ONUS is how it approaches longstanding versus contending versions: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Otherwise, your reply doesn't address my points on the report's structure. El_C 23:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Disputed content/onus: I have repeatedly provided citation. That citation has included foundation from sources already being used in the article, for the information I've tried to include. I have tried including it with citation and had it buried. It has been manipulated to say literally the opposite of what the citation contains. New articles created based citations have been attacked and deleted before I have a chance to do anything other than create them. I do not feel that I can make a substantive edit without being immediately reverted regardless of citation.

report structure: There's an issue with users trying to exert ownership first over the Witchcraft page, then over the broader topic area. I don't know how I'm supposed to mark diffs to deleted pages and I don't have access to them now that they are deleted. I don't know where I'm supposed be to navigate the apparent bureaucracy for wikipedia seeking this to be addressed. I come here to find and improve information, not get dragged into figuring out which of a dozen different processes I'm supposed to interact with and how so that sourced information can be placed in articles and not get personally attacked for everything I do. - Darker Dreams (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, these un-evidenced assertions are not helping. This is what you need to do. Go through every diff and make sure it actually depicts what you claim it does. As for diffs of deleted content, expressly note those as such and then explain why the given page/s were deleted. Because this report as currently written is subpar. Please don't continue to argue around those instructions and just do it. Failure to do so will be perceived as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. That's it, for now. Thanks. El_C 13:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I have been dragged into this tangentially after voting on a RM related to this dispute. I do not think the situation currently needs admin attention. There is a very nasty content dispute over the lead section of Witchcraft; but the current RFC process seems to be addressing that problem in a civil manner. The concerns and accusations about canvassing or tag-teaming should be ignored; this is a situation where additional voices are helpful, and accusations that any new participant might have been "canvassed" are harmful. As far as POV-pushing: with this type of disagreement, it is inevitable that people view "the other side" as POV-pushing. Until there is some form of consensus, that is not actionable. Walt Yoder (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Walt Yoder: point of clarity; I'm not accusing CV of canvassing specifically. My first encounter was them (incorrectly) making that accusation (diff linked above). - Darker Dreams (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Here we go again This is exactly what Darker Dreams posted to ArbCom (and at the Edit-warring board in defense of Skyerise on July 23). It is full of misrepresentations, personal attacks, confusion, and blatant lies. I suggest folks go and read what happened there. Direct link to my statement to Arbcom. I am requesting WP:BOOMERANG for DD's ongoing disruption, WP:forum shopping, and wasting of Wikipedians' time and energy.
  • Responses by myself and other editors to this same text by Darker Dreams at rejected Arbcom request.

However, if we want to talk more about the ongoing disruption by DD and related users, that's fine. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: having been watching and to some degree involved in this dispute, I personally find no issues with user:Asarlaí's editing as they seem more willing to collaborate. As for User:CorbieVreccan, I can only say that I had hoped that an administrator would hold themselves to higher standards rather than ending up the editor with the higher revert count in sevaral disputes. Skyerise (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Skyerise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a block record for personal attacks and harassment, for edit-warring on WP in general, and after Darker Dreams, is the other most-disruptive person in this dispute, along with Esoterwic. Though her editing is a bit better since DD was blocked. She had to take a 48 hour break when reported for 3RR on Witchcraft by Asarlaí.[132] She also engaged in the same personal attacks as Darker Dreams, calling me a "vandal" for doing normal, good-faith editing on Darker Dreams' POV-pushing Template:Witchcraft sidebar:"rv POV vandalism". Interestingly, Darker Dreams then used basically the same edit summary in that account's personal attacks, also on Asarlaí and me: "Undid revision 1168449182 by CorbieVreccan (talk) POV vandalism","Revert to 02:41, 3 August 2023‎ edit by Josvebot to undo admitted POV vandalism and off-topic push by User:Asarlaí" (there was no "admission" of any of the false accusations in the personal attack edit summaries) - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  That doesn't invalidate or address what I said. Skyerise (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

And with Darker Dreams falsely accusing others of canvassing to coordinate tag-team edit-wars, that is something that Skyerise has actually done:"You just gonna watch from the sidelines?". - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Still deflecting, I see. Skyerise (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I had considered opening an ANI discussion about this dispute weeks ago, but I held off in the hope that Darker Dreams and other editors would WP:DROPTHESTICK when they realized that consensus was against their changes after talk page discussions, a WP:SNOWed requested move, multiple deleted POV forks in response to the failed move, and a dispute resolution discussion (now failed after Darker Dreams attempted to escalate to ARBCOM). I've clarified my opinion on the content dispute at Talk:Witchcraft, but the conduct dispute seems to be the underlying issue here. Darker Dreams and a small number of other editors are frustrated that the article does not reflect the Western neopagan understanding of witchcraft, and they have spent well over a month trying new things to move it in that direction each time their changes are contested, which raises issues of religious POV pushing. There is now an RfC at Talk:Witchcraft, which I believe is out of order as I and a few other editors explained in our responses to that RfC. There are also serious bludgeoning issues as these same editors are dominating the conversation at Talk:Witchcraft. Darker Dreams, for example, has added 71,328 bytes to the talk page since the dispute began last month, which is about as much as CorbieVreccan and Asarlaí combined. Beyond that, we can get into tag teaming to avoid 3RR, as well as the battleground issues where editors have discussed their intentions with one another to combat "Christian" editors (though it's my understanding that several of the editors opposing their changes are not Christian) and to insert pro-occultism content into Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that it's hard to get a word in edgewise on Talk:Witchcraft, and I'm not sure that Darker Dreams's approach is the best, but the fact remains that despite having a perfectly robust article on European witchcraft, the supposedly global article on Witchcraft focuses undue weight on European witch trials. Seem to me that the whole Judeo-Christian background should be covered in Witchcraft in the Middle East and the witch trials summarized in European witchcraft, and the overview article get to the global coverage it professes. Skyerise (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Skye, respectfully, you're one of the main problems on the page and prior to your timeout were the most prolific editor and the one most displaying blatant battleground behavior. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431 (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Care to provide an example that's not a month old? Skyerise (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  What should that matter? Blatant battleground behavior doesn't suddenly become not-objectionable because a few weeks have passed. The civility policies don't have sell-by dates. Ravenswing 09:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  "Darker Dreams, for example, has added 71,328 bytes to the talk page since the dispute began last month." It is possibly worth considering how much of that dedicated to a series of attempts to documenting references/quotes relevant to the discussion, some portion of which I self-collapsed for navigation. - Darker Dreams (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Darker Dreams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has slowed their editing since the partial block for one week for tendentious editing / edit-warring to focus on WP:forum shopping. But
• Skyerise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing the Witchcraft articles at a feverish pace, splitting off many articles into new ones. While so far the ones I've seen seem OK, I am still concerned, with the history of aggressive POV pushing, personal attacks (see diffs above and block log), and this exchange about being patient while revert-warring that this could result in many different article to watch, and that over time the POV push will return on multiple fronts. I'm waiting for someone to say, "AGF!" ... we're way past that at this point. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  CorbieVreccan also has a tendency to exaggerate. I've made several already existing witchcraft articles more robust (Asian witchcraft, European witchcraft, and Witchcraft in Latin America); but I've only created one, Witchcraft in the Middle East, not "many". Skyerise (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  You have proposed new articles for multiple sections on the page. The templates have a link to discuss on the main talk page (which is now hugely cluttered and difficult to navigate, with an ongoing RfC), but I did not see any section set up to discuss more forks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not talking about forks. I'm talking about regional coverage, which is half in place. I think all but one of those links go the the target article talk page. I guess you haven't actually pursued discussing them. The exaggeration is something you and Darker Dreams have in common. You should find a way to work together better. Skyerise (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Skyrise's edits to witchcraft daughter articles are mostly connected to this discussion: Talk:Witchcraft#Article length—Alalch E. 21:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  You restored Neopagan witchcraft from a redirect, challenging a previously uncontested merge from 2017, which did effectively create a child article. Draft:Witch (archetype) and User:Skyerise/sandbox/Witch (archetype) appear to be a partially done spin off. Witchcraft (traditional) and Witchcraft (diabolic) were also created, but I don't know by whom because they were then deleted. Witchcraft (feminist) is also relevant, though it was created by Darker Dreams. Not weighing in on which of these should or shouldn't exist, but there's definitely been some effort to spin off articles, one of which was determined at AfD to be a POV fork. Further move/split proposals were made at Talk:Witchcraft#Proposal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure what my drafts have to do with anything. It's not a "spin-off" of anything. It's missing coverage. I'm undecided whether the material can stand on its own or should be merged somewhere, or where. The others were created by Darker Dreams, not I. Skyerise (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  "that this could result in many different article to watch" how does this not read as "make it difficult for me to wp:own" which is the core complaint I'm making. Also of note, the "forum shopping" arriving here is exactly what several of the arbitrators said should have happened when declining that request. - Darker Dreams (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  How? Well, because the core of your complaint is unclear and poorly-structured, for the reasons I explained above. So, no, you have not established a coherent basis for WP:OWNERSHIP, which the quoted passage does not necessarily presupposes. That said, I don't see how it's WP:FORUMSHOPPING if a declined arbitration request was the only previous forum (I presume you prematurely jumped to arbitration before exhausting all other options, like here). El_C 23:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  It wasn't DD's first forum.

