Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos

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

---

The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of WP:TALKNO and failure to get the point. Issues began when this editor removed 5000+ bytes of sourced material. They did it again and again and again.

Instead of starting a discussion on the talk page of the article, the user came to my talk page to let me know of their opinion of my contributions. When I started a discussion on the talk page of the relevant article, the user edited my signature and changed the heading of the discussion I started according to their POV. When I let them know that this was highly inappropriate according to WP:TALKNO, both in that discussion and on their talk page, they responded on my talk page stating ever since the stupid Wikipedia Dec. 2019 encryption protocol upgrade, to able to edit or view Wikipedia at all from my home computer, I have to use an indirect method which involves a non-fully-Unicode-compliant tool. I couldn't even really see your signature that way, and so didn't know to try to avoid changing it, which I had never heard of. In any case, they kept reverting the content supported by the reliable source, they also kept attempting to apply their POV to the discussion heading again and again and again. I finally explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, and they went ahead and changed it again anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by إيان (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The other user in this case is User:AnonMoos? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. Secretlondon (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes the is indeed about User:AnonMoos. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating WP:TALKNO repeatedly even after I explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and changed it again anyway. إيان (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a conduct issue. إيان (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant." To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

‎إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Wikipedia guidelines he does not in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times [1] [2]? That is indeed a clear violation of WP:TPOC since the signature was perfectly valid per WP:NLS. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

User:AnonMoos, this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet [3]. This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. [4]). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later [5]. Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Wikipedia securely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to WP:SECLakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011[6]LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Wikipedia at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.

Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses Unicode characters (UTF-8 encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should not edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Wikipedia at all unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Wikipedia developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Wikipedia's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Wikipedia from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

...HTTPS was created in 1994, and became an official specification in 2000, not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Wikipedia with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web at all, and the security hole that lets you access Wikipedia without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is not working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced within HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you don't know when it happens, you shouldn't be editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This is probably a reference to when Wikipedia started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since 2011and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

None of this matters

I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. AnonMoos shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. EEng 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I was in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

That was six years ago, which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. Zaathras (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Wikipedia developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist User talk:AnonMoos. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. EEng 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Heck, I am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Why do you contend it was arbitrary? Usually there is a reasonable basis for updating HTTPS Encryption Protocols (i.e. security). Isonomia01 (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Wikipedia using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. Nemov (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Wikipedia wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• If it's that much of a problem for his computer, go and buy a new computer. It would certainly be better than whining about how Wikipedia broke his ability to edit without screwing things up for other users.Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Meh. None of this matters. Signatures sometimes get accidentally fucked up. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and this signature thing is not a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

While true, it's still a violation of WP:TPO, and if it's accidentally changing characters in signatures, who knows what else it might be doing that isn't getting caught or reported? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

What it is accidentally changing is Arabic characters to Latin characters, and probably all non-Latin characters to Latin characters. That has the potential to destroy substantial amounts of content. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

It is safe to assume there more than a few of the editors taking part in this discussion have years and decades of technological experience under their belts, myself included. I do not think The Accused is straight-up lying about the technical hurdle, but clinging to the "I refuse to change my system of operation, therefore it's Wikipedia's fault for (6 years ago) making the change!" excuse is the real problem here - this is at the heart a behavioral discussion, not a technical one. Consistently violating the norms of the community is indeed a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. Zaathras (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not inherently about the signatures. It's that he's stubbornly insisting on using an outdated system that introduces errors into other content. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

agree on this. Incidental changing of signayures due to the tech issue is not a small problem itself but that clearly has potential to impact a much wider range of mainspace content. I have a hard time believing that there is not a browser that supports https and can run on a decade old computer (something like Opera even). Claiming inability to switch or upgrade needs to be explained in detail or otherwise this has potential to be a bigger problem. Masem (t) 17:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It won't just be accidentally changing signatures, but accidentally changing all non-Latin characters. That is a serious matter for an editor whose subject areas include Arabic. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Some of the comments above would be very valid if I used my home computer only for editing Wikipedia, but that's most definitely not the case. I use it for lots of things, and I don't look forward to permanently disconnecting it from the Internet, which would mean significantly disrupting the way I do various things. That may be inevitably coming within a few years, but I don't feel like hastening the process now. As for buying a new computer, I did buy a Windows 10 laptop in late 2020, and it works great on public WiFi, but it's not really usefully capable of editing Wikipedia over the connection my old computer uses -- it's constantly making connections and downloading stuff in the background, and there's no way to turn that stuff off, so it overwhelms the bandwidth available. AnonMoos (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

A Slightly Different Analysis

I concur with most of the comments that have been made, and with the general conclusion that User:AnonMoos appears to be unreasonably expecting Wikipedia and the world to accommodate to their obsolete hardware and software. However, encryption is not the problem as such. AnonMoos, as they explain, has found a workaround, which is an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. I see no evidence that it is partially Unicode-compliant. There isn't a visible encryption problem. There is a very visible Unicode problem. AnonMoos is mangling the OP's signature because the OP's signature is in Arabic. When they edit a block of text that contains the Arabic signature, they convert it into Latin characters. The conversion may be a transliteration, or it may be something else. I don't know Arabic, but I know garbling when I see it. I think that AnonMoos is incapable of editing text that contains non-Latin characters without corrupting them. Their workaround may only be problematic for editing Wikipedia because Wikipedia is the only site where they are trying both to read and to write non-Latin characters. So it is the only site where they are failing to write non-Latin characters. Wikipedia, unlike AnonMoos, is Unicode-compliant, and Unicode is a key part of its functionality, especially in certain subject areas, such as the Arabic language. If AnonMoos had tried to edit articles about the Arabic language, they probably would have corrupted them also. They may be lucky not to have tried to edit articles containing Arabic characters.

They may also be lucky to have kept obsolete hardware running for much more than five years. Their 2012 web browser had already been obsolete in 2019, but only became problematic when the encryption was upgraded (not when it was first implemented). My experience, and the experience of many, although not all, users is that hardware typically signals that it is obsolete by stopping working, often after about five years. So I have to have non-obsolete hardware, because I have to replace it. Then again, I don't know about their hardware. Maybe they are running obsolete software such as a 2012 web browser on current hardware. If so, they should move into the 2020s.

An editor wrote: I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Wikipedia securely.. I think that the indirect method is an indirect implementation of HTTPS that breaks Unicode.

