Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Disruption at Storrs, Connecticut by Jonathanhusky

    [edit]

    For several months several editors have been claiming Storrs, Connecticut should be Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut. It was at ANI several months ago - see [1], which led to the creation of an RfC.

    The RfC is clearly heading for an oppose, but it has been heavily bludgeoned by Jonathanhusky. For some reason, a merge discussion was initiated part of the way through the RfC - the whole thing is a bit of a mess.

    I'm coming here now since today I noticed Jonathanhusky had updated the article in a way that was clearly unsupported by the RfC and marked it as minor: [2] After I reverted - and I admit I did revert a bit too much because there were a series of edits, so I just picked the last table version - Jonathanhusky accused me of misusing the tools: [3] Finally, the edit that got me here, which is something I've never seen before - Jonathanhusky marked several strong opposers, including Mathglot, JamesMLane, and R0paire-wiki as "actually supports" in the RfC, while marking the edit as minor, and without signing the comments: [4]

    This behaviour, especially the bludgeoning and that last edit, is clearly disruptive/WP:OWNership behaviour and there needs to be at the very least a topic ban if not an outright block. SportingFlyer T·C 05:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have an opinion on the merits of this filing, but it should be noted that Jonathan also filed for a third opinion regarding this article. I procedurally declined that filing since there were clearly more than two editors involved in the matter already. I don't even know that this is particularly relevant to this ANI filing, but since it crossed my watchlist and since Jonathan is being accused of trying to bludgeon the matter, I figured I should at least note it. DonIago (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That last pretty much counts as "editing another editor's comments" doesn't it? - The Bushranger One ping only 05:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted their edit where they "interpreted" other editors' "votes" as the opposite of what they said. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ...have been claiming...

    It is important to note that this statement is false - the official name of the community is "Storrs-Mansfield" and "Storrs" is only an informal, unofficial version. This has been verified and cited in the talk page discussion - the RFC is and was always started to determine the best way to respect the inclusion of the "common name" alongside the official one foremostly. Although a page name change (or "page move") was a prior topic, the RFC nor the actual discussion was at any point regarding that.

    The RfC is clearly heading for an oppose, but it has been heavily bludgeoned by Jonathanhusky.

    ...I noticed Jonathanhusky had updated the article in a way that was clearly unsupported by the RfC...

    Jonathanhusky marked several strong opposers...as "actually supports" in the RfC...

    It is not "bludgeoning" to reply to one's comment nor is it disruptive to respond to individual points.

    As can be seen by reading the actual editors' comments referenced, and then furtherly explained in a discussion comment, they actually did support the proposed edits. The suggested text follows the established and accepted Wikipedia style.

    This behaviour, especially the bludgeoning and that last edit, is clearly disruptive/WP:OWNership behaviour...

    Incorrect. When users publish multifaceted comments it is not inappropriate to respond to those facets with individual respect toward their points. As a furtherer of the discussion, I am allowed to respond to new evidence, theories and ideas, and able to (as any other user) explain why I do or don't agree with a comment or the reasoning presented, or asked clarifying questions. In fact, I have tried referencing verified reliable sources and relevant Wikipedia policies to figure out what applies and what doesn't. Not all participants did, and as well, others either repeated storied or irrelevant explanations (perhaps they did not know better) or refused to consider the valid points presented in a reply.

    I understand that you have initiated this process, but, this has to be looked at from the perspective of the unanswered questions regarding how to properly and respectfully write about this community (and others like it) on Wikipedia. Jonathanhusky (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't matter if you interpret their comments/explanations as "they actually did support". Editing other editors' comments in a discussion, especially changing their explict, bolded !votes, is a bright line. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No portion of the editors' original comments were actually removed. This fact needs to be respected.
    What I did was, solely, ensure that readers knew the honest view of the editors' responses. You say that these were so-called "votes" - in a discussion which is exclusively a discussion, not a call for "votes" - which say "opposed" but their explanations say they don't really oppose the point.
    Then other editors see just the "opposed" but don't actually read or understand the comment, drawing a false conclusion. It is unfair to penalize me for adding clarifying labels. Jonathanhusky (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jonathanhusky, it is up to the uninvolved closer to review all of the comments and weigh the arguments when they assess the discussion. You are an involved participant and as Bushranger states, no editor edits other people's comments or "interprets them" by editing them in any way unless they need to hat disruptive content which is not the case here. Just know that if you try this again, you will be facing a block. Liz Read! Talk! 08:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an interpretation when the original editors said it themselves. And, please, stop saying that I've edited anyone else's comment. I didn't, haven't, and don't plan to - What I did was akin to a sticky note on the cover page. It's actually disruptive to say one thing when you mean something else. What I did is not and was not disruptive. Jonathanhusky (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    However you choose to interpret what you did (realizing that experienced editors disagree with you), consider yourself warned not to do it again. Liz Read! Talk! 08:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ...realizing that experienced editors disagree with you...

    Then go to the discussion and see for yourself - for goodness' sake, half of the responses labeled "opposed" aren't about the RFC, they're about a page name change (or "page move"). And you're saying that those prima facie irrelevant responses aren't invalid?
    You mentioned an uninvolved closer. If everyone feels so strongly about the so-called "conclusion" of the discussion, then please start the process to render a decision. Obviously, the editors who have an opinion on the subject have commented and if they actually read and understood the evidence, and participated fairly, you can clearly see that they support the lead paragraph and other changes as suggested. Jonathanhusky (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no then — this is not a negotiation. What you did was sanctionable misconduct, so you can't do that again, full stop. El_C 09:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So any comment labeled "opposed" will stand no matter what the editor says, in that very same or other comments in the discussion? Even if they really didn't disagree, or the comment had nothing to do with the topic? Jonathanhusky (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. A closer might deem an argument as weak enough so as to give it little to no weight, but you can't take another's agency away by editing their comment. El_C 09:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, I did not edit anyone else's comment. The text, data, and material of every other editor's comments and edits were not changed, deleted, or altered.
    Stop insinuating and accusing me of something I did not do. Doesn't Wikipedia have policies against personal attacks? Jonathanhusky (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see the diffs just fine. You do not have the authority to edit inside their comment field. You are not being personally or otherwise attacked, but you do need to step away from this at this point, because it's increasingly coming across as WP:BLUDGEON and WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, which are in themselves sanctionable. El_C 09:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jonathanhusky: I'll put it a different way. Do you think it was in any way acceptable if I had let this edit stand [5]? Perhaps the formatting is a little different but that's basically what you did. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne, it appears you did not actually understand the substance of this issue.
    Firstly, since you were logged in and you are not me, it is obvious that such an edit in your example would have been thrown out immediately, automatically considered a target onto the other user, and perhaps result in you getting the first-person wish you typed on your own keyboard. Furthermore, you added something which wasn't suggested or supported in that or any of my other comments.
    If we take a look at the real case here, we have editors who wrote "opposed" even though they didn't mean to. I did not remove any of their original "opposed" labels, nor any of their content. This fact needs to be respected. I placed before them, in a colored superscript italic indicating that it was an added emphasis not a part of their original comment "actually support".
    I then linked to the reply that backs up that claim with "see their comment". It is obvious to any reader that the "sticky note" was and would have been separate from the editor's original comment, but clear (in the link and in the actual text) that the "opposed" would no longer be appropriate.
    Had I removed any portion of their comment, or even not supported the change with linked evidence I could potentially understand the concern, albeit a form of crying wolf. Practically speaking, these were clarifying edits.
    To accuse me of malfeasance and disruption is and was inappropriate and incorrect. Jonathanhusky (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathanhusky is clearly in an "I am not going to listen to anyone else because I am right" mode. Accordingly, I have blocked Jonathanhusky for one month from editing Storrs, Connecticut and Talk: Storrs, Connecticut. They can spend that month contributing productively elsewhere and pondering the fact that this is a collaborative project where decisions are made by genuine consensus instead of misrepresentations and pushiness. Cullen328 (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If you actually read the discussion, you'll note that I'm actually one of the most willing editors on the platform to consider that my suggestion may be in need of improvement or doesn't fit. I was practically the only person to even attempt to seek out the relevant policies, entries in the manual of style, and precedents. And discussed them based on specific points with other editors. I didn't name call and I didn't push an agenda.
    Go back and see that other editors started drawing conclusions and accusing me. Since when, in a discussion, am I not allowed to respond to individual points?
    You called my editing disruptive, which is not true and frankly rude. Jonathanhusky (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you need to step back from this thread, or face additional sanctions. You do not have an inalienable right to to respond to individual points indefinitely. You are free to disagree, but not misuse (WP:BLUDGEON) this space further. El_C 10:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflict) I just actually read the discussion, and there is no way to interpret those comments other than that this village should first be named as Storrs and then Storrs-Mansfield be given as an alternative name, the opposite way round to the RFC. Being polite does not excuse lying. Frankly, you are lucky that you can still edit here. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) On further thought, I've added ANI to the p-block list (now totaling three pages). Hopefully, this will suffice and we can avoid a sitewide block. Added: what Phil Bridger brings up is concerning. El_C 10:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. If this person still wishes to edit, they should know that they are standing on the edge of a precipice and should take several steps back. Cullen328 (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that merge discussion can be safely closed. It's going nowhere, and is another example of their disruptive behavior at that article. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this edit, made after the ANI was opened, also need to be reverted? SportingFlyer T·C 16:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I closed the thing. There might be an argument made for merging the two articles in question, and a very simple 'sometimes known as ...' line in there, but better for those to be discussed politely in a separate thread. Also note this change was made over on the simple-english wiki without discussion while this was all going on. Connecticut - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which I have reverted JeffUK 17:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've modified the block to be site-wide due to continued edit warring, but reduced the length to two weeks. I think a lot of good faith has been extended to Jonathanhusky, but they're not listening to any of the advice or cautions provided.-- Ponyobons mots 22:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    [6] Definitely not listening, and IMHO very likely to resume conduct once the block expires, so best to keep an eye on the various articles when that happens. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jonathanhusky originally made identical Storrs-related edits from a variety of IP accounts in September 2024. Best to keep an eye out for logged out editing. Of course, at this point, I think this article on this CT town is on more Watchlists than it was 3 months ago when this dispute all first started. Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't look promising. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked through the recent bits on his talk page, the constant wikilawering, refusal to listen, and refusal to accept that he could have in any way be wrong, combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works (with it being implicitly stated that he'll resume the exact same behavior that got him blocked when the block expired) leads me to believe that an indef now would be not uncalled for. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed 100%. The user's recent lengthy post on his talkpage (in response to your suggestion above) pretty much proves your point. Axad12 (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made a proposal on the editor's user talk page that they can avoid being indefinitely blocked after the temporary block is over if they accept a voluntary editing restriction, imposed by a partial block from Storrs, Connecticut, Talk:Storrs, Connecticut and a topic ban from discussing this town anywhere on the project. This is really where all of their problematic editing arises from so I thought I'd throw this out and see if they can agree to spend their time working on other articles. Sorry to mention this town again, EEng. Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately, based on their reply to you this appears to be a hill they are willing to die on (I participated in the original discussion but didn't see this thread until today). This is someone so certain they are right and everyone else is wrong that they cannot be reasoned with. As I said at the original discussion, this editor simply drowns out anyone else with massive replies and their own (flawed at best) interpretations of policy and guidelines. I've lived in CT most of my life and I can tell you I've never once heard anyone call the community the name this editor is demanding it be changed to. The only question is if we wait for them to reoffend after the block expires and then apply an indef, or indef them now. It's a shame, because this is such a ridiculous issue to get yourself blocked over. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I see no urgent reason to do anything but wait. The optimist in me sees something in their response that may be ok. We'll just have to see. The pessimist in me sees no harm in waiting. Anything can be reverted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I respectfully disagree with Liz. The issue here isn’t to do with the name of a town. The issue is that the user’s default response is to argue vehemently. The user has even tried to set up a series of rabbithole-like meta-arguments based on the progress of previous arguments. It all begins to look rather recreational, as though it's what they are here for.
      It may be better to avoid engagement at the user’s talk page until the current block expires to give them the opportunity to consider their current predicament. Anything else just seems to be provoking them to continue the same behaviour.
      Not engaging may also encourage the user to pursue their arguments elsewhere, e.g. at Monty Python’s Argument Clinic (e.g. “I’d like to have an argument please”, “This isn’t an argument, it’s just contradiction”, etc.).
      If they continue with more of the same when the block expires they know what will happen. Axad12 (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Current use of Storrs-Mansfield

    [edit]
    Unnecessary aside hatted for the sake of EEng's stomach - The Bushranger One ping only 23:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My stomach thanks you. EEng
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    As of this moment, there are exactly two uses of Storrs-Mansfield in mainspace, one in Storrs, Connecticut and one in Mansfield, Connecticut, both the title of the 674 Bus-line used as a reference in regards to public transportation.Naraht (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (a) How does this bear on this complaint? (b) If I hear the words "Storrs" or "Mansfield" one more time, I'm gonna vomit. EEng 22:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lavipao edit warring + POV pushing

