View source for Testwiki:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174

{{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}

== [[User:Jwa05002|Jwa05002]] engaging in repeated [[WP:personal attacks|personal attacks]] and [[WP:aspersions|aspersions]] ==
{{atop|Looks like the two editors involved have come to an agreement. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{Userlinks|Jwa05002}}

This is happening over on [[Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely]]. Currently, there is [[Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely#Requested_move_9_December_2024|an open move request]], wherein [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely&diff=prev&oldid=1262162339 this user has made their position clear].  Several different times, in fact, responding to most or all disagreements [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely&diff=prev&oldid=1262165885][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely&diff=prev&oldid=1262204074][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely&diff=prev&oldid=1262206124], and including outside the discussion in question [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely&diff=prev&oldid=1262206373][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely&diff=prev&oldid=1262213933], to a point that, in my view, reaches [[WP:BLUDGEONING]] levels.

However, the main reason I'm making this report is that last diff. In order:
* [[User:Akechi The Agent Of Chaos|Akechi The Agent Of Chaos]] stated that {{tq|schizophrenia can't kill you itself}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely&diff=prev&oldid=1262211156]
* Jwa05002 responded with {{tq|Schizophrenia absolutely leads to a higher mortality rate (among people who are diagnosed with it) and is used frequently as a contributing factor to a person’s death according to the NIH.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely&diff=prev&oldid=1262213933]
* I responded that this was a disingenuous reading of "schizophrenia as a contributor of death".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely&diff=prev&oldid=1262221519] I also signaled my personal discomfort, as a schizophrenic person, for the way that disease had been weaponized in the debate, and that I wished "people", in general, stopped circulating misinformation about it.
:In my view, this was a reasonable request, as this weaponization of something I suffer from, done for ideological justifications by parties like Daniel Penny's selected forensic pathologist, in this extremely political debate about vigilantism, is offensive to me, personally. I did mean the idea of {{tq|weaponization}} more as a general assessment of what had been said during the Penny trial as a whole, rather than a specific accusation towards this specific user, with the only caveat being that ''if'' the user keeps making the (false) claim that schizophrenia is a ''direct physical contributor'' to a choking death, I would find it offensive.

:Of course, uninvolved users are free to judge for themselves whether this was an unfounded aspersion.

The more basic point here is that, regardless of whether I was right or not to talk of {{tq|weaponization}}, I believe I made evident my discomfort at the way schizophrenia was being rhetorically handled here. And to be clear, at this point, as shown by my original comment, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely&diff=prev&oldid=1262221519] I was neither clamoring for any specific retraction, nor asking them to stop commenting; my only goal was to signal to them to perhaps moderate their language a little, due to this being a sensitive topic, to me specifically.

* In response, this person [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely&diff=prev&oldid=1262260491 doubled down on the claim I found offensive], while simultaneously accusing '''me''' of "weaponizing [my own illness]", and of trying to "silence discussion [I] don’t like".

:While I suppose that one could theoretically make the argument, no matter how spurious I find it, that I was "weaponizing" an illness I myself suffer from, am familiar with, and have discussed with plenty of medical experts, within this conversation, I believe at the very least that the bad-faith reading of my contention here is completely inappropriate. There was a statement I found offensive, as someone personally involved in the topic, and I signaled that personal offense. There is no intent to "silence" anyone (as can be shown by the fact I did not prevent anybody from discussing in the move request or on the page as a whole, nor did I seek to shut down most of the arguments here), merely to stop people from spreading a false claim that I found hurtful.

* When I laid out how uncomfortable this accusation made me, warned them about the policy on personal attacks and aspersions, and urged them to retract their statements, their reaction was to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely&diff=prev&oldid=1262289565 double down] on these aspersions once again, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely&diff=prev&oldid=1262301606 and then again] following my last response.

I would appreciate an apology for, and retraction of, at least the aspersions, and ideally the offensive claims as a whole; but at a minimum, I believe this editor, at least concerning this particular topic, seems to be unable to work collaboratively, and civilly. So, <s>either</s> a temporary block, to give them a chance to reflect, <s>or a topic ban</s>, in my view, may be justified here <ins>(edit: having reflected on it, I don't actually know if a topic ban would be appropriate, because apart from this incident, I can't definitively state that the user's behavior on the topic was particularly beyond the pale; I think just an acknowledgement that their behavior, specifically towards me, was not appropriate, may be enough for me here)</ins>. [[User:LaughingManiac|LaughingManiac]] ([[User talk:LaughingManiac|talk]]) 18:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:I provided citations to scientific studies and expert opinions (reported by reliable sources) that schizophrenia absolutely can be a factor in people’s deaths (similar to the way depression would be considered a factor in a suicide) 
:The user responded by bringing up their personal diagnosis as schizophrenic (this was unnecessary and irrelevant to the discussion, as was their assertion of being grossly offended, again by the opinion of experts and scientific studies) 
:The person then implied I was spreading misinformation (despite multiple cites of scientific studies and expert opinions) and stated misinformation shouldn’t be shared.  Again, the implication in that statement is clear…..they wanted to silence discussion they disagreed with. 
:There has now been an admin complaint and a suggestion I be banned from any discussion on the topic.   If anything this a far clearer example of bludgeoning than anything I’ve.   These users are quite literally attempting to bludgeon me into silence about this topic. 
:If anything these users seem far too personally and emotionally close to the topic at hand to speak objectively about it (again, they are calling scientific studies and the opinions of experts “misinformation”) [[User:Jwa05002|Jwa05002]] ([[User talk:Jwa05002|talk]]) 19:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::Although I feel I laid out the situation well, I do need to correct your basic misrepresentations here.
::{{tq|"schizophrenia absolutely can be a factor in people’s deaths (similar to the way depression would be considered a factor in a suicide)"}}
::This is not what the assertion you made implied. Your original statement was correct on its face (i.e. it is true that "schizophrenia leads to a higher mortality rate"), and no one was challenging you on this.
::However, '''''the context''''' here is a discussion wherein the question is "Was schizophrenia, the mental illness, a direct physical contributing factor to a person's death, and ''more so'' than the minutes-long chokehold said person was subjected to?" (as Akechi's quote above clearly implies, since it does not state that "schizophrenia can't be a factor in people's deaths", but rather that "schizophrenia ''can't kill you itself''").
:: ''Within this context'', the statement you're deriving [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/defense-pathologist-says-jordan-neely-didnt-die-chokehold-nyc-subway-rcna180958 from the defense's pathologist], which suggests that schizophrenia was some sort of ''direct physical contributing factor'' in the victim's death equivalent to "sickle cell crisis" and "synthetic marijuana" ({{tq|"Chundru said he believed Neely died from “the combined effects of sickle cell crisis, the schizophrenia, the struggle and restraint and the synthetic marijuana” that was in his system"}}) is, as I've mentioned, misinformation concerning schizophrenia.
::{{tq|"I provided citations to scientific studies and expert opinions"}}
::I would also remind you that this perspective you shared was only one within the debate, and that other "expert opinions" were raised in objection of Chundru. The fact the jury disregarded them doesn't make those objections false, nor does it make you right in presenting only one side of this debate as correct. That, at least, is a basic violation of [[WP:NPOV]].
::Ultimately, though, all of the above is generally a content dispute. Again, the basic contention I had here was not that you cite this pathologist, but rather that you're making these implications, in your own words, while ignoring what other people are saying to you in response, and refusing to take into account the idea that some of this rhetoric you're (falsely) presenting as science-based may be offensive to people related to the subject. You do not get to dictate what people who suffer from a specific disease find offensive or not, and it is not "irrelevant" to signal that I find your behavior problematic.
::All I asked of you is to treat your fellow editors with basic consideration, as [[WP:CIV]] outlines. Instead, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely&diff=prev&oldid=1262260491 you elected] to accuse me of raising these objections with the explicit goal of silencing you - something which is an unfounded aspersion, given I originally only stated I found the rhetoric offensive, and nothing more than that. And that aspersion, which you have now repeated multiple times, is the main subject of ''this'' report. [[User:LaughingManiac|LaughingManiac]] ([[User talk:LaughingManiac|talk]]) 20:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Again, the user being offended by the subject of the discussion is completely irrelevant.  (If the user finds the topic itself this disturbing, perhaps they should not engage with it).  
:::The user’s personal experience related to the topic is irrelevant. 
:::Demanding that discussion be censored or even silenced (especially discussion citing sources and medical experts) is even further evidence that the user in question is too emotionally charged about the topic to engage in objective, reasonable discussion about it. {{redacted|leaked IP}} 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Excuse me, but are you [[WP:SOCK|using a logged-out IP to support your original claim?]] (to reiterate, I have no issues with the forensic pathologist's claims being used in the discussion, even in the article itself, as long as RS report on it; my only contention is presenting misinformation on schizophrenia as truth) [[User:LaughingManiac|LaughingManiac]] ([[User talk:LaughingManiac|talk]]) 20:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::not intentionally.  Previous comment is mine, I just wasn’t logged in because I pulled the browser up from email. [[User:Jwa05002|Jwa05002]] ([[User talk:Jwa05002|talk]]) 20:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:Having reflected on this again, I acknowledge that my personal experience, and the prejudice I have perceived as associated with it, should not influence the content of Wikipedia (or good-faith discussions about the topic at hand), per [[WP:5P2|the second pillar of the encyclopedia]]; and I recognize that [[User:Jwa05002|Jwa05002]] did have a point in stating this, regardless of how I might have received their claims; so, even though I still consider the original discourse offensive, and I wish Wikipedia had some stricter policies on this, I am willing to entirely drop this aspect of the complaint, and try my best to avoid bringing it up in topic discussions, as long as there's recognition on their part that my concerns were not expressed in bad faith, and that they shouldn't have assigned ill-intent to me.
:If we can agree on this "compromise" in positions of sorts, then I'd be okay with putting an end to this whole thing. [[User:LaughingManiac|LaughingManiac]] ([[User talk:LaughingManiac|talk]]) 21:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::Sounds great.  Thanks! [[User:Jwa05002|Jwa05002]] ([[User talk:Jwa05002|talk]]) 21:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Goswami21 not adhering to consensus and engaging in personal attacks. ==
{{atop|1=Blocked for a week - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{Userlinks|Goswami21}}
The article [[S. B. Deorah College]], which was first created by Goswami on November 12, was nominated by me for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. B. Deorah College|AfD]], but it was later closed as [[Wikipedia:G11|G11]]. Subsequently, Pharoh redirected the article to [[Gauhati University|Gauhati University]], which was not an issue. However, Goswami later removed the redirect and recreated the article. I had to nominate it again for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. B. Deorah College (2nd nomination)|AfD]] on November 18, where the consensus was to redirect the article to [[List of colleges affiliated to the Gauhati University]]. This closure was handled by {{u|OwenX}} on November 23.

After the article was redirected, Goswami recreated it again on December 8, going against the AfD consensus. When I restored the article as per the AfD decision and notified him on his talk page, he reverted my edit and made a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Goswami21&diff=prev&oldid=1262289264 personal attack], stating: {{tq|I think you have some mental issue}}. [[User:GrabUp|<span style="color:blue;">Grab</span><span style="color:red; font-size:larger;">Up</span>]] - [[User talk:GrabUp|<span style="color:green;">Talk</span>]] 17:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:Goswami - instead of recreating the article against consensus, if you think there's new significant information that could overturn the AfD, head to [[WP:DRV]]. [[User:FifthFive|FifthFive]] ([[User talk:FifthFive|talk]]) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:I've blocked the user for one week for disruption and personal attacks.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 17:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== User:Roby2029! ==
{{atop|1=The blocking will continue until communication improves. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{Userlinks|Roby2029!}} is a relatively new user who has been making a large number of edits, which I believe to be in good faith, but almost all have had to be reverted. They have not responded to any messages left on their talk page. They seem to edit via mobile so it's possible they haven't seen them.

This seems to be a case of [[WP:CIR]] though this editor likely has the potential to make good contributions if they take the guidance that has been offered to them on board. Would a short block be warranted to draw attention to their talk page messages and pause their current editing spree?

They also have another account at {{Userlinks|RobyLiverpoolMersyside!}}.
[[User:Orange sticker|Orange sticker]] ([[User talk:Orange sticker|talk]]) 10:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:Pinging {{u|DrKay}} as they have left a message on this user's talkpage. [[User:Orange sticker|Orange sticker]] ([[User talk:Orange sticker|talk]]) 10:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:On occasion they veer almost close to relevant, or well intentioned, but far too many just misunderstand the topics that they are editing or seem to be intent on pushing a particular POV. And of course vast majority (I won't say all as I haven't looked at all their edits) are unsupported, and almost immediately reverted as such. [[User:Koncorde|Koncorde]] ([[User talk:Koncorde|talk]]) 11:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::I blocked the editor. The old account is stale and I've left it alone. Communication is a must, and I blocked them because of the lack thereof. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 20:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Undisclosed paid editing ==

* {{User|RayanTarraf}}

Never disclosed their paid editing.

According to [[User:DubaiScripter]]: {{tq|Glimpse Digital Agency is a Marketing, Digital Marketing and design production studio set up in Dubai in 2017 by Lebanese '''Rayan Tarraf.'''}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DubaiScripter&oldid=806819780][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DubaiScripter&diff=prev&oldid=808988550] [[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] ([[User talk:Hypnôs|talk]]) 10:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:I note that this user has not edited since March this year, and has only made three edits, none to mainspace, since 2017. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 10:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::So? [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 11:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::So, as originally worded as a complaint against {{User|RayanTarraf}}, this report cannot be said to be of an urgent incident or a chronic, intractable behavioural problem, as required for this noticeboard. It has, however, broadened its scope since then. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 16:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::And what do you mean paid editing? Who paid who? [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 11:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You disclosed in 2017 that you were paid to edit.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DubaiScripter&oldid=806819780]
:::If you are unaware of this, are there other people that have had access to your account? [[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] ([[User talk:Hypnôs|talk]]) 11:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:Who is getting paid for editing? Rayan Taraff or Dubai Scripter? Do you have any diffs of problematic content that they have added to articles?[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 11:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you @[[User:Isaidnoway|Isaidnoway]] I just noticed a big discussion on social channels going around the article of Baalbek in Lebanon. Apparently, Some editors are using Wikipedia for political benefits in order to push war agenda. Which is terrible of course. I went straight to the article in order to see what is happening and found that many referenced articles have actually no backing or reliable sources. Two minutes after requesting access to edit, I received the notification of Hypnos questioning my integrity which makes me think that what is being said online is actually true. [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 11:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::incase you want to see what I'm talking about https://www.instagram.com/khalilshreateh/reel/DB1rDyqNjCc/ [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 11:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::DubaiScripter disclosed that they were paid by RayanTarraf's company to edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DubaiScripter&oldid=806819780], and have created the page [[Rayan Tarraf]] three times. But since they seem to be unaware of this, the account is possibly used by someone else now.
::Regarding Rayan Taraff, I can't go into details due to [[WP:OUTING]], but the pages they created are either related to them or have a promotional tone.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RayanTarraf/sandbox]
::{{tq|Since joining the Mohammad & Obaid AlMulla Group in 2017, Beshara has played a key role in its growth and success.}}
::{{tq|American Hospital Dubai, under Beshara's guidance, has achieved significant healthcare innovations, particularly in the field of robotics and artificial intelligence.}} [[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] ([[User talk:Hypnôs|talk]]) 11:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry but you are assuming too much. Not related, Nor paid. These pages were my attempts at learning on how to create new articles for known companies and figures that are not already on Wikipedia which I obviously failed to do but that certainly doesn't mean I'm paid and the section you quoted about American Hospital CEO is depicted directly from their articles which you can find online. And if you are talking about the option where you choose if you were paid or not for an article that was also a failed try when i was trying to find my way around understanding how this works. So again, no I never got paid nor do I know these people in person.
:::Now the real question is... Why is @[[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] very insistent on diverting from the original issue which is using Wikipedia for Political gain? [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 13:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::DubaiScripter, ''you'' have stated that you are indeed a paid editor, paid by Glimpse Digital Agency. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 13:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yes, as I have mentioned in my previous reply. I had chosen that option in one of my attempts to understand why the article is being rejected but I can confirm that was by mistake. not really paid by anyone. [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 13:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::DubaiScripter, please be exactly specific. What ''exactly'' is your relationship to Rayan Tarraf and to Glimpse Digital Agency? --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 13:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No relationship. This guy made a lecture once were I worked and he inspired me to dig in Wikipedia and see how it works. So I kept trying to write an article about him or his company in order to learn. More like a test subject. 
:::::::Even though there was enough articles to support the guy i never managed to get it published. I even tried choosing the option were it says I was paid or even try to create a link to the person or his company but also didn't work. 
:::::::anyways I gave up on my Wikipedia skills. Anything else you would like to know? because the focus here should be the Political involvement of some admins.
:::::::Thanks [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 12:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Your first time creating an article on him was before 19 February 2017.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DubaiScripter&oldid=766297345]
::::::::On 6 November 2017 he made an edit to your user page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DubaiScripter&diff=prev&oldid=808988550]
::::::::If the only relation to him was this one time lecture that inspired to to make an article about him, how did he know your user name and why did he make an edit to your user page months later? [[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] ([[User talk:Hypnôs|talk]]) 18:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Also, please watch this video  https://www.instagram.com/khalilshreateh/reel/DB1rDyqNjCc/ which explains exactly why @[[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] is doing this. He is plainly mentioned in there. [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 13:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::You need to stop this - I suggest you read the contentious topic notification on your talk page. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::My last message: Whoever is reading from the esteemed and amazing non-biased Admins... That are obviously more experienced and much better than me. Please check the this issue and don't let misinformation run loose on Wikipedia. https://www.tiktok.com/@zeez870/video/7435060973855116562?q=baalbek%20wikipedia&t=1733319093938 [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 13:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::LMFAO I watched 45 seconds of buildup to investigate the question of why someone was nefariously and erroneously calling Baalbek a Hezbollah stronghold on Wikipedia just to find out that it’s because Reuters, VoA, and a book on Hezbollah all say so? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 19:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, @[[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] I've noticed that in the talk page your name is mentioned 27 times and that in trying to block the removal of exactly what I came to check. All, I can say is that this issue is blowing up on social channels and it's only reflecting badly on Wikipedia Admins and Wikipedia as a reliable source. I also, noticed that you are only interested in historical pages that are related to the Jewish community which makes me believe that you are biased but again it that's my assumption. I could be wrong [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 13:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::... "this issue is blowing up on social channels"?  Really?  How about providing us some links to those?  You wouldn't happen to be involved in ''pushing'' that, would you? [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]]   15:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Not pushing anything... I saw this video yesterday broadcasted on TV https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSjvepY85/ and it seems that there was a discussion panel at the university where I teach talking about how Wikipedia is being used for political reasons and everyone was talking about this guy @[[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] on how he is purposely adding fake details to the Baalbek article. 
:::::Then I noticed that so many people are reposting the video or duetting it on both TikTok and Instagram. This original link alone has 81K views. 
:::::Came in to check it out and unfortunately it was true a fake narrative is being added on to that article. Everyone can see it. And now I even have doubts based on your tone @[[User:Ravenswing|Ravenswing]] that you are either the same person or work together. 
:::::I don't want to get involved in all this political nonsense but all I can say is that whoever you guys work for... I don't really care but you are only giving Wikipedia a bad name. People will lose trust in this platform and because of what you are doing, you will end up destroying a very unique heritage sight that has nothing to do with your wars.
:::::No need to answer. I'm out. [[User:DubaiScripter|DubaiScripter]] ([[User talk:DubaiScripter|talk]]) 12:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::OK I think you really need to understand that if you don't cease making personal attacks against Wikipedia editors you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your comportment, so far, indicates you are [[WP:NOTHERE|not interested in collaboratively building an encyclopedia]] as you seem to have joined to act upon a specific grievance against a specific editor. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Sounds like a prime example of [[WP:RWL|Ravenswing's Third Law]] cropping up here: "The vehemence (and repetitiveness) with which an editor states that those who oppose his actions/edits/POV can only have sinister motives for doing so is in inverse proportion to the editor's conformity to (a) relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines; and/or (b) his articlespace edit count."  If you really do believe that any editor who fails to agree with you is part of some conspiracy against you, then I agree with Simonm223; you are not fit to edit Wikipedia. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]]   16:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, this user is clearly [[WP:NOTHERE]]. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 19:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
* More personal attacks by {{u|DubaiScripter}}: [[Special:Diff/1261116064]] {{tq|The editors of this age are of Israeli origins or Israeli backed. Considering the current ongoing war it looks like the moderators on here are politically motivated and it looks as if Wikipedia is supporting that.}} In combination with the above {{tq|I also, noticed that you are only interested in historical pages that are related to the Jewish community which makes me believe that you are biased but again it that's my assumption. I could be wrong}} I believe DubaiScripter is prejudging people, in particular conflating interest in Jewish topics to being biased about Israel. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 20:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
** Given a level 3 AGF warning. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

== Using rotating accounts for edit warring ==

The user {{u|Æ is a good character}} rotates between two accounts, {{u|Æ's old account wasn't working}} and {{u|Ægc's friendly xbox alt}}, as well as at least two IPs, {{IP|2403:4800:351A:BE15:0:0:0:0/64}} and {{IP|2001:8003:58EA:E700:0:0:0:0/64}}, to engage in edit warring. In the most recent example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Rigs:_Over_the_Road_Racing&action=history Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing], the user added unnecessary wording, to which I disagreed. Instead of following [[WP:BRD]], the user reinstated their edit with another account, stating only "I am not a sock. I am not a sock. Remain calm." instead of engaging in any sort of dicussion. After I referred to WP:BRD explicitly, the user's next revert, again from another account, reiterated: "Do not panic. This is still me. I am not a sock. Both of my accounts are out of action at the moment, but they are not banned. I am not a sock. I am not a sock. I am not a sock.", once again not attempting to settle the issue via a discussion.

This is not an isolated case, however. The following examples, from the past month alone, come to mind:
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spacewar!&action=history Spacewar!]: The user makes a factual error that I challenge. After one commentless revert, they are reverted by another user ({{u|Rhain}}), and their second revert only reads "Just get over it mate, you're probably not gonna be winning this one anyway; this is not a threat". Their following two undos claim "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!" and "Fight me. Just fight me.", only ceasing their warring when a third user intervened.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Theft_Auto_(video_game)&action=history Grand Theft Auto (video game)]: The user introduced unsoucred claims and is reverted by Rhain. After they partially reinstate their edit, another user enforces [[WP:NOPIPE]], which the user reverts without comment. After being reverted with reference to the guideline involved, the user claims "Why does everything I touch automatically devolve into an edit war? Because of you. Yeah, you. Maybe." and only stopped when I reverted them.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_largest_empires&action=history List of largest empires]: I was not involved in this one, but the user went back and forth with two others, including comments like "Looks like we should prepare for war..."
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animator_vs._Animation&action=history Animator vs. Animation]: Another article Rhain was involved in; the user reverts Rhain without comment three times within 13 hours, and provided no rationale even after the minor edit war ended.

The user appears to intentionally provoke edit wars while often blaming the issue on the other user(s) involved, with individual edit summaries almost leaning into [[WP:NOTHERE]] territory, especially after the user has already been on this platform for a little over two years and will have come across the most important guidelines in this time.

{{small|This report was initially posted to [[WP:AN3]], but {{u|Bbb23}} suggested it be posted here instead.}}

[[User:IceWelder|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">IceWelder</span>]] &#91;[[User talk:IceWelder|<span style="color: #424242;">&#9993;</span>]]&#93; 14:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:To add onto this, they've gotten involved in edit wars on [[Terminator 2: Judgment Day]] and have made some very [[WP:NOTHERE]] statements like [[special:diff/1238659976|"Attack me more, and you may face a rain of terror from my also-usually-non-disruptive alts (they never disrupt articles, but for users, that's a different story)"]] and the statements made on their talk page [[User talk:Æ's old account wasn't working#Edit warring on Grand Theft Auto VI|here]], alongside seemingly taking the mick out of another user for making a simple mistake, shown [[User talk:Æ's old account wasn't working#Bludgeon|here]].
:They seem generally constructive in terms of their copyediting, but there are a bunch of issues piling up here. [[User:CommissarDoggo|<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#fc1008">Commissar</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#0363ff">Doggo</b>]]''[[User talk:CommissarDoggo|<sup style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#0363ff">Talk?</sup>]]'' 14:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:Wow... I really don't like them saying {{diff2|1255691066|Just get over it mate, you're probably not gonna be winning this one anyway; this is not a threat}}. There's very clearly a bad history here and consistent edit warring by @[[User:Æ's old account wasn't working|Æ's old account wasn't working]]. I'm tempted to indef them altogether, but I recognize the nature of their edits haven't been super controversial (just entirely unnecessary), but their behaviour has clearly been disruptive and inappropriate. I'll leave it for another admin, because I don't typically handle behaviour related blocks like this, but I'd support a month long block so that they can actually recognize the issues that they're causing and be given a chance to do better. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 18:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:: The urge to indef is strong.  I guess I'm in a good mood, though.  I blocked the latest IP range long-term to stop the logged-out editing.  I also blocked the Xbox alternate account, seeing as how it's being used to join in edit wars.  And that threat to use alternate accounts to harass someone was over-the-top.  However, my hope is that this was a moment of stupidity from a young editor.  Maybe blocking the alternate accounts will send enough of a message that this kind of behavior is not tolerated.  I settled for a week long block on the main account.  I think this is a really light sanction given all the problems here, but the edit warring seems to be the primary problem.  If this turns out to not be enough of a warning, I guess we can always do the indef block. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 01:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think you made the right decision,I feel as if this is a editor who may be a tad bit immature (given his actions), but who has good intentions (?). . . [[User:Luke Elaine Burke|L.E. Rainer]] 01:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|NinjaRobotPirate}} just checking, did you mean to leave [[User:Æ is a good character]] entirely unblocked? (It looks to be the "old account that isn't working" but-) - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: Yeah, it seems to be abandoned.  I guess I could block it anyway with a note that it's been abandoned in favor of the new account.  The problem is that sometimes people report situations like this at SPI ("the master was blocked, but there's a sock puppet still active") without realizing that someone has been restricted to a single account instead of being kicked off the island. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 02:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::[[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]], could you clarify things for me because with all of these accounts, it's not clear to me what their "main account" is. Is it [[User:Æ's old account wasn't working]]? It's not [[User:Æ]] which is a different account from years ago. I'd just like to know who all of these IPs and alts track back to. Thanks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Liz|Liz]] All of the accounts appear to link back to [[User:Æ is a good character]], which was created back in 2022. [[User:Æ's old account wasn't working]] appears to show a vague timeline of their accounts. [[User:CommissarDoggo|<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#fc1008">Commissar</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#0363ff">Doggo</b>]]''[[User talk:CommissarDoggo|<sup style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#0363ff">Talk?</sup>]]'' 13:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::: Yeah, basically that.  {{noping|Æ is a good character}} is the original account, but the password was lost.  {{noping|Æ's old account wasn't working}} is now the main account being used.  This account was temporarily blocked, and the other accounts were indefinitely blocked because the user threatened to use them to harass people. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 04:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I would definitely like some feedback from this user about how their accounts "stop working."  It seems like an excuse to create multiple accounts to obfuscate their editing.  Accounts don't just stop working; if they forgot their passwords there is a way to rectify that.  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Rigs:_Over_the_Road_Racing&diff=prev&oldid=1262065590 This edit summary in particular] ({{tq|Both of my accounts are out of action at the moment}}) is very odd.  What does "out of action" mean?  How does an account become "out of action" after being used within the last week?  Considering the disruption being caused, I would submit that we need an explanation from them about this, with the goal of getting them to settle on a single account to be used from now on.  --Chris &#124; <small>[[User:Crazycomputers|Crazycomputers]] ([[User talk:Crazycomputers|talk]])</small> 02:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
: Sometimes people think they need to create a new account for every device they have access to.  When they don't have access to that device, they think the account is unusable.  I've seen this before at [[WP:SPI]]. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 04:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

== Sockpuppet: MonstroIsACoinEater ==
{{atop|1=Blocked. For future, [[WP:AIV]] is thataway → - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}}
[[User:MonstroIsACoinEater]] seems to be doing the same thing as [[User:BlockyDragonHead]]. / [[User:RemoveRedSky|<span style="color:#F02121; text-shadow:gray 0em 0em 0.4em">'''RemoveRedSky'''</span>]] <sup><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:RemoveRedSky|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 01:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:Not any more (indef). —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 01:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::This sort of report could go to AIV, which usually gets faster results. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 01:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== [[User:Jacobolus|Jacobolus]] and [[WP:ASPERSION]] ==
{{archive top|Content dispute, with progress being made at the article's talk page. Both parties should keep [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:AGF]] in mind moving forward, and engage the various methods of [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] if necessary. Edit warring is not an appropriate way to resolve a dispute, and may be reported at [[WP:ANEW]]. --Chris &#124; <small>[[User:Crazycomputers|Crazycomputers]] ([[User talk:Crazycomputers|talk]])</small> 06:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}}
I'm not here to discuss the content dispute at [[Binomial theorem]] but to report {{u|Jacobolus}}'s behaviour when they come through a content dispute and for [[WP:ASPERSIONS]]. Days ago I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Binomial_theorem&diff=1260102599&oldid=1258996924 removed] some content that, according to me, was poorly sourced. I was reverted by {{noping|JayBeeEll}}, but I decided to revert them few days later after having checked again the quality or the sources. Then came {{u|Jacobolus}}, they reverted my edit and while I tried to discuss the matter on the talk page, this user accused me of bieng rude, insulting the sources and so on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Binomial_theorem#History_section]. From that point on, Jacobolus kept editing the article without any consensus, even [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Binomial_theorem&diff=next&oldid=1260996964  reverting] my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Binomial_theorem&diff=1260996964&oldid=1260982521 status quo edit], my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Binomial_theorem&diff=1262043454&oldid=1261844589 compromise edit] and is now thretening me to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABinomial_theorem&diff=1262094818&oldid=1262078658 keep reverting me]. I would like to know if this is a normal behaviour from such an experienced editor. Best.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:black">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 14:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:The diffs provided don't demonstrate any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of @[[User:Jacobolus|Jacobolus]] I'd suggest trouting the OP for creating a frivolous drama board post and closing promptly as no action before a group of very experienced editors decide to start airing their personal grievances with each other on the drama board in a hopefully-not-inevitable game of duck the boomerang. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you for your response. Labelling legit concerns about the sources as "insults" and "rude" and threatening to edit war aren't considered wrongdoing ? If so, then I agree with closing this report.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:black">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 14:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:Can someone help me out at [[talk:Binomial theorem]]? I'm getting quite frustrated by now. Wikaviani blanked a perfectly fine paragraph twice based on a complaint about the sources being too far removed from the topic, so I tracked down some closer secondary sources by subject experts. Then they continued to repeatedly remove perfectly fine material with heavily sarcastic comments about the new sources. I asked them several times to knock it off with the insulting language, and the only response was (a) further insulting language directed at me and several scholars living and dead, and (b) comments along the lines of the post here. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 15:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm not insulting the sources when I say that they are not expert for that specific field. All of them are respectable scholars, mathematicians, physicians, etc, but none of them is an expert source in the field of history of maths in Asia. Also, why did you revert my compromise and status quo edits and threaten me of an edit war ? I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABinomial_theorem&diff=1262043098&oldid=1261430507 told you] that I agreed with all your edits except the one about Pascal's triangle, which is an extraordinary claim about Indian mathematicians having discovered this triangle 7 centuries before Pascal. Honestly, I would also apreciate some help there too, since I find very difficult to have  a constructive discussion with Jacobolus, evry time we have a disagreement, I get accusations of being rude or insulting the sources.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:black">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 15:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Alright, on what basis do you bemoan the sources, @[[User:Wikaviani|Wikaviani]]? Do you have more professional, [[WP:SME]] sources that you can cite by Asian maths historians in replacement of perfectly fine sources by the scholars familiar with the subject? Otherwise, I'd suggest you knock it off on that measure. 
:::As for Pascal's triangle and your concerns with [[WP:FRINGE]]: can you either prove that the source about it is unreliable by presenting evidence that it is fringe, or can you find other sources that provide information contrary to the current? I'm sure Pascal's Triangle wouldn't be too hard to do that for. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">[[User:BarntToust|<span style="color:#7b68ee;">Barnt</span>]][[User talk:BarntToust|<span style="color:#483d8b;">Toust</span>]]</span> 15:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I will gladly discuss the matter at Talk:Binomial theorem if you want, I opened this report to know if it is normal for an editor (Jacobolus) to behave with fellow Wikipedians who disagree with them like that (false accusations of insults, [[WP:OWN|owning]] the article, and so on).
::::The claim i want to remove is about the history of maths and, sadly, mathematicians and physicians are not historians, i checked on Google the fields of expertise of the sources cited by Jacobolus, I found that they are not complying with the criteria of what a reliable source is, here on wikipedia, namely :
::::* The piece of work itself (the article, book)
::::* The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
::::* The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
::::You can take a look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Binomial_theorem&diff=next&oldid=1262116300 this edit of mines] for that. As to the theory about the discovery of Pascal's triangle, we have several expert sources like [[Roshdi Rashed]] who claim that it was discovered by a mathematician named Al Karaji and this is said few lines later in the article. So Jacobolus has listed not less than 8 weak sources to support a claim that is rejected by our [[WP:BESTSOURCES|best sources]] and everytime I say that, I am accused of insults towards the sources. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABinomial_theorem&diff=1262043098&oldid=1261430507 As I said], I agree with most of their work, which is well-sourced, but this specific sentence is an [[WP:EXTRAORDINARY|extraordinary]] claim that requires multiple good sources. when I said that to Jacobulus, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Binomial_theorem&diff=next&oldid=1262078658 they responded] "''If you remove this perfectly fine sentence you will be reverted. Your personal understanding of sourcing policy does not accord with [[WP:RS]] and your behavior and comments here continue to well outside Wikipedia policy and norms.''".<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:black">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 16:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::: For folks here, here's a close literal translation of the 10th century source:
::: {{color|#550|"After drawing a square on the top, two squares are drawn below (side by side) so that half of each is extended on either side. Below it three squares, below it (again) four squares are drawn and the process is repeated till the desired pyramid is attained. In the (topmost) first square the symbol for one is to be marked.. Then in each of the two squares of the second line figure one is to be placed. Then in the third line figure one is to be placed on each of the two extreme squares. In the middle square (of the third line) the sum of the figures in the two squares immediately above is to be placed; this is the meaning of the term ''pūrṇa''. In the fourth line one is to be placed in each of the two extreme squares. In each of the two middle squares, the sum of the figures in the two squares immediately above, that is, three, is placed. Subsequent squares are filled in this way."}}
::: Saying that this is the same as [[Pascal's triangle]] seems more like self-evident than extraordinary, if you ask me. For reference, here's the top few rows of what we now call Pascal's triangle:
::::<math>
\begin{array}{c}
 1 \\
 1 \quad 1 \\
 1 \quad 2 \quad 1 \\
 1 \quad 3 \quad 3 \quad 1 \\
 1 \quad 4 \quad 6 \quad 4 \quad 1 \\
\end{array}
</math>
::: –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 16:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Wikaviani|Wikaviani]], can you present the [[WP:best sources|best sources]]? Otherwise, what is there now will do until the [[WP:SME|SME]]s are researched and added.
::::I must admit, as a person disinterested in the field of maths, there needs to be more modern sources published in reliable journals to support claims, such as a source that by name calls it, say, a precursor to the triangle. In short, ''is there any documentation of this source as the first instance of or an aperitif'' to the triangle? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">[[User:BarntToust|<span style="color:#7b68ee;">Barnt</span>]][[User talk:BarntToust|<span style="color:#483d8b;">Toust</span>]]</span> 17:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm not quite sure what you are asking for, but there are numerous and varied sources calling this the same as Pascal's triangle, written by a variety of authors over a wide range of time periods, including sources about Vedic metres, about the history of Indian mathematics in general, about the history of combinatorics, or more generally about the history of broad areas of mathematics. Authors include close subject experts who did detailed examination of this specific topic, career historians of Indian mathematics who wrote high-level survey books about it and were editors of math history journals, career mathematical historians focusing on other regions or time periods mentioning it for comparison, and professional mathematicians who published significant books about the history of mathematics in reputable publishers or peer reviewed papers in reputable math history journals. All of the sources listed are well within the bounds of [[WP:RS]], several of them have been quite widely cited, and frankly we're already well into [[Wikipedia:Citation overkill|"citation overkill"]] land.
:::::I really don't understand the problem, and I don't understand why Wikaviani continues to call professional historians "unreliable", not "serious", not "expert", suggest that the Indian journals and professional societies are not reputable, and so on. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 17:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Oh, shoot, that's good to hear, if these sources are reliable, then all is well. Wikaviani seems to believe some sources are not good enough, when they are in their eyes B+ or A- sources, wanting A+ or S-tier level sources that don't seem to be anywhere close to being produced.
::::::If it's not any more trouble over this concern, let's make this subject a distant memory, no? Now, onto the specifics about Pascal's triangle. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">[[User:BarntToust|<span style="color:#7b68ee;">Barnt</span>]][[User talk:BarntToust|<span style="color:#483d8b;">Toust</span>]]</span> 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, but those sources from [[Pascal's triangle]] contradict what Jacobolus wants to include in the article about the binomial theorem.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:black">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 18:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::You make a good point, which is that the history section at [[Pascal's triangle]] is also substantially incomplete and should be expanded. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 18:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Thank you, but first, you need to find the relevant sources for that and avoid behaving like you do at Talk:Binomial theorem with non expert sources to counterbalance the above expert sources.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:black">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 18:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::"''I really don't understand the problem, and I don't understand why Wikaviani continues to call professional historians "unreliable", not "serious", not "expert"''"
::::::Maybe because those sources are either outdated or not from specialized historians, as I already told you multiple times.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:black">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 18:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I am sorry, I have been linking to [[WP:SME]], which is subject matter editors, and irrelevant to the discussion. @[[User:Wikaviani|Wikaviani]], I meant to say, '''please find these subject-matter expert historians/scientists''' you seem so keen on comparing to the works of the current, adequate-yet-not-''absolutely perfect'' sources.
:::::::Another thing: Old doesn't mean bad, okay? [[Shakespeare]]'s works are centuries old, yet still remain some of the finest writing ever produced by humanity. <s>If</s> '''since''' newer research <s>might</s> '''almost always''' supersedes old understandings, it is the burden of you to show what is better. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">[[User:BarntToust|<span style="color:#7b68ee;">Barnt</span>]][[User talk:BarntToust|<span style="color:#483d8b;">Toust</span>]]</span> 18:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, old does not mean bad, but in the field of scientific researches, [[WP:AGEMATTERS|age matters]]. I don't get you about the expert sources, I listed some of them above and they are cited in the article about Pascal's triangle with precise page numbers and cannot be challenged by non expert sources ([[WP:UNDUE]])<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:black">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 18:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::My speculation is that this is an ideological fight aimed at scoring points for one ancient culture over another which has been dressed up, as a wikilawyering strategy, as a fight about source credibility. Otherwise I can't come up with an explanation for demonstrated zeal and uncivil behavior. {{pb}} We have two non-contradictory, uncontroversial, and widely repeated claims here:
::::::::# The earliest known example of something close to the [[binomial theorem]] per se – that is, expansion of an algebraic expression like <math> (x + y)^n = {}</math><math> \tbinom{n}{0}x^n + \tbinom{n}{1}x^{n-1}y + {} </math><Math>\cdots + \tbinom{n}{n}y^n </math> – can be found [[al-Samawʾal]]'s 12th century work ''al-Bāhir'', credited by him to a now-lost work by [[al-Karajī]] (c. 1000).
::::::::# Indian scholars of [[Metre (poetry)|poetic metres]] investigated the same numbers {{tmath|\tbinom{n}{k} }} ([[combinations]] or [[binomial coefficients]]) many centuries earlier than that, including arranging them in a shape like (the modern form of) [[Pascal's triangle]] by the 10th century, and in a form nearly identical to Pascal's 1665 arrangement (also found in Cardano 1570) by the 6th century.
::::::::These two claims are substantially independent, and Rashed making claim (1) without saying anything about Indian mathematics is not a rejection of claim (2) – indeed it's entirely unsurprising that in Rashed's book about the history of Islamic arithmetic and algebra and in a chapter specifically concerned with whether al-Samawʾal's work used [[mathematical induction]] or not, he wouldn't go on long digressions about Indian investigations of poetic metres. {{pb}} For some reason though, Wikaviani is insisting that anything not mentioned in Rashed's 1994 book must be "extraordinary" and it's not sufficient to have either close subject experts or broader experts writing survey sources making the claim, because they aren't, for Wikaviani, good enough. {{pb}} It's entirely unclear what ''would'' be acceptable as a source: for any possible source added Wikaviani seems to be able to come up with some kind of reason to reject it, often involving making false claims about the author, impugning their reputation, insulting me personally, or making sarcastic dismissals with [[air quotes]] and rhetorical questions. {{pb}} Claim (2) is even made (in a slightly mangled way) by Robertson in ''[[MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive]]'', one of the two authors Wikaviani previously specifically called out as a source they support. (I don't think this reference is worth using in the article, because it is a mention in passing and stated slightly incorrectly.) –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Rashed is clear and leaves no room for doubt in his work when he says that the first description of Pascal's triangle to our knowledge is to be found in a now lost work from Al Karaji.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:black">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 20:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|BarntToust}} Yes, of course, we have several high quality sources at [[Pascal's triangle]], among which, [[Roshdi Rashed]]'s book (published in 1994) "The Development of Arabic Mathematics Between Arithmetic and Algebra" (page 63), The "Encyclopedia of the history of science, Technology and Medicine in non western cultures", Helen Selin (a book published in 2008) and "From Alexandria, Through Baghdad", published in 2013 by Nathan Sidoli and Glen van Brummelen, both historians.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:black">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 18:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Well yes, do they have anything to say on Asian origins of the concept? If not, that means nothing. If they refute this info, great for your argument. If they agree, well, huh, I guess that {{tq|an extraordinary claim about Indian mathematicians having discovered this triangle 7 centuries before Pascal}} will be proven. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">[[User:BarntToust|<span style="color:#7b68ee;">Barnt</span>]][[User talk:BarntToust|<span style="color:#483d8b;">Toust</span>]]</span> 18:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::They don't support the discovery of the triangle by Indian mathematicians, rather by a Muslim mathematician named Al Karaji c.1000 AD, that's the point.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:black">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 18:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Ok both of you see how this is entirely a content dispute, right? Can we please get a mercy close on this? [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 19:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, I agree. While we're here, however, I would appreciate it if Wikaviani could desist from further sarcasm and insulting language directed at either me or at professional historians. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 19:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Here we go, more baseless accusations ... where are my insults ? Ok for closing this, but we have no solution for the content issue.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:black">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 19:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I listed them for you and your only reply was "if my comments were insults, go ahead and report me". It's not clear that there's much point in repeating this again here, where everyone already seems tired of this conversation. {{pb}}
:::::::::::To help resolve a content dispute it's much more useful to recruit eyeballs from [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics]] [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science]]. I have to run but I'll open a discussion on WPM when I get a chance. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 20:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Those were not insults, and everybody here can see that. I'll proceed from the above links then, or, you can go ahead.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:black">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 20:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::We've been over this repeatedly, but since you really keep insisting:
:::::::::::::I cited some of the best known, most influential, and most celebrated historians of Indian mathematics (e.g. [[Radha Charan Gupta]] and [[Bibhutibhushan Datta]]) and and you dismissed them as "nothing very impressive, some obscure mathematicians of Indian origin".
:::::::::::::Amulya Bag ([https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=L0sqnokAAAAJ Google scholar page], [https://fellows.ias.ac.in/profile/v/FL2010003 IAS page]) is a professional historian of Indian mathematics and science who wrote multiple books on the subject and from 2002–2018 was the editor of the ''Indian Journal of History of Science'', one of the top journals about the topic.
:::::::::::::Can you understand how it might read as insulting when you first call his paper a {{'"}}source{{"'}} with sarcastic quotation marks around it, then later throw similar sarcasm quotes around his name itself, as part of a string of rhetorical questions whose sarcasm is further highlighted with italics: {{color|#077|'So according to you, "Amulya Kumar Bag" is a ''world class expert''? Wow, so how many influencial books has this guy published? with what publisher? how many awards has he? how about his academic career?'}} Later you followed up with claiming he "has not the expertise to challenge prominent historians", called his work not "serious" and a "poor source", said he is "not expert in the field of history of maths" and "not an expert historian of maths", and called him "unreliable".
:::::::::::::I don't know what problem you have with Prof. Bag, but your comments here have been, and continue to be, inappropriate. See [[WP:BLPTALK]] for more. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 20:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I have no problem with Bag and [[WP:BLPTALK]] is completely irrelevant here, just stop throwing baseless accusations of "insults" around. Bag's work is 60 years old source and I do not consider it as a world class expert, there is no insult here.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:black">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 20:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Amen to that, Simon. A mercy close to the bickering, ''por favor''. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">[[User:BarntToust|<span style="color:#7b68ee;">Barnt</span>]][[User talk:BarntToust|<span style="color:#483d8b;">Toust</span>]]</span> 19:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== User:Weliviewf disruptive editing – review requested ==

I left [[User:Weliviewf]] many warnings and requests about editing errors that they were making. The editor removed those warnings from their User talk page, so they can be presumed to have been seen. The editor continues to make the same sorts of disruptive edits. I found a half-dozen significant errors in a dozen recent edits.  They are making good edits to prose, but often accompanied by errors like nonexistent templates or categories, removing valid formatting, and making unhelpful changes. See the talk page history for my requests to them.

The editor is also newly registered, but their behavior gives every indication that they are an experienced Wikipedian. 

At this point, I feel like another set of eyes is needed to judge the level of disruption and if anything else may be going on here. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 06:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

:I also thought of bringing them here due to their many revisions of removing content without explanation or with misleading edit summaries (such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liaden_universe&diff=prev&oldid=1261827843 this one] claiming minor edits while also removing 72,000 bytes). Not only that, but they also remove the references, external links and categories for no reason. I do agree that some of their edits are genuinely beneficial, however edits like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B._S._Yediyurappa&diff=prev&oldid=1261813020 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canterbury_Rugby_Football_Union&diff=prev&oldid=1261786452 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Island_Def_Jam_Music_Group&diff=prev&oldid=1261784384#2010%E2%80%9311:_Motown_induction_and_GOOD_Music_partnership this] are completely unhelpful, removing entire sections of various articles, breaking tables and templates, and leaving sentences incomplete.
:They are completely aware they have a talk page, as they have removed content from it on two occasions, but the fact that they refuse to address concerns brought up on their talk page is concerning (I never left any warnings on their talk page because I thought what was already there was sufficient and didn't want to seem like I was piling on, however they don't seem to acknowledge them at all except for removing those warnings, which they have the right to do of course). [[User:Procyon117|Procyon117]] ([[User talk:Procyon117|talk]]) 06:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::[[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]], I haven't looked at their edits but it looked like you left 8 messages on their user talk page over 15 minutes! Given their previous behavior, do you think this was an effective way to communicate with them? It's overkill. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I left a message for each different problem that I found, including problems that they had previously been warned about. They made many different kinds of errors and disruptive edits at a high rate of speed. I also reverted some edits and pinged them from edit summaries, hoping that different styles of notification would help. Everything I have read about blocking says that editors need to be given adequate warnings. As for whether it was effective, I don't think the previous warnings were effective, but I know that they are required. If these do not work, I need more help. Hence my request here. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 07:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Weliviewf has returned to editing. I've invited them to participate in this discussion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:I too have cleaned up some of the edits made by Weliviewf, but the task is rather overwhelming and they have created a lot of work for other editors, much of which still remains to be done. I see three basic issues:
:*First, they remove vast portions of an article for no discernible reason ([[Special:Diff/1261827843|1]], [[Special:Diff/1261790934|2]], [[Special:Diff/1261786452|3]], [[Special:Diff/1261777693|4]], etc). At first I thought these were accidental mistakes, but it seems to be such a persistent pattern that I can only assume that it's deliberate. They have also edit warred to restore these mass content removal edits on the same page after they were reverted (eg. [[Special:Diff/1255135241|1a]] and [[Special:Diff/1257703084|1b]] and [[Special:Diff/1261777693|1c]]; [[Special:Diff/1256518256|2a]] and [[Special:Diff/1257846189|2b]] and [[Special:Diff/1261827843|2c]])  
:*Second, they repeatedly make changes that violate the MOS. For example, they remove bolding from the article subject in the lead sentence in most of their edits (eg. [[Special:Diff/1261785412|1]], [[Special:Diff/1261784384|2]], [[Special:Diff/1261783333|3]], [[Special:Diff/1261782516|4]], [[Special:Diff/1261781688|5]], [[Special:Diff/1261780616|6]], [[Special:Diff/1261777693|7]], etc) even though they have been informed at least three times that this is contrary to the MOS ([[Special:Diff/1260644137|1]], [[Special:Diff/1261356558|2]], [[Special:Diff/1261840127|3]]).
:*Third and perhaps most importantly, they do not communicate at all. They have selectively removed warnings from their talk page twice ([[Special:Diff/1255466402|1]] and [[Special:Diff/1261404395|2]]), so they are aware that their talk page exists and that other editors have been warning them, but they have neither responded to the messages nor changed the behavior that they were warned about. As far as I can tell, they have never edited a talk page of any kind.
: [[User:CodeTalker|CodeTalker]] ([[User talk:CodeTalker|talk]]) 08:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::I see the problem now. They are making a lot of very BOLD edits. They might need a partial block from Article namespace so they start discussing these major changes they are doing to a variety of articles on the project. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 09:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Considering they have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Motorcycle_Grand_Prix_of_the_Americas&diff=prev&oldid=1262043858 still] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_La_Salle_Green_Archers_and_Lady_Archers&diff=prev&oldid=1262042692 continued] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murusade&diff=prev&oldid=1262024799 to] do this, I would gladly support a block from Article namespace. [[User:Procyon117|Procyon117]] ([[User talk:Procyon117|talk]]) 13:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ev%C5%BEen_Korec&diff=prev&oldid=1262022600 continues] to remove bold formatting from article subjects in lead sections (most of their article edits) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giovanni_Battista_Giustammiani&diff=1262021242&oldid=1085535512 assign incorrect categories]. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 14:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I've had a look at some of their first edits, and I've noticed they never always used to do this. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gal_Gadot&diff=prev&oldid=1240190135 this edit] here they actually used an edit summary to try to refute what another editor said. And [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassination_of_Fuad_Shukr&diff=prev&oldid=1237703766 here] they actually commented on a talk page to make a suggestion. In fact, all their edits until 26 October actually seemed fine and reasonable. 
:::::For some reason though, starting with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sorted_Food&diff=prev&oldid=1254632160 this diff], they've used the newcomer task tool and made disruptive edits with it, using generic edit summaries, regardless of if they're actually accurate. [[User:Procyon117|Procyon117]] ([[User talk:Procyon117|talk]]) 14:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}I've pblocked them from articlespace for 48 hours in hopes of getting them to come to their talk page and discuss what is going on. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:Much of the thread above is about removals, but there may also be a problem in the other direction.
:I found this thread after running across what smelled like AI-generated text added by Weliviewf to an article over the course of several edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xenocide&diff=1258552755&oldid=1257460980]. Ironically, I encountered this while going through the edits of another problem editor (see [[WP:AN#Editor possibly gaming the system]]) who expanded some of this added text with even more text of the same general nature [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xenocide&diff=1260732446&oldid=1260274518].
:I haven't had the time to check Weliviewf's contributions for more AI slop but I wouldn't be surprised to find it. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 08:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

== Agressive user Dupexz1256 ==
{{atop|1=Indef. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Dupexz1256}} <br/>
User Dupexz1256 was edit warring at [[Bosnian War]] article when I interacted with his soapbox and pov edits. He is enamoured with convicted [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dupexz1256#Things_i_love war criminals]. He has left this agressive message at my [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ybsone#Kys 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. [[User:Ybsone|YBSOne]] ([[User talk:Ybsone|talk]]) 20:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:Why hasn't anyone blocked @[[User:Dupexz1256|Dupexz1256]] for [[WP:DISRUPTIVE|being disruptive]] yet? It's a pretty cut-and-dry report. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:103A:D800:84B:7F65:10AF:7CEB|2600:1700:103A:D800:84B:7F65:10AF:7CEB]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:103A:D800:84B:7F65:10AF:7CEB|talk]]) 20:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:I haven't looked any further than to click on the diff provided. Anyone saying things like that should be blocked immediately. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed, and {{done}}. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 20:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== User:Bloganathan ==
{{atop|1=Blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}}
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? [[Special:Contributions/194.230.147.152|194.230.147.152]] ([[User talk:194.230.147.152|talk]]) 23:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

: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 [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 00:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{nacc}} 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 {{diff2|1260849143|this one}}? —[[User:Tenryuu|<span style="color:#556B2F">Tenryuu&nbsp;🐲</span>]]&nbsp;(&nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&nbsp;) 01:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Shadow. 547 - "shut up", "stupid", "ur crying" ==
{{atop|1=31h block. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Shadow. 547}}

[[WP:NOTHERE]] behaviour;

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timurid_conquests_and_invasions&diff=prev&oldid=1261876116 ...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...]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timurid_conquests_and_invasions&diff=prev&oldid=1262145002 woah woah woah looks like someones having a bad day 😂 also i removed the result timurid victory and ur crying...]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shadow._547&curid=78008496&diff=1262287869&oldid=1262287698 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 {{ping|AirshipJungleman29}} --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 22:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{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 &#124; <small>[[User:Crazycomputers|Crazycomputers]] ([[User talk:Crazycomputers|talk]])</small> 06:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks Chris! [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 12:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Continued unsourced changes in biographies of living persons by Wimpyguy ==


{{user|Wimpyguy}} 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.