In the short run, AnonMoos should avoid editing any text that contains non-Latin characters, because they break the non-Latin characters. In the medium run, they have been warned that any corruption of Unicode in Wikipedia will lead to a block because their hardware and software is incompetent. In the medium run, they can request technical advice at the Village Pump, request a referral for a computer technician from their local electronics store, or get a modern Internet connection and modern hardware.

They don't have an encryption problem. They have worked around that with a technique that breaks Unicode. They have a Unicode problem, and Wikipedia requires Unicode compliance. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

That's nice abstract theoretical speculation. I have to edit by making a connection from my home computer to an intermediate computer, and then this intermediate computer connects with Wikipedia. My home computer is fully capable of handling Unicode, and the intermediate computer is also fully capable of handling Unicode, but the connection between my home computer and the intermediate computer is unfortunately ISO-8859-1, and so there's not a Unicode-capable connection for every link of the chain. I have no idea how to change this -- I certainly can't do so with the software I'm currently using. I leave aside your effective insults to my intelligence (I've been fully aware of the problem from the beginning, and usually take steps to avoid it, or there would have been a loud chorus of complaints long ago, as I already said) and your meditations on bright shiny hardware that's "obsolete before I opened the box"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Put a sock in it, will you? EEng 01:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE put this ridiculous thread out of its misery?

...with the understanding that the next time Mr. Moose screws up some non-Latin characters, he'll be indeffed? Home computer, intermediate computer, what a load of bullcrap. Why are we wasting time on this? EEng 00:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2

• ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed they were previously reported for.

Instances such as ordering IP editors to stop editing articles, hostilely chastising them, making personal attacks in edit summary on several occasions, etc. Users such as @Waxworker: and @Jon698: can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.

On December 10, I noticed on the article Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with bad faith assertions about my intelligence and asserting they'd engage in edit war behavior. For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless "bite me". I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, asking it not to be reverted. Zander reverted anyway, and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit add nothing to the discussion threads they're added to, and now that I am putting said comments behind collapsable tables for being offtopic, Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as this and this.

This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. Rusted AutoParts 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I've given them a warning for canvassing: [7] [8] [9] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

And more personal attacks here - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

This feels par for the course for Zander frankly. As noted with the bit about Zander reverting after an explicit edit summary saying not to and there being two days worth of me saying that edit would be made and they made no objections until the move was made. They disengaged from discussion but only re-engaged when the situation changed to their disliking. Rusted AutoParts 02:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