    [edit]
    Per Bushranger's request—closed after one-week block of user for personal attacks. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user is deliberately POV pushing on Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch articles, comparing these to US invasion of Iraq and Russian invasion of Ukraine. While these articles do not even include the word "invasion" as title but "operation". Also in international politics, only handful countries have called this an invasion. Undue weight. I reported this vandalism and asked for page protection but admin called this a content dispute, which is funny because the one editing 6 to 8 years old text is right in this context. Weird! Beshogur (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Beshogur, you're a very experienced editor, you know you have to present diffs so that editors can investigate your complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 08:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's I can do on mobile.
    Operation Olive Branch
    rev before
    rev after
    Operation Euphrates Shield
    rev before
    rev after
    Beshogur (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinion on this content dispute, but it undoubtably is a content dispute. It doesn't matter that at least one editor thinks they are "right in this context" - it is still a content dispute. And an invasion is not necessarily bad. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In these both articles operation appears 10x more than invasion. And invasion is subjective. This can not be compared to Iraq or Ukraine invasion. The ratio of local Syrian rebels were 10x more than Turkish troops, yet it's conducted by the Turkish army. It is not even against the Syrian regime but ISIL and YPG. "not necessarily bad"? so let's change everything slightly to not necessarily bad instead of stating factual things. Beshogur (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place to discuss content disputes. And your opening salvo on their talk page [7] of "Revert your edit or you will be reported. This is the consensus." is not the right way to deal with a content dispute either. They probably shouldn't have reverted their change back in again without discussing it, but honestly, if that's the level of discussion they're introduced to I can see why they didn't think discussing it would be helpful. JeffUK 10:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am complaining the way administrators treat this as a content dispute. I asked for page protection and intervention against vandalism, but nothing. Administrators doing these do not even check the content. This is a disruptive edit and action should be taken. So he's changing something and I have to convince him. What a joke honestly. This is simply time wasting. Both of his edits are like "is an invasion bla bla" then suddenly 2-3 times the word operation appears in the lead again. Both were not described as a military invasion, but had been described as an invasion by a very fringe minority. If he thinks both were a military invasions, he should ask for title change "2016 invasion of Syria", etc. Beshogur (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also leaving this here as an example Operation_Olive_Branch#International reactions (simple read the countries):
    • Cyprus: The Republic of Cyprus condemned the Turkish invasion in Afrin
    • France: evolves into an attempted invasion (assumption)
    • Sweden: to protest the Afrin invasion (statement of the newspaper, not Swedish government)
    • US: US State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert called on Turkey not to engage in any invasion of Syria's Afrin (doesn't have a source, and US called this an operation, not invasion)
    for Operation_Euphrates_Shield#International_reactions
    • Cyprus: the unacceptable invasion of Turkey into Syria
    Now tell me how his edits is appropriate? Beshogur (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is whether we should describe this as an invasion or an operation not a content dispute? It is certainly not vandalism. The use of that word is a personal attack. And it's perfectly possible for something to be both an invasion and an operation. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not arguing this resulted in a military occupation (see Turkish occupation of Northern Syria) but military invasion =/= military occupation. Invasion aims to conquer a land, while the Turkish army doesn't control a piece of land there, but uses proxy, which makes this different from US invasion of Iraq or Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is simply wrong, and we should be realistic. I don't care if anyone calls this an invasion or not, I am trying to say a fringe minority calls this an invasion. I don't get how Military operation suddenly became a taboo word after Russian invasion (yes yes I know the special military operation). Beshogur (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    >I don't care if anyone calls this an invasion or not, I am trying to say a fringe minority calls this an invasion.
    Then say that a fringe minority call it an invasion! something like '[the operation]..characterised by some as an invasion.." would be an excellent compromise and a valuable addition to the article. JeffUK 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How so exactly? We edit like that. WP:UNDUE. Beshogur (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an argument to make on the Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that (the article talk page) is the right place to talk about this content dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Content dispute" is always the most bizarre reasoning given for refusal at RPP. Yes, this edit war is a content dispute—that's what a #$%!ing edit war is! It's a disruptive content dispute!
    Someone should probably write an essay on this. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But was there any edit warring? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but that's not really my point, so much as:
    1. If the RPP was denied because the admin don't see any edit warring, they should say "no edit warring", not "content dispute" (which is vague and unhelpful, and implies disruptive content disputes aren't a valid reason to protect the article).
    2. If we assume they meant to say "this is just a regular content dispute, not edit warring", then this is still insufficient—the point of page protection is to stop content disputes from escalating before someone violates 1RR/3RR. The denial should explain how an edit war can be prevented without page protection—otherwise, you're just sending the message "go violate 3RR, then come back for help".
    – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello! As others have said this is a content dispute, which should be discussed on the talk page for the specific article. There is no POV or vandalism occurring, I’m just attempting to clean up the article by using correct and accurate language that reflects consistently the language used throughout this website for invasions. As I’ve provided before, there are many examples of pages on invasions throughout Wikipedia, such as the US invasion of Afghanistan or the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
    User Beshogur has been continuously reverting away from correct language to use euphemistic, purposefully-confusing terms such as “cross border military operation” which is a term not used in other Wikipedia articles.
    The user seems to have a very strong conviction that only Turkish government phrasing or sources should be used to describe this event, even though around the world this invasion has been widely covered as an invasion. I suspect a strong POV issue with this user Lavipao (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is deliberately edit warring and POV pushing. administrators should intervene asap. Beshogur (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are also edit-warring and you've failed to open a talk page discussion despite telling Lavipao too. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Traumnovelle: because he's clear POV pushing? We have to revert POV pushing on wikipedia, not trying to convince the POV pusher. I asked several times page protection or intervention for vandalism (yet him having like less than 50 edits). Beshogur (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This user abuses 1RR rule, and edit warring, yet administrators doing nothing. Good. Beshogur (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What 1RR rule is there on these pages? On the user's talk page you reference an introduction to ARBPIA, what does a Turkish military operation in Syria against Kurdish groups have to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict? Traumnovelle (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    a Turkish military operation in Syria against Kurdish groups: Not ARBPIA, but WP:ARBKURDS. "The topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed...has been designated as a contentious topic" - and thus 1RR applies. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to know. It might be best to explain to give a proper explanation of it to Lavipao. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Their responses do not look promising. Calling another editor a "Classic no-life activist editor" is not good. Codename AD talk 21:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A classic case of WP:THETRUTH. I've given them what can be considered a final warning. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [8] "Power hungry losers" That's concerning. They've made more PA's on that reply. They seem to not understand what WP:NPA is. Also "Idiots like you" that's really concerning . Codename AD talk 12:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent disruptive and tendentious editing by TheRazgriz on the 2024 United States elections page

    [edit]

    TheRazgriz has engaged in persistent, disruptive and tendentious editing on the 2024 United States elections page, including making multiple ad hominem attacks against myself, (calling me an emotional biased editor engaging in borderline vandalism, accusing me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and of acting with intentional bad faith) and making several WP:UNCIVIL comments on the talk page pointed out by other editors. TheRazgriz did apologize once on my talk page, but continued to engage in such attacks against myself afterwards. TheRazgriz has been called out by several other editors on his talk page for uncivil comments on this and other pages, which are promptly removed shortly thereafter. In comments on his talk page, Wikipedia admin Bishonen has noted Raz's use of "rudeness and sexualized language" (ex: "stroke off your ego", calling people "boy"). Wikipedia admin Doug Weller noted that his message in reply to Bishonen "comes across as somewhat arrogant". User Magnolia677 made a warning against Raz of potential edit warring on the Bryson City, North Carolina page.

    I previously submitted an AN/I incident against TheRazgriz on December 3rd following his premature closure of a talk page section which was upheld. TheRazgriz has since made multiple novel and rejected interpretations of Wikipedia RS and OR policy, all of which have been unanimously rejected by editors both in an RfC I opened and a discussion on the Original Research noticeboard. During discussions, TheRazgriz refused to provide any reliable secondary sources for his claims, instead claiming the ONUS was not on him. TheRazgriz has also been called out by other editors that his claims about the content of prior edits was incorrect as shown by edit history.

    TheRazgriz has frequently refused to engage in meaningful discussion with myself, with his repeated insistence that he is right and I am wrong (one example: "I have proven that assertion to be true. Can you disprove that assertion?"), and only relenting once overwhelming and unanimous agreement from other editors that his interpretation of policy is mistaken. Despite his interpretations being unanimously rejected by other editors multiple times, TheRazgriz has continued to insist his edits and interpretations of policy not disputed by at least three editors cannot be removed. TheRazgriz has falsely claimed a consensus exists within the "Undue weight in lead" section of the talk page for his "final" edits to the Economy section, which he has previously used to revert edits to the section and as of today claims he will continue to revert using consensus as the reason.

    I do believe that TheRazgriz does think his interpretations of policy are correct. However, as a new editor with roughly 250 mainspace edits (Raz claims he has over 114,000 edits on other unregistered accounts but that his IP address changes frequently), and with his discussions and interpretations of policy being unanimously rejected by multiple editors, I believe that TheRazgriz requires further knowledge of Wikipedia policy in order to become an better editor. BootsED (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What has troubled me about this editor is that after I've had some conversations with them about policy and questioning claims that they've made on their user page that they seemingly followed me to an RFC on Israel, casting a !vote at Special:Diff/1261260050 that they weren't entitled to make given that they are not WP:XC. Now the edit can be forgiven for an editor who is new, however what concerned me was that they had never edited in that area before and then ended up doing so after I had made edits in that RFC. When I questioned the circumstance in which they made that edit, they WP:ABF and accused me of disruptive behaviour. When I suggested they strike their incivil comments before it escalate, they deleted the discussion between us and in the edit summary wrote "Removed unproductive comments, potential WP:DE" again WP:ABF and accusing me of engaging in disruptive behaviour. Given the litany of WP:ABF and WP:UNCIVIL directed at other editors at Talk:2024 United States elections as well as what I have experienced first hand, it is patently clear to me that this editor does not hold the level head needed in order to be participating in the post 1992 American politics CTOP area and should probably be topic banned. TarnishedPathtalk 04:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not "follow" you. As someone who is new to the named user side of things, I am still exploring the deep dark rabbit holes "behind the curtain" that I had only rarely ever seen glimpses of before as a casual IP editor. With this other user having brought up something to a NB which involved me, it activated my curiosity around NB's and that led me down yet another rabbit hole of exploring which led me to the RfC, from a NB and not from the page itself. As my userbox on my userpage shows, I do indeed have an interest in such subject matter. As also pointed out, all of that subject matter is out of bounds for profiles with less than 500 edits. Even if I wanted to establish a record of interest in the area, how would I possibly have done so? That feels like a very unfair point.
    Never the less, I do have a personal interest in that, but due to my IRL background I would caution myself from participating much, if at all, in that subject matter. I first recognized my bias after Oct 7, and as such I have made a promise to myself to not seek out any subject matter relating to Israel, Hamas, Palestine, etc for editing, only for reading, as this bias does not come from a place of passion but from a place of personal lived experiences. However that RfC was on if a particular news outlet was RS or not, and I wanted to offer my opinion only after reading the RfC opinions and confirming that others shared my view on that org, and for the same reasons. As was confirmed here on my page after they removed the post for the 500 edit issue, there was no other problem with my edit. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:BootsED, ultimately, what outcome are you looking for with this second complaint? You clearly spent quite a lot of time putting this all together but it's not clear what result you are seeking through this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not want to presume what action should be necessary for this editor, as I will admit this is only the second time I have engaged in an AN/I discussion and I am unfamiliar with this user's actions compared to other similar incidents and what actions were taken against them in the past. I agree with TarnishedPath that there should at least be a post-1992 American politics topic ban. However, his misunderstanding of basic policy and frequent uncivil behavior makes me question whether or not his disruptive editing will simply continue on other non-American politics articles and if he will show the necessary humility and willingness to learn. BootsED (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Their inability or unwillingness to understand core WP:PAG, particularly WP:RS and WP:NOR, is troubling especially given they claim to have been editing since 2007-08 with 114,000+ edits. TarnishedPathtalk 06:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a good look that User:TheRazgriz does not understand why pinning demeaning language on the top of their talk page is bad. Northern Moonlight 10:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have warned TheRazgriz about bludgeoning the process at Talk:2024 United States elections. If nothing changes, I consider page-blocking them. Bishonen | tålk 15:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    I'd support at least that. I want to know about any possible NOR or RS issues. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller, on the issue of WP:RS please see Special:Diff/1261261442 where they try and claim a citation from NYT as subpar (Yourish & Smart| at the same time as pushing usage of WP:NYPOST "to give Republican perspective". When I asked them to clarify in which context NYPOST is reliable, by providing a specific story (see Special:Diff/1261274529 and Special:Diff/1261276064), they responded at Special:Diff/1261281341 that "I am speaking generally" in regards to NYPOST and that "The NYP is thus depreciated as a source of factual reporting, but on the matter of partisan reporting I would assume they would be a RS in reference to reporting aspects from the perspective of the right". During the aforementioned reply they advise that they read the RFC on the reliability of NYPOST to arrive at that conclusion.
    In regards to Original Research, see this WP:NOV/N discussion where they are told by multiple editors that they a section of text they were promoting was original research. Even after clear consensus on WP:NOR/N they didn't remove the offending material and it took me removing it at Special:Diff/1261297519 to remove the original research from the article. TarnishedPathtalk 01:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of Razgriz's opinions on RS is that opinion pieces are RS if they are written by an "expert" source and can be used to make claims in the narrative tone. His NOR/N discussion revealed he believes that he can interpret data from primary sources to make synth claims, and his comments suggest he does not understand what a primary versus secondary source is.
    I have also brought up several issues with NPOV in the Economy section of the page, which Razgriz has dismissed claiming I am engaging in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. BootsED (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "...and can be used to make claims in the narrative tone." That is not true of my position. My position is they can be used against arguments in the narrative tone. I specifically argued they shoudl not ever be used as justification for presenting a WikiVoice assertion, more and better RS would be needed for such, but that if something is being asserted in WV, then yes the opinions of subject matter experts can be used to demonstrate a significant counter-point. This is in line with WP:NEWSOPED, "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have stated before, this falls into WP:FALSEBALANCE. You did use the NYP to make a WikiVoice assertion. The NYP article you posted was not an op-ed, but a regular article. You did not state that it came from the NYP or an individual writing in the NYP in the body of text either. The sentence immediately prior was: After Biden dropped out and endorsed Harris, the Harris campaign made a large shift in Democrat messaging on the economy issue, particularly on the topic of "affordability" where Democrat messaging began to widely accept that basic goods were still too expensive for the average American.
    Other issues I had with squarequotes and NPOV framing was your sentence: with President Biden and Rep. Nancy Pelosi often remarking they "inherited" economic problems from Trumps first-term, claiming it was now "strong" under their leadership. I also pointed out your repeated use of "Democrat", where the correct tense should have been "Democratic messaging". BootsED (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That statement also came with an additional citation beside NYP, and was done prior to me becoming aware of the change in NYP status. That is not a fair point to argue. We all make mistakes and errors. I am only human. I have been on WP for nearly 2 decades now, and until this year I did not edit much in relation to contemporary topics. The last time I had used NYP as a source, it was a valid source per WP:RS. That has since changed, and I acknowledged that wrong. I dont appreciate that you are also confusing the timeline of events for those trying to piece together this rather lengthy puzzle, on a moot point no less. Let it go. To me this is starting to get to the point of WP:DEADHORSE.
    Your second and third points were addressed before you even made this NB, where I admitted you were correct. I even added one of those as a fun factoid on my userpage, to help spread awareness and to have a little fun at my own expense as it obviously highlights to you and anyone else who sees that Talk topic that I made a bit of an arse of myself with that one and hadn't even known it at the time. I'm not sure why you bring this up again here. What is your point in doing so? Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, as shown here, your NYP citation was the only citation used to make that claim. Other editors had to remove NYP from the page after you conceded the point. Other points were only partially addressed by other editors afterwards, but many of the issues I have pointed out still remain on the page. You only admitted I was correct on the NYP point after unanimous consensus by other editors, and still contested there was any issue with your other edits to the page as I have pointed out repeatedly here. You only conceded where unanimous editor consensus was against you, but as I have stated in my initial post, you still insist that you will undo any edit of mine not backed up by at least three other editors.
    Quote: I will have no major opposition if at least 3 editors (yourself and two others) agree to the new changes. ... If you get the simple majority with yourself and at least 2 others at the end of this, you make the change and as I maintained from the outset, I will not undo it. If you (surprisingly) fail, then the changes are not made. I was very specific about my issues with your edit, as seen here and here, which you claim I was not. I have not touched the page for days now to avoid an edit war. This is partly why I brought forwards this AN/I issue, as you are using false claims of a consensus and explicitly promising to revert any edits to the page which is very disruptive. I do not need an RfC to make any edit to the page because you disagree with it, and other RfC's and discussions have all unanimously ruled against you for incorrect interpretations of Wikipedia policy. Do I need to make an RfC to debate your every interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Because this is what you are suggesting. BootsED (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is not at all what I have suggested, and I believe you understand that already, but I have already addressed all of this in previous comments, despite your persistence in removing context in order to uncharitably misconstrue small portions of edits and comments within a different framing. I will not continue to waste space and the time of admins who will have to go through this mountain of a mess. The only point I will make here is to remind you that even as I write this, you still do not have any support for your position against the view of WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS being reached previously, so I would caution against continuing to press on that point to then misconstrue elements of my argument that are obviously based around it.
    Your initial posting here was extensive enough, and my reply against your accusations was exhaustive as well. We should not use this NB to have further back and forth. I ask out of respect for the process that this be our last messages here unless admins request further input, unless you have something further to add to your initial complaint against me (emphasis to discourage re-hashing points you may already have made here).
    I am sorry we ended up being uncivil to one another, I am sorry that we could not move forward in good faith, I am sorry you wish to only see every statement I make or position I take in the most uncharitable and unflattering light, and I am sorry you feel that good faith opposition to your proposed edit is disruptive. Besides "shut up, say you are wrong, and go away so I can do what I want", I do not know what it is you actually want out of me from any of this. So for now, I will let admins review was has been presented, and let them decide how best to proceed. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Raz, there is no "editor consensus" on your claims of a consensus because no editors other than us have been involved in that particular discussion. I brought forth this AN/I partly for reasons stated above. But I agree, we should let others talk and not hog all this space. BootsED (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I offered a good faith compromise to settle our disagreement via WP:CON, and you have elected to do all of this? To be blunt, this seems like a lot of cherry-picking and mischaracterization of my actions, along with whitewashing and outright ignoring many of your own actions. Allow me to try and correct the record in defense of myself, and hopefully the truth.