# Today I noticed they added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Kapranos&diff=prev&oldid=1262524486 categories at Alex Kapranos] which are not supported by citations in the article body.
# Going through their previous edits I noticed their previous change, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Winter&diff=prev&oldid=1260285698 a category addition to Alex Winter, from 29 November], was also not supported by the article body.
# An earlier edit from 23 November, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Rapaport&diff=prev&oldid=1259201984 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. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 22:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

: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 [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-29284532]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 @[[User:Wimpyguy|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. [[User:Flusapochterasumesch|Flusapochterasumesch]] ([[User talk:Flusapochterasumesch|talk]]) 00:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

== Sistani nationality and original name ==

Hello about ([[Ali al-Sistani]])

I’m writing to raise a concern about user @[[User:Montblamc1|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, @[[User:Montblamc1|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! [[User:Taha Danesh|Taha Danesh]] ([[User talk:Taha Danesh|talk]]) 21:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:<small>Moved from [[WT:AN]]. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 22:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
: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 [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1173#Disruption at contentious topic|another ANI complaint]]. [[User:Conyo14|Conyo14]] ([[User talk:Conyo14|talk]]) 00:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::You write that the user @[[User:Mountblamc1|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 @[[User:Mountblamc1|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 @[[User:Mountblamc1|Mountblamc1]] on the basis that they have ('''''not had''''') a prior, undecided, active complaint against them that they appear to have refuted without contest? [[User:Flusapochterasumesch|Flusapochterasumesch]] ([[User talk:Flusapochterasumesch|talk]]) 01:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*This looks like a continuation of [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Disruptive edits on al-Sistani page, POV-pushing]]. Editors were told that this was a content dispute where discussion should happen on the article talk page (or Dispute resolution). Why open a new complaint, [[User:Taha Danesh|Taha Danesh]]? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 01:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Thanks Liz. That is essentially what I just said. It is disappointing to see a third-party (@[[User:Conyo14|Conyo14]]) jumping in to point out another open incident, when it is very much stalled and is being competently defended by the complained-about editor. Maybe they are in the wrong, maybe they are not - but it is improper to point to another unresolved dispute. That could simply mean the complained-about user is being unfairly targeted for making valid edits that the complainer does not like. [[User:Flusapochterasumesch|Flusapochterasumesch]] ([[User talk:Flusapochterasumesch|talk]]) 01:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Relax. Just giving out information. @[[User:Novem Linguae|Novem Linguae]] made this continuation, I believe. [[User:Conyo14|Conyo14]] ([[User talk:Conyo14|talk]]) 01:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::That's very helpful, thank you @[[User:Conyo14|Conyo14]]. Was there any reason when you were "just giving out information" you used the word 'even' in the phrase "[the complained-about user] '''''even '''''had another ANI complaint"? That seems loaded to me, but I'm certain in line with WP:AGF that you didn't mean it as such. It seemed like you were being prejudiced but I accept that I wrongly interpreted you. [[User:Flusapochterasumesch|Flusapochterasumesch]] ([[User talk:Flusapochterasumesch|talk]]) 01:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Oh, and I meant to say that I find you telling me to "relax" to be condescending and I take offence at that in the context. [[User:Flusapochterasumesch|Flusapochterasumesch]] ([[User talk:Flusapochterasumesch|talk]]) 01:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Ok [[User:Conyo14|Conyo14]] ([[User talk:Conyo14|talk]]) 05:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

== Disruptive IP  ==
{{atop|{{nac}} IP was blocked after a report on [[WP:AIV|AIV]]. [[User:ExclusiveEditor|<span style="background:Orange;color:White;padding:2px;">Exclusive</span><span style="background:black; color:White; padding:2px;">Editor</span>]] [[User talk:ExclusiveEditor|<sub>Notify Me!</sub>]] 09:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{user|67.180.213.51}} 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: {{tq|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. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 19:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:Also possibly introducing hoaxes at [[Tartaria]]. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 19:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::Might have been better for [[WP:AIV]], but an admin could impose a short block on this IP. [[User:Conyo14|Conyo14]] ([[User talk:Conyo14|talk]]) 21:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
: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. [[User:ExclusiveEditor|<span style="background:Orange;color:White;padding:2px;">Exclusive</span><span style="background:black; color:White; padding:2px;">Editor</span>]] [[User talk:ExclusiveEditor|<sub>Notify Me!</sub>]] 08:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::I hope I am wrong, and they still could be reported to AIV, as an editor did now. [[User:ExclusiveEditor|<span style="background:Orange;color:White;padding:2px;">Exclusive</span><span style="background:black; color:White; padding:2px;">Editor</span>]] [[User talk:ExclusiveEditor|<sub>Notify Me!</sub>]] 08:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== [[WP:NOTHERE]] user ==
{{atop|1=Blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 09:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Bringing this straight to ANI rather than messing around with warnings as I think it's a clear case of [[WP:NOTHERE]]. 

{{u5|Mujjaf4}} has made 3 contributions at the time of writing:

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mujjaf4&oldid=1262608173 The first] is a personal attack against {{u|Daniel Case}}.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Football_League&diff=prev&oldid=1262608365 The second] is clear vandalism.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seasider53&diff=prev&oldid=1262608647 The third] is what I'm interpreting as another personal attack; I assume they've interacted with {{u|Seasider53}} before on a different account or logged out. 

— '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>]])''</sup> 07:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*:'''Blocked''' per NOTHERE. As per the above. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 07:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Cinderella157 gaming the system ==
{{Atop|This is a content dispute, and the OP may defend themself at [[WP:AN3]]. There's no need to bring a retaliatory complaint here.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 14:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)}}
* Article: [[Second Nagorno-Karabakh War]]
* User involved: {{user|Cinderella157}}

[[File:Location Nagorno-Karabakh2.png|thumb|right|Map of [[Nagorno-Karabakh]]]]
[[File:Seven occupied districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh (Numbered).png|thumb|Map of the [[Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh]]]]

First, it starts with I am taking some stuff back from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War&diff=prev&oldid=1217969188 this revision] by {{ping|Oloddin}}. Not reverting to revision, just took some old stuff which stood here for years.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War&diff=prev&oldid=1262492981 My first edit].
Then Cinderella157 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War&diff=prev&oldid=1262554250 reverts me] by saying {{tq|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.
* 1st edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War&diff=prev&oldid=1218834877 edit] here removing detailed stuff from "| territory =" does not even violate the  [[Template:Infobox military conflict]], which says: {{tq|territory – optional – any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict; this should not be used for overly lengthy descriptions of the peace settlement.}}
* 2nd [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War&diff=next&oldid=1218834877 edit] here changing "| place             = [[Nagorno-Karabakh]] and [[Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh|surrounding Armenian-occupied territories]], [[Armenia–Azerbaijan border]]" to "| place             = [[Nagorno-Karabakh]]".
Both of edits are very very misleading since the lead says: {{tq|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 {{tq|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War&diff=prev&oldid=1218833744 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War&diff=next&oldid=1262630275 edit on the talk page]. Maybe could've asked for help instead of giving wrong information for 8 months now?

So on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War&diff=prev&oldid=1262604458 12 December 2024, 07:46] I explained my edit (not a revert) and on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1262626881 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. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 11:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

== Dollhouse Nights disruptive changes ==
{{atop|
result=Blocked from article space by Spicy, in hope that they will communicate
}}
{{userlinks|Dollhouse Nights}} 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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1262686772][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1261368179][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lucretia&diff=prev&oldid=1261531261][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hippie_Hollow_Park&diff=prev&oldid=1261562647][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1262098887] Most of their 23 edits have been reverted. After the initial "good faith" welcome template, I left [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dollhouse_Nights#c-Schazjmd-20241206203900-Task_center a message] gently pointing out the problem with their edits. This was followed by 3 templated warnings from me and another editor.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dollhouse_Nights#December 2024]  The problems are continuing after these warnings and the many reverts.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1262689419][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1262689911]

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.  [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 18:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 22:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== 62.1.163.195 ==
{{atop|1=Blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{IP|62.1.163.195}} - I blocked this IP last week for repeatedly adding unsourced/undated stats to footballers. They have returned and are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kristoffer_Velde&diff=1262615851&oldid=1262407593 straight back to it]. Can we get a longer block please? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 18:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:Done. 1 month. And this seems like a very familiar user we've seen before. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 18:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::Many thanks. Too many edit like this... [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 19:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Dingleberry Hpmp repeatedly uploading non-free BLP photos ==

{{userlinks|Dingleberry Hpmp}} 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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dingleberry_Hpmp#c-Iruka13-20241116005500-Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_File:Austin_Swift.jpg][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dingleberry_Hpmp#c-Iruka13-20241125182100-Replaceable_non-free_use_File:Bruce_Springsteen_2024.webp][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dingleberry_Hpmp#c-Iruka13-20241125182200-Replaceable_non-free_use_File:Rocknoceros.jpg] '''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.   [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 14:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*Indef pblocked from Filespace until communication improves. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

==Block evasion at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 11]]==
{{atop|1=IP sock put back in the drawer. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)}}
The appellant arguing on behalf of [[Shakir Pichler]] from {{IP|157.211.83.46}} admits that they are evading a block as [[User: KryptonicChristine]] and [[User: ChristineBamtonics]].  I am filing here rather than at [[WP:SPI|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.
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 06:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Subtle legal threat ==
{{atop|1=It's not a legal threat per-se, but it does seem to be an attempt to bully other editors. The editor has previously been blocked and blocked from editing that article due to similar conduct. I've re-blocked them from the article for 6 months. Please contact me if this behaviour continues on other related articles. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 10:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC) }}
On [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Kuan_Yew&diff=prev&oldid=1262983124 Lee Kuan Yew]. [[User:MordukhovichAleakin|MordukhovichAleakin]] ([[User talk:MordukhovichAleakin|talk]]) 06:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:It's blustering and as such rather pointless, but not a legal threat. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 08:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== How do we handle crossover issues at a foreign language wikipedia? ==
{{atop|result=Problematic article on the French Wikipedia has been deleted. Resolved. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 21:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Recently the community dealt with {{u|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? [[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 05:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

:Here is a [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Liste_des_administrateurs list of administrators]] on the French language Wikipedia, with the level of English they speak. Maybe try contacting one of them.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 06:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::There's also [[:fr:Wikipédia:Bistro des non-francophones]] although it's fairly inactive. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 15:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I've tried both suggestions.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Update. Thanks {{u|Nil Einne}} for the helpful suggestion. The French wikipedia deleted their article after I raised it there. Best.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 16:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Disruption at [[Storrs, Connecticut]] by Jonathanhusky ==
{{atop|1=After much sound and fury, Jonathanhusky and UConnIPUser proved to be socking and have both been indef'd with TPA revoked. We now return you to your regularly scheduled ANI. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)}}
For several months several editors have been claiming Storrs, Connecticut should be Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut. It was at ANI several months ago - see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1167#Storrs-Mansfield], which led to the creation of an RfC.

The RfC is clearly heading for an oppose, but it has been heavily bludgeoned by {{u|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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Storrs%2C_Connecticut&diff=1261269443&oldid=1261268963] 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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Storrs,_Connecticut&diff=next&oldid=1261269689] Finally, the edit that got me here, which is something I've never seen before - Jonathanhusky marked several strong opposers, including {{noping|Mathglot}}, {{noping|JamesMLane}}, and {{noping|R0paire-wiki}} as "actually supports" in the RfC, while marking the edit as minor, and without signing the comments: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AStorrs%2C_Connecticut&diff=1261271430&oldid=1261082461]

This behaviour, especially the bludgeoning and that last edit, is clearly disruptive/[[WP:OWN]]ership behaviour and there needs to be at the very least a topic ban if not an outright block. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 05:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:I don't have an opinion on the merits of this filing, but it should be noted that Jonathan also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=1261058526 filed for a third opinion] regarding this article. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Storrs,_Connecticut&diff=prev&oldid=1261082461 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. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 05:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:That last pretty much counts as "editing another editor's comments" doesn't it? - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::I reverted their edit where they "interpreted" other editors' "votes" as the opposite of what they said. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
{{talk quote block|...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.

{{talk quote block|The RfC is clearly heading for an oppose, but it has been heavily bludgeoned by Jonathanhusky.}}
{{talk quote block|...I noticed Jonathanhusky had updated the article in a way that was clearly unsupported by the RfC...}}
{{talk quote block|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 [[Special:GoToComment/c-Jonathanhusky-20241130201500-Trainsandotherthings-20241130144500|a discussion comment]], they actually ''did'' support the proposed edits. The suggested text follows the established and accepted Wikipedia style.

{{talk quote block|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. [[User:Jonathanhusky|Jonathanhusky]] ([[User talk:Jonathanhusky|talk]]) 06:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::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. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 07:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Jonathanhusky|Jonathanhusky]] ([[User talk:Jonathanhusky|talk]]) 08:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::[[User:Jonathanhusky|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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:Jonathanhusky|Jonathanhusky]] ([[User talk:Jonathanhusky|talk]]) 08:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::However you choose to interpret what you did (realizing that experienced editors disagree with you), consider yourself warned not to do it again. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{talk quote block|...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 {{talk quote inline|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. [[User:Jonathanhusky|Jonathanhusky]] ([[User talk:Jonathanhusky|talk]]) 09:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::There's no ''then'' — this is not a negotiation. What you did was sanctionable misconduct, so you can't do that again, full stop. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 09:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::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? [[User:Jonathanhusky|Jonathanhusky]] ([[User talk:Jonathanhusky|talk]]) 09:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::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. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 09:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::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 [[WP:NOPA|personal attacks]]? [[User:Jonathanhusky|Jonathanhusky]] ([[User talk:Jonathanhusky|talk]]) 09:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::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. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 09:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{replyto|Jonathanhusky}} I'll put it a different way. Do you think it was in any way acceptable if I had let this edit stand [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1261296706]? Perhaps the formatting is a little different but that's basically what you did. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 09:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@[[User:Nil Einne|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. [[User:Jonathanhusky|Jonathanhusky]] ([[User talk:Jonathanhusky|talk]]) 09:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}{{u|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. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 09:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

: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. [[User:Jonathanhusky|Jonathanhusky]] ([[User talk:Jonathanhusky|talk]]) 10:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::Again, you need to step back from this thread, or face additional sanctions. You do not have an inalienable right to {{tq|''to respond to individual points''}} indefinitely. You are free to disagree, but not misuse ([[WP:BLUDGEON]]) this space further. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 10:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::(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. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 10:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} 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. <u>Added:</u> what Phil Bridger brings up is concerning. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 10:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 10:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think that merge discussion can be safely closed. It's going nowhere, and is another example of their disruptive behavior at that article.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 13:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Does [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Storrs,_Connecticut&diff=prev&oldid=1261293195 this] edit, made after the ANI was opened, also need to be reverted? [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 16:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::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.  [https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Storrs,_Connecticut&oldid=9924962|Storrs, Connecticut - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia] which I have reverted [[User talk:JeffUK|Jeff<span style="border-style:dashed;border-color:blue; border-width:1px">'''UK'''</span>]] 17:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} 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.-- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">'''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 22:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jonathanhusky&diff=prev&oldid=1261405698] 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. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jonathanhusky&diff=prev&oldid=1261562047 Doesn't look promising]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
: Having looked through the recent bits on his talk page, the constant [[WP:WIKILAWYERING|wikilawering]], [[WP:IDHT|refusal to listen]], and [[WP:STICK|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. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed 100%. The user's recent lengthy post on his talkpage (in response to your suggestion above) pretty much proves your point. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 05:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*: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. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 01:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*::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. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 01:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::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. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 05:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Just going to mention now, while patrolling RC I noticed another editor came up, {{noping|UConnIPUser}}. who is doing some of the same stuff that JonathanHusky was doing with making Mansfield a part of Storrs. They are blanking the entire page and redirecting it to Mansfield, see diffs here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Storrs,_Connecticut&diff=prev&oldid=1263074746][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Storrs,_Connecticut&diff=prev&oldid=1263109688] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Storrs,_Connecticut&diff=prev&oldid=1263110759]. They were reverted by me and 1 other editor, who explained that they need consensus to redirect the article again, after the merge proposal was closed. They proceeded to cite [[WP:OVERLAP]], which they were bold and did, but they were reverted, and they never discussed it on the talk page after. They then proceeded to call me biased [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UConnIPUser&diff=prev&oldid=1263113741] and telling me I should leave a warning notice on {{u|Naraht}}'s talk page because they did it too. They are borderline edit warring, and I think a block is needed for UConnIPuser as well, who seems to only be here for this purpose only. <b>[[User:Yoshi24517|<span style="color:#00c700;font-family:'Rockwell'">Yoshi24517</span>]] ([[User talk:Yoshi24517|<span style="color:black;font-family:'Rockwell'">Chat</span>]]) (<span style="color:red;font-family:'Rockwell'">Very Busy</span>)</b> 19:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:ANI notices have now been left for UCIPuser and Naraht. <b>[[User:Yoshi24517|<span style="color:#00c700;font-family:'Rockwell'">Yoshi24517</span>]] ([[User talk:Yoshi24517|<span style="color:black;font-family:'Rockwell'">Chat</span>]]) (<span style="color:red;font-family:'Rockwell'">Very Busy</span>)</b> 19:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:"after the merge proposal was closed."
:The merge proposal on the original talk page was always invalid because the respondents misused that venue. WP:OVERLAP directly supports the merge, the text is now exactly identical, meaning there is no reason to have an independent "Storrs" article.
:"with making Mansfield a part of Storrs."
:This shows that you do not know. Storrs-Mansfield is a village within the town of Mansfield. No ifs, ands, or buts about it, and no one can argue about the names. The article(s) call the village "Storrs", which is very wrong and will be corrected. [[User:UConnIPUser|UConnIPUser]] ([[User talk:UConnIPUser|talk]]) 20:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::It does seem to me rather likely that these are the same user. See recent edits:
::{{tq|If you don't do that you can't ever call yourself an editor in good standing}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UConnIPUser&diff=prev&oldid=1263114826] by UConnIPuser.
::{{tq|If you don’t do that, you can’t honestly call yourself someone who knowingly does the right thing}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jonathanhusky&diff=prev&oldid=1262601025] by Jonathanhusky.
::What are the odds? [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 20:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ec}}{{u|UConnIPUser}} may or may not be the same editor as {{u|Jonathanhusky}}. It doesn't really matter because that user should be blocked anyway. If there is any doubt about whether this article should be called Storrs or Storrs-Mansfield that issue should be discussed in peace by good-faith editors, who don't include those. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC) 
::{{ec}}I've protected [[Storrs, Connecticut]] for four days so this can simmer down ''again''. Also noting that although Jonathanhusky [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jonathanhusky&diff=prev&oldid=1263103039] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jonathanhusky&diff=prev&oldid=1263106644] and UConnIPUser [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jonathanhusky&diff=prev&oldid=1263110067] state they have no connection, UConnIPUser is making the ''exact'' type of argument on their talk page with regards to this that Jonathanhusky did on his [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UConnIPUser&diff=prev&oldid=1263114826], so yeah, Axad12 isn't the only one hearing a [[WP:DUCK]] here. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 20:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{confirmed}}. I've blocked and tagged both accounts. – [[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]] 20:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you guys for the swift action. Hopefully the discussion can continue peacefully without this troublemaker. <b>[[User:Yoshi24517|<span style="color:#00c700;font-family:'Rockwell'">Yoshi24517</span>]] ([[User talk:Yoshi24517|<span style="color:black;font-family:'Rockwell'">Chat</span>]]) (<span style="color:red;font-family:'Rockwell'">Very Busy</span>)</b> 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I have revoked talk page access from both accounts. What a giant waste of time over a triviality. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 20:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
===Current use of Storrs-Mansfield===
{{hat|1=Unnecessary aside hatted for the sake of EEng's stomach - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)<br>My stomach thanks you. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]]}}
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.[[User:Naraht|Naraht]] ([[User talk:Naraht|talk]]) 20:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:(a) How does this bear on this complaint? (b) If I hear the words "Storrs" or "Mansfield" one more time, I'm gonna vomit. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 22:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
{{abot}}
== Lavipao edit warring + POV pushing  ==
{{atop
| result = Per Bushranger's request—closed after one-week block of user for personal attacks. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 04:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
}}
*{{userlinks|Lavipao}}
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! [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 08:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:[[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]], you're a very experienced editor, you know you have to present diffs so that editors can investigate your complaint. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::That's I can do on mobile.
::Operation Olive Branch
::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Olive_Branch&oldid=1260848177 rev before]
::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Olive_Branch&oldid=1261383975 rev after]
::Operation Euphrates Shield
::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Euphrates_Shield&oldid=1261108578 rev before]
::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Euphrates_Shield&oldid=1261108578 rev after]
:: [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 09:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 09:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 09:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::This is not the place to discuss content disputes. And your opening salvo on their talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lavipao&oldid=1261316401] 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. [[User talk:JeffUK|Jeff<span style="border-style:dashed;border-color:blue; border-width:1px">'''UK'''</span>]] 10:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 12:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Also leaving this here as an example [[Operation_Olive_Branch#International reactions]] (simple read the countries):
:::::* Cyprus: {{tq|The Republic of Cyprus condemned the Turkish invasion in Afrin}}
:::::* France: {{tq|evolves into an attempted invasion}} (assumption)
:::::* Sweden: {{tq|to protest the Afrin invasion}} (statement of the newspaper, not Swedish government)
:::::* US: {{tq| 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: {{tq|the unacceptable invasion of Turkey into Syria}}
:::::Now tell me how his edits is appropriate? [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 12:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::How is whether we should describe this as an invasion or an operation {{em|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 {{em|and}} an operation. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 13:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::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). [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 13:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::>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. [[User talk:JeffUK|Jeff<span style="border-style:dashed;border-color:blue; border-width:1px">'''UK'''</span>]] 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::How so exactly? We edit like that. [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 14:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::This is an argument to make on the Talk page. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 18:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, that (the {{em|article}} talk page) is the right place to talk about this content dispute. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::"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. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 21:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::But was there any edit warring? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 21:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, but that's not really my point, so much as:
::::# 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).
::::# 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".
::::[[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 18:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
: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 [[User:Lavipao|Lavipao]] ([[User talk:Lavipao|talk]]) 02:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:This user is deliberately edit warring and POV pushing. administrators should intervene asap. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 22:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::You are also edit-warring and you've failed to open a talk page discussion despite telling Lavipao too. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 23:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{re|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). [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 08:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
This user abuses 1RR rule, and edit warring, yet administrators doing nothing. Good. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 21:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

: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? [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 00:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{talk quote inline|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. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Good to know. It might be best to explain to give a proper explanation of it to Lavipao. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 01:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lavipao#c-Lavipao-20241208193500-Beshogur-20241208084300| Their responses do not look promising.] Calling another editor a "Classic no-life activist editor" is not good.
[[User:Codename AD|<b style="color:#019164;"> ''Codename AD'' </b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Codename AD| <b style="color:#34457a">''talk''</b>]]</sup> 21:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:A classic case of [[WP:THETRUTH]]. I've given them what can be considered a final warning. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Olive_Branch&diff=prev&oldid=1262188672] "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 . [[User:Codename AD|<b style="color:#019164;"> ''Codename AD'' </b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Codename AD| <b style="color:#34457a">''talk''</b>]]</sup> 12:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

*Given that Lavipao has resumed the same editing on [[Operation Olive Branch]] and has ''never'' posted on the talk page there (and has posted on a talk page ''once'' in his entire editing career), I've protected the page for 72 hours so this can be resolved on the article talk page. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
**And as their response was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Olive_Branch&diff=prev&oldid=1262188672 this] and making the same edit on [[Operation Euphrates Shield]], protected ''that'' page for 72 hours as well. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
**:Aww the little butthurt power hungry admin doesn't like when people call him out for his blatant propaganda work for the genocidal Turkish government? I hope they're at least paying you or else it's just sad how much work you do for Erdogan for free lmao [[User:Lavipao|Lavipao]] ([[User talk:Lavipao|talk]]) 06:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
***:[[User:Lavipao|Lavipao]], if you are trying to get yourself indefinitely blocked for personal attacks, you are doing a great job at it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
***::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Olive_Branch&diff=prev&oldid=1262188672] {{tq|lol as soon as you’ve been proven completely wrong by the above talk page comment you block editing on the page to protect your little Turkish propaganda phrase. Idiots like you are why people don’t take this website seriously anymore. Buncha power hungry losers running the site}} [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 13:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
***::Who gives a fuck if I get banned lol, I tried to correct a Turkish propaganda agents disinformation campaign and have been blocked at every turn by said Turkish propaganda agent. Many sources have been provided for why this user is completely lying and spreading disinformation but instead of anyone doing anything, yall are complaining about my words. 
***:: This site has clearly been compromised by people pushing disinformation instead of the open source collection of information it used to be. Glad that teachers tell their students never to use this site for information it’s clearly not reliable whatsoever. [[User:Lavipao|Lavipao]] ([[User talk:Lavipao|talk]]) 20:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
***:::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Olive_Branch&diff=prev&oldid=1262374862 "You are the only person waging this war of disinformation trying to get your “cross border operation” term used instead of the real term, invasion. You have been shown many sources which refer to this as an invasion but yet you continue to fight against the consensus to keep your false narrative. You should be banned from Wikipedia for your obvious bias"]. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 08:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

* I see Lavipao has been blocked for a week. This can probably be closed now. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Persistent disruptive and tendentious editing by TheRazgriz on the 2024 United States elections page ==
{{atop|1=[[User:TheRazgriz|TheRazgriz]] blocked for a week by [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)}}
[[User:TheRazgriz|TheRazgriz]] has engaged in persistent, [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive]] and [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|tendentious]] editing on the [[2024 United States elections]] page, including making multiple ad hominem attacks against myself, ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1260767811 calling] me an emotional biased editor engaging in borderline vandalism, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1259207741 accusing] me of [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]], and of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261169861 acting] with intentional bad faith) and making several [[WP:UNCIVIL]] comments on the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261199711 pointed] out by other editors. TheRazgriz did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BootsED&diff=prev&oldid=1260851489 apologize] once on my talk page, but continued to engage in such attacks against myself afterwards. TheRazgriz has been called out by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1261252635 several] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1261450667 other] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1261252190 editors] on his talk page for uncivil comments on this and other pages, which are promptly removed shortly thereafter. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1259659111 comments] on his talk page, Wikipedia admin [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] has noted Raz's use of "rudeness and sexualized language" (ex: "stroke off your ego", calling people "boy"). Wikipedia admin [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1261117108 noted] that his message in reply to Bishonen "comes across as somewhat arrogant". User [[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] made a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1247372138 warning] against Raz of potential edit warring on the [[Bryson City, North Carolina]] page. 

I previously [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting reversal of premature closure of talk page section by TheRazgriz|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 [[Talk:2024 United States elections#RfC Should Trump's claims of a stolen election, rigged trials, election interference, weaponization of justice and lawfare by the Democratic Party be described as "false" and "without evidence"?|an RfC]] I opened and a [[Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Original research for claim regarding polling for Donald Trump's legal cases on the 2024 United States election page|discussion]] on the Original Research noticeboard. During discussions, TheRazgriz refused to provide any reliable secondary sources for his claims, instead [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261031463 claiming] the ONUS was not on him. TheRazgriz has also been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261064112 called] out by other editors that his [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261080092 claims] about the content of prior edits was incorrect as shown by edit history.

TheRazgriz has frequently [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1259181801 refused] to engage in meaningful discussion with myself, with his repeated insistence that he is right and I am wrong (one [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1258984465 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261449134 insist] his edits and interpretations of policy not disputed by at least three editors cannot be removed. TheRazgriz has falsely [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1260767746 claimed] a consensus exists within the "[[Talk:2024 United States elections#Undue weight in "Issues"|Undue weight in lead]]" section of the talk page for his "final" edits to the Economy section, which he has previously used to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1260760693 revert] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1260761977 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1261160539 claims] he has over 114,000 edits on other unregistered accounts but that his IP address [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1247372138 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. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 03:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

: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 [[Special:Diff/1261441632|questioned the circumstance in which they made that edit]], they [[WP:ABF]] and [[Special:Diff/1261444788|accused me of disruptive behaviour]]. When I [[Special:Diff/1261445499|suggested they strike their incivil comments before it escalate]], they [[Special:Diff/1261450667|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. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 04:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::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 [[User talk:TheRazgriz#ARBPIA|here]] on my page after they removed the post for the 500 edit issue, there was no other problem with my edit. [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 14:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

:[[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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::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. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 05:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::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. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 06:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:Not a good look that [[User:TheRazgriz]] does not understand why pinning demeaning language on the top of {{their|TheRazgriz}} talk page is bad. [[User:Northern Moonlight|<span style="background-color:#f3f3fe;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">Northern Moonlight</span>]] 10:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I have warned TheRazgriz about [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning the process]] at [[Talk:2024 United States elections]]. If nothing changes, I consider page-blocking them. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 15:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC).

:I'd support at least that.  I want to  know about any possible NOR or RS issues. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 15:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Doug Weller|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 [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_312#RFC:_New_York_Post_(nypost.com)|read the RFC]] on the reliability of NYPOST to arrive at that conclusion.
::In regards to Original Research, see [[Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Original_research_for_claim_regarding_polling_for_Donald_Trump's_legal_cases_on_the_2024_United_States_election_page|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. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 01:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::One of Razgriz's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261031463 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1261004926 comments] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1260981452 suggest] he does not understand what a primary versus secondary source is.
::I have also brought up several [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261074450 issues] with NPOV in the Economy section of the page, which Razgriz has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261081912 dismissed] claiming I am engaging in [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 02:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::"...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." [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 14:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::As I have stated before, this falls into [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. You did use the NYP to make a WikiVoice assertion. The NYP [https://nypost.com/2024/08/16/us-news/kamala-harris-admits-food-prices-have-surged-under-biden/ 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: {{tq|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: {{tq|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 Party (epithet)|Democrat]]", where the correct tense should have been "Democratic messaging". [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 21:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::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? [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 22:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::No, as shown [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261297965 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261270732 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261449134 insist] that you will undo any edit of mine not backed up by at least three other editors. 
::::::Quote: {{tq|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261074450 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=next&oldid=1261140923 here], which you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261270732 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. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 23:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::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. [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 01:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::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. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 13:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I offered a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261449134 good faith compromise] to settle our disagreement via [[Wikipedia:Consensus|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.

{{Collapse top|Addressing the Assertion of "No Consensus"}}
A formalized RfC is not the only method of consensus building, per [[Wikipedia:Consensus|WP:CON]], specifically [[WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS]], and @[[User:BootsED|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 ''[[Talk:2024 United States elections#Undue weight in "Issues"|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 @[[User:BootsED|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 @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] make his first bold edit to the ''"Economy"'' issue [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1259040638 HERE], not terribly long after the other user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1258679341 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.
{{Collapse bottom}}

{{Collapse top| Addressing assertions of [[WP:OWNERSHIP]] vis a vis "False Consensus", & speculation of [[WP:IDONTLIKE]]}}
When I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1259403685 reverted] @[[User:BootsED|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 [[Wikipedia:Consensus|WP:CON]] & [[WP:CTOP]] by conforming with [[WP:DICC]]. You then see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_elections&diff=next&oldid=1260658546 here] @[[User:BootsED|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 @[[User:BootsED|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, @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] continued to challenge the prior consensus building effort that had been done [[Talk:2024 United States elections#Issues - Economy|HERE]] first by asserting that it had not happened at all by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&oldid=prev&diff=1260768610 ignoring] my reference to the other, prior topic, then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&oldid=prev&diff=1260784267 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 "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024%20United%20States%20elections&diff=next&oldid=1260658546 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024%20United%20States%20elections&diff=prev&oldid=1260773203 "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.

{{Collapse bottom}}

{{Collapse top|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 @[[User:BootsED|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 @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] would continue to push this obvious falsehood: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024%20United%20States%20elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261388418 Here] @[[User:BootsED|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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024%20United%20States%20elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261270732 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 @[[User:BootsED|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.
{{Collapse bottom}}

{{Collapse top|"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.

{{Collapse bottom}}

{{Collapse top|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 @[[User:BootsED|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 @[[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] on my talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1260894544 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).

{{Collapse bottom}}

{{Collapse top|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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&oldid=prev&diff=1261125037 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 @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] even created the NB relating to the closure, as seen throughout [[Talk:2024 United States elections#Page lede subject matter|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.

{{Collapse bottom}}

{{Collapse top|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. 

{{Collapse bottom}}

{{Collapse top|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 @[[User:BootsED|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 @[[User:BootsED|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.
{{Collapse bottom}}

{{Collapse top|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 @[[User:BootsED|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk:BootsED&diff=prev&oldid=1260851489 here] that my intention was not to personally offend, only to call attention to what I perceived as a potential issue. When @[[User:BootsED|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.

{{Collapse top|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024%20United%20States%20elections&diff=prev&oldid=1260995415 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 [[Big lie#Donald Trump's false claims of a stolen election|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 @[[User:BootsED|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 "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&oldid=prev&diff=1261072020 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.
{{Collapse bottom}}

{{Collapse top|Reinforcing the Offense as intentional}}
Despite multiple efforts to clarify my position and request that they retract these inaccurate allusions, @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] outright refused and instead demonstrated what seemed to be passive-aggressive uncivil behavior. His reply [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&oldid=prev&diff=1261072020 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.
{{Collapse bottom}}

And when it is @[[User:BootsED|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 @[[User:BootsED|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&oldid=prev&diff=1261220345 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.

{{Collapse bottom}}

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.
[[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 03:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{u|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 [[WP:tendentious|tendentious]]). [[Special:Diff/1261031463|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 [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]] article talk. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 06:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC).
::As I addressed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024%20United%20States%20elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261270732 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. [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 13:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Raz, you have stated your opposition to the NYT as a RS as per your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1261011394 comment] here. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 21:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::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 [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/01/new-york-times-axes-editing-jobs-in-favour-of-100-more-reporters 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". [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 22:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:"{{tq|I offered a good faith compromise to settle our disagreement via WP:CON, and you have elected to do all of this?}}" @[[User:TheRazgriz|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. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 10:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::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 [[Talk:2024 United States elections#Undue weight in "Issues"|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. [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 13:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I wrote: {{tq|You need to start listening to other editors <b>when</b> you are wrong}} (emphasis mine) I didn't write that you are wrong on all occasions. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 13:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 14:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::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. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 04:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
===Further discussion===
:Replying here as there was a premature automatic archive. It appears there is a consensus for some sort of remedy. Myself and [[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]] have voiced support for a post 1992-American politics topic ban, and [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] and [[User:Doug Weller|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. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 00:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:BootsED|BootsED]], if nothing happens prior to a thread being automatically archived that's generally because no uninvolved admin has seen enough for any action. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 01:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 11:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::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. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 11:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 12:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Just make the changes and if they revert then we can discuss. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 13:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::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 @[[User:BootsED|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. [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 14:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::[[Talk:2024 United States elections#Undue weight in "Issues"|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. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 16:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::''"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 '''<u>very first thing mentioned</u>''' 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. [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 21:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::My edits you reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1260760693 immediately] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1260761977 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. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 01:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::As I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1263008110 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_United_States_elections#Undue_weight_in_%22Issues%22|the 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 "{{tq|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. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 04:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)


=== TheRazgriz continued [[WP:INCIVIL]], [[WP:ABF]] and [[WP:ASPERSION]] casting===
While this discussion has been in progress TheRazgriz has continued much of the same behaviour at [[Talk:2024 United States elections#Undue weight in "Issues"]] and [[User talk:TarnishedPath#Please explain your behavior]] that led to BootsED starting this report in the first place. 

# [[Special:Diff/1263023392|Special:Diff/06:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)]] 
## [[WP:CANVASSED]] editors from only [[Talk:2024_United_States_elections#Undue_weight_in_"Issues"|one thread]] discussing a section of [[2024 United States elections]], when there are [[Talk:2024_United_States_elections#Issues_-_Economy|multiple]] [[Talk:2024_United_States_elections#Addressing_biased_language_in_the_economy_section|other]] [[Talk:2024_United_States_elections#Democracy_and_economy_sections|threads]] [[2024_United_States_elections#Economy_section_content|discussing it]] and they have not pinged all editors from those discussions. 
## After detailing exactly what consensus is (i.e., that "{{tq|[t]he economy sectioned NEEDED to be expanded from 1 paragraph, 2) Abortion section NEEDED to be trimmed down, and 3) the Indictments section NEEDED to be DRAMATICALLY trimmed down.}}" and which had been implemented and is reflected in the current version of the article) they [[WP:ABF]] and cast [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] that BootsED is in breach of [[WP:CON]] when no consensus exists on the wording of the section or exactly how much above 1 paragraph it should have been expanded. 
# [[Special:Diff/1263028320|07:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)]]
## I point out that the "Economy" subsection was previously 1 paragraphs and is now 2 paragraphs and that other sections have been trimmed per previous discussion and ask them to clarify exactly how consensus is being violated.
## I point out that selectively pinging editors is [[WP:CANVASSING]] (neither BootsED nor myself were pinged despite being involved in discussion/s on the section) and request they not do it again.
# [[Special:Diff/1263066254|14:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)]]
## TheRazgriz again [[WP:ABF]] and accuses me of inciting them to [[WP:BLUDGEON]], and 
## accuses me of lying (falsely asserting is the wording they used) about them CANVASSING (evidence above). 
# [[Special:Diff/1263166999|02:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)]]
## in response to a comment by BootsED, states that they aren't against their edit, but have raised this discussion because they haven't sought consensus beforehand and states {{tq|if that ever was worth debating I certainly don't care enough to push it at this point}} (indicating [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] and [[WP:STONEWALLING]])
## Falsely asserts that there is official consensus that the section under dispute be three paragraphs (ctrl-f finds no other editors, aside from TheRazgriz, stating that the section must be three paragraphs).
# [[Special:Diff/1263083952|16:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)]]
## [[Special:Diff/1263074778|After I suggested they strike ASPERSIONS]] against me, they start a discussion on my talk with an extremely [[WP:INCIVL]] tone (heading is "Please explain your behavior"), and
##falsely accuse me of [[WP:ABF]] and of falsely accusing them of CANVASS (evidence above)
# [[Special:Diff/1263157027|01:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)]]
## After GraziePrego responds to TheRazgriz on my talk, TheRazgriz doubles down casing aspersions, accusing BootsED of violating WP:CON again,
## TheRazgriz, falsely accuses me of "{{tq|repeatedly, for several weeks now, accused me of violating half a dozen different [[WP:PAG]]}}" ([[Special:Diff/1261127669]] shows that the first time I commented at [[Talk:2024 United States elections#Undue weight in "Issues"]] was 4 December 2024 in response to the bot notifying me of an RFC on the page),
## TheRazgriz doubles down calling me a liar stating "{{tq|yes Tarnished has lied in asserting I committed [[WP:CANVASS]]}},
## TheRazgriz continues the theme of them being INCIVIL stating "{{tq|would you care to explain your behavior}}".
# [[Special:Diff/1263163303|01:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)]]
## Continues INCIVIL and falsely asserts that I have claims of "{{tq|bad faith without merit, without evidence, and without validation}}"
# [[Special:Diff/1263165889|02:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)]]
## States "{{tq|Unlike some people, I actually believe freedom of expression is a human right}}", which I take to imply that I don't. 
## States that "{{tq|As strongly as you and the other user feel about me}}" implying that I'm personally out to get him.
## Further engages in INCIVIL and ASPERSION stating "{{tq|interact with me with ''mutual'' civility, or don't interact with me at all. Failing that, don't dare to take offense to getting to taste your own medicine when it is pointed out when your behavior violates [[WP:PAG]]}}".
# [[Special:Diff/1263170314|02:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)]]
## In response to another comment by Grazie responds in an INCIVIL and aggressive manner stating "{{tq|In light of the fact that your assumption regarding the initial comment was verifiably incorrect, what ''EXACTLY'' do you believe I have done here which "seems to be more of the same things", as you put it?}}"
## changes story about me repeatedly accusing them of PAG violations for several weeks (see above) to {{tq|after having spent the better part of a month now}}".
I really can't see that they are a net positive after my brief experiences with them. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 10:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:To address each of these points would require me to yet again write a novel here, and in pursuit of my continued efforts to not "dominate" discussions I will instead let the full, contextual, non-selectively cherry-picked and ''purposefully'' mischaracterized, facts speak for themselves. I would assume most uninvolved individuals that actually care to check these citations can see how you have taken a very...peculiar and extreme interpretation of my actual words. For example, doubling down on me accusing you of being a liar, by removing the quote of my reply to Grazie where I stated bluntly that I did no such thing because I actually try and practice [[WP:AGF]]. ""{{tq|If we wish to dispense with politeness and context and just get down to facts, then yes Tarnished has lied in asserting I committed [[WP:CANVASS]]. However, I at no point stated that Tarnished is a liar, because unlike some people I actually do [[WP:AGF]] instead of leaping to extremes.}}" That is the full quote you chose not to include. I had challenged your accusation of bad faith action against me as being false, and briefly explained how. I did '''not''' outright call you a liar, because I actually try to practice [[WP:AGF]] and assumed you misunderstood the application of the guideline.
:Everything concerning @[[User:BootsED|BootsED]] was already addressed prior, not rehashing that without good reason which I do not see here.
:[[WP:CANVASS]]: The question for those pinged was essentially "''Hey, you original people who created the consensus at issue, you have not had the opportunity to participate in the discussions revolving around your consensus. I think '''THIS''' was the consensus we reached. Do all of you AGREE with this being the consensus, or '''DISGREE''' with that summary of the consensus? Further, what is your opinions on how that consensus is being applied with '''THIS''' edit to the section which none of you have had to opportunity to comment on?''" I pinged '''every''' user who participated in the original consensus building discussion. That is not canvassing, that is the opposite. There is no good point or purpose in pinging Tarnished or BootsED for such purpose, as it is very well documented what their views on the consensus building discussion were elsewhere on topics started after the consensus was reached and settled. I find it a bit silly to suggest otherwise.
:It is @[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]] who has repeatedly cast multiple [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] by asserting repeatedly that I have acted in bad faith and performed multiple bad faith breaches of [[WP:PAG]]. When I finally and bluntly told this user to stop doing that and pointing out that making such accusations is itself [[WP:ABF]], they seem to have clutched their pearls.
:To be blunt, I have no further patience for this users penchant for hypocrisy, where they demonstrate that they are fully permitted to launch assertions and accusations whenever they feel like, but it is apparently uncivil for the accused to counter an accusation with one of their own. <u>If they do not want to have their own actions called into question, they should not be so reckless with launching accusations at others, and should instead argue on merit of their position instead of accusing others of acting in bad faith and of related [[WP:PAG]] violations.</u> This thread really just feels like "Rules for Raz, but not for anyone else" on this point.
:Furthermore, I really don't care for the vain attempt to try and act personally disinterested in me either, when the user seems to have followed my user talk page where they had previously cast multiple [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1261138749 alluding] to an accusation of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1261222385 me lying] about my biographical information on my userpage, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRazgriz&diff=prev&oldid=1261441632 baselessly accused] me of "[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-TarnishedPath-20241207040600-BootsED-20241207032200|following]]" them to another page (where I did not interact with them at all, and did not even take note of their presence there) and ''demanding'' that I explain why to them.
:I will leave this here for now, again out of a desire to not "dominate" the topic. If an admin would like more from me, they may ask and I will do my utmost to comply with the request. Thank you. [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 14:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*I have '''blocked''' TheRazgriz for a week for exhausting their opponents and any interested bystanders with bludgeoning and [[WP:BATTLE|battleground]] on [[WP:ANI]], on [[User talk:TarnishedPath]], and on [[Talk:2024 United States elections]], especially concerning [[WP:CANVASSING]] and the matter of whether there is consensus for their own version of the economy section of [[2024 United States elections]]. On the last point, compare  [[Special:Diff/1262989869|this argument by BootsED]], with which I'm in broad agreement.