A week has now passed, and Zander has elected to continue ignoring this thread. Perhaps it's too much of a reach to suggest they aren't here to be constructive, but it certainly doesn't help to think otherwise when they just refuse to engage. Rusted AutoParts 00:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I gave them another notice, and their response was "watch me". I'm this close to blocking as not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Considering they aren't willing to amend, or even to discuss amending, their behavior towards regular users such as myself or Jon698, the flagrant disrespect in that comment towards you, an admin, and similar disrespect towards Liz, another admin, seems really the only course of action. Rusted AutoParts 07:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Alright, this has gone on long enough. Given the obvious behaviorial issues here, and their ignoring concerned raised and explicitly thumbing their nose at this ANI thread while continung to edit edit and edit, I have pblocked ZanderAlbatraz1145 from articlespace indefinitely until they respond here. Once they do and the issue is dealt with, anyone can feel free to unblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  I acknowledge my behavior. Taking everything into account, I believe my behavior is not completely irrational. I also don't see the logic in "addressing" the "concerns" here (debating/arguing) with editors of higher power than me if we will never agree, because we never will. I don't think any edit I've ever made to a page was to destroy or worsen it, so your accusal of me not being collaborative is highly offensive, considering that on a regular basis, I am a great collaborator, I thank my editors and very often seek out to assist them with articles. They could even revert one of my edits, and we could come to a compromise/conclusion, that is not out of the ordinary as long as it is warranted. I am a flexible, malleable editor. I just don't like this I am right, your are wrong mentality. Nothing I've done illustrates a wrong view; I don't vandalize, I cite everything I do, etc., I don't seem to see the issue except for others to nitpick small issues. Every now and again you encounter that one editor, that one pain in the ass (for lack of a better phrase, I acknowledge) who is like that, the kind to ignite edit wars. This right here at the Wiki noticeboard is merely just an example of a result of something that escalated. My entire edit history will show/prove this. It is only the opinions of a select few editors that have decided to target me, with which I'm now forced to reckon with here. Doesn't really seem to make much sense to me. That was my logic in not coming here to respond before. For the record, I am responding now not to be unblocked but because I'm not exactly sure what you wanted me to say here. So I guess I'm proving a point by saying, okay, I'm here... now what? Is this really all you wanted? Just for me to acknowledge it? I was not ignoring it, I was just deciding not to engage because what good will it honestly do? Surely you're not blind enough to see that. I've said everything I've needed so say, however rude or crass, or however buried they may be, in previous edits or responses, but they seem to have gone completely ignored and not taken into account. If you look at the order and the pattern of my editing and history, you can see my behavior worsen recently as result of several factors, plus editors who will never see eye-to-eye. I have never had this type of issue before on Wikipedia, so to me, I just take this instance as a domino effect, a contributing set of circumstances resulting in me being here, right now. So, if we all just decide to be adults and move on, the ice will eventually unfreeze and things will go on back to normalcy (Normalcy as in: I will not appear on this noticeboard, just like I've never appeared on this noticeboard for the past two or so years.) Things must stop in order for them to start again. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  So "I've done nothing wrong, it's their fault" - that's not going to fly here, I'm afraid. You don't mention your explict canvassing, for one thing, and nothing about your - repeated - personal attacks. And you weren't just deciding not to engage because what good will it honestly do - you explicitly blew off a notice to come here. Even if your content was 100% squeaky clean, your conduct is most certainly not, and is very much not in line with the expectations of editors in a collaborative project, which Wikipedia is. You cannot just choose to ignore when people raise concerns about your conduct, and then posting the above screed when finally forced to confront it is not, at all, helping your case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I acknowledge my canvassing, too. Better? The guy already won the battle, the page got deleted. Not sure why it's worth acknowledging. Also not sure why after four votes to keep the page were discarded, because the two editors who I did canvass genuinely believed and wanted to keep the page, and thought for themselves. Not like I fucking bribed them or persuaded them, they did what they genuinely wanted to do, to vote to keep the page. And I guess my vote and another editor's were discarded for no good damn reason, and a vote to "Burn it to ashes and then burn the ashes" (bit extreme, no?) and then one vote to Merge. So that's four Keeps, one merge, and one toss. So that's a 4.5/6 to keep, if my math is correct? I understand now that I should not have canvassed with "opinion", if I hadn't put that in the message, I'm sure the page would not have been deleted. So I paid for my mistake there. But I believe it worth it and right to inform other editors who may be of interest and it was not like I said "Vote yes or die", I just tried to spread the word and said to "help save the page". They could have voted to delete the article if they wanted to, I have no control over that. But they voted to keep it... so again, not sure what else I need to add, or what else is worth discussing. I was in the wrong by canvassing with bias, that was proven by the page deletion. Done and done. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  The deletion discussion was reopened, and the page undeleted by the initial closer. You're still inherently making it a personal issue by asserting that I "won" the discussion. This is why the canvassing is a problem. It's one thing to notify people that a page they may have a connection towards is up for deletion, and to assess whether they'd like to participate. It's another thing to paint it as "saving" a page and painting me in a negative light. This inherently biases an editor, such as with Nils, and makes it difficult to fairly count those votes as they were recruited as opposed to invited. Rusted AutoParts 03:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I acknowledge the bias, but yet I understand my logic at the time. As I stated, I would have handled the situation differently in retrospect. And my wrongness about the canvassing was made clear by the then-fate of the page. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I understand and I acknowledge the conduct, but to me actions speak louder than words. If I react negatively, it was a result of a negative action. Nothing more, nothing less. I suppose I should learn to control it better, but like I said, I've been on edge more lately as result of all this recent garbage that's been happening. I'm not usually this unpleasant or crass or rude to other editors. Like I said, a domino effect. This is not my standard behavior, again, if you look at my edit history and put it into a percentage, it's honestly not all that often. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  "You cannot just choose to ignore when people raise concerns about your conduct, and then posting the above screed when finally forced to confront it is not, at all, helping your case." Yeah, but this is better than nothing, right? And like I said, I'm not confronting anything. I did what you wanted me to do, I'm engaging in a discussion, trying to explain myself. You said in previous messages just for me to respond here. Well, now I've done it. Now what good is it doing? I'm trying. I'm trying to discuss it. But I announce again, what good is it doing? What was the first thing I said? "I acknowledge my behavior." And you know what, I do regret some of my actions. Had I been less naive and handled the canvassing issue better, I might have saved the Guadagnino page. I don't think, however, had I been nicer to certain other editors I would have persuaded them or convinced them or been able to collaborate with them. I don't think nicer conduct there would have made a difference at all, because I tried to approach it from a nicer angle several times, but I just kept getting angrier. Made it worse and worse. Domino effect. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, frankly that just sounds like perhaps it's not the best idea to be an editor here if trying to conduct yourself civilly with someone you might wind up not being able to see eye to eye with winds up just making you angrier. No one by and large is here to "win" anything, if there's a dispute the situation is to either explain your POV and change another's mind, or to see perhaps your POV is the one needing evolving. The ultimate need is to do what's best for the page and the website. Rusted AutoParts 03:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  And, like I said, I've resolved past issues that way before. Jon698, or whatever the user's name is, resolved our beef quite peacefully and understood each other by the very end. We just had to get through the toughness. Just because of this one instance of culminating events I think is ridiculous reason to conclude that I "not be an editor here". And, again, I don't believe you understand the specific example is not the seeing eye to eye, but rather the change in my approach did nothing to dissuade the editor's view whatsoever, and the area discussed was too grey to be merely right or wrong, hence why the discussions are STILL going on. And that itself made me angrier, as seen by the edits. 'Well, I might as well just go back to being rude if this nice crap isn't doing shit', that was the logic, doesn't make sense saying it now, but I'd never thought I'd have to analyze it like this. Is this discussion helping anything? Be honest. And please tell me if I need to just quit. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  No one is wishing you to quit, that's something you personally would need to decide (barring of course if an admin makes that choice for you. What led to myself and Bushranger to start considering NOTHERE was the difficulty in bringing you to this thread. As they articulated, you have to engage. The ignoring over a week and subsequent refusal to do so put you inline with being NOTHERE and thus on the verge of being banned. It's not an outcome I've been rooting for, I'm disappointed it's wound up to where this thread needed to be opened. But this needed to be addressed, because your interaction with Jon698 would've ideally been the one and done, but with the antagonism pointed my way with the needless jabbing, it just had to be done. A conflict in content really should not become something where being needlessly rude is the way to approach it. That just makes anyone in disagreement just inherently uninterested in seeing your point. I speak from experience, being the person being needlessly rude. Alot of could have been productive discussions or productive collaborations with other editors got spoiled because I was too easy to get hotheaded. Rusted AutoParts 03:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  You misunderstand. I mean, is this discussion helping? Is it worth my time or are we just going in circles and should I just quit the discussion? That's what I meant. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, the idea is for the issue to be hashed out here, but it still seems you really don't have interest in doing that give this response. Rusted AutoParts 03:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know what else needs to be said, that's what I mean. I acknowledged my faults, stated my regrets. I'm not sure what else Bushranger would like me to do. That was sort of the point in my initial message is that I already received the blows from my actions before even going on this Noticeboard, so now I have this on top of everything else. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate the remarks. But I have admitted my faults, however buried they may be in "screed", as lovingly put by Bushranger. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  And you're still not getting the point, as evidenced by your comment right here. Also my wrongness about the canvassing was made clear by the then-fate of the page carries the implication that if the article had been "saved", it wouldn't have been wrong - no, your 'wrongness about the canvassing' is because it's against Wikipedia policy no matter the fate of the page. Overall the fact you still clearly consider this discussion unnecessary and a waste of time illustrates, to me at least, that your attitude here is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that comment was not meant to be rude, and I believe you're reading to much into it. But again, I could see how it could be misinterpreted, but I'm not writing a Wikipedia article here. This is a message board. I'm talking. And I more meant it to be humorous, "as lovingly put by", I don't know, I think it's funny. And my regrets of my faults are buried within these long paragraphs, believe it or not. I believe Screed is a bit harsh to call it, but I might say the same thing as an outsider, ha ha. But to be fair, it comes off as "screed" because this is a delicate topic, frankly. Everything has just been drawn out to the point of... gee, I can't even think of the right adjective... madness? Boredom? Pointlessness? Uhh... restlessness? Maybe that last one. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I understand the counterproductivity of being rude. In a general sense though, "mak[ing] anyone in disagreement just inherently uninterested in seeing [my] point," is a logical thought, and I believe that would apply to other and future scenarios in which I may disagree with other editors. I will keep this in mind, though not every editor operates on this logic. This is not assuming bad faith, but it's frankly true. However, I do not feel in this instance that being nicer would have convinced you or would have helped my case. The only thing it would change is I just don't think I'd be on this Noticeboard. You and I would still be in heavy disagreement with regards to the unnamed topic. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  You don't need to become a teddy bear when discussing an issue, you just have to not open an interaction with someone by making remarks about intelligence, and then just going about antagonizing someone if the discussion gets hardheaded. The issue was what constituted being unrealized, I don't think it would be something that was fundamentally impossible to bring about a shared consensus. Rusted AutoParts 04:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  "I don't think it would be something that was fundamentally impossible to bring about a shared consensus." You'd be surprised. An uphill battle. Not for right or wrong mind you, for consensus. I always seek to find that, I don't enjoy edit-warring. This is not fun for me. Of course, consensus is what I seek to find, a place where the page is at a general agreement at where it needs to be and why. Again, I will keep in mind the fact that being "needlessly rude" will "make anyone in disagreement just inherently uninterested in seeing [my] point" for the future since there would be no point because it would be counterproductive. Even though it may not apply to every editor, in which case I would not report them because I am not that kind of editor. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I reported you because of edits like this. Straw that broke the camel's back. And frankly, it's difficult to believe consensus is what you seek because your very first edit summary pointed my way asserted you were just going to keep re-adding the deleted content back. What's ultimately being sought in this thread is, are you going to amend your behavior or no? Because this hardheaded rude approach isn't going to fly. Rusted AutoParts 04:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I've stated already in this thread that I will take the rudeness into consideration and not do that approach the next time because of how sensitive everyone is. I thought I've made that clear from my first response on this thread from the beginning. Frankly, the rudeness doesn't bother me as I've experienced it back and never sought to report them, because, again, that's not the kind of editor I am. But if you're going to go out of your way to report me and drag me through this, then clearly I've offended you to the point worthy of an apology. So, I apologize. And, just for the mere fact of the time I've spent back-and-forth on this, I will rescind from being as rude in the future (but C'MON, that ten collapsible tables bit was funny! You have to admit! Even funnier that it was the "straw that broke the camel's back"- I didn't realize it would be at the time), but I will still keep my wits about me, if you know what I mean *wink* *wink* — I can't take that away! ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...so you half-apologise because it's because of everyone else, not because of you, and then, functionally, take back the apology. I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing a genuine understanding that you did anything wrong. You need to 'not do that approach' not because of how sensitive everyone is, and not because you [went] out of your way to report me and drag me through this, you need to not do it because it's a violation of Wikipedia policy, and realise that you're being 'dragged through this' because of your actions and your actions alone which violated that policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, yes, that reason and also the fact that it's a violation of Wikipedia policy. That's why I'm here. I would not be here if it weren't so I felt that went without saying. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  So I'm saying I will not do that approach for both reasons. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• The more reasons not to do something or to go about a certain "behavior", the better, ha ha. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• I just want to point out to @ZanderAlbatraz1145 that your intent in writing a post or comment doesn't change how it's received. You only have text to communicate with others here, and you have no idea what's happening in the life of the person reading it.