    I apologize to the admins ahead of time, I struggle with being concise at the best of times, but I don't know how to condense the following any more than I have here. There is so much to comb through both with what the other user did say and things they left out, things that are mentioned out of hand that dramatically alter the framing and context and even the facts, and I'd like to address all of it. I've shortened parts that to me justified another 2 or 3 paragraphs of focus, and I even deleted 3 entire sections to make this post shorter. I'm not asking for special treatment, but for fair treatment.

    Addressing the Assertion of "No Consensus"

    A formalized RfC is not the only method of consensus building, per WP:CON, specifically WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, and @BootsED has made incorrect reference to a topic on this point (their link goes to the correct topic, but its presentation and incorrect title here falsely frame it away from an objective reading). The topic in which consensus was reached was titled Undue weight in "Issues", in which another editor explained why they had added the undue tag to the Issues section. In that topic there were a small number of perceived problems which were worked on to be solved. If you follow that discussion, you will note a number of things:

    1) I did not create that topic noting the issues within the issues section

    2) My participation there shows my immediate and consistent good faith differing to other editors suggestions and recommendations for improving the section

    3) There is not a single point in the discussion in which I argue any sort of "I'm right, you're wrong" or similar, demonstrating that the exact opposite is my default response to perspectives counter to mine

    4) The absence of any participation by @BootsED whatsoever, either as the discussion was unfolding or with any attempt to revive the discussion to note their apparent disagreement with the outcome, and;

    5) The most obvious agreement was that the Economy section needed to be longer/expanded as all cited WP:RS noted its importance as an issue in the election, and its short length did not reflect that fact well.

    After reading through that discussion, you can note @BootsED make his first bold edit to the "Economy" issue HERE, not terribly long after the other user removed the "undue weight" tag from the section in line with the referenced consensus building topic, and that their bold edit noticeably reduced the length of the section, obviously opposite the goal of the consensus building discussion.

    Addressing assertions of WP:OWNERSHIP vis a vis "False Consensus", & speculation of WP:IDONTLIKE

    When I reverted @BootsED's edit to that section of the article, I stated in the edit notes that this was done to uphold a consensus that had been reached recently per the talk page, and simultaneously requested the user to discuss before making further bold edits to that section to conform with both WP:CON & WP:CTOP by conforming with WP:DICC. You then see here @BootsED restoring their challenged edit and asserts that I was falsely claiming a consensus.

    If you follow the various talk topics, you will note that while @BootsED does garner support on other points of disagreement (EX: if the term "lawfare" should be used in the lede, or; if there was WP:OR in an edit concerning polling data), you will note a glaring lack of any support for this specific point of "No Consensus"/"False Consensus" which he has continued to raise. Despite the noticeable lack of any support for this assertion from other editors, @BootsED continued to challenge the prior consensus building effort that had been done HERE first by asserting that it had not happened at all by ignoring my reference to the other, prior topic, then asserting that the topic had no consensus on the subject, and to this day still continues to insist it is a falsehood I am pushing to "prohibit editing" despite the fact that I have maintained from the first revert diff forward that a bold edit to that section should be discussed first and that is it. At one point while trying to find another way to explain my points, I used the term "final" version when making reference to the version of the section prior to his bold edits. Ever since, he has continued to try and reframe this usage as though I am engaging in WP:OWNERSHIP behavior over the section, which he has all but directly accused me of throughout this disagreement over editing this specific section.

    This is where my consideration of potential WP:IDONTLIKE comes in, as I could not otherwise explain:

    1) The constantly aggressive assertions insisting there had been no prior consensus and accusing me of fabricating a claim of consensus to engage in WP:OWNERSHIP, and;

    2) The consistent refusal to attempt to gain a (new) consensus which would easily have solved this perceived issue once and for all.

    As I write this now I still do not understand what could presumably explain the behavior, outside of: not liking that the edit was reverted; not liking the idea that I could have been right on an issue, or; not liking the idea that they could have been wrong on an issue. There was no support for the user's edit, no support for their assertion that there was no consensus, and no attempt to either let it go or seek to problem solve via compromise. On this point, if absolutely nothing else, I am at a complete loss to understand a different, more sensible explanation than those three possibilities.

    Refuting false assertion of "I'm always right, you're always wrong" logic

    I have already noted elsewhere in this reply examples verifying that this is an absolute fabrication, and indeed that @BootsED has themselves engaged in this sort of behavior they have accused me of.

    The most glaring example which by itself makes one wonder why @BootsED would continue to push this obvious falsehood: Here @BootsED once again would make this assertion that I was refusing to accept being wrong about anything, that I was insisting I was right about everything and insisting that they were wrong about everything. Here is the message by me in which that WP:GASLIGHT reply was made in response to.

    I note no less than 3 points in that prior message in which I was acknowledging that they had made a correct point and thus where I had been previously incorrect. No other exchange between myself and @BootsED is as black and white crystal clear as this on this issue. The fact that they continue to make such statements after this is why I have no qualms about calling it exactly what it is: an outright lie. There is no misunderstanding it after that. I challenge them to directly answer why they made such a slanderous and false assertion directly in response to a message which clearly shows such an assertion to be false?

    Whatever else one may come to conclude about any of this, certainly one would be unreasonable to assert that the evidence would show that I have shown "repeated insistence that he is right and I am wrong", as they claim. Even the example they have provided to try and "prove" that point, doesn't. It shows my belief that I had proven my side of the issue, and asking them if they could disprove from the opposite side of said issue. I did not say "I am right, you are wrong", I said "I'm sure I am right, but can you prove me wrong?" Seems rather unreasonable to misrepresent that in the manner they have done here.

    "Despite his interpretations being unanimously rejected...continued to insist his edits and interpretations of policy not disputed by at least..."

    A bluntly false framing in which this user decides to try and make it seem as though there is any support for their position or that my position is outright unreasonable, and it just makes it even more confusing. "Despite his interpretations being unanimously rejected by other editors multiple times, TheRazgriz has continued to insist his edits and interpretations of policy not disputed by at least three editors cannot be removed." This really comes across as if their justification for their stance is just whataboutism, specifically "what about that other time where you were wrong?" Someone can be right about some things and wrong about others. "A broken clock is right twice a day" is a popular phrase for a reason. You cannot just dismiss because "Raz was wrong about other, unrelated things."

    There is no "unanimous" view on this at the time of this NB being authored, there is as of yet not a single editor which has voiced a shared view with them on this or attempted to at least counter my view on this. Furthermore, the linked/cited message they refer to shows no such claim to be valid, this idea that my interpretation of policy needs 3 editors to overturn...frankly, that is just nonsense. It isn't a matter of overturning personal opinions on policy, its about abiding by a policy they refuse to recognize, in letter or in spirit, even in the compromised manner in which I have given them to consider. I'm not sure what purpose is better served by refusing a consensus compromise and instead taking this action to escalate to admins.

    Concerning the closing of a Talk topic

    The talk page which I closed was no longer active, and no attempt had been made to revive it, and it seemed to be misunderstood. I closed it with a summary which @BootsED themselves admitted was accurate as far as its summary relating to the issue with the "Economy" section (though disagreeing with a different part of the summary describing other issues as having snowballed, which I in retrospect agreed that was an inaccurate way to describe the other issues, I could have and should have found a more accurate descriptor).

    I did not challenge the reversal of the closure whatsoever, nor did I challenge the opposition from my referring to the other matters as snowballed, and agreed with point brought up by @Pbritti on my talk page HERE discouraging closing of topics I myself have been involved in. That is in-line with WP:CLOSE and good advice anyway, and I have not attempted to close any topics since (and don't plan to again in future).

    Refuting allusion to events surrounding the Talk closure

    I do absolutely reject the false framing here by trying to assert that in some sort of "response to having my closure un-closed" I then would start making arguments from my perspective on WP:RS and WP:OR, and the assertion that they are "unanimously rejected by multiple editors" when other users have given credit to parts of my arguments and interpretations, such as: HERE, where a user on the NB still disagreed with my interpretation but gives credit to my line of argument.

    I also had been making my arguments relating to such issues well before @BootsED even created the NB relating to the closure, as seen throughout THIS topic, so again this framing is false, which appears to try and make it seem as if I perhaps went on some sort of WP:DE spree, at least that is the takeaway I was left with upon reading just that specific portion of the initial NB topic.

    Concering alleged "refusal" to engage

    Follow the link they provided. Then see just how many back and forths we had each had leading up to that point. Then return that that diff and re-read what I stated there. Regardless of if you agree with the point I made there or not, of if you would take either of our "sides" on that issue, certainly one cannot agree that this is an example of me "refusing to engage". Furthermore, while WP does indeed highly ask for participation in discussions and such, I find no rule, guideline, or even essay which notes that I am required to engage with someone until they don't want to engage with me anymore. I am not their toy or other plaything. I get to decide if I wish to continue to engage or not, and what I wish to engage with or not, and I do not find it reasonable to suggest that I have no free agency in this regard.

    Clarifying that my position is that the 2020 conspiracy is long-settled as FALSE, and my edit should not have been misconstrued to claim I believed otherwise

    This is largely unimportant, but many aspects of this history of back and forths seem to me to be getting confused in relation to these specific points. Ignore if you like, this is mostly me getting this off my chest because I am sick of being repeatedly misrepresented on this point.

    I was trying to take the meat and potatoes of the edit @BootsED had done there, and tried to do what I believed to be cleaning it up in a better way. At a passive read, the first thought I had about their edit there was that it came across as "hammering the point". "Gee, I wonder if the reader really gets the point that it was all a big lie? Sure we've led this horse to water, but surely we can dunk their head under for a bit just to make sure, right? Should we hold their hand a little more? Perhaps yet more weighted language will help them really get how false the falsehood falsely is?" And none of that comes from an opposition to calling it a falsehood on-face, only that I wanted to try and tone down what I saw as over-editorializing language to more naturally present the point to the reader.

    What I can only surmise is that the @BootsED suffered a hiccup in judgement with respect to this particular issue. When all you have is a hammer, every screw looks like a nail. All he saw was "false" go away, and they decided I was challenging the validity of calling it a falsehood at all. In light of the rest of the context as I've laid out for my actions here, I hope whoever does care to read this comes away at least understanding that I was never challenging if it is or isn't false or if it could be referred to as such, only trying to do a good faith edit that ended up being disagreed with. I don't see FALSE as the only acceptable way to talk about a falsehood, much less each and every time it is mentioned. That to me is an Einstellung effect which I do not suffer from or share. I did not take it kindly that this was misrepresented in the first place, and it frankly pissed me off to have that mischaracterization repeated multiple times over a disagreement over grammatical and sentence structure edit disagreement from the editor I had made the correction to. I do believe my reply of "Your Majesty" then seems to be at least much more understood...though in retrospect, it was unwise.