  • Darker Dreams posts same text he used at Arbcom, and here, at ANI at Edit-warring board on July 23, 2023
  • Darker Dreams files "Witchcraft" at Dispute Resolution board, July 25, 2023
  • Then ignoring the DR and RfC in progress,[133] files same text from 3RR at Arbcom on 13 August 2023. This is in addition to long rants with large overlaps in text on multiple talk pages and XfDs. Please see the uninvolved editor statements about this in the filing.
  • And here we are at ANI for round 4, not including all the casting of aspersions in edit summaries and on talk pages. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's right, mediated dispute resolution wasn't exhausted, but was interrupted, and Robert McClenon complained about this, saying: "ArbCom should decline this case, and admonish the filing editor for vexatious filing. Any conduct allegations can go to WP:ANI." —Alalch E. 09:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Huh. Well, that's not good. Prior DR attempts ought to have been provided in a clear way by the OP, rather than partially and half-hazardly, within unmarked (untitled) diffs. El_C 13:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I am somewhat involved with the Talk:Witchcraft discussion, but not deeply so. While I won’t go into content issues here, I will address some of my observations of behavior. One of the main problems with the discussion is that some editors, in particular Darker Dreams keep taking things personally and reacting emotionally. IMHO, it is more productive here to take a detached view, as it helps to maintain a NPOV. WP goes by what reliable sources say, not what our personal opinions or belief systems are.

When Darker Dreams started editing the article, I immediately got the impression that they were trying to right great wrongs. I found some of their edit summaries to be jarring and some of the accusations and personal attacks on the talk page disruptive and incivil. More importantly, I found the manner in which they were making rapid changes to the article without respecting other editors through civil discussion and consensus building disturbing. To my mind their behavior went beyond bold and they were editing with a sustained editorial bias that was contrary to NPOV. It seemed like a steam-roller had hit the article.

Their combativeness on the talk page increased as they continued to push their own personal POV, rather than accepting what reliable sources said. It crossed my mind many times that they were using Wikipedia as a soap box. This was demonstrated by edit warring and leaning towards wiki-lawyering. They accused others of malice rather than listening and trying to work with others collaboratively.

After a requested move that did not result in their favor, they took it to DRN which was cut short by them escalating it to ArbCom who did not take the case, and now we are here at ANI. They were blocked for a week for disruptive editing/edit warring but did not seem to learn from this. They kept repeating the same arguments again and again and insisting that other editors were not acting in good faith. They did not know how to retreat, think things through and work with others.

To my mind, this is the very definition of tendentious editing, WP:TEND. Their behavior has been a huge, time-sink. It is my opinion as an editor that Darker Dreams should be topic blocked from all articles dealing with witchcraft. Netherzone (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I am also involved in the dispute, but also not very deeply perhaps. In connection to the above, I believe that editors should also be aware that, during the dispute, Darker Dreams created three spin-off articles, two of which were deleted: I find it quite noteworthy that one of them underwent A10 deletion (AfD, log); another was AfD'd as a POV fork (AfD); the third one is Witchcraft (feminist) article, and it has problems to put it mildly. —Alalch E. 16:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I have a question about what the OP, User:Darker Dreams, is requesting. What administrative action are you asking for the community to take either against User:CorbieVreccan or against anyone else? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The only administrative action that I see proposed in this thread is that Netherzone has called for a topic-ban against Darker Dreams from the area of witchcraft. Is there any connection between witchcraft and boomerangs? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The decorations on boomerangs and other Indigenous Australian artifacts often carry spiritual and symbolic significance. These designs and patterns are more than just aesthetic elements; they can convey important cultural, spiritual, and ancestral meanings. The decorations on boomerangs can indeed be considered as magical or spiritual symbols in the context of Indigenous Australian cultures. Skyerise (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Support boomerang topic ban. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579 (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose while a couple of article creation attempts were misguided, DD also produced a nice {{Witchcraft sidebar}} which aids navigation between the regional daughter articles under Witchcraft. Skyerise (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Page blocked for following WP:DENY, without warning, in contentious DRV

A long-term abuser (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lazy-restless/Archive) is trying to create a frequently deleted article for more than 10 years. The last creation was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad which was initiated by me.

• This sock came back to start WP:DRV at 19:53, on 17 August‎.[134]
• The sock got blocked for evading his block at 09:42 18 August for block evasion.[135].
• At 10:06, I closed the DRV per WP:DENY, WP:SOCKSTRIKE and WP:SNOW because nobody opposed the AfD closure.[136]
• Now 2 hours later, an involved editor from the AfD re-opened the sock's DRV instead of starting a new DRV, and completely reverted the closure as well as the sock-strike.[137]
• From 17:40, I made 2 reverts against the above editor.[138][139]
• At 17:55, my close was now reverted by a different editor.[140] I brought this issue to their talk page where I exchanged a few messages.[141]
• Now 20 minutes later, at 18:16, I got page blocked, without any relevant warning, in violation of WP:BEFOREBLOCK.[142]
• Blocking admin Cryptic has not offered a valid rationale.[143]

Since socks don't deserve attention per WP:DENY, it clearly makes no sense to waste time over a long-term abuser by providing attention to their filings. If someone else wanted to share the same concerns over the AfD then they were supposed to file a different request instead of unilaterally re-opening sock's complaint.

The block is entirely pointless and should be overturned. It came without warning and edit warring was already stopped in the light of the ongoing discussion. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

See:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 17# Kalki Avatar and Muhammad

The AfD’s initiator, Aman.kumar.goel, an involved party, has now speedy closed this DRV 3 times [144][145][146] and been reverted 3 times. The last time, he deleted my objections[147], then speedy closed, then told @The ed17 he closed since there were no objections[148].

If you look at this AfD’s edit history, you’ll see further problems. Lots of comment deletions and sock accusations some proven, some unproven. If you’re editing with an IP and Aman doesn’t like your comment, he sees a sock. If you’re on a dynamic range, the different IPs are socks, not one user. If I disagree with an IP, I see a fellow editor until proven otherwise.

Now he’s going after @Cryptic here at ANI.

My experiences with this editor have been the most unpleasant of any interactions since my 10 year wikibreak. I made the mistake of getting involved with 2 of his AfDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ved Prakash Upadhyay
  • currently underway
  • Upadhyay authored Kalki Avatar and Muhammad
  • edit history

I lack confidence in Aman’s ability to edit collegially here based on these experiences.

—~~<~ A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I am urging you to strike your outright misleading comment "Lots of comment deletions and sock accusations some proven, some unproven" because every single IP who's comment was struck still remains blocked on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad.

There is not a single user who opposed AfD closure per the version of the DRV which I closed. That close was perfectly valid per WP:DENY and WP:SNOW.

You were wrong with reverting this valid closure.[149] You were required to start a new request instead of re-opening sock's request. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Aman, the other editors here are not chumps. Anyone can look at the DRV edit history: [150]. You delete my objections, then close the DRV. You also strike through objections from IPs.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

You don't get to throw misleading statements just because "editors here are not chumps". Anyone can look at the version of the DRV which I closed. It never had your "objections" and there was no contribution of "IPs" but a single block evading sock. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Aman, there you go again.

You say you closed the DRV without objections - that’s because you deleted them before closing. diff

Clearly duplicitous behaviour.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

This edit which you are citing appears to be revert of subsequent comments after your reopening of the closed DRV, as noted in the edit summary, followed by restoration of the closure.[151] It is not same as this edit (cited by Aman.kumar.goel) where he closed a sock-filed DRV with no support towards the request itself. It was hours before you ever edited the DRV. Dympies (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dympies, please explain these diffs:

Aman closed the DRV 3 times. The second time, he deleted my objection:[152]

His next edit was to close the DRV the second time:[153]

After I reverted his second illegal closure, Aman simultaneously deleted my objection and illegally closed the DRV a third time:[154]

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to your false claim that "You say you closed the DRV without objections - that’s because you deleted them before closing." Don't shift the goalposts. Dympies (talk) 06:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you got off lightly: you were only blocked from the pages where you were edit warring. Your first closure of the DRV was bad form because of your involvement in the AFD, but perhaps barely acceptable. However, your subsequent edit warring was inexcusable. You have been blocked for edit warring before, so you already know it is not acceptable. Please log out for a day and reconsider instead of wikilawyering your way deeper into a violation of the law of holes. —Kusma (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

How? The DRV was started by a sock and the time I made the closer there was nobody opposing the AfD closure. Reverting the closure is absolutely not the way to go. Either the closure has to be disputed or new request has to be started. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ll also note that WP:DENY is just an essay, not a justification for violating our actual policies and guidelines.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:DENY cannot be ignored just because you want us to disregard it. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It isn't an excuse to make WP:INVOLVED closes and blatantly remove other editor's comments. Your extreme interpretation of what is an essay is doing no-one any good. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Reopening a closed discussion soon after closure can be a valid form of disputing the close. "Do not close discussions where you are involved" is valid independent of your arguments for closing. —Kusma (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

DRV is explicitly not a forum for discussing behavioral issues. And early closes there are almost unheard of, absent consent of everyone - including, yes, the nominator, even if they're an ip editing through what's likely an open proxy, and closing/deleting admin (when reversing their decision) - it happens maybe four or five times a year, at most. There is no universe where an early close, by the nominator of the afd being reviewed, while simultaneously removing another editor's good-faith signed comments from the discussion, would be appropriate. —Cryptic 20:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Aman, your disingenuousness and wikilawyering have failed you this time. You closed the DRV knowing you had deleted my objections and stricken through IPs’ objections:

• First:you delete my oppose
• Then: you close the DRV

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kusma: The guideline on "involved" does not care about "where you are involved". A sock can be reverted by anyone.