:I don't think TheRazgriz is deliberately depleting the energy resources of their opponents with their volubility; they have claimed that they're trying to be more concise, and I believe that. It does beggar belief that they apparently think their tempestuous argumentation merely amounts to [[Special:Diff/1263239333|'letting the facts speak for themselves']], but I'm trying. (Phrasing immediately above such as "they seem to have clutched their pearls" and "I have no further patience for this users penchant for hypocrisy", "this user" being again TarnishedPath, does not help, though.)  In my opinion their apparent inability to ever [[Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass|back away from any dead horse they come across]] is a major problem on a project like Wikipedia. I don't know whether a week block will help or not; if not, I predict an indefinite block in their future. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 21:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC).
{{abot}}

==BAPS promotional editing by Ram112313==

{{U|Ram112313}} is a single purpose account dedicated to promoting this religious organization, before they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=165538547 were blocked] for edit warring in order to [[WP:CENSOR]] details about a controversial lawsuit this organisation has been involved in[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaminarayan_Akshardham_(Robbinsville,New_Jersey)&diff=prev&oldid=1249117697][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaminarayan_Akshardham(Robbinsville,New_Jersey)&diff=prev&oldid=1248879546][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaminarayan_Akshardham(Robbinsville,New_Jersey)&diff=prev&oldid=1249089553][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaminarayan_Akshardham(Robbinsville,New_Jersey)&diff=prev&oldid=1249117697][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaminarayan_Akshardham(Robbinsville,New_Jersey)&diff=prev&oldid=1254161866][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaminarayan_Akshardham(Robbinsville,New_Jersey)&diff=prev&oldid=1254408167][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaminarayan_Akshardham(Robbinsville,New_Jersey)&diff=prev&oldid=1254576487], 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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bochasanwasi_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&diff=prev&oldid=1262243285][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bochasanwasi_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&diff=prev&oldid=1262197936][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bochasanwasi_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&diff=prev&oldid=1262562975] and when confronted they denied that they were edit warring. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ram112313&diff=prev&oldid=1262317587][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ram112313&diff=prev&oldid=1262249264], they have consistently used AI in order to generate talkpage messages[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bochasanwasi_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha#c-Ram112313-20241210112700-Allegations_in_the_Lead_Section_and_Source_Reliability][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan_Akshardham(Robbinsville,New_Jersey)&diff=prev&oldid=1249119492][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan_Akshardham(Robbinsville,_New_Jersey)&diff=prev&oldid=1249118287][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#c-Ram112313-20241119055900-Ram1751-20241118235000] and denied doing it[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ram112313&oldid=1262317587#Issues] 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ram112313&diff=prev&oldid=1258373527][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#c-ToBeFree-20241119095400-Ram112313-20241119055900]. They have also made copyright violations in order to promote this organisation[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1255097483/1255483061]. They were previously brought to ANI[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#h-Ram112313_promoting_Bochasanwasi_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha-20241118191600] by {{ping|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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#c-Ram1751-20241124025600-ToBeFree-20241123062000]

Now they have introduced promotional content[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bochasanwasi_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&curid=1610318&diff=1262790523&oldid=1262601221] related to BAPS citing their organisation's own websites about  non notable awards and other recognition. They were previously asked by {{ping|ToBeFree}} to stop editing anything related to BAPS[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#c-ToBeFree-20241124030000-Ram1751-20241124025600] as their conduct here has been disruptive but they refused to accept such a restriction[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#c-Ram112313-20241124130300-ToBeFree-20241124030000] 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. [[User:CharlesWain|CharlesWain]] ([[User talk:CharlesWain|talk]]) 14:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

:Yeah, with [[Special:Diff/1262790523]], enough is enough. Blocked indefinitely. [[User:ToBeFree|&#126; ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 16:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

== Slow edit-warring by TheMaxM1 ==

* {{user5|TheMaxM1}}

It has regretfully come to the point that I need to report this here. This user has been [[WP:EW|edit-warring]] on the ''[[Castle in the Sky]]'' article for the past couple of months. {{small|([[Special:Diff/1253552741|diff]], [[Special:Diff/1253555834|diff]], [[Special:Diff/1256279724|diff]], [[Special:Diff/1256285834|diff]], [[Special:Diff/1262284217|diff]])}} Despite [[User talk:TheMaxM1#October 2024|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. <span class="nowrap">—[[User:TechnoSquirrel69|<span style="color: #0b541f;">'''TechnoSquirrel69'''</span>]]</span> <small>([[User talk:TechnoSquirrel69|<span style="color: #0b541f;">'''sigh'''</span>]])</small> 00:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

: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. --[[User:TheMaxM1|TheMaxM1]] ([[User talk:TheMaxM1|talk]]) 00:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::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. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 02:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::[[User:TheMaxM1|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 {{em|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? <span class="nowrap">—[[User:TechnoSquirrel69|<span style="color: #0b541f;">'''TechnoSquirrel69'''</span>]]</span> <small>([[User talk:TechnoSquirrel69|<span style="color: #0b541f;">'''sigh'''</span>]])</small> 15:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Since I've received no response again, I've gone ahead and restored the ''[[WP:STATUSQUO|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. <span class="nowrap">—[[User:TechnoSquirrel69|<span style="color: #0b541f;">'''TechnoSquirrel69'''</span>]]</span> <small>([[User talk:TechnoSquirrel69|<span style="color: #0b541f;">'''sigh'''</span>]])</small> 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

== Talk page notice ==
{{atop|result=Please discuss article and talk page content on the article talk page or take a disagreement to [[WP:DRN]]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 20:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}}
I have a question with regard to this notice: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASociety_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=1262732526&oldid=1262588993] 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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASociety_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=1255243652&oldid=1254817003] 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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine/Archive_3#Such_negative_coverage_can't_be_explained_by_WP:DUE] I would appreciate if someone checked the notices at the talk of this article and kept only appropriate ones. [[User:JonJ937|JonJ937]] ([[User talk:JonJ937|talk]]) 15:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

: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. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 16:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::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 [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly2z0gx3p5o]. 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. [[User:JonJ937|JonJ937]] ([[User talk:JonJ937|talk]]) 17:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::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 [[WP:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] processes as needed. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 17:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::[[User:JonJ937|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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 20:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== User:Fmksmnkn5 disruptive editing, BLP violations and COI ==
{{atop
| result = Indeffed. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
}}

I'm reluctantly coming here regarding [[User:Fmksmnkn5|Fmksmnkn5]] (see [[User talk:Fmksmnkn5|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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fmksmnkn5&oldid=1186979722] 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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fmksmnkn5&diff=prev&oldid=1255235014]
* In December 2024, these issues were again brought to my attention with the inclusion of unsourced content on [[Fran Bentley]]'s page,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fran_Bentley&diff=prev&oldid=1262441537] that was subsequently reverted,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fran_Bentley&diff=prev&oldid=1262442006] with the editor warned about unsourced content.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fmksmnkn5&diff=prev&oldid=1262442885] The response from the editor was {{tq|"Can confirm it is true anyway so doesnt need to be sourced."}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fmksmnkn5&diff=prev&oldid=1262712020], 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.]],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fmksmnkn5&diff=prev&oldid=1210857811] but has not declared such a [[WP:COI]] on user page.
* The editor is otherwise capable of updating timestamps when updating stats, see example,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Powell&diff=prev&oldid=1262335208], 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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fmksmnkn5&diff=prev&oldid=1262910930]

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. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 17:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Persistent dispruptive editing/ warring by user Thebighomie123 ==
{{atop
| result = Indeffed as [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


User [[User:Thebighomie123|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1200439084&oldid=1200245875&title=Djokovic%E2%80%93Nadal_rivalry 1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1223061148&oldid=1223019520&title=Djokovic%E2%80%93Nadal_rivalry 2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1257855008&oldid=1255584711&title=Djokovic%E2%80%93Nadal_rivalry 3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1261147363&oldid=1260155733&title=Djokovic%E2%80%93Nadal_rivalry 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1241288273&oldid=1240521470&title=Georges_St-Pierre 1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1241561565&oldid=1241321033&title=Georges_St-Pierre 2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1262173371&oldid=1262173238&title=Georges_St-Pierre 3]

Overall, the high number of reverts of [[Special:Contributions/Thebighomie123|their edits]], their battleground style, and their overall disruption require remedy in my opinion. [[User:NEDOCHAN|NEDOCHAN]] ([[User talk:NEDOCHAN|talk]]) 15:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{u|Thebighomie123}} attempted to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1262888281 delete] this report and was reverted. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 15:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
: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 :[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georges_St-Pierre&oldid=1262233913 Georges] and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Lennon&oldid=1262431902 [[User:Thebighomie123|Thebighomie123]] ([[User talk:Thebighomie123|talk]]) 15:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::See that @[[User:NEDOCHAN|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. [[User:Thebighomie123|Thebighomie123]] ([[User talk:Thebighomie123|talk]]) 15:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::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 [[Wikipedia:TPO|talk page guidelines]]? [[User:TheWikiToby|TheWikiToby]] ([[User talk:TheWikiToby|talk]]) 18:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== RevDel for RD2 ==
{{atop|result=Problem addressed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 23:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}}
I think it would be appropiate to RevDel [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacific_Scandal&oldid=1262892427 this revision] for criterion RD2. Thank you. [[User:Milo8505|Milo8505]] <sub>[[User_talk:Milo8505|(talk)]]</sub> 19:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}} <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::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. [[Special:Contributions/2602:FE43:1:46DD:7887:1A7B:2A2:7279|2602:FE43:1:46DD:7887:1A7B:2A2:7279]] ([[User talk:2602:FE43:1:46DD:7887:1A7B:2A2:7279|talk]]) 21:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::One of the benefits of using an account instead of an IP, you don't have to see those banners at all. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 21:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Milo8505|Milo8505]]: generally you should email an admin instead of posting revdel-able material on a public noticeboard and drawing attention to it. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Sharnadd and disruptive editing/CIR ==



Hi, {{Userlinks|Sharnadd}} has been editing disruptively recently and with a past block in June 2024 ([[Special:Diff/oldid/1230926978|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sharnadd&diff=next&oldid=1261115131] (and many others) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sharnadd&diff=cur&oldid=1260611157] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sharnadd&diff=cur&oldid=1257311728] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ice_cream&diff=prev&oldid=1261539610] 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. 
<br>
-edit warring to readd reverted information: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=oldid&diff=1257298098], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delicatessen&diff=prev&oldid=1257298697], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delicatessen&diff=prev&oldid=1257311544], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delicatessen&diff=prev&oldid=1257939074]

-Partially deleted talk page discussions in a manner that changes what the original post means (instead of fully blanking): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sharnadd&diff=prev&oldid=1261379924] and  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sharnadd&diff=prev&oldid=1260736774]

-Added uncited section in broken English:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beefsteak&diff=prev&oldid=1259134460]
 
-Nonsense edit summaries: ''Good title of country''
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deviled_egg&diff=prev&oldid=1258376601] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rest_area&diff=prev&oldid=1258891284] ''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:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breakfast_sandwich&diff=prev&oldid=1260542528] and
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breakfast_sandwich&diff=prev&oldid=1261285598]

Please let me know if there’s any mistakes, or additional information needed. Thanks, [[User:Sarsenet|Sarsenet]] ([[User talk:Sarsenet|talk]]) 08:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:<small>There's an evidwnt error in the ES of that "uncited section" diff, "Added types" should be "typos". [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 11:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
: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 [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 11:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:145 I added additional sources the originator agreed and has removed some of his incorrect information. [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 11:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
: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 [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 11:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::147 I sent belbury the current information that is per the regulations as he had a query on regs after Brexit [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 12:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::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 [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 12:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::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 [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 12:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::156 to 157 what would you prefer the edit summary to say.   Would you prefer that they remain blank [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 12:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::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 [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 12:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::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]] [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 22:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::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 [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 09:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I would prefer that you use clear, concise edit summaries as when they're present, they're not constructive. [[User:Sarsenet|Sarsenet]] ([[User talk:Sarsenet|talk]]) 08:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::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 [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 09:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Sarsenet|Sarsenet]] - honestly I think looking at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Sharnadd&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=200 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. 
:::::::@[[User:Sharnadd|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pie&diff=1261460777&oldid=1261284591 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]]? [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 16:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::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. [[User:Sarsenet|Sarsenet]] ([[User talk:Sarsenet|talk]]) 23:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Regarding removing other peoples talk messages in part, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sharnadd&diff=prev&oldid=1261379924 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. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 22:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes thanks I will just try and blank it or do just a short response next time. [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 07:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::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. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 16:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 22:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::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 [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 07:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::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. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 16:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::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 {{tq|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beefsteak&diff=prev&oldid=1259134460 this diff] my reason is xyz... [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 22:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::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 [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 07:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm not 100% sure who you're referring to here, but if it's me, I'm not a "she." Thanks, [[User:Sarsenet|Sarsenet]] ([[User talk:Sarsenet|talk]]) 08:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Sorry,I will refer to you as he if that is correct [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 09:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
: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 [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 09:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::There are several problems with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beefsteak&diff=prev&oldid=1259134460 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, {{tq|with sea salt nd pepper and seared}}. There is clearly either a typographical error of some sort with the word {{tq|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 {{tq|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 [[WP:EDITSUMCITE|writing a good edit summary]] is important, especially when you make extensive changes with such an uninformative summary. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 16:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the help [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 20:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:(See below first) <s>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 [[WP:CIR | competency issue]] with regards to accidentally removing information too frequently.</s> 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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bread_pudding&diff=1261106075&oldid=1261105622] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pie&diff=1261460777&oldid=1261284591] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pie&diff=prev&oldid=1261176707] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_pies,_tarts_and_flans&diff=prev&oldid=1260736320] [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 16:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 19:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::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 [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 08:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::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? [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 08:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I am going to start editing on the laptop to help avoid these accidental deletions. [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 06:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emily_Prentiss_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1262597998]  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023%E2%80%932024_Gaza_Strip_preterm_births&diff=prev&oldid=1262604211]  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shooterwalker&diff=prev&oldid=1262601507], but always corrected them immediately. The technology issues doesn't make leaving errors uncorrected an acceptable practice. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 15:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fried_chicken&diff=prev&oldid=1261457830 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. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 09:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_egg_dishes&diff=prev&oldid=1258412853 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_egg_dishes&diff=prev&oldid=1258643831 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_egg_dishes&diff=prev&oldid=1258414430 here]. [[User:Sarsenet|Sarsenet]] ([[User talk:Sarsenet|talk]]) 14:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::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 [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 20:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You don't think it's American bias to attribute a dish to that country when it has several versions worldwide [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 20:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Sharnadd|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. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 22:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::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 [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 06:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::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 [[Help:CS1_errors#bad_date|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. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 15:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
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 @[[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] and myself [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 21:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

:Ah alright, I was wondering what had happened to my notices inbox. I feel that the gist of our points made still remains. [[User:Sarsenet|Sarsenet]] ([[User talk:Sarsenet|talk]]) 05:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed... stick... dead horse... time for a non-involved admin closure. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 08:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

== User:Kionseeeeeegma making offensive and disgusting remarks in [[WP:SAND]] ==
{{atop|1=Blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 09:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|Kionseeeeeegma}}
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.<ref>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1263015894</ref> <ref>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1263015894</ref> [[User:Stumbleannnn|Stumbleannnn!]] [[User talk:Stumbleannnn|Talk to me]] 05:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:I have also noticed that they also have triggered the vandal filter multiple times. [[User:Stumbleannnn|Stumbleannnn!]] [[User talk:Stumbleannnn|Talk to me]] 05:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::Blocked as a vandalism-only account. Thank you for reporting, [[User:Stumbleannnn|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. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 06:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC).
:::Thanks! this case can be closed now. [[User:Stumbleannnn|Stumbleannnn!]] [[User talk:Stumbleannnn|Talk to me]] 06:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist|30em}}
{{abot}}

== Lou Ferrigno ==
{{atop|status=Resolved|result={{nac}} Semi-protection has been lifted by {{np|Black Kite}}. —[[User:Tenryuu|<span style="color:#556B2F">Tenryuu&nbsp;🐲</span>]]&nbsp;(&nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&nbsp;) 18:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)}}
[[Lou Ferrigno]] was semi-protected more than 12 years ago. The administrator who semi-protected it, Nightscream, has not been an administrator since 2011, so he is no longer able to unprotect it. Is it time for the semi-protection to be lifted? If so, whom would I ask to do that? [[Special:Contributions/174.93.89.27|174.93.89.27]] ([[User talk:174.93.89.27|talk]]) 13:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
* I have removed the semi-protection, and will watchlist the article. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]]
{{abot}}

== User:Free258 ==
{{atop|1=Socks lost in the dryer. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 19:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{User summary|Free258}} is a [[WP:SPA]] created less than two months after {{User summary|Jeff6741}} was indeffed and has been posting essentially the same content, but on [[Boot camp (correctional)]] instead of [[Human rights in China]]. Would be good to get some additional eyes on this. - [[User:Amigao|Amigao]] ([[User talk:Amigao|talk]]) 18:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Amigao}}, can you provide [[WP:DIFF|diffs]] of the two accounts adding essentially the same content, please? [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::Sure. These two -- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_China&diff=prev&oldid=1250549049 1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boot_camp_(correctional)&diff=prev&oldid=1261083726 2] -- are similar enough in tone, style, and substance to suggest we may be dealing with the same editor. - [[User:Amigao|Amigao]] ([[User talk:Amigao|talk]]) 18:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I have indefinitely blocked Free258 for evading the block on Jeff6741, edit warring against consensus and violations of [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Requesting partial block of [[User talk:185.104.136.55]] ==
{{atop|1=Blocked and revdel'd. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 20:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)}}
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 {{Diff2|1263043127|here}} for one example). [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 10:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{done}} It's a public WiFi IP and has been blocked before so I've simply blocked it for longer.  I have revision-deleted the edits on Horrid Henry, mainly because of the BLP violation. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Please check If he is a sockpuppet ==
{{atop|1=Ice cream pool drained. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 20:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)}}
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 ! [[User:PerspicazHistorian|PerspicazHistorian]] ([[User talk:PerspicazHistorian|talk]]) 10:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
* Already sockblocked via [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icecreampool]]. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 15:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Problematic edits to [[Excel Academy (Conroe, Texas)]] ==

[[User:Mcgeeheather11]] has made some concerning edits to [[Excel Academy (Conroe, Texas)]], discussing abuse that she apparently experienced there. This seems to be a violation of some sort of content policy (I don't have them all memorized), as it breaks the page's formatting and adds potentially libelous content.

I'm not really sure who to take this report to, because although it is messing up the article format, I'm also quite concerned for her mental and physical wellbeing. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. [[Special:Contributions/172.110.168.248|172.110.168.248]] ([[User talk:172.110.168.248|talk]]) 03:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:I just saw the banner, I don't really think this is oversight-worthy, since the company appears to be defunct, and there is no present crisis. I'm new to ANI, so I'm sorry about any policy mistakes I've made here. [[Special:Contributions/172.110.168.248|172.110.168.248]] ([[User talk:172.110.168.248|talk]])
::I've written [[WP:OVERSIGHT]] because of the name mentioned. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 05:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Until oversight gets to it, I've revdel'd the revisions in question for the same reason. I guess it'd technically be (claimed as a) self-[[WP:OUTING]], but it's still a pretty heavy [[WP:NOT]] violation either way and I'm pretty sure RD2 is appropriate. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

{{Clear}}
== Pattern of Misconduct by User:Binksternet ==
{{atop
| result = A consensus of uninvolved admins and editors has established no evidence of wrongdoing by Binksternet. [[User:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]''[[User talk:Serial_Number_54129|<sup><span style="color:#7a0427;">A New Face in Hell</span></sup>]] 11:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
}}



As detailed below, I am reporting User:Binksternet for engaging in a pattern of concerning behavior that either violates or otherwise fails to comport with Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Conduct|Conduct Policies]].

=== The misconduct on December 1, 2024: ===
[[WP:Wikihounding]] prohibits "the singling out of one or more editors...with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." 
Yet on December 1, 2024, [[User:Binksternet]] followed User:Taisymui from place to place no less than 40 times across 40+ articles, reverting 40+ good faith edits by User:Taisymu, and belittling User:Taisymui's edits by remarking "'''Rv clumsy insertion...'''" in the edit summaries:
	{{diff|prev|1260615738}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260615911}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260615703}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260615632}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260615580}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260615566}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260615548}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260615518}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260615476}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260615453}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260615421}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260615398}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260615375}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260615362}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260615337}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260615185}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260615126}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260615108}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260615082}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260615053}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260615028}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260614990}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260614770}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260614106}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260613959}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260613877}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260613721}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260613657}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260613591}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260613559}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260613238}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260613035}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260612999}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260612570}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260612525}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260612028}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260611854}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260611801}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260611759}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260611548}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260611390}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260611223}}.

Though the clear "Dont's" of edit summaries under [[WP:ESDONTS]] include "Don't make snide remarks" and "Don't be aggressive", User:Binksternet violated [[WP:Civility]] 40+ times (often consecutively) to target a single user. The behavior amounted to direct rudeness under [[WP:Civility]]---"[[Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility|belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries]]." 

The behavior of hounding [[User:Taisymui]] 40+ times across 40+ articles also constituted [[WP:Harassment]]. In no way did this behavior comport with [[WP:AGF]]. Similarly, this behavior did not seek to [[WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM]] "instead of removing content from an article or reverting a new contribution..." as required under Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Editing_policy|Editing Policy]].

Just last month, User:Binksternet had been told by [[User:Qwerfjkl]] that writing '''"[[:Special:Diff/1257289260/prev|Nope nope nope]]"''' and '''"[[:Special:Diff/1257298365/prev|Rv image vandalis]]"''' were [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Unhelpful_edit_summaries| Unhelpful Edit Summaries]] in response to good faith edits. However, User:Binksternet immediately double downed on this behavior and told User:Qwerfjkl to:
 
{{Blockquote|text='''Loosen up. Those edit summaries were meant to alert longstanding editors that consensus was being violated. I'm not going to change my style for the few times I choose to sound the alarm.'''}}

=== The misconduct on December 7, 2024: ===
On December 7, 2024, User:Binksternet followed [[User:223.122.121.59]] from place to place on Wikipedia, reverting their good faith edits without leaving a valid explanation in the edit summaries:	{{diff|prev|1261695448}}
•	{{diff|prev|1261695468}}
•	{{diff|prev|1261695483}}
•	{{diff|prev|1261695504}}
•	{{diff|prev|1261695525}}
•	{{diff|prev|1261695567}}
•	{{diff|prev|1261695654}}. The only explanation User:Binksternet left in the edit summaries was “Rv Hong Kong Ips”. This suggested that the only reason the edits were targeted and reverted were because they came from an IP address thought to be located in [[Hong Kong]]. 

Once again, such behavior does not align with [[WP:AGF]]. It needlessly hounds a single editor for good faith edits, and tends to perpetuate the "common misconceptions" of unregistered users listed in [[WP:IPDIS]]. 

=== The misconduct has since continued: ===
Since December 7, 2024, User:Binksternet's behavior has only persisted. On December 9, 2024, User:Binksternet followed [[User:147.194.198.21]] from place to place on Wikipedia across more than 20 articles, reverting each of their edits: {{diff|prev|1262027531}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262026972}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262026958}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262026939}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262026926}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262026795}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262026782}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262026765}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262026752}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262026511}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262026481}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262026454}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262026449}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262026437}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262026371}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262026351}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262026314}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262026276}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262026246}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262026217}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262026191}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262025948}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262025942}}. User:Binksternet subjected [[User:104.172.242.210]] to similar behavior on December 10, 2024:	{{diff|prev|1262320515}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262318963}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262320645}}. 

Meanwhile, since November 28, 2024, User:Binksternet's behavior with [[User:Sricsi]] and [[User:Kirtap92]] at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Love_for_Sale_(Tony_Bennett_and_Lady_Gaga_album)&action=history| Love for Sale (Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga album)]:has all but resembled [[WP:Edit Warring]] 	{{diff|prev|1262188192}}
•	{{diff|prev|1261983851}}
•	{{diff|prev|1261699328}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260729892}}
•	{{diff|prev|1260290638}}.

As well, User:Binksternet's behavior of reverting good faith edits with little to no explanation has also continued. The behavior continues to produce edit summaries containing snide remarks like '''"RV clumsy insertion"''', '''"unimportant"''', and '''"not very important"''':
{{diff|prev|1257289260}}
•	{{diff|prev|1257298365}}
•	{{diff|prev|1263113227}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262194246}}
•	{{diff|prev|1263100561}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262253136}}
•	{{diff|prev|1257289260}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262204832}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262386889}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262387017}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262386955}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262387051}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262252856}}
•	{{diff|prev|1262204539}}
•	{{diff|prev|1261464413}}
•	{{diff|prev|1261471730}}
•	{{diff|prev|1261471712}}
•	{{diff|prev|1261471702}}
•	{{diff|prev|1261471689}}.

Left unchecked, I am deeply concerned that this misconduct will continue.
[[Special:Contributions/174.208.225.98|174.208.225.98]] ([[User talk:174.208.225.98|talk]]) 01:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:It is a bit strange to see an IP following around all the edits of Taisymui and complain about it. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 01:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Since we're here, I wasn't sure whether to add a new post for @[[User:Taisymui|Taisymui]] as they've had the aforementioned warnings (three total) but are still posting [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aeronautical_fixed_service&diff=prev&oldid=1260950050] promotional/LLM-generated text (I came across this whilst wandering off from  newcomer tasks earlier & remembered that this might need to come to AIV if warnings aren't heeded, since we need to explain this). I'd say that your earlier warnings seem to be warranted, but should I add as a new post here & let the user know? I haven't yet since they were already mentioned above, but I can see that there's nothing on their page about AIV yet. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue-Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 01:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aeronautical_fixed_service&diff=prev&oldid=1260950050 Further] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashechewan_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1260746439 diffs] of AI/promotional wording after warnings - AI tends to write like that so I don't think it's spam per se? The account hasn't edited for over a week (3rd Dec), which is why I didn't bring it up until I saw this. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue-Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 02:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think that the reason that Binksternet reverted the IP from Hong Kong is because he thought it was some long-term vandal or other. He tends to follow [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned and blocked editors]] (specifically "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule.") when it comes to vandals and [[WP:LTA|long-term abusers]] of Wikipedia. [[:User:Wizzito|<span class="tmpl-colored-link {{#if:|mw-no-invert|}}" style="color: hotpink; text-decoration: inherit;">wizzito</span>]] &#124; [[:User talk:Wizzito|<span class="tmpl-colored-link {{#if:|mw-no-invert|}}" style="color: navyc; text-decoration: inherit;">say hello!</span>]] 02:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Even so, absent evidence of vandalism, isn't it [[Wikipedia:Not every IP is a vandal|problematic]] to just assume that an IP from Hong Kong is a long-term vandal? I don't see how this is aligned with [[WP:AGF]].
::Although [[WP:HUMAN]] is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, it emphasizes that "As current policy stands, unregistered users have the same rights as registered users to participate in [[Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia|the writing of Wikipedia]]. Because of these misconceptions, edits by unregistered users may be mistakenly [[Help:Reverting|reverted]] and their contributions to [[Help:Talk page|talk pages]] discounted. This practice is against the [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|philosophy of Wikipedia]] and [[metawiki:Founding_principles|founding principles]] of all [[Wikimedia]] projects." [[Special:Contributions/174.208.229.141|174.208.229.141]] ([[User talk:174.208.229.141|talk]]) 08:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*The OP is upset that Binksternet has been reverting unsourced AI-generated garbage. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 03:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I don't know if AI contributed, but I took a look at the first five diffs and they are most definitely sourced, with real web pages.
*:No idea if they're reliable sources or not, or whether they fail SYNTH and the like, but unsourced they are not. [[User:NewBorders|NewBorders]] ([[User talk:NewBorders|talk]]) 03:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I stand corrected. Not ''every single edit'' is unsourced Ai-generated garbage, just most. The rest is ill-considered human-written stuff. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 04:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'm just going to note that single events of mass reverts are not [[WP:HOUNDING]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:My behavior on Wikipedia is consistent with someone who wishes to make the encyclopedia more authoritative and reliable. Regarding [[WP:HOUND]], the guideline says that "'''Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for [[Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol|Recent changes patrol]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam|WikiProject Spam]].'''" This is the exact practice that is described above. Someone is observed making errors on multiple pages, and those errors are followed and fixed by concerned editors. I am simply a concerned editor who wants to prevent Wikipedia from harm. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 04:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Even if the behavior didn't rise the level of hounding, per [[WP:BRINE]], "Incivility is not excused on the grounds that the editor who violated those expectations has the "correct" position on an underlying substantive dispute or the interpretation of policies and guidelines within those disputes. Civility is expected of all editors; incivility is harmful to the functioning of the project irrespective of the merits of an underlying dispute."

::I struggle to see how, for example, writing '''"[[Special:Diff/1257289260/prev|Nope nope nope]]"''' in an edit summary reverting good faith edits by [[User:Qwerfjkl]] constitutes a civil or appropriate explanation for the edits/reversions under [[WP:CIV]] or [[WP:UNRESPONSIVE]] which reads "''Be helpful: explain your changes''." Nor do I understand how it "alerts longstanding editors that consensus was being violated".  I struggle similarly with edit summaries composed of nothing more than remarks like '''"RV clumsy insertion"''', '''"unimportant"''', and '''"not very important".'''

::In my view, this type of behavior is what [[WP:CIV]] cautions users to avoid--"[[Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility|belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries]].[[Special:Contributions/174.208.229.141|174.208.229.141]] ([[User talk:174.208.229.141|talk]]) 07:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Directly above, the policy language says {{tpq|It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not.}} And yet the OP/IP feels highly confident in concluding that edit summaries such as "unimportant" and "Nope nope nope" are powerful evidence of incivility. I am unconvinced. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 08:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::How about "Rv unsupported date"? Is that uncivil too? Or should people just be allowed to add unreferenced dates wherever they wish? [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 08:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I don’t think I would write edit summaries in those ways but I think it’s obvious that he is commenting on the content and not on the contributor. — [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 08:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Understood, but you could say the same of the examples provided under d. of the section entitled "Direct Rudeness" for [[WP:ICA]]. This section reads: "The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment...
::::belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. 'that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen', 'snipped crap')." Under the policy, the phrase "snipped crap" is still considered "uncivil" and "belittling an editor" even though the phrase "snipped crap" is a reference to the content. [[Special:Contributions/174.208.229.141|174.208.229.141]] ([[User talk:174.208.229.141|talk]]) 09:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*There are a helluva lot of diffs here but before drawing any conclusions, it would be nice if many of these examples could be examined and evaluated. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Thank you so much, Liz. [[Special:Contributions/174.208.229.141|174.208.229.141]] ([[User talk:174.208.229.141|talk]]) 09:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Looked at diff:193 to diff:234, the first section. The edit summary left is similar to the standard "RV clumsy insert, not suitable for current content. AI text, removed". They are not snide. It looks like bulk content removal standard message edit summary, one article done after another. It looks like all ai-generated text blocks have been added several dozen articles and then correctly removed. I don't see any problem here.  '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 09:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Looked at diff:242 diff:264. Looks like an IP editor adding unsourced content, dates across more than a dozen articles. Edit sumamry is fine. I don't see any examples of hounding. The IP editor seems to think the place is a fan site and its ok to add unsourced content that was correctly removed. I don't see any problem here. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 09:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== User:Teterev53 ==
{{atop
| result = {{user|Teterev53}} is reminded to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and to follow [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] and content decision-making processes. Teterev53 is warned against [[WP:aspersions|casting aspersions]] against other editors in content disputes and treating discussions like [[WP:battleground|battleground]]s. They are also warned against asserting [[WP:ownership|ownership]] over specific topics, as exhibited through [[WP:MW|move-warring]] ([[Special:PermanentLink/1168901269#You are movewarring. Please self-revert and open an RM.|1]], [[Special:PermanentLink/1262357400#Article moves, disregard for conventions and WP:REDACT|2]]) and creating content forks. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 19:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
}}

I was NPP reviewing [[History of World Chess Championships]] when I realised that it was a copy-pasted version of [[List of World Chess Championships]], somewhere around this version [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_World_Chess_Championships&oldid=1188835021], that too without attribution. As a result, I redirected it to the original article, which was reverted by [[User:Teterev53]]. Trying to figure out why he violated [[Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusing text within Wikipedia]], and circumvent [[WP:Consensus]], I msged him on his [[User talk:Teterev53|talk page]], which he originally reverted (it seems he has blanked similar msgs before too, and all msgs as well). After I had to make him discuss it, he has been combative, seems to completely lack [[WP:Competence]] looking at his replies implying he doesn't know what dummy edits are, and his definition of splitting and his blanking of an active discussion. He also seems to show [[WP:Ownership]], and a bizzare act of [[WP:Personal attacks]] saying he does not want to discuss it further with someone with 5 stars. He also threatened to roll back the original article (which is btw, an FL now). I have tried to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], but it does not seem to work, so I came here, as he has also done so with other editors, looking at the talk page history. I'll notify him, and make another edit here to present the evidence of past such behaviour. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 15:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* The creation of the history article is my editorial decision. Compared to the current version of the ''list'' article, much information about wins, draws, and losses has been added/restored, for example. And the data were updated. What rules prohibit splitting an article with rewriting in the future? There are no such rules. If this user wants, he can use the AfD process, not simply delete by redirecting it themselves. [[User:Teterev53|Teterev53]] ([[User talk:Teterev53|talk]]) 15:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Teterev53|Teterev53]], forking an article isn't recommended, no. There is indeed a rule (a guideline) about this at [[WP:REDUNDANTFORK]]. This guideline suggests that the fork should be merged into the original article and then redirected. [[User:Win8x|win8x]] ([[User talk:Win8x|talk]]) 15:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Thank you, @[[User:Win8x|Win8x]]- that's watch I did, redirected it, as any merger would have gone against the implicit consensus of what that article should look like. Given that there was no attempt of discussing that by Teterev when he made the fork, I assumed he knows there is no merger likely. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 15:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:This will be my only edit to you here, because I do not want to deal with your disruptive behaviour again. Gonna have to repeat myself, it seems (great, you blanked the info about an ongoing ANI thread about you /s)- if you want to add that, discuss it- it might be a good idea or not, but we discuss. This is not what splitting is, unless you lack [[WP:Competence]], you probably know what splitting means. I mentioned why you could not perform this "split" on the talk page. AfD is for deletion, not redirects.
*:And your first line- if violating [[WP:Copyright]] and circumventing [[WP:Consensus]], among other things, is your editorial rights, then maybe you should not be editing. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 15:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:Here, we can see him blanking an editor asking him why he went against [[WP:OFFICIALNAME]] with the edit summary "full nonsense" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teterev53&diff=prev&oldid=1259813448], which lead to this ANI thread [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive366#Article moves, disregard for conventions and WP:REDACT|here]] (which also shows his combinative nature). Another "nonsense" revert here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teterev53&diff=prev&oldid=1226627878]. A talk about his disruptive editing here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teterev53&oldid=1168901269] and here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teterev53&oldid=1246759809] (both the lowermost sections). I am sure I would find more, but going through the page's talk history is hard. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 15:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* Its a battlegroud mentality of this user to take here very old discussions. Full nonsense is to blame user for blanking of talk page. Per [[WP:BLANKING]], ''the policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages.'' [[User:Teterev53|Teterev53]] ([[User talk:Teterev53|talk]]) 15:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*@[[User:Teterev53|Teterev53]]: You should not create content forks. It is not in your "editorial discretion" to do so; it is against guidelines. While you're allowed to remove talk page messages, you should communicate with other editors about their concerns rather than dismissing them as "nonsense".<br>@[[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]]: You should bring this article to AfD and note that you are requesting a redirect. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 15:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*::: As you can see on my talk page I communicated with this user, explaining my actions in details. But he doesn't hear anything, looking for old discussions on my page. [[User:Teterev53|Teterev53]] ([[User talk:Teterev53|talk]]) 16:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I will note that for when I do have to request such a thing- thank you @[[User:Voorts|Voorts]] for telling me that's possible. But this is pretty much an uncontroversial redirect- isn't AfD for discussable articles, not ones made against policies and guidelines. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 15:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It's not uncontroversial because it was contested. AfD is the proper forum. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 16:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Not according to policy though- unless being contested includes even reasons going against the policy?(genuine question, I know tone can be misjudged in text) [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 16:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Yes, per [[WP:BLAR]]. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 16:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Umm, it doesn't actually mention what to do when the article being redirected is against policy though. Thanks though, I never noticed that part of [[WP:BLAR]], as I only use it for notability-lacking articles. Also, what is the consensus of all this- is it automatically a redirect for failing [[WP:REDUNDANTFORKS]], do I, or him, discuss it on the "List of.." article, or should I AfD? [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 16:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::@[[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] yes, AfD is the correct place for the discussion, unless your ''only'' problem with it is that it was copied without attribution? If that's the case, a dummy edit to restore the attribution is the correct move. If it's a content fork, with no independent notability from the initial article, it needs AfD, not just attribution repair. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 18:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:The old discussions are to illustrate why I brought it up here and not some other noticeboard, as I do believe this level of disruptive behavior needs greater action which goes beyond the current issue. I'm citing policy, he is repeating "it's my right" to policy-breaking edits: how is this communication, with me having to literally revert the msg and literally threaten him with going to ANI (I am  not sure if I should have done that) to make him discuss it. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 16:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: This editor, who has received 5 barnstars, is trying to dig up something from discussions in 2022 and 2023. Very big AGF. [[User:Teterev53|Teterev53]] ([[User talk:Teterev53|talk]]) 16:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm going to be honest, Looking at [[Special:Diff/1263245413]], you didn't exactly initiate with an inviting tone, and frankly, [[Special:Diff/1263220974]] wasn't exactly de-escalating. That being said, 10000% he should have given attribution, and if there was a concern over lost information, he should have sook consensus for re-addition or moved on.  [[User:DarmaniLink|DarmaniLink]] ([[User talk:DarmaniLink|talk]]) 16:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::Also, can you two stop bickering on ANI FFS [[User:DarmaniLink|DarmaniLink]] ([[User talk:DarmaniLink|talk]]) 16:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::* Sorry, I can't answer on a thread about me? [[User:Teterev53|Teterev53]] ([[User talk:Teterev53|talk]]) 16:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::(You have swapped the diffs, I think) I checked his contributor history to figure out why it looked familiar to me, and scrolling through it, I saw he had similar actions before, so I assumed bad faith-sorry, should not have done that. Umm, the latter is me adding the ANI notice, which needs to be done, unless you meant a diff one.
::(reply to reply due to edit conflict) sorry, I'll stop. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 16:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The diff to the ANI notice was intended to be a link to the entire "thread" before it was blanked, apologies for any confusion. [[User:DarmaniLink|DarmaniLink]] ([[User talk:DarmaniLink|talk]]) 16:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::ohh, okay. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 16:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== User:What-ifpaypay creating hoaxes and vandalizing ==
{{atop|1=Indef'd by {{u|Zzuuzz}} - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 09:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|What-ifpaypay}}
This user is disruptively creating hoaxes, see [[Egnes Darrines]] and [[Magnes Beerines]]. They also are socking to remove CSD tags, and are engaging in page-move vandalism, moving [[Cebu Pacific]] to [[Cegnes Pacifes]]. They're clearly [[WP:NOTHERE]], and are only here to vandalize and cause disruption. I've already filed a report at [[WP:AIV]] but also wanted to report them here. <small>[[User:CycloneYoris|<b style="color:blue; text-shadow:cyan 0.0em 0.0em 0.1em;">CycloneYoris</b>]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:CycloneYoris|<b style="color:purple">''talk!''</b>]]</sup> 08:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 103.100.136.78 ==
{{atop
| result = Blocked. <s>These kinds of reports should generally go to [[WP:AIV]] instead of AN/I.</s> [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 02:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
}}

{{userlinks|103.100.136.78}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning & hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|Kōzō Shioya|prev|1263148336|1}}, {{diff|Kikuko Inoue|prev|1263147492|2}}, {{diff|Aya Hisakawa|prev|1263147047|3}}, {{diff|Masashi Ebara|prev|1263027382|4}}, {{diff|Tōru Furusawa|prev|1263026737|5}}. [[User:Waxworker|Waxworker]] ([[User talk:Waxworker|talk]]) 01:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== IP: 202.169.114.130 ==
{{atop
| result = Blocked for 3 months for [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]]. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 02:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
}}



[[User talk:202.169.114.130|202.169.114.130]] is a disruptive editor on a number of levels.
* 1. They have a COI with the neo-nazi organisation [[National Socialist Network]], and continue to edit that page frequently. This has included removal of large sections that reflect badly on this organisation, and then edit warring to keep them removed
* 2. They have a history of edit warring, which is now continuing on the page for [[Corowa]]
* 3. Their edits are often unsourced or use far-right sources like "the noticer" which is clearly a far-right rag
* 4. They were previously blocked for a month for edit warring, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:202.169.114.130&diff=prev&oldid=1188917509 immediately replied "male"] to the admin blocking them. The admin mentions on their userpage that they are transgender, so I assume the "male" comment was a transphobic slur. [[User:GraziePrego|GraziePrego]] ([[User talk:GraziePrego|talk]]) 02:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Persistent disruption by IP ==
{{atop|1=Rangeblocks and protection applied. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
In [[World Chess Championship]], a Kolkata based IP with the prefix 2409:40e0 is persistently introducing misinformation. Their response to attempts to discuss is to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Chess_Championship&diff=1263286894&oldid=1263261773 childishly copy/paste the same edit summary]. Note that the editor has had a final warning on their talk page at another IP in this range, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2409%3A40E0%3AF7%3ABCE8%3ACD36%3A9F86%3AB9B0%3ADDFF&diff=1263238569&oldid=1263219365 this drew a similarly childish response]. Note also the IP 157.40.78.190, also based in Kolkata and also attempting to restore their own version of the article against consensus. Request a range block, and increase in protection level for the article. [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne2|talk]]) 22:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:(I previously requested a range block at AIV, which has been applied fwiw.) <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 22:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:Page protected. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== KindHorta hounding and vandalism ==
{{atop
| result = I have warned KindHorta under [[WP:GENSEX]] and KindHorta has agreed to stay away from [[Transgender health care misinformation]]. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 02:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)<br> Since this was closed, KindHorta was issued a 31 hour block. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}

This user has been [[WP:NOTHERE]] for years and recently started hounding me on an article I wrote because I got them partially blocked for continued misbehavior. They disclosed their IP on their userpage for ~1 year before being partially blocked for LOUTSOCKING, at which point they pledged to quit LOUTSOCKING[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.21.161.89&diff=prev&oldid=1262334001] and removed the IP declaration from their userpage.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1262416958&oldid=1246313831&title=User:KindHorta]. I asked Yamla about an INDEF block and was directed to find an uninvolved admin.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yamla#Continued_issues_from_KindHorta]

As an IP editor, they've been previously taken to ANI and warned/blocked for homophobic vandalism and forumy comments at [[coprophagia]][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1106#Disruptive_IP_editor_24.21.161.89] (adding {{tq| Gay men routinely smear and/or rub feces on each other during gay sex and also ingest feces directly by inserting their tongue into each others anus when performing rimming
}} to the article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coprophagia&diff=prev&oldid=1099089041]) and [[Defense of Marriage Act]][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1115#More_Disruptive_editing_and_trolling_by_IP_user_who_has_already_had_their_block_upgraded_multiple_times.] (changing "same sex" to sodomy). As mentioned [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1115#More_Disruptive_editing_and_trolling_by_IP_user_who_has_already_had_their_block_upgraded_multiple_times. here] by @[[User:Yamla|Yamla]], they've edited under another account as well which has also engaged in homophobic vandalism and personal attacks. I won't publicly link it, but  @[[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] can also speak to that. @[[User:Ponyo|Ponyo]] has also blocked them previously.

I came across them because a friend told me about serious BLPvios on [[Crackhead Barney]] and I've been reverting vandalism since. At the article, they've repeatedly added non-oversighted BLPVios (insulting her in wikivoice) and oversighted ones. He accused me of being in cahoots with her because we are both "transsexual lesbians" (slightly more funny than offensive bc she isn't trans afaict...) - {{tq|Just because someone claims to be a transexual lesbian does not mean the rest of the world should feel sorry for them and they get special treatment.  So far, your actions with this article are giving her special treatment which is unfair to the rest of the project and to be blunt, against the rules.}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.21.161.89&oldid=1262416478#Crackhead_Barney][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.21.161.89&oldid=1262416478#COI_at_Crackhead_Barney] I reported the continued LOUTSOCKING and attacks to Yamla, who then blocked the IP.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.21.161.89&oldid=1262416478#LOUTSOCK]

Immediately after, he updated his userpage and began to make edits to [[trans health care misinformation]], the latest article I wrote. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/KindHorta&target=KindHorta&offset=&limit=500] The first comment was {{tq|...Allowing underage children to be '''subjected to gender affirming surgery and self-mutilation''' in order to spare them from purported suffering due to ROGD goes contrary to the obligations of society and the laws in most states.  There are many''' gay and trans activists which support lowering the age of consent based on some of the same rationale'''.  Most of these trans articles on wikipedia are POV forks of the same subject.  This one seems to '''enshrine and demonize any disagreement to the trans lifestyle'''}} (emphases added)[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transgender_health_care_misinformation&diff=prev&oldid=1262586538] He's since continued with [[WP:IDHT]], claiming the article is unbalanced and should be rewritten/tagged, based on long forumy [[WP:PROFRINGE]] rants. [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 01:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:The article in question is a POV fork with the title "Misinformation" for what is more properly termed "controversies".  Not everyone agrees that trans topics are "misinformation" based on the numerous state and federal law bans on transgender health care for minors based on an opposing body of medical evidence.  Focus on content, not personal attacks.  I have not posted any "hounding" content to this users talk page, while they on the other hand have posted non stop threats to my user page and accusations which are anything but AGF.  They need to calm down and AGF, instead of trying to silence and retaliate against any editor who disagrees with their articles.  The article in question needs to be reviewed (and possibly renamed).  Not everyone agrees and other editors have commented that the page in question is a POV fork and "misinformation" in it's own right. [[User:KindHorta|KindHorta]] ([[User talk:KindHorta|talk]]) 01:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::This user also has been patrolling Crackhead Barney's article and edit warring with the entire planet, and has admitted (just now in fact) to acting as a meat puppet for Crackhead Barney in opposing any and all edits to that article (a friend told me about the edits according to YFNS -- wonder who that was).  [[User:KindHorta|KindHorta]] ([[User talk:KindHorta|talk]]) 01:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::By definition, an article about misinformation will contain things that some people don't think are misinformation. Nevertheless, it's a notable topic, and must be written using reliable sources and not personal beliefs. If you're not willing to do that, stay off the page. – [[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]] 01:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::So be it.  I will stay off the page. [[User:KindHorta|KindHorta]] ([[User talk:KindHorta|talk]]) 01:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== [[User:Jalghoula]] persistent unsourced edits ==
{{atop
| result = Indeffed per [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
}}

{{userlinks|Jalghoula}}

This account has been adding unsourced material, edit-warring, and/or making (pro-Tunisian) POV edits ever since it appeared; e.g. long-term edit-warring/POV-pushing at [[Harissa]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harissa&diff=prev&oldid=1126471417], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harissa&diff=prev&oldid=1126475000], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harissa&diff=prev&oldid=1126475138], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harissa&diff=prev&oldid=1127564214], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harissa&diff=prev&oldid=1242765938], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harissa&diff=prev&oldid=1240098275], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harissa&diff=prev&oldid=1254755224]) and unsourced additions at [[Hafsid dynasty]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hafsid_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1138938024], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hafsid_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1138976409]). This has continued in recent edits:
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hafsid_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1258386325], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hafsid_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1260221398] (unsourced flag)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hafsid_architecture&diff=1261337368&oldid=1218921061] (unexplained deletion of sourced content + unsourced additions)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carthage_Royal_Palace&diff=prev&oldid=1262657244] (unsourced POV edit)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbary_Wars&diff=prev&oldid=1262849790] (unsourced addition) 
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kasbah_Mosque,_Tunis&diff=prev&oldid=1262851993] (unsourced addition, incompatible with sources here and elsewhere)
They've been asked many times to stop these behaviours and improve their editing ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jalghoula&oldid=1126475114], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jalghoula&diff=prev&oldid=1127564807], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jalghoula&diff=prev&oldid=1138983064], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jalghoula&diff=prev&oldid=1261379200]). After a final warning yesterday ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jalghoula&diff=prev&oldid=1262932605]), they made another unsourced addition today at [[Hafsid architecture]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hafsid_architecture&diff=prev&oldid=1263104144]. After being reverted, they immediately re-added it while citing a source that does not support (and if anything contradicts) their claim: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hafsid_architecture&diff=prev&oldid=1263107009] (I checked the source personally). They're not getting the message. [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 20:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== User:Apprentix ==
{{Atop|Apprentix blocked as a sock.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 02:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)}}
[[User:Apprentix]] started a [[Talk:Sabean colonization of Africa#Sorry, but is this is not a colonisation, there's not one source out of the 600 Sabaic Manuscripts mentioning an Imperial colonisation into Africa, Requesting a Title change or a page deletation because there's absoulutely no context whatsoever its misleading.|discussion]] on [[Talk:Sabean colonization of Africa]] claiming that "there's not one source out of the 600 Sabaic Manuscripts mentioning an Imperial colonisation into Africa" (keep in mind that this article had multiple sources supporting every claim before he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sabean_colonization_of_Africa&diff=next&oldid=1262905042 PRODed the article] and began a process of deleting everything that he didn't like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sabean_colonization_of_Africa&diff=next&oldid=1263035653] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sabean_colonization_of_Africa&diff=next&oldid=1263035746]  including whole sourced paragraphs and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sabean_colonization_of_Africa&diff=next&oldid=1263032745 the lead] which he claimed was "imposter content" when the source cited clearly mentioned both of those words (anyone with jstor access can confirm this) and then he later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sabean_colonization_of_Africa&diff=next&oldid=1263037338 changed the reason of its removal]) and started the same discussion with a personal attack towards the guy who created the article calling him a Yemeni nationalist.

After I replied to him he continued with the personal attack and called him [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sabean_colonization_of_Africa&diff=prev&oldid=1262677751 "a Somali Nationalist and he made this page to slander Ethiopians"]<br>
after which I warned him on his talk page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Apprentix&diff=prev&oldid=1262899986 he later deleted the warning]) 

after that he replied on the article talk with "[....]This is clearly a defimation and is a shaming that you cannot hide your bias as you support this stupidity.[...]" which I am pretty sure isn't allowed.<br>
He later continued with this cycle of personal attacks on the talk page with everytime he gets warned by me, he deletes the warning. This continued and got a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk:Apprentix&diff=prev&oldid=1262901823 4im warning by AirshipJungleman29] but that did not stop him from issuing a personal attack [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sabean_colonization_of_Africa&diff=next&oldid=1263012984 in his PROD].

Apart from the PA stuff, he is editing disruptively and was not willing to respond to multiple of requests from me to discuss the cited stuff he was deleting from the article without consensus as it can be seen on the talk page of the article with him disregarding all the sources from the article as "garbage" or remarks like "Just because it was cited it means nothing" '''[[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="background:#9b360b;color:white;padding:2px;">Abo Yemen</span>]][[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="background:#9d6b06;color:white;padding:2px;">✉</span>]]''' 15:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:Why are you trying to silence me? you're trying everything in your might to keep  [[Sabean colonization of Africa]] focus on that instead of trying to slander me, you've taken almost every point you stated above out of context and almost all those issues you stated have been resolved. And the sections I removed were removed because the deletation tag permitted me to edit non important sections or stuff containing [[ Wikipedia:Fictitious references]]. [[User:Apprentix|Apprentix]] ([[User talk:Apprentix|talk]]) 19:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:You never warned me for saying  "a Somali Nationalist and he made this page to slander Ethiopians", All I did was state the motives of the possible creation the article, since there's no sources or historical evidence on a "Sabean colonization of Africa". [[User:Apprentix|Apprentix]] ([[User talk:Apprentix|talk]]) 19:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:You cannot use a historical event and not use any historical backing, that means it never happened and makes a very weak page on wikipedia hence why many of the section including "criticism of the migration hypthesis" was removed. please go back and check before making propsterous claims and actually understand why I'd nominated this page for deletation, thanks. [[User:Apprentix|Apprentix]] ([[User talk:Apprentix|talk]]) 19:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:Instead of turning this into ugly/erratice discourse, please respond in the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabean colonization of Africa]]. [[User:Apprentix|Apprentix]] ([[User talk:Apprentix|talk]]) 20:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::ANI is not for content disputes, but per my reply there your reasoning is not sound: an article being {{xt|based on 21st-century consensus}} is a good thing, as we value present scholarly consensus and moreover are not ourselves qualified to challenge or downplay it. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 20:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:Apprentix has been put back in the drawer. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 01:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{tq|1=You never warned me for saying "a Somali Nationalist and he made this page to slander Ethiopians"}}<br/>I know that this was already closed but just for the record Mr. Neo, I did warn you for that and you deleted that warning '''[[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="background:#9b360b;color:white;padding:2px;">Abo Yemen</span>]][[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="background:#9d6b06;color:white;padding:2px;">✉</span>]]''' 03:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Requesting Block on IP [[User talk:2409:40F4:34:2E50:C475:D1FF:FE1B:4B8A]] ==
{{atop|1=IP had already stopped editing by the time this was filed. In the future, [[WP:AIV]] is thataway →. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 07:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|2409:40F4:34:2E50:C475:D1FF:FE1B:4B8A}}

IP is hopping around onto different Indian film articles and changing boxoffice figures and adding unreliable sources per [[WP:ICTFSOURCES]]. After warning, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2409:40F4:34:2E50:C475:D1FF:FE1B:4B8A IP continued with the same]. [[User:RangersRus|RangersRus]] ([[User talk:RangersRus|talk]]) 13:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Sourced info being changed disruptively ==
{{atop|1=How about we [[WP:BITE|don't bite the newbies]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 07:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{u|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 [[Wikipedia:IJDLI|IJDLI]] and [[Wikipedia:OR|OR]] violations. [[User:Semsûrî|Semsûrî]] ([[User talk:Semsûrî|talk]]) 14:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:[[User:Semsûrî|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? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 20:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== User:31.222.81.248 = LTA BKFIP sockpuppet detected ==
{{atop|1=Dealt with. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
* {{Userlinks|31.222.81.248}}

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, [[Special:Contribs/89.207.175.7|89.207.175.7]], which were made on 30 June 2024 (and that IP was also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A89.207.175.7 blocked] for block evasion that day).