    Concerning WP:UNCIVIL behaviors

    I apologize, but this will have to be the lengthiest as it is the most serious of concerns here, and the specifics require me to overcome the false framing presented by the other User.

    As admitted by @BootsED, when I noticed he had taken offense from my statements relating to them having a potential unaddressed bias which could be effecting their editing on this WP:CTOP subject matter, I apologized (to be clear, I did so twice. Once within one of the many back-and-forth replies immediately after, and a second time where I specifically apologized on his talk page which he makes mention of above, as I wanted to make sure it didn't get lost in the heated discussion). I stated in the message here that my intention was not to personally offend, only to call attention to what I perceived as a potential issue. When @BootsED made it clear that they had taken that statement as a personally offensive statement, I immediately apologized to clear the air and hopefully reinforce that our disagreement should be done as a matter of "professional" disagreement, not personal attacks and uncharitable assumptions. Perhaps they do not accept that apology, but they have admitted above to recognizing it as such. I stand by that apology, I meant that apology, and it is very important to me to apologize the moment I have caused someone an unjustified offense. It is a point of personal responsibility, regardless of if I will or will not be forgiven.

    First action that Offended me

    Here in the above NB message after acknowledging the apology, they then follow up that admission by whitewashing their own actions afterwards to remove context from later actions I would take. Later on, in the RfC relating to the use of "false" in relation to "lawfare" claims and such, another Users comment about why they voted "SUPPORT" highlighted to me something I had not noticed prior: That the RfC was also over if using "false" in relation to the 2020 election fraud conspiracy pushed by Trump was valid or not.

    This confused me, as there had previously not been any discussion or noted disagreement with such, and this greatly offended me as it appeared to make me or anyone taking any sort of "OPPOSE" stance as also seeming to support the WP:FRINGE view that defends the conspiracy as being valid...something I have not done, certainly not in the context of any Wikipedia page. I made it crystal clear this allusion offended me greatly. At no point did @BootsED offer even a fake apology for the presumed offense given, instead not only defending their view that it belonged as part of the RfC, but also doubling down on the allusion itself by making the false assertion that I was "now agreed" with referring to that conspiracy as false, this time more directly asserting that I had stood in opposition to that at some prior point in time.

    Reinforcing the Offense as intentional

    Despite multiple efforts to clarify my position and request that they retract these inaccurate allusions, @BootsED outright refused and instead demonstrated what seemed to be passive-aggressive uncivil behavior. His reply here seemed to me to not be done out of a position of assuming good faith, but instead out of a personally uncharitable assumption that they wished to reinforce at my expense. Arguments do not necessarily always have to be "fair" per se, but they should be done with civility and assuming good faith unless given a clear reason to assume otherwise. I do not see that reply as assuming good faith towards me and my position. It would have been simple to say simply "No offense intended", "I'm sorry you took it that way", etc. Instead, passive aggressive reinforcement of the offense is what was given.

    And when it is @BootsED who has caused an offense, they repeatedly refuse to accept that offense was either given or taken, and don't even offer a fake apology to clear the air and proceed in good faith. If I could offer apology, twice, for a single offense out of a desire to want to move forward in good faith with a disagreement, why is @BootsED unwilling to do a fraction of the same when the shoe is on the other foot and they are the party from which offense has been either given or taken? Why do they instead do nothing less than explicitly reinforce the perceived bad faith? So I called that repeated choice out. And at that time, again, they could then have chosen to recognize the error. Again, they did not apologize or otherwise seek to move towards a fully good faith interaction. Instead, they send this message, which serves as nothing more than a way to assert that I have done everything wrong and they have done everything right...which they then with zero irony would go on to accuse me of doing later on.

    After all of this, I still wanted to work in good faith. I drew a line in the sand with the users outright attempt at WP:GASLIGHT by asserting I was engaging in an "I'm always right, you're always wrong" capacity DIRECTLY in response to my message acknowledging I was wrong and they were right on no less than 3 different points. That to me was a point of nearly no return...but still I tried. I offered an olive branch. Either take the olive branch and we can move forward in good faith, walk away if we cannot, or engage in bad faith and have it escalated. The user seemed to take the olive branch, but instead of seeking good faith compromise, the user demanded that I promise not to make further edits. When I indicated that "good faith" includes good faith opposition, and offered a possible compromise and ASKED if that is something they could agree to...they authored this NB topic. So here we are.

    This ends my "testimony", as it were. We are all biased to ourselves, and as I am sure is the case with all disagreements: There is "their side", "my side" and "the truth" is somewhere in the middle. The only real question is a matter of degrees. I have not addressed assertions posited by certain others here, because again I am not good at being concise. Did you really WANT this to be twice the size? I think not. If Admins would like to ask me about those other things, I am more than happy to answer, I am just trying to be considerate of your time and patience.

    To the admins who read all of this, you have my respect. This is a bit much even for me, but again I didn't know how else to condense it further than this. Perhaps you and others see an obvious way to do that, but it isn't to me. This is something I struggle with IRL, I don't mean to be a burden on your time. I don't care if you agree with me or disagree with me, in whole or in part, or if you feel you want to take some action against me. These are all your choices, not mine. All I want to do now is again thank you for your time, and especially if you read every word, thank you from the bottom of my heart for giving me a real and honest chance to explain myself and my side of the story in my own uncensored words. I promise I really will try to keep it as short as I can if you wish to ask me any questions. Thank you. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TheRazgriz, your apology for taking up our time is appreciated, and I accept that you're not being so verbose on purpose, but it still makes it very, very hard to engage with you. It seems to me that you defend yourself at length against a lot of charges that are a matter of opinion (such as whether your actions show "immediate and consistent good faith", whether your interpretations of policy on article talk have been successfully challenged, etc, etc), while failing to write a single word about the important sourcing matter described by TarnishedPath + BootsED immediately above your post, including how you reject NYT while pushing usage of WP:POST. That is egregious, and suggests your grip on the reliability of sources is tenuous (and also tendentious). This, cited by BootsED, is downright wikilawyering. I apologize if you did address this somewhere above and I missed it; I did read the whole, but I admit my eyes were trying to glaze over. The same thing keeps happening, probably not just to me, at article talk. A pageblock from 2024 United States elections and its talkpage seems an absolute minimum of a sanction here; your editing of the article is tendentious, and, however much you apologize for it, your use of the talkpage in defense of that editing is destructive and ruinous. See also my comments on your own page about bludgeoning article talk. Bishonen | tålk 06:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    As I addressed here, my defense for using NYP was based on my apparent outdated recollection of the WP:RS list/consensus. I had recalled that just a couple of years ago the conensus was "Generally Reliable" on most subjects and that for the issue of politics it was "No consensus" on if it was or was not reliable. This was pointed out by others to be incorrect as that that had changed. I confirmed that to be true, and admitted my fault openly.
    Also, I am not challenging NYT, that is a mischaracterization of my position there. Specifically I was challenging the use of 1 article based on 2 issues: 1) The 2 credited authors are, according to their own biographical information, a Graphics Journalist and a Graphics Editor, and 2) The piece they had authored spoke in very authoritative terms and tone on a scholastic field in which neither author are authorities to speak in such a way. Neither author, as far as any of the research I conducted could find, have any formal or informal education on the subjects of Political Science or Law. Specifically, the issue was that not only were these 2 non-authorities being cited at all, but also being directly quoted at length within the citation, the entirety of which was just their personal opinion presented as authoritative fact.
    I have taken no issue with any other sourcing, from NYT or otherwise, as I see no issues with how those other pieces are represented, but the way this was being used at no less than 3 different points within the article seemed problematic. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Raz, you have stated your opposition to the NYT as a RS as per your comment here. BootsED (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop gaslighting me, and admins at this point, by trying to yet again control and misconstrue the framing of a fact to better suit your opinion.
    What I did state about NYT itself is a fact widely reported, such as here. I am allowed to have a personal opinion that the ONE and ONLY NYT article I directly challenged is likely a result of that hampered editorial standard having allowed an error. Nowhere do I argue that opinion as a fact or to justify an edit. You and everyone else who reads that clearly knows I am challenging your preferred citation by Yourish & Smart. Yourish & Smart are not NYT, and NYT is not Yourish & Smart. My challenge is against the authors legitimacy so speak on the matter they speak on in authoritative tone, combined with how you would like to use the citation in the article. That is literally it. It isn't deeper than that, so please stop digging.
    What you do NOT see there is any assertion by me that comes close to me being in "opposition to the NYT as a RS". Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I offered a good faith compromise to settle our disagreement via WP:CON, and you have elected to do all of this?" @TheRazgriz, this is a highly unhelpful attitude and yet another misinterpretation of WP:PAG. WP:CON doesn't require that other editors compromise with those who are putting forward faulty policy positions. That's not how we do things around here. You need to start listening to other editors when you are wrong. No one is right all of the time. TarnishedPathtalk 10:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, no one is right all of the time. That is my point. Allow me to suggest that no is wrong all the time either.
    So I ask: Can you explain how this is not an example of WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, and what WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS would look like in practice as opposed to this example? I understand all other participants positions on their interpretations of other policies in other discussions (and their repudiation of mine), but no one (including you) have explained what or how I must be incorrect here on the issue of WP:CON. It is simply asserted that I must be wrong, because I have been wrong on other subjects. That is highly fallacious, and I believe you can understand that. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote: You need to start listening to other editors when you are wrong (emphasis mine) I didn't write that you are wrong on all occasions. TarnishedPathtalk 13:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that. With that in mind, and understanding that something needs to be said in order for me to listen to it, could you answer and explain the question I posted previously? Thank you. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that I didn't participate in that discussion and wasn't involved in or witness any editing that went along with that discussion I don't feel like I can give a good interpretation. TarnishedPathtalk 04:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Further discussion

    [edit]
    Replying here as there was a premature automatic archive. It appears there is a consensus for some sort of remedy. Myself and TarnishedPath have voiced support for a post 1992-American politics topic ban, and Bishonen and Doug Weller have voiced support for a page-block on the 2024 United States elections page at least. Doug, on 7 December you asked for more information on NOR and RS issues. I think there has been ample discussion on this point in reply to your question, but if you need further clarification or if that changes your opinion at all, please let us know. BootsED (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BootsED, if nothing happens prior to a thread being automatically archived that's generally because no uninvolved admin has seen enough for any action. TarnishedPathtalk 01:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s a shame if so. My understanding is that there is a consensus at least for a page block. If not, I will need to know as I will have to create another RfC as Raz is still opposing edits to the page that are without an RfC. BootsED (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you talking about 2024 United States elections or some other page? I've not taken notice of this whole discussion. If you're talking about 2024 United States elections then it seems they've not made any major edits since I made my last edits. TarnishedPathtalk 11:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I’m referring to the 2024 elections page. Raz has said he will revert my edits to the economy section unless there is a consensus to do so. I explained it above but perhaps it was lost in all the text. BootsED (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just make the changes and if they revert then we can discuss. TarnishedPathtalk 13:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said what I actually said, which is that I will revert changes which violate the prior consensus unless a new consensus can be established to over-ride the previous consensus. I have been clear on this, regardless of how much cherry-picking to remove context. Good faith edits, in line with the consensus, will not be reverted. Edits, good faith or otherwise, which directly conflict with established consensus, will be reverted per WP:CON and WP:DICC, regardless of their unsubstantiated insistence against the prior consensus and their refusal to even attempt to gain new consensus.
    No less than 3 other editors besides myself participated and voiced their opinions relating to the economy section. That makes a total of 4 actively participating editors at that time arriving to a consensus and with no opposing view on what to do in relation to the "economy" section and accepting the current version of it. As passionately as @BootsED may believe that their interpretation of the discussion does not render a consensus, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS can not be over-ridden by one editors passionate disapproval or disagreement. This is not about me or them, it is about upholding WP:PAG. After multiple attempts at directly linking to the discussion and explaining it repeatedly over weeks now, I cannot be much clearer on my position on this. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a consensus. The section is about the indictments section being too big in comparison to the other sections. The economy section is mentioned among several others, such as the abortion section. No consensus exists for the content of the section in question. Reverting edits you don't like claiming consensus is the definition of disruptive editing. BootsED (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The economy...is given a single paragraph while abortion...is given 3 entire body paragraphs...The indictment stuff should also be trimmed down..." That is a direct copy/paste of the very first thing the topic creator wrote, slimmed down to highlight the 3 aspects they were concerned with. The very first thing mentioned is the economy section being too short for how important it was to the election according to several citied sources.
    1) Economy section needs to be bigger; 2) Abortion section needs to be shorter; 3) Indictments section needs to be way shorter. Each of these concerns were addressed.
    "Ok since the economy section is now big enough I will remove the undue weight template" was the last thing posted in that topic. AFTER abortion got trimmed down. AFTER the indictments section got trimmed way down. The issue was still not resolved. Only AFTER the economy section was expanded to its current size, did the issue of undue weight appear to be addressed via consensus. I did not make that determination, others did. So I will say again, do not attempt to unilaterally overturn consensus because you have a personal opinion one way or the other. Address your concern through proper means, such as establishing a new consensus.
    This will be my final message here unless I am pinged by an admin or other user to address the actual point of this NB topic. If you wish to continue to hash out this issue, either with me or with others, the article talk page is the appropriate space to do that, not here on this NB. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My edits you reverted immediately twice claiming consensus did not drastically change the length of the section in proportion to the other sections. The only "consensus" you claim was that other sections should be made shorter and brought in line with one another. You used that as an excuse to revert edits addressing NPOV issues claiming a consensus on the content. Again, that discussion you posted was a general agreement that other sections of the page should be trimmed down, not that the content that you added to one section was the "final" version that can't be changed unless a new consensus was reached. This is partly why I brought this forward in this NB, as this is what I and other editors have seen as the latest example of your disruptive, tendentious editing and uncivil behavior I detailed in my initial reply above. BootsED (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I expected, you have reverted edits to the page and accused me of disruptive editing. I made it quite clear that my edit was not violating section you claim as a consensus. Your prior comments here said your concern was that my edits made the section too short, but your recent revert makes it clear to me you are engaging in an edit war to remove any edits to the economy section. To be clear, the section you have repeatedly pointed to claims of a consensus do not say that your content is "final" and cannot be changed, and no agreement on the content of the economy section was made. There was only discussion that the section should be more than one paragraph, and that other sections should be reduced in size. I believe you are WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM. Your edit describing me as a "revision of possible WP:DE action, violation of WP:CON. User was warned repeatedly on this page and on Admin NB against bold edits in violation of WP:CON and was advised repeatedly to achieve new consensus prior to such edits. User insists on talk pages that they do not require WP:CON to edit" to me is clearly WP:SANCTIONGAME, and at this point, and with the amount of other editors here who have spoken against you already, I think an immediate page ban is necessary at this point. BootsED (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RocketKnightX Disruptive Editing