You could be speaking to someone who's having a great day, or who just had the worst news - you don't know and can't know. There are millions of editors and readers, so you need to remember your audience.

In my workplace, there are a few of us with the most inappropriate sense of humour - we will joke about each others body parts, sex life etc. because we know each other that well. A few months ago, a new lad joined the team and got on with everyone and decided to join in. It didn't go well at all.

I recently had a dispute with another editor for a similar reason, he was so focused on his view that he didn't realise how it came across to someone who was in hospital undergoing tests whilst they were reading his replies. He didn't know what was happening on my end, but you need to tailor your response to be polite and respectful precisely because you can't know what is happening with your audience.

You cannot presume that other editors are ok with sharp or rude responses just because you are. They're not you.

If you can show that you appreciate and understand this fact, you'll be fine.

Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand that, thank you. But I believe my understanding and acknowledgement of others has already been established prior in the few messages above. I'm just going in circles at this point. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, maybe don't talk crude sex jokes to each other and then he surprised how they are negatively received? If we all treated each other with a little more respect, like we were in a 1940s movie, and talked with some dignity, and some class, I think we'd all have a much better time and a better world. A world in which people use their words better, more effectively, more intelligently. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm...not sure what at all this has to do with anything? But I think we're at the point where you can be unblocked. Please bear in mind that your condut will be subject to scruitiny and any resumption of the disruptive behavior even if you do not personally intend it to be disruptive will result in a full block next time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I think I'll just refrain in general, 'cross the board. No pun intended. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll also take your advice and try not to become a teddy bear when discussing an issue, but rather take on the form of like a modest crow, ready to step in at any given moment and spout philosophy. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikihounding by Awshort

user Awshort has been selectively invoking rules on the article for Taylor Lorenz. It has taken me some time to really see how it was happenening, but finally today wrote this post on the talk page with examples of how they have been selectively and hypocritically enforcing rules on me (a new user).

Additionally, as I mentioned in that post, at one point they accused me of asking another editor for help...which doesn't make any sense? It seems like they were trying to imply to me that I had done something wrong, but I read over some rules first to make sure I was allowed to ask for help. I'm still pretty sure I am! If not...let me know?

After my post today, Awshort started Wikihoundingme.

Here are diffs where they follow me around to pages it doesn't appear they have had any interest in prior:

°1

° 2

°3 Now, I will of course acknowledge that on the third example, I did make a mistake. I thought I had only removed the text of the sentence, but looks as though I accidentally deleted part of the template too. I am unsure how that happened, so I will try to figure that out.

Either way, Awshort's edit summary was not the language I hope experienced editors would use with newer editors like myself. I have mentioned multiple times in conversations that user Awshort is part of that I am a newer user, so they likely know that. ____

I'll end by saying that this user's behavior is making me reconsider whether I want to devote any time to improving wikipedia. Truly. I've never made a report like this before, anywhere in my life, just to give you a sense of how frustrating and upsetting its been.

I hope that this is the right forum for this. If not, my apologies, and please let me know where to redirect this to.