Let's compare some diffs:
* On ''Wycombe (UK Parliament constituency)'': [[Special:Diff/1262813071|diff]] by new IP is an exact repeat of [[Special:Diff/1231787660|diff]] by old IP
* On ''Ashford International railway station'': [[Special:Diff/1262812852|diff]] by new IP is an exact repeat of [[Special:Diff/1231788768|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.
* On User talk:31.222.81.248: the person [[Special:Diff/1262724542|removes a warning message]] by [[User:Heythereimaguy]] with the edit summary {{tq|don't leave dishonest messages}} (compare this to edit summaries on [[Special:PageHistory/User talk:89.207.175.7|previous IP's talk page]])
* On User:Heythereimaguy (the user who left that warning message): the IP leaves [[Special:Diff/1262718993|this message]] to express how much they dislike warning templates

To my eyes, this passes the [[WP:DUCK]] test when looking at those diffs above. —&nbsp;[[User:AP 499D25|<span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP&nbsp;499D25</span>]] [[User talk:AP 499D25|<span style="color:#1A527D">(talk)</span>]] 09:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

:They've already IP hopped to {{userlinks|31.222.81.153}}. — <span style="font-family:verdana;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold">[[User talk:Manticore|<span style="color:black">Manticore</span>]]</span> 10:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::I've blocked 31.222.81.153 for 3 months, and 31.222.81.248 for two weeks. &mdash; [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] ([[User talk:The Anome|talk]]) 12:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|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:
:::{{User|Actinic}}
:::Compare [[Special:Diff/1262220159|diff]] by account to [[Special:Diff/1262211335|diff]] by that blocked IP.
:::The edit summary of [[Special:Diff/1262607089|this edit]] reads: {{tq|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 [[Special:Diff/1262690837|this]] talk page post too. —&nbsp;[[User:AP 499D25|<span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP&nbsp;499D25</span>]] [[User talk:AP 499D25|<span style="color:#1A527D">(talk)</span>]] 13:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:AP 499D25|AP 499D25]], @[[User:Manticore|Manticore]], and @[[User:The Anome|The Anome]], thanks for taking care of this! I really appreciate it. [[User:Heythereimaguy|Heythereimaguy]] ([[User talk:Heythereimaguy|talk]]) 13:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== 2601:18C:8102:2FC0:0:0:0:0/64 = block evasion of 166.182.0.0/16 ==
{{atop|1=Blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|2601:18C:8102:2FC0:0:0:0:0/64}}

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:
*On Jim Henson Pictures: compare [[Special:Diff/1160108295|diff by 166.182.249.211]] to [[Special:Diff/1262432962|diff by 2601:18C:8102:2FC0:x:x:x:x]]
*On Planet 51: compare [[Special:Diff/1160108380|diff by 166.182.249.211]] to [[Special:Diff/1262432954|diff by 2601:18C:8102:2FC0:x:x:x:x]]

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 ([[Special:Diff/1262384644|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. —&nbsp;[[User:AP 499D25|<span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP&nbsp;499D25</span>]] [[User talk:AP 499D25|<span style="color:#1A527D">(talk)</span>]] 12:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
* /64 blocked long ago. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 15:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Two clear NOTHERE accounts ==
{{atop|1=User pages deleted and/or blanked, and users warned. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{u|TheodoresTomfooleries}} and {{u|DFLPApologist}} are clearly [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Not sure where else to report so I brought it here. Kind regards, [[User:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI|Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI]] (<small><sup>[[User talk:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI|talk to me!]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:contributions/Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI|my edits]]</sub></small>) 15:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

: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. [[User:TheodoresTomfooleries|TheodoresTomfooleries]] ([[User talk:TheodoresTomfooleries|talk]]) 15:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:My userpage has no relation to my contributions. [[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]] ([[User talk:DFLPApologist|talk]]) 16:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Sigh''' Both users should be trouted for using their user pages for very bad-taste jokes. These pages should be deleted via MfD and, honestly, run a CU just in case. But, assuming these two aren't a pair of socks I think we can let them off with a warning not to do something so pointlessly edgy going forward. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Agreed, I think. Looking through their contributions, there's some potentially-good edits, e.g. [[Special:Diff/1257215939]]. (Although I'd like if someone ran a double-check on those references on the off chance it's subtle vandalism.) [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 17:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*Just pointing out that DPLPApologist's page includes the apparent quote "A homosexual cannot be a revolutionary." [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 16:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I am a lesbian. [[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]] ([[User talk:DFLPApologist|talk]]) 16:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I consider it highly likely that both of these accounts are controlled by the same person. Thd absurdist style is similar and the categories are very similar. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I just ripped off their userbox because I don’t know how to code [[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]] ([[User talk:DFLPApologist|talk]]) 18:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::infobox* [[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]] ([[User talk:DFLPApologist|talk]]) 18:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Furthermore, TheodoresTomfooleries is a left communist, while I am a Maoist. [[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]] ([[User talk:DFLPApologist|talk]]) 18:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::This style of absurdist humor is popular on ''leftist twitter'', which is why our profiles appear similar, and I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t inspired. [[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]] ([[User talk:DFLPApologist|talk]]) 18:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::But here's the thing, friend. This ''isn't'' twitter. This is Wikipedia. While I do agree that your user page should be something that is solely ''you'', certain things to not put in seemed to go without saying. [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 20:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::(after edit conflicts) If they're not the same person then they are friends. I suppose we should at least be grateful for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DFLPApologist&diff=next&oldid=1261890279 this edit]. Just block. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::I don't think being friends, or having multiple accounts, is against the rules. However, it does need to be properly disclosed. @[[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]] and @[[User:TheodoresTomfooleries|TheodoresTomfooleries]]: are these two accounts by the same person, or do you just happen to know each other? If two accounts, see our rules about [[WP:sockpuppetry|sockpuppetry]]. I would strongly recommend using only one account, as using multiple accounts is an easy way to get yourself banned. If you know each other, you should avoid making controversial edits to the same pages without disclosing this (which can violate the prohibitions on [[WP:meatpuppetry|meatpuppetry]] and [[WP:canvassing|canvassing]]). [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 19:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::We don’t know each other properly, I just found their profile on the Syria article and thought it was ridiculous. [[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]] ([[User talk:DFLPApologist|talk]]) 19:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::The only alternative account I have on Wikipedia is [[User:Kalivyah]], which I have specifically marked as such (and which I do not use anymore). Other than this, I do not know who @[[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]] is, and I suspect we simply met through the Syria article like she suggests.
*:::::I think it's a possibility I might know her from another platform, but I'm unable to confirm this-- and even whether I do or don't know her, it doesn't make it a case of sockpuppetry. [[User:TheodoresTomfooleries|TheodoresTomfooleries]] ([[User talk:TheodoresTomfooleries|talk]]) 00:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}{{u|DFLPApologist}}, this is not Twitter or social media of any kind. You wrote {{tpq|Unlimited genocide on the first world}} on the other editor's talk page. Why should other Wikipedia editors believe anything that you say? [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

: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. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 20:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
: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 [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#8B0000; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">The AP </span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#AA336A">''talk''</span>]]) 20:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::The good news is that nobody on the internet is sane. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 23:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::But some places are saner than others. [https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-online-encyclopedia-best-place-internet/ The last best place on the internet], as people say. [[User:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI|Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI]] (<small><sup>[[User talk:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI|talk to me!]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:contributions/Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI|my edits]]</sub></small>) 10:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

*Any reason why both should not be blocked? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 20:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*:They have made fair edits - I guess it's better to warn them that they shouldn't add such inappropriate mentions on the user page and if they continue to make such gross comments - a block? [[User:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#8B0000; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">The AP </span>]] ([[User talk:TheAstorPastor|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#AA336A">''talk''</span>]]) 21:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*::'Fair' edits do not excuse blatant trolling. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 12:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*[[WP:ROPE]]. I know this essay is about blocked editors but I think it's an approach that can be useful in situations like this. And also, editors should not solely be judged by their User page but by their Contributions. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Thank you. [[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]] ([[User talk:DFLPApologist|talk]]) 06:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*::[[User:DFLPApologist|DFLPApologist]], I'm a big believer in ROPE but you are doing yourself no favors by referring to your fellow editors as a "woke mob". This is a collaborative project and even when we are discussing problems on the project, we talk about them with civility. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::This is why I reported this as NOTHERE. While I too find this sort of humour funny on Twitter (minus slurs), it has no place on Wikipedia and the editors in question are doing themselves no favours by continuing in that same Twitter mindset here. [[User:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI|Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI]] (<small><sup>[[User talk:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI|talk to me!]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:contributions/Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI|my edits]]</sub></small>) 10:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::User has now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DFLPApologist&diff=prev&oldid=1262283604 added this to their userpage], including "<nowiki>custom_gender = [[Mao Zedong]]-gender</nowiki>" and "<nowiki>| ethnicity = [[Schizophrenia|Hungarian]] | race = [[Hungarians|Schizophrenic]]</nowiki>".
*::::They are clearly [[WP:NOTHERE]] and should be blocked immediately. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 18:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Inclined to agree. Liz I massively respect you but "editors should not solely be judged by their User page but by their Contributions" is, respectfully, nonsense. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 12:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I've blanked the page. This kind of humor is not appropriate. I honestly thought we were making progress when the editor blanked their userpage on their own volition, but it's clear they don't understand what's the issue here. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]]</sup></small> 12:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::If the pages (or similar versions of them) are restored, I will indef block. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 12:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::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. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 14:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''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 [[WP:MFD|MFD]] says:  {{tq|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 [[WP:IAR|Ignore All Rules]].  In any case, I don't think that blanking is an acceptable [[WP:ATD|Alternative to Deletion]] in these cases.  The material should be removed from the history.  If they weren't already at [[WP:MFD|MFD]], redaction as [[WP:RD3|RD3]] would be an alternative, but they are already at MFD.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 06:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Can this thread be closed with a warning to the two editors, allowing the MFDs to run to normal consensus closure?  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 06:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== C3B4ME6's rather peculiar user page ==
{{Atop|The editor's disruptive pages have been deleted and the user warned. They edit sporadically and have not edited since December 13. If they resume their disruption in future, they can be brought back here for sanctions.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 19:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
@[[User:C3B4ME6|C3B4ME6]] has a truly bold user page, stating they are a developer of well known 'amazing free online source'  Wikipedia.
They have also created a strange draft named [[Draft:Titus DPS 8C]]. <br>

Not quite sure of there intentions, but claiming to be a 'major' developer of wikipedia is odd. [[User:Fantastic Mr. Fox|Fantastic Mr. Fox]] ([[User talk:Fantastic Mr. Fox|talk]]) 08:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:That user page is hogwash. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:It looks humorous to me. Has anyone had a chat with them about it before bringing it here? — [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 09:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Claiming to be a developer without actually being one (we have no way of proving if they are) is not humorous. That said, it probably should have been addressed on their user talk instead of being pulled to ANI directly, yes. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 09:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:What a Consignment of Geriatric Shoe Makers. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 13:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*I've deleted their userpage and draft as vandalism and left a final warning on their Talk page. Even a warning is a waste of time: they are a troll.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 14:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Range block requested ==
{{archive top|1=Range blocked for another 6 months. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC) }}
* {{Rangevandal|2601:40:C300:6C30:0:0:0:0/64}}

This IP range has been blocked six times since early September, most recently in mid-October (as a CU-block) for a period of 2 months. Upon the expiration of that block a couple of days ago, the person behind this IP almost immediately went back to their old editing habits. Just a few examples:
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_and_state_funeral_of_Vladimir_Lenin&diff=1263609149&oldid=1251842247 This series of edits, which rewrites portions of Vladimir Lenin's death and funeral article to apparently mirror the storyline of a Japanese anime series]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bids_for_the_2036_Summer_Olympics&diff=prev&oldid=1263616462 Repeatedly restoring this edit, which falsely states that North Korea is hosting the 2036 Olympics]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Latest_stable_software_release/macOS_Monterey&diff=prev&oldid=1263470946 Plain, good old fashioned date vandalism]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II&diff=1263394665&oldid=1263216335 These edits (whatever they are) to Queen Elizabeth II's death and funeral article]

Can an administrator please re-block this range for a few more months? Thank you. [[User:Aoi|Aoi (青い)]] ([[User talk:Aoi|talk]]) 19:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Blocked for another six months by [[User:Spicy]] for vandalism. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}
== Baseless legal threats and self-promotional edits from idef-blocked user ==
{{atop|1=Blocked and revdel'd. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
I think this speaks for itself: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Percy_French&curid=794162&diff=1263444402&oldid=1263417674]. See also [[User_talk:Eblana22]]. 

Oh, and I'm aware of the risks of editing in my real name, but she's also stalking me on LinkedIn, which is vaguely creepy—even though it also means that she knows that she cannot call the Dublin police on me for reverting her edits. 

Thanks for your time — [[User:Patrick Welsh|Patrick]] ([[User talk:Patrick Welsh|talk]]) 18:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:I have blocked the IP for 48 hours, and redacted the edit summary. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 18:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks! [[User:Patrick Welsh|Patrick]] ([[User talk:Patrick Welsh|talk]]) 18:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Spammer ==
{{atop
| status = Indef block

| result = Spam canned. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 18:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
}}

{{user|Ginter96}} has been on Wikipedia since 2021 and in that time has done almost nothing but promote his business. I noticed an edit he made to [[Lithuanian cuisine]] a couple days ago was deleted as spam. Looking at his contributions, he has added himself to lists [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ginter&diff=prev&oldid=1001538138] and added his food truck to various articles [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Food_truck&diff=prev&oldid=1033686378], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_food_trucks&diff=prev&oldid=1034799926], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Food_truck&diff=prev&oldid=1262811619], usually replacing existing content with his own. He's also tried creating articles about his own food truck. I think he should be blocked as [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[User:Iggy pop goes the weasel|Iggy pop goes the weasel]] ([[User talk:Iggy pop goes the weasel|talk]]) 15:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}}. – [[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]] 16:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Immediate Blocking of sock [[User:NairaAadhya01]] ==
{{atop|result=[[User:NairaAadhya01]] has been blocked as a sockpuppet. As a general rule, [[User:Seyamar]], please do not edit, especially project pages like ANI, logged out. You've made nearly 2 dozen edits in the past hour, if you are going to continue, then change your Wikibreak enforcer or stop editing. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
So I am [[User: Seyamar]] who generally edit articles related to the epic poem [[Mahabharata]]. Recently I took a wikibreak, but the articles such as [[Madri]], [[Kunti]] and [[Shalya]] have been vandalised by {{Userlinks|NairaAadhya01}}. This user is definitely another sockpuppet of the infamous {{Userlinks|Kairakairav}}. Following are the proof:
* Similarly style as most previous sock accounts (for eg the sockmaster had accounts like User:NairaAadhya,
User:NairaKairav,
User:NairaKairavKaira,
User:NairaKaishu,
User:NairaKrishnaKairaKairavAkshu,
User:NairaKuhu,
User:NairaKuhu02,
User:NairaKuhu03, see the entire list [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Kairakairav here])
* Trying to talk with this user is useless, they will never respond and persist to vandalised despite attempts made by other users as well
* The sock master has a long history of removing sourced correct information from various articles and changing them spurious ones upto her own liking, recently the user edited the article [[Madri]] and replaced all sourced info with random bullshit, kindly revert those edits
* Immediately banning is required to prevent further disruption.
[[Special:Contributions/2409:40D0:100E:B91A:8000:0:0:0|2409:40D0:100E:B91A:8000:0:0:0]] ([[User talk:2409:40D0:100E:B91A:8000:0:0:0|talk]]) 07:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:Is there a reason you posted this while logged out? Also this seems like a case for [[WP:SPI]], not ANI. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 07:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|The Bushranger}} Yes, I can't log in as I had enabled the Wikibreak enforcer, also that Sock master is extremely dangerous, capable of turning several articles upside down in matter of hours (see their edits of oast sockpuppets), so immediately banning was required, however as always they will make another account and this cycle will unfortunately go on. Most nerve -wreking thing is that they will never respond, tell the motive behind their actions and most importantly, is determined to add her own damn fanfics. - <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:2409:40D0:100E:B91A:8000:0:0:0|2409:40D0:100E:B91A:8000:0:0:0]] ([[User talk:2409:40D0:100E:B91A:8000:0:0:0#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/2409:40D0:100E:B91A:8000:0:0:0|contribs]]) </small>
:::Alright, that's fair. And looks like {{u|Daniel Case}} has nailed 'em. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 07:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::How do we know the OP is the user they claim to be? Unless identity can be confirmed, admins should enforce the wiki break and block the ip. [[Special:Contributions/2602:FE43:1:46DD:A543:E4F:8674:51B5|2602:FE43:1:46DD:A543:E4F:8674:51B5]] ([[User talk:2602:FE43:1:46DD:A543:E4F:8674:51B5|talk]]) 08:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Continued disruptive editing/edit warring from [[User:Insane always]] after edit warring block. ==
{{atop|1=Nothing to do here right now. If problems recur, they can be addressed [[iff]] they do. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
At 6 December, [[User:Insane always]] was blocked for one week for edit warring and personal attacks. It was about an image for [[Cyclone Fengal]]. Now that the block is lifted, the user continues to edit war about the image (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyclone_Fengal&diff=prev&oldid=1263336599 diff]). The user knows how to use the talk page, but refuses to discuss with me and other users (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyclone_Fengal&diff=prev&oldid=1263336714 diff]). We had a discussion at [[Talk:2024 North Indian Ocean cyclone season#Cyclone Fengal (Image)]] and [[Talk:Cyclone Fengal#Image for Infobox]] about it and I pinged the user about it. There was no consensus as of now. Perhaps I'm being harsh since the user is relatively new, but the recent blocks and person attacks made me issue a report here. It is noted that the user made some of the images of Cyclone Fengal. '''[[User:INeedSupport|<span style="color:#00FF00"><big>I</big></span>]]Need[[User_talk:INeedSupport|<span style="color:#044ace">Support</span>]]'''  <sup>:3</sup> 02:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:I forgot to mention that the user used multiple IPs before and during the one week block. Examples of which can be seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyclone_Fengal&diff=prev&oldid=1261671571 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyclone_Fengal&diff=prev&oldid=1261063607 here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1261063273&oldid=1261004673&title=2024_North_Indian_Ocean_cyclone_season here]. '''[[User:INeedSupport|<span style="color:#00FF00"><big>I</big></span>]]Need[[User_talk:INeedSupport|<span style="color:#044ace">Support</span>]]'''  <sup>:3</sup> 03:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::[[User:INeedSupport]], they have only made two edits after their block was over. I think it is premature to bring them to ANI when they are just coming off a block and haven't continued with the same disruption. It's time now to see if the block has changed their behavior and give them a chance to respond to this complaint. They have already been sanctioned for their prior behavior, they should only face consenquences if that behavior has continued after the block is over. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Fair enough. '''[[User:INeedSupport|<span style="color:#00FF00"><big>I</big></span>]]Need[[User_talk:INeedSupport|<span style="color:#044ace">Support</span>]]'''  <sup>:3</sup> 14:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== [[User:Ahmad Shazlan]] persistently adding preferred content despite objections and multiple entreaties to discuss on talk page. ==
{{atop
| result = Duplicated by later post. Closing this one. [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 17:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAhmad_Shazlan&diff=1262389272&oldid=1246823546 their talk page]. In fact, as you can see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAhmad_Shazlan&diff=1262745048&oldid=1262389272 here], they have already received a warning regarding this matter from another editor, but to no avail. [[User:Revirvlkodlaku|Revirvlkodlaku]] ([[User talk:Revirvlkodlaku|talk]]) 12:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Copyeditor changing direct quotations ==
{{atop|1=Blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{IPlinks|86.42.148.113}} 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, [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 12:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
* IP blocked for two weeks by {{noping|The Anome}}. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 00:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== [[User:Flusapochterasumesch]] reported by [[User:Bowler the Carmine]] ==
{{atop|1=Indef pblock from articlespace and talkspace applied until understanding of Wikipedia norms improves. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{Userlinks|Flusapochterasumesch}} is being disruptive in [[Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson]]. They are generally hostile towards other editors ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262342038] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262349829] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262351583] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262352780] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262355420] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262355856] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262374579]), do not seem to understand the nature of Wikipedia as a tertiary source ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262325339] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262335602]) and a collaborative project ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262352442] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262381591]), and has expressed their intention to remain willfully ignorant of policies and guidelines ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262322441] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262332307] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262339317]); despite my general note ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch&diff=prev&oldid=1262344551]) and personal warning ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch&diff=prev&oldid=1262359461]) to stop, and several editors' attempts ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1262328645&oldid=1262325339&title=Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKilling_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262329687] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKilling_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262347260] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKilling_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262351023] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKilling_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262350786] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKilling_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262352077] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKilling_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262353670] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKilling_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=1262376799]) to redirect them away from disruptive behavior. [[User:Bowler the Carmine|<span style="background:linear-gradient(to right,#1a5fb4,#187148);background-clip:text;color:transparent;">Bowler the Carmine</span>]] | [[User talk:Bowler the Carmine|<span style="color:#813d9c">talk</span>]] 21:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:I first noticed Flusapochterasumesch on [[Talk:Justin Welby]], in which the user proposed several unhelpful edits, including describing a living person as a {{tq|bastard son}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Justin_Welby&diff=prev&oldid=1257039903 diff]) and a fairly pointless edit based on a pedantic reading of the word "coincided" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Justin_Welby&diff=prev&oldid=1257240214 diff]). When I replied that this edit would not make sense, responded with {{tq|"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 {{tq|"stop wasting my time you pompous dolt."}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Justin_Welby&diff=prev&oldid=1257447707 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]]. [[User:Dclemens1971|Dclemens1971]] ([[User talk:Dclemens1971|talk]]) 15:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

: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 "{{tq|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 "{{tq|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). [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 15:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC).
::I spent a little time going through Flusapochterasumesch's contributions and found several more personal insults:
::* {{tq|irritating and abject moron}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch&diff=prev&oldid=1257830581 diff])
::* {{tq|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.}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Herostratus&diff=prev&oldid=1262096262 diff])
::* Telling another editor their username {{tq|goes before you like flatulence from a retroperambulating bovine}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Herostratus&diff=prev&oldid=1261770415 diff])
::* In response to a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch&diff=prev&oldid=1237071849 normal disruptive editing warning], said {{tq|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.}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch&diff=prev&oldid=1237111185 diff])
::Flusa has been warned on multiple other occasions ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch&diff=prev&oldid=1257885931 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch&diff=prev&oldid=1259746106 diff]). In removing one of the warnings from their talk page, they called it "possible vandalism" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch&diff=next&oldid=1257885931 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 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1262568626 diff]) at being told to "relax."
::Finally, Flusa [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Herostratus&diff=prev&oldid=1262193269 wrote]: {{tq|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]]. [[User:Dclemens1971|Dclemens1971]] ([[User talk:Dclemens1971|talk]]) 19:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Conyo14|Conyo14]] ([[User talk:Conyo14|talk]]) 23:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::[[Special:Permalink/1262850042#Sistani_nationality_and_original_name|Permanent link to interaction below for posterity]]. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 23:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::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! [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 09:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:There was some further criticism of Flusapochterasumesch on their talk page, which they removed: see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch&oldid=1259718745]. 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? [[User:Jmchutchinson|JMCHutchinson]] ([[User talk:Jmchutchinson|talk]]) 10:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Dclemens1971|Dclemens1971]] ([[User talk:Dclemens1971|talk]]) 13:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I made a list of all their talk page blankings:
:::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch&diff=prev&oldid=1236647807 1 discussion, apparently for profanity],
:::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch&diff=prev&oldid=1237654006 1 disruptive editing warning and subsequent replies],
:::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1240289680&oldid=1240283183&title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch 2 messages about behavior],
:::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch&diff=prev&oldid=1240292003 1 older warnings banner],
:::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch&diff=prev&oldid=1257159204 1 message about NPOV],
:::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch&diff=prev&oldid=1257810888 1 content dispute(?)]
:::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch&diff=prev&oldid=1257830581 1 content dispute],
:::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1258003571&oldid=1257885931&title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch 2 messages about personal attacks],
:::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch&diff=prev&oldid=1259746106 1 message about personal attacks],
:::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch&diff=prev&oldid=1262350321 1 message about civility].
:::That's 8 <del>warnings/messages</del> <ins>warnings/warning-adjacent messages</ins> they've received so far. [[User:Bowler the Carmine|<span style="background:linear-gradient(to right,#1a5fb4,#187148);background-clip:text;color:transparent;">Bowler the Carmine</span>]] | [[User talk:Bowler the Carmine|<span style="color:#813d9c">talk</span>]] 18:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)<ins>; edited 18:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)</ins>
::::They also have several posts here on ANI that appear to have been removed by admins on Dec 11, which is concerning. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 19:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Pretty sure it was just a REVDEL situation and not explicitly their comments. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 20:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I've traced it the revdel's back. They're unrelated to this case. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 20:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:I advised them a month ago, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch&oldid=1257109662], 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. [[User:KJP1|KJP1]] ([[User talk:KJP1|talk]]) 07:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

===Proposal===
Given the extensive discussion above, their lack of participation here, but seeming ability to participate in the discussion below, it feels like they're just actively avoiding this discussion and trying to run out the clock. 

I propose an indef block until:
<ol style="list-style-type: lower-roman;"><li>They are willing to discuss their behavior in a re-opened AN/I discussion (which could result in no sanctions, or the same or different sanctions); or</li><li>They are willing to acknowledge that their conduct has not been appropriate and they agree to abide by community norms/rules.</li></ol> —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 18:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:As reporter, I agree. They have had more than enough time to respond to this discussion, and in light of them avoiding this discussion while weighing in on other discussions here, their frequent talk page blanking now seems like an attempt to evade accountability. [[User:Bowler the Carmine|<span style="background:linear-gradient(to right,#1a5fb4,#187148);background-clip:text;color:transparent;">Bowler the Carmine</span>]] | [[User talk:Bowler the Carmine|<span style="color:#813d9c">talk</span>]] 20:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''', although it should be "and" because both actions are important. [[User:Dclemens1971|Dclemens1971]] ([[User talk:Dclemens1971|talk]]) 20:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::I figure the "or" so we can give them some [[WP:ROPE]] if they decide to say they understand and will comply, but then go right back to doing the thing that prompted this discussion. But I'm open to an "and" as well. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 22:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support block''': In their relatively brief time on the site, Flusapochterasumesch has racked up an impressive number of disruptive incidents. They seem unable to collaborate without blustering, insult and condescension. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flusapochterasumesch&diff=prev&oldid=1237111185 This] is a good example, and there are lots more. We deserve better treatment than this. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 01:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:'''Support block''': Toughpigs puts it well. The behaviour seems ingrained and unresponsive to multiple instances of patient advice. [[User:Jmchutchinson|JMCHutchinson]] ([[User talk:Jmchutchinson|talk]]) 11:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support Indef''' Flusa at least gives the impression that they treat every disagreement as an opportunity to bludgeon their opponent. As for the ANI flu they're suffering, I'm not sure it has any bearing here; I can't think of any reasonable explanation they could provide for treating Wikipedia as an adversarial platform rather than a collaborative one. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 03:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support conditional indef''' on the condition that they agree to participate in an ANI case. The result of the discussion could very easily end in an indef, but until they're willing to discuss their behavior, we can't be assured they wont continue to be disruptive and a net negative. [[User:DarmaniLink|DarmaniLink]] ([[User talk:DarmaniLink|talk]]) 16:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
'''Support unconditional indef''' Flusa’s comments are frankly beyond the pale of acceptable behavior.--[[User:Insanityclown1|Insanityclown1]] ([[User talk:Insanityclown1|talk]]) 13:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'll indef pblock from main and talkspace for [[WP:ANIFLU]]. Happy for anyone to alter this block once they've recovered. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 17:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== User:RocketKnightX Disruptive Editing ==
{{Userlinks|RocketKnightX}}

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1258112750]. They were invited to the AfD discussion and then went to [[15.ai]] and deleted the AfD notice [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15.ai&oldid=1261675587] and declared my policy based removal of [[WP:NOSOCIAL]] and [[WP:YOUTUBE]] external links  to be vandalism [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15.ai&oldid=1261675498]. Their edit summary and some of their activity demonstrates a lack of maturity[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ltbdl&diff=prev&oldid=1248757339]. He was also warned for making personal attacks [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RocketKnightX#c-Liz-20241117041900-Personal_attacks] coupled with their past activity on Wikipedia such as this edit summary[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stepanakert_Memorial&oldid=prev&diff=1193554236] I think some manner of intervention is warranted at this point. --<b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 10:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
: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 [[Special:Diff/1261675498|here]] is not good either. Doing these things after [[Special:Diff/1258112750|promising to stop]] "causing issues" at the article is block-worthy. Blocked 31 hours. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 11:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC).
: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. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]])  12:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145#RocketKnightX] <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 13:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

===[[User:Tacotron2]] attempted [[WP:VOTESTACK]]===
{{Userlinks|Tacotron2}}
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 {{tq|The person who solicits other people inappropriately may be subject to administrative review if the behavior is severe enough.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rsjaffe#c-Rsjaffe-20241207041900-Tacotron2-20241207040700], my colleague apparently took that as a sign to hit the campaign trail. When I saw they solictied RocketKnightX[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RocketKnightX&diff=prev&oldid=1261655860] and others[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UnstableDiffusion&diff=prev&oldid=1261654895][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DIYeditor&diff=prev&oldid=1261654850] to the AfD I left a warning  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tacotron2&oldid=1261676477] about their canvassing. They proceeded to canvass more anyway [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elmidae&diff=prev&oldid=1261701914][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JeffUK&diff=prev&oldid=1261701963][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FrostyBeep&diff=prev&oldid=1261702004]. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 14:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

:I didn't see your first message. It wasn't done intentionally. [[User:Tacotron2|Tacotron2]] ([[User talk:Tacotron2|talk]]) 17:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RocketKnightX&diff=prev&oldid=1261655860]
::* Canvassed someone whom you believed would support your outcome because they believed a source was reliable.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UnstableDiffusion&diff=prev&oldid=1261654895]
::* Canvassed someone who said use the source until someone contests [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DIYeditor&diff=prev&oldid=1261654850]
::* Canvassed someone who voted keep the last AfD [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elmidae&diff=prev&oldid=1261701914]
::* Canvassed someone who voted keep the last AfD [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JeffUK&diff=prev&oldid=1261701963]
::* Canassed someone who voted keep the last AfD. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FrostyBeep&diff=prev&oldid=1261702004]
::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]]. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 23:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::Not done intentionally? In the discussion on my talk page ([[User talk:Rsjaffe/Archives/2024 1#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? —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 01:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Tacotron2|Tacotron2]] ([[User talk:Tacotron2|talk]]) 21:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::OK, read [[WP:CAN]], and please reply that you understand and will follow the behavioral guideline from now on. Thanks. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 21:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I understand. I will follow the behavioral guidelines. Sorry again. [[User:Tacotron2|Tacotron2]] ([[User talk:Tacotron2|talk]]) 01:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thank you very much. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 01:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

===A Summary===
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 [[WP:DRN|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 [[WP:TLDR|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 [[WP:TBAN|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 [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] stating either that it is under maintenance or that it is abandoned.
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Robert McClenon|contribs]]) </small>

===Proposal 1:  [[WP:SITEBAN|Site Ban]] for [[User:RocketKnightX]]===
{{atop|1=Not passed. The lack of input indicates this isn't a concern rising to the level of a need for a ban. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 07:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)}}
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 [[WP:VAND|vandalism]].  I think that RocketKnightX has exhausted the patience of the community and should be [[WP:CBAN|banned by the community]].
*'''Support''' as proposer.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' When I looked at their history, they have a history of incivility, borderline [[WP:NATIONALIST]] editing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stepanakert_Memorial&oldid=prev&diff=1193554236][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Telephone_numbers_in_Armenia&diff=prev&oldid=1252902141],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=prev&oldid=1193057718] 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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15.ai&diff=prev&oldid=1248766826] including at one point bizarrely restoring a massive plot synopsis that another editor had created [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mean_One&diff=1164841636&oldid=1158412822] that had been removed by two different editors for being too long [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mean_One&oldid=1158437370][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mean_One&oldid=1158404160]. --<b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 23:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose.''' I see Robert enumerates exactly the same problems with RocketKnightX's editing as I did [[Special:Diff/1261681069|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 [[WP:AGF|not supposed to do that]], and I'll point out that RKX agreed to stop [[Special:Diff/1258112750|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 [[Special:Diff/1258112750|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. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 13:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC).
*:I do feel that [[WP:CIR]] is a very valid, chronic concern with this editor ''regardless'' of edit warring, specifically {{tq|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 {{tq|Too hard. This site is the hardest thing to do.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RocketKnightX#c-RocketKnightX-20241019110400-BrocadeRiverPoems-20241017215000]. Coupled with dropping edit summaries like "I said stop!" and "deal with it" and their [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] attitude on talkpages [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:15.ai&diff=prev&oldid=1249120032] 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''. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 14:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I must confess, I am a tad confused as to how one demonstrates {{tq|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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15.ai&oldid=1261675498]. Oh well. It would seem I have a completely incorrect understanding of what this whole "chronic behavioral problem" business is. Mea culpa. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 13:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - per Bishonen. The short block is justified. Leaping to an indefinite for the same offence is premature. My patience isn't exhausted (yet). [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 08:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== [[User:Rsk6400]] reported by [[User:TwinBoo]] ==


*{{userlinks|Rsk6400}}

I’ve come here to report the user above for his misconduct on the [[Template:Discrimination]] page. [[Template talk:Discrimination#Excluding some nationalities, while keeping others|He has insisted there should be a criteria for pages linked]], and even after I [[Template talk:Discrimination#RfC about ethnicity inclusion|filed an RfC that disagreed with him]] he has refused to oblige and reverted my subsequent edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Discrimination&diff=prev&oldid=1263027301]. Even before this, without consensus, he has been reverting edits against his views [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Discrimination&diff=prev&oldid=1262296297] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Discrimination&diff=prev&oldid=1260736316] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Discrimination&diff=prev&oldid=1243391065] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Discrimination&diff=prev&oldid=1249736405]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Discrimination&diff=prev&oldid=1228231931] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Discrimination&diff=prev&oldid=1228233591].

Alongside disregarding the RfC, he labelled it as "bogus" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Discrimination&diff=prev&oldid=1263027656], and reverted the disruptive editing warning I left him  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rsk6400&diff=prev&oldid=1263066183]. He has derided anyone against him as "edit warring" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Discrimination&diff=prev&oldid=1262410717], despite the fact he is the one causing most of the template's disputes. This is a blatant violation of [[WP:OWN]] and he should at least be blocked from editing the page. —[[User:TwinBoo|𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚗𝙱𝚘𝚘]] ([[User talk:TwinBoo|talk]]) 15:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:First you should stop edit warring. [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 15:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:TwinBook, your comments imply that an RfC found a consensus that Rsk6400 is violating ("an RfC that disagreed with him", "disregarding the RfC"), but the RfC was only opened 10 December and has not reached consensus yet. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 16:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::What do you mean? The RfC has been open since the 2 December (nearing 2 weeks!) and has been getting an exceptionally slow response. Rsk has not waited and still redirected others to his non-existent "consensus" on the talk page. I’m doubtful a full consensus will even be reached seeing how little replies have appeared… —[[User:TwinBoo|𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚗𝙱𝚘𝚘]] ([[User talk:TwinBoo|talk]]) 16:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You're right, I misread date of last comment for when it was opened. But it's still an open RfC. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 16:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:I want point out that (1) TwinBoo used Template:uw-disruptive3 on my talk page without any reasonable justification[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rsk6400&diff=prev&oldid=1263065083], (2) their RfC is faulty, as I pointed out to them in a discussion more than a week ago[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ADiscrimination&diff=1261158930&oldid=1260837737], (3) they haven't made any contribution to the discussion on [[Template_talk:Discrimination]] since Dec 3rd, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Discrimination&action=history the page history], and - maybe not so important - that I corrected "bogus" to "faulty" hours before they complained about that word[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ADiscrimination&diff=1263036084&oldid=1263027656]. Sorry for the last point, but for the rest, I think it's a boomerang. [[User:Rsk6400|Rsk6400]] ([[User talk:Rsk6400|talk]]) 19:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::Without any reasonable justification, eh? It’s a template for disruptive edits, which I think I have shown there is no shortage of; as for the discussion, any points I make don't seem to get across to you, instead you opt to ignore me and anyone else hoping they will back down and let you have hegemony over the template.
::Finally, I don't see why you're so mad about the RfC. It's not worth creating one on another page as that won't account for all of the other pages, and I don't understand your comment about how it doesn't apply to our disagreement — even if it was acceptable in your eyes, I'm sure you'd refuse to oblige to any result that doesn't favour your view, as you've exhibited on the template. I apologise that it had to come to a report, but if you were willing to reach a settlement this could've been avoided. —[[User:TwinBoo|𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚗𝙱𝚘𝚘]] ([[User talk:TwinBoo|talk]]) 19:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::[[WP:ONUS]], It isn't on him to justify ''not'' including your edit and work towards a "settlement". Also [[WP:STEWARDSHIP]], being the initiator of most disputes (the one disputing content) is not "causing" disputes, it's the nature for the encyclopedia, [[WP:BRD]]. The template wasn't called for either, and what you were doing was effectively edit warring as well. 
:::I think a trouting at minimum is in order for the opener. [[User:DarmaniLink|DarmaniLink]] ([[User talk:DarmaniLink|talk]]) 13:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Without such a "trouting", TwinBoo will think that edit warring is OK and that templating a constructive user for "disruptive editing" is OK, too. [[User:Rsk6400|Rsk6400]] ([[User talk:Rsk6400|talk]]) 09:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

{{Clear}}
== Pov pushing on Joseph Sitt ==
{{atop|1=OP will discuss on article talk page. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{articlelinks|Joseph Sitt}}
Recently a large amount of pov pushing has been occuring on the page for [[Joseph Sitt]]. This involved downplaying his involvement in some political wattsapp group. <br>
diffs:<br>
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Sitt&diff=prev&oldid=1263804906<br>
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Sitt&diff=prev&oldid=1263782233<br>
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Sitt&diff=prev&oldid=1262288729<br>
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Sitt&diff=prev&oldid=1262288603<br>
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Sitt&diff=prev&oldid=1262284212<br>
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Sitt&diff=prev&oldid=1262283952<br>
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Sitt&diff=prev&oldid=1262281846<br>
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Sitt&diff=prev&oldid=1261362541<br>
users:<br>
[[User:Kthor2021]]<br>
[[User:71.172.82.234]]<br>
[[User:InsightSeeker1]] <span style="font-family: Arial; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">[[User:Gaismagorm|<span style="color: teal">Gaismagorm</span>]] [[User talk:Gaismagorm|<span style="color: teal">(talk)</span>]]</span> 19:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Why don't you start by creating a discussion about it at [[Talk:Joseph Sitt]]? I note that nobody has posted anything substantive there in the ten years that this article has existed. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::alright, i will <span style="font-family: Arial; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">[[User:Gaismagorm|<span style="color: teal">Gaismagorm</span>]] [[User talk:Gaismagorm|<span style="color: teal">(talk)</span>]]</span> 22:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== User:115.166.47.77 ==
{{atop|1=Blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 07:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|115.166.47.77}}

This ip is constantly adding complete nonsense to pages, i have given them 4 warnihgs and they didn't stop. [[User:Stumbleannnn|~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~]] [[User talk:Stumbleannnn|Talk to me]] 06:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

:I would recommend you to report this to [[WP:AIV]]. ANI is for: {{tq|This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.}} <b>[[User:PEPSI697|<span style="background:#00BFFF;color:#0000FF;border:3px solid sky blue;padding 1px;">PEPSI697</span>]]</b> [[User talk:PEPSI697|💬]] | [[Special:Contributions/PEPSI697|📝]] 06:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Oh [[User:Stumbleannnn|~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~]] [[User talk:Stumbleannnn|Talk to me]] 06:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:They haven't stopped yet. [[User:Stumbleannnn|~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~]] [[User talk:Stumbleannnn|Talk to me]] 06:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Not the first IP in that range that has done this([[Special:Contribs/115.166.61.113|1]], [[Special:Contribs/115.166.41.32|2]], [[Special:Contribs/115.166.38.218|3]])...
:could we also get a rollback of their edits? &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:809E:BA01:D0BD:CD6F:7C33:D1A2|2804:F1...33:D1A2]] ([[Special:Contributions/2804:F14::/32|::/32]]) ([[User talk:2804:F14:809E:BA01:D0BD:CD6F:7C33:D1A2|talk]]) 06:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have a feeling they may be bots, but i would need a little more proof. [[User:Stumbleannnn|~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~]] [[User talk:Stumbleannnn|Talk to me]] 06:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:The IP seems to have edited the pages so they wouldn't appear at [[Special:AncientPages]] the next time it is updated. [[WP:NOTHERE]] applies. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">[[User:MimirIsSmart|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">MimirIsSmart</span>]] [[User talk:MimirIsSmart|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">(talk)</span>]]</span> 06:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah. [[User:Stumbleannnn|~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~]] [[User talk:Stumbleannnn|Talk to me]] 06:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Difficult rangeblock problem, beyond /64 ==
{{atop|1=All done. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*[[Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Youngstown music vandal]]
*{{rangevandal|2600:1016:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40}}

In November, the Youngstown music vandal resumed using IPs from [[Special:Contributions/2600:1016:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40]]. This large range was blocked by {{u|NinjaRobotPirate}} in April 2023. If we block the /40 again, there will be collateral damage to good-faith users [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Bill_of_Rights&diff=prev&oldid=1262931167 making edits such as this one]. More tightly targeted blocks by {{u|Widr}} to the ranges [[Special:Contributions/2600:1016:B04D:8391:0:0:0:0/64]] and [[Special:Contributions/2600:1016:B041:FCB6:0:0:0:0/64]] have not stopped the vandal. Should we block the larger /40 range? [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 18:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{u|Daniel Case}} just blocked the range [[Special:Contributions/2600:1016:B071:14CD:0:0:0:0/64]], which contains only one active IP. The other blocked /64 ranges also typically contain one disruptive IP, which means this person has access to a larger range. The /64 blocks aren't cutting it. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 05:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Blocked two weeks. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 06:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks! Done here. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 18:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== 50.100.44.204  ==

[[Special:Contributions/50.100.44.204|50.100.44.204]] has been repeatedly making requests at RFPP an wasting the admin's time [[Special:Contributions/2603:8001:6940:2100:45DD:82B7:C7F7:24EA|2603:8001:6940:2100:45DD:82B7:C7F7:24EA]] ([[User talk:2603:8001:6940:2100:45DD:82B7:C7F7:24EA|talk]]) 19:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:I'm not sure this fits under the chronic criteria. With only one edit in the last several days, and that was RFPP and while it didn't result in PP, it did result in the blocking of an editor. In fact of the 5 total RFPP, only 2 of them resulted in a decline, with the other 3 receiving some form of action. While they do seem to be heavy handed with the indef-pp, I'd suggest it isn't urgent nor chronic. Additionally, is there a reason why you haven't taken this to their talk page first? [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 20:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:I was going to comment here, but got an edit conflict with Tiggerjay saying the same thing. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

== Cleopatra ==
{{atop
| result = {{user|Sobek2000}} is blocked from editing [[Cleopatra]] for 31 hours for edit warring. Please discuss issues on article talk. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 23:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
}}

{{user|Sobek2000}} has made four consecutive reverts (1 was however minor) at [[Cleopatra]] restoring their preferred version: [[Special:Diff/1263464608|diff1]], [[Special:Diff/1263464851|diff2]], [[Special:Diff/1263466802|diff3]], [[Special:Diff/1263480469|diff4]] (see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cleopatra&action=history history]). That was when / after User:Remsense had already warned them ([[Special:Diff/1263467028|diff]]), informed them about [[WP:ONUS]] and [[WP:CONSENSUS]], and adviced them to self-rv until they establish consensus at the talkpage. I explained to them the reason for the RV and clarified that all they need is just consensus and some patience ([[User_talk:Piccco#Cleopatra|discussion at my TP]]). I tried to clarify the same thing at the article's talkpage ([[Talk:Cleopatra#Sourcing_style|discussion]]), yet some of my comments were labelled as nonsense, just like some of the article's contents. I can understand that it may be due to frustration, nevertheless the user already has more recent E.W. warnings (see talk) and said they had an older account that they abandoned for the same reasons, basically edit-warring ([[Special:Diff/1263469696|diff]]). Keep in mind that I even made it clear that some of their additions could well be restored, if more editors examined them and were okay with them ([[Special:Diff/1263459580|1 example]]). [[User:Piccco|Piccco]] ([[User talk:Piccco|talk]]) 23:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:Last thing was not revertion - I simply made new edtition.
:Last warning was made when I was not aware  of situation, and I was completely rights as even source of opposite site was agreeing with me. You completely mistepresented me - I did not abandon my old account - I stopped editing, because my editions kept being reverted and I was not confident enough to fight against it. It was before I had account, I was editing without it. I told about it to show you that I don't trust you - and you just show me I should not. 
:I have no idea how "establishing consensus" looks like - I left changes and explained them. [[User:Sobek2000|Sobek2000]] ([[User talk:Sobek2000|talk]]) 23:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:Also, to clarify - my last edition: I added things manually, nor reverting automatically. I added back only SOME things, I did not include my notes that need improvement. I left both matters in Talk and asked for any critique. I was open to discuss, but your entire argument was "you are new, keep waiting for more experienced person". If you don't think you are experienced enough to approve or not my changes, then what is even point of this? I am sure 'more experienced' person would eventually made their way and I could have actual discussion with them about content. Page needed few corrections and I provided them. I repeat: I did not borught back my entire old edition, only part of it that I think is the least problematic.  [[User:Sobek2000|Sobek2000]] ([[User talk:Sobek2000|talk]]) 23:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Please check if they are sockpuppets ==
{{Atop|This is nothing but a malplaced, frivolous personal attack by the OP.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 15:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}

Hi administrators, I have been recently editing [[Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu]]. I am new to wikipedia and had many occasions when I got engaged with various sockpuppets and got blocked for edit warring, [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#h-Lingayat Vani-20241119174400|Example1]],[[User talk:私は日本が大好きです#c-Izno-20241214104800-Blocked as a sockpuppet|Example2]], [[User talk:Izno#c-171.240.127.235-20241219075900-Please Grant Rollback Rights|Example3]]. This notice is just to check if [[User:Ratnahastin]], [[User:NXcrypto]], [[User:Capitals00]] are sockpuppets. I do not have necessary tools and knowledge to find it. Please help. Thank You ! [[User:PerspicazHistorian|PerspicazHistorian]] ([[User talk:PerspicazHistorian|talk]]) 14:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:Please follow the instructions at [[WP:SPI]] if you believe these editors are socking. But, also, you are required to notify users if you bring them to the attention of this noticeboard. You have not done so. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Edit warring and addition of unsourced content from [[Special:Contributions/174.198.14.172]] ==
{{atop|1=What the administrators should do is look at this and say "this has already been dealt with", so that is what this administrator has done. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}
This IP has been edit warring lately. Maybe there a block could be warranted.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Milo8505|Milo8505]] ([[User talk:Milo8505#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Milo8505|contribs]]) 08:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The IP hasn't edited at all in more than half a day, and you only just gave them a level 4 final warning. ''Another'' IP - probably the same user having hopped - does seem to have picked up the edit war, but [[Tomb of the Julii|the article in question]] has been protected. I'm not sure why this is a matter for ANI? - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 08:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::Just wanted to bring it to your attention. I'll leave it to the administrators to do what they should. [[User:Milo8505|Milo8505]] <sub>[[User_talk:Milo8505|(talk)]]</sub> 12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Jisshu copyright and sourcing issues after unblock ==
{{atop|1=[[WP:ROPE]] given and, sadly, used. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{user|Jisshu}} 
Blocked a while ago for copyright issues, socked, and got given a second chance unblock today by @[[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]]. 
Today, the editor created [[Naudh Singh]], which contains both extensive close paraphrasing and sourcing issues. Take, for example the first paragraph:
*{{tq|'''Budha Singh had two sons, Nodh Singh and Chanda Singh.''' While '''Nodh Singh''' stayed '''with his father at Sukarchak, Chanda Singh settled in Sandhanwala''', '''Sialkot district''', and became known as '''Sandhanwalia'''. Chanda Singh's '''sons later '''moved '''to Rajal Sansi, which became their permanent home.''' '''Nodh Singh married into an influential Sansi Jat family''', gaining '''status '''and building a large '''house at Sukarchak''', known as Sukarchakia Garhi.}} (Cited to: Singh, Khushwant (11 October 2004). ''A History of the Sikhs: 1469–1838'' (2nd ed))
And compare to the external text:
*{{tq|'''Budha Singh had two sons, Nodh Singh and Chanda Singh. Nodh Singh''' remained '''with his father at Sukarchak. Chanda Singh settled  at Sandhanwala''' in '''Sialkot district''', and was called '''Sandhanwalia'''. '''Later '''on his '''sons''' migrated '''to Raja Sansi, which became their permanent home'''. '''Nodh Singh was married in an influential Sansi Jat family''' of Gulab Singh at Majitha, 20 kms from Amritsar. This gave him a '''status''', and he built a big '''house at Sukarchak''' with a spacious, compound surrounded by a high mud wall. It was called Sukarchakia Garhi.}} (which is ACTUALLY from Hari Ram Gupta's 2001 ''The Sikhs Commonwealth or Rise and Fall of the Sikh Misls'' [https://archive.org/stream/HistoryOfTheSikhsVol.IvTheSikhCommonwealthOrRiseAndFallOfSikh/HistoryOfTheSikhsVol.IvTheSikhCommonwealthOrRiseAndFallOfSikhMisls_djvu.txt]

Could an admin please re-block? Thanks, [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|GreenLipstickLesbian]] ([[User talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|talk]]) 00:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:I've reapplied the block given the [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Call_for_decisive_admins_to_clear_backlog|suggestion of rope]] in another discussion. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::Well, that's disappointing. Not your reblock, the users' behavior. However, this is what handing out rope is for, to test whether they really mean it, and that is clearly a ''very'' close paraphrasing, and apparently mis-attributed as well. [[User:Beeblebrox|El Beeblerino]] [[User talk:Beeblebrox|<sup>if you're not into the whole brevity thing</sup>]] 01:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::They were editing on simple-wiki. You could have checked their contributions there, observed the continued issues, and educated them. Instead, this. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 01:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== [[User:Budisgood]] and competence ==
{{atop|result=Budisgood has been blocked from Article and File space which addresses some concerns. If editors believe there is more than needs to be resolved here, feel free to reopen this discussion. I don't find the complaint against The Banner has any basis and, if anything, it seems like Budisgood has a fixation on The Banner by copying their signature and User page. This is also not a valid form of copying which I hope is not habitual. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 09:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)<br>
<br>
Adding onto this for the record - Budisgood has been indef'd for sockpuppetry. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
}}

*{{userlinks|Budisgood}}

In my opinion, [[user:Budisgood]] is an utterly incompetent editor, bordering on plain vandalism. Every advice and warning is ignored ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABudisgood&diff=1262918848&oldid=1262917860 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABudisgood&diff=1259142881&oldid=1259142408 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABudisgood&diff=1252066897&oldid=1237975808 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABudisgood&diff=1233679086&oldid=1233678807 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABudisgood&diff=1227301168&oldid=1227300157 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABudisgood&diff=1226913825&oldid=1223392645 here])  including MOS-guidelines on how to structure articles. Beside that, it looks like he has a conflict of interest regarding [[Mountmellick GAA]] and [[Ballinagar GAA]]. The last article  reinstated after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Ballinagar+GAA being removed] for copyvio.