    [edit]

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

    The user had been involved in an Edit War at 15.ai, when I proposed a TBAN for RocketKnightX in response to their persistent disruptive editing of 15.ai, I dropped the complaint when they said they would stop [10]. They were invited to the AfD discussion and then went to 15.ai and deleted the AfD notice [11] and declared my policy based removal of WP:NOSOCIAL and WP:YOUTUBE external links to be vandalism [12]. Their edit summary and some of their activity demonstrates a lack of maturity[13]. He was also warned for making personal attacks [14] coupled with their past activity on Wikipedia such as this edit summary[15] I think some manner of intervention is warranted at this point. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 10:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing the AfD template is pretty disruptive, as the template has clear in-your-face text that says "do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed". Talking nonsense about vandalism in the edit summary when reverting a well-explained edit here is not good either. Doing these things after promising to stop "causing issues" at the article is block-worthy. Blocked 31 hours. Bishonen | tålk 11:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Part of me wouldn't be surprised if RocketKnightX is involved in the sock/SPA disruption at the afd, or even a User:HackerKnownAs sock. WHile it wouldn't surprise me if true I don't suspect enough to take to SPI, afterall the evidence would be behavioural and there are some differences in behaviour. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think they're a HKA Sock given the wildly different behaviors, but RK was suspected of being someone else's Sock in an ANI discussion that produced no results [16] Brocade River Poems (She/They) 13:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tacotron2 attempted WP:VOTESTACK

    [edit]

    Tacotron2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am just creating this complaint as a sub-section because it is directly related to RocketKnightX's activity. After having a discussion where they were made aware that The person who solicits other people inappropriately may be subject to administrative review if the behavior is severe enough.[17], my colleague apparently took that as a sign to hit the campaign trail. When I saw they solictied RocketKnightX[18] and others[19][20] to the AfD I left a warning [21] about their canvassing. They proceeded to canvass more anyway [22][23][24]. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't see your first message. It wasn't done intentionally. Tacotron2 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, I can probably believe that you didn't see my warning. What I do not believe is that you didn't know what you were doing was wrong when an admin already told that people who solicit (i.e the people asking others to the vote) inappropriately may be subject to administrative review. After that message you:
    • Canvassed a known disruptive edit warrior [25]
    • Canvassed someone whom you believed would support your outcome because they believed a source was reliable.[26]
    • Canvassed someone who said use the source until someone contests [27]
    • Canvassed someone who voted keep the last AfD [28]
    • Canvassed someone who voted keep the last AfD [29]
    • Canassed someone who voted keep the last AfD. [30]
    Notably, you didn't provide a notice to any editor who was involved in editing 15.ai who might reasonably be expected to vote delete, nor did you canvass anyone who voted delete in the last AfD. Why you felt it necessary to specifically invite Elmidae when you pinged them in your response to the AfD I also do not know or understand. Notably, you did not invite the following editors who were active recently at 15.ai Polygnotus, Thought 1915, YesI'mOnFire, Sj, Cooldudeseven7, The Hand That Feeds You, or the editors who voted Delete last time such as LilianaUwU, Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum, and Cinadon36.
    This is pretty clear WP:VOTESTACKING. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done intentionally? In the discussion on my talk page (User talk:Rsjaffe#AfD Issues), you were worried about being labeled as canvassed and I made the distinction that we are generally looking at the canvasser, not the canvassed. This was in a discussion about what sort of behavior merits reporting to ANI. And after all that, you claim ignorance of the issue? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be honest with you. I had a brain fart. I thought canvassing was coordinating off Wikipedia to stack a vote. I thought that if you did it on a user's Wikipedia talk pages directly, it wasn't canvassing. I don't know why I thought that. I read something similar to that somewhere else on Wikipedia and I must have misinterpreted it, where asking editors to contribute to a discussion was encouraged. I'm sorry about that. Tacotron2 (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, read WP:CAN, and please reply that you understand and will follow the behavioral guideline from now on. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I understand. I will follow the behavioral guidelines. Sorry again. Tacotron2 (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A Summary

    [edit]

    This, like many cases here at WP:ANI, is a conduct dispute that began as a content dispute. The content dispute was at 15.ai, and was over what the infobox should say was the status of the web site. Some editors said that the web site was under maintenance (and temporarily down for maintenance) and should say that. Other editors said that the web site was abandoned and should say that.

    A request was made, on 5 October 2024, for moderated discussion at DRN by an editor who was then indefinitely blocked for unrelated conduct. However, other editors took part, including User:BrocadeRiverPoems and User:RocketKnightX. The DRN is archived at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_250#15.ai. I then started an RFC on the status of the web site, at Talk:15.ai. That was meant to resolve the content dispute.

    User:HackerKnownAs then filed a complaint at WP:ANI against User:BrocadeRiverPoems on 16 November 2024, that is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#BrocadeRiverPoems_behavioral_issues. That complaint and the reply were both Too Long to Read. User:HackerKnownAs and some other editors were then blocked for sockpuppetry.

    User:RocketKnightX continued to edit-war, and User:BrocadeRiverPoems proposed a topic-ban against RocketKnightX from the page 15.ai. RocketKnightX said that they would stop edit-warring. At about this point, that ANI was closed.

    User:BrocadeRiverPoems then nominated the article 15.ai for deletion on 2 December 2024. I have not (as of the time of this post) done a source analysis on the article, and so do not have an opinion on the AFD at this time.

    User:BrocadeRiverPoems closed the RFC as an involved snow close on 4 December 2024 to omit the status of the web site from the infobox, because there are no reliable sources stating either that it is under maintenance or that it is abandoned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)

    Proposal 1: Site Ban for User:RocketKnightX

    [edit]

    I think that the conduct of User:RocketKnightX is a strong net negative for the community. They agreed to stop edit-warring, possibly only in order to avoid being topic-banned, and have resumed edit-warring. They removed the AFD banner, which is very clearly forbidden, while accusing User:BrocadeRiverPoems of vandalism. I think that RocketKnightX has exhausted the patience of the community and should be banned by the community.

    • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support When I looked at their history, they have a history of incivility, borderline WP:NATIONALIST editing[31][32],[33] where they continue act disruptively within the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Armenia-Azerbaijan and a number of other problems that indicate WP:NPOV and WP:CIR issues[34] including at one point bizarrely restoring a massive plot synopsis that another editor had created [35] that had been removed by two different editors for being too long [36][37]. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I see Robert enumerates exactly the same problems with RocketKnightX's editing as I did above, where I gave them a 31-hour block (currently an active block) for them. The only difference is that Robert assumes bad faith of RocketKnightX's undertaking to stop edit warring ("They agreed to stop edit-warring, possibly only in order to avoid being topic-banned, and have resumed edit-warring"). We're not supposed to do that, and I'll point out that RKX agreed to stop on 18 November and only went back to disruptive actions at 15.ai (not actually to edit warring, but to the aforementioned removal of the AfD banner and accusation of vandalism) again on 7 December, three weeks later. The agreement to stop in November doesn't look to me like part of a heinous plan to continue disrupting; it seems at least as likely that they had simply forgotten about it three weeks later. It was six words that look angrily dashed-off; not some elaborate undertaking. The whole notion that RKX has already "exhausted the patience of the community" seems weirdly excessive. I stand by my 31-hour block as the more appropriate sanction. Bishonen | tålk 13:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
      I do feel that WP:CIR is a very valid, chronic concern with this editor regardless of edit warring, specifically the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus. In October they asked me what they should do in cases of disputes. When I told them what they should do, about dispute resolution, etc. they responded Too hard. This site is the hardest thing to do.[38]. Coupled with dropping edit summaries like "I said stop!" and "deal with it" and their WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude on talkpages [39] and I'm not really sure what the community is expected to do when the user has self-proclaimed that learning dispute resolution is too hard. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're bringing up edit summaries from months ago, this article has been the subject of way too many project discussions already and I think that comments made in October have already been dealt with when those discussions were closed. If there have been recent issues, you can share those edits but don't dig up the past. I'm with Bishonen here. Yes, this is not an enormously productive editor but this seems like overkill. Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I must confess, I am a tad confused as to how one demonstrates chronic, intractable behavioral problems problems without bringing up the past behavior considering as they once again did the same behavior while also removing the AfD notice from the article. [40]. Oh well. It would seem I have a completely incorrect understanding of what this whole "chronic behavioral problem" business is. Mea culpa. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 13:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BrocadeRiverPoems, it seems like you rely too much on coming to ANI, AN and SPI when you encounter an editor you disagree with who might have had moments of disruption. Don't seek to get every adversarial editor blocked from discussions or the site. Learn how to talk out problems instead of coming to noticeboards, seeking topic bans and site blocks. It's like using a hammer to get a fly to move. Learn proportionally. ANI is for serious behavioral problems, not just for editors you might find annoying. An overreliance on ANI starts to reflect poorly on you and whether you have the ability to amicably resolve disputes instead of trying to eliminate contrary editors. That's my honest opinion. At times, you can seem a little relentless. Learn to collaborate with those whom you disagree or, if that fails, keep some distance between you. That's what most of us longtimers do. Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sharnadd and disruptive editing/CIR

    [edit]

    Hi, Sharnadd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing disruptively recently and with a past block in June 2024 (block warning on talk page), I think more action is required. I don’t think their edits are vandalism and may not warrant a full rollback but I do think they are disruptive and might need a WP:CIR block. I [41] (and many others) [42] [43] [44] have addressed this in both user and article talk pages, but they do not seem to understand the issues raised. It also appears this editor may not have a good grasp of English due to the misspellings and grammar issues they have introduced.
    -edit warring to readd reverted information: [45], [46], [47], and [48]

    -Partially deleted talk page discussions in a manner that changes what the original post means (instead of fully blanking): [49] and [50]

    -Added uncited section in broken English: [51]

    -Nonsense edit summaries: Good title of country [52] and [53] Added book shop I go marks and Spencers is a supermarket. There are full service hotels at a service station not motels which generally have the doors outside

    -Removal of info with confusing, misspelled edit summaries: [54] and [55]