@Cryptic: The IP was not just a "an open proxy" but a blocked sock.[155] Why Wikipedia is supposed to entertain blocked sock's request? That's why I made the closure because at that time there was nobody who opposed the closure. The reversion of my closure was however invalid. By the time you made block over 2 reverts (which were also made by A.B.), the edit warring was already stopped. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel, you illegally closed the DRV. I reverted this and stated my objections. You then deleted my objections and illegally closed the DRV a second time. I reverted you. You deleted my objections and illegally closed the DRV a third time. The ed17 reverted you.

You also illegally removed DRV tags twice from the AfD and Cryptic reverted you twice.

After he reverted your third DRV closure, you told The ed17 there were no objections at the time. You knew this was false when you wrote it.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel only closed the DRV when the ban evader was blocked. But why A.B. was not blocked for making 2 reverts to restore DRV of a ban evading sock?[156][157] A.B. was doing the same reverts to restore sock on the AfD as well. Why A.B. did not open a separate request and continued to edit war despite being told otherwise?[158] Ping Bishonen, RegentsPark and El C since they are familiar with the area. CharlesWain (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I made 2 reverts of illegal closes. That is not edit-warring. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Illegal? In what jurisdiction? casualdejekyll 15:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn as unwarranted. Those who are not familiar with this area should know that this area is infested with socks and we have already wasted nearly a month over the AfD which was itself disrupted by the above user (A.B.) who was restoring blocked sock's comments[159] and now he edit warred to revert closure of a sock's DRV. These unnecessary attempts to waste time of volunteers is disruptive. CharlesWain (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW, I don’t even care about the book or his author. I don’t normally edit South Asian topics.

  I do care about the integrity of our processes. I got involved purely as an outside neutral editor in what was a very troubled pair of AfDs.

  —20:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC) A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I am not concerned about yours or anyone's intentions. I am only commenting on the actual actions based on the diffs. CharlesWain (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  There's absolutely no way the block should be overturned. Aman.kumar.goel should never have closed the DRV, should never have removed the DRV notice from the AfD discussion, and really should not have gotten into an edit war over either of these actions. I don't think it will happen again if the block is lifted, but an ounce of prevention... SportingFlyer T·C 23:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Kusma. While I wouldn't have blocked you here, it is well within administrators' discretion (though the duration should be shortened to the duration of the DRV discussion). Being technically correct is not a free pass to edit war. You should've instead started a discussion with the editor reverting you and sought the opinion of a third party if necessary. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato: I had already started the discussion here and also here. The block came 30 minutes later without any warning. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm the editor who reopened the DRV. The policy Wikipedia:Involved and the explanatory essay Wikipedia:Non-admin closures are clear: "Non-administrators closing discussions and assessing consensus are held to the same standards; editors closing such discussions should not have been involved the discussion itself or related disputes." Now, there is a great argument to close it early because of the extensive involvement of a LTA sockmaster, and even despite that it's looking so far like there will be a consensus to endorse Drmies' closure. Neither of those facts of that means that the person who nominated the article for deletion in the first place can close the DRV in a way that endorses their viewpoint. If it's blatant, let an uninvolved editor make the call. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Recommend 1RR restriction. Aman has a history of edit warring and wikilawyering as readily seen above and at his block log. I think a 1RR restriction would help keep him out of further trouble and spare us all future ANI dramas. This would allow him to edit constructively. When disagreements arise, he could hammer out consensus on the talk page like everyone else.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• No. Aman.kumar.goel is a highly productive editor in this area. This block was made in mistake which needs correction. You should better address your own history of creating unnecessary trouble for Aman.kumar.goel by reverting him for ban evading socks. [160][161] You are also the only person at this stage who is trying to rescue this deleted article except the sock. CharlesWain (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I have changed the title of this thread to indicate that it is a contentious DRV. I was about to report the edit-war over the closing and reopening of the DRV, and found that it had already been reported. I agree that User:Aman.kumar.goel was involved, and should not have closed the DRV. It appears that User:A. B. also is in good faith requesting deletion review, so that closing the DRV and asking A. B. to refile it would be process for the sake of process. The DRV should be allowed to run. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• (pinged) The block is a good one since AKG is clearly in the wrong here. AKG, if you're involved in a discussion, you shouldn't close it. If you're involved and do close it and someone reverts your close, you most definitely should not re-close it. That said, keeping in mind that the DRV was started by a sock, perhaps the ideal outcome would be to unblock AKG if they promise not to mess with the DRV again. That promise would render the need for the block unnecessary. RegentsPark (comment) 22:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• The block is very limited - it's to two pages, the DRV and the AfD - and is preventing further disruption from taking place due to a clear lack of understanding for DRV processes along with clear WP:IDHT, and I think Cryptic got it spot on. SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• @RegentsPark and SportingFlyer: But I had already stopped reverting on DRV before the block was made since I was discussing elsewhere about it.[162] I was obviously not planning to resume reverting but the block came without any prior warning and in middle of the discussion. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 01:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Unblocking should be the right choice to move forward per the discussion above. Dympies (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• I definitely support unblocking to resolve the matter. I don't see if there was going to be another revert war after The ed17 intervened. I find it somewhat interesting that an LTA managed to make so many wikipedians fight over something that could have been resolved with a simple dialogue. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• To be frank, the initial DRV close was correct since the only person disputing the AfD was the sock puppet who opened it. The revert of this closure by A.B. was inappropriate and then Aman.kumar.goel's revert was also inappropriate.

Cryptic's use of WP:ROLLBACK against what appears to be a good-faith misunderstanding is concerning.[163] Cryptic has not described why reverted the same edits twice while Aman.kumar.goel ensured leaving edit summaries. The use of rollback by Cryptic tantamounts to abuse of rollback in this case. Rollback can be used only against vandalism or socks. Cryptic took more than 3 hours to explain these reverts after making the block.[164] These actions are not in the line with the blocking policy.

Yes Aman.kumar.goel should be unblocked as he has confirmed he was not willing to revert again but it's clear that he is not the only one who has done a mistake here. Orientls (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

There was not a “good faith misunderstanding” as you put it. Aman’s 3 closures were illegal and disruptive edit-warring. They were reverted by 2 different editors.

@Orientls please explain how the following is “good faith”:

• Before he closed the DRVs the second time, he first deleted my objection:[165]
• His next edit was to close the DRV:[166]
• After I reverted his second illegal closure, Aman simultaneously deleted my objection and illegally closed the DRV a third time:[167]

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Orientls your criticism of Cryptic’s rollbacks is disingenuous. Twice, Aman illegally deleted the DRV notice from the AfD. Cryptic reverted them.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk like "illegally deleted" is over-the-top and irrelevant. We know what happened—there is (according to the above) a long-term abuser who has recreated an article. WP:DENY is much more than "just an essay"—it is the only effective method available to deal with LTAs. AKG should not have edit warred but this is a standard issue where one side wants all content and the other wants to apply DENY. Calling it illegal is a misunderstanding. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• @A.B. This means you admit that you were also edit warring. When disputing the closure, you have to first consult the editor who has closed it on their talk page but that is not what you have done. You went to wage an unnecessary edit war. Wikipedia is not a judicial body so your use of the term "illegal" is misleading. It is correct that WP:ROLLBACK says only vandalism should be reverted with rollback tool and Aman.kumar.goel's edits were nothing more than a misunderstanding as evident from his edit summaries.[168] Cryptic was required to explain their reverts at least in the edit summaries but it never happened. By attacking editors and their comments as "disingenuous", "disingenuousness", "duplicitous" across this thread, you have already put yourself into WP:NPA block territory. You must strike these personal attacks. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