A few examples:
# Is unclear in what the scope is of its own articles, like [[Killeigh parish]]. There was extensive discussion about this at [[Talk:Killeigh parish]]. The article was moved to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killeigh_parish&diff=1256624466&oldid=1256558272 draft space] by {{ping|Guliolopez}} but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Killeigh_parish&action=history straight moved back into main space] by Budisgood without changing a letter.
# Stating that GAA-clubs are part of the local Roman Catholic parish: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mountmellick_(parish)&diff=prev&oldid=1261233417 here] (in fact, multiple times)
# Copying my userpage to his user page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Budisgood&oldid=1258418723 here]
# Claiming that the borders of baronies are based on the borders of RC-parishes, while baronies were instituted in a time that the Catholic church was illegal and prosecuted. See [[User_talk:Budisgood#Strange_edits]]
# Adding short description that are far too long, like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clough%E2%80%93Ballacolla_GAA&diff=prev&oldid=1261567066 here]
# Copyright violations, [[Ballinagar GAA]] etc.
# Does not understand the principles of proper sourcing, like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarsfields_Mountmellick_LFC&diff=1263056692&oldid=1263056317 here] and in an earlier version of Ballinagar GAA where he tried to source historical  venues with Google Maps.
# falsifying protection templates [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shanahoe_GAA&diff=prev&oldid=1262914684 here]

And this is without [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Budisgood] his struggles on Commons where he is fighting (by removing deletion templates) to keep files that are - in my humble opinion - copyvio.
<span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 14:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:[[User:The Banner]] seems to have taken on a personal veto against me and as far as I can see there is no apparent reason. Any relevant advice given on article structures was taken on board and can be seen in the editing of [[Shanahoe GAA]],other recommendations about my edits such as including page number in source of the information of large file aswell as other recommendations that have been made by editors such as but not limited to [[user:The Banner]] have all been taken into consideration in my edits.As for copying userpage it can be seen from looking at my userpage i did not copy the Banners userpage I simply used some of the same things that are on his userpage.
:As for copyright on [[Ballinagar GAA]] there is no copyright on Ballinagar GAA and infact during editing of it I used a copyright tool to ensure of this.
:As for scope of articles such as [[Killeigh parish]] I made a proposal to remove the article and any small amounts of relevance be merged into related articles but this was stopped by another editor which objected to this.
:Overall from my experience with The Banner he has been very petty and this is also backed up by other editors who agreed many of his revisions undoing my edits were questionable especially since some of what was removed was sourced-in one case another editor restored sourced information that the banner repeatedly removed.This has undoubtably lowered my ability to see him as a credible unbiased editor and not just someone with a personal grudge against me and as he seems to wish to report me I intend on taking my own actions against him. [[User:Budisgood|Budisgood]] ([[User talk:Budisgood|talk]]) 23:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have a ''personal veto'' against you???? 
::In fact, many times I have tried to help you. Regarding the copyvio at Ballinagar GAA, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Ballinagar+GAA the log book of this page]. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 00:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Your actions seem to be touch and go either hot or cold, like holding your hands near a boiling kettle it seems like its helping you by warming you but at any second it could spit and burn you,I see this as a very good summarisation of your actions. You go from acting genuinely helpfull and a beneficial editor until suddenly are triggered and return to disruptive editing and not providing proper reasoning for your actions and in your haste removing relevant information. [[User:Budisgood|Budisgood]] ([[User talk:Budisgood|talk]]) 01:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{replyto|Budisgood}} There is no tool which can perfectly tell if some text might be a [[WP:Copyvio]] problem. If you are primarily relying on tools to tell you if something is a copyvio I suggest you stop. While using such tools isn't forbidden, they're really intended to help others detect if someone else's work might be a copyvio. Instead you need to change the process you use when writing stuff such that copyvios are unlikely. And copyvios are a very serious thing here. While editors will generally try to help you, it is completely on you to change your editing as needed to ensure you don't make copyright violations. Don't expect editors to hold your hand to help you avoid copyvios and don't be surprised if editors get very frustrated with you if you introduce copyright violations especially if you do it again after being warned and that you will quickly be indefinitely blocked for it. It does seem some revisions of Ballinagar GAA have been deleted as copyvio. Since I'm not an admin, I can't see who introduced these revisions but if it was you that means you did introduce copyright violations in the past and should not be downplaying this. It may be that some earlier revisions of the page were not copyright violations and so these were kept. But regardless you need to ensure you never introduce copyright violations ever again and also don't deny you did it when people mention it. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 02:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I used the tool to check for copyright after I was told by an editor that a copyright tool they used showed that it could possibly copyright [[User:Budisgood|Budisgood]] ([[User talk:Budisgood|talk]]) 08:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::What you're saying is still fairly unclear. If someone said a specific tool suggested a copyvio problem and you're surprised by this then it might be interesting to try that exact tool and see what it says. If it turns out this editor seems to be wrong about what the tool says then it's reasonable to ask the editor what's up. However if someone has said something is a copyvio problem then for you as the writer, there's no need to use any tool. You should be able to say it's not a copyvio because you know it's not because of how you wrote the text. You definitely cannot use any tool to prove it's not a copyvio, that would require human judgment comparing the alleged source text and what you said you wrote. More to the point, there seems to be no doubt that someone did introduce a copyvio since some version of the Ballinagar GAA remains deleted and you don't seem to have challenged this. If you are the one who introduced this text, then yes you did introduce a copyvio at one time so you shouldn't be downplaying this even if you've now gotten better. The fact that other stuff you've done may not be copyvio doesn't mean what you earlier did wasn't copyvio. And you do need to make sure that you do not introduce such copyvios again. Just to be clear, you cannot do this by any tools, you can only do this by changing how you edit so that your previous mistake doesn't repeat. Since you did copy the entirety of The Banner's user page as you acknowledged [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Budisgood&diff=prev&oldid=1259151955] I wonder if there are fundamental problems with how you edit. Do you ever copy and paste some text from elsewhere and then re-write it? If you do this, you need to stop that ASAP and never do that again. Even if you don't accidentally save the text you copied and pasted, editing in that way means you are almost definitely going to introduce copyvios. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 10:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It might be interesting to compare [https://web.archive.org/web/20110222055605/http://mountmellick.laois.gaa.ie/sarsfieldshistory.html this archived page] and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarsfields_Mountmellick_LFC&oldid=1258970807 first version of Sarsfields Mountmellick LFC]. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 23:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::If you need to use a copyright tool to prevent yourself from committing copyright infringement, there's a serious [[WP:CIR]] issue here to deal with. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 03:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I subsequently used copyright tool after another editor raised that they were concerned it might be copyright [[User:Budisgood|Budisgood]] ([[User talk:Budisgood|talk]]) 08:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Budisgood from mainspace and file space, as well as uploads, because of the copyright issues raised in this thread. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 19:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

=== [[User:The Banner]] and Disruptive editing===
*{{userlinks|The Banner}}

[[User:The Banner]] seems to have taken on a personal veto aginst me and as far as I can see there us no apparent reason. Any relevant advice given on article structures was taken on board and can be seen in the editing of [[Shanahoe GAA]],other recommendations about my edits such as including page number in source of the information of large file aswell as other recommendations that have been made by editors such as but not limited to [[user:The Banner]] have all been taken into consideration in my edits.As for copying userpage it can be seen from looking at my userpage i did not copy the Banners userpage I simply used some of the same things that are on his userpage.
As for copyright on [[Ballinagar GAA]] there is no copyright on Ballinagar GAA and infact during editing of it I used a copyright tool to ensure of this.
As for scope of articles such as [[Killeigh parish]] my proposal to remove the article and any small amounts of relevance be merged into related articles but this was stopped by another editor which objected to this.
Overall from my experience with The Banner he has been very petty and this is also backed up by other editors who agreed many of his revisions undoing my edits were questionable especially since some of what was removed was sourced-in one case another editor restored sourced information that the banner repeatedly removed.This has undoubtably lowered my ability to see him as a credible unbiased editor and not just someone with a personal grudge against me and as he seems to wish to report me I intend on taking my own actions against him.
[[User:The Banner]] has since also decided to go and report me in another attempt to damage my reputation, it is understandable to give an editor recommendations if you dont agree with their editing methods and constructive criticism is even fair enough but The Banner's actions are just plain disruptive editing and I have raised these comcerns of how he undermines my edits but the problem is still not resolved, his actions leave me with no other choice but to report him in the hope that we can arive at some resolution to this problem.
[[User:Budisgood|Budisgood]] ([[User talk:Budisgood|talk]]) 00:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:Pure retaliation. And the full unedited copy of my user page can be seen in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Budisgood&oldid=1258418723 this version of his user page]. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 00:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::"Pure Retaliation" keep playing the blame game if you wish continue to convince yourself that u have done nothing, we are free to believe what we wush but truth is truth fmmmm [[User:Budisgood|Budisgood]] ([[User talk:Budisgood|talk]]) 01:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Budisgood, can you explain why you thought it constructive to post two copies of more or less the exact same message on ANI? Also why on earth does your signature above use the exact same formatting as The Banner's? [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 02:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Budisgood, it's incredibly troubling that after two different editors raised concerns over you copying The Banner's signature format, you chose to just change the signature to a normal one [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1263203083] without mentioning anywhere that you'd done so. Given this and some of your other replies, I'm starting to get the feeling you think correcting your mistakes somehow means they magically disappear as if you never made them. That's not how Wikipedia, or frankly most of the world, works. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 10:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Just to be clear, while I don't understand why you copied The Banner's signature format it's not a big deal. Frankly even if you'd just replied when modifying the signature and said something like "whops sorry I made a mistake and have changed my signature to a standard one" and didn't offer further explanation, I doubt anyone would have cared to query this further even if it is fairly weird. (Did you copy The Banner's complain and modify it? If so this is a very weird thing to do, still not by itself something I'd care about except in so much my point above how you really should not do that when trying to summarise what some source has written about something.) Likewise I'm not that fussed about you copying The Banner's user page and modifying it, again except if it reveals something about how you sometimes deal with summarising what other sources have written. The copyvio is a far bigger deal but it is a mistake editors make so not by itself disqualifying. The problem is that you seem to keep acting as if you didn't do something you did, rather than acknowledging your mistakes when they come up. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 11:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::In my opinion, it is a more structural problem, as shown in his actions on [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Budisgood Commons]. Copy from internet, removed as copyvio, uploaded again, removed as copyvio. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 12:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::While there is things being highlighted here that are relevant I still dont see what actually is there of enough significance to warrant the report, anything that may have been copyright I consequently edited myself,  and none of the reasons given are of recent actions so I am still confused as to why now I am being reported [[User:Budisgood|Budisgood]] ([[User talk:Budisgood|talk]]) 17:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{reply|Budisgood}} I note you have not yet answered an administrator's question. Please do so immediately: This is a thread ''you'' started on an administrators' noticeboard. [[User:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]''[[User talk:Serial_Number_54129|<sup><span style="color:#7a0427;">A New Face in Hell</span></sup>]] 18:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::<small>I think you pinged the wrong person there. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Corrected. Thanks Phil! [[User:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]''[[User talk:Serial_Number_54129|<sup><span style="color:#7a0427;">A New Face in Hell</span></sup>]] 18:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
::::::::::I should note that also apparently {{ping|Budisgood}} ''went back'' and changed their signature where it had copied The Banner's to not copy it, which makes this even weirder. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{yo|Budisgood}} is there a reason that you copied {{no ping|The Banner}}'s signature in [[special:Diff/1263150959#User:The_Banner_and_Disruptive_editing|your filing this counter-complaint]]? I'm a bit confused as to how that happened, and I'd like to understand why. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 04:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Revoke talk page access for Bananamanwiki69 ==
{{atop|1=Peeled. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{user|Bananamanwiki69}} has been blocked as [[WP:NOTHERE]] and is simply using their talk page for personal attacks. TPA should be revoked. [[User:TornadoLGS|TornadoLGS]] ([[User talk:TornadoLGS|talk]]) 20:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:Done. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 21:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Disruptive editor ==
{{atop
| result = {{user|NicolasTn}} is blocked from editing [[Amdo]] for 31 hours for edit warring. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 00:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
}}

{{Userlinks|NicolasTn}} is being tendentious again, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amdo&diff=1263292712&oldid=1262190571 deleting referenced content] and making subtle changes to citations [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amdo&diff=prev&oldid=1262138598] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amdo&diff=next&oldid=1262138685]. After three months, and having been reverted by at least two editors, they suddenly want to engage in discussion, but unsurprisingly not before changing the page to their preferred version first. Considering that they are a single-purpose account, I tend to agree with [[WP:NOTHERE]] per {{u|Ahri Boy}}. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1246478344#Disruptive_editor previous ANI]. [[User:Vacosea|Vacosea]] ([[User talk:Vacosea|talk]]) 00:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for the courtesy ping. I just need a full rest. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 00:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:This looks like a content dispute. What is the justification for claiming [[WP:NOTHERE]]? [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 00:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== IP constantly removing WP:G1 template ==
{{atop|result=[[User:2601:5C8:4300:24B0:3574:CD1E:D8EC:EA8]] blocked as part of a range-block for 31 hours. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{IP|2601:5C8:4300:24B0:3574:CD1E:D8EC:EA8}} keeps removing the speedy deletion template on [[Draft:Random Charcters Watch (NO BOTS ALLOWED)]], which they created themselves. They've done it 5-6 times by now. [[User:mwwv|<span style="color:#f80;font-family:'Cascadia Code',monospace">'''mwwv'''</span>]] [[User Talk:mwwv|<span style="color:#f80"><sup>converse</sup></span>]]∫[[Special:Contribs/Mwwv|<span style="color:#f80"><sub>edits</sub></span>]] 22:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:There is also an example of a legal threat and/or personal attack on the draft, seen at the bottom of the page. I don't know what good this addition makes, but I felt like it's worth mentioning. [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 22:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

::Could be considered a PA but struck me as runofthemill vandal stuff. "My Youtube channel fined this loser user who wants to delete my page ONE MILLION DIMMADOLLARS" isn't a legal threat. Anyway, IP has been blocked by {{noping|Izno}}. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Oh, when I looked at it, it did not say Dimmadollars. It had it in USD, and no reference to Doug Dimmadome,  Owner of the Dimmsdale Dimmadome was made.
:::Either way, good riddance to bad rubbish. [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 01:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Dimmadangit, that was me being silly. "A Youtube channel fined somebody and sentenced them to jail" is not a serious threat. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== User:Ahmad Shazlan ==


This is the second time I post this here within the span of two days: [[User:Ahmad Shazlan]] has repeatedly insisted on inserting preferred content on the [[:Roti canai]] page, despite opposition from a number of users, myself included. I've several times encouraged them to start a discussion on the topic instead of edit warring, and I've even left a [[User talk:Ahmad Shazlan#Roti canai|note]] on their talk page, all of which they've ignored. They've already received a [[User talk:Ahmad Shazlan#December 2024|warning]], yet this hasn't stopped them from continuing to impose their preferred edits on the page. [[User:Revirvlkodlaku|Revirvlkodlaku]] ([[User talk:Revirvlkodlaku|talk]]) 13:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:Hello [[User:Revirvlkodlaku|Revirvlkodlaku]], I am not an admin, but I believe you need to provide [[WP:diffs|diffs]] of the user's rule-breaking behavior supporting your statements, as mentioned at the top of the page, in order to get any kind of response here; merely linking your warning(s) is not enough. [[User:NewBorders|NewBorders]] ([[User talk:NewBorders|talk]]) 05:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Revirvlkodlaku|Revirvlkodlaku]], they tried to engage on the article talk page and have been ignored. Please try to communicate on the talk page before bringing people to ANI. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 17:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Asilvering|asilvering]], I don't see the user as trying to engage in a meaningful way. They've dropped a few random comments on the talk while also edit warring on the page, completely disregarding my entreaties that they seek a consensus instead. [[User:Revirvlkodlaku|Revirvlkodlaku]] ([[User talk:Revirvlkodlaku|talk]]) 01:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::How on earth are they supposed to achieve the consensus you're telling them to seek if no one is responding to them on the talk page? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 01:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Much of the OP's edits (aside from updating short descriptions) consists of reverting contributions from other users despite having said in a previous unblock request that he would be "much more careful not to revert as frequently" and  that he would make dialogue his priority. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revirvlkodlaku&diff=prev&oldid=1255244166] In fact, another editor has called him out today on his talk page about an wholesale revert and as usual the OP responded on the defensive rather than acknowledging  what was being reproach to him.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revirvlkodlaku&diff=prev&oldid=1263758024] You'll notice that the OP hasn't even bothered answering to Asilvering and has basically abandoned this ANI discussion that he opened ''twice'' in two days now that the other editor has stopped editing and that the page was reverted to his preferred version.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roti_canai&action=history] [[Special:Contributions/76.65.72.160|76.65.72.160]] ([[User talk:76.65.72.160|talk]]) 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

== Danielle Bradbery ==
{{atop|result=Vandal has been blocked, edits have been revision deleted, article semi'd for 2 days but that might need to be extended if vandal returns. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{articlelinks|Danielle Bradbery}}
Danielle Bradbery's page is being edited by her stalker who keeps changing her name, ethnicity, and artist image to reflect that they are married. This is not accurate and despite updating her info to be correct and including sources, he is still going in and changing things including that she is Russian-American (she is not Russian), that her last name is Bradbery-Markin (it is just Bradbery as she is not in a relationship with this man) and that she is married to this man which she is not. How can we prevent him from having the ability to make changes on her Wiki since he is a stalker that has been blocked from all her social medias for her own safety.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:OKD97|OKD97]] ([[User talk:OKD97#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OKD97|contribs]]) 23:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Semi-protected the page for two days. Also tagged the image in question on Commons for speedy deletion as it's been very clearly Photoshopped. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:The vandalism is also happening on other language projects with different accounts/IPs: [https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/Shumadan62 Italian Wiki], [https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%86%D1%96%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0:%D0%92%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA/85.249.160.48 Ukrainian Wiki]. There may be more. [[User:Nakonana|Nakonana]] ([[User talk:Nakonana|talk]]) 00:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::This is a ''severe'' BLP violation and in my opinion, the semi-protection should be extended dramatically if this crap resumes in two days. {{u|Nakonana}}, you need to discuss the matter at the ANI equivalents in the Ukrainian and Italian Wikipedias. Administrators on the English Wikipedia have no power there. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 02:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::For a case of [[WP:HNE|apparent stalking]], 48h semi is ''very'' light, but I do agree with the thrust of what you're saying. {{ping|OKD97}} Have you considered possibly contacting [[User:Oversight|Oversight]] to have them suppress those edits? (And the fact I'm suggesting this is a sign that this ''shouldn't'' be openly discussed on-wiki too much; Oversight can do everything admins can with considerably more discretion.) —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 03:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I've RD2'd the revisions in question, as a note. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Just missed the archival but feel this is important enough for admins to see so I'll go ahead. It might be wise to keep an eye out on associated articles e.g. [[I Don't Believe We've Met]] as well. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 05:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:Note that disruption is continuing in other projects. This user need to be globally locked but I don't know the procedures to do so. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have made a report on [[meta:Steward requests/Global]]. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 16:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Mind you, these (and the other IPs) are likely viewers of his videos, rather than just him (see [[Special:Diff/1263408103|this edit summary]]), still [[WP:MEAT|meatpuppetry]] though. I cleaned up some missed vandalism in 2 other articles after Nil Einne pointed it out, but haven't found any more on EnWiki at least, for now. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80F5:9F01:F9AE:1494:463A:A931|2804:F1...3A:A931]] ([[Special:Contribs/2804:F14::/32|::/32]]) ([[User talk:2804:F14:80F5:9F01:F9AE:1494:463A:A931|talk]]) 17:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::This is probably not done by Markin himself, but by his aggressive subscribers who are engaged in trolling, who troll both him and her. But this does not change the essence [[User:Medžuslovjanin|Medžuslovjanin]] ([[User talk:Medžuslovjanin|talk]]) 18:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

== Ashutoshpaul ==

User @[[User:Ashutoshpaul|Ashutoshpaul]] has been registered on Wikipedia since 2008 and has only ever edited in one specific article: [[Sultanpur Lodhi]] - I noticed they keep making edits not in-compliance with Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|MOS]], such as not following sentence-case capitalization rules, bolding unnecessarily within the article body, and adding their signature in the content of the article. I opened-up a talk-page discussion (see: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ashutoshpaul#Reverts_on_Sultanpur_Lodhi]) on their user-page to discuss this with them, however their responses are concerning. I tried explaining Wikipedia's rules and how they were violating them but they basically concluded that the rules do not apply to them (for some reason) and that they did nothing wrong. Also, they believe adding their signature into the article's contents is justified since they spent effort working on the article, as per their own words. Thus, they just pushed their edit on the page again (see: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1263799752&oldid=1263796487&title=Sultanpur_Lodhi]). I feel I am not able to convince them to change their ways and require admin help. [[User:MaplesyrupSushi|MaplesyrupSushi]] ([[User talk:MaplesyrupSushi|talk]]) 18:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Talk page messages telling them not to "sign" their edits started in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ashutoshpaul?vanarticle=Sultanpur%20Lodhi&noautowarn=true&vanarticlerevid=1263799752#c-Jjsingh1981-2012-02-22T08:00:00.000Z-Vandalism_to_userpage 2012]. They haven't engaged on their talk page until MaplesyrupSushi's recent communications, so at least they're responding now but it's [[WP:IDHT]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ashutoshpaul&diff=prev&oldid=1263799523] [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 18:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{Ping|MaplesyrupSushi}} I don't see where Ashutoshpaul has been adding their signature to article contents recently. Can you provide a recent diff? However, I do see where they recently added two tildes to article contents in a few places. As you can see here ~~, that doesn't add a signature. If that's what you are talking about, it will be helpful to be more specific as to minimize the potential for confusion. [[Special:Contributions/216.126.35.202|216.126.35.202]] ([[User talk:216.126.35.202|talk]]) 19:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::In this diff: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1263799752&oldid=1263796487&title=Sultanpur_Lodhi], under the 'Post independence and present' section of the article, they added: "--Ashutosh Paul 17:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)" into the article's content. [[User:MaplesyrupSushi|MaplesyrupSushi]] ([[User talk:MaplesyrupSushi|talk]]) 19:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

== IP [[Special:Contributions/49.207.180.140|49.207.180.140]]  ==

{{userlinks|49.207.180.140}}
Persistent addition of unsourced content including in regards to BLPs including unsourced birthdates and spouse additions. Examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yuvina_Parthavi&diff=prev&oldid=1263540984] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Priyanka_Kothari&diff=prev&oldid=1263354897] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Majid_Majidi&diff=prev&oldid=1262854507] latest edit from today was also unsourced here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aadukalam&diff=prev&oldid=1263710703] and prior edit yesterday attempted to use another Wikipedia article as the source [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghilli&diff=prev&oldid=1263570472]. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]])  22:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

== Unsourced LLM additions and ABF ==
{{atop|1=Blocked per [[WP:NLT]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{Userlinks|Trj56msn}} has been adding unsourced LLM slop to [[Cleavage (breasts)]] and [[Upskirt]], under the guise of "[[Special:Diff/1263736797|rewriting [...] in a way which is not sexist]]". They're trying to justify this by saying that {{tq|[t]here were sentences that were written very clearly by a male who fetishises cleavage and sees women as a sex object}} and that they will {{tq|[put] this forward to UN Women, and I will be listing the usernames contributing to MVAWG}} ([[User talk:Trj56msn#December 2024)]], which is both a clear violation of AGF and an [[WP:INTIMIDATION]] attempt. – 🌻 [[User:Hilst|Hilst]] ([[User talk:Hilst|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hilst|contribs]]) 13:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Threatening to report Wikipedia users to the United Nations is quite bizarre, but clearly [[WP:INTIMIDATION]] and maybe even a [[WP:LEGAL]] violation. [[User:Di (they-them)|Di (they-them)]] ([[User talk:Di (they-them)|talk]]) 13:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Threatening to report editors to the UN is like threatening to report them to the Peoria Ladies' Garden Society. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 14:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::They seem to be here to [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]] and given how they have responded so far, it seems unlikely that that is going to change. [[User:Smartse|SmartSE]] ([[User talk:Smartse|talk]]) 14:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::: You could look at it like that.  I think Trj56msn is raising legitimate points that could result in improvements to the article – but doing it in an aggressive way that doesn't really leave much room for collaboration.  This looks like a new user who's trying to help but needs guidance.  I can leave a note. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 14:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, it's unfortunate. Some of the wording they point out is problematic (I don't think ''any'' Wikipedia article, whether about upskirt photos or not, should include the phrase "innocent fun images" unless it's putting it in quotes and sourcing it to an actual person), but the way they have gone about it is very counter-productive. [[User:NewBorders|NewBorders]] ([[User talk:NewBorders|talk]]) 16:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:I also want to add that this user has come to my talk page and [[Special:Diff/1263766685|accused me]] of advocating for false information, rape, and violence against women, and said that I am "threatening" them by saying that [[WP:LEGAL]] threats are not acceptable on Wikipedia. I have never advocated rape or violence against women, and this kind of accusation is ridiculous and unacceptable. [[User:Di (they-them)|Di (they-them)]] ([[User talk:Di (they-them)|talk]]) 14:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::This user has [[Special:Diff/1263786384|now said]] that any response I make to their actions {{tq|will be considered as a '''threat''' and will be dealt with accordingly}}. I think it's pretty clear that this person is threatening legal action with the intent to silence any opposition to their edits. Accusing me of making threats and saying that my behavior "will be dealt with accordingly" is an obvious intimidation tactic. [[User:Di (they-them)|Di (they-them)]] ([[User talk:Di (they-them)|talk]]) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, I don't think they're "raising legitimate points": [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cleavage_(breasts)&diff=prev&oldid=1263621007 this diff] is just slopping gigantic paragraphs of original research into the article with no citations, and their response to anyone telling them not to do this is to scurrilously accuse them of the most awful things -- I am going to partially block them from the article until they are able to discuss things on the talk page. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 16:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Actually, per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trj56msn&diff=prev&oldid=1263788259 this], they are just making [[WP:LT]], so I will block for that. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Wrong link, that's WikiProject London Transport :p [[User:Di (they-them)|Di (they-them)]] ([[User talk:Di (they-them)|talk]]) 17:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, this situation does have a Mind the Gap aspect to it. <small>Think about it.</small> [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 04:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:I percieve their messages as threats, and per [[WP:THREAT]] an immediate block is warranted. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Muhammad Yunus article ==
<small>Moved from [[WP:AN]].</small>
@[[User:NAUser0001|NAUser0001]] user Adding defamatory content to the [[Muhammad Yunus]] article without independent and reliable sources. I told him/her on the talk page that Indian media sources can't be considered reliable and independent in controversial, defamatory issues. Add independent media sources like BBC, The New York Post, Washington Post, DW, Al Jazeera, etc., and international media sources for his/her claim. but not listening and reverting the edit again and again. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:blue; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User:Niasoh|Niasoh]] <span style="color:#FC0;letter-spacing:-2px">❯❯❯</span>[[User talk:Niasoh|  Wanna chat?]]</span> 08:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:[[User:Niasoh|Niasoh]], this should have been posted at [[WP:ANI]] as it doesn't require the attention of the administrator community. Secondly, no action will be taken until you provide diffs/edits that are examples of the behavior you are finding problematic. You have to produce evidence to support your claims. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 09:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:: {{u|Liz}} It appears to be a valid issue, and it may require admin attention as the user is adding very dubious information to a BLP. Moving this to ANI. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 09:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::: Yeah, the addition of stuff like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Yunus&diff=1263368222&oldid=1263250100 this], associating a BLP with the so-called American Deep State, George Soros etc., is conspiracy-theory level nonsense, and immediately suggest that the source (India Today) might have to be looked at again. They've also used Wikipedia as a source. I have pblocked NAUser0001 from the article concerned. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 09:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: Looking at their other edits, [[Draft:Manoj Kumar Sah]] contains multiple unsourced BLP violations.  Or at least it did, until I just removed them.  Meanwhile, apparently I am a "biased, leftist writer attempting to whitewash Yunus's image" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NAUser0001&diff=prev&oldid=1263368409].  [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 09:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::It is quite peculiar that several IPs have made POV commentary on offending user's TP (See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NAUser0001&diff=prev&oldid=1263378126] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NAUser0001&diff=prev&oldid=1263106857]) and in here ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1263431114]) and that the offending user appears to have interacted on one occasion ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NAUser0001&diff=prev&oldid=1263172248]) in what looks like an endorsement of tendentious editing. Is it possible that some kind of Puppetry (meat?) may be going on? [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 16:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::: Yes, it is unsurprising that multiple IPs have repeated Hindutva slogans and this editor has thanked them.  Their POV was obvious even without that, though. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Note this recent warning on their TP: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NAUser0001&diff=prev&oldid=1263597451] [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 10:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

== [[User talk:FIROZBABUFIROSBABUP]] violating [[WP:SOAP]] ==



This user was blocked indefinitely in November 2023 for spam/promotion which included adding their [[WP:OR|original work]] onto their and other user's talk pages. Despite this they continue to edit their talk page to add this type of content, violating [[WP:SOAP]]. Requesting talk-page access to be revoked for this user. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 12:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:I mean, on one hand, their comments on their user talk page barely rise above the level of pure nonsense and don't contribute anything of value to Wikipedia. On the other hand writing nonsense on their user talk page is not overly disruptive. They can be safely ignored. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

== Alba Party, discussion, personal attack on user by AntiDionysius  on contributor, statements that were clearly exaggerations, apology requirted ==
{{atop|There is no need to reformat or rehash anything here. The only thing that a reasonable admin would do here is block the IP editor for their ongoing rants, their lack of understanding of our policies and guidelines, and their confusing us with a forum on social media. IP, stop it. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 17:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}

I asked for a apology, and I was then told I had made comparisions to David Icke multiple times, which was surely not a fair remark, as all I had said was you should always substantiate sources, as for example you would never just source David Icke, with no attempt to substantiate his claims, for some reason, I think unfairly the editor claimed I was comparing editors to David Icke, which was not at all the case. I stated this was not what I was doing, and made sure that was known, then was told I had made multiple comparaisons to David Icke, which was not true at all, I had just explained the example, and even took it back. I am making a complaint as of the insinuation, unfairly that I was making multiple comparisons to David Icke, which sounds to me like a aggressive attempt to dismiss my remarks, and surely the statement multiple in itself was a exaggeration which kind of shows up that this was a personal attack on me. Making it sound like I was constantly comparing people to David Icke, when all I had done was said you should source material, and then took back the David Icke example, and then was told I was making Multiple comparsions to him, which I was not. This is clearly either a deliberate or accident misconstruing of what I said. And I see it as a personal attack, and attempt to dismiss me, deserving of banning this editor, from being a editor, as it was a offensive dismissive remark, that was clearly not in keeping with the situiation. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:Alba Party (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved

AntiDionysius (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview

I was disagreeing with some interpretation's on the Alba Party, I was saying how there has been a lack substantiation of sources. I then made a example where I said for example you would never just pick sources from the internet from say random people, without substantiating them. I gave a example of Dabid Icke, as a random example, that if you see a quote rom David Icke, you look at it, and substantiate it, and in most cases realise it is not a thing you can substantiate, and that it is good practice to substantiate sources for everybody as of this.  To this I was told I was comparing Whiipedia editors to Holocaust deniers, To this I insisted I was not comparing any wikipedia editors to Holocaust deniers, and asked for a apology. I did not even mention if David Icke was a Holocaust denier, I did not sat any wikipedia editors were like David Icke OR hOLOCAUST DENIERS. tO THIS i WAS TOLD i HAD REFERENCED dAVID iCKE MULIPLE TIMES BY COMPARISION in the article, which is not true, I referenced him once then took it back, realsing I could make the example without mentioning Dvaid Icke. . I see this as a insult, as I never directly compared anybody to David Icke, certanly not any wikipedia editors, and I certaoinly did not compare him multiple times to anybody, I just explained why I said it, and then took the comparison back. I certainly had not compared any wikipedia editor to Dabid Icke, and certainly had not even mentioned Holocaust denial, and had not made the comparsion multiple times. 

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I have asked for apology and now my comments are being deleted and blocked and there is a general attitude of trying to delete what I have said.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Tell AntiDionysius, that this is aggressive behaviour, and to stop such aggressive activity. That sources do need to be substantiated and it is not fair to look for reasons to claim you have been a victim of a personal attack, and to claim someone is calling them a holocaust denier when they have never done such a thing.

I see this as a personal attack, in a attempt to dismiss me, for stating that the sources being claimed for the article, were not substantiated well enough, and to my remark, I  was told I was comparing wikipedia editors to David Icke, which I clearly was not, and made sure they knew I was not, and was then told I had made multiple comparisons to David Icke, which I had not, I had been explaining it and took it back, I see this as a attempt to aggressively put me in my place by exaggeration, and think the said editor should be banned from Wikipedia, for this arrogant abusive behaviour. Especially the lack a attempt to be understanding, So I am asking AntiDionysius be barred as a wikipedia editor please, or at least reprimanded, or investigated to see if there is a pattern of this behaviour.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B|2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B#top|talk]]) 16:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:'''Comment''' IP copied and pasted this text from the DRN thread they opened which is closed as a conduct dispute. [[User:Tarlby|<span style="color:cyan;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">''Tarl''</span><span style="color:orange;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">''by''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tarlby|''t'']]) ([[Special:Contributions/Tarlby|''c'']])</sup> 16:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::Is there any chance of a apology by AntiDionysius, for saying I had made multiple claims, when I had not. Apology will be accepted heartily, and I apologise I i have caused any offence as I was not comparing any Wikipedia editor to David Icke, and would never, and certainly not multiple times. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B|2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B|talk]]) 17:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Here is what the IP actually said when criticizing the editors who added sources being used to call this small political party "socially conservative" - {{tpq|Anybody who just parrots random sources without substantiating them, is of no standing, and should be ashamed, this is like something from a sketch from a comedy show, where somebody reads a David Icke book, or a twitter post and does not have any critical thinking over the matter}}. The IP made an inflammatory and highly offensive comparison, and now wants a forced apology when other editors reacted negatively to that comment. Astounding. My suggestion is that the IP go do something useful and moderate their tone. This complaint is without merit. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 17:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::IP editor, you ignored the requirement at the top of the editing windows that says {{tpq|When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.}} I have notified AntiDionysius for you. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 17:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::But surely it is absolutely the case that when you get sources, you must substantiate them, it is not professional, to just accept a source without looking at it. I was being told, The source says this, so thats that, surely any university degree, or school qualification would say you must do more than just parrot a source, surely any journalistic integrity would agree that you must see that a source does not have bias, or is reputable. All the sources claiming Alba as socially conservative were rival politicians, and a offhand diary entry from a non Scottish newspaper, that mentioned the Alba Party in a story that was barely a paragraph and listed 10 or so other stories in that newsletter, it was not a source that could be regarded as a expert interested source. Surely anybody writing a wikipedia article should be acquiring sources that are unbaised, or sources that are from experts, not just flippant offhand afterthought entries which see the Alba Party as a after thought. No source of any repute was given, that could regard Alba as socially conservative, all the sources were political columnist rival politicians, and a offhand article in a non Scottish newspaper, which surely is not that interested in the affairs of a minor political part of little note in Scotland. When all the Alba Party's policies indicate it is a socially liberal party, when I said that, I was told these weak sources say they are, and then I suggested that anybody editing the page should take a course understanding bias, that a source is not always saying what you should just  parrot. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B|2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B|talk]]) 17:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Just so you know IP, the longer you make a post, the less likely people are to read it ([[WP:WALLOFTEXT]]). Please be as concise as possible. [[User:Tarlby|<span style="color:cyan;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">''Tarl''</span><span style="color:orange;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">''by''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tarlby|''t'']]) ([[Special:Contributions/Tarlby|''c'']])</sup> 17:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::That is not something you should be proud about, if that is so, it proves my point about what I was saying, Doing the research is important. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B|2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B|talk]]) 17:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::So do you believe that Wikipedia editors should do more than just say, well the source says that, and not substantiate the source, surely it would be good practice to substantiate sources as surely  that is what good journalistic practices do, and the people I have most respect for do. If you are asking me to do something useful I think requesting that wikipedia editors learn to substantiate sources and have critical thinking about them, then that is good, if they already do, so be it, but I was being told for the alba article that simply the sources said it was so, so it must be so, and no attempt was given to substantiate the claims. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B|2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B|talk]]) 17:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Tarlby is right, please reformat it so we have an idea of the problem/those involved. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 17:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You are proving my point, people should be capable of understanding the sources, people should have better critical thinking, [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B|2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B|talk]]) 17:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== 107.129.97.80: continued disruptive editing pattern after 3-month block ==
{{atop|1=Blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{vandal|107.129.97.80}}Was [[Special:Redirect/logid/162695176|blocked in June this year for three months]] by [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]], and went right back to the same sort of intermittent disruptive editing pattern again, such as [[Special:Diff/1259251786|this edit]] and [[Special:Diff/1250871642|this one]]; they've received three warnings since their block. They came to my attention with malformatted talk page posts like [[Special:Diff/1264040607|this one at Talk:Mahalia Jackson]] (despite having [[Special:Diff/1205677223|previously formatted talk page posts correctly]]) and I was going to message them about that before deciding it wasn't worth it after discovering their previous block. Also see [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1158#107.129.97.80|this ANI about them]]. I was brought here from [[WP:AIV]]. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 06:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

:I made the first ANI report in June 2024 [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1158#Disruptive IP editor 107.129.97.80|archived here]]. There were six warnings before I took that step. The administrator who administered the first block was [[User:PhilKnight]]. I support a full [[WP:SBAN]] against this user. A quick glance at any of their edits will demonstrate they are [[WP:NOTHERE]] to build an encyclopedia. [[User:Kire1975|Kire1975]] ([[User talk:Kire1975|talk]]) 06:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::We can't do that for IP's, unfortunately. We can only do escalating blocks. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 07:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Blocked''' for six months. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 15:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC).
{{abot}}

== User Pyramoe - Mass Reversions, WP:Not Here ==
{{atop
| result = There is no active disruption that merits a block, or even continued discussion here as this is a content dispute. Please use Talk page to come to a consensus on next steps. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 03:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
}}

Pretty open and shut case regarding user {{User|Pyramoe}}

New user who made multiple mass reversions to pages related to a single niche Trotskyist party/international to restore content removed for breaching a number of policies, predominantly [[WP:SELFPUB]] violations.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Alternative_(Sweden)&diff=prev&oldid=1258591518][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Socialist_Alternative&diff=prev&oldid=1258593003]

User was warned about why this was inappropriate on their talk page, which they then blanked demonstrating they saw it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pyramoe&diff=prev&oldid=1258596081]

User has now repeated the mass reversion, stating that the reversion is fine simply because they "''don't find it appropriate to basically delete a whole article... just because the majority of the information is self-sourced''".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Alternative_(Sweden)&diff=prev&oldid=1262720357]

User is evidently [[WP:NOTHERE]], and only seems to want to promote their political organisation.

Ban requested. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

:They did that revert (their third) 6 days ago. Have you tried doing as they suggested towards the end of the edit summary you quoted?
:{{tq|[...] would love to have a discussion with you on this so that we could sort it out}}
:In fact, I'd suggest [[WP:WELCOMING|welcoming]] them AND discussing with them. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80F5:9F01:F9AE:1494:463A:A931|2804:F1...3A:A931]] ([[Special:Contributions/2804:F14::/32|::/32]]) ([[User talk:2804:F14:80F5:9F01:F9AE:1494:463A:A931|talk]]) 17:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::It doesn't matter if it was six days ago to be honest. The fact is they appeared out of nowhere and made extensive mass reverts to the page of a minor political group, were told not to repeat this unless they can demonstrate sound reasons according to policy why they should, and then repeated it while actively just stating that they don't care about the policy.
::There's not really grounds for a useful discussion where one side's position is effectively "I want this article, don't care about policy". [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 17:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, the point is, you removed a bunch of content, they reverted you without providing a reason as their first 2 edits which you reverted them again and warned them for while asking them to provide a reason - weeks later (6 days ago) they reverted one of the articles again with a reason, doesn't matter that the reason is not within policy, assume that they don't know policy that they saw someone remove entire articles and tried to protect it.
:::That doesn't read to me as the behaviour of someone NOTHERE, it reads as someone who doesn't know how Wikipedia works. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80F5:9F01:F9AE:1494:463A:A931|2804:F1...3A:A931]] ([[Special:Contributions/2804:F14::/32|::/32]]) ([[User talk:2804:F14:80F5:9F01:F9AE:1494:463A:A931|talk]]) 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::If this had been a new account that made a couple of minor reversions that were inappropriate that'd be one thing. Here however this new account was created to restore '''large amounts''' of inappropriate material that had been removed '''months''' prior on a topic (Trotskyist Internationals) that has been inundated with similar "new accounts" that only engage in restoring material de facto promoting the groups in question. This is also an account that was given a reasonable warning template that linked to our policies and instead of engaging with it, they just blanked the page, and while claiming to "want to have a discussion" instead of doing that they just repeated the inappropriate mass restoring of content.
::::Quite frankly in this context it's hard to see it as an ill-informed individual making understandable errors and instead seems to be another SPA NOTHERE situation where someone who is a supporter of the group in question just wants it mentioned on Wikipedia. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 17:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Just to add, this is an account that managed to get into a redirect page and manually restore it, which requires some knowledge of how Wikipedia works to accomplish from my experience. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 18:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Hmm, maybe. The account is a bit older than the EnWiki one, but has no editing history pretty much, it was [https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:Registo&logid=31117303 created by a different user] with the reason "Wikidata IOLab", which I am not completely sure what it is, <s>but I think is a brazillian student thing</s>. Their account is listed [https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wiki_Movimento_Brasil/Wikidata_IOLab/students/overview here] at least, they didn't seem to make any edits though.
::::::(edit: [https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wiki_Movimento_Brasil/Wikidata_IOLab/home seems to have been] a Wikidata event related to the [[International Linguistics Olympiad#IOL_2024|IOL2024]], which happened in Brazil - it's been over for ages though, so this is definitely editing of their own choice)
::::::I'm noting this because I didn't expect that - I'll let other people comment on this report, maybe I'm wrong :s. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80F5:9F01:F9AE:1494:463A:A931|2804:F1...3A:A931]] ([[Special:Contributions/2804:F14::/32|::/32]]) ([[User talk:2804:F14:80F5:9F01:F9AE:1494:463A:A931|talk]]) 18:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC) *edited 18:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Hi, I wanted to clarify a few points. I have made a couple of edits to differet types of articles before making a wikipedia account. My previous edits have been listed under my IP as I did not understand the neccessity of having an account. I was a participant at the IOL 2024 and we had a workshop there called Wikidata IOLab, that is where my account was created, I then forgut about it. Now at some point recently I realised I could log in with my wikipedia account and so I did so. I admit I don't have full understanding of wikipedia policy, I did go in and read the wikipedia pages that Rambling Rambler cited as reasons for the edits they have done, and through my limited understanding, I made the judgement that the pages don't completely violate policy, maybe in some ways, but not in a way that, in my opinion, justifies removing everything. I genuinely would love to have a discussion about this. I'm not doing this in support of said organization as I am not affiliated with any political groups, but have a general interest in marxist political parties, especially in the Nordic region. I wanted to check the Socialist Alternative(Sweden) page as I had done before and noticed it didn't exist anymore and did some digging and found out it was removed. I see it as a great loss for the page to be deleted in the domain of information about minor Swedish left-wing parties, as I did with the rest of the ISA sections that got deleted, but I'm generally as I said more interested in the Nordics. As I have stated before, I genuinely want to have a discussion about this. I think the page and other pages can be "cleaned up" of the parts that obviously violate policy, but I don't think just deleting them outright is the way forward. [[User:Pyramoe|Pyramoe]] ([[User talk:Pyramoe|talk]]) 19:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::''I'' ''did go in and read the wikipedia pages that Rambling Rambler cited as reasons for the edits they have done, and through my limited understanding, I made the judgement that the pages don't completely violate policy, maybe in some ways, but not in a way that, in my opinion, justifies removing everything.''
::::::::It is a black and white issue, as per criteria in [[WP:SELFPUB]]/[[WP:ABOUTSELF]] which specifies amongst several criteria that articles '''must not be based primarily on self-published sources''' which the content you restored demonstrably violated. You are now admitting you have read those policies but have chosen to then continue acting in contravention of them for non-policy reasons simply because of your personal view that to lose said pages are a "great loss".
::::::::I think your reply simply reinforces my reason for posting here, that your reasons for being here aren't to improve this site according to our policies but to insert inappropriate material for groups you have an admitted interest in. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 20:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I would also like to add that as I was doing some research, I found a couple of sources documenting the party in Sweden in addition to documenting other minor left-wing parties in Sweden, sources that are non-affiliated with these parties. The biggest one being a document called [https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2002/01/sou-200291/ Hotet från vänster], published by the [[Ministry of Justice (Sweden)|Swedish Ministry of Justice]] and the [[Swedish Security Service]] in 2002, a source that includes almost all of the information that was self-sourced that was already in the article and more. I was intending to add these sources to the article so that it doesn't violate policy in any way anymore. However, I haven't gotten around to it yet as I was still figuring out how to do it in the best way, and discussions with other more-experienced editors like you would definitely help. Instead of discussing it as I offered in my latest edit, you went directly and requested my ban. As obvious, I am inexperienced in editing on Wikipedia, but I am trying to learn. And I want to clarify that my interest in such groups does not mean I support/endorse them, it is purely out of curiousity. [[User:Pyramoe|Pyramoe]] ([[User talk:Pyramoe|talk]]) 23:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Hi Pyramoe! I'm sorry but I don't think those sources are very useful for this content. We're looking for reliable, independent, secondary sources, like from reputable newspapers, books, journals, etc. That document you linked to has been self-published by the Ministry of Justice, which we [[WP:BLPSELFPUB|can't use for claims about third parties]] (that is, any person or group other than the Ministry of Justice itself).
::::::::::It's really best if you find those reliable, independent, secondary sources ''first'' and then try to summarize them. Since you've been reverted already, I strongly recommend bringing the source(s) to the article's Talk page to do that summarizing collaboratively. I think that demonstrates good faith from everyone involved. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 01:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::A singular source that contains a handful of pages documenting its history in no way deals with the fundamental problem that the group lacks notability and is fundamentally reliant on reporting from its own website. And quite honestly the fact you were capable of manually reverting my edits across '''multiple articles''' and then repeated the reversions despite being informed not to do it makes the claim you "hadn't gotten around to" sourcing this singular paper into it sound incredulous at best.
::::::::::''Instead of discussing it as I offered in my latest edit, you went directly and requested my ban.''
::::::::::You had the option and capability to discuss if with me at any point in the last month. Instead you blanked my message informing you of our policies and then a few weeks later just repeated your actions with an edit summary dismissing policy as something you simply don't agree with. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 01:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:The only open and shut case here is that Rambling Rambler needs to do less [[WP:BITE]]ing/running to ANI to demand a ban and more talking. Weird how {{green|"the option and capability to discuss"}} only applies to the editor with less than ten edits and not the editor with almost four thousand. Certainly a {{tl|trout}} needed, maybe even a {{tl|whale}}. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 20:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::I quite literally opened their talk page using an appropriate template regarding their actions, which pointed them to our policies, that they then '''deliberately blanked''' 20 minutes later. Three weeks after that, during which time they never once attempted to have this discussion with myself that they reportedly were so interested in, they repeated the edit with an edit summary that acknowledged our policy on self-published material but stated their edit was fine because they didn't agree with the policy.
::It's a bit hard to take seriously the idea they wanted a genuine discussion after that. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 00:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You "pointed them to our policies?" That's one way of saying "dropped a boilerplate warning template with a link to [[Wikipedia:List of policies]] and expected them to find their way to the one I meant."{{pb}}Then they didn't edit Wikipedia for three weeks...and your interpretation is {{green|they never once attempted to have this discussion with myself that they reportedly were so interested in}}? How about "an editor with three edits forgets about editing Wikipedia for three weeks"? No? {{pb}}Then they came back not with {{green|"an edit summary that acknowledged our policy on self-published material but stated their edit was fine because they didn't agree with the policy"}} (no wonder, considering you hadn't provided any helpful way of reading the policy) but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Alternative_(Sweden)&diff=prev&oldid=1262720357 an edit summary] that was a ''direct response'' to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Alternative_(Sweden)&diff=prev&oldid=1240698434 your edit summary].{{pb}}A little less [[WP:BITE]] and a lot more [[WP:AGF]] would go a long way for you. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 00:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::''You "pointed them to our policies?" That's one way of saying "dropped a boilerplate warning template with a link to [[Wikipedia:List of policies]] and expected them to find their way to the one I meant."''
::::You mean that "boilerplate" that also includes useful information on where to take a discussion (again, the discussion they are apparently really wanting to have) and rather than engage and have a discussion they just '''blanked the page?'''
::::Now while you paint this as me "biting" my actual actions in relation to this follow best practice listed at WP:BITE. I had done the best I could in that circumstance to fix rather than remove (though in the end removal was most appropriate here), used a plain English edit summary to explain why I removed their changes, and left an appropriate warning template on their talk page as recommended at step 6. I followed our policy on newcomers in good faith as much as I reasonably could up to that point and they had made no effort to engage back.
::::At this point, even if you want to assume they forgot all about Wikipedia for the following three weeks, they still then came back went into the article's edit history to restore it '''again''' and while they may have left an edit summary saying they wanted to discuss it '''they made no attempt over the next six days to contact me and have said discussion''' even when there's a button that says "talk" next to every one of our edit summaries'''.'''
::::Following this I simply followed our policy ([[WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE]]). I had initially tried to engage with them on their talk page using an appropriate template and was rebuffed immediately. They then made the same mass revert while having not shown any actual interest in having a discussion. Resultingly I followed the next step which is to take it to ANI, and set out when questioned why I had reached the limit of what I consider to be assuming good faith in this instance (namely someone saying they want to discuss edits but actively making no effort to have said discussion). I will also highlight it's only being brought to ANI and its potential ramifications that has seen them finally actually engage with the issue of their edits where the previous attempt resulted in no meaningful engagement on their part, so I personally regard it as having had a useful outcome. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 02:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Look man, I have made a couple of mistakes, I admit. When I blanked my talk page, my intention was to just clean it up because I thought it would make my fairly new account look bad. Bad idea, I know. I didn't know that the notice you put on my talk page was something I could reply to, I just thought it was some automated thing. When I made my third edit 2 weeks after, my intention was really to have a discussion with you. If you would have written on my talk page then to start a discussion, I would have glady partaken in it. I didn't know that I was the one expected to start the discussion on your talk page, as in my mind, I already started the discussion with my edit summary and was waiting for your reply. I barely know how all these things works, I was expecting you to reply to my edit summary on my talk page and start discussing this as I intended, but instead I saw you request my ban on ANI and then went on to make baseless claims of me supporting said organization(even though the article contained nothing positive about the party, I would even dare to say it is quite negative due to most of it talking about their [[entryism]]), and claiming I meant that I don't care about policy, which is a complete misunderstanding of what I meant in the edit summary. What I meant is that I thought the article shouldn't have been removed completely, but that I think it would be better to just remove the content that violated policy, which was the point of the discussion I wanted with you. I also didn't revert the [[International Socialist Alternative]] article again because I understood that it was not the right thing to do, the article existed, which is what I cared about, and I understood then that the reason for my revert there not having been a good thing is due to the information that has been removed being self-sourced. To be honest, the reason I did the reverts from the first place was because I thought you were being disruptive by removing a lot of information. I stand corrected, I just didn't understand policy, but my intention was not at all disruptive. [[User:Pyramoe|Pyramoe]] ([[User talk:Pyramoe|talk]]) 02:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:[[Wp:Blocking policy#Purpose and goals|Blocks are preventative, not punitive]]. I don't think it'd be useful at all to block a user 6 days after the distruption has already stopped. What's the point? [[User:Tarlby|<span style="color:cyan;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">''Tarl''</span><span style="color:orange;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">''by''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tarlby|''t'']]) ([[Special:Contributions/Tarlby|''c'']])</sup> 02:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::I took the position that their act may have been six days prior but it was only now it had been noticed and was a repetition. At that point they only had four edits and they comprised of three mass reverts of content with no useful edit summaries and an immediate blanking of an attempt to engage with them/warn them of their disruptive edits.
::So I took the view that it was likely to repeat again and therefore a ban would be preventative as a result. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 02:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Let's look at what [[Wikipedia:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE]] says:{{pb}}{{tq|Blocks should be used to:{{pb}}<ol><li>prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia;</li><li>deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and</li><li>encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.</li></ol>{{pb}}Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved.}}{{pb}}Yes, the user has caused disruption and has disrupted again when warned, but that clearly isn't happening anymore. Six days, and it's clear they're not repeating the damage. This disruption is not ''imminent''. Blocks are not warrented. [[User:Tarlby|<span style="color:cyan;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">''Tarl''</span><span style="color:orange;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">''by''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tarlby|''t'']]) ([[Special:Contributions/Tarlby|''c'']])</sup> 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== IP 208.95.233.155 ==


{{userlinks|208.95.233.155}}

Personal attacks made on my talk page ([[Special:Diff/1263841196]]) and [[WP:POV]]-pushing ([[Special:Diff/1263840628]], completely ignores recent reporting on Chinese funding; repeated reverts.) - [[User:RovingPersonalityConstruct|RovingPersonalityConstruct]] ([[User talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/RovingPersonalityConstruct|contribs]]) 23:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

:I've blocked the IP for 2 weeks for the personal attack. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 04:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect 208.95.233.155 is a sock of indef blocked editor [[User:Shulinjiang]] ([[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shulinjiang/Archive]]). Generally unpleasant interactions and the inability to accurately replicate my username (in my talk page post, and in the edit comment [[Special:Diff/1263843087|here]]) are the sort of thing I've come to expect from too much past experience. - [[User:RovingPersonalityConstruct|RovingPersonalityConstruct]] ([[User talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/RovingPersonalityConstruct|contribs]]) 00:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

== Chronic semi-automated editing trouble ==

Unfortunately, though the lion's share of the work he does is very much appreciated by me, I don't feel my attempts to be patient and communicative with {{User|Srich32977}} have been consistently reciprocated. I don't want to pillory him, but for context [[Special:Permalink/1263532093#Citation cleanup|he was previously blocked]] for violating [[MOS:PAGERANGE]] in many of his copyediting sweeps—after I attempted to clarify the guideline, he promised that he would comply but then continued as before due to his interpreting the MOS's "should" as somehow meaning "optional".