Thanks for taking a look.Delectopierre (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Delectopierre, if you have had any discussions where you actually tried to talk out your differences with this editor, please provide a link to them. They might be on User talk pages or article talk pages or noticeboards. But it's typically advised that you communicate directly with an editor before opening a case on ANI or AN and don't rely on communication like edit summaries. Also, if you haven't, you need to notify any editors you mention about this discussion. They should be invited to participate here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

There isn't. I don't feel comfortable discussing wikihounding with them. It is, after all, harassment. Delectopierre (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Although I did link to my post today where I confronted them with their behavior (except the wikihounding, as it hadn't happened yet). So that is an attempt to discuss the other part.

But after I tried to discuss it, instead of responding to it, they started wikhounding me. Delectopierre (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should spend less energy “confronting” and more energy discussing and trying to learn from more experienced editors. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I try to learn when experienced editors engage with me in a helpful and respectful manner. Your comment does not fit that description.

As an aside, I wasn't aware that non-admin, IP-only editors, who are not involved with the incidents I've reported would be participating in this discussion. Delectopierre (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I've notified Awshort as it still hasn't been done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested for doing so. User:Delectopierre, you should have notified User:Awshort yourself, there are messages instructing editors to do so all over this page including on the edit notice that you see any time you post a comment here. As I said, you are also advised to discuss disputes first with involved editors before posting on a noticeboard. ANI is where you come for urgent, intractable problems, it's the last place you go when other methods of dispute resolution haven't worked. This also looks like a standard content disagreement regarding Taylor Lorenz and the fact that Awshort reverted one of your edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Liz as I noted above, I attempted to discuss their behavior on the article here, and their response was to wikihound me.

As I said here I don't feel comfortable discussing what feels like and seems to be harrasment, directly with them, as it felt like intimidation to stop confronting them about what I see as bad behavior on the article. I was waiting for a reply to that statement before proceeding.

Is there really no process that allows for an instance when an editor feels uncomfortable? Delectopierre (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I will also add that it appears as though this is not the first occurrence of this type of behavior, based on this comment by @Twillisjr. I don't, however, know any of the details. Delectopierre (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Re-reading your comment, @Liz:

I think I’ve been unclear. The content dispute is a content dispute. You’re right about that.

That is NOT why I posted here. I posted here because the content dispute spilled off that article and has now resulted in wikihounding. The wikihounding, specifically, is why I posted here. Delectopierre (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion with the rationale "Nothing more to do here. See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:HOUND." KOLANO12 3 13:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

First, thank you ActivelyDisinterested for the initial ping and Liz for the follow-up ping. The majority of this is over the Taylor Lorenz article as a whole, but there have been some policy issues sprinkled throughout. Delectopierre anyone can participate in noticeboard discussions whether involved or not, the 'IP-only editor' you referenced has more edits than both of us combined, and registration is not a requirement to edit Wikipedia nor participate in community noticeboards.

they follow me around to pages it doesn't appear they have had any interest in prior - That isn't accurate since I post on the BLPN often, as well as using it to find articles I can help out on since I mainly focus on editing BLP's. I checked out the BLPN, noticed it was missing a discussion of interest from earlier in the day (Maynard James Keenan) and checked the edit history to see if it was removed for a reason. I saw the previous edit by DP had removed it as well as another discussion so I restored it. That wasn't me 'hounding' them, that was me fixing an error so other discussions could continue. I checked DP's edit history later to see if any similar edits had been made recently in case those needed fixed as well, saw the edit history for this edit with the summary critics don't accuse him of anti-semitism. he is an antisemite, and checked the edit which had been changed to calling the person that. The prior edit had the edit summary of adding back david icke qualifier, so I checked that one as well since I assumed it would be similar. When it was confirmed, I reverted since it seemed a BLP violation as well as WP:LIBEL. Since there was a talk page discussion regarding the prior one, I posted that I had removed it from another article as well, in case it went to a noticeboard both could be noted. It is worth noting that the edit I removed was originally added a few months prior by the same user. I think most editors would have acted in the similar manner regarding the edits and I stand behind them.

I think Awshort's edit summary was not the language I hope experienced editors would use with newer editors like myself. is somewhat disingenuous when on their first full day of editing the Lorenz article after being registered since 2018 and mostly inactive they seemed to know enough policies to quote them in their edit summaries (WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE), their post that to BLPN referenced NPOV,  as well as learning other policies that were left on their talk page (CTOP by TheSandDoctor, NPOV by Little Professor).

And it's hard to reply to the linked conversation above where it's implied I'm hounding in the closing comments with only one side of the story presented.

Awshort (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and pushing of his own "point of view" by User:Michael Bednarek

A few months ago, I began to create some new pages about German folk songs, with my own translation under CC-license (that's still quite normal for a bachelor in history (ethnography), I guess). The above-mentioned user started to push his own remarks, reverting my edits (in spite of my authorship and my notices about my VRTS permission and CC), and ended here. At least, we (together with other participants) clearly established that I had had such a right and labelled some of my talk pages with my VRTS-ticket. Nevertheless, already the following page I'd started drew the attention of the aforementioned person. And that what he answers me (a poet-translator of folk songs and historian/ ethnographer):

"I replaced (or omitted) archaic 'inwit', 'wont'; mark parts of the translation as dubious.", it was a substantial improvement of that article. My remarks on the shortcomings of its translation, which you subsequently labelled "poetic", still stand"

. The first case that he marked as "dubious" was the gender of the German "Winter". In German, that word is masculine; however, I translated "Winter" as a feminine, and there are a plenty of samples from history when the Germans depicted "Winter" in their beliefs as a female deity or spirit (one might begin from here).

I have neither wish, nor time to consider all such current and future "improvements" (a lot of time we've spent solving the question with the VRTS-ticket itself). I only hope to avoid such "waste" of time and strength in the future — either he isn't allowed to undo or change my poetic translations without my own consent and our consideration, or I stop my further like work. --Tamtam90 (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tamtam90 I have posted an ANI notice on Michael's talk page. Please leave the notice on users' talk page when starting a discussion on ANI next time. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 15:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tamtam90:, anything on Wikipedia can be changed at any time by any editor. If it is not acceptable for you to have your translations modified by others, I suggest you not use them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I translated and published my translations in Wikisource, as professional ethnographer. You don't explain the situation, nor the edits of your "protégé": merely reverted my (author's) edits without any consideration. Why not to "change" or "revert" all my edits in Wikisource as well? Please, try it. Or your admin flag doesn't admit such a trick?--Tamtam90 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a needlessly hostile attitude to take.