    Please let me know if there’s any mistakes, or additional information needed. Thanks, Sarsenet (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There's an evidwnt error in the ES of that "uncited section" diff, "Added types" should be "typos". Narky Blert (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thata not true I haven't been disruptive posting. I had been adding information with citations. I know that you had a problem as I made a spelling mistake on a posting by that's hardly Sharnadd (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    145 I added additional sources the originator agreed and has removed some of his incorrect information. Sharnadd (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    146 I apologised to Cassiopeia as when I edited I had accidently removed some information from lower down and she put it back for me Sharnadd (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    147 I sent belbury the current information that is per the regulations as he had a query on regs after Brexit Sharnadd (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    148 to 151 it wasn't an editing war. Someone was removing information as I was added several citations as they did not think the citations were good enough but they had not seen guardian citations. Information was left on as citations given Sharnadd (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    152 and 153 when you mentions the problem with my accidently spelling he word placed as places I would happily have blanked your discussion from my talk page if I knew how to do so it seems I can only edit Sharnadd (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    156 to 157 what would you prefer the edit summary to say. Would you prefer that they remain blank Sharnadd (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    157 to 158 it was t confusing at all. The page was listed as breakfast sandwich from United states. Since It discussed the American breakfast sandwich in the overview history and ingredients I removed the reference to other types. Since you stated it was for all types of breakfast sandwich I removed the origin as united states Sharnadd (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your edits for Breakfast sandwich the problem is that your injecting your own understanding, but that is not how Wikipedia works when it comes to adding or removing information -- for example, see WP:TRUE TiggerJay (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks that is why I ended up removing the origin as though the breakfast sandwich being discussed was solely about the American type rather than general sandwhichs as it discussed the American sandwhichs in all parts of the article. It really didn't seem to refer to general sandwhichs Sharnadd (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer that you use clear, concise edit summaries as when they're present, they're not constructive. Sarsenet (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I usually use clear concise summaries stating what I have added or why I have changed an article but since you do not like them I wonder if you had an example of what you prefer. Such as if there is a spelling mistake I would say spelling corrected or if I have added to the history I would say further historical information provided Sharnadd (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sarsenet - honestly I think looking at the edit summaries for the main article space look on par with what most people do when it comes to ES and prose. However, I believe your bigger problem is that the summary does not always accurately reflect the nature of all of the changes made during an edit.
    @Sharnadd - I think that it would be helpful if you either included all the types of changes being made in your summary, or better yet, break up your edits into "change topics" that is, if your correcting links, that is one type of edit, whereas removing duplicate content is something else. For example, I take a look at this edit while it might make sense to condense this section since there is already a separate article, it makes no sense to me why you removed chess pie? TiggerJay (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I apologize, I wasn't the clearest in explaining my issues with the ES. I do agree with you that the biggest problems with the summaries are that they're not totally accurate. Sarsenet (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding removing other peoples talk messages in part, such as this example -- there is no special "full blanking" tool or feature, but instead the problem is that you partially deleted only some of what the other editor posted on your talk page. That is an inappropriate form of WP:REFACTORING. You have the ability to "edit" and fully remove the discussion, as the second example regarding Pie seems to be your intention there. TiggerJay (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes thanks I will just try and blank it or do just a short response next time. Sharnadd (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure you're understanding, the problem is not with how you reply to people on your talk page, you can reply however you want, it can be short or very long, or not at all, that is your choice. You can also delete someone's entire post to your talk page. However, the concern presented here was that you were changing other peoples post to your talk page in a way where you removed only part of what they said, instead of the entire thing, which then misrepresents what they said for the record. In general, if you're not completely blanking the page or entire section, then make sure you understand the refactoring link I shared above. TiggerJay (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards to Delicatessen those edits broadly fall under WP:3R which is a form of edit waring, even if unintentional. Your edits were removed more than once, and regardless of your reasoning, you do not simply re-add information that was removed without either (1) fully addressing the initial concert; or (2) bringing the discussion to the talk page to find consensus with other editors. TiggerJay (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ah thank you. I was still adding citations at the time. The man who changed them thought they weren't a good source so I apologised and put back with the guardian. He apologised that he hadn't seen it. I them added the BBC and guardian. I will just message him with the extra situations next time and explain I am adding more Sharnadd (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, when I was very new I made the mistake of making multiple edits while developing a part of an article and saving the changes while my edits/changes were a partial work in progress. That generally is not a good idea, especially when what you're changing might be viewed as controversial or contested. When that is the case, you certainly want to be adding references at the time of making those changes (in that specific edit). Now, that being said, you don't want to go and make multiple changes to an article. Generally you want to do it either in sections (such as fixing grammar, prose, etc) or all centered around a common change. For example, say there is an article about a UK topic where WP:DATE would generally say that since most of the dates are written out as 12 December, but you find a few places that say December 12, go ahead and fix the whole article to adjust the date. But just the date with an edit summary stating such -- but please don't even that without understanding the nuance presented in WP:DATE, so don't go around "fixing" dates. TiggerJay (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First a caution about how you're responding to the various links provided, those numbers are dynamic and may change at any point, which will cause confusion. For example, at the time of me writing this reply, 145 is now part of the section above regarding User LesbianTiamat which I am certain you're not referring to... So please use a different way to explain the various edits. For example, what is currently #157 will change, so perhaps when responding you might say for example: for Beefsteak and this diff my reason is xyz... TiggerJay (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks I thought they would also lin to the pages she had a problem with. So the one with a incorrectly spelled word will link to something else. Will do thanks again for your help Sharnadd (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not 100% sure who you're referring to here, but if it's me, I'm not a "she." Thanks, Sarsenet (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry,I will refer to you as he if that is correct Sharnadd (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The beefsteak page that you had a problem with I ran through several grammar checkers and it is fine
    I will add some citations showing the common ingredients we serve with steak Sharnadd (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several problems with this diff on Beefsteaks. Among them grammar and spelling problems. I'm not sure what program you're using, but here is just a few examples, with sea salt nd pepper and seared. There is clearly either a typographical error of some sort with the word nd, which was probably originally and, but even as such "with sea salt and pepper and seared" would not be correct. Additionally, ending the statement with a semi-colon would also not be correct for this statement. Using a capital letter for In steak restaurants, you do not capitalize the first letter after a comma. And this list goes on, there are numerous errors in this edit. What I think people are expecting is for you to simply admit your errors, instead of trying to defend these edits, and simply find a way to do better. Also browser based "checkers" like Grammarly, are generally not correct, especially when the content contains markup. It might also explain why you removed several wikilinks for no apparent good reason, which is where writing a good edit summary is important, especially when you make extensive changes with such an uninformative summary. TiggerJay (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the help Sharnadd (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (See below first) There does appear to be a serious problem with how edits are being made, I do assume that these were made in good faith, but I believe that it is a competency issue with regards to accidentally removing information too frequently. Here are some examples where I believe content was not intentionally removed (often edit summaries simply refer to adding information), but regardless it was removed, and in some cases, were not reverted until I discovered it during this research -- all from the last week alone: [56] [57] [58] [59] TiggerJay (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry the above first sentence was terribly worded. What I intend to convey is that there is a serious problem with the technical side of how they're editing causing a higher than usual number of unintended (AGF) removal of content from articles (and even on his own talk page). To some degree this is a CIR when it comes to how they edit. It might be due to their use of a mobile device. This is not the only problem, but this is perhaps more egregious than simply poor edit summaries or his UK-bias/whitewashing in edits. TiggerJay (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a UK bias I just prefer for things to be factual which is why I try and add citations from several different areas. There appears to be a strong American bias on articles with incorrect information Sharnadd (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you speak at all to the concern about what appears to be errors while editing where you're removing information accidentally? And if not accidentally, perhaps another explanation? For example, removing Canada and Hong Kong's entries from Bread Pudding? Or removing an entire paragraph about Gervase Markham from Pie? TiggerJay (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to start editing on the laptop to help avoid these accidental deletions. Sharnadd (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand --- was just doing some editing on a mobile device yesterday, and was reminded just how much more difficult it is, and how easy it is to make errors that way. For example I accidentally made several errors yesterday[60] [61] [62], but always corrected them immediately. The technology issues doesn't make leaving errors uncorrected an acceptable practice. TiggerJay (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The more I look at edits, the worse it seems. Again, likely very genuine attempts to help, but the end results are often filled with problems, such as here -- multiple issues here: (1) a broken reference, (2) a grammar error of an extra space, (3) I'm pretty sure they meant to say "Fried Chicken" and not "Frie" as I cannot find any reliable sources that refer to it without the "d" at the end of the word, (4) they broke a sentence by inserting their edit, removing the word "The" so the next sentence, after the period and their reference is "origin of fried chicken", (5), their edit also interjects into the middle of a narrative about the American expression. Their insertion would have fit much better a few sentences down in the same paragraph (6) their edit summary even included a spelling error. That is a lot of "little mistakes" which when viewed both in the scope of this single edit, but then multiplied across many of their edits, becomes problematic. Perhaps Sharnadd really needs to use the "Show Preview" and/or get more practice in draft space until they become more accurate with spelling, grammar, use of the tools, not removing content, etc. TiggerJay (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is what I've been noticing. I went through numerous edits both before and after their block in June this year, and saw that their general pattern of introducing multiple issues per edit has persisted since before then. A case in which mistakes were spread out between multiple edits, though, can be seen between here and here, showing removals in both country of origin and dishes themselves without merit. Also, I see more possible UK bias in adding a country of origin to a dish with versions worldwide, seen here. Sarsenet (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    hardly without merit. Do you not think an egg dish should contain egg as one of the main ingredients. I really don't think that a hamburger is classed as one Sharnadd (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't think it's American bias to attribute a dish to that country when it has several versions worldwide Sharnadd (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sharnadd - I am interested in seeing you answer the questions? While Sarsenset interjected their thought on the matter, I am curious to see what you hasve to say about the 6 errors found in a single edit? I am not discussing the merits of the information that was added, but rather how it was added, with multiple errors. TiggerJay (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't aware the defence was broken. In what what did I miss something off when listing the book information. I will have time citation bot. There may have been an extra space . 3 no she is wrong it was originally called frie chicken in the 16th century as per the recipes books of the time it's actually after the narrative of an amercian expression. Would they prefer the history to be before. That does make sense as it come before the American expression so shows the evolution of the word Sharnadd (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After you edit you should verify that the end results are what you were expecting -- all of the errors listed are minor, but when you have so many in a single edit, that is concerning, especially because this is just one example of many where the editing was poorly performed, which is why the person who brought this up here cited WP:CIR. The reference was broken through the improper use of date and year. The problem I have with Frie chicken is that it seems like only in that specific offline book is where it is cited and no where else, which makes it hard to verify. Not only that a "cookbook" I would argue is hardly a reliable source on the topic. On it's own it is not a problem, but when it is combined with your frequent spelling errors (including in your immediate reply above), it leads one to reasonably assume it was another mistake, especially when there is a difficult to verify source provided. Can you provide an online source to support the term "Frie Chicken"? As far as the sentence ordering, take a look at it -- the interjection you provided seems to be an interruption in the narrative flow of what is being said. If the statement is well sourced, then it might be better suited as the first sentence in the history section, but of course it would need to be rewritten as "It evolved" would be the improper start of a paragraph/section. But I would strongly suggest using multiple, verifiable, reliable secondary sources for the "Frie chicken" claim, both in terms of spelling and as the evolutionary basis for American fried chicken. TiggerJay (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For anyone who didn't notice, a member of the oversight team massively deleted over 100 posts on the ANI page covering more than 1.5 days, apparently due to some egregious behavior, but not likely with regard to our specific discussion here. Edits you might have made between 20:19, December 11, 2024 and 12:22, December 13, 2024 are now lost forever which looks like several replies from @Sharnadd and myself TiggerJay (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah alright, I was wondering what had happened to my notices inbox. I feel that the gist of our points made still remains. Sarsenet (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed... stick... dead horse... time for a non-involved admin closure. TiggerJay (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Two clear NOTHERE accounts

    [edit]

    TheodoresTomfooleries and DFLPApologist are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Not sure where else to report so I brought it here. Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 15:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My contributions very much suggest otherwise. Whether you like my userpage or not has nothing to do with my contributions to Wikipedia, all of which have been done to improve Wikipedia. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My userpage has no relation to my contributions. DFLPApologist (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    DFLPApologist, this is not Twitter or social media of any kind. You wrote Unlimited genocide on the first world on the other editor's talk page. Why should other Wikipedia editors believe anything that you say? Cullen328 (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just revdelled about a dozen revisions on their userpage under RD2. I don't think the user was being remotely serious about what they said, but it's still gross and unnecessary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PMC has apparently revdelled multiple revisions upon my request but the content was extremely inappropriate and gross - I don't think any sane person would interpret it as humour The AP (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The good news is that nobody on the internet is sane. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But some places are saner than others. The last best place on the internet, as people say. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 10:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support an indef, the majority of their edits here have been to just add offensive material to their userpage which is now at MfD. EF5 14:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - By the way, a strict reading of the guidelines is that the user pages should not have been blanked. The banner on a page that is nominated for MFD says: You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. . So I think that this was an application of Ignore All Rules. In any case, I don't think that blanking is an acceptable Alternative to Deletion in these cases. The material should be removed from the history. If they weren't already at MFD, redaction as RD3 would be an alternative, but they are already at MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Can this thread be closed with a warning to the two editors, allowing the MFDs to run to normal consensus closure? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Shadow. 547 - "shut up", "stupid", "ur crying"

    [edit]
    31h block. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Shadow. 547 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    WP:NOTHERE behaviour;

    ...yeah the result stuff did get removed because some random guy called Airshipman something like that yeah he didn’t like it and was yapping about Timurid victory should be blah blah blah...

    woah woah woah looks like someones having a bad day 😂 also i removed the result timurid victory and ur crying...

    dude shut up i dont care i wasnt planning on editing it again because of stupid airshipmanjungle i dont like him and i thought we left this days ago so just shut up This was in response to a warning about their personal attacks, says a lot about this user.

    Courtesy ping @AirshipJungleman29: --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Red X User blocked for 31h for personal attacks and incivility. In particular, the response to the warning about personal attacks with further personal attacks indicates flagrant disregard for the NPA policy. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Chris! HistoryofIran (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Bloganathan

    [edit]
    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I noticed that User:Bloganathan violates WP:SELFCITE and WP:CITESPAM by exclusively adding his own publications. Even after being notified (User talk:Bloganathan), he continues his practice. What to do? 194.230.147.152 (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked, indefinitely, mostly to help them find their talk page and because they don't edit consistently so a time limited block is unlikely to make a difference Star Mississippi 00:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I remember dealing with this editor a while back. Should we just revert the edits in which citations containing their name are added without adding any additional information, like this one? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Slow edit-warring by TheMaxM1

    [edit]

    It has regretfully come to the point that I need to report this here. This user has been edit-warring on the Castle in the Sky article for the past couple of months. (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) Despite multiple warnings about their behavior and many opportunities to engage in productive discussion or at least provide a basic explanation, they have mostly declined to do either: they stopped responding at their talk page and the latest (fifth!) revert was made without an edit summary. I still hope this can be resolved with words, but a partial or complete block may be required in this situation. Let me know if there are any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I did provide any explanation because I thought that my edits were legit. I understand that it shouldn't be there if you can't provide a legit source, but I think that there's a lot of info floating about the internet that can be traced to some citation. --TheMaxM1 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:PROVIT. Having an impression that there’s support for your edit isn’t enough. You must back up your words with evidence if your words are challenged. Otherwise, you need to drop it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TheMaxM1, it goes rather above the point of the sourcing issue now. The main issue here is that even though I've objected to your changes several times, you have continued to revert to your preferred version without responding to my questions or sometimes even acknowledging the warnings I leave you. Again, this can all be fixed if you commit to reverting yourself, fully discussing the changes on the talk page before editing the article further, and implementing the changes only once there is consensus. This is the accepted standard practice (WP:BRD) and it helps us collaborate on the work much more effectively. Are you willing to follow these steps? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I've received no response again, I've gone ahead and restored the status quo revision for you. Please do not make any further changes to the relevant section of the article without gaining consensus for them on the talk page. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    2601:18C:8102:2FC0:0:0:0:0/64 = block evasion of 166.182.0.0/16

    [edit]

    Hi, I am reporting the IP user above, for continued disruption of Jim Henson Pictures related topics and block evasion of 166.182.0.0/16.

    Let's compare some edits from the 166.182.249.211 address (part of that blocked /16 range) as an example:

    The block evasion is incredibly obvious in my opinion when comparing those two diffs on each page. Passes the WP:DUCK test.