Now, he has ignored my posts on his talk page regarding how his AutoEd configuration replaces fullwidth characters where they are correct, e.g. in running fullwidth text.{{Diff2|1263530252}} For a few months I've just been reverting when his path crosses into Chinese-language articles [https://sigma.toolforge.org/summary.py?name=Remsense&search=Srich32977&max=500&server=enwiki&ns=&enddate=20241001 and trying to get his attention without being a nuisance], and now I feel this is the only avenue left. I would just like him to respond to concerns as he has shown able to do with some consistency. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 05:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Please note the long history of problems with this person's semi-automated editing and failure to respond to requests to follow MOS. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22ranges%22&prefix=User+talk%3ASrich32977%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&ns4=1&ns10=1&ns12=1 This user talk archive search for "ranges"] is just one example (repeatedly changing MOS-valid page range formats to invalid formats). As Remsense says above, a lot of the work is good and valid, but there are many invalid changes, and feedback is met with a combination of ignoring us, saying they will comply and then not doing it, or complying for a while and then resuming the invalid edits. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 06:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:<s>Srich32977 is taking a wiki-break. My attempt to AGF is near its limit vs thinking ANI flu, as they have a history of ignoring community concerns or waiting until a moment blows over before resuming problematic behavior. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 13:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s> They have un-breaked. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 19:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::They seem to have adjusted their behavior. While I hate to persist, they still haven't said a thing to me about it, though. I recognize the issues I sometimes have here, but it's not unreasonable for me to get a simple acknowledgement when the issue's been this entrenched. Right? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 06:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

== Hide this racist edit summary.  ==
{{hat|1=Hiding this ban-evading LTA disruption. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 09:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{atop|1=LTA. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 09:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
It says stop stealing Gypsies.

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246

This edit summary says stinky Gypsies.

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzalutno:Contribuții/80.177.126.214 [[Special:Contributions/37.21.144.243|37.21.144.243]] ([[User talk:37.21.144.243|talk]]) 07:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

:This noticeboard is for the English Wikipedia, unfortunately. We can't help with other language wikis. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 07:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Ach. In something that does seem for admins here, [[Special:Diff/1264069792|not 100% sure what's up here]] (though maybe 90% sure) <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 07:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

:This post represents ban evasion. See [[Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Demographics vandal]]. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 08:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{hab}}

== Disruptive editing and attacks by IP 174.202.100.165 ==


{{IP summary|174.202.100.165}}

Making multiple unsourced edits that get reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unchained_Melody:_The_Early_Years&diff=prev&oldid=1263813738] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LeAnn_Rimes_discography&diff=prev&oldid=1263814927] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unchained_Melody:_The_Early_Years&diff=prev&oldid=1263816935] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DJ_Play_a_Christmas_Song&diff=prev&oldid=1263984876], and accusing others of spreading misinformation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:174.202.100.165&diff=prev&oldid=1263985268] and bullying [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:174.202.100.165&diff=prev&oldid=1263986041]. Has used other IPs in the past for similar behaviour:

{{IP summary|68.38.52.16}}

{{IP summary|2600:1015:B1E4:F59E:0:0:0:0/64}} [[User:TheNerdzilla|TheNerdzilla]] ([[User talk:TheNerdzilla|talk]]) 20:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:Wow! It is bullying when you’re being biased editing and making false accusations. You’re accusing me of using multiple IP addresses to make disruptive edits (which is untrue) when my phone changes its IP address on its own. How’s that my fault? If you are going to ignore someone telling you the truth than yeah they are going to feel bullied because you’re making false claims about someone. [[Special:Contributions/174.202.100.165|174.202.100.165]] ([[User talk:174.202.100.165|talk]]) 20:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::Also, if anyone looks at [[DJ Play a Christmas Song]] it says right in the page that [[DJ Play a Christmas Song#Duet with Giovanni Zarrella|duet with Giovanni Zarrella]] was released to Italian radio, making it a single and that’s sourced in the article itself, yet another false claim about me posting unsourced information. [[Special:Contributions/174.202.100.165|174.202.100.165]] ([[User talk:174.202.100.165|talk]]) 20:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::This user is not showing any good faith nor is looking at any of the pages and realizing something like with [[DJ Play a Christmas Song]] and realizing “Oh, the page does say and is sourced that a different version of the song was released to radio stations in Italy, so it’s understandable that someone would consider that as being released as a single when it’s sourced in the page.” But am I being given the benefit of the doubt? Nope. Or looking at the fact that they can’t even do a simple [https://www.google.com/search?q=unchained+melody%3A+the+early+years&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#ebo=0 Google search] and see that the information I was trying to change on [[Unchained Melody: The Early Years]] shows the album showing up as a compilation album and not a reissue. I am sorry people can’t look things up for themselves and see that a user is just trying to post correct information that they are finding online. Of course anyone is going to feel bullied when you have numerous people coming at you for posting information based on what they are finding online. It’s not disruptive editing, what these users are doing is showing bad faith and of course to anyone that is going to come across as bullying. [[Special:Contributions/174.202.100.165|174.202.100.165]] ([[User talk:174.202.100.165|talk]]) 20:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::And here’s another thing about [[DJ Play a Christmas Song]], no one is explaining why it matters if a different version of a song was released to radio how that doesn’t make it a single or why it shouldn’t be included in the chronology of releases. They just keep saying “it’s a different version, not a different song”. There’s no proper communication here where no one is properly explaining what difference it makes as to whether a different version of the song was released to radio or not means it can’t be included in the infobox as a single release for the chronology. It’s very confusing. Also, I should add, I’m Autistic here and I am very detailed and no one is talking to me or properly explaining anything to me, instead they are just assuming that I am trying to do bad things when I am trying to make sure that information is correct based on my own research and what is already sourced in the article. [[Special:Contributions/174.202.100.165|174.202.100.165]] ([[User talk:174.202.100.165|talk]]) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I’d also like to point out that this user is showing that his is doing this not in good faith cause if you look at his [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheNerdzilla&action=history talk page history] I have been trying to communicate with him and he just reverts my post and removes them and doesn’t reply. Now this to me shows that this user is intentionally showing [[WP:Bad faith]] and is not giving me the benefit of the doubt at all. Now if someone was doing that and refusing to talk properly and is instead posting warnings right off the bat on your talk page, and not just one but multiple people are doing it, wouldn’t you feel bullied? I mean why do multiple people feel the need to gang up on someone? That’s very overwhelming and you all seem to forget that there are people on the other end of the screen that that can leave a very bad impression on. If they aren’t going to step back and look things up for themselves and expect someone else to do the work for them instead of doing a simple Google search or actually looking at the article for themselves and maybe seeing, well you don’t need to double source something that’s already sourced in an article.” doesn’t that show that the user is showing bad faith in a lot of their accusations here? [[Special:Contributions/174.202.100.165|174.202.100.165]] ([[User talk:174.202.100.165|talk]]) 20:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Also, I am allowed to vocalize how all this makes me feel and these users are making sure I cannot do that. Of course I feel misinformation is being posted because the information doesn’t match up with something that anyone on here can look up for themselves. It also doesn’t help when users don’t go and look at the pages themselves to go and see if information is already sourced in the page. It also doesn’t help falsely accusing someone of intentionally using multiple IP addresses to cause disruptive editing when the actual people being disruptive are the editors on here and not the IP addresses. I don’t use a VPN, most are blocked by Wikipedia anyway, my phone just changes its IP address on its own and I have no control over that or when it does it or how often it does it, one day it’s one IP address the next day it can be something different, that’s beyond my control and it is not intentional and I have a right to say that a false accusation is being made to the accuser without others trying to silence me, which is also happening. Anyone else seeing that with any sense of morality would see that as bullying cause why are you trying to silence someone who is pointing out what you’re doing wrong because you can’t look up something for yourself or actually look at a page or you’re just making assumptions and false accusations? Like how I got falsely accused here of posting unsourced information when if you look at the page itself you can see it’s already sourced. [[Special:Contributions/174.202.100.165|174.202.100.165]] ([[User talk:174.202.100.165|talk]]) 21:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::If you have a dispute over an article content, take it to the article talk page not an editor's talk page. [[Talk:DJ Play a Christmas Song]] is empty, and [[Talk:Unchained Melody: The Early Years]] has nothing but bot edits from 16 years ago. So as far as anyone's concerned you haven't been discussing anything. And it's your responsibility to provide reliable sources, regardless of whether they may exist somewhere. A Google search is not a reliable source. Also the fact that a duet was released in 2024 doesn't prove it's the artist's next single. It's easily possible there are other singles which aren't mentioned because they're unrelated. You'd need a source to establish this chronology. Also if a single was only release on radio or is a different version of an earlier single, there might be dispute over whether this belongs. All this needs to be discussed when there is dispute. If you cannot come to agreement, you will need to use some form of [[WP:Dispute resolution]] to try and resolve the dispute. Ultimately you may also just have to accept [[WP:Consensus]] is against you. If consensus is against you, accusing others of spreading misinformation just because they have disagreements over definitions etc is definitely not okay. And again whether you find sources or whatever, please take it to the relevant article talk pages rather than anywhere else or edit warring. Also you have no rights here on Wikipedia, none of us do. The purpose of discussion should always primarily be about how to make Wikipedia better. While it's sometimes okay to discuss problems with an editor's actions, ultimately your feelings over something, even something that happened on Wikipedia, are stuff you need to address elsewhere and not on Wikipedia. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 21:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::BTW, at least on this page, no one has accused your of intentionally misusing multiple IP addresses. They've just pointed out you've used multiple IP addresses which seems to be true. If you chose to edit from an IP and your IP changes, you're going to have to accept that editors point it out since it's relevant to how we handle blocking etc, and also means scrutinising your edit history is more difficult. While you might not be able to affect how your IP changes, it's your choice to edit without an account and so you need to accept the problems that results from that. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 21:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*Simply making edits that are reverted aren't necessarily problematic as long as they aren't disruptive or devolve into edit-warring. This seems like a content dispute that should be addressed on article talk pages or [[WP:DRN]], not ANI. Are there any behavioral problems that need discussion? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::I will say that I don't like seeing personal attacks, casting aspersions or speculations about editor's motivations. That has no place in editing this project. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::That is exactly what is going on here. The user keeps making accusations against others of spreading misinformation, bullying, and vandalising, refusing to seek consensus. This appears to be an ongoing issue with this user; IP range {{IPvandal|2600:1015:B1E4:F59E:0:0:0:0/64}} was blocked for two weeks for ''"Edit warring: also harassing other users, battleground mentality, using multiple IPs"'' on 6 September 2024, then {{IPvandal|68.38.52.16}} was blocked for one week for ''Making legal threats: False accusations of vandalism'' on 2 December 2024. Similar behaviour to what's being displayed here, and stemming from the same group of articles. [[User:TheNerdzilla|TheNerdzilla]] ([[User talk:TheNerdzilla|talk]]) 04:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I believe [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Breaktheicees&diff=prev&oldid=1263982420 this] at least would constitute a personal attack. I've tried to have civil discussions with this user in the past but none have been effective. [[User:Breaktheicees|Breaktheicees]] ([[User talk:Breaktheicees|talk]]) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:174.202.100.165&diff=prev&oldid=1264045364 This] is interesting, given the IP range as mentioend by {{ping|TheNerdzilla}} above. Another change and then pretending to be a different user addressing the original one? - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I didn't notice that; thanks for pointing that out. At this point, I'm starting to suspect this could become a new [[WP:LTA|LTA]] case, given the extensive history of this behaviour, unless this has already been documented in the past. [[User:TheNerdzilla|TheNerdzilla]] ([[User talk:TheNerdzilla|talk]]) 15:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::After doing some research, I do believe this may be block evasion from [[User:Dolirama]], based on similar page editing patterns ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dolirama]) and a very similar writing style ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dolirama&diff=prev&oldid=1185475534]). [[User:Breaktheicees|Breaktheicees]] ([[User talk:Breaktheicees|talk]]) 15:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::That was back in November of 2023... okay, once this wraps up, I will definitely bring this up on [[WT:LONGTERM|the talk page for LTA]], because this has been going on for quite a while it seems. [[User:TheNerdzilla|TheNerdzilla]] ([[User talk:TheNerdzilla|talk]]) 17:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

== Luffaloaf ==
{{atop|1=I blocked both parties. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=1264164111&oldid=1264160156 this edit] explaining the blocks]. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 21:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
'''Involved''': {{userlinks|Luffaloaf}}
<br>
'''Past discussions/warnings''': [[Talk:1764 Woldegk tornado#Edits by Luffaloaf]], [[User talk:Luffaloaf#December 2024]]

While this is currently at the [[WP:EWN]], this is more of a [[WP:COMP]] issue than an edit-warring issue. Since early December, Luffaloaf has been persistently adding incorrect information to articles and claiming to be right when challenged. This behavior has earned them an edit warring block, but immediately after it was expired they came back. Statements by them include:
*  {{tq|…I’m a little concerned that you think I need a source to interpret the source you posted here, which lists its primary sources (“a web page”, “witnesses”), none of which have anything to do with wind engineers. I don’t need to provide you a source that wind engineers are involved in official damage surveys. That’s basic information, and if you don’t know that, you shouldn’t be editing any tornado-related Wikipedia page.}}  at [[Talk:1764 Woldegk tornado]]
* {{tq|You added content, including empirical elements, that are not reported by sources whatsoever, including F-scale intensity rating by damage that wasn't remotely echoed in a damage survey of carried about by a structural engineer, original user of the F scale for numerous US tornadoes from the 70s, and developer of the EF scale. Your line of argumentation is utterly absurd. The T6 update was added by an IP, and did not build up consensus to change the article in such a way - which it needed to do, especially as the lion's share of sources contradict this (especially any information on the F or EF rating of the tornado). I will stop as long as a third person reviews my edits and sources and says they aren't adequate.}} at [[Talk:1764 Woldegk tornado]]. I was the third opinion here, and they called me a "retard" off-wiki pertaining to this, which I can privately link if necessary.
This user has 170 edits, majority of which are edit warring. It clearly won't be getting better, so bringing it here. I just woke up, so there's a lot more I haven't gotten to yet, but you can get a general idea of why this is being posted here based on their talk page and everywhere else they've commented/edited. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 13:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*I agree. This is a clear [[WP:CIR]] issue. [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Luffaloaf reported by User:WeatherWriter (Result: Removed to AN/I)|While at the edit warring noticeboard]], about 12 hours after being reported after making 7 reverts to a single article within a few hours, Luffaloaf is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_Birmingham_tornado&diff=prev&oldid=1264149348 continuing to edit war], amid this administrator noticeboard discussion. Very clear [[WP:CIR]] issue with a clear lack of understanding of Wikipedia’s [[WP:BRD]] and [[WP:3RR]] policies. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 19:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:And now Luffaloaf has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&diff=1264150185&oldid=1264149801 accused me of lying]. At this point, given the [[WP:CIR|lack of competence and regard for policy]], I am going to treat this [[WP:DENY]] instance of a troll, who is complaining on and off-Wikipedia (on Reddit) about [[WP:RGW|needing to right Wikipedia’s great wrongs]]. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 19:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Unsolicited revelations from Policynerd3212 ==
{{atop|1=Blocked for two years. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{User|Policynerd3212}} <del>came from sewiki to</del> put [[Special:Diff/1264133324|this PA-laden vandalism]] on TylerBurden's user page. They shouldn't be here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 18:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

:Did they come from sewiki? This doesn't seem to be the first time they have interacted with TylerBurden, in fact, from just text searching their contributions it seems that they have interacted with TylerBurden many times before. That's for sure a personal attack, but I feel like you've summarized (whatever the situation is) incorrectly. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80D2:8401:D80F:263F:C174:E386|2804:F1...74:E386]] ([[Special:Contribs/2804:F14::/32|::/32]]) ([[User talk:2804:F14:80D2:8401:D80F:263F:C174:E386|talk]]) 18:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:: I interpolated that from nothing, somehow. Thanks for catching. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 18:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::They are essentially a [[WP:SPA]] that seems to show up sporadically to edit [[Sweden]], as you can see they are very unhappy with anyone that opposes their changes regardless of policies cited and therefore resort to personal attacks. This time they didn't even try to edit the page, just went straight to "expose" me by sabotaging my user page (which has happened before). They have also been blocked for edit warring and just generally seem incapable of collaborating with others, convinced that anyone who disagrees with them is some evil social justice warrior that somehow has a "monopoly" on pages they wish to edit (in reality, multiple people just disagree with them, because they are not editing within Wikipedia guidelines and policy).
:::I thought maybe they had finally moved on since it had been longer than usual, but they are clearly not capable of letting go and the purpose now seems to be to attack me specifically. [[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk:TylerBurden|talk]]) 18:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes. I think my false extrapolation was due to their most recent enwiki edit being in January, so my mind immediately tacked on an assumption to avoid finding [[laches (equity)|laches]] on their part. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 19:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Last year, Tyler told them to stop doing these kind of edits to his user page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APolicynerd3212&diff=1168333597&oldid=1168172209]. Clearly PN has no regard for that. My main question here though, who are they a [[WP:SPA]] of? [[User:Conyo14|Conyo14]] ([[User talk:Conyo14|talk]]) 19:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have blocked Policynerd3212 for two years for personal attacks and harassment. That's an unusually long block, but Policynerd3212 had not edited previously for 11 months, so I think a block of that length is justified in this case. FYI {{u|Conyo14}}, "SPA" means "Single-purpose account" not "Sock puppet account. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 19:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Gracias! [[User:Conyo14|Conyo14]] ([[User talk:Conyo14|talk]]) 19:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== User:PhenixRhyder ==
{{atop|1=Indef applied directly to the forehead. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{resolved}}
I gave [[User:PhenixRhyder]] a warning for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac&diff=prev&oldid=1264102554 this legal threat], but looking at their other contributions to user pages and talk pages (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Thebiguglyalien&diff=prev&oldid=1264059963 this one], I think we are way past the warning stage and a block is warranted. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 13:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== user Stan1900 and the films of Shannon Alexander  ==
{{atop|1=Right, we're done here. {{User|Stan1900}} is indef blocked for [[WP:IDHT]] and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] among many other issues. Four !votes for topic ban below, four !votes for indef ''ban'' below - with all of the most recent !votes being for indef overall - so splitting the difference while bearing in mind [[WP:BLOCKNOTBAN|"ban" is often used when "block" is meant]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
I'm posting here in an attempt to get admin oversight on a situation playing itself out over threads at COIN, NPOVN and the relevant article talk pages.

[[user:Stan1900]] is a [[WP:SPA]] dedicated to producing articles on the films of Shannon Alexander, an individual who they admit to having had dealings with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1263784863]. The user previously made a small group of edits back in 2017/18 on the same subject, but the account was then dormant for 6 years until recent activity commenced. Recent activity seems to coincide with the US release of one of the films.

Concerns were first raised when the user opened multiple threads trying to hurry the articles through AfC [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:It%27s_Coming_(film)#Follow-Up:_Request_for_New_Page_Patrol_Review_of_It's_Coming] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2024_December_15#h-Help_with_New_Page_Patrol_Review_and_Paid_Editing_Tag_Removal_for_%22It's_Coming%22-December_15-20241215165000]  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Help_with_Review_for_%22The_Misguided%22_Draft] and talking about when the articles would appear on Google searches [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_216#Incorrect_robots_meta_tag_on_live_article] (raising concerns about a possible SEO motivation).

The articles created have been consistently identified as being of a promotional nature, primarily due to being composed primarily of quotes from positive reviews. See for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=It%27s_Coming_(film)&oldid=1262483861], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Misguided] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex,_Love,_Misery:_New_New_York&oldid=1260321591].

COI templates were added to the articles, which the user has created multiple threads in an attempt to remove, clearly forum shopping looking for a different answer. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2024_December_15#Help_with_New_Page_Patrol_Review_and_Paid_Editing_Tag_Removal_for_%22It's_Coming%22] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Dispute_over_Paid_Editing_Tag_on_%22It's_Coming%22_and_Review_of_%22The_Misguided%22_Draft] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI_tags_on_%22It's_Coming_(film)%22_and_%22The_Misguided%22] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Unwarranted_promotional_and_COI_tags_on_film_articles]

The lengthy (and promotional) Reception sections were removed following talkpage discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:It%27s_Coming_(film)#Promotional_tag] sufficient to indicate that there was no consensus for inclusion. However, it is clearly inappropriate for an article to be composed primarily of reviews (good or bad) so removal was noncontroversial in any case. Nonetheless the user has argued at great length for reinclusion in various locations. 

The user is now proceeding in a highly confrontational and argumentative fashion in multiple different threads (diffs for which above) and does not seem capable of accepting that wherever they take their concerns they routinely receive the same response. Users including [[user:Cullen328|Cullen328]]  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1263288807] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1263791639] and myself have raised concerns that the user is a promo only account dedicated to the promotion of the films of Shannon Alexander. 

I’d be grateful if an admin would take some action here. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 07:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Stan1900 has also initiated two lengthy and similar threads at the Help desk, one of which has been archived. [[WP:Help desk#Dispute over Paid Editing Tag on "It's Coming" and Review of "The Misguided" Draft]] is the other and taken together, these multiple discussions show bludgeoning in defense of a highly focused promotional editing campaign. I have interacted heavily with this editor in recent days, and so I prefer that another uninvolved adminstrator read these conversations and take appropriate action. I want to admit that I made an error in evaluating the copyright status of three movie posters, and I apologize for that. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Some further background here…
::The user has claimed that {{tq| My account was created to edit Katherine Langford's article, completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander}}. However, all of the 2017/18 edits were actually directly related to Shannon Alexander, e.g. here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katherine_Langford&diff=prev&oldid=820875140]. Note also that the 2017/18 activity coincided with the release of the Shannon Alexander film mentioned in those edits.
::The user has also claimed: {{tq|I have a history of editing articles related to notable figures from Perth, Western Australia on Wikipedia}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stan1900&diff=prev&oldid=1261256072].
::However, at that time (and now) the user had only made a small number of edits (all related to Shannon Alexander), so if true this would have required the use of an alternative account. Similarly, as pointed out by Cullen328 (here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1263791639]), the user claims to have {{tq|been an active editor for 8 years, with contributions spanning a variety of topics}}, but their edit history indicates 6 dormant years since 2018. 
::The user states here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1263980366] that they have only contacted Shannon Alexander for {{tq|fact verification}}, although what purpose that was intended to serve is unclear given the requirements of [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. However the degree of association between the two individuals would clearly appear to be greater than that given the persistency of the activity and the apparent interest in, for example, urgency of publication and search engine optimisation around the time of a film release, as per [[WP:DUCK]].    
::The user has also used a great deal of very obviously AI generated posts (as pointed out in various of the threads that the user has started). The user consistently denies AI use, despite the fact that one subset of their posts consistently scores "100% likelihood AI generated" on GPTzero while the rest of their posts show up as "entirely human generated", clearly indicating two different origins. The user claims they have a very formal style of writing that GPTzero mistakes for AI, but if that were true GPTzero would consistently produce results suggesting "part AI/ part human". They then claim that GPTzero is not 100% reliable, which is correct, but that does not invalidate the very clear cut evidence above.
::So, it does seem to me that there is a consistent pattern above of statements which seem inclined to mislead. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 08:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Responding to these allegations which contain several misrepresentations:
:::1. Regarding contact with Shannon Alexander: As previously stated, my only contact has been for fact verification - a standard practice explicitly allowed by Wikipedia policies. The obsessive focus on the filmmaker rather than the articles' content is concerning. These are independent films that received critical coverage from reliable sources - their inclusion on Wikipedia should be evaluated on those merits.
:::2. The claims about 'promotional' content are misleading. The removed content consisted of properly sourced reviews from reliable publications, following standard film article format. No specific policy-based issues with the content have been identified.
:::3. The "forum shopping" accusation misrepresents proper use of Wikipedia venues:
:::- Talk pages for content discussion
:::- Help desk for process guidance
:::- NPOV board for neutrality issues
:::- Each serves a distinct purpose
:::4. Regarding GPTZero claims: The logic here is flawed. Different types of Wikipedia contributions naturally require different writing styles - technical documentation vs. talk page discussion being obvious examples. Using unreliable tool results to dismiss properly sourced content violates core principles.
:::5. Note that Cullen328 has admitted to error regarding the improper deletion of properly licensed images, which demonstrates the pattern of hasty actions being taken without proper verification.
:::The core issue remains: properly sourced, policy-compliant content about notable films is being removed based on unsupported accusations rather than specific policy-based concerns. The apparent determination to suppress well-sourced information about these independent films is puzzling. Wikipedia exists to document notable subjects based on reliable sources - which is exactly what these articles do. I remain committed to improving them more than ever [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::At the end of the day this is all very simple...
::::Other users have interpreted your work as promotional in intent. Therefore COI/PAID tags have been added. 
::::Also, articles on Wikipedia do not consist primarily of quotes from reviews, so that material has been removed (and perceived again to be promotional).
::::You have attempted, over and over again, in various threads to get the tags removed and the removals overturned - but no one in any of those threads has ever agreed with you.
::::The appropriate course of action is therefore to accept that you are in a minority and that the changes you wish to make have no community support.
::::Continuing to argue in multiple different places is not an appropriate response. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 16:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Also see [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] and [[WP:Assume good faith|assume in good faith]] that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I was correct about the fact that Stan1900 falsely claimed on Wikimedia Commons that the three movie posters in question are their "own work" and that false claim remains on the Commons file pages for those posters. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 16:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Stan1900 is currently arguing that the words 'own work' actually refer to their 'work' clicking the upload button. I'm not sure if this is all covering up for what looks more and more like an obvious COI, or a simple inability to admit to making a mistake. I think either is incompatible with the collaborative work needed for this project. I'm also very concerned about obviously dishonest statements such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1264014784 this one], there they claimed edits were unrelated to Shannon Alexander when they were clearly about a film of Alexander's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Katherine_Langford&diff=prev&oldid=777075729]. 
:::::::I think a topic ban from the subject of Shannon Alexander, broadly construed, would be the best thing here. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 17:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Your characterizations here fundamentally misrepresent both the situation and Wikipedia's purpose:
*:1. "Articles do not consist primarily of quotes from reviews" -  Misrepresents standard film article format. Well-sourced critical reception sections are common in film articles. The removed content followed established patterns for film articles, with proper citations from reliable sources.
*:2. "Interpreted as promotional" - No specific policy violations have been identified. Proper sourcing from reliable publications isn't "promotional" simply because the reviews are positive. This seems to reflect a bias against independent films receiving positive coverage.
*:3. Regarding the "own work" designation on Commons - As DMacks confirmed, proper licensing documentation was verified through official channels. The template language about authorized uploads is being deliberately misinterpreted to justify improper deletions.
*:4. The underlying issue here seems to be a systematic effort to suppress coverage of certain independent films. My interest is in documenting underrepresented works that meet notability guidelines through reliable sources. Many editors focus on their own areas of interest - the hostile reaction to well-sourced content about independent films is very surprising and concerning.
*:5. Claims of "forum shopping" misrepresent proper use of established channels for different purposes (talk pages, help desk, NPOV board). Each place serves a distinct purpose in processes.
*:The suggestion of a topic ban for contributing properly sourced content about notable subjects is inappropriate. This appears to be an attempt to use process to suppress legitimate content rather than address specific policy-based concerns.
*:I remain committed to improving Wikipedia's coverage of notable but underrepresented subjects through proper sourcing and neutral presentation. The aggressive opposition to this goal raises serious questions about systemic bias. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 18:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::* '''Support''' topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. User is clearly [[WP:NOTHERE]] and is bludgeoning the same flawed interpretations of policies over and over again. User also refuses to acknowledge that every other user in various threads disagrees with what they are trying to achieve, which is clearly contrary to collaborative work. Alternatively I would support a site block for what is obviously a promo-only account (but given their narrow focus on a single subject a topic ban would effectively be functionally identical to a site block). [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 18:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::*:Your accusations and push for a ban are baseless personal attacks that ignore policy and precedent:
*::*:The articles were already reviewed and the paid tags were removed. Restoring them without cause is disruptive.
*::*:The image licensing was properly vetted via official channels, as confirmed by a Commons admin. Claiming otherwise is misleading.
*::*:I've consistently engaged on content and policy, while you resort to vague claims of "promotion" without evidence. That's not collaboration.
*::*:Consensus is not "everyone disagreeing" with sourced additions. It's built through policy-based discussion, not mob rule.
*::*:WP:HERE is about constructive editing, not battle lines. My focus on notable films in my area of knowledge is entirely appropriate.
*::*:A topic ban would unjustly exclude neutrally written, reliably sourced content about verifiable subjects. That's a heckler's veto against core policies.
*::*:If you have specific concerns, raise them on article talk pages so they can be addressed. But unsubstantiated aspersions and ban threats are the real problem here.
*::*:Stop edit warring against consensus to remove properly vetted content. If you can't engage productively, step back and let those of us who actually want to improve the encyclopedia get on with it. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 18:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::*::The user is now claiming [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1264143313] over at COIN that {{tq|Acting as an authorized representative doesn't constitute as COI}}. I'll leave that comment for others to consider at their leisure. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 19:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::*:::Note here that the user had previous claimed repeatedly that they had only engaged in {{tq|fact verification}} with Shannon Alexander while operating in what they described as a journalistic capacity. That is not what any reasonable person would describe as being an {{tq|authorized representative}}. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 19:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. "As an authorized representative" the conflict of interest is crystal clear, despite the [[Wikipedia:BLUDGEONING|bludgeoning]] denials. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 19:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:1. Yes, I acted as an authorized representative specifically for verifying poster copyright/licensing. This was a limited, transparent interaction done through proper Wikipedia channels to ensure images were correctly licensed.
*:2. However, this narrow administrative role for image licensing does not extend to content creation. My article contributions are based entirely on reliable, independent sources, maintaining neutral POV.
*:3. I have been transparent about fact verification contacts (dates, releases, etc.), which were conducted in a manner similar to how any Wikipedia editor might verify facts with a primary source.
*:4. The suggestion of a topic ban seems unwarranted given that:
*:   - All content is properly sourced from independent publications
*:   - Image licensing was handled through proper channels with full disclosure
*:   - I've engaged constructively in discussions and made requested changes
*:   - No promotional content has been demonstrated
*:I remain committed to improving Wikipedia's coverage of independent films while following all policies and guidelines. Being authorized to handle image licensing does not prevent me from making properly sourced, neutral contributions to related articles. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 20:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*On December 15, at the Help Desk, I said to Stan1900 {{tpq|You are now behaving effectively like a one person public relations agency for Shannon Alexander on Wikipedia}}. Stan1900 denied that, criticized me for saying that, and ''repeatedly'' denied any conflict of interest. Now that we have learned that Stan1900 is an "authorized representative" of Shannon Alexander, it is clear that my December 15 assessment was correct. This editor has  been ''repeatedly'' deceptive. Accordingly, I now '''Support''' an indefinite sitewide block. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 20:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I need to address what has become an exhausting cycle of repeated explanations:
*:1. For what must be the 50th time: I served as an authorized representative SPECIFICALLY AND SOLELY for image licensing/copyright verification - a standard Wikipedia process that requires verification of rights. This was handled through proper channels and is documented. The images were challenged, reviewed, and officially reinstated.
*:2. Every single piece of content I've contributed:
*:   - Is based on independent, reliable sources
*:   - Follows NPOV guidelines
*:   - Has been properly cited
*:   - Includes balanced coverage
*:   - Has been verified through proper channels
*:3. This constant need to repeat these same points, which are documented across multiple discussion pages, is preventing productive work on Wikipedia. The evidence is clear:
*:   - Images reinstated through proper process
*:   - Paid editing tags removed after review
*:   - Content properly sourced
*:   - Constructive engagement documented
*:The suggestion of an indefinite block for following Wikipedia's proper processes is both disproportionate and concerning. At this point, the repeated disregard for documented evidence and proper procedures seems more disruptive than any of my contributions.
*:I suggest we move past this circular discussion and focus on actual content improvements. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 20:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I agree that the specific phrase "authorized agent" in the specific context of file-upload license release does not necessarily mean they are generally an agent (for PR, general employment, or other representation) in the general sense. Here, they might merely have specific authorization or act as a conduit limited to those images. However, they have explicitly stated that they actually are the license holder themselves, which is quite different from acting as the conduit between the license-holder and the Wiki world. And that contradicts all assertions they might make that they have no COI or similar tight relationship with the subject, or are anything more than the conduit. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 22:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Stan1900 is the undisputed champion of repeating themselves over and over and OVER again, under the mistaken notion that repetition is persuasion. The three movie poster files on Wikimedia Commons ''still'' falsely state that the posters are Stan1900's "own work", denying credit to the designer or designers who actually created the posters. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::1. DMacks: You've misinterpreted my role. I have consistently stated I am an authorized representative for licensing verification - NOT the license holder. This distinction is important and has been explained repeatedly. In fact, many production entitles who haven't created Wikipedia entries for their work are happy to authorize agents to handle public information and image licensing, as evidenced by this very situation. Film artwork is regularly made available through multiple channels (IMDb, theaters, press kits) - having an authorized representative handle Wikipedia licensing is neither unusual nor suspicious.
:::2. Cullen328: Your comment about "repeating over and over" is ironic given that you and others continue to repeat the same disproven accusations despite:
:::  - Images being officially verified and reinstated through proper channels
:::  - Confirmation by administrators
:::  - Clear documentation of my limited representative role
:::  - Proper sourcing of all content
:::The fact that you're still focused on image claims that have already been resolved through official Wikipedia processes suggests you're more interested in casting aspersions than improving content. These posters were challenged, verified, and reinstated - continuing to dispute this is what's actually disruptive to Wikipedia.
:::I'm happy to update template language to be more precise about representative status, but let's be clear: the licensing has been verified and confirmed. Repeatedly questioning this doesn't change the facts. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 23:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Stan1900}}, the file information pages for the three film posters STILL falsely state that they are your "own work". Why is that? [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 01:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Your continued fixation on this already-resolved issue is becoming tiresome. Nevertheless, I'll explain one more time:
:::::The "own work" designation indicates upload process handling as an authorized representative - not artistic creation. This has been explained repeatedly, the images have been verified, and administrators have confirmed their reinstatement.
:::::To spell it out yet again:
:::::- Not the creator
:::::- Not the copyright holder
:::::- Authorized for licensing verification only
:::::- Images officially verified
:::::- Reinstatement confirmed
:::::Your insistence on rehashing this same point, despite official resolution through proper channels, suggests you're more interested in finding reasons to object than improving Wikipedia. If template language is truly your deepest concern, I'm happy to update it. Otherwise, if we could focus on actual content improvement rather than this circular discussion about already-verified images would be great! [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 01:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::This isn't a thread about content, it is about your conduct. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::My conduct has been straightforward: Basically creating properly sourced articles while following guidelines. The burden of proof lies with those making repetitive and outlandish accusations, yet you've been unable to demonstrate any policy violations. Instead, you're repeatedly removing verified content and making unsupported claims.
:::::::The real disruption and misconduct here is the constant interference with legitimate article creation. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 01:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{u|Stan1900}}, ''correct that false claim'' that those posters are your "own work" and give credit to the actual poster designers. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I've updated the file pages to properly reflect copyright attribution and clarify roles. The changes align with the documentation in OTRS ticket #2024113010007335, which covers all three posters. This removes the "own work" designation while accurately reflecting the licensing chain. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 03:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:*'''Support''' the topic ban, on Shannon Alexander, and her films, broadly construed. Stan1900 is clearly here for only promotional activities, and given the change from "only contact has been for fact verification" to "authorized representative but ''only'' for this thing," makes me even more skeptical that we're currently getting the whole truth, as opposed to what they were forced to admit when called out on conflicting evidence. The doublespeak about "own work" just confirms to me that this editor would present a great time sink on anyone trying to collaborate with them effectively, which is a bit of a death knell on a collaborative project. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 04:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}Thank you, {{u|Stan1900}}. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 03:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:Stan, I appreciate that you're keen on repeating yourself, but getting others to repeat themselves is rather unfair. The reasons that multiple users have considered you to be a promotional only account are given at the top of this thread, but to jog your memory:
:Since 2017, your account has been dedicated solely to editing around the films of Shannon Alexander.
:You have an obvious conflict of interest because you've admitted to having dealt with Alexander and being their authorized representative.  
:You've created articles which other users have identified as promotional (mainly due to the articles consisting primarily of quotes taken from positive reviews).
:You've set up multiple threads to try to get the articles fast-tracked through AfC, with the stated motivation of getting the articles on to Google searches (presumably it isn't coincidental that this is at the same time that one of the films has its US release).
:You've then spent an inordinate amount of time, across multiple threads, unsuccessfully attempting to remove tags and reinstate the elements that others have found to be promotional.
:That is all the textbook activity of a promotional account. Indeed, whether this activity is being done directly on behalf of Alexander or simply off your own back, it is still promotional.
:However, if we look beyond all that, the continual [[WP:BLUDGEONING]] of multiple threads, the [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] behaviour and various deceptions have worn out the patience of those who have interacted with you. Hence we now have 4 users calling for you to be topic banned from the films of Shannon Alexander, broadly construed. Unfortunately that would seem to be the only way to get you to [[WP:STICK|drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass]]. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 04:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Who are you to question editors' personal interests or timing of contributions? Many filmmakers haven't created Wikipedia entries for their notable works, and having authorized representatives handle public information and image licensing is completely normal - as evidenced by the very processes Wikipedia has in place for this.
::Of course I want these articles to be visible and indexable – the same way you want everyone to see your contributions and the articles you've edited. If visibility was suspicious, why do any of us contribute to Wikipedia? The whole point is to document notable subjects for public access.
::Film artwork and information is readily available through multiple public channels (IMDb, theaters, press kits). Creating properly sourced articles about notable films, regardless of timing or subject matter, is exactly what Wikipedia is for.
::Your continued attempts to paint standard Wikipedia processes as suspicious suggests you're more interested in finding problems than improving content. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 04:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Your tally of "4 users" consists of the same individuals who have repeatedly removed properly sourced content without policy justification. Tags were removed and images reinstated through proper channels because they met Wikipedia's requirements - that's not coincidence, that's following process.
:::Your "coincidental timing" argument falls apart considering I'm writing about films from 2018 and 2022 in late 2024. If this was promotional, why wait years? 
:::I'm not getting others to repeat themselves - I'm providing the same answer to the same baseless accusations because you refuse to accept documented evidence. The fact that multiple administrators have verified and reinstated content you've removed suggests you're the one being disruptive, not me. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 05:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Actually it is now 5 users calling for a topic ban.
::::I'm not sure when you are referring to admins reinstating material I've removed, but I work pretty much solely on conflict of interest cases and it's fairly normal for material to be removed and reinstated on those sort of cases as discussions develop. I don't take that personally, it's just an occupational hazard that happens to everyone in that field from time to time as articles work towards a stable version. I'm not aware of having been reverted by any admins on the articles under discussion in this thread. In other situations I'd have thought it was a rare event for me to be reverted by an admin although no doubt it has occurred.    
::::My work in the COI area is, I suspect, fairly well known to a good number of readers here. I am a user in good standing who has contributed to the removal of much COI and promotional material from Wikipedia. All of my work on Wikipedia for the last year or so has been done on forums with significant administrator oversight and if my conduct was generally disruptive that would have been pointed out to me by an administrator at some point.    
::::I opened this thread in the clear knowledge that my own conduct might be placed under the spotlight, but instead it is 5 users who are calling for you to be topic blocked.
::::For you to suggest that I am the problem here only serves to demonstrate your lack of self-awareness. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 05:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Also, re: {{tq|[I] want everyone to see [my] contributions and the articles [I]'ve edited}}... No, actually I have no particular feelings on that score - probably because I resolutely avoid editing any article where I might be perceived to have a COI. With the exception of a few very minor edits I've only ever contributed to obscure articles (so hoping that "everyone will see them" would be a vain hope indeed). [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 05:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Axad12 }} {{u|CoffeeCrumbs}}
::::::1. The paid editing tags were reviewed successfully. Their reinstatement without new evidence defies this original determination.
::::::2. All images have been properly verified through Wikimedia VRT process and have valid licensing. Their deletion and reinstatement of them shows proper process was followed.
::::::3. I have already addressed all questions about authorized agent status through official Wikipedia channels. This matter is resolved.
::::::4. I have consistently followed every procedure to a T:
::::::- Using talk pages
::::::- Providing reliable sources
::::::- Following dispute resolution
::::::- Getting official review of tags
::::::- Verifying image licensing
::::::- Addressing repetitious concerns transparently 
::::::5. The suggestion of a topic ban - what topic exactly? Arts and culture coverage? That would be an unprecedented scope based on properly sourced contributions.
::::::6. Regarding CoffeeCrumbs' claims of 'promotional activities' - I have several drafted articles about artists with similar encyclopedic gaps in coverage that I've had to delay working on due to this ongoing situation. The fact that a few users are trying to discredit me simply because I focused on documenting 3 films that had no Wikipedia presence is, frankly, pathetic.
::::::All of my edits are fully sourced, neutral, and follow policy. Each accusation has been officially reviewed and resolved through proper channels. If there are content concerns, they should be raised with diffs and policy citations, not broad accusations. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 17:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Please see [[WP:BLUDGEON]]. You've said all of that stuff time and time again but other users still fundamentally disagree with you and find your conduct problematic. You just need to drop the stick now. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 17:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Citing WP:BLUDGEON is ironic given you repeatedly make the same accusations after they've been officially resolved through proper channels:
::::::::1. (Some) paid editing tags - officially reviewed and removed (then slapped back on)
::::::::2. Image licensing - verified through VRT
::::::::3. Authorized agent status - addressed through proper process
::::::::I've responded to concerns as they arise and made improvements based on constructive feedback (see discussion with Gråbergs Gråa Sång). Yet you continue repeating claims without new evidence.
::::::::Repeatedly making resolved accusations while telling others to "drop the stick" is bad form. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 17:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Sorry, how have the issues in this thread {{tq|been officially resolved through proper channels}}? This is an open thread and 5 users have called for a topic ban. The issues have not yet been {{tq|officially resolved}} by any definition of the term. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 17:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::The tags WERE successfully removed through proper review
::::::::::The images WERE successfully reinstated through VRT verification
::::::::::The authorized agent status WAS officially resolved
::::::::::These are documented facts with clear outcomes through proper Wikipedia channels. See:
::::::::::- VRT verification: commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=prev&diff=973304583
::::::::::- Discussion with @Gråbergs Gråa Sång showing constructive collaboration
::::::::::Your reference to "5 users" is misleading when multiple official processes have already concluded in favor of the content and proper procedures were followed. A handful of editors repeating already-resolved claims doesn't override completed official processes.
::::::::::If there are new concerns, they should be raised with policy citations rather than attempting to relitigate resolved issues. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 17:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The thing is that the tags, the images and the authorised status issues aren't the matters under discussion in this thread (and they weren't resolved by "official processes" anyway). This is a thread about conduct, not about content. If you find it {{tq|misleading}} that 5 users have called for a topic ban in relation to your conduct then there is no helping you. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Your attempt to separate "conduct" from the actual documented timeline is misleading:
::::::::::::1. These issues ARE relevant because they demonstrate consistent proper conduct
::::::::::::2. You claim these 'weren't resolved by official processes' - this is factually incorrect:
::::::::::::- See VRT verification: commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=prev&diff=973304583
::::::::::::- See constructive discussion with @Gråbergs Gråa Sång leading to content improvements
::::::::::::3. My "conduct" has been consistently focused on improving Wikipedia through proper channels while facing repeated unfounded accusations and content removals without policy basis. Your Vague allegations while ignoring documented proper process is itself problematic conduct. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 17:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, I read this the other 15 times you said it. Getting you to follow procedure is like pulling teeth. There's no credit in disclosing things on the 10th opportunity after stonewalling the first nine. And it's clear what the topic ban would entail: Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. My only question is if this is enough, but I want to [[WP:AGF]] that the conduct won't continue in the event you actually make edits not related to Shannon Alexander somehow. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 17:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Your accusations are baseless and contradicted by the record:
::::::::I have engaged transparently and promptly through proper channels at every stage:
::::::::- Used talk pages consistently
::::::::- Responded to concerns promptly
::::::::- Had tags officially reviewed and removed
::::::::- Had images verified through VRT
::::::::- Resolved authorized agent status
::::::::- Made improvements based on constructive feedback
::::::::2. A topic ban on is a solution in search of a problem. The articles are properly sourced, neutrally written, and part of addressing gaps in coverage. It's absurd to suggest banning someone for documenting notable films following policy.
::::::::3. The relentless accusations regarding these 3 simple articles that previously had no coverage must stop. The paid editing and COI tags are demonstrably untrue based on the official resolutions through proper channels.
::::::::I will continue to refute these baseless allegations because they are false. Please stop making unfounded accusations and let those of us who want to improve the encyclopedia do so.
::::::::The documentation exists. The proper processes were followed. The official resolutions are clear. These constant attempts to relitigate resolved issues are what's actually disruptive to Wikipedia. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 17:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I think it would be productive here for an administrator to review the contents of this discussion and take action based on the views expressed by multiple users. Further discussion is not going to advance matters any further (unless other users would like to add their voices to whether or not a topic ban would be appropriate). [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 17:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{u|CoffeeCrumbs}} Your proposed topic ban is arbitrary and unjustified. If you're concerned about my editing conduct, why limit it to Shannon Alexander specifically? Why not ban me from writing about films in general, or movies from the late 2010s?
:::::::::The fact that you're targeting a single filmmaker whose work I've documented following policies and guidelines exposes the lack of logic behind your argument. It's a transparent attempt to shut down coverage of notable topics simply because you don't like that I'm the one writing about them.
:::::::::Wikipedia's mission is to encompass all of human knowledge, not to censor editors who are working in good faith to expand that knowledge in accordance with site policies. If there were legitimate issues with my conduct, they would apply across topics, not just to one filmmaker.
:::::::::The reality is, there is no evidence of policy violations or misconduct on my part. The paid editing and COI tags were reviewed and removed through proper channels. The images were officially verified. My role as an authorized representative was documented and resolved.
:::::::::Your continued efforts to relitigate these settled issues and impose baseless sanctions are the real disruption here. If you have specific concerns about the content of the articles, raise them on the talk pages with policy-based arguments. But stop trying to game the system to get rid of content and contributors you personally disapprove of.
:::::::::Wikipedia is not here to indulge personal vendettas. It's here to provide free, reliable information to the world. That's why we're all here and love the platform greatly. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 17:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I proposed it, not CoffeeCrumbs. And I proposed a ban limited to Shannon Alexander because that is the only area you have been disruptive - in fact it is the sole focus of 100% of your activity on Wikipedia. I proposed a limited topic ban in the hope that you could move forward and show us you could work collaboratively elsewhere on some other topic that interests you. But if you think we're better off just banning you from more, or even from everything, that is certainly workable as well. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 18:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::This is getting absurd. Let's be clear - you're escalating from topic ban to broader bans because I defended properly sourced contributions with documented evidence? 
:::::::::::Sure, I focused on documenting films that had no Wikipedia coverage - that's called filling a gap in the encyclopedia. I have other articles about artists in development too, but this constant barrage of unfounded accusations is preventing that work.
:::::::::::At this point, an admin needs to review this situation. The escalating threats of bans over properly documented contributions has become farcical. This isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::No, that is a Straw man argument. I proposed a topic for the reasons I explained above. Kindly don't put words in my mouth. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:<s>'''Support T-ban at least'''</s> the continued [[WP:BLUDGEONING]] and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND MENTALITY]] per the above bludgeoning by said user. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]])  17:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Your comment perfectly demonstrates the circular logic being employed:
::1. I defend against unfounded accusations with documented evidence = "BLUDGEONING"
::2. I refute false claims about resolved processes = "BATTLEGROUND"
::3. I provide proof of proper conduct = "continued bludgeoning"
::Supporting a topic ban while misapplying WP:BLUDGEON to silence defense against false accusations is what actually creates a battleground atmosphere. I will continue to refute untrue claims with evidence because that's not "bludgeoning" - it's maintaining integrity. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 17:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::After that response I strike my support of a t-ban and move to '''Support an indef''' it is clear that the behaviour will not change. I have never interacted with you before or even edited in the area and you are immediately attacking me. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]])  17:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::So you've never edited in this area or interacted with me, yet you're calling for a T ban/indefinite ban? Because I defended my contributions with evidence?
::::I've had images verified through VRT, tags reviewed and removed through proper channels, and consistently improved content through collaboration. Check the documentation if you don't believe me.
::::Why exactly are you proposing to ban someone you've never interacted with? That seems contrary to collaborative spirit. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 18:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::The purpose of this board is to get additional input from previously-uninvolved editors. If all you want to do is keep saying the same thing to the same people repeatedly, you'll keep getting their same response no matter where you say it. The fact that the new participants look at what's happening and still don't agree with you should tell you something. The fact that you object to their participation and reject their input because it doesn't say what you want definitely tells us something. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 18:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Regardless of any [[WP:COI|COI]], the inability, or extreme reluctance, of this editor to:
::::* [[WP:CIR|understand]] such basic site policies as [[WP:CONSENSUS]];
::::* [[WP:admit|admit]] wrongdoing, or error, or even merely recognize the concerns of other editors as potentially valid ''in any way'';
::::* [[WP:COLLAB|take]] any sort of feedback on board, with [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] only managing to get them to correct necessary attribution only after '''4''' long, tedious and frustrating exchanges (not even counting Cullen's related replies, or others' similar remarks on it, or even the original complaint raised on other pages);
::::* [[WP:BLUDGEON|avoid]] hammering their own viewpoint repeatedly in response to every dissenting view;
::::leads me to, unfortunately, also '''support an indef ban''', at least until the user can show they understand how their behavior has not been collaborative, as well as commit to improving and also ''properly'' responding to other editors' concerns, while [[WP:LISTEN|listening]] to what they're actually saying.
::::To be clear, this is only based on the behavior observed here. I am making no comments about the original report. [[User:NewBorders|NewBorders]] ([[User talk:NewBorders|talk]]) 19:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I must firmly correct several serious mischaracterizations with documented facts:
:::::1. Re: "4 tedious exchanges about attribution"
:::::This completely misrepresents what occurred:
:::::- The extended exchanges were NOT about attribution changes
:::::- They were days of me defending against unfounded COI accusations and false claims about my identity
:::::- When attribution format was finally raised as an actual issue, and I convinced them of my legitimacy, I implemented changes immediately
:::::- The record clearly shows this timeline
:::::2. Re: "inability to take feedback"
:::::The evidence shows consistent implementation of suggested changes:
:::::- Gråbergs Gråa Sång's wiki-voice improvements implemented promptly
:::::- Article refinements based on additional verified sources
:::::- Format changes adopted when specifically requested
:::::- Image licensing properly verified (now restored through VRT after repeated proof requirements)
:::::3. Re: "not understanding WP:CONSENSUS"
:::::- I fully understand and respect consensus processes
:::::- Current disputes involve content removals without proper consensus discussion
:::::- I have actively sought broader community input through appropriate channels
:::::4. Re: "hammering viewpoint"
:::::What's being characterized as "hammering" has actually been:
:::::- Defending against continuous unfounded allegations (false claims about my identity as Shannon Alexander/affiliates, paid editing, COI, AI use etc.)
:::::- Having to repeatedly correct misrepresentations
:::::- Responding to new accusations after previous ones are disproven
:::::- Protecting properly sourced content from removal
:::::- Having to repeatedly prove already-verified image uploads
:::::5. Re: "not being collegial"
:::::The record shows I have maintained professional discourse while:
:::::- Following every proper procedure
:::::- Implementing requested changes when actually specified
:::::- Using appropriate Wikipedia venues
:::::- Facing repeated unfounded allegations
:::::Suggesting an indefinite ban based on my defense against continuous unfounded accusations, while ignoring my documented policy compliance and willingness to implement actual requested changes, is deeply concerning. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 20:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:Can an uninvolved admin please implement the obvious consensus before Stan digs himself into an even deeper hole? And, if they are not using an AI chatbot, give them a job impersonating one, because they do a very good impression? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::I think a chatbot might explain why Stan hasn't answered my question about where he found a 9-year-old definition of COI.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#c-Schazjmd-20241221001600-Stan1900-20241221000100] [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 20:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Phil Bridger}} {{u|Schazjmd}} Accusing me of being an chatbot for thoroughly defending sourced content is a baseless personal attack. Disagreement is not grounds for abuse.
:::After countless policy citations and talk page discussion research over these last several days I don't recall where I found that outdated COI definition. I am only human. But it doesn't change my core arguments about content. Even if I were a cyborg (sadly I'm not), compliance is what matters.
:::The reason I've had to repeatedly defend my work is the endless stream of unfounded allegations I keep facing. If there's an upside, it's that I've gained an even deeper knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines - knowledge I'd prefer to use improving articles, not battling more false claims. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 21:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
IN THE NAME OF JESUS, MARY, JOSEPH, AND ALL THE SAINTS AND APOSTLES, WILL SOMEONE BLOCK THIS PESTILENTIAL TIMEWASTER? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 21:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support CBAN''' of this bludgeoning [[WP:SPA]]. They are a clear [[WP:TIMESINK]]. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 22:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*:This thread could be Exhibit A for the recent proposal at VP that LLM-generated posts be banned from talk pages [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1264330258#LLM/chatbot_comments_in_discussions]. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 22:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*:To take an example of Stan1900’s serial misrepresentations…
*:Initially PAID tags were added to the articles. Stan objected and another user replaced them with COI tags. Later 2 further users expressed an opinion that PAID would be more appropriate so the tags were switched back to PAID in accordance with the developing consensus. Those PAID tags have remained in place since that time. 
*:Stan1900 has since claimed on several occasions, above and elsewhere, that the PAID tags were “removed following official review” (or similar words to that effect) and has presented this as a success for his point of view.
*:Either the user is exceptionally deluded or is attempting to misrepresent matters to those without the patience to read through all the documentation elsewhere. Further evidence of the user's serial misrepresentation can be located here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stan1900#Clear_evidence_of_dishonesty,_as_requested].
*:And breaking news.. the article that was still in AfC was recently turned down for reading like an advertisement [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stan1900#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_The_Misguided_(December_21)]. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 22:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm ==
{{atop|1=Indefed until communication improves. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|Vazulvonal of Stockholm}}
Hi, I recently came across the edits of {{U|Vazulvonal of Stockholm}}, who seems to be very stubborn in his editing. The user doesn't seem to understand the basic rules and policies of Wikipedia (such as the use of reliable sources and no original research), even after being [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vazulvonal_of_Stockholm alerted and warned many times]. Problems include self-promotion; e.g., at [[Schüssler]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sch%C3%BCssler&action=history&offset=&limit=500 some Swedish IP Addresses and himself], have tried to push the inclusion of 5 non-notable persons, of which I suspect "Lars Laszlo Schüszler" to be related to the user, as Vazulvonal seems to have created the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vazulvonal_of_Stockholm#Nomination_of_Lars_Laszlo_Sch%C3%BCszler_for_deletion], which was deleted later. Other major issues include the use of very poor quality sources (e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hungarian_Nobel_laureates&diff=prev&oldid=1262759799 Geni]), poor grammar and spelling (e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hungarian_Nobel_laureates&diff=prev&oldid=1263737165]), pushing nationalist POV (e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country&action=history]). At [[List of Hungarian Nobel laureates]], the user keeps reinstating poor quality text and sources, and even had the nerve to call me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hungarian_Nobel_laureates&diff=prev&oldid=1263749793 anti-semitic and anti-Hungarian]. At [[List of Hungarian Academy Award winners and nominees]], some Swedish IP Addresses (which are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hungarian_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees&diff=prev&oldid=1259136286 very likely related to the user]), have created [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hungarian_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees#Academy_Award_Nominations_and_Winners_of_US-born_Hungarians this very odd section of very poor quality and original research]. Per [[WP:COMPETENCE]], I'm not sure this site is the right place for someone who doesn't take advice, warnings and policies very seriously... [[User:Eem dik doun in toene|Eem dik doun in toene]] ([[User talk:Eem dik doun in toene|talk]]) 12:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: The user keeps ignoring all manuals and rules of Wikipedia, and keeps adhering to his own rules, despite being reverted and/or warned almost every time ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hungarian_Nobel_laureates&diff=prev&oldid=1263933962 diff] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country&diff=prev&oldid=1263932371 diff]). I don't know if it is a case of serious incompetence or just trolling. I would appreciate it if someone would take a look, because it does not seem that he is stopping with these shenanigans. [[User:Eem dik doun in toene|Eem dik doun in toene]] ([[User talk:Eem dik doun in toene|talk]]) 13:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:I have also had problems with this editor, on a specific BLP ([[Tünde Fülöp]]), to which they insist on adding unsourced details (for instance on December 14 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T%C3%BCnde_F%C3%BCl%C3%B6p&diff=1263120154&oldid=1263053415 diff]) after a 3rd-level BLP warning on November 27 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVazulvonal_of_Stockholm&diff=1259904839&oldid=1259902168 diff]). They also appear to be somewhat indiscriminate about putting ethnically-Hungarian people of other nationalities into Hungarian-nationality categories (such as in this case, where we have sourcing for Fülöp identifying as Hungarian but being born in Romania and emigrating to Sweden). I would be unsurprised to find that these issues are more widespread than this one article. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 02:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::The excessive additions to [[List of Nobel laureates by country]] and [[List of Hungarian Nobel laureates]], based on original research and overbroad definitions of what it means to be from one country (Hungary) have continued unabated despite this thread. I see no sign that VoS has ever replied to anything on their user talk. They have made a lot of contributions on [[Talk:List of Hungarian Nobel laureates]] but it is of a piece with their article-space edits, broad original-research-based categorization of people as Hungarian and not much listening to other editors.
::Is it perhaps time for a block to try to prod them into participating here and not continuing down the same path? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 22:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::They may not be aware of their own talkpage. I have blocked them indefinitely for persistent addition of unsourced or badly sourced content despite warnings, and for non-responsiveness on their page, adding a note in the log linking to their talkpage and encouraging them to communicate there. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 18:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC).
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Globallycz ==
{{Atop|This problem was over a few days ago. There's no point in keeping it open.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 01:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}