Of note, your status as a professional ethnographer does not mean your edits are above reproach. Other people may disagree with your translation, that's normal. You do not own edits here, so changes to your edits may happen. If that means you "stop <your> further work," then so be it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Please try to stick to WP:CIVILITY and avoid casting ASPERSIONS, like baselessly implying that one user is an admin's "protégé". NewBorders (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Willing to give some grace to potential second language and things not coming through as intended @Tamtam90 but either he isn't allowed to undo or change my poetic translations without my own consent and our consideration, or I stop my further like work. falls afoul of edit warring, ownership. WP:EXPERT will be a helpful read, but right now you're closer to a block from mainspace than @Michael Bednarek is if you don't re-assess your conduct. Star Mississippi 17:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear friends, I published all my translations before on an "outer" site, not here, though I granted with VRTS all rights to use them — without changing — to the community. That's, to say — publish and reproduce them, not to change in any possible manner and without any consideration. Maybe, I missed, but I haven't found such "conditions" (to change one's works in any possible manner) in these rules. --Tamtam90 (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. Now, if you want to remove your translations, probably nobody will replace them. But you have no more say in edits going forward than anyone else does. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

If you publish anything on Wikipedia, anyone can edit it, in anyway. Full stop. You explicitly cannot license contributions to be unalterable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Original work is original work. Once accepted from an outer source, it cannot be changed and posed as original by anyone. The third column seems to be a healthy solution (for each acceptable derivative, as well) — it's a pity that the opponent doesn't follow his own decision and way anymore. --Tamtam90 (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't publish anything on Wikipedia, I republish here the texts added to Wikisource. That rule doesn't apply to any authentic translations previously published outside (one may create some derivatives, but not change with them the original). --Tamtam90 (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The button you hit was "Publish changes", so yes, you published it here under cc-by-sa 4.0. I really think you're setting yourself up for a minor disaster by not understanding what the license you're using means. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

If you post anything on Wikipedia, you have, in fact, published it. And once you have posted/published it here, anyone can change it in any way for any reason at any time. It can be changed, and saying it "cannot be changed" is a violation of Wikipedia's licensing. If you don't want your content edited by others, don't post it here. It's as simple as that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

According to your claim, one may change here any text loaded on Wikisource, still labelling that as original (from the Bible or some historical chronicles, from a traveller's notes and so on). However, holding the authorship (demanded by any CC licence), such an editor would violate the very bases of Creative Commons' spirit: who would share freely their works knowing that the latter might be changed at any time and by anyone and still published under their own names? (Under the authors, I mean here not only writers, but scientists, artists, and other professionals as well). There's a clear border between the original and its derivatives. --Tamtam90 (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue has been poorly explained. The articles in question contain translations that are cited at Wikisource. Changing the translation then results in a false citation. I think it is important to separate the Wikipedia article and the translation document on Wikisource. The wikipedia article can be edited, the wikisource translation should stay intact. The policy question, is how can Wikipedia editors use the Wikisource translation and how do they cite it? Wikisource surely has their own policies. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

An additional column might be a healthy solution. That's not "a one-hit wonder": such approach does work in some pages on the folk songs: The Song of the Volga Boatmen, Kalinka (1860 song), Arirang, and other related articles. --Tamtam90 (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

About "minor disasters": the above-mentioned user undid or "cleant" my changes in three of the last four articles: Das Todaustreiben, Wiegenlied (Des Knaben Wunderhorn), Es kam ein Herr zum Schlößli, Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär. How many new contributors, in your opinion, would withstand such "attention"? I'm not a "newb" in Wikipedia, though I have a sense of some prejudice (maybe, implicit). --Tamtam90 (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

An inspection of the edit history of 3 of these 4 articles shows that my edits were substantial improvements; I never touched the 4th, "Wiegenlied" (Des Knaben Wunderhorn). All my edits are intended to collegially improve Wikipedia; I don't think I've ever been accused of prejudice or harassment, and I reject that characterisation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, three. Yes, and certain your improvements made some admins from Wikipedia and Wikisource to intervene, to solve the previous conflict (1, 2) --Tamtam90 (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not the place to settle the underlying content disputes, and I was going to confine my comments to the relevant article talk pages, but I have looked at the articles in question, and I want to weigh in briefly in support of Michael Bednarek, who was right to point out the problems with the "translations" that the OP added to these articles. Some of them are pretty dreadful, to be honest, and they reveal a shaky understanding of both German and English. In the OP's version of Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär, to give just one example, the third stanza bears no relationship to the meaning of the German original and is only barely intelligible in English, and putting it into a different column and labeling it "poetic" doesn't change that. There are two questions here: (1) Should the poems written by the OP and self-published on Wikisource be reproduced as written if they are quoted on Wikipedia; and (2) Should these poems, given their inaccuracies and other shortcomings, be cited or reproduced in Wikipedia articles as reliable translations of the original texts? The answer to the first question is yes, I think: if they are treated as "published" versions and provided with Wikisource citations, they should be probably be used unchanged (as pointed out above by Tinynanorobots). But the answer to the second question is, in my opinion, a firm no: if the OP will not allow the errors to be corrected, then his versions should not be used at all. The author is free to publish and promote his own poems wherever he likes, but he should not be inserting them into Wikipedia articles and fighting to retain them when other editors have pointed out that they misrepresent the original texts, and he should certainly not be dragging those editors to ANI on spurious charges of vandalism and disruptive editing. Crawdad Blues (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agreed on both points. The translation of Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär turns a poem about someone who wishes they were a bird so that they could fly to their love but cannot, into a poem about someone who once was a bird and is now unable to vomit. Furius (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The last comment doesn't need any reply: I only hope its author had no chance to translate anything from medieval poetry. About the second question posed by Crawdad Blues: 1) What do you mean under the "errors"? If you mean the so-called "anachronisms" — that's quite normal, to translate them in a proper way. Note, that all (or almost all) songs of that collection have been recorded before 19-th century, and many of them belong to the folklore of the Middle Ages. If you mean "word for word" translation — that's impossible for "poetical translation" (you might ask any poet-translator). That's why one may add the third column, for "word for word" translation.--Tamtam90 (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

To Michael Bednarek. You began publicly blame me for my "inaccuracies" and "anachronisms". But what about your own mistakes (assuming that your goal was "word-to-word" translation, not rhyme and metre)? In Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär, you translated:

Bin ich gleich weit von dir, bin ich doch im Schlaf bei dir

as

Though I am far from you, I'm with you as I sleep

instead of

Whether I am far from you, Or I am near you while asleep

?

viel tausendmal

as

a thousand times

instead of

many thousand times

?