It was improper, but it wasn't "illegal." SportingFlyer T·C 09:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Cryptic, your call here. If you may wish to unblock the user with warnings/advise, or if you may wish the block to continue, please do either so this discussion can be closed. Thank you, Lourdes 07:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Nobody behaved well here. The first closure (terminating a process started by a blocked sock, which nobody had yet supported) is a common practice as a reasonable application of WP:BLOCKEVADE, which is policy and which allows the removal of edits made by socks. I don't see any reason why a DRV would be exempt from that. While other people had weighed in, they had (at that point) all weighed in in opposition to the sock, so makes no sense to argue that that meant the discussion had to be allowed to run its full course. If anyone had weighed in in favor of overturning at that time it would be different, but they hadn't. Likewise, I don't think involvement matters when making such BLOCKEVADE reverts; they're done without prejudice and are straightforward actions that require no particular judgement call - they are not "real" closures in the normal sense of the word. (I wouldn't have phrased it as a closure myself - the idea is that it ought to be erased as if it never occurred - but as far as that goes it'd only be a technicality if they'd only removed the discussion once.) However, BLOCKEVADE and DENY both have clear limits - a sockpuppet's edits can be reverted once by anyone without further rationale, but they can also be restored by anyone, and after that they have to be treated normally. At that point it definitely wasn't appropriate for Aman to close it again, since that was no longer a lightweight judgement-free implementation of WP:BLOCKEVADE. And their comments afterwards (insisting that A.B. needed to open a new discussion) make no sense - re-opening the DRV was equivalent to doing so; arguing that they need to create a new discussion smacks of trying to throw red tape at them for the sake of red tape. As long as the sockpuppet's comments are striken, ensuring the eventual closer knows to disregard them, what would be the advantage of a new discussion? Really, I think it's reasonable to question why A.B. wanted to restore that DRV instead of starting another one (doing so meant that all the opposition already present was preserved, and further editors would probably be less likely to support a position taken by a blocked sock) but they were within their rights to do so. I do also feel it was somewhat inappropriate of A.B. to unstrike the sockpuppet's comments in their reverts - it's important that the closer know they were a blocked sockpuppet. Even if I'm not sure there's a specific policy for it, clearly an editor shouldn't do something in a structured discussion that might obscure the fact that someone was a banned sockpuppet, since that's something the closer needs to know. --Aquillion (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think those of us who participate more DRV see this differently than others. DRV has very specific rules on when to close a discussion just because reviewing deletion is generally a very important task, and generally requires an administrator to close (because tools are generally needed to carry out the next step). There are only four specific speedy closure rules for DRV, and WP:BLOCKEVADE is specifically not mentioned. As a result I see this as a very serious misunderstanding on AKG's part. SportingFlyer T·C 09:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's covered in the fourth bullet point. I've made such closures myself (though not recently, and I don't think it's worth going and looking for a diff). But the point is to minimize disruption and wasted editor-hours, and the closure attempts here did the precise opposite in both respects. It's not like the discussion was ever in any danger of giving the ip what they wanted. —Cryptic 20:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  This is a standard issue where a group following their own rules (see WP:IAR) collides with the practical difficulties of dealing with LTAs. The wikipolitics of deletion discussions is particularly sensitive but that's all it is—wikipolitics. Their rules are no more sancrosanct than WP:EVADE or WP:BANREVERT or indeed, WP:DENY. As outlined above, edit warring is always a mistake but the initial close was not improper. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree - it's almost always incorrect to close something at DRV as someone who is involved. SportingFlyer T·C 11:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:BANREVERT is a site-wide policy, and it would be improper to sanction an editor for enforcing it. DRV cannot make itself immune. There is no excuse for reverting the restoration by an editor in good standing, though. At that point, policy considers the thread to belong to whoever restored it, so unless they're violating some other policy, it's valid. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Not only is WP:INVOLVED also a site-wide policy, the block was not levied because of WP:BANREVERT. SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  You are wrong because the BANREVERT is among the reasons behind blocking in the words of Cryptic; "early closes there are almost unheard of, absent consent of everyone - including, yes, the nominator, even if they're an ip editing through what's likely an open proxy".[169] Orientls (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Lucky that's among the reasons. If it was the sole reason for the block, IMO that would be a serious enough administrative error that we should be contemplating an arbcom case. User:Cryptic, WP:DENY is site-wide policy. Please learn it if you want to continue to be an admin. If you're unwilling, please hand in your tools voluntarily under a cloud and save us the hassle of a future arbcom case when you ignore WP:DENY in circumstances where a block wasn't otherwise justified. DRV regulars, we have enough problem areas as it is. Please do not allow DRV to become another one since it serves a useful purpose. If you continue to ignore site wide policy, we may have no choice but to shut down DRV and look at other ways of handling deletion reviews which doesn't allow the development of an insular WP:LOCALCONSENSUS board that has developed a culture where sitewide policy is ignored is. Such a thing is completely unacceptable so it's not something we should allow to continue. Nil Einne (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  P.S. Since I'm a nitpicker myself, I should clarify it is WP:BLOCKEVADE and WP:SOCK which are policy which is what I should have said instead of WP:DENY. Remember that WP:3RRNO even makes it clear that reverting a sock or evader doesn't count as edit warring. For further clarity, I'm aware that Aman Kumar Goel started to edit war against non socks, that's why I said there was other reasonable justification for the block. My point is that it's well established that block and ban evaders are unwelcome here, and editors are very welcome to remove their disruption no matter whether they're technically WP:INVOLVED. It's something that all admins, and frankly all experienced editors hoping to contribution useful to DRV should be well aware of. Nil Einne (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I should clarify I have no specific opposition A.B. restoring the discussion if they felt it had merit (as opposed to restoring it since they thought what Aman Kumar Goel did was improper). However as Aquillion's said, the sock's comments should have remained struck. And it might have been better to simply start a fresh discussion untainted by a sock if there was little useful to support the case A.B. wanted to make. It's complicated since older participants may feel they already addressed A.B. points and there was no need for them to remake them. OTOH, as we've seen at ANI and elsewhere, when we leave open threads started by known socks, there can be dissatisfaction with the result which lasts a long time and generates more AN//I threads and I see no reason to doubt the same could happen at DRV. Note that IMO if there have been good faith contributions, unless you're absolutely sure the people who made the comment doesn't mind, it's generally better to archive etc rather than to delete a pointless discussion started by the sock. While it is cleaner to simply delete all sock nonsense, we do have to consider the feelings or other editors who might be unhappy with their good faith contributions being deleted. If it's a small number of contributions you could ask for permission but if it's complicated just strike and close/archive. Anything else risks increasing disruption from the sock (which could be what they want), not reduce it which should ultimately be our goal. Perhaps my final point, I think we need to be clear why BANEVADE matters here. This case is complicated by the fact there were other comments even if they were almost universally in opposition to the sock. However, from what User:SportingFlyer has said, it seems to me they think that if a sock S opens a DRV then editor E who was involved in the deletion cannot speedy close this discussion even if there are no comments besides sock S. And this would apply even if editor E noticed this sock (before or after the report, it doesn't matter) and reported sock S to an admin or CU who agreed and blocked sock S as a sock. This is not in any way acceptable, and DRV need to get with the programme, or risk being shut down. Socks and their contributions are unwelcome, and so there is no harm in removing them, involved or not. Nil Einne (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Nil Einne, this is the language at the top of the Wikipedia:Deny recognition (“WP:DENY”)

• ” This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.”

Cryptic did not violate any policy. It is inappropriate to say he should hand in his tools. Clearly outside a small group of editors, there is wide support here for Cryptic’s actions.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: If I can squeeze a word in edgewise through the edit conflicts?

WP:DENY is not site-wide or any other sort of policy [I see you acknowledged that afterwards]. It doesn't say anything like what you seem think it does. What actual policy has to say is that editors can reinstate the edits of blocked users if "the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits", which I think we can all agree A. B. has done. And a selective quote out of context - when the context is on this very page, even if it's not visible in the linked diff - doesn't make something true. You want to know what I blocked for? You could look at what I said I blocked for.

Look. I don't usually participate in reviews of my administrative actions - if they can't stand on the reasons I stated for them, they probably weren't justified - but this I cannot allow to stand. —Cryptic 20:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@A. B.: Yes I linked to the wrong pages. I already acknowledged that. Also you and User:Cryptic seem to have misunderstood they key point of my comments. Aman.kumar.goel was edit warring against non socks. For that reason the block was justified.

But this in no way shape or form justifies any misunderstanding of policy on the part of an admin. Socks are unwelcome to edit here. Editors can remove their contributions without concern even when they are involved. As I said in my clarification above which I unfortunately only finished after you two posted, this is very important thing that needs to be understood from this discussion.

Since if we put aside the case which involved good faith contributions and editing warring, there is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor removing the contributions of a sock even if you are involved. Any admin needs to know this. It doesn't matter if you're at DRV or anywhere else.

It's deeply concerning that from Cryptic own comments here at ANI (which I read before my first reply), it sounds like they do not understand this. As I said, their block was justified for other reasons, so I'm not suggesting an arbcom case would succeed which I said in my first reply before any edits. But the fact remains an admin who is so seriously misinformed of policy is surely going to make a mistake in the future and so needs to either quickly learn, or yes should just hand in their tools.

Putting Cryptic aside, SportingFlyer definitely doesn't seem to understand fundamental policy and thinks some localconsensus at DRV override sitewide policy on BLOCKEVADE.