This user has been on disruptive edits and bad faith reviews. I as an bystander can't help with these edits as this user used only mobile phone edits to edit he please and his edit summaries was rather harsh and accusing editors of bad faith. He only joined Wikipedia for three months, and this is rather concerning for the accord. Please investigate. [[Special:Contributions/122.11.212.156|122.11.212.156]] ([[User talk:122.11.212.156|talk]]) 04:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:Have you looked at majority of my edits? Or are you basing your views here of me based on narrow baised view. I offered mg reason for reverting your edits which removed the age content without explanation. You failed to respond adequately and now instead of addressinfmg my feedback on good faith, you dropped a baseless accusation without any proper qualification. Stop nitpciking editors jus because we are a few months. That is irrelevant. And dont abuse the words "good faith". Cite specific examples where there is a basis. Otherwise, i am sorry. It will be disregarded. [[User:Globallycz|Globallycz]] ([[User talk:Globallycz|talk]]) 05:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

::It is your majority of edits, and two, Your talk page also shows it and so was edit summaries, and you felt like you want to confront readers. [[Special:Contributions/122.11.212.156|122.11.212.156]] ([[User talk:122.11.212.156|talk]]) 05:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The talk page represented a small percentage of all my edits. Have you considered whether these few editors were reasonable or unreasonable when they brought issues to talk page. Sadly, most were behaving unreasonably or without basis. Some are somewhat like your case; no explanation was given to remove content. I suggest you put away personal feelings. I offered my reason(s) for reverting your edits which primarily removed the age content without any explanation. Again please do not nitpick editors just because they are a few months. That is irrelevant. Quality of edit matters more. Again, i will not defend myself further. I just hope Adnin will be fair and look at the issue broadly and openly. Admin: If this particularly editor using the IP address as his user id continue to edits or remove content without adequate reasons or source, i will try to put them right again. [[User:Globallycz|Globallycz]] ([[User talk:Globallycz|talk]]) 05:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::IP, as the notice at the top of the page says, "please provide links and diffs here to involved pages". Globallycz has made more than 1500 edits in the last few months and we're not going to shift through them all trying to guess which edits you might think are a problem. Give us some examples. See [[H:DIFF]] if you don't know how to make a diff. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 05:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Well, here it is one of them, and even accused that one of irrational behavior. I am not. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_major_crimes_in_Singapore_(2020%E2%80%93present)&diff=prev&oldid=1263540454 here] [[Special:Contributions/122.11.212.156|122.11.212.156]] ([[User talk:122.11.212.156|talk]]) 06:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::That's the best you can come up with? Globallycz's edit summary is uncivil, as is your retaliatory edit summary where you used the same term in reference to Globallycz. You might want to read [[WP:POTKETTLE]]. The disputed content is simply a matter of a difference of wording, which neither of you has attempted to discuss on the talk page. In general I prefer your wording, but it has some minor grammar and punctuation errors that need correcting, and you introduce the error "0Viet" as part of a reference elsewhere. The more important thing is that both of you are edit warring over this material. You have both broken [[WP:3RR]]. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 06:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I just like to highlight that the disputed content was not just a matter of wording. Please review carefully. I dont think i was being rude nor uncivil. The person accusing me of this and that has used strong words like asking me to get a life and daring me this and tbat. On my part, i only insisted that all WP edits should be properly justified. Suggest you reviewed the edits again. 
:::::::i dont wish to add to your burden unless necessary. The irony is that he had earlier removed the space between a full stop and two references along with other age content on the WP describibg serious crimes in Singapore between 2020 and 2024. When i did the same thing to remove the space between full stop and reference, he undid it. That is not rational. Being civil means respecting others by following basic rules like justifying each edit reasonably. I dont see him doing that. You wont hear from me anymore. [[User:Globallycz|Globallycz]] ([[User talk:Globallycz|talk]]) 07:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'm assuming that the related edits in the 122.11.212 range are yours too. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 07:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{tq|You have both broken [[WP:3RR]]}} - Indeed they have, and thus they've both been blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 08:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Frankly if you admin people are more informed or less lazy, you will check the edits by IP user 122.11.212.156 and notice most of his edit were reverted by others due to vandalism or unsubstantiated edits. This is partly why I.dont have any kind of respect to the check and balance system in WP. [[User:Globallycz|Globallycz]] ([[User talk:Globallycz|talk]]) 10:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I'm not seeing "most" of the IP's edits being reverted as vandalism. In fact, you're the ''only'' person I'm seeing reverting them. Also, lashing out at the admins as {{tq|lazy}} is [[WP:NPA|not a good look]]. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 16:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Well, that is not honest. If you are unhappy with being labelled as lazy and deny several reverting of past edits of IP user 122.11.212.156 by other editors, that is not being objective. I cant do anything if you deny them. I only reverted 2 of this edits which involved removals of content without reasons. Your response is the reason I dont have respect for the work Adminstrator do. [[User:Globallycz|Globallycz]] ([[User talk:Globallycz|talk]]) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::[[User:Globallycz|Globallycz]], nobody said you're obligated to "respect the work admins do", however you do have to abide by [[WP:CIV]] and [[WP:NPA]], which are [[WP:POLICY|policies]] (in fact, one of the [[WP:5P4|five pillars]]), and ''not'' some optional motto or decorative set of words. Calling people "irrational" or "lazy" is uncivil, and as an uninvolved observer I would suggest you stop. [[User:NewBorders|NewBorders]] ([[User talk:NewBorders|talk]]) 14:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::It is called criticism and not an attack. WP Administrator needs to do a better job when carrying out arbitration of complaints or disputes. I am fine with being blocked one day for breaking the 3RR rule but Admin should look deeper into the IP user 122.11.212.156's track record. He got off too lightly. 
*:::::Sorry, i disagree that using the words lazy and irrational is deemed uncivil. It is not personal. It is my general observation from this episode. If Admin does a bad job, are we suppose to pretentiously thank or praise them? I can easily cite examples to support my claim about IP user 122.11.212.156 unconstructive edits. I just couldnt understand why Admin let the user off so easily. 
*:::::Of course, I am not obligated to respect the work Admin does. Nobody needs to tell me that. [[User:Globallycz|Globallycz]] ([[User talk:Globallycz|talk]]) 16:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Just giving you advice here, in line with what multiple different people have already told you.
*::::::Though if you choose [[WP:IDHT|not to hear it]] and dig your hole deeper instead, that's of course your prerogative. I will now disengage, good luck. [[User:NewBorders|NewBorders]] ([[User talk:NewBorders|talk]]) 16:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Globallycz, it's interesting that you think the IP "got off too lightly"" seeing as how you were both given identical blocks for edit warring with each other. If that's the case then it appears that '''you''' also got off too lightly.
*:::::::Stating that you prefer a block to discussing the contested edits, and doubling down on your incivility/personal attacks does not bode well for you. [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] before EducatedRedneck's following call for an indef is accepted. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 22:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::I have repeatedly highlighted to look into the track record of IP user 122.11.212.156. But it seems none of you wish to do so and cant bother to look deeper and beyond just the single snap shot on his edit warring with me over WP on serious crimes in Singapore 2020 onwards. Please do not misinterpret what I said. I am fine with the 24 hours block over the edit warribg incident but 122.11.212.156 has a history of unconstructive edits that were reverted by others. 122.11.212.156 knowingly edited the disputed WP without citing any reasons and still has the audacity to complain about me. His or her action are done to disrupt others. Just check his contributions in the past and you will notice many others were reverted either manually or using undone function. On that basis, he got off too lightly. Well, if Admin refused to check the IP user track record, I cant do anything but label it as lazy. My comments are nothing personal but directed at the actions. Even my comment that 122.11.212.156 is irrational was directed at his or her actions. I dont even know any of you. Why would I be personal? I am just voicing my unhappiness with the way dispute are decided here by Admin which I feel are sometimes too superficially done and decided. I would sign off here on this topic too. [[User:Globallycz|Globallycz]] ([[User talk:Globallycz|talk]]) 05:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::I looked at the [[Special:Contributions/122.11.212.156|contributions of 122.11.212.156]] and I don't see anything like the record you are describing. That IP has made a total of 14 edits in the past year, all in the last 2 months, of which only six have been to article space. Five of those edits to article space have been reverted, and '''all''' of those reversions were done by you; no reversions have been done by any other editor. It's not very meaningful to look at edits further back than a year since it's likely the IP address was reassigned so the old edits may not have done by the same editor. But even looking back at the older edits, there were a total of 15 edits from this IP before 2024, of which 5 were reverted. This all hardly shows a pattern of widespread disruptive edits or "many" reversions.{{pb}}I also looked at the edits to [[List of major crimes in Singapore (2020–present)]] that Globallycz is so worked up about and is calling disruption. They are very minor, basically the argument is just about whether to include the ages of some people involved in a crime. Ironically, 122.11.212.156's last edit was to restore Globallycz's preferred version, yet Globallycz still can't let this drop and continues to call for sanctions. Given their uncollaborative and uncivil comments here and elsewhere, I would support an indef, or at least fairly lengthy block, especially since they have repeatedly indicated that they are ready to accept a 24 hour block as a price they're willing to pay in order to get their way. [[User:CodeTalker|CodeTalker]] ([[User talk:CodeTalker|talk]]) 07:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::You are not being reasonable and fair 
*::::::::::(1) when you discount the explanation I gave to revert the two edit(s) by 122.11.212.156 pertaining to removal of age content .  I had repeatedly asked 122.11.212.156 to explain the age content removal but it was never given. I justified the reversion of his edit by explaining that the sources listed the age of the suspect and victim along with their names.
*::::::::::(2) when you did not considered that the multiple reversions in 2024 were pertaining to the same WP and same disputed content while those earlier were of different WPs and content. I quote 3 WPs below which had edit by 122.11.212.156 reverted by other editors. Reason given by those who reverted the edits are quoted below too.
*::::::::::1. WP Osmanthus fragrans:
*::::::::::Date: Jul 2022
*::::::::::Undid revision 1100529442 by 122.11.212.156 (talk)-repeated disruptive edits
*::::::::::2. WP Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)
*::::::::::Date: 1 Nov 2021
*::::::::::Undid revision 1053014105 by 122.11.212.156 (talk) unexplained removal of material and change of references
*::::::::::3. WP Wunmi Mosaku
*::::::::::Date: 17 Sep 2021
*::::::::::Reverting edit(s) by 122.11.212.156 (talk) to rev. 1045008960 by 42.188.141.191: unsourced BLP birth date 
*::::::::::In your eagerness to see that I am banned indefinitely, you have conveniently claimed it is not meaningful to look at edits beyond one year since IP may be reassigned and past edits may be done by a different person. This is so convenient since there is no need to provide proof. 
*::::::::::I can also conveniently claim that there are different people manning the IP address and their common objective is to disrupt WP edits. Likewise, I dont have to prove what i say too and there is no way for you to disprove this possibility too.
*::::::::::He decided to undo the reversion after knowing he has beem exposed for irrational behavior. I have explained why he was irrational. And I dont wish to repeat here again. If none of you wish to take that into account, I cant do anything. Please be objective. [[User:Globallycz|Globallycz]] ([[User talk:Globallycz|talk]]) 13:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::By the way, I have just looked at the edit by IP user 122.11.212.156 in Oct 2024 pertaining to WP Jurong Group Representative Constituency. The content introduced by IP user 122.11.212.156 was illogical and unsupported by any source. As such I have reverted them. [[User:Globallycz|Globallycz]] ([[User talk:Globallycz|talk]]) 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Just to add, if we just look at 2024 contributions of IP user 122.11.212.233 involving 7 edits of mainly same content on just 2 WPs (Major Crimes in Singapore 2020 - Present and Jurong GRC), it is hardly representative of the disruptive behavior. A telltale sign that he is possibly from the same person was the evidence that in Nov 2021, he edited WP page related to Singapore MRT and in 2024, his edits were also pertaining to Singapore related WPs on major crimes in Singapore and Jurong GRC. [[User:Globallycz|Globallycz]] ([[User talk:Globallycz|talk]]) 01:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I don't think Globallycz has gotten the message. Their denial that calling editors (admins or otherwise) "lazy" is a [[WP:PA]] seems to suggest [[WP:NOTHERE|an incompatibility with a collaborative project]]. On their talk page, they [[Special:Diff/1263556985|state]]: {{tq|q=y|Frankly, i rather get blocked for 24 hours rather than go through dispute resolution}}. They [[Special:Diff/1263563086|double down]]: {{tq|q=y| For me, it is fine to be blocked. I rather take that route.}} Finally, they seem to admit to using personal attacks to prove a [[WP:POINT]] in [[Special:Diff/1264029555|this]] edit, where after being told to not attack editors, they state: {{tq|q=y|I am highlighting a problem here}} If they won't even pay lip service to following community guidelines, I think an indef is appropriate. If they change their approach and convince an admin, they can be welcomed back. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 17:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Excessive range block ==
{{atop|1=IP-using sockmaster complains that their IP range is blocked. [[Surprised Pikachu|Complaining IP-using sockmaster is blocked]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
[[Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40]] has been blocked for 3 years. For anyone unfamiliar please read [[User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64]]. You can also click on the contributions to see that this block affects editors literally all over the United States. I am not saying that no disruption ever came out of this range but this range is so massive it blocked countless editors who never did anything wrong trampling on the rights of far too many IP editors. Please unblock and in the future just block the 64. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B1AA:C837:B0E8:BE4F:395:C300|2600:1012:B1AA:C837:B0E8:BE4F:395:C300]] ([[User talk:2600:1012:B1AA:C837:B0E8:BE4F:395:C300|talk]]) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

:And yet, since May there has only been a single unblock request, one which did not use the template so no one responded, doesn't seem like a lot of collateral. It's an anonymous only block, so accounts (created in other ranges) can be used to edit from that range without issue.
:Secondly, this should probably be at [[WP:AN]], or better yet the blocking admin's user talk page, as this is not an incident nor anything requiring urgent admin attention, seen as the block has been like that since May, and blocked for long lengths of time before that as well[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2600%3A1007%3AB100%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%2F40] with no apparent issue. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80D2:8401:D80F:263F:C174:E386|2804:F1...74:E386]] ([[Special:Contributions/2804:F14::/32|::/32]]) ([[User talk:2804:F14:80D2:8401:D80F:263F:C174:E386|talk]]) 20:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Most IP editors don’t know how to submit an unblock request. And a new editor would be unable to create an account thanks to this block. We’ll never know how many would be wikipedians we lost. I don’t know why the fact that this range block is problematic needs to be explained. It affects way more people than the editor(s) they were trying to block. Literally the entire United States can fall on that range. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B1AA:C837:B0E8:BE4F:395:C300|2600:1012:B1AA:C837:B0E8:BE4F:395:C300]] ([[User talk:2600:1012:B1AA:C837:B0E8:BE4F:395:C300|talk]]) 21:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{xt|Most IP editors don’t know how to submit an unblock request.}} Right, that's factored into the calculation that only one request means there isn't a lot of collateral damage. If every editor that wanted one automatically filed one, a total of one filing wouldn't be small, but minuscule collateral. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 21:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::That doesn’t make any sense. If every editor that wanted one automatically filed one, we wouldn’t have a total of one filing. No one even responded to the unblock request, so we likely lost a would be wikipedian. The collateral damage is not small and can be minimized by blocking the 64 instead of a 40 range. There have been far too many editors that didn’t do anything wrong blocked. [[Special:Contributions/174.243.177.85|174.243.177.85]] ([[User talk:174.243.177.85|talk]]) 00:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::We can't facilitate absolutely every case unfortunately. Every block might lose someone we could've known and loved in a perfect world. With experience, the evidence indicates that the trade-off here has been acceptable to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::No one has any "rights" to edit this website. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 00:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:This is actually a rather complicated subject. Firstly number of addresses ≠ number of affected users. Some very broad ranges are little used, some rather narrow ones are extremely busy. Secondly there's a tricky calculation involved with broad range blocks, but much as we want to limit collateral to as little as necessary, there are some extremely nasty sockmasters who have no qualms about abusing large ranges to their advantage, so that large rang-blocks really are the least bad option. As just one example the entire T-Mobile range has been repeatedly blocked. In fact blocks as wide as /29 are not as unreasonable as you may think.
:Getting back to this specific case, it's a Verizon Business range, and it wouldn't surprise me if individual users floated within a /40 making the block of smaller subnets of less utility. I don't know all the specifics of why {{U|Widr}} blocked that range, but then again you don't either since you didn't ask them first which you really should have done before bringing this here. That range has in fact been repeatedly blocked including for BLP violations and sockpuppetry. Ideal? no. Least bad option? Almost certainly. Those are experienced sysops; I would trust their judgement. [[Special:Contributions/184.152.68.190|184.152.68.190]] ([[User talk:184.152.68.190|talk]]) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::FYI, OP is a block evader, latest socks [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rugendow here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cragadobe here]. [[User:Widr|Widr]] ([[User talk:Widr|talk]]) 07:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Figures, at least they were kind enough to bring their block-evasion to everyone's attention here; to the limited extent I have time available I'll try to keep an eye out. [[Special:Contributions/184.152.68.190|184.152.68.190]] ([[User talk:184.152.68.190|talk]]) 15:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
: Blocking a /64 on this IP range would be pointless.  Admins can do blocks like this without disabling account creation, though.  Unless there's logged-in disruption, such as the creation of sock puppets, vandals, or trolls, account creation can be left enabled on wide IP ranges like this.  Personally, I'm not so sure that Mediawiki should make it so easy to perform range blocks.  I think maybe there should be a user right required, like [[WP:edit filter manager|edit filter manager]]. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 04:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
* I came across similar thoughts a few days ago. Because of bot reasons, and others, a lot of the times I am in incognito mode - without logged in. I often need to see the source. And all this time (in last 2-3 years), all of the time my IP/range was blocked with ACB. Is it possible to block the IP ranges only from mainspace? or something similar? —usernamekiran [[User talk:usernamekiran|(talk)]] 12:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
* This is, I think, a mobile network with dynamically assigned IP addresses. It may be necessary to block a range if there is disruption by people whose IP address change frequently within that range. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 12:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*: regardless ISP (mobile/DSL/fibre or anything), the default IP system in India is dynamic. Static IPs are provided upon request, which are done only by hosting service providers and similar people. So it is safe to say that 99.9 home users/individual in India have dynamic IP address which change a lot. —usernamekiran [[User talk:usernamekiran|(talk)]] 13:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*::[[Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40]] is in the United States, not India. — [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 19:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I believe {{U|Usernamekiran}} was referring to their own experience <small>mentioned in their first comment</small> rather than this specific case. Regardless, this thread was started in bad-faith by a sockmaster unhappy their favorite range was blocked and should now be closed. If I hadn't already involved myself by weighing in here I would have done so already. [[Special:Contributions/184.152.68.190|184.152.68.190]] ([[User talk:184.152.68.190|talk]]) 20:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::I think this is a sockmaster that is just unhappy with Widr in general, seeing the accounts Widr mentioned - may or may not make this report an attempt at harassment.
*::::Should be closed either way. Also on you closing it, IPs shouldn't really close threads, even when uninvolved - reverting a sock's unresponded post is probably the most an IP might do, closing just shouldn't happen. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80D2:8401:3D8F:4ED6:BEA7:86CC|2804:F1...A7:86CC]] ([[Special:Contributions/2804:F14::/32|::/32]]) ([[User talk:2804:F14:80D2:8401:3D8F:4ED6:BEA7:86CC|talk]]) 20:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::There is, or perhaps was <small>the last decade or so has been a bit of a blur</small>, a complex etiquette governing such closes, but if sentiment has turned entirely against them that would be news to me. At one point I might have ventured on essay on that and other many other facets of unregistered etiquette, but now I don't have the time and would probably just wind-up dating myself badly anyway. [[Special:Contributions/184.152.68.190|184.152.68.190]] ([[User talk:184.152.68.190|talk]]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Consistent unsourced changes by IP 2604:2D80:E283:4400:6966:1764:DC7C:6329 ==
{{atop
| result = [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3A2604%3A2D80%3AE283%3A4400%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%2F64&type=block Blocked] the /64 for one week. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 02:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
}}
{{userlinks|2604:2D80:E283:4400:6966:1764:DC7C:6329}} has been changing composer fields across various movie articles with no sources. All of them have been plain wrong. [[User:Kline|Kline]] • [[User talk:Kline|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kline|contribs]] 01:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:'''Note:''' The user has persisted after I issued a level 4 final warning for continued deliberate insertion of incorrect information on the user's talk page Yutah<sup><span style="color: #D19FE4;">1</span><span style="color: #373A77;">2</span><span style="color: DeepSkyBlue;">3</span></sup>&#124;[[User:Yutah123|UPage]]&#124;[[User talk:Yutah123|(talk)]]&#10038; 02:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:This seems to be purely an [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism|AIV]] issue - especially since it's an unregistered user. <span style="color: #0f52ba; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: 0px 0px 1px #111111;">[[User:Synorem|<span style="color: #0f52ba; text-decoration: none;">Synorem</span>]]</span> ([[User talk:Synorem|talk]]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Good timing, I've opened a report on AIV just a few minutes ago Yutah<sup><span style="color: #D19FE4;">1</span><span style="color: #373A77;">2</span><span style="color: DeepSkyBlue;">3</span></sup>&#124;[[User:Yutah123|UPage]]&#124;[[User talk:Yutah123|(talk)]]&#10038; 02:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== there is wrong information on the article shia in iraq  ==
{{atop|1=Content dispute. [[Talk:Shia Islam in Iraq]] is thataway →. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
in this article the editor saying that the shea in iraq 65% and Sunni in iraq is 25-30% this is totally wrong statement in Iraq we never have census established based on sect all the census was established based on Male and female please see the reference below, please remove this false information and corrected, wekepedia shouldn't publish Article backed by weak source the, the editor used the world factbook that belong to CIA , i cant believe this,  how the hell that the CIA conducted a Census overseas and get the number of Sunni and Shia people in Iraq, this is the same fake information that the CIA told the world that Iraq have mass destruction weapon which leaded to occupied Iraq, so please edit and remove these false info . below are links showing Iraq Census database showing all the Census that been conducted since 1950 till 2024, was based on male and female never have Census based on Sect.

https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population/iraq?year=1978
https://www.populationpyramid.net/iraq/1978/
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/IRQ/iraq/population
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/iraq-population/
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iraq-hold-first-nationwide-census-since-1987-2024-11-19/
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2024-11-25/iraqs-population-reaches-45-4-million-in-first-census-in-over-30-years   
https://cosit.gov.iq/ar/62arabic-cat/indicators/174-population-2?jsn_setmobile=no  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Freeman7373|Freeman7373]] ([[User talk:Freeman7373#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freeman7373|contribs]]) 01:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Hello, {{u|Freeman7373}}. This noticeboard does not resolve content disputes. Please discuss your concerns at [[Talk:Shia Islam in Iraq]]. That being said, estimates of religious affiliation do not require an official census. The [[CIA World Factbook]] is considered a reliable source for this type of information, as is the [[United States Institute of Peace]] which is also cited. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 01:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::how you gave population rate based on sect without Census, what you said doesn't make any sense and showing the ignorance, your CIA is not a reliable source they lied about the mass destruction weapon in IRAQ which leaded to the occupation and many people died from both side , i know people life doesn't mean anything to the evil side, so this is one example of your reliable source. see links below     
::https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/03/the-iraq-invasion-20-years-later-it-was-indeed-a-big-lie-that-launched-the-catastrophic-war/
::https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-fresh-wmd-claims
::https://www.quora.com/Was-the-CIA-dumb-to-conclude-that-Iraq-has-WMDs
::Shame on your reliable source  [[Special:Contributions/2603:8080:2602:2000:34F5:E43C:C23B:E584|2603:8080:2602:2000:34F5:E43C:C23B:E584]] ([[User talk:2603:8080:2602:2000:34F5:E43C:C23B:E584|talk]]) 02:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Quora isn't reliable, and please be [[WP:CIVIL|civil]]. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent ==
{{atop
| result = MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent was warned to cease this conduct. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 02:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
}}

{{User|MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent}} has been warned by several users about their improper [[WP:SHORTDESC|short descriptions]] but has not changed their behavior.{{Diff2|1263492476}}{{Diff2|1264201007}} It unfortunately appears to be a competence issue. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:Looks like they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent&diff=prev&oldid=1264207030 just committed to stopping]. I'd be inclined to take a wait and see approach here. [[Special:Contributions/184.152.68.190|184.152.68.190]] ([[User talk:184.152.68.190|talk]]) 02:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 02:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Gender-related arbitration issue? ==
{{atop|1=Removed from editing (indef'd). - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Masquewand}} is removing "gender" from {{pagelinks|Sexual orientation}}. First {{diff||1264041220|1261563622|02:48, 20 Dec 24}} which I reverted then on {{diff||1264051379|1264041261|04:12, 20 Dec 24}}. Masquewand was left a gender-related contentious-topics notice and has been blocked for this issue on 7 Dec 24. The article has a hidden comment that explains the reason "gender" is in place. [[User:Adakiko|Adakiko]] ([[User talk:Adakiko|talk]]) 11:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

:[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Masquewand&diff=prev&oldid=1261637945 This comment] makes me think [[WP:NOTHERE]] applies. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 11:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:The whole of that user talk page is a study in [[WP:IDHT]].  Someone for whom the concept of consensus is incomprehensible -- and throw in his charming assertion that a source as much as five years old is invalid -- is not going to be deflected from His! Mission! [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]]   12:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
Take note of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Masquewand&diff=prev&oldid=1264221435 this] comment they made. Seems to imply a threat of socking? [[Special:Contributions/2001:EE0:1AC3:C498:84A4:3BCE:C7B7:9F5F|2001:EE0:1AC3:C498:84A4:3BCE:C7B7:9F5F]] ([[User talk:2001:EE0:1AC3:C498:84A4:3BCE:C7B7:9F5F|talk]]) 05:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

{{Clear}}
==Obvious sock threatening to take legal action==
{{atop|1=VPN socking blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{atop|result=IP 2409:40D6:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 range block has been blocked for 6 months. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}}
[[Special:Contributions/2409:40D6:0:0:0:0:0:0/32|This IP range]] has been socking to edit a wide range of caste articles, especially those related to [[Jat]]s . This range belongs to [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthfindervert]] and has been socking using proxies and VPNs too. Many of which have been blocked[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=166484842]. Now they are threatening to take legal action against me "{{tq|but how far we will remain silence their various optimistic reason which divert my mind to take an legal action against this two User}}" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheSlumPanda&diff=prev&oldid=1263569836]. - [[User:Ratnahastin|<span style="color:#A52A2A;">Ratnahastin</span>]] ([[User talk:Ratnahastin|talk]])  11:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:Just as ignorant as he is known  longtime abnormal activation and especially on those of [[Jat]] article see his latest revision on [[Dudi]] you will get to urge why he have atrocity to disaggregating [[Jat|Jat articles]] but pm serious node i dont mention him not a once but ypu can also consolidate this [[User:TheSlumPanda]] who dont know him either please have a eyes on him for a while [[Special:Contributions/2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0|2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0]] ([[User talk:2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0|talk]]) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:But wait a second as per [[WP:NOPA]] i dont take his name either not even  so dont even try to show your true culler midway cracker and admin can you please not i am currently ranged blocked as my network is Jio telecom which was largely user by various comers[[Special:Contributions/2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0|2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0]] ([[User talk:2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0|talk]])
::Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention [[WP:No personal attacks]] and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think it's both. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 12:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, we linguists don't like anecdotal evidence, but I'll provide some: I (non-native speaker of English, with a linguistics PhD) had to look up all the potential candidates for a slur in that post, and when I did find one it's not one I'd ever heard. However, "crackers" is an insult in Hindi, so I'd say it is most likely a PA, just not the one an American English speaker might understand it as. --''[[User:Bonadea|bonadea]]'' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonadea|contributions]] [[User talk:Bonadea|talk]]</small> 13:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::At least in the South, an American would recognize [[Cracker (term)|Cracker]] as a pejorative. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Sure, but the IP user who used the word said they are in India, and their post contains various typical non-native speaker errors. ("culler" instead of "colour", for instance) --''[[User:Bonadea|bonadea]]'' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonadea|contributions]] [[User talk:Bonadea|talk]]</small> 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC) 
:::::<small>Funny thing is you go far ''enough'' south it wraps back around again: [[Florida cracker]] - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
* Observation: the IP just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dudi&diff=prev&oldid=1263574433 tried to place a contentions topics notice] on the talk page of the [[Dudi]] article. It's peripheral, and the IP is pretty clearly involved. Is this a bad-faith edit by the IP, or should we just take their suggestion and extended-confirmed protect the page?... —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 12:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Is there a Dudi [[WP:GS/CASTE|caste]]? Though I will note there is a lot of overlap between the "Indian Subcontinent" and "South Asian social strata" topic areas. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
*Noting that this person (Truthfindervert?) has taken to using VPNs. I’ve blocked a couple today. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 22:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j ==
{{atop|1=Blocked, blocked, they're all blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
The user {{u|Rereiw82wi2j}} was blocked for blanking talk page discussions. They were removing discussions they participated in with an now-vanished account, for the purpose of removing their username from the talk page(which isn't removed via a vanishing). I believe that per [[WP:VANISH]] their vanishing needs to be reversed, am I correct? Do they need to be asked to resume using that account?(if they can) [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:It seems to need reverting because with their previous account, they only edited one article/talk page and when asked what articles they wanted to edit with their new account, they just mention this same article. That violates the entire principle of a clean start account. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 23:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Could we revoke TPA per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rereiw82wi2j#c-Rereiw82wi2j-20241221135400-331dot-20241220205000 this]? ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::: I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::User has created another account {{u|Human82}}. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]])  15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Also now blocked. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::There's also [[User:ResearchAbility]] now. [[User:Win8x|win8x]] ([[User talk:Win8x|talk]]) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Blocked by PhilKnight. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Mgtow definition ==
{{atop|1=Editor was pointed to the talk page and then stopped editing. It looks like this was a case of [[WP:GRENADE]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
There are blatant lies in the wiki definition of "mgtow".
The goal is accuracy, not "man bashing". [[User:Camarogue100|Camarogue100]] ([[User talk:Camarogue100|talk]]) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Camarogue100|Camarogue100]], you should discuss this at [[Talk:Men Going Their Own Way]]. This noticeboard is for conduct issues, not content issues. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Nothing wrong with the definition of MGTOW. Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight is an internationally accepted and used term used by every airplane and airline in the world. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 16:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::The cintent is incorrect. Mvto is NOT "misogynistic". There is no "hate" towards women, only avoidance. [[User:Camarogue100|Camarogue100]] ([[User talk:Camarogue100|talk]]) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Camarogue100|Camarogue100]], you were directed to the talkpage, which includes an FAQ on the term you keep trying to remove, along with extensive discussion. You should start there before just removing sourced content that you don't like. We'll leave aside the absence of required notifications to Black Kite and myself who have warned you for your conduct. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 17:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Where do I find the talk page? [[User:Camarogue100|Camarogue100]] ([[User talk:Camarogue100|talk]]) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Camarogue100|Camarogue100]], I linked it for you in my comment above. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

* Camarogue100's removal of material unfavorable to the subject with an edit summary of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Men_Going_Their_Own_Way&diff=prev&oldid=1264090804 "typo"] indicates to me that they are here to play games, not [[WP:NOTHERE|improve the encyclopedia]]. Any more disruption should result in an immediate block IMO. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 20:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64 ==
{{Atop|Blocked for one month.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 14:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued after block expired. /64 has previously been blocked on December 8th for a week due to "Persistent unsourced genre changes", and 2 weeks on September 7th due to addition of unsourced content. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|The Iron Giant|prev|1264168891|1}}, {{diff|Joker (2019 film)|prev|1264169891|2}}, {{diff|Candyman (2021 film)|prev|1264170248|3}}, {{diff|Spirited (film)|prev|1264235847|4}}, {{diff|Sausage Party: Foodtopia|prev|1264237619|5}}. [[User:Waxworker|Waxworker]] ([[User talk:Waxworker|talk]]) 10:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Disruptive editing [[Movement for Democracy]] ==
{{atop
| result = I've protected the page for 24 hours. @[[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] and @[[User:Hellenic Rebel|Hellenic Rebel]] are both warned against edit warring, including during the course of this discussion. RR, HR, and .82 should follow [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] processes. Further disruptive editing or edit warring after page protection expires will result in blocks. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
}}

[[User:Hellenic Rebel]]  has been trying for about a month now to put across his own opinion about the party' infobox.  An opinion which he cannot back up with any source whatsoever. Although it has been pointed out to him by both the user [[User:Rambling Rambler| Rambling Rambler]] and me, continues the disruptive editing.  Ιt is worth noting that although other users made the same "mistake", when the lack of sources to support the addition was pointed out to them, they accepted it and did not continue to try to pass on their own opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Movement_for_Democracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Disruptive_editing....again

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)&diff=prev&oldid=1260268742 diff1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)&diff=prev&oldid=1263892482 diff2]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)&diff=prev&oldid=1264361750 diff3] [[Special:Contributions/130.43.66.82|130.43.66.82]] ([[User talk:130.43.66.82|talk]]) 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Since discussing the issue on article talk has not worked, please follow [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] processes, such as seeking guidance at [[WT:GREECE]] or [[WT:POLITICS]], or going to [[WP:DRN]]. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Voorts|Voorts]] taking a look because I've been tagged. While there may be content elements to it I think this has gone into a behavioural issue, namely due to it being a user actively edit warring without providing sources but instead endlessly insisting on edits that are entirely [[WP:OR]]. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 20:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::It is not a problem of content but of behaviour. His claim is original research, is his own conclusion and is not verified by any source. He knows it, has admitted it, and yet he insists on adding it. [[Special:Contributions/130.43.66.82|130.43.66.82]] ([[User talk:130.43.66.82|talk]]) 20:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

(nac) [[Movement for Democracy]] is a moderately stable DAB page, with which I have been involved. I assume this dispute relates to [[Movement for Democracy (Greece)]]. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== IP vandalism ==
{{atop
| result = Blocked. {{nac}} <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">[[User:CFA|<span style=color:#00c>C</span>]] <span style=color:red>F</span> [[User talk:CFA|<span style=color:#5ac18e>A</span>]]</span> 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
}}

This user: [[user:76.67.115.228]] seems to be on a spree of Vandalism, which they are summarising in the edit summaries as 'reverting vandalism'. Example:  [[Special:PermanentLink/1264888632|1]] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Terrainman|Terrainman]] ([[User talk:Terrainman#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Terrainman|contribs]]) 02:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>[[Special:Diff/1264896430|<diff>]]</sup>

:including racist edits summarized as reverting racist texts. Example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intellectual_disability&curid=18567040&diff=1264889887&oldid=1263010396] [[User:IrisChronomia|irisChronomia]] ([[User talk:IrisChronomia|talk]]) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::The IP is already blocked. To OP: Consider reporting obvious vandalism like this at [[WP:AIV]]. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80DD:5501:947B:8E40:2657:88CF|2804:F1...57:88CF]] ([[Special:Contributions/2804:F14::/32|::/32]]) ([[User talk:2804:F14:80DD:5501:947B:8E40:2657:88CF|talk]]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Extremely Annoying situation ==
{{atop
| result = Blocked for one week. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
}}

I reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insects_as_food&diff=prev&oldid=1264679246 this edit] by [[Special:Contributions/49.186.224.25|this IP]]. They then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shovel_Shenanigans&oldid=1264684599 trouted] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shovel_Shenanigans&oldid=1264684073 me] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shovel_Shenanigans&oldid=1264682250 multiple] times for it. One of these was for "being shovel shenanigans" which I took as a [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|PA]] and informed them of it.

The rest escapes words for me. See these discussions.

[[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans#Trouted 3|on my page]]

[[User talk:49.186.224.25#removal of your information|On]] [[User talk:49.186.224.25#Harassment|theirs]]

they also used a [[Special:Contributions/49.186.96.112|second IP]] to continue to irk me. I hesitated to bring this to ANI, since they seemed new, and I didn't want to bite, but enough is enough.