And once again about some possible "harassment": if your wish is only "to collegially improve Wikipedia", why, right after the first our conflict, you again started to hunt after some "mistakes" and "shortages" in the next article created by me, though other songs from the collection still wait their translators (I mean only existing articles and only from the German Wikipedia, compare with those from the sister project).--Tamtam90 (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Since these translations are cited to Wikisource under the author's name, altering them without the use of [square brackets] is misquoting (violates WP:V) and might be a copyright issue.

However, I also share Crawdad's and Furius's concerns about the accuracy of these translations. Of the two examples listed directly above as erroneous corrections, in the first case "Though I am far from you, I'm with you as I sleep" is in fact a more accurate translation, while in the second case I agree that "many thousand times" is more accurate.

I've rewritten the first sample, trying to make it more exact. Compare with entweder... oder.... --Tamtam90 (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

There is also a limit to how much leeway a poetic translation gets; translating "bleib ich allhier" as "I cannot heave"(?!) when the metrically and rhyme-wise equivalent "I cannot leave" is available is way outside those limits. But that's a content issue, not a conduct issue. Toadspike [Talk] 20:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the two salient points have been made clear: 1) if we are directly quoting a translation from Wikisource, then that quotation cannot be "improved" through editing here; 2) if that translation is perceived as being substandard, then there is no reason why we should be forced to use it - this is not a cite from the Authoritative Translations of German Poetry, but Some Random Dude's Private Effort (no offense).

Hence, in the cases noted, if there is consensus that it does not do a good job, either remove the translation; provide a literal but more accurate new translation; or provide an altered version that is clearly labeled as being based on the Wikisource text. - In my opinion, parts of the translation are fine (e.g. the female rendering of winter is actually not an unsuitable touch, even if decidedly "poetical"), some rather less so (although "heave" is a typo for "leave" - right? right?). Fixing up those bits with the help of other contributors might provide good results. I hope Tamtam90 would be sensible enough to not fight tooth and claw against such an effort. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Elmidae, thanks for some support. Without an additional pronoun ('myself'), 'leave' would be a better choice. As for the gender, I already mentioned — that's not a "poetical whimsy": so depicted the Winter the Germans and their neighbours (the Slavs): 1, 2.--Tamtam90 (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The text itself uses masculine gender, so very clearly at the time the poem was written, they didn't, or at the very least the author did not intend that depiction. Whatever - this stuff is for discussion on the article talk page. What needs to be cleared up here is whether you are going to continue to obstruct all attempts to alter the translations according to consensus, because that is going to be a problem. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive reverts and insults by Andmf12

Andmf12 (talk · contribs)

First, I'm French and my english isn't perfect. Then, it's my first report here, so sorry if I'm not posting on the right place.

Since days, Andmf12 (talk · contribs) is continuously reverting on article CS Dinamo București (men's handball) but also insulting me: revert 1, revert 2, revert 3 + insult: "are you dumb?", revert 4 + insult: "yes, you are an idiot and stop deleting because we are not interested in your stupid rules, like you", revert 5 + insult: "You're crying like a little girl and I see you don't want to calm down".

The object of the reverts is about non-sourced hypothetical (or not yet confirmed) transfers (see ? on each item) but as I explained many times in my removal, "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a crystal ball". If needed Bellahcene and Pelayo's transfer has been mentioned ("devrait") but not confirmed yet. Same thing for Rosta.

For a little more context, previous similar behaviour by differents IPs happened in this article and lead to a request for page protection on 4 December and a second time on 22 December. Actually, the problem wasn't only for the handball club article but the same problem occurred to multiple handball clubs and led to many pages protection. At that time, CS Dinamo București (men's handball) was the worst with already many insults in english ("Where is democracy? We do not distort information, we come to support handball fans who do not have a platform like transfermarkt in football" and "Are you stupid?") or in romanian "iar ai aparut ma prostule?" (meaning "You showed up again, you idiot?"), "mars ma" (x2), "Nu mai sterge bai prostule" meaning according to google "Stop wiping your ass, you idiot").

Coincidence or not, looking at Andmf12 contributions led to the conclusion he.she is Romanian and by the way one can see that he also have had inappropriate behavior in the past months (diff with probable insult in capitals "NU MAI EDITA PAGINA DACA NU AI TREABA CU CLUBUL INAPTULE", diff with insult "don't delete if you have nothing to do with the team", diff with insult "fck u iovan jovaov")

I'm not fully aware of the rules here, but I think that Andmf12 (talk · contribs) should sanctioned somehow.

Thanks for your concern.--LeFnake (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks as a CheckUser action. It could be upped to indefinite if someone wants. I doubt this person is going to change after 2 weeks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

LeFnake, your English is just fine and your report here was very informative. Merci beaucoup. Cullen328 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. LeFnake (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see only two weeks for block evading - who's the master, and was there a reason it wasn't straight to indef? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems that he did not liked the block, he removed it from his talk page... LeFnake (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

User:AstroGuy0

AstroGuy0 has created at least two articles in mainspace and an additional draft. I have reason to suspect that this user is using AI to generate these articles, upon examining the initial edits for Delivering Outstanding Government Efficiency Caucus, Daniel Penny, and Draft:A Genetic Study on the Virulence Mechanism of Burkholderia glumae (2013). As I noted in Talk:Department of Government Efficiency, in which I warned AstroGuy0 about using AI, these edits have a varied use of links, false statements—as evidenced in the DOGE Caucus article that claims that the caucus was established in November 2024, an untrue statement—incongruousness between the grammar used in how AstroGuy0 writes on talk pages and how he writes in articles, a lack of references for many paragraphs, inconsistencies with the provided references and paragraphs—for instance, with the first paragraph in "Criminal Charges and Legal Proceedings" on the initial edit to Daniel Penny and the fourth reference, and vagueness in content. I ran the caucus article through GPTZero and it determined that it was likely AI-generated; I have not done so for the others. AstroGuy0 has denied using AI. If that is true, then he or she should be able to explain the discrepancies in the references they are citing and what they are including in articles and why they chose to word specific phrases in a certain way. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this does look like AI use. I had previously WP:BLAR'd a redundant article of theirs into the main one (Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) into Department of Government Efficiency); the article AstryoGuy0 created has lots of hallmarks of AI generation. I'd also like to hear from them on this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Independent eyes needed on Triptane