If another editor wishes to reintroduce the contributions of a sock, that's fine provided they are doing so because they feel they have merit. It is however unacceptable to restore the contributions simply because you don't think the editor had any right to remove them because they were uninvolved or because of some local consensus at WP:DRV. Note that I am not saying this happened here, I mentioned it just because it is important to understand the key issue namely there is nothing wrong with removing the contributions of socks.

Ultimately I remain deeply concerned that SportingFlyer, and probably Cryptic seems to think some localconsensus at DRV means discussions can't be closed by an uninvolved editor when they clear can be in certain circumstances as they can be anywhere else.

Note also that in the case of a talk page discussion, it's well accepted that sock contributions can be struck and discarded. Good faith replies from non socks shouldn't be. However the net result of this is if another editor agrees with what a sock said, they should reintroduce these points, preferably in their one words rather than trying to fight the striking of sock's comments. (This doesn't apply in article space of course.)

P.S. One reason why I'm so concerned is SportingFlyer kept insisting there is effectively some local consensus at DRV which prevented the application of BLOCKEVADE which is well accepted by regulars. This was greatly compounded when I read Cryptic's clarification of their block linked by Orientls above when they seemed to ignore the important points. (Was the editor a sock because if so Aman Kumar Goel involvement and DRV's localconsensus was irrelevant as to the basics of removing the socks contributions. How Aman Kumar Goel handled the good faith contributions of others is a reasonable point of discussion. Aman Kumar Goel editwarring is not, it was wrong. I don't see anyone who has questioned this except for maybe Aman Kumar Goel themselves.)

Maybe SportingFlyer is simply wrong and DRV regulars don't feel that way, I don't know. It would be good if someone could clarify if DRV actually understands this key point.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course I don't think local consensus at DRV overrides WP:BLOCKEVADE. Do you really think I'm arguing socks are welcome there? The entire problem here started because an WP:INVOLVED non-administrator closed the discussion, and the prong that they closed it under even notes that generally these are "administrative closes." If they had just struck the sock's comments, we'd be fine. If they had asked an admin to close early, we'd be fine. If they hadn't reverted after it was reopened, we'd be fine. But you've completely mis-interpreted what I'm arguing, and considering you've said that I "definitely doesn't seem to understand fundamental policy" and were yet incorrect in even understanding what I was arguing, I'd like it if you offered an apology. SportingFlyer T·C 21:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see Cryptic themselves has pointed out above SportingFlyer is simply wrong as DRV speedy closure guidelines implicitly acknowledges the legitimacy of closures for BANEVADE reasons "Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations" Given this, it seems Cryptic must understand that a local consensus at DRV cannot override BANEVADE or SOCK so I no longer have concerns over their understanding of this fundamental point. However I've re-read what they said above several times and stick by my original comment. It was very unclear from what Cryptic said that they said that they understood this important point namely that if the editor was a sock, removing their contributions in as reasonable a manner as possible was fully justified no matter involvement or DRV guidelines. Which given the presence of other good faith contributions was complicated so we can debate the best way to do so, but not the fundamental issue namely that socks are unwelcome so involved doesn't matter, DRV guidelines notwithstanding. Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

In case there's still any doubt, even if an editor W in good standing reverted solely for an invalid reason e.g. saying editor E should not close a discussion started by and who's sole contributors were sock S (or maybe editor E too) when it was already established sock S was a sock, editor E should not get into an edit war with editor W. At most, I'd argue a single reversion by editor E of editor W's reversion combined with a polite explanation on editor W's talk page might be okay. Any further than that barring further specific consensus would almost definitely be wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. As always, if you find yourself needing to edit war against an editor in good standing unless it's WP:3RRNO (which would apply to the sock edits themselves but for good reason isn't generally taken to apply to the restoration of sock edits), then just don't. As annoying and dumb as it may seem, get the consensus first. Nil Einne (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne writes: Maybe SportingFlyer is simply wrong and DRV regulars don't feel that way, I don't know. It would be good if someone could clarify if DRV actually understands this key point. I think that I am one of the DRV regulars, but I think that I don't know what the supposed rule at DRV is. I am not aware of a local rule at DRV about early closures. It is true that early closures at DRV are rare. I don't think that is because of a rule. I think that is just the way it is. So what, if anything, is the issue about the culture at DRV? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

A DRV was just early-closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I see why there is confusion about whether there is a local consensus at DRV about early closures. User:SportingFlyer has misinterpreted a notice. SportingFlyer wrote: There are only four specific speedy closure rules for DRV, and WP:BLOCKEVADE is specifically not mentioned. It is true that DRV lists four DRV-specific speedy closures. It doesn't say that those are the only reasons for speedy closure. Besides, the fourth speedy closure is a catch-all:

Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

I would say that an appeal by a sock has no prospect of success. Anyway, the list doesn't say that those are the only reasons for speedy closure. So SportingFlyer made an easy-to-make-mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking at this from the perspective of a non-administrative closer. If I went to see if I can close a discussion early, I'd look at the four reasons why. The fourth is written: Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success...these will usually be marked as "administrative close". It can apply to a sock's nomination, but as a non-admin, even if a sock had started a discussion, there's no way I would read this and think, oh, I can close this discussion on my own. I think the "administrative close" bit is key. (Note I have closed DRV before, as someone involved, after the closer withdrew their nomination, and no one else had opposed at that point, with the express note anyone could revert the close.) SportingFlyer T·C 09:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Overturn - It can be argued on the process, but the DRV has a snowballs chance in hell of actually convincing anyone. Started by a sock, on an article that was clearly non notable, with keep votes not based in policy - It would be impossible to convince any reasonable editor that the close was wrong. That was reflected in the votes there.

This is an area with a lot of disruption, particularly by POV socks. The major issue here is that the block was more punitive than preventive, since no ongoing disruption was taking place. A reminder to editors in this discussion, who seem to have forgotten this - "They did something wrong, we should punish them" is not the standard at Wikipedia. Blocks are issued to prevent disruption, not to punish things that are perceived as (potentially, in this case, controversially) disruptive. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Good block, but limit the block to 7 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Overturn bad block. The entire issue emerged with uncommon understanding over closing a unanimously opposed DRV which was started by a ban evader. It is clear now that Aman.kumar.goel was correct with closing it. Had A.B. and Cryptic recognized it, then there would be no issue. Yes Aman.kumar.goel edit warred but so did A.B. and Cryptic as rightly noted above. Starting with A.B., he had unilaterally reverted a correct closure 2 times with false impression that the sock was a legitimate user given their removal of sock-strike.[170] A.B. clearly refused to stop reverting it even after being told about the right procedure.[171] Cryptic has abused rollback for making 2 reverts and he provided explanation for these reverts hours after making the block.[172] [173] I am not seeing any justification for this behavior. Capitals00 (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Overturn per above. Edit warring to revert closure of a filing (by sock) is meaningless. Socks are not allowed to evade block. We warn even vandals but there was no warning for the OP. Cryptic was himself edit warring with the OP so I don't think he was qualified to make a block in the first place. Chronology of the events tell that the block came in middle of an ongoing discussion[174] thus it was not preventative. It is safe to say that if Cryptic had reported OP on a appropriate noticeboard then the report would be unsuccessful. Azuredivay (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse but lift now - a good (partial) block; "I know it's a sock" doesn't justify involved edit-warring for a procedural discussion, and the page-ban was appropriately narrow. But now the socking is confirmed, and the DRV is approaching SNOW close support; there is no longer a need for the block. Walt Yoder (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn as a bad block per policy. As noted above, socking is expressly included in the exception to 3RR. SN54129 14:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Long term issues with user Kinfo Pedia, redux

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

---

• Kinfo Pedia (talk · contribs) has long caused immense difficulties for those trying to clean up damage at Glenn Miller, with perhaps hundreds of edits reverted. I had sort of hoped for a topic ban last year, but I don't think that will solve this, as can be seen at [175], [176], [177], [178], and external links under 'see also' [179]. Previously there were lengthy disruptions at [180], [181], [182] and [183]. The earlier issues culminated in my report here [184], but really not much has changed since. To mix metaphors, a lot of leeway has been given, and the batting average hasn't improved. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Given them a two weeks' block from the article space and have given them some essential reading. Do come back in case they resume editing articles in the same manner after the two-weeks' block. Thank you, Lourdes 07:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Lourdes. Back in December, I think they made a vague resolution to learn more about editing here with respect to guidelines. We'll see in a few weeks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Yousefsw07 edit-warring, pushing unsourced POV changes

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

---

Yousefsw07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Account has been consistently making unsourced POV edits across multiple articles (generally to infoboxes of military history articles concerning Libya). All have been reverted and they frequently edit-war over them. They received multiple warnings about this on their talk page, with no change in behaviour.