[[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Nothing to say about me really bot ==
{{atop
| result = Locked {{nac}}. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">[[User:CFA|<span style=color:#00c>C</span>]] <span style=color:red>F</span> [[User talk:CFA|<span style=color:#5ac18e>A</span>]]</span> 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
}}

*{{vandal|WilhelminaBlosse}}

Please delete the user page, block the bot and report to stewards for a global block, as per [[m:NTSAMR]]. Thank you! [[Special:Contributions/81.2.123.64|81.2.123.64]] ([[User talk:81.2.123.64|talk]]) 11:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources ==
{{Atop|Content dispute.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}

Hello,

I’m seeking administrator input regarding a dispute with @[[User:Ratnahastin|Ratnahastin]] over the content in the the "[[Kamaria Ahir]]" article. The editor removed significant content, citing [[User:Sitush/CasteSources]] as justification. Here are my concerns:

'''1. Misapplication of Policy''':

Sitush’s essays are not official Wikipedia policy. Content decisions should follow [[WP:RS]], [[WP:NPOV]], and [[WP:VERIFIABILITY]].

'''2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources''':

The removed content was based on [[British Raj]]-era sources, which are neutral and historically significant. The editor claims these are unreliable without specific evidence or discussion on the article’s talk page.

'''3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior''':

Despite my attempts to discuss the matter constructively, the editor dismissed my concerns as "[[Artificial intelligence|AI-generated]]" and warned me about sanctions under [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups|WP:GSCASTE]] and [[WP:ARBIPA]], discouraging collaboration.[[User talk:Ratnahastin|Check here for the warning]]

'''Evidence''':

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamaria_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1264530082 Diff of my original version]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamaria_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1264539078 Diff of their first edit]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamaria_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1264541145 Diff of their second edit]

[[User talk:Ratnahastin|Ratnahastin talk page]]


'''Request for Administrative Action''':

1. Review the removed content and the editor’s justification.

2. Ensure that disputes are discussed on the article’s talk page.

3. Address the editor’s dismissive tone to foster collaboration.

4. Prevent further disruptive edits/vandalism by IP editors (which hasn't happened yet) And from Autoconfirmed users(e.g. @GrilledSeatJet [now banned], -[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamaria_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1264327133 Their Diff]) and even from Extended Autoconfirmed users(@[[User:Ratnahastin|Ratnahastin]]) by banning such editors and putting an extended protection on the Article which I have once put  request [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2024/12|(please find it here)]] for but it got denied and now the results are as follows.

Thank you for your time and attention. I’m happy to provide further information if needed.
----Best Regards

--- [[User:Nlkyair012|Nlkyair012]] ([[User talk:Nlkyair012|talk]]) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

{{Clear}}
== POVPushingTheTruth ==
{{atop|1=The truth may set you free, but [[WP:THETRUTH]] will get you blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
[[User:POVPushingTheTruth]] is clearly NOTHERE. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">[[User:CFA|<span style=color:#00c>C</span>]] <span style=color:red>F</span> [[User talk:CFA|<span style=color:#5ac18e>A</span>]]</span> 05:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Blocked. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]])| <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>[[Special:Diff/1264717877|<diff>]]</sup>
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
==TPA for 83.106.86.95==
{{atop|1=Done. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|83.106.86.95}} 

Could someone revoke TPA for blocked IP, based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A83.106.86.95&diff=1264695595&oldid=1264694255]? [[User:LizardJr8|LizardJr8]] ([[User talk:LizardJr8|talk]]) 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. [[User:LizardJr8|LizardJr8]] ([[User talk:LizardJr8|talk]]) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== [[User:GDJackAttack1]] mass-creating articles for non-notable or nonexistent places ==
{{atop
| result = GDJackAttack1 has agreed to no further creation of the problematic articles. Extant ones being handled via usual channels. No further action needed here. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
}}

{{user|GDJackAttack1}} has been mass-creating stub articles for places such as insignificant residential subdivisions and other localities in Alabama and Maryland ([[Matyiko Manor, Maryland|example]]), islands in the Bahamas and Senegal ([[Île de Diakal|example]]), and other insignificant highways and airports around the world. None of these articles are sourced by anything that verifies notability, just databases and maps, which has resulted in at least one article being pointed out as a map misreading and therefore nonexistent community at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straight Mountain, Alabama (2nd nomination)|this AfD]]. I can only speculate how many more of these places do not exist and if any of them are [[phantom settlement]]s.

There are too many of these articles to send through AfD or PROD manually and there is really no point in draftifying them or converting the articles into redirects since we have little proof that these topics are notable or even exist at all. Their [[User talk:GDJackAttack1|talk page]] consists of nothing but notices of their articles being moved to the draftspace, AfD/PROD notices, and messages informing them to be more careful about article creation, yet they have seemingly ignored these messages and have persisted with spamming these stub articles for no clear reason. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">[[User:WaddlesJP13|<b style="color:white">Waddles</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:WaddlesJP13|<b style="color:white">🗩</b>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/WaddlesJP13|<b style="color:white">🖉</b>]]</span> 01:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:I will stop creating these articles. [[User:GDJackAttack1|GDJackAttack1]] ([[User talk:GDJackAttack1|talk]]) 01:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:I tagged one as '''CSD A7''' to see if that would work. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{replyto|Bgsu98}} Thank you, I also considered PROD-ing them all but I noticed you have so already. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">[[User:WaddlesJP13|<b style="color:white">Waddles</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:WaddlesJP13|<b style="color:white">🗩</b>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/WaddlesJP13|<b style="color:white">🖉</b>]]</span> 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think I got all of the ones that that Maryland batch, but I’m sure there are more. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 02:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== User:NoahBWill2002 ==
{{atop|1=NOTHERE blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|NoahBWill2002}}
It looks like there's a pretty severe [[WP:CIR|competence is required]] issue with this user. Virtually every one of their edits has had to be reverted either for adding copyrighted content/[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Megatron&diff=prev&oldid=1263639092 derivative works], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fan_art&diff=prev&oldid=1263939582 adding their own art to Fan art] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fan_art&diff=prev&oldid=1264582161 and then doing it again after being warned]), or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_King_of_Kings_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1264596286 adding personal opinion to articles]. Lastly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SleepDeprivedGinger&diff=next&oldid=1263932136 this comment is quite inappropriate] and indicates that they're unlikely to learn from any of this. <br>
(As an aside, I just blocked them on Commons for uploading non-free files after warnings (and having copyright/the issue with their uploads explained them in detail) and uploading out-of-scope files after warnings.)<br>
I think admin action is warranted here. [[User:The Squirrel Conspiracy|The Squirrel Conspiracy]] ([[User talk:The Squirrel Conspiracy|talk]]) 22:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:I 100% agree with [[User:The Squirrel Conspiracy|The Squirrel Conspiracy]] on this. [[User:NoahBWill2002]] appears completely unable to comprehend and/or follow some of the core rules of Wikipedia, especially [[WP:COPYVIO]] and [[WP:NPOV]], despite multiple editors trying to help them understand. The comment that Squirrel Conspiracy [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SleepDeprivedGinger&diff=next&oldid=1263932136 highlighted], followed by a series of blatant copyright violations, makes it abundantly clear that this editor is not going to change and is not here to build an encyclopedia. [[User:Opolito|Opolito]] ([[User talk:Opolito|talk]]) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Given [[Special:Diff/1263932136/next|this comment]], I'm not sanguine about their intention to contribute productively. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::They added [[Special:Diff/1262870039/1263960597|this]] grossly inappropriate religious screed to [[Babylon]] on their third day of editing, then they responded to a warning about it with [[Special:Diff/1263982437|more proselytizing]]. I had hoped they would get the message but just today they made [[Special:Diff/1264596286|this]] non-NPOV edit apparently based on their religious beliefs. Apart from religious edits, apparently the only other thing they've done is add self-produced fan art to a variety of articles. I'm willing to AGF while they learn what are acceptable edits here but I'd like to see some acknowledgement from them that they understand why all their edits so far have been unacceptable. (It would also show good faith if they would clean up the now-broken links in numerous articles now that their fan art has been deleted from Commons, rather than leaving it for other editors to do.) [[User:CodeTalker|CodeTalker]] ([[User talk:CodeTalker|talk]]) 00:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have indefinitely blocked NoahBWill2002 as not here to build an encyclopedia. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 01:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64, yet again ==
{{atop|1=Genre warrior sent packing. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued the same behaviour immediately following the end of a 3 month block. See block log and the two previous ANI threads from September ([[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1165#Persistent_addition_of_unsourced_content_by_2600%3A480A%3A4A72%3A6000%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%2F64|1]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1167#Persistent_addition_of_unsourced_content_by_2600%3A480A%3A4A72%3A6000%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%2F64%2C_again|2]]) related to this /64. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|You Could Be Born Again|prev|1264637321|1}}, {{diff|Kites are Fun|prev|1264637435|2}}, {{diff|Heaven/Earth|prev|1264641723|3}}, {{diff|Stars/Time/Bubbles/Love|prev|1264642096|4}}, {{diff|...Sing for Very Important People|prev|1264642646|5}}. [[User:Waxworker|Waxworker]] ([[User talk:Waxworker|talk]]) 20:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:I see the genre warriors are out today. Don't you realise how childish you are? (Not you, [[User:Waxworker|Waxworker]].) [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::/64 blocked for six months. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Urgent need for page protection on BLP ==
{{atop
| result = Protection applies. Appears admin eyes are on the Talk page. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 19:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
}}

There is currently a content dispute going on at [[Kay Granger]] involving allegations of a mental health crisis with mulitple IPs involved in a dispute over wether the information is reliable or not. A discussion is underway on the article's talkpage, but in the meantime there is revert warring taking place on the article. The page could really benefit from temporary semi protection. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:Looks like [[User:Schwede66]] got it. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{reply to|DMacks}} Thanks! Yeah. I assume they will also need a third-party closer given the heated nature of the argument. -- [[User:Lenny Marks|Lenny Marks]] ([[User talk:Lenny Marks|talk]]) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Bunch of racist IPs/account ==
{{atop|1=Sent packing. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Article: [[Anti-Turkish sentiment]]
* {{user|GREEKMASTER7281}}
* {{ip|112.202.57.150}}
* {{ip|186.154.62.233}}
[[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 13:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

:Named account indeffed, IPs blocked for 72 hours each. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Promotional content about Elvenking (band) ==
{{atop
| result = There does not appear to be an actionable COI here, just an avid fan. Content issues can be handled through the appropriate channels. {{ping|Elvenlegions}} please be mindful of musical notability and what Wikipedia is and isn't for. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


I noticed a consistent addition of promotional content about an apparently unencyclopedic band, namely [[Elvenking (band)]], with articles being also dedicated to each band member (eg.
[[Aydan Baston]] and [[Damnagoras]]) and their unsold discography, which also got a dedicated template ({{tl|Elvenking}}). I also noticed a weird pattern by [[User:Elvenlegions]], which appears to be either a very big fan or in conflict of interests, as well as other accounts apparently created just to support the band (eg. [[User:Neverbuilt2last]]).<span id="Est._2021:1734845816539:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:Est. 2021|Est. 2021]] ([[User talk:Est. 2021|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Est. 2021|contribs]]) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</span>

:I am indeed a big fan of the band and am trying to update the band's wikipedia information to make it as accurate as possible so people can learn about the band. I hope this helps support the band and also helps wikipedia readers and users who wish to learn more about the band. [[User:Elvenlegions|Elvenlegions]] ([[User talk:Elvenlegions|talk]]) 06:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:*If these musicians are not notable, you can always tag the articles CSD A7. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Understood, Elvenlegions, but [[WP:NOTWEBHOST|Wikipedia is not a webhost or a promotional site]].  If the band, nor its members, nor its discography qualify as notable under the [[WP:BAND|standards we set for musical notability]], then the band's fans will have to learn about it elsewhere. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]]   07:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Comments by Locke Cole ==
{{atop
| result = No support for a block for either party, and filer is fine with closure. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 16:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
}}

'''Involved''': {{userlinks|Locke Cole}}
So I honestly think we should both receive a (24 hr) block for our behavior, but bringing it here for that to happen. This started when I posted a list of "keep" votes with no rationale at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 21]]. Comments made by Locke Cole in response to the list include:
* {{tq|Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost.}}
::I replied to this with {{tq|What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF.}}
* {{tq|Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot.}}
::And I replied to this one with {{tq|Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV.}}
This user has a long history of behavioral blocks, including '''six '''civility blocks over a span of nine years. Since this behavior clearly won't be getting better, bringing it here. It's up to y'all to decide if a BOOMERANG should happen, if we should both be blocked, or only one party gets the [block] hammer. :) [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 02:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

:I'm not sure that the cited comments are in themselves enough to justify a block. I also note that LC has recently [[User:Locke Cole|suffered a personal loss]]. Speaking from experience, I can state that when in deep mourning we are not always at our best. That said, I find LC's block log disturbing.-[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from [[Cancer of unknown primary origin]] in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tqq|bolding policies I've added at the end}} - I'll just note that every one of the "policies" you linked to (bar [[WP:ABF]], where I'm pretty sure you wanted [[WP:AGF]]) goes to [[Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions]]. Which is very useful and well-thought-out, and by all means should be used as a tool at AfD, but is not policy. It's an essay ''on'' policy. There's a difference. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Okay then, per that I've removed the list. The comments still stand though. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 03:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*So the OP wants themselves and the other party to receive blocks for incivility? Why don't you just stop being rude to each other? Change your own behavior. Opening this discussion is just drawing attention to a few comments that otherwise would have likely been forgotten. I don't see how this post helps the situation at all. Just do better. And if Locke Cole comes to this discussion, I pray this doesn't devolve into bickering. Let's all just get back to editing productively and not taking shots at each other. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I don’t know, maybe I just thought it’d continue and brought it here, likely too early. Is it possible to close this? [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

:From what I read from the DRV, it definitely seemed like it got heated, but it definitely seemed to cool down. Trouts for sure, but I don't see why blocks are necessary. As for you, given that you're asking to be punished, you seem to recognize what you did wrong, and you pledge to not continue this behavior. Just change your password for a day or a week and change it back later; I don't think admin intervention is necessarily warranted. [[User:guninvalid|guninvalid]] ([[User_Talk:guninvalid|talk]]) 11:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. [[User:guninvalid|guninvalid]] ([[User_Talk:guninvalid|talk]]) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks ==
{{atop|1=/24 blocked for two weeks. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{rangevandal|166.181.224.0/19}}
*[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear/Archive]]

Using the IP range [[Special:Contributions/166.181.224.0/19]], Sugar Bear has returned to Wikipedia to disrupt film and music articles. After I recognized this fact and began reverting him, Sugar Bear began a campaign of personal attacks at my talk page, using the IP [[Special:Contributions/166.181.250.216]]. Can we get a rangeblock? 

There's a decade-plus history of this vandal attacking me, for instance his creation of the username [[Special:Contributions/Banksternet|Banksternet]]. I can spot his contributions quite easily by now. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

.I've blocked the current IP, I may not have time to properly investigate the range right now. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 22:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

::Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:
::*[[Special:Contributions/166.182.84.172]] was blocked in 2018 and 2019.
::*[[Special:Contributions/166.182.80.0/21]] was blocked in 2018 for one month.
::*[[Special:Contributions/166.181.254.122]] was blocked in 2020, identifying Sugar Bear.
::*[[Special:Contributions/166.181.253.26]] was blocked twice in 2020 for personal attacks.
::*[[Special:Contributions/166.182.0.0/16]] was rangeblocked in 2023 for three years. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 22:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

::I've blocked the current /24 for two weeks, but I see a lot of potential for collateral damage for longer or broader blocks. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 22:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Can you please help? ==
[[William Swainson]] got moved from [[William John Swainson]] (because his middle name might not be John). But the talk page for this person is at [[Talk:William John Swainson]], and the talk page for the disambiguation page is at [[Talk:William Swainson]]. I don't know what happened to the disambiguation page, and I don't know how to fix this. [[User:Oholiba|Oholiba]] ([[User talk:Oholiba|talk]]) 02:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}} Couldn't be moved because the target page had to be deleted; its now fixed. As a note for the future, [[WP:AN]] would be a better place for this, since it isn't an 'incident'. That said - ''was'' there a dab page at [[William Swainson]] before? - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks to everyone for resolving this. As to the place for this, at some point I was told that "if you're a new user you have no reason to post at [[WP:AN]]" or something similar. I appreciate the help. [[User:Oholiba|Oholiba]] ([[User talk:Oholiba|talk]]) 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:(edit conflict) I think that the disambiguation page's revisions were merged into the history of the moved page, if I'm reading [[Special:Log/Shyamal]] correctly.
:@[[User:Shyamal|Shyamal]], can you confirm what happened/fix this? &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:8087:EC01:24A3:EC6F:1C60:4C25|2804:F1...60:4C25]] ([[Special:Contribs/2804:F14::/32|::/32]]) ([[User talk:2804:F14:8087:EC01:24A3:EC6F:1C60:4C25|talk]]) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Actually, WAS that the intention (merging the histories)? I have no idea how this works.
::Maybe The Bushranger already did all that needed to be done. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:8087:EC01:24A3:EC6F:1C60:4C25|2804:F1...60:4C25]] ([[Special:Contributions/2804:F14::/32|::/32]]) ([[User talk:2804:F14:8087:EC01:24A3:EC6F:1C60:4C25|talk]]) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::(edited): There was a dab page with two entries. It is now a redirect from William Swainson to William John Swainson and the direction is now different. The full histories are (merged) restored and visible. PS: I have added a hat-note to the one other (far less notable) lawyer - [[William Swainson (lawyer)]] - if there are many more entries to be dealt with then the (currently a redirect) page at [[William_Swainson_(disambiguation)]] could be reinstated/used. [[User:Shyamal|Shyamal]] ([[User talk:Shyamal|talk]]) 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::(nac) An intitle search turned up no other William Swainson, so I've tagged {{-r|William_Swainson_(disambiguation)}} (which has no significant history) for speedying under [[WP:G14]]. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

{{Clear}}
== POV IP editor and 2024 Kobani clashes ==
{{atop|1=Blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
This [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.243.192.169 this IP address] engages in BLP and POV pushing with things like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taleb_Al-Abdulmohsen&diff=prev&oldid=1264345655 1] and this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taleb_Al-Abdulmohsen&diff=prev&oldid=1264344628 2], and then edit warring and then makes personal attacks like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.243.192.169 3], in a source documenting casualties for all of December instead of the specific date, and then when he is reverted by another editor respond with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_Kobani_clashes&diff=prev&oldid=1264492794 this]. I believe this person is [[WP:NOTHERE]] to build an encyclopedia, and also the [[2024 Kobani clashes]] article should potentially be given semi-protection status as it's part of the Syrian Civil War which has discretionary sanctions. Thanks. [[User:Des Vallee|Des Vallee]] ([[User talk:Des Vallee|talk]]) 05:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:Oh also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naomi_Seibt&diff=prev&oldid=1264377025 this]. [[User:Des Vallee|Des Vallee]] ([[User talk:Des Vallee|talk]]) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{an3|b|72 hours}} ([[User talk:88.243.192.169#Block]]) and pages protected [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== [[User:Augmented Seventh]] ==


[[User:Augmented Seventh]] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines.  [[Special:Contributions/43.249.196.179|43.249.196.179]] ([[User talk:43.249.196.179|talk]]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with [[WP:CAT]] and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">'''[[User:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:royalblue4">Nate</span>]]''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:#B8860B">chatter</span>]])''</small></span> 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::And you are now '''required''' to cite how your edits meet [[WP:CAT]]; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">'''[[User:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:royalblue4">Nate</span>]]''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:#B8860B">chatter</span>]])''</small></span> 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner. 
::::After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories. 
::::Hopefully, this is easily resolved.
:::[[User:Augmented Seventh|Augmented Seventh]] ([[User talk:Augmented Seventh|talk]]) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::THere is nothing to discuss.  The guidelines are clear.  What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we?  [[Special:Contributions/43.249.196.179|43.249.196.179]] ([[User talk:43.249.196.179|talk]]) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal".  It was directed because they all had the same issue.  [[Special:Contributions/43.249.196.179|43.249.196.179]] ([[User talk:43.249.196.179|talk]]) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Editors should not blindly revert.  They should be '''required''' to understand the guideleines. [[Special:Contributions/43.249.196.179|43.249.196.179]] ([[User talk:43.249.196.179|talk]]) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I gave up editing because there were too many problems that the wiki communtity is not sorting out.  One of them is treating anon editors as second class wikicitizens.

Another problem is "this is how it is so we are going to leave it like this for years and years" and this is at the expense of the quality of WP.  

I  can't remember  the specific category guideline for the edits I did but is the  undoing editors need to look it up. Categorisation is something  that a lot of editor do not understand.  Go and put a notice on WikkiProoject Categorisation and you will fing that there is support for my edits.

WP could be sooo much better. [[Special:Contributions/43.249.196.179|43.249.196.179]] ([[User talk:43.249.196.179|talk]]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::GO and read the guidelines.  It does not need discussion.  [[Special:Contributions/43.249.196.179|43.249.196.179]] ([[User talk:43.249.196.179|talk]]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. [[Special:Contributions/43.249.196.179|43.249.196.179]] ([[User talk:43.249.196.179|talk]]) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone".  [[Special:Contributions/43.249.196.179|43.249.196.179]] ([[User talk:43.249.196.179|talk]]) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No. You brought this here. The [[WP:ONUS]] is on ''you'' to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also {{tqq|How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone"}} - because that's exactly what you said. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at [[WT:CAT]]. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at [[WP:VPP]]. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at [[WP:CFD]]. [[Special:Contributions/184.152.68.190|184.152.68.190]] ([[User talk:184.152.68.190|talk]]) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. [[User:Conyo14|Conyo14]] ([[User talk:Conyo14|talk]]) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::When a content dispute involves several pages it is often <small>though not always</small> best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate [[WP:DR]] when that happens. [[Special:Contributions/184.152.68.190|184.152.68.190]] ([[User talk:184.152.68.190|talk]]) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Not overly impressed by 43's comments above. But do wish to note that their [[:Special:Diff/1264067311|removal]] of [[:Category:Corruption]] from at least one BLP appears to have been correct. The subsequent reversion of that removal is misfortune. [[User:Rotary Engine|Rotary Engine]] <sup>[[User talk:Rotary Engine|talk]]</sup> 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

== Vandal encounter ==

[[Special:Contributions/93.183.144.197|This IP]] seems to be a vandal who seems to be ready to start an edit war. I have reverted their disruptive edits, and they have begun to add them back.

diffs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suguru_Geto&diff=prev&oldid=1264675573 <nowiki>[1]</nowiki>] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yuta_Okkotsu&diff=prev&oldid=1264676458 <nowiki>[2]</nowiki>] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryomen_Sukuna&diff=prev&oldid=1264675923 <nowiki>[3]</nowiki>] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryomen_Sukuna&diff=prev&oldid=1264675923 <nowiki>[4]</nowiki>]

I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{not done}} - Not an admin - I hate to be that person but unfortunately you've not sufficiently warned them, They've only received one warning and their edits aren't gross vandalism so this would only be declined by an admin anyway, If they continue I'll report them to AIV, Thanks, –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color:blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color:orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color:navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color:blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color:orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color:navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

{{Clear}}
== [[User talk:International Space Station0]] ==
{{atop|result=Just officially closing this discussion as the account involved has been globally blocked. If an editor has Spore on your Watchlist and you see this occurring again, contact your local administrator. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless ([[Wikipedia:Gaming the system]] to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized [[Spore (2008 video game)]] by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

:It's a [[WP:DUCK]], and I just reported to AIV. [[Special:Contributions/184.152.68.190|184.152.68.190]] ([[User talk:184.152.68.190|talk]]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

::Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently?  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2600:1011:B32F:11B9:7980:86CC:720C:8B57|2600:1011:B32F:11B9:7980:86CC:720C:8B57]] ([[User talk:2600:1011:B32F:11B9:7980:86CC:720C:8B57#top|talk]]) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. [[User:Win8x|win8x]] ([[User talk:Win8x|talk]]) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history?
*:Or is that just something that isn't done? &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80D2:8401:3D8F:4ED6:BEA7:86CC|2804:F1...A7:86CC]] ([[Special:Contributions/2804:F14::/32|::/32]]) ([[User talk:2804:F14:80D2:8401:3D8F:4ED6:BEA7:86CC|talk]]) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::If you are talking [[WP:SELDEL]], there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean [[WP:REVDEL]] see [[WP:CRD]] and [[WP:REVDELREQUEST]]. [[Special:Contributions/184.152.68.190|184.152.68.190]] ([[User talk:184.152.68.190|talk]]) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know [[WP:STOCKS|I'm not going to try]]!). - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus ==
{{atop|There's nothing actionable in this content dispute, except perhaps trouting the original poster for failing to assume good faith and hounding friendly admins when they try to help. Longtime user [[User:Sxbbetyy]] (4.5 yrs, over 5K edits) has made several assertions based on their clear misunderstanding of social norms. In this discussion they've failed to notify the subject (they actually failed to use the subject's name in the OP), they've failed to bring any diffs, they failed to sign their post, and over and over they seem to have failed to assume good faith of their fellow editors. A number of editors including several admins have attempted to talk Sxbbetyy down. Nobody in this discussion seems to agree with Sxbbetyy on the merits, yet Sxbbetyy keeps circling back to their own personal interpretation of policy. The discussion at [[User_talk:Sergecross73#Regarding_a_case_of_WP:STONEWALLING_on_Talk:Team_Seas#Re:_the_ocean_pollution_additions|User talk:Sergecross73]], where Sxbbetyy refuses to listen to the admin they asked, gives another example of the problem. Sxbbetyy is reminded that creating a post on ANI puts all their own behaviors up for examination. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}

Title is pretty self explanatory. Rather than engage in the consensus building process to determine if the disputed content discussed [[Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions|here]] is problematic, [[User:PerfectSoundWhatever|this]] editor  has instead immediately reverted the disputed content. They have been informed of the relevant policies prohibiting this behavior and how it should normally be handled (tagging the content as disputed while the discussion is ongoing) but have elected to instead engage in edit warring to keep the disputed content removed prior to any consensus on the matter. Also important to note that they wish to have the content removed entirely, but have stated that they no longer intend to participate in the consensus building discussion. So this appears to be a [[WP:STONEWALLING]] tactic to accomplish their goal of removing the content immediately without a consensus. Seeking admin help to halt this behavior and restore the content with the correct tagging.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sxbbetyy|contribs]]) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
:It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">'''[[User:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:royalblue4">Nate</span>]]''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:#B8860B">chatter</span>]])''</small></span> 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::The editor appears to be {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}}, based on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PerfectSoundWhatever link] under the word "this" as well as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PerfectSoundWhatever&diff=prev&oldid=1263841888 this notification]. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{non-admin comment}} IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: [[WP:STATUSQUO]]). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.{{pb}}In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. [[User:RachelTensions|RachelTensions]] ([[User talk:RachelTensions|talk]]) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus ([[WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS]]). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. [[User:RachelTensions|RachelTensions]] ([[User talk:RachelTensions|talk]]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|1=the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content}}<br>Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.{{pb}}I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles [[User:RachelTensions|RachelTensions]] ([[User talk:RachelTensions|talk]]) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Wikipedia stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
::::::As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "[[Proof by assertion]]" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles. 
::::::On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.
:Myself and the editor had a content dispute at [[Team Seas]] ([[Talk:Team_Seas#Re:_the_ocean_pollution_additions|1]]) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per [[WP:STATUSQUO]], I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a [[WP:3O|third opinion]], which was answered by {{ping|BerryForPerpetuity}}, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, {{ping|Sergecross73|Oshwah|Pbsouthwood}}. The [[User_talk:Sergecross73#Regarding_a_case_of_WP:STONEWALLING_on_Talk:Team_Seas#Re:_the_ocean_pollution_additions|Sergecross73 discussion]] can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of [[WP:SYNTH|SYNTH]]". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on [[User_talk:Oshwah#Question_regarding_Wikipedia_policy|their talk page]], but {{ping|BusterD}} did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on [[User_talk:Pbsouthwood#Question_regarding_how_to_conduct_a_dispute|Pbsouthwood's talk page]] about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here. 
:Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept [[WP:IDHT|that they may be wrong]], and [[WP:BLUDGEON]]s talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — [[User:PerfectSoundWhatever|<span style="letter-spacing:0.1em;">PerfectSoundWhatever</span>]] ([[User talk:PerfectSoundWhatever|t]]; [[Special:Contributions/PerfectSoundWhatever|c]]) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. —&nbsp;[[User:BerryForPerpetuity|<span style="download;font-family:Noto Sans Mono, Verdana">BerryForPerpetuity</span>]] [[User talk:BerryForPerpetuity|<span style="">(talk)</span>]] 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

: Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis ''per se'', it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") ''unless'' there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem).  And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Team_Seas&oldid=1260644327 latest version] that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

*I have some pretty serious [[WP:IDHT]] concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking ''me'' when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple [[WP:NOCONSENSUS|no consensus means no change]] outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The discussion is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73&oldid=1263241748#Regarding_a_case_of_WP:STONEWALLING_on_Talk:Team_Seas#Re:_the_ocean_pollution_additions right here], if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of [[sour grapes]] responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

*I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]], it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not [[wp:agf|assume good faith]], it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: {{tq|"I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."}} It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. —&nbsp;[[User:BerryForPerpetuity|<span style="download;font-family:Noto Sans Mono, Verdana">BerryForPerpetuity</span>]] [[User talk:BerryForPerpetuity|<span style="">(talk)</span>]] 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to ''talk circles indefinitely''. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context.
*:Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith." 
*:The message as a whole was replying to was a passive aggressive insult that didn't progress that conversation, hence the response as it was clearly not an example of engagement in good faith.[[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 18:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:Also, it looks like the participants in the dispute on the Team Seas article are acting as if this report is an extension of that dispute discussion. 
:This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).
:This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. [[WP:ONUS]] is directly on point, and I'll quote it here: {{Tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed. 
:::I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|Here]] is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and [[WP:STATUSQUO]]. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.}} <--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this [[WP:IDHT]] insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: {{ping|Pbsouthwood}}, what say you? [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted. 
:::::And while I could point out the myriad of  ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves. 
:::::So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::[[WP:IDHT|No matter how much you insist otherwise]], there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. [[WP:STICK|Drop the stick]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an [[User talk:Pbsouthwood#Question regarding how to conduct a dispute|admin told me otherwise]]. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The other admin told you ''nothing'' about the removal of [[WP:SYNTH]], which is always appropriate. [[WP:STICK|Back away from the dead horse]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::# This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
:::::::::# The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
:::::::::# If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.
:::::::::[[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::[[WP:IDHT|Come on, how many people need to tell you you're wrong?]] [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but ''plausible'' content ''before'' removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor ''plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given''. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge. 
:::::Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader. 
:::::At the risk of being [[hoist with his own petard|hoist with my own petard]], I also refer readers to <s>[[WP:Don't be a dick]]</s> <u>(looks like that essay has been expunged, try [[Meta:Don't be a jerk]])</u>. &middot; &middot; &middot; [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its ''compulsory'', and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, I've seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pbsouthwood&oldid=1264077885#Question_regarding_how_to_conduct_a_dispute that discussion], but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Team_Seas#Re:_the_ocean_pollution_additions PSW ''did'' engage in extensive discussion already.] You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Team_Seas&action=history you're equally guilty of edit warring, as you're responsible for every single counter-revert in the situation]. I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further.
:::::::::::And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context"). 
:::::::::::Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Have you considered starting an [[WP:RFC]]? The fact is that you made a [[WP:BOLD]] addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus ''for your addition''. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines ([[WP:ONUS]], [[WP:BRD]], [[WP:QUO]], etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed ''were'' on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That ''is'' a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually ''is'' such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to [[WP:SATISFY]] you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What? I never started an RfC. — [[User:PerfectSoundWhatever|<span style="letter-spacing:0.1em;">PerfectSoundWhatever</span>]] ([[User talk:PerfectSoundWhatever|t]]; [[Special:Contributions/PerfectSoundWhatever|c]]) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I just checked and on 12/9/24 at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Regarding a case of WP:STONEWALLING on Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions|Serge's talk page]] you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet culture|WP Internet Culture]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube|WP YouTube]] about 2 weeks ago."
::::Did that not actually happen? [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::[[WP:RFC]] is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Wikipedia before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just  "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard [[WP:Civility]]. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::[[Ward_Cunningham#"Cunningham's_Law"|Cunningham's Law]], is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

===Request for closure===
Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of [[WP:STATUSQUO]] and [[WP:NOCONSENSUS]], which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}} has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{non-admin comment}} I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @[[User:PerfectSoundWhatever|PerfectSoundWhatever]] has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! [[User:RachelTensions|RachelTensions]] ([[User talk:RachelTensions|talk]]) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "'''Avoid reverting during discussion'''", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the ''[[status quo ante bellum]]'' '''during a dispute discussion'''. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the [[Wikipedia:Template index/Disputes#For inline article placement|inline dispute tags]] are appropriate. For other pages, <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Under discussion inline|under discussion inline]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::In what way is ''that'' your read of the consensus in the discussion above? [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
:::Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want.  [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version ''without the new content''. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== SPA [[User:Tikitorch2]] back at it on [[Martin Kulldorff]]  ==

Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA [[User:Tikitorch2]], who's been POV pushing on the [[Martin Kulldorff]] article since [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Kulldorff&diff=prev&oldid=1229259082 June]. A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Kulldorff&diff=prev&oldid=1264229807 back] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Kulldorff&diff=prev&oldid=1264233480 at it]. They've already [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tikitorch2&diff=prev&oldid=1226201490 been notified about the CTOP status of COVID-19], and have received an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tikitorch2&diff=prev&oldid=1230873032 edit-warring] warning--to which they were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tikitorch2&diff=prev&oldid=1231212724 less than receptive]. Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ&nbsp;Keeper]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Writ Keeper|&#9863;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|&#9812;]] 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:[[User:Michael.C.Wright]]? [[Special:Contributions/173.22.12.194|173.22.12.194]] ([[User talk:173.22.12.194|talk]]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{duck}}. I'm sending this [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael.C.Wright|to SPI]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Michael.C.Wright&diff=prev&oldid=1264414907 SPI says unrelated], so might just be generic disruption. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible. 
:For my two attempted contributions to Wikipedia, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her,  which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. [[User:Tikitorch2|Tikitorch2]] ([[User talk:Tikitorch2|talk]]) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::[[WP:PRIMARY|Primary sources]] are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used {{tqq|to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible}} because that is [[WP:OR|original research]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! [[User:Tikitorch2|Tikitorch2]] ([[User talk:Tikitorch2|talk]]) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Wikipedia policy is [https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/12/us/white-nationalists-tiki-torch-march-trnd/index.html not] [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65307774 an accident]. Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ&nbsp;Keeper]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Writ Keeper|&#9863;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|&#9812;]] 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. [[User:Tikitorch2|Tikitorch2]] ([[User talk:Tikitorch2|talk]]) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Even if it was a personal attack, making one ''back'' isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Tikitorch2]], your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

== Disruptive editor on [[When the Pawn...]] ==

User [[User:Longislandtea]] has repeatedly removed reliably sourced refs to the genres infobox by removing [[alternative pop]] simply because they don't believe it to be correct as the ref is "new" and that the artist isn't that genre. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=When_the_Pawn...&diff=prev&oldid=1261417313]  [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=When_the_Pawn...&diff=prev&oldid=1264047125] I had sent them two warnings now and also explained that's not how this works, so they decided to add more genres with refs that don't even mention the genres they included. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=When_the_Pawn...&diff=prev&oldid=1264493922] I do not believe this editor is going to cooperate. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Longislandtea&diff=prev&oldid=1264440351] [[User:Pillowdelight|Pillowdelight]] ([[User talk:Pillowdelight|talk]]) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

:User:Pillowdelight changed the genre list of When the Pawn... which originally had been a variation of certain genres: Art pop, jazz rock, art rock, alternative rock, jazz pop, chamber pop, all of which are somewhat accurate and agreed upon by various editors of this page over many years. It was changed to just Alt pop, a genre that is used to describe the newer sounds of pop in the early 2010s with Lorde, Sky Ferreira and Lana del rey. It is not a genre that fits the album hence it has never before user:Pillowdelight been described as such beyond what her poor source says, a Fiona Apple revisit (that is not even about When the pawn.. specifically) from a new, small and virtually unheard of web magazine. Sources such as Rateyourmusic, allmusic and Pitchfork are far more accurate and robust and that's why this album has never been described as alt pop. That genre did not exist at the time of the release of the album. The source needs to be accurate, it is not. It's not an album review, it is a fluff article about Fiona Apple by a small web magazine. It's not even about When the pawn... specifically, it makes no sense. I think the other editors agree, it is inaccurate. 
:Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Longislandtea}} I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read [[Template:Infobox album]] it states — {{xt|genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included.}} The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. [[User:Pillowdelight|Pillowdelight]] ([[User talk:Pillowdelight|talk]]) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Sources need to be '''legitimate''' and''' relevant'''. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Wikipedia's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources {{lw|Acceptable sources}}. 
::::''Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.''
::::A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states. 
::::''Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Wikipedia. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.''
::::Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial. 
::::Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::[[WP:NOTVAND]]. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]], so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Okay, I strike. [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will make it look like this <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::<s> please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.</s> [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Longislandtea}} How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic ''does not'' call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Wikipedia. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. [[User:Pillowdelight|Pillowdelight]] ([[User talk:Pillowdelight|talk]]) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album 
:::::https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/ 
:::::Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Schazjmd}} I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. {{ping|The Bushranger}} you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? [[User:Pillowdelight|Pillowdelight]] ([[User talk:Pillowdelight|talk]]) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::[[User:Pillowdelight|Pillowdelight]], you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. [[User:Pillowdelight|Pillowdelight]] ([[User talk:Pillowdelight|talk]]) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

=== Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on {{pagelinks|When the Pawn...}} ===

On October 22 2024, {{lu|Pillowdelight}} changed the genre list that has stood in place for years and has been a variation of the same variety of genres: Art pop, art rock, jazz, alternative rock, jazz rock, chamber pop and jazz pop. Across the biggest music sites, this is what the album is described as. The user changed it to Alt pop using a single irrelevant and unreliable source. The album is not described as such anywhere else. The user is going against the general consensus. Sources have now been added to the genre list and I don't feel as though that would mean I'm breaking any rules. The user is threatening to get another editor banned because they're uncooperative with how us other editors feel the genre list should look like.  It's an album that has been categorized as rock by Pitchfork at the time of its release and was added to rock charts when released too. 
Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021

Thank you. [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.
:::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all.  Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else.  Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is ''very'' highly subjective.  (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]]   15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

== Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article ==



Two users are actively engaged in an ongoing edit war on [[Gilman School]], with both {{user13|Counterfeit_Purses}} breaking 3RR [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1264335078&oldid=1264275478&variant=en 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1264367781&oldid=1264367208&variant=en 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1264373554&oldid=1264371338&variant=en 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1264389183&oldid=1264374274&variant=en 4] and {{user13|Statistical_Infighting}} being right at 3 Reverts
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1264367208&oldid=1264335078&variant=en 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1264371338&oldid=1264367781&variant=en 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1264374274&oldid=1264373554&variant=en 3].

This seems to go back to December 9th, with the first editor (Counterfeit) removing it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1262146200&oldid=1262140139&variant=en here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1262200340&oldid=1262196980&variant=en here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1263604483&oldid=1263523982&variant=en again] on the 17th, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1263871919&oldid=1263846949&variant=en 18th], and then being at the above today.

[[User:Awshort|Awshort]] ([[User talk:Awshort|talk]])
*E/C applied. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, please be aware that the [[Luigi Mangione]] article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a ''really bad idea''. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that [[WP:NOTNEWS]] applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? [[User:Counterfeit Purses|Counterfeit Purses]] ([[User talk:Counterfeit Purses|talk]]) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, in my view, [[WP:NOTNEWS]] is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins {{tpq|In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.}} I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=prev&oldid=1264670666 removed] Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. [[User:Counterfeit Purses|Counterfeit Purses]] ([[User talk:Counterfeit Purses|talk]]) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tqq|We don't include all notable alumni in these lists}} Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, [[Q.E.D.]] - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. [[User:Counterfeit Purses|Counterfeit Purses]] ([[User talk:Counterfeit Purses|talk]]) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See [[:Category:Lists of people by school affiliation]]. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? [[User:Counterfeit Purses|Counterfeit Purses]] ([[User talk:Counterfeit Purses|talk]]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is [[WP:OR]]. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Wikipedia is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add [[:Category:Gilman School alumni]] (in this case). [[User:Counterfeit Purses|Counterfeit Purses]] ([[User talk:Counterfeit Purses|talk]]) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

== Darkwarriorblake making aspersions ==
{{atop|result=The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. &nbsp;— [[User:Hex|'''<span style="color:#000">Hex</span>''']] <span style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Hex|''<span style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
----
I'm posting here after a particularly underwhelming interaction with an editor in the form of edit summaries. I'll need to provide the context of a brief content dispute which hopefully won't take too long and then get to the point. I'm not asking for anyone to take my side in the dispute.

''[[Trading Places]]'' is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent.

The article states that [[G. Gordon Liddy]] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. [https://www.indiewire.com/2013/06/trading-places-more-than-7-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-film-but-we-wont-bet-a-dollar-on-it-97192/ The citation] for this claim is a [[listicle]] on [[Indiewire]], which contains the sentence
: ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSr6REupQx0 becomes a gorilla’s mate].''
Reportedly ''by whom'' is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article.

The content dispute began when I changed it like this ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trading_Places&diff=prev&oldid=1264790966 diff]) with the comment ''Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs'':
{{text diff|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla.|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla.}}

This was reverted ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trading_Places&diff=prev&oldid=1264798478 diff]) by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''.

After thinking about it a moment I came to the conclusion described above about the quality of the source, and decided that it was better out than in, which is what I should have done in the first place.([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trading_Places&diff=prev&oldid=1264815900 diff])

{{text diff|...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks. Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla. Paul Gleason took the role;...|...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks with Paul Gleason eventually taking the role;...}}

My accompanying comment was ''(a) That was the source's voice, not Liddy's. It's called a euphemism. Demonstrable by how it links to a clip of the scene in which a man is raped by a gorilla. (b) Source says "reportedly" for this claim, without evidence. Poor quality source. Removing claim''

That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trading_Places&diff=prev&oldid=1264817145 diff]) with the comment ''Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per [[WP:BRD]]. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.''

This is where the reason for me to raise this at this board begins, because that's solidly an example of [[WP:casting aspersions|casting aspersions]]. It came on top of a revert which reintroduced a claim cited to a rumor in a blog post into a featured article, but that's really not my concern, because if the champions of the featured article process have decided that it's somehow acceptable for our "best" content then I'm just going to move on to something else rather than argue.

There's one final back and forth which was enough to motivate me to post here. First, I reverted that revert ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trading_Places&diff=prev&oldid=1264818889], my only time using the actual "Undo" button today), with this comment: ''a good source doesn't say "reportedly" (ie, spread a rumor), it specifies the origin of a fact. My only "agenda" is with a crap listicle being used as a reference, regardless of who published it. Take it to talk if you want to argue for the continued inclusion of a trash ref in a featured article, or source the claim properly yourself''. 

This was reverted - again - by Darkwarriorblake ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trading_Places&diff=prev&oldid=1264820050 diff]) with the comment '' How are you an admin? "rape played for laughs" is an agenda, this went through FA as is so [[WP:STATUSQUO]] and [[WP:BRD]] apply. You must go to the talk page, not I. I don't know if you're going through a bad time or something but this isn't how an admin should be acting or communicating with others, up to and including [[WP:EDITWARRING]]''

At this point it's gone firmly into the realm of knee-jerk reversions, because if Darkwarriorblake took the time to read the article which they've [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Darkwarriorblake&page=Trading+Places&server=enwiki&max= reverting changes to for years] (is this [[WP:ownership|ownership]]? Kind of feels that way), they would get down to the [[Trading Places#Critical reassessment|critical reassessment]] section. Which says "some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe aged poorly, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla", cited to articles in four major publications. Or, you know, even [https://www.google.com/search?q=trading+places+gorilla+rape search Google for "Trading Places gorilla rape"].

So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] at all. &nbsp;— [[User:Hex|'''<span style="color:#000">Hex</span>''']] <span style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Hex|''<span style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
:*I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content. 
:*The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
:*When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources]]. 
:*The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
:*The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Wikipedia, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
:*I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not ''really'' be something you can fling ownership at.
:*Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
:*Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. &nbsp;— [[User:Hex|'''<span style="color:#000">Hex</span>''']] <span style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Hex|''<span style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.{{pb}}Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=5000&offset=0&profile=default&search=insource%3AIndiewire&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 1000s of articles]—take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.{{pb}}Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with ''one revert'' each, and ended on the talk page. --[[User:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]''[[User talk:Serial_Number_54129|<sup><span style="color:#7a0427;">A New Face in Hell</span></sup>]] 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:"Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' [would] be a significant addition" - [https://youtube.com/watch?v=BSamMtzO_NU?t=907 here's an interview] with John Landis, the director. {{talk quote|One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away. ''[Laughs]''}}
*:Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. &nbsp;— [[User:Hex|'''<span style="color:#000">Hex</span>''']] <span style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Hex|''<span style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

===Followup===
I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy.

While we're on the subject,  [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1264137355 our article on Liddy] recites that {{tq|Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars.}} I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a [https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/5434d44b-a7ec-4bec-a639-2c60680889d3 drinking problem], and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]]
{{abot}}

== User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on [[Radio Skid Row]] page ==


[[User talk:Stationmanagerskidrow|User:Stationmanagerskidrow]] is repeatedly removing information about a recent incident involving a Jewish DJ at [[Radio Skid Row|their station]]. They say that it is incorrect information, even though it is sourced. The name also states clearly that this is a company account. Lastly, they have continued this behavior even after being warned on their talk page. [[User:Pyramids09|Pyramids09]] ([[User talk:Pyramids09|talk]]) 03:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

:User is now editing using [[User talk:159.196.168.116|User:159.196.168.116]] [[User:Pyramids09|Pyramids09]] ([[User talk:Pyramids09|talk]]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

::This is a content dispute and the article is being actively edited by many different editors. However, no discussion about the disagreements has occurred on the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

That article probably should be speedied as an A7 for not containing any assertions of notability; which obscures that Stationmanagerskidrow appears to have been edit warring on it with an undisclosed COI, and presumably was [[WP:LOUTSOCK]]ing as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/159.196.168.116 this IP], and if so violated 3RR as well. It's probably best for me not to take administrative action here tonight as I won't be around later/tomorrow to deal with any followups, but something should be done here beyond just saying "take it to the talk page." [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::[[WP:USERNAME]] and [[WP:COI]] message added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stationmanagerskidrow&oldid=1264949407 here]. I'm just about to make myself thoroughly [[WP:INVOLVED]] by seeing what I can do about the [[Radio Skid Row]] article. [[User:Shirt58|Shirt58]] ([[User talk:Shirt58|talk]]) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

== [[User:Nadeem asghar khan]] inaccurate edit summaries ==


All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. [[User:Spike &#39;em|Spike &#39;em]] ([[User talk:Spike &#39;em|talk]]) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots ==
*{{Noping|Nlkyair012}}
This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamaria_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1264753743][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamaria_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1264822120][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamaria_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1264822576][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamaria_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1264917344] They are a single purpose account for glorifying the [[Kamaria Ahir]] caste using unreliable [[WP:RAJ]] era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and [[WP:SEALIONING]] generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as [[WP:RSN]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Proposed_Resolution:] and [[WP:DRN]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Summary_of_dispute_by_Ratnahastin] and including here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Dispute_Over_Edits_and_Use_of_British_Raj_Sources], accusing me of vandalism. 

Despite my repeated requests [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamaria_Ahir&oldid=1264794306#Discussion_on_Source_Removal_and_Edits][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamaria_Ahir&oldid=1264889226#Discussion_on_Source_Removal_and_Edits] and even a final warning[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamaria_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1264947964]  to them (including a request by {{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1264968568]) they are still continuing to do it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamaria_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1264974815][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamaria_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1264977111] Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just [[Hallucination (AI)|hallucinations]] that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about [[WP:GSCASTE]] and [[WP:ARBIPA]], I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - [[User:Ratnahastin|<span style="color:#A52A2A;">Ratnahastin</span>]] ([[User talk:Ratnahastin|talk]])  13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

:Hello @Ratnahastin,
:To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.
:I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Wikipedia standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.
:As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress.
:I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure.
:In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Wikipedia as a resource. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">[[User:Nlkyair012|<span style="color:#FFD700;">Nlky</span><span style="color:#FF4500;">air</span><span style="color:#FFD700;">012</span>]]</span> 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AE_%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%B9_%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AB%E0%A4%B0#c-Nlkyair012-20241124101500-Kindly_put_protection_on_Kamaria_page your usual (non-AI) writing style], although GPTzero said this is human input. - [[User:Ratnahastin|<span style="color:#A52A2A;">Ratnahastin</span>]] ([[User talk:Ratnahastin|talk]])  13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">[[User:Nlkyair012|<span style="color:#FFD700;">Nlky</span><span style="color:#FF4500;">air</span><span style="color:#FFD700;">012</span>]]</span> 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">[[User:Nlkyair012|<span style="color:#FFD700;">Nlky</span><span style="color:#FF4500;">air</span><span style="color:#FFD700;">012</span>]]</span> 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses [[Butlerian Jihad|which are better at detecting LLM outputs]] than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Man you still wanna do this? @[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]] also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">[[User:Nlkyair012|<span style="color:#FFD700;">Nlky</span><span style="color:#FF4500;">air</span><span style="color:#FFD700;">012</span>]]</span> 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1264925552][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamaria_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1264974815] and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - [[User:Ratnahastin|<span style="color:#A52A2A;">Ratnahastin</span>]] ([[User talk:Ratnahastin|talk]])  14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You know what I think this is getting to the [[WP:NOTHERE]] point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::This ain't getting anywhere <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">[[User:Nlkyair012|<span style="color:#FFD700;">Nlky</span><span style="color:#FF4500;">air</span><span style="color:#FFD700;">012</span>]]</span> 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">[[User:Nlkyair012|<span style="color:#FFD700;">Nlky</span><span style="color:#FF4500;">air</span><span style="color:#FFD700;">012</span>]]</span> 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are [[WP:NOTHERE|not here for building an encyclopaedia]] but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - [[User:Ratnahastin|<span style="color:#A52A2A;">Ratnahastin</span>]] ([[User talk:Ratnahastin|talk]])  14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">[[User:Nlkyair012|<span style="color:#FFD700;">Nlky</span><span style="color:#FF4500;">air</span><span style="color:#FFD700;">012</span>]]</span> 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't think that's better. [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::If we just temporarily put aside the AI-generated comments, can Nlkyair012 accept the view of experienced editors on Raj era sources and not push any viewpoint on a particulary caste? Because, to be honest, editors who have done this in the past usually end up indefinitely blocked. There is a low tolderance here for "caste warriors". <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)