    Keep in mind this IP user was already previously reported to WP:AIV a while ago by User:FilmandTVFan28 (diff), but that report has sat there unnoticed for nearly 7 hours now and it looks like it's going to get automatically removed as stale. Yet, since that AIV report this /64 IPv6 range has done yet another wave of disruption, so due to the lack of attention at AIV and the continued disruption I am proceeding this to AN/I here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive IP

    [edit]
    (non-admin closure) IP was blocked after a report on AIV. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 09:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    67.180.213.51 (talk · contribs) keeps adding unsourced information. See for example their edits on Aimaq people where they continually restore their edits with the same copy-paste edit summary and write: Edit contains new and relevant information, Edit contains sources, Sources are credible and credited in needed areas. This is despite them not including any sources. They have received more than enough warnings by now. Mellk (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Also possibly introducing hoaxes at Tartaria. Mellk (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Might have been better for WP:AIV, but an admin could impose a short block on this IP. Conyo14 (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By posting this here, it will just now stop a quick block on this IP, had it been reported on WP:AIV. This is the second day and the IP is still freely edit warring and not cooperating. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 08:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope I am wrong, and they still could be reported to AIV, as an editor did now. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 08:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Agressive user Dupexz1256

    [edit]
    Indef. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Dupexz1256 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User Dupexz1256 was edit warring at Bosnian War article when I interacted with his soapbox and pov edits. He is enamoured with convicted war criminals. He has left this agressive message at my talk page: Special:Diff/1262497664. I request his account be indef blocked for this behaviour. He is not here to build an encyclopedia but to spread propaganda. YBSOne (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why hasn't anyone blocked @Dupexz1256 for being disruptive yet? It's a pretty cut-and-dry report. 2600:1700:103A:D800:84B:7F65:10AF:7CEB (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't looked any further than to click on the diff provided. Anyone saying things like that should be blocked immediately. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, and  Done. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Flusapochterasumesch reported by User:Bowler the Carmine

    [edit]

    Flusapochterasumesch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is being disruptive in Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson. They are generally hostile towards other editors ([63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]), do not seem to understand the nature of Wikipedia as a tertiary source ([70] [71]) and a collaborative project ([72] [73]), and has expressed their intention to remain willfully ignorant of policies and guidelines ([74] [75] [76]); despite my general note ([77]) and personal warning ([78]) to stop, and several editors' attempts ([79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]) to redirect them away from disruptive behavior. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I first noticed Flusapochterasumesch on Talk:Justin Welby, in which the user proposed several unhelpful edits, including describing a living person as a bastard son (diff) and a fairly pointless edit based on a pedantic reading of the word "coincided" (diff). When I replied that this edit would not make sense, responded with "I see you replied to me just after three-thirty today. Coincidentally, I was moving my bowels at precisely that time" and added a personal insult with "stop wasting my time you pompous dolt." (diff). I have not had other interactions with this editor but based on my own observations and the interactions reported above, I am not sure the user is WP:HERE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Flusapochterasumesch's posts on Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson are necessarily ruder than those of other people. But their comment on their own page in response to Bowler the Carmine's warning shows that they are somewhat wilfully misusing that talkpage, stating "I wasn't proposing, or advocating for, any edits, changes or inclusions to the article. I was indirectly expressing disapproval of the WP:POLICY" and "My only purpose in adding to the comments in Talk tonight was to draw out what I perceive to be ridiculous WP:POLICIES". They are new (ish), and may not be aware that the only purpose of talkpages is precisely "proposing, or advocating for, edits, changes or inclusions to the article". I have tried to explain this on their page, and hope they'll agree to start using the talkpage for its intended purpose, and to take any discussion of policies to the talkpages of those policies.PS, I wrote this up before seeing Dclemens1971's comment above. That conduct may indeed require a sanction (though it was a month ago, so maybe not now). Bishonen | tålk 15:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    I spent a little time going through Flusapochterasumesch's contributions and found several more personal insults:
    • irritating and abject moron (diff)
    • I think you take your wise-cracking to a forced level of expressing superiority, which in turn comes across as someone with an inferiority complex who is bitter at many things and people. (diff)
    • Telling another editor their username goes before you like flatulence from a retroperambulating bovine (diff)
    • In response to a normal disruptive editing warning, said it might help you to step away from your belligerent irrationality for a pair of days in order for your ultimately cowed response to be semi-cogent, semi-logical, sensible and without passionate anger, overt aggression, disgusting sectarianism, horrific racism, clatty sexual discrimination or stupidly-irrational hatred. (diff)
    Flusa has been warned on multiple other occasions (diff, diff). In removing one of the warnings from their talk page, they called it "possible vandalism" (diff). The personal attacks continue (the most recent diffs above are from this month). Despite dishing out insults, however, Flusa is quick to take offense (diff) at being told to "relax."
    Finally, Flusa wrote: if I ever entertained any thoughts of investing any meaningful energy in this project I'd dispatch myself haste post haste... Not only is the hypothetical reference to self-harm in extraordinary poor taste, it reinforces the idea that Flusa is WP:NOTHERE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just point out that my interaction with Flusa right below this complaint had no prior backing and got me super confused on why they needed to disassemble a simple good faith message providing a small amount of context. It feels like this user is here mostly for a WP:FORUM, not necessarily the contribution of an encyclopedia. Conyo14 (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Permanent link to interaction below for posterity. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely the first time I've seen someone read dark motives about use of the word "even." And offended as such on the behalf of a third party in a dispute that didn't involve them! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was some further criticism of Flusapochterasumesch on their talk page, which they removed: see [87]. It refers to an earlier interaction in which I had suggested that it was not appropriate to refer to a good-faith editor as "a blatant child abuse apologist". So, there is quite a history of impolite behaviour at multiple sites. Flusapochterasumesch could really be an asset but absolutely there needs to be a change of attitude towards other editors and towards following our rules. There have been repeated warnings: does anybody sense any change in behaviour in response? JMCHutchinson (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think one reason Flusa keeps getting warnings without escalation (until now) is that they regularly blank their talk page, so other editors giving warnings (myself included) may not have seen the history and realized the behavior warrants escalation. Considering the insults have continued up through four days ago, I think we're well past where warnings are appropriate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a list of all their talk page blankings:
    That's 8 warnings/messages warnings/warning-adjacent messages they've received so far. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC); edited 18:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They also have several posts here on ANI that appear to have been removed by admins on Dec 11, which is concerning. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure it was just a REVDEL situation and not explicitly their comments. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've traced it the revdel's back. They're unrelated to this case. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I advised them a month ago, [88], that their strong personal views on current news subjects were compromising their editing. That message was also blanked. It is pretty clear from their editing that their aim here is not to build an encyclopaedia, but to argue about current news items on which they hold strong views. KJP1 (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sistani nationality and original name

    [edit]

    Hello about (Ali al-Sistani)

    I’m writing to raise a concern about user @Montblamc1 repeatedly editing the page about Ali Sistani. I’ve added at least six reliable sources, including Sistani's official site (sistani.org) and CNN, which clearly state that:

    • Sistani was born in Mashhad, Iran.
    • His native language is Persian.
    • He holds Iranian citizenship by birth
    • (Even on his Arabic Wikipedia page, he is introduced as an Iranian Shia cleric:

    [Source](https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A)

    Despite this, @Montblamc1 has reverted the edits multiple times to include unsourced claims, such as labeling Sistanis native name in Arabic and as "Iraqi"," which isn’t supported by his official English site. They haven’t provided any reliable sources for these changes.

    I’ve tried to discuss , but my edits keep getting reverted without valid justification. I don’t want to escalate this into an edit war, so I’m asking for your guidance:

    • Should I continue editing the page to reflect the reliable sources, or would that worsen the situation?
    • Will you intervene to address this issue and ensure the edits follow Wikipedia’s standards for sourcing and neutrality?

    Thank you for your time and help! Taha Danesh (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved from WT:AN. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not discuss this on the talk page. Talk:Ali al-Sistani#Name and nationality. That being said, the user has had several warnings already and even had another ANI complaint. Conyo14 (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You write that the user @Mountblamc1 "even had another ANI complaint", but isn't it more accurate (i.e. accurate) to say they have another ANI complaint? I see that complaint hasn't been added to in about 9 days, and @Mountblamc1 is pushing back against all the aspersions being cast against them - the last of which remains uncontested for these past 9 days. Therefore is it reasonable of you to cast that up against the complained-about user? The other possibility is that the complained-about user's prior complaint is unjustified or unwarranted, in common with this one. And you do begin your contribution by pointing out that the editor behind the most recent compalint (this complaint) did not raise their concerns on the article in question's talk page? It sounds like you're telling the complainer that they didn't follow the proper mitigation processes before complaining, and at the same time casting unqualified aspersions against the complained-about editor. Would you recommend that complainers follow the correct processes or should the community sanction @Mountblamc1 on the basis that they have (not had) a prior, undecided, active complaint against them that they appear to have refuted without contest? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued unsourced changes in biographies of living persons by Wimpyguy

    [edit]

    Wimpyguy (talk · contribs) was previously blocked in October 2022 for BLP violations. Since then, they received warnings and messages about unsourced changes in November 2022, March 2023, July 2023, May 2024.

    1. Today I noticed they added categories at Alex Kapranos which are not supported by citations in the article body.
    2. Going through their previous edits I noticed their previous change, a category addition to Alex Winter, from 29 November, was also not supported by the article body.
    3. An earlier edit from 23 November, a category addition at Michael Rapaport appears to be supported by the article body.

    I haven't checked the accuracy of 1. and 2. But Wimpyguy has been warned enough to know categories need to be supported by inline citations just like any other content. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding your point numbered 1, I see the offending editor added categories to the Alex Kapranos page that categorised him as a Scottish Nationalist and Scottish Republican (which are essentially the same thing). This source [89]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-29284532 supports those assertions - therefore it might have been better to check the accuracy of your number 1 point (which you acknowledge you did not do) and perhaps start by asking the offending editor to consider adding the supporting citations in the article body that you diligently noted to be missing. Categorising someone as a Scottish Nationalist or Scottish Republican is surely not something you consider pejorative? As a Scot I am aware that roughly half of Scots self-identify as those things, and are proud to do so. Was it really necessary for you to raise this incident instead of simply asking @Wimpyguy to do a little more work to reference his edit to the Alex Kapranos article? I'm not sufficiently interested now to review your number 2 grievance, the accuracy of which you once again say you did not check, and (extraordinarily) I see that your third point concerns an edit that you openly acknowledge "appears to be supported" by the body of the article. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 11

    [edit]
    IP sock put back in the drawer. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The appellant arguing on behalf of Shakir Pichler from 157.211.83.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) admits that they are evading a block as User: KryptonicChristine and User: ChristineBamtonics. I am filing here rather than at SPI both because SPI does not seem to be the right place to deal with block-evading IP editors, and to call attention to possible disruption about the (redirected) article. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    WP:NOTHERE user

    [edit]
    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Bringing this straight to ANI rather than messing around with warnings as I think it's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE.

    Mujjaf4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made 3 contributions at the time of writing:

    — Czello (music) 07:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Cinderella157 gaming the system

    [edit]
    This is a content dispute, and the OP may defend themself at WP:AN3. There's no need to bring a retaliatory complaint here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Map of Nagorno-Karabakh
    Map of the Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh

    First, it starts with I am taking some stuff back from this revision by @Oloddin:. Not reverting to revision, just took some old stuff which stood here for years. My first edit. Then Cinderella157 reverts me by saying A detailed explanation is given in the article. The infobox is not a place for detail or nuance. We don't try to write the article in the infobox. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE Which is misleading because this user's

    Just found this users old edits regarding this in 14 April 2024.

    Both of edits are very very misleading since the lead says: The Second Nagorno-Karabakh War was an armed conflict in 2020 that took place in the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding occupied territories While this user claims Azerbaijan gains control of 73% of disputed territory, which means it took place only in Nagorno-Karabakh, while the most of fighting took place outside. I just made a research on this, on 14 April 2024 this user removed this stuff from the infobox added the original 73% text to the article below, but it's simply wrong as well (area with number 7 on the map right below). See my edit on the talk page. Maybe could've asked for help instead of giving wrong information for 8 months now?

    So on 12 December 2024, 07:46 I explained my edit (not a revert) and on 12 December 2024, 11:32 this user doesn't even bother to reply and goes straight away to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring saying I reverted twice, because why? I don't know.

    For information, I added a map. Yes this is a content dispute thing, but this user falsely reporting me of 1RR without even bothering to use the talk page, trying to get me blocked asap. Beshogur (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Dingleberry Hpmp repeatedly uploading non-free BLP photos

    [edit]

    Dingleberry Hpmp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new editor. Not a mobile editor, but has never responded on their talk page. Yesterday, I tagged their upload File:Gianni-DeCenzo.jpeg for F9, and saw that they've uploaded non-free images of living people and been notified of the issue three times before this F9.[90][91][92] Suggest partial block of Dingleberry Hpmp from uploading files until they indicate that they understand (and will comply with) the rules around non-free images. Schazjmd (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dollhouse Nights disruptive changes

    [edit]
    Blocked from article space by Spicy, in hope that they will communicate

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

    Dollhouse Nights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new editor. Not a mobile editor, but has never responded on their talk page. Dollhouse Nights repeatedly makes edits that split sentences into fragments.[93][94][95][96][97] Most of their 23 edits have been reverted. After the initial "good faith" welcome template, I left a message gently pointing out the problem with their edits. This was followed by 3 templated warnings from me and another editor.2024 The problems are continuing after these warnings and the many reverts.[98][99]

    There doesn't seem to be any bad faith or malicious intent in their edits, and there's been no edit-warring to restore their edits; they simply lack the competence to edit prose, and have ignored suggestions that they find a way to contribute that doesn't rely on being able to punctuate properly. If they won't communicate or choose a task more suited to their skills, other editors have to review and revert/clean up after each of their edits. Schazjmd (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Spicy has partial-blocked Dollhouse Nights from article space; hopefully they will communicate at their talk page or here so we can work something out so they can contribute. Schazjmd (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    62.1.163.195

    [edit]
    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    62.1.163.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - I blocked this IP last week for repeatedly adding unsourced/undated stats to footballers. They have returned and are straight back to it. Can we get a longer block please? GiantSnowman 18:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. 1 month. And this seems like a very familiar user we've seen before. Canterbury Tail talk 18:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. Too many edit like this... GiantSnowman 19:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    How do we handle crossover issues at a foreign language wikipedia?