• Examples of unsourced POV edits: [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], etc.
• Examples of edit-warring: at Chadian–Libyan War ([190], [191], [192]), Battle of Wazzin ([193], [194], [195], [196]), Second Italo-Senussi War ([197] and [198]). All continuing after they were already warned about edit-warring on their talk page on 13 August. R Prazeres (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours: User talk:Yousefsw07#Block. El_C 14:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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

14.0.128.0/17

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

---

14.0.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This IP range possible broke edit ban in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and List of Disney animated films based on fairy tales, please see [199], why IP user 14.0.229.194 know Chicken Little 2005 has already blocked in this wiki and Meta? I feel this LTA camouflage anti vandal user and obtain the trust, and this IP range must not new user, also, sometimes this IP range can edit in this page.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Note, old sock 124.217.188.0/23 edit in this page before.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Absurd forms of vandalism

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

---

Recently I have seen many different IPs which are going out of the typical vandalism trends. Hurricane Hilary (2023) has been ref-bombed by several IPs recently, while User talk:Tamzin has been bombed by worthless nonsense. Do these events deserve a deep investigation? IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 10:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Zero diffs provided. I see no particular problem with Tamzin's Talk page, and if there were a problem, she is well able to deal with it herself. Hilary was semi'd earlier today for 12 hours (unusual) for disruption, but if there is a problem after that protection expires, WP:RFPP is the place to go.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I blocked the IP, who seems to be amusing themselves by testing boundaries. Block or protect and ignore. Acroterion (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

For those of us who are totally in the dark, the IP blocked by Acroterion (for two weeks) is Special:contributions/77.48.135.9. BTW, their edits to Tamzin's Talk page were on August 11, and their edits to Hilary were today.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

It's LTA stuff, revert them, block any IPs with repeat usage or accounts, and protect pages as necessary, but otherwise ignore them. Blocks can be requested at WP:AIV, protection can be requested at WP:RFP; if they return with autoconfirmed socks don't hesitate to request ECP. Eventually they'll get bored and find something else to do. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The IP is (at least sometimes) a residential proxy, so I'm actually not sure if this is the same LTA now or if this is two people proxying through the same IP. Doesn't matter hugely at this juncture, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree, there's a significant chance it's two people using the same service, but whether it's one LTA or two (or more) different LTAs really doesn't matter. There was a discussion a ways back at WPOP where it came up that multiple LTAs were using the same known cheap residential proxy service provider, but I don't have the time to dig it up right now, and again it probably doesn't matter. TBH I probably shouldn't be looking at Wikipedia at all today or for the next month or so, but you know, procrastination.

Anyway, 세상에 열린 (talk · contribs) is now blocked, and another AC sock has followed. If disruption persists with more autoconfirmed socks than a bump to ECP can be requested at RFP, but otherwise there's nothing more to do here. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Did I do the right thing here?

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

---

I don't think I've ever directly edited someone else's userpage before but I felt like it was warranted in this context [200]. I sincerely do believe this qualifies as "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing" (which is text that can be read by following the policy shortcut I used in my edit summary). I tend to prefer not to take impulsive actions and I can doubt myself a lot, so I figured I might as well skip some potential future drama by just asking for some uninvolved input. Did I do the right thing here from a policy perspective? ANI might not be the best place but the only other one I can think of would be WP:XRV and what I did doesn't really have anything to do with the usage of advanced permissions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

For context with those unfamiliar with the current state of gender-related media, What Is a Woman? is a controversial political film that answers its title question with, essentially, "a cisgender woman". It would probably have been better to discuss with SCB before removing, and/or to ask an admin to remove (admins have no special status in removing userpage violations, but it tends to go over better when we're the ones to do it), but now that it's done, I'd say the removal is in keeping with WP:POLEMIC (tbh a somewhat poorly named policy section, since it covers more than polemics)—statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. In the right circumstance that can definitely include support for a work of media that does the same. In another case I might AGF that "they don't mean it that way", but SCB was blocked by El_C in October for a comment that used the rationale "biology isn't hateful" to defend another editor's RfA oppose on the basis of trans status. So this does seem to be a recurring issue.

So, short answer to your question is: Not entirely, but I think the end result is the correct one. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a case of an editor that should, at the very least, receive a final warning before they are shown the door. While looking at their user page history, they thought this addition was fine, a sentence added right after adding a quote by JK Rowling (context on how that's related to those unaware). Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I was definitely thinking I should wait or maybe even do nothing. I'm a cisgender woman but I've heard of the film and using a userbox to say one enjoys it seemed wrong. Before I did anything, I double-checked by reading policy about userpages. I read everything at WP:UPNOT which explicitly says In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. racist ideology). Whether serious or trolling, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself, and "Wikipedia is not censored" relates to article pages and images; in other namespaces there are restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but don't be inconsiderate. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor. Reading that gave me the confidence to do so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has rightly taken a robust stance against permitting statements that attack a person's identity. While a warning probably would've worked best, I think Tamzin is right: the proper outcome was achieved. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there some reason the editor hasn't been topic banned from GG area? Seems to me they've well earned it and I assume someone must have given them a CT alert by now. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Special:AbuseLog/33583676. Also, @Squared.Circle.Boxing, can you explain what "Where's Wanda (probably hell)? Men nearing 50 who can't play chess shouldn't write books lol", currently at the top of your userpage, means? I ask primarily because we do have an editor in the GENSEX topic area named WanderingWanda (who is very much alive, baruch hashem), and I can't figure out if the referent here is supposed to be them or Wanda Maximoff or somebody else. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for him, but when I read that I assumed it to be a reference to the Where's Waldo? series which has a character named Wenda. I actually misremembered the character's name as Wanda myself before I looked this up. I used to have a bunch of fun finding said characters when I was younger. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

*cough* Where's Wally, I think you'll find! Where are our problematic culture warrior editors when it really matters! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The diffs Isabella Belato provided were a month apart, so it wasn't really right after. The sentence I added is regretted and was self reverted. Userpage has been blanked, and I wouldn't argue against deletion. The block was not to defend another editor's RfA oppose on the basis of trans status. Without looking at the diff, I believe it was a reply to a specific comment that I so very badly misinterpreted. Regardless, bad form all the same. The Wanda comment was not about WanderingWanda; I'm pretty sure we've never interacted or crossed paths. – ².O.^Boxing 17:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: I think what they meant by right after was the next edit in the page history. I was hoping you could clarify what exactly you regret about all this? It seems like the CT warning didn't change your behaviour in regards to the topic area. I will say I agree with you about your lack of interaction with WanderingWanda, though. [201] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

These comments [202] [203] give Squared.Circle.Boxing explanation at the time for their comments that lead to their earlier block. Nil Einne (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a CT alert in my talk page history, only a DS alert from 2021 which had nothing to do with inflammatory actions. I don't really understand what this is; nobody edited my talk page at 18:08 on 11 October 2022. – ².O.^Boxing 01:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Squared.Circle.Boxing: I'm sure you're right you were never given a CTOP alert but it shouldn't matter. You were given this DS alert on gender-related disputes etc [204] in 2021 as you acknowledged. Note that it doesn't matter why the alert in 2021 was issued, technically alerts are not supposed to be given for any particular concerns other than for edits in the topic area anyway.

The point is the 2021 alert covered the "gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them" topic area so you were aware then this is an area where we have special rules because of the problems we have had in the past from a myriad an editors, special rules which required you to be on your best behaviour.

The edit filter reflects the fact in 2022, an editor started to give you an alert but stopped I assume because they realised you'd already been given an alert less than a year ago, the one in 2021 we're talking about. Under the old DS system, alerts had to be given every year but no more frequent. (There were some situations were an editor was aware without a formal alert.)

Under the new system we're presuming you remember them for the particular topic area when given an alert once, see Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Comparison with discretionary sanctions. AFAIK, this applies to alerts given under DS too even ones which technically expired before CTOP come into play.

Are you saying that despite the alert in 2021, you had forgotten and so were unaware that gender-related disputed etc was an area we had special rules and which required your best behaviour? If you were unaware we'll you're aware now so please be on your best behaviour going forward.

If you accept you were aware, then the question still applies. Are the edits to your user page an example of your best behaviour? If they are, then unless you quickly learn from this thread a topic ban seem inevitable to me. If they're not, then what went wrong and how do you plan to ensure this does not happen ever again? I'll put aside the 2022 block and what lead to it as an acknowledged mistake although personally I don't think it should have arisen even with your misunderstanding.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Clovermoss you've already gotten several comments of support from the community, including multiple admins, so you may choose to weight my own opinion accordingly, but I did want to put a slightly different spin on this. I think you owed SCB a conversation about this before the unilateral edit to their user page.

While I personally find anti-trans rhetoric manifestly irrational and objectionable, we do not not at present have a community mandate that anyone who expresses a particular opinion about what constitutes "being a woman" is per se a polemic or offensive statement. And while you have found some support for that amongst the administrative corps here, and that may indicate you are on safe ground in that respect, I suspect if this same question were put to the larger community (via say the village pump), the matter would be considered far more contentious.

Much as I think the userbox is provocative, there is more than whiff of RGW and bias in removing userboxes that touch upon commentary about certain forms of identity, while many, many, many others are presently permitted which we can reliably predict give offense to someone. If I had my druthers, all infoboxes which make statements about personal values regarding contentious topics (other than strictly editorial matters) would be on the chopping block. Indeed, I think vast swaths of userboxes violate WP:POLEMIC, WP:NOTAFORUM, and various other policies meant to create a firewall between our personal beliefs and our work on this project, and could stand to go. I grant you that how we would define the distinction would be a deeply complicated task, but it's all academic for the present time, as there is very little initiative to make such a sweeping change. Instead we have an ad-hoc system which lends itself to reasonable claims of cultural bias.

Considering that context, and the fact that you were acting upon a value that sits atop a culture war divide, in a CTOP area, I think the right thing to do here was to approach the editor and discuss this matter, hoping to get them to voluntarily take it down. Failing that, WP:MfD is very clearly where you should have taken the matter next. This exact situation is covered by policy afterall. I think your good sense in bringing the matter here after the fact, combined with support for your views here regarding the underlying social issue has lent to this discussion the presumption that you merely fast-tracked what was ultimately the outcome that would have resulted. I personally don't think I can be quite so laissez-faire about a user addressing this issue unilaterally and so far out of process, no matter how much I'd like to see that userbox go, given there is a system in place for you to seek such changes via consensus. Just one rank-and-file community member's opinion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective. I think talking to people you have potential issues with to resolve conflicts tends to be a good way to approach most sitations. If I asked him to take it down before I did, maybe he would've. As for MfD, I don't think that would nessecarily apply here? The userbox itself is technically Template:User enjoys TV. Under most circumstances, I wouldn't consider that userbox offensive. It's the context of what it's being used for. Just to clarify, you don't agree with my intrepretation of "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor" at WP:UPNOT here? That's the sentence that prompted me to feel okay with doing anything immediately. Maybe there should be further clarification at the related talk page about circumstances where that may not be the case if it's something that the community could be more divided on. I just want to make sure I'm understanding your train of thought here correctly. Basically what you're saying is that my actions are kind of in a grey area from a process standpoint but would have likely concluded with the same result? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that is a fair summary. Actually MfD may or may not have been the right forum for this issue, given you were not seeking to delete the whole user page, but my overall perspective/advice remains the same: it should have been taken to the community through your best goodfaith guess at the most appropriate community forum (very possibly here, if nowhere else). We cannot really afford to permit individual users to police one-another's user pages unilaterally, imo. It just opens up an entire pandora's box of potential issues and forms of disruption. That said, I think you are correct that the UPNOT language you cite to does muddy those waters a bit. However, in my opinion, we are on untested ground here in saying that the usage of the template here constitutes "extremely offensive" content. It's provocative and offensive to some, no doubt (and obnoxious to yours truly), but I do not think it falls into the category of content intended to be covered by that provision.

For persuasive authority, I have observed several conversations in different spaces on the project over the last year or two contemplating whether self-identifying as a 'Terf' constitutes a statement that flags a user as non-collaborative, NOTHERE, or automatically and overtly antagonistic to certain other editors, such that they should be blocked outright or topic banned from GENSEX topics on the basis of this statement of identity alone. Those questions always came as part of a complex of broader disruption or other issues, so it is difficult to disentangle them, but I observed what I think can fairly be described as a great deal of discomfort from many community members at the suggestion that such a statement of perspective on gender and sex is enough to label someone as per se incompatible with the project or particular content areas.

Now, consensus as to that may change in time, but I'd say we need clarity in this area at a minimum before we authorize people to go around judging eachother to be in violation of community norms simply because they have an interpretation of gender which does not align with our own. Without going into my entire history and outlook with trans issues, let me just say that I am highly opinionated in a direction which supports trans identity. But I personally think it is a bridge too far to set a standard that anyone who feels differently has committed an act that is "extremely offensive" by sharing that view. Polemic and divisive and problematic enough for me to !vote to delete that infobox on sight in a community discussion? Oh you betcha, yeah. Extremely offensive to the degree that I don't mind individual editors using it as justification to unilaterally edit one-another's user pages? No, I'm afraid not.

At least, not without a strong endorsement from the community that this is how the majority feels about such statements. Because otherwise it just would serve to open the floodgates if we let individual editors do this for any divisive cultural issue--and even more disruption I fear if we started supporting all the editors who acted one way on a certain ideological divide and punishing those who acted in a similar fashion along another criteria.

Now, you're going to get a lot of variation along a "your mileage may vary" interpretation of the policy language you cite. But I just don't think we have, as a community, validated that trans-skeptic beliefs (absent additional hateful words or bigoted conduct) qualify as defacto "offensive". And again, it's not from a lack of strong personal distaste for the content of those beliefs that I say this. I'm trying to separate my personal beliefs from community process and the need to keep our project a space that maintains some distance and objectivity with regard to the divisive issues we sometimes have to cover neutrally (while also struggling with their implications for our internal processes). I hope that distinction makes sense. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Highly disrespectful editing behaviour.

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

---

• Seasider53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Firstly Seasider53 removed what I believe perfectly valid content here, I restored it once, as I feel its valid content, he removed it a second time, I reverted it on good faith edit once more to try and leave it at that. But alas, Seasider53 breaks the WP:3RR and tag's my talk page uw-3. Frankly, this behaviour is unacceptable in my opinion. How is adding legitimate correct information to an article regarded as disruptive editing is bizarre. There is frankly nothing wrong with the content, just the behaviour of Seasider in my opinion. I don't want him banned or anything like that, just for someone to tell the guy to have respect for other editors, I've seen it before towards other editors, I just don't think his type of editing practices should be this. P.S. can someone restore the content, Harry Kane the 3rd every English player for Bayern Munich is noteworthy, [205], Govvy (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I made two reversions, so I don't know how you've come up with a 3RR violation. And I asked for you to explain on the Harry Kane talk page why you think said information is notable, yet you use an edit summary to state “I like it”…? Seasider53 (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Obviously the user is right, they didn't break the 3RR, but did three reverts today. While they didn't touch the article talk page, should Govvy restore the edit and Seasider53 removing, it will really be a violation. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 16:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Where are the “three reverts today”? And my edit yesterday wasn’t a reversion. Seasider53 (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute in which neither experienced editor has made use of the article talk page. Not an issue for ANI. Schazjmd (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Chuachenchie

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

---

I am concerned about the behavior of User:Chuachenchie, an editor for more than 2 years, who:

1. has not provided a single edit summary during their entire Wikipedia tenure despite being asked multiple times to do so (see warnings #1, #2, #3, #4, #5), that is 9k+ edits without a summary.
2. failed to provide RS (see warnings #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7)
3. farmed edit counts: #1 and the following 17 (!) edits are just them undoing and redoing the same edit over and over.

and most importantly, has never once responded or acknowledged any message sent by other editors so it’s impossible to communicate with them. Given their complete refusal to communicate with other editors over 2 years despite countless warnings, I think it’s a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. NM 17:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Sierra Nevada

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

---

User:Crescent77 is going against both MOS:DIAPHONEMIC and Help:IPA/English itself by reinserting the pronunciation /-nəˈvædə/ to the article Sierra Nevada, which is covered by the first transcription /nɪˈvædə/ (see note 21 in Help:IPA/English). He is telling me to "get consensus" to remove /-nəˈvædə/ from the article. The consensus has already been reached on Help:IPA/English to transcribe this variable vowel with ⟨ɪ⟩ and there is a very lengthy discussion on Talk:Sierra Nevada (which is irrelevant because Help:IPA/English takes precedence). The box at the top of Help:IPA/English says Integrity must be maintained between the key and the transcriptions that link here; do not change any symbol or value without establishing consensus on the talk page first. I request a revert to my diff.

Diffs: [206], [207], [208], [209], [210], [211], [212]. Sol505000 (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Usage with the schwa is included in the reference Sol50500 himself provided, as well as discussed as an alternative in the MOS/Help he references. I'm unclear as to why he is so adamant as to its removal from the article as an alternative transcription of the pronunciation.

I reference the article's talk page, which indicates I am not alone in my concerns of which he has not made adequate attempts to address; consensus does not seem to be with him. Crescent77 (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

as well as discussed as an alternative in the MOS/Help he references it is not, not as a transcriptional alternative. The Help:IPA/English explicitly says that this kind of variation is covered by the symbol ⟨ɪ⟩ alone. Sol505000 (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Sol, I just digested the entirety of that very long and technically complex discussion (even for someone like myself with a formal, if dated and infrequently used these days, background in phonemics), and there is absolutely no firm consensus as yet that your interpretation is the more valid one. In fact, if anything, the discussion seemed to be leaning towards support for multiple IPA glosses, before it trailed off. Therefor this is very much still a content dispute and not a behavioural issue, and ANI is not the place to resolve any of this. You have five editors contributing there, with an apparent deadlock, insofar as you are very committed to your perspective, Crescent is something like 90% committed to the other option (but slightly open to having their mind changed, I think, as they recognize the technicalities are on the periphery of their wheelhouse), and three editors are in the middle ground and thus far have described only the complexities here, no firm positions on which way to go.