    [edit]
    Problematic article on the French Wikipedia has been deleted. Resolved. Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Recently the community dealt with Ezra Ben Yosef at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#Ezra Ben Yosef. There was also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judeo-Ge'ez which was deleted as a hoax/OR. Yosef was blocked for problematic editing on a series of pages involving the Beta Israel people; including misrepresenting sources to push a OR/ fringe POV content. An anon IP just pointed out at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Judeo-Ge'ez that the French language wikipedia has the same issues with a basically identical article in French currently existing at fr:Judeo-Ge'ez. I don't speak French, so I don't think I can handle an AFD in another language, although I am the editor who principally read through the materials in English and highlighted the factual misrepresentations being done by Ezra Ben Yosef. Is there a way that admins can notify equivalent admins on a foreign language wiki about the problems we have dealt with on the English wiki that are also damaging to the French wiki with a current article full of factual errors and misrepresentations that is essentially a hoax? 4meter4 (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is a list of administrators] on the French language Wikipedia, with the level of English they speak. Maybe try contacting one of them. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also fr:Wikipédia:Bistro des non-francophones although it's fairly inactive. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I've tried both suggestions.4meter4 (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update. Thanks Nil Einne for the helpful suggestion. The French wikipedia deleted their article after I raised it there. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:31.222.81.248 = LTA BKFIP sockpuppet detected

    [edit]

    Hi, I am reporting the IP address above, as I highly suspect it is yet another sockpuppet of WP:LTA/BKFIP once again.

    I just got off my gaming session today and refreshed my Wikipedia to find two revert notifications, both from the 31.222.81.248 IP address, and when I looked closer as to what edits of mine they were undoing, they were reverting my reverts of edits made by a previous BKFIP sock, 89.207.175.7, which were made on 30 June 2024 (and that IP was also blocked for block evasion that day).

    Let's compare some diffs:

    • On Wycombe (UK Parliament constituency): diff by new IP is an exact repeat of diff by old IP
    • On Ashford International railway station: diff by new IP is an exact repeat of diff by old IP

    As if that wasn't telling enough, check this out. BKFIP is known to absolutely loathe warning templates left on their user talk page.

    To my eyes, this passes the WP:DUCK test when looking at those diffs above. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They've already IP hopped to 31.222.81.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Manticore 10:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked 31.222.81.153 for 3 months, and 31.222.81.248 for two weeks. — The Anome (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Anome: Thanks a lot!
    But I don't think we are done yet, as I found one more sock - an account, after looking at the page history of Self-referential humor through the 31.222.81.153 IP that User:Manticore talked about:
    Actinic (talk · contribs)
    Compare diff by account to diff by that blocked IP.
    The edit summary of this edit reads: removed irrelevant crap added repeatedly by editor obsessed with the idea that only people trying to get their cats high read this article. That 'passive-aggressive' tone sounds familiar to me after having seen it many times from previous socks. Similar thing going on this talk page post too. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AP 499D25, @Manticore, and @The Anome, thanks for taking care of this! I really appreciate it. Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyeditor changing direct quotations

    [edit]

    86.42.148.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is copy-editing articles relating to Ireland at a rate of knots. Their edits include changes to direct quotations. They do not respond to messages on their talk page. I have to go out in a minute but could people please cast an eye over their edits? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ahmad Shazlan persistently adding preferred content despite objections and multiple entreaties to discuss on talk page.

    [edit]

    I have gone back and forth on this issue with User:Ahmad Shazlan, and they insist on restoring their preferred version of the page contents, without making any real effort to discuss the matter, despite the fact that I've encouraged them to do so multiple times, both in my edit summaries as well as on their talk page. In fact, as you can see here, they have already received a warning regarding this matter from another editor, but to no avail. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    BAPS promotional editing by Ram112313

    [edit]

    Ram112313 is a single purpose account dedicated to promoting this religious organization, before they were blocked for edit warring in order to WP:CENSOR details about a controversial lawsuit this organisation has been involved in[100][101][102][103][104][105][106], they learned nothing from their previous sanction and recently edit warred on Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha to censor details related to political affiliation of this organisation[107][108][109] and when confronted they denied that they were edit warring. [110][111], they have consistently used AI in order to generate talkpage messages[112][113][114][115] and denied doing it[116] despite the fact that multiple users have suspected them of using AI to generate messages including an admin who told them to stop doing it [117][118]. They have also made copyright violations in order to promote this organisation[119]. They were previously brought to ANI[120] by @Ram1751: for the same concerns and have refused to address them and improve their conduct. Many users have noted the same issues about this user as me. [121]

    Now they have introduced promotional content[122] related to BAPS citing their organisation's own websites about non notable awards and other recognition. They were previously asked by @ToBeFree: to stop editing anything related to BAPS[123] as their conduct here has been disruptive but they refused to accept such a restriction[124] and have only been disruptive since.

    Some type of restriction on this user from this area is necessary now because this user has not edited any other topic area ever since joining and is refusing to learn at all. CharlesWain (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, with Special:Diff/1262790523, enough is enough. Blocked indefinitely. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sourced info being changed disruptively

    [edit]

    Matthias Becer is being disruptive at Bağpınar, Şırnak by changing sourced information to their liking. I've now reverted their changes more than once and warned them twice on their talkpage to no prevail. They write that "I made the changes, cause that is my village, i was born there and the information was too rudimentary and not right." but ultimately the info was referenced well by more than one source. It is clear IJDLI and OR violations. Semsûrî (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semsûrî, this editor's account was created a day ago and they have made a total of 5 edits. It seems like quite an escalation to bring them to ANI. They replied to one of your messages on their user talk page, could you continue the discussion there and try to explain Wikipedia policy to them? Liz Read! Talk! 20:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent dispruptive editing/ warring by user Thebighomie123

    [edit]
    Indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User Thebighomie123 is persistently making disruptive edits. Their MO is to make opinion-based edits and present them as factual statements. A good example is this edit calling the Djokovic Nadal rivalry 'the greatest' instead of 'among the greatest'. They have made this exact edit without discussion 4 times, and each time it has been reverted. They continue to make the edit with inappropriate edit summaries. Here are the four edits in question 1 2 3 4 Similar patterns are seen across other pages. On Georges St Pierre, they have reinstated a potentially misleading statement against consensus three times, and ignored consensus. Here are the edits 1 2 3

    Overall, the high number of reverts of their edits, their battleground style, and their overall disruption require remedy in my opinion. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thebighomie123 attempted to delete this report and was reverted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This person is such a hypocrite and is just trying to intimidate and bully me. They are doing the exact same thing as they are accusing me of; frequently adding their own opinion without consensus. See here :Georges and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Lennon&oldid=1262431902 Thebighomie123 (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See that @NEDOCHAN decides without consensus that Georges-St-Pierre is not a ‘notable’ actor and removes it without consensus. They also decide without consensus that John Lennon and Paul McCartney’s partnership is the ‘most successful in history’ again without consensus. How is this maintaining NPOV? This is blatant hypocrisy. Thebighomie123 (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So if NEDOCHAN was disruptive, you're allowed to be disruptive too? Can you explain how their interpretation of your edits was incorrect or how it was appropriate for you to remove this thread despite that being against talk page guidelines? TheWikiToby (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Talk page notice

    [edit]
    Please discuss article and talk page content on the article talk page or take a disagreement to WP:DRN. Liz Read! Talk! 20:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have a question with regard to this notice: [125] Can any user arbitrarily place a tag on a talk page referring to something as pseudoscience? There already was a contentious topic notice on the page, what is the point in placing another one other than trying to label the topic of the article "pseudoscience"? I also have a question with regard to another notice: [126] Can anyone create a notice that reflects his personal opinion and place it on top of a talk page to prevent further discussions on a certain topic? If you check the talk page page and recent archives, you can see that there is no consensus for the views expressed in this notice, and the topic is being hotly debated. Apparently, the faq notice was created in response to this discussion, where the opinions are clearly divided: [127] I would appreciate if someone checked the notices at the talk of this article and kept only appropriate ones. JonJ937 (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Conversion therapy and rapid-onsent gender dysphoria are fringe views. The FAQ should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. AN/I is for chronic or urgent incidents, not discussing content disputes. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about the content but about the appropriateness of tags. How many contentious topic tags does one page need? Normally one is enough. Speaking of fringe, the sources calling SEGM fringe and accusing of supporting conversion therapy are mostly not independent. The fact that SEGM advocate evidence based approach and question the use of puberty blockers and surgery on minors is not actually a fringe view. In latest news, the UK government indefinitely banned giving puberty blockers to minors under 18 [128]. Most of Europe follows the UK approach. If this is a fringe view, then Europe is fringe. One can see that SEGM is often approached by the mainstream media for comment. NYT, Economist, AP, BMJ and others do not call SEGM fringe. This is a very politically charged and polarizing topic, but as Wikipedia editors we need to rise above the politics and edit in accordance with NPOV. I agree, this may not be the best place to raise this issue but my point is that any notices at talk should be in line with NPOV, rather than reflect certain views. JonJ937 (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If a CTOP applies, a page should be marked as such. The rest of your comment is, again, related to content. You should discuss the sourcing or lack thereof on article talk and follow the dispute resolution processes as needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JonJ937, Voorts is correct here. There isn't a minimum or maximum number of CTOP notices that can be noted, it's what topics the subject falls under and the lead paragraph of this article cites this organization's views as fringe. Whether or not a subject of an article falls under a CTOP category can be discussed on the article talk page. You are also coloring the views of editors you disagree with as political but not your own which is likely not accurate as we are usually unaware of our own biases. Any editor can tag an article or talk page with a notice they believe is appropriate just like any other editor can contest this notice and start a discussion. You haven't brought up any conduct in this discussion that could be considered an "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems" so I'm going to echo Voorts and send you back to the article talk page. Also, you cited a diff as a problem but didn't notify the editor making that edit, User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, of this discussion which you should always do so please do this in any future complaints that you open on ANI or any other noticeboard. Liz Read! Talk! 20:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Fmksmnkn5 disruptive editing, BLP violations and COI

    [edit]
    Indeffed. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm reluctantly coming here regarding Fmksmnkn5 (see talk page), as it's been over a year and this situation has been worsening. I'll try and summarise here, but I'm not going to be providing a long list of diffs as there would be hundreds to include. Hopefully someone else can provide examples if needed, or otherwise an admin can review edits independently. This is related to women's football player articles.

    • This began on 26 November 2023, with a simple request to update timestamps when updating football player articles statistics. [129] The request was more or less ignored, with other editors including myself making the same request over the course of one year. The editor was eventually warned they may be blocked from editing for such disruptive editing/vandalism, and may be taken to an admin noticeboard. [130]
    • In December 2024, these issues were again brought to my attention with the inclusion of unsourced content on Fran Bentley's page,[131] that was subsequently reverted,[132] with the editor warned about unsourced content.[133] The response from the editor was "Can confirm it is true anyway so doesnt need to be sourced." [134], which triggered the need for these issues to arrive at a noticeboard.
    • The editor claims to be a former coach of Bristol City W.F.C.,[135] but has not declared such a WP:COI on user page.
    • The editor is otherwise capable of updating timestamps when updating stats, see example,[136], so this is certainly not a WP:COMPETENCE issue, but instead an "ignore everyone else and carry on" based issue.
    • The editor has been notified of the discussion, editors referred to above have been pinged. [137]

    I've come to the conclusion that this editor is WP:NOTREALLYHERE in the context of WP:NOTHERE, or at a minimum, disregards the process of WP:V as well as the general MOS of how player stats are updated. In case it's not obvious, updating player stats without updating timestamps is a WP:BLPVIO, even when unintentional. Ie to claim Person A made X amount of appearances with Y goals by Z date, when the information is completely false, should very much be considered a violation of BLP policy.

    Ideally this editor would simply commit to updating timestamps when updating stats, and avoid including unsourced content to articles, but otherwise doesn't appear to have any intention in doing so thus far. I'll acknowledge that in discussion with the user I certainly haven't been as civil as I should have been, due to the growing frustration regarding these issues. CNC (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    RevDel for RD2

    [edit]
    Problem addressed. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I think it would be appropiate to RevDel this revision for criterion RD2. Thank you. Milo8505 (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Liz Read! Talk! 19:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The message from the Foundation begging for money above the error message when visiting the RevDeled page is priceless. I am surprised it doesn't show up here at ANI too. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:7887:1A7B:2A2:7279 (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the benefits of using an account instead of an IP, you don't have to see those banners at all. Schazjmd (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Milo8505: generally you should email an admin instead of posting revdel-able material on a public noticeboard and drawing attention to it. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Kionseeeeeegma making offensive and disgusting remarks in WP:SAND

    [edit]
    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have reverted many of their edits. I will send a few examples of their disruptiveness. It appears they may be WP:NOTHERE Here's some refs of the edits.[1] [2] Stumbleannnn! Talk to me 05:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have also noticed that they also have triggered the vandal filter multiple times. Stumbleannnn! Talk to me 05:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked as a vandalism-only account. Thank you for reporting, Stumbleannnn!. I've moved this section to the bottom of the page, where it's supposed to go; I hope you can find it there. Bishonen | tålk 06:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Thanks! this case can be closed now. Stumbleannnn! Talk to me 06:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1263015894
    2. ^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1263015894
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Requesting partial block of User talk:185.104.136.55

    [edit]

    IP has a pattern of disruptive editing on Horrid Henry (TV series), so requesting partial block for the user on the page. Also requesting deletion of all the user's edits on the page due to the graphic nature of them (see here for one example). jolielover♥talk 10:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please check If he is a sockpuppet

    [edit]

    Hi administrators, Please check if User:私は日本が大好きです is sockpuppet like User:RationalIndia. Both disrupting Bharatiya Janata Party, Karnataka and other pages. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1263049946"