Normally under these circumstances, I would suggest you RfA the issue. But the technicalities here are such that I don't see that as a particularly likely solution for ending this particular deadlock. You might consider positing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics: it's slow these days, but not as dead as some WikiProjects. It may take some time to get the numbers you need to form a firm consensus here, but there's really WP:NORUSH. And honestly, particularly not in this case. I doubt that one reader out of a thousand has enough facility with IPA to be taking their lead for pronunciations from those glosses routinely: most probably only reference the relevant articles when they really need to know how to pronounce a topic they are wholly unfamiliar with, but need to sound informed about--basically we are talking niche within niche within niche need here.

The project (nor even the article) is about to fall over this, and honestly, one of you could probably afford to just give way. I doubt that's going to happen, given how far the discussion has already com, but you need to at least understand that you're in a touch position here (needing consensus but lacking the ability to poll the average editor to give cogent feedback to form it) and you're jsut going to have to wait it out, if neither of you can let go. Regardless, there is no behavioural violation here and ANI cannot help you at this juncture. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look through this and share your views. Crescent77 (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem at all: did take my mind back a long time ago to a phonology lab for a moment there, mind you! I wish I could help with the deadlock, but the issue is that I see both arguments as quite valid and I'll have to process the entire discussion at least once more before I feel confident lodging a firm position here. These are close issues and my reading of the technicalities is hindered by the deprivations of time on my adroitness for phonemics! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

No, as the Help:IPA you reference clearly shows, and has been thoroughly discusssed yet not addressed by yourself in the article talk page, the schwa is acceptable for a weak vowel and is differentiated from the i. You protested by claiming there's a weak vowel merger, which as discussed, many American vernaculars, including some of those in the region in question, do not have. For a more thorough understanding of the ambiguity present in the "i" to speakers of American English, and our desire to include the schwa as is standard, please go to International_Phonetic_Alphabet_chart_for_English_dialects.

Once again, your Longman source explicitly includes, as you yourself indicate in the article talk page, the schwa as an IPA alternative in this specific case, yet you are adamant on its completely removal, without adequate justification and with a resistance to the compromise suggested. This makes it seem like you may be veering into WP:RightGreatWrongs territory. I understand your desire to promote a universal global standard for consistent pronunciation transcriptions, but not all vernaculars readily fit into the simplified IPA format. The issues surrounding this specific symbology are well documented, and the format is still in transition. I'm not understanding why you have such an issue with including both transcriptions, that you would engage in edit warring, and then when called out, elevate it here without any further discussion in the article talk. Crescent77 (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Crescent, I think that's a reasonable perspective, but I'd save it for a forum where it will matter. There's no way even someone completely uninformed about these areas is going to to look at that discussion and say that you are acting against consensus. There is unambiguously no consensus at this moment in time: just a lot of very close (and for most editors, inaccessible) technical distinctions. Continue to butt heads if you must, but here's the long and the short of it: whichever version was there in a long term stable version of the article up until the onset of this debate should stay in the article (or if a new one was inserted between the initial start of this debate three months back and the re-flare up today, that one might be the new stable version for the time being). Either way, nobody should edit war over it. Keep discussing until someone is convinced (or just simply tires, recognizes the extremely low stakes and gives way), or you get enough input to get a firm consensus. That's just the best that can be done here at the moment. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again for your input.

I'd suggest the schwa was the long-term stable version, but as I've repeatedly indicated, I'm willing to accept the inclusion of both, as it now stands. Crescent77 (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

---

On a side note, Cullen328, I assume I cannot have been the only one whose brain registered the words "Sierra Nevada" and "IPA" and momentarily assumed this dispute was about an entirely different subject altogether? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Sierra Nevada Brewing Company India Pale Ale, I assume. Cullen328 (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Good gracious are they proud of that drink there, with a regional fervour usually reserved for a sport franchise elsewhere. Glad you got it, Jim: that close to the border, and they might have tried to spirit you across in the middle of the night otherwise. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Rocafellla/Continued lack of edit summaries

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

---

• Rocafellla (talk · contribs)

The above user was brought here in January for a severe lack of edit summaries in their many edits, and were warned to start using them or expect a block. After I and @Roman Reigns Fanboy: dropped talk page warnings, they literally left three entire words on the subject to shove off the issue and outside some discussion, not another word of discussion on any talk space since then.

I checked on their record today going through past talk edits for myself and discovered that none of this advisement has been taken to heart; out of the 500 edits I could run on ESS, it came back with only 6% of edits summarized by them, and one of them was literally saying "per Netflix site" (along with sourcing some AI SEO crap 'type-what-I'm seeing' a recap of a show trailer), which is wholly inappropriate for sourcing. It may be time to block this monkish editor who refuses to use any summaries unless literally arm-twisted to do so. They haven't edited in over a week, but their number of edits needs a stronger flag than a brush off with 'ok' or 'got it'. Nate • (chatter) 18:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Anonymous Thalapathy Vijay fanboy making personal attacks

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

---

185.185.50.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cinephile4ever&diff=prev&oldid=1171217079

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cinephile4ever&diff=prev&oldid=1171217328

Clearly shows WP:NOTHERE. Kaseng55 (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Korisnik User Being

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

---

Resolved

Korisnik User Being (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making persistent WP:NOTFORUM posts on Talk:Lucy Letby, despite being warned against doing so in their talkpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be a sock puppet of Beaneater00. Blocked indefinitely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Disruption of wrestling WP:BLPs by South Korean WP:LTA

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

---

My second time here on this issue--[213]. Since they change IPs like so much underwear, I'm proposing long term protection for, among others:

• Raymond Rougeau
• Jacques Rougeau
• Pierre Carl Ouellet
• Spike Dudley
• Stevie Richards
• Bronson Reed

As they disrupt other articles, they, too, can be added to the list and locked. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

We have a useful tool given by the community, Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling that seems a little underused. I’ve semied these six and will now log them as enforcement actions under those sanctions. Courcelles (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Courcelles, thank you. I'm certain we'll add more to the list, but this is an unfortunate and necessary start. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Aquatic Ambiance

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

---

• Aquatic Ambiance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Energy medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nature therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Aquatic Ambiance is edit warring to include fringe material based on sources such as the 'journal' Subtle Energies & Energy Medicine at Energy medicine and Nature therapy. I have reverted them twice, but they have reinstated their edits, and I do not wish to get into an edit war. I have asked that the self revert and make their case on the talk page, but they have refused to do so. I have advised them about the WP:CTOP rules that apply in this area, and advised them to make their case on the article's talk page, but to no avail. I am obviously INVOLVED; could another admin make it clear to them that this is not acceptable conduct? Girth Summit _(blether) 12:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I genuinely have no clue what's wrong with the scientific journals I used. Otherwise I would have searched for better sources. I thought using scientific journals is what Wikipedia is all about. What am I missing? I'm trying to learn here. Is that not allowed? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Again: this isn't about the content, or the sourcing, we can discuss that at the article's talk page. It's about your conduct in reinstating an edit that you know to be contested, instead of making the case for it on the article talk page. I'm happy for this to be closed without action if you will self-revert and go to the talk page. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

So I have to revert my edit because you're threatening me? And not because there's something wrong with the edit itself? I already opened a topic on the talk page. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I have not threatened you - I actually made it clear that I am acting in my capacity as an ordinary editor, not as an administrator - I won't be the one to block you. You have to revert your edit because it has been contested, and the onus is on you to gain consensus for the change, not on others to convince you that it is wrong. It is my view that you are adding pseudoscientific nonsense to our articles, based on unpublished primary studies and in-universe alt med journals; maybe I will be shown to be wrong about that, but you need to remove the contested material until you get consensus for it. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok I've reverted the page and wait to get more feedback on the help desk. It's all good, but I don't think threatening someone who's still learning is the way to go though. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, I have not threatened you. I did tell you that I would ask you to be blocked for edit warring if you refused to self-revert - that's not a threat, it's simply laying out the next steps. You have over 4,000 edits, you have been warned about edit warring in the past, and you are aware of the CTOP rules - you can't play the 'still learning the way' card, you need to edit more responsibly. Thank you, however, for finally self-reverting. This report can be closed now. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Footballrelated

Footballrelated (talk · contribs) has been blocked three times for making unsourced changes to BLPs (raised at ANI previously) - yet is still at it. I suggest an indef. GiantSnowman 15:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

An explicit inline citation would be preferable but the change is supported by two references in article, Worldfootball.net and Soccerway. I haven't looked into their other recent contributions, that diff alone is not a blockable offence to me though. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The items removed aren't specifically reffed, and while I'm not familiar with worldfootball.net's (the first ref on the page) reliability or practices, they seem to say he's indeed no longer playing for that team - compare their entries for three current players. If Sachpekidis did leave the team, then - obviously - it would have been better if Footballrelated said and sourced that in their edit instead of just removing the infobox items and the currently-plays-for statement from the lead, but I honestly can't see how their version of the article so much worse than yours that it merits a block. —Cryptic 15:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

GiantSnowman acts a little ruthless in the pages he "owns". He blocks without hesitation EVEN if the edit is correct.

My concern is that he can edit the changes himself, yet he doesn't do it.

I don't think Wikipedia needs an authoritarian figure like him. Footballrelated (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)