Can someone please take a look at recent edits, and a resultant two-week first block, at Triptane, thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

That would be a bit over the top, no? Nobody's exceeded 3RR and the reverting stopped 7 hours ago. BethNaught (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear, I misunderstood you, the IP editor was actually blocked and you're asking for a review of the appeal at User talk:5.178.188.143. BethNaught (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused by the reverts being based on WP:CITEVAR, since the article (before the edits) only had 1 ref and it used CS1, as did the refs in the reverted edits (unless I'm misreading them somehow). And two weeks seems harsh for a long-term constructive IP editor for a first block. Two editors made 3 reverts each but only one was blocked, that's also confusing. Schazjmd (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

UtherSRG, who blocked the IP, wasn't notified but I'd like to see their comments here. Spicy (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Bad block. Mr. Ollie is out of line. The IP's version is clearly superior. Carlstak (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree, and this is hardly the first time Mr. Ollie has refused discussion. Hellbus (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I started a discussion on the IP's talk page because this was an issue across other articles as well ([10], [11], [12], [13]). Their last edit on Triptane used the existing citation style, so I had no plan to revert further. I did not request nor did I expect the IP to be blocked. MrOllie (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I had made it clear on my talk page way before this incident that I won't touch your citation style on the statistics pages you listed in the future. However, on the pages I'm writing I can use whatever citation style I like, and you can't use CITEVAR regarding the citations I added to the page you have never edited. And of course you had no plan to revert further, that would have broken 3RR which I made clear I am aware of. 5.178.188.143 (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, 3RR isn't the only trip line. It was still an edit war, so I blocked accordingly. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Two editors were edit warring. I don't understand why you blocked the IP but not MrOllie, or better, protected the page to force discussion. Spicy (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You're right. I probably should have done either of those. My GF-meter has been eroding, and I've taken to assuming better of more established editors over IPs. I'll strive to do better. My apologies to the IP. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Wow. Yes, the IP editor could have used (much) better edit-summary phrasing, but this is one of the worst blocks I've seen in awhile. I've given MrOllie (talk · contribs) a warning for edit-warring and removed the block on the IP with a "don't edit-war" notice. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you very much. I regret my edit summary was so poorly worded but you might understand I was quite emotional while posting it. 5.178.188.143 (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Good deal. We need competent, enthusiastic new editors. Thanks, Bushranger. 00:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlstak (talk • contribs)
• The block review isn't impressive either... might be of interest to Fram given the recent AN discussions. 1.141.198.161 (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

HollywoodShui

In the last few years, User:HollywoodShui has attempted several mass additions of (generally non-contemporary) portrait sketches by one particular artist to biographies, all marked as minor edits. I was the most recent one to tell them to stop, and that they need to consider each article instead of spamming indiscriminately. They did not respond, and an hour later they decided to keep going for a bit. I do not see why they won't do this again in a few months or a year. Remsense ‥ 论 00:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• It looks like over the years they have uploaded a bunch over at commons, and some of that has been deleted. I think there might be a COI concern here based on editing trends. TiggerJay (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Remsense, you are not a new editor. You should know that when you made a complaint at ANI you have to present diffs illustrating the bad behavior you claim is going on. Otherwise, your complaint is likely to just be ignored. You need to provide evidence and not just come here and post a complaint. The editors who review cases at ANI want to be able to verify that what you say is actually happening. Nothing is going to happen based on your narrative complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Every single one of them, Liz. I didn't attach diffs because the "contributions" link clearly suffices. Remsense ‥ 论 07:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Asking editors viewing this complaint to look through an editor's entire contributions will result in very little response to your complaint. If you want editors to respond, you need to spell it out clearly and you haven't here. You need to point out the problems, specifically. I don't expect much to come out of this. Editors are busy people and shouldn't have to do your work for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

If you don't find the report clear, I don't mind if you ignore it. Remsense ‥ 论 08:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems like coming to ANI is your immediate response to disputes, Remsense. You might try alternative approaches to dispute resolution before bringing editors to a noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a user who was spamming Wikipedia. I made it clear to them that this is what they are doing and they should stop, and they didn't, nor did they respond to messages. If you think they should be allowed to continue as they were, then that's your right, but I have no idea what other avenues are available if I think someone needs to stop and they don't respond to messages. Remsense ‥ 论 08:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Nearly every one of HollywoodShui's 197 edits has been to add a 100 year-old drawing by Manuel Rosenberg:

• [14]
• [15]
• [16]

I left this talk page message last year for HollywoodShui advising them to be mindful of MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE.

Today, HollywoodShui stated here (via IP) that Manuel Rosenberg is his great uncle, and HollywoodShui wanted to share the images because of their "significant historical value".

HollywoodShui appears a good faith editor who genuinely wants improve the project. Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't a photo gallery, and in my opinion, few of the sketches improve the articles they were added to.

A solution for HollywoodShui would be to add a Manuel Rosenberg gallery on the Commons, and then add that category to images like this.

Then, add a Commons link to each Wikipedia biography. (EPLS). Magnolia677 (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

After engaging with them on their talk page they seem to have good intentions and are specific in how they’re adding images. This does not appear to be abusive but perhaps a bit misguided. A thoughtful discussion on the appropriate uses of those photos (over 100 of which are in commons) would be a good place to start. TiggerJay (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they were being very discriminate, though. What justifications could be articulated for adding these to, e.g. Abraham Lincoln, Albert I of Belgium, Thomas Edison if any attention was paid to the articles as they were? What is the intended effect for the reader in having one of these sketches pop up across a significant number of the most important late 19th-century biographies? As far as I can tell, I was the first one to introduce thoughts to the process here, and I was ignored. Given their response to scrutiny so far, I doubt if they use this account again, it will be for anything other than the same. If that turns out not to be the case, then of course all the better. Remsense ‥ 论 16:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Request to investigate

Dear Wikipedians,

I suspect this user User:2A00:23C5:C05E:EC00:F4C0:EA5C:FA3A:BE07 may be a sockpuppet of User:Kriji Sehamati due to similarities in editing patterns and focus areas.[17], [18]

Thank you! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 05:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You can bring that over to WP:SPI but be prepared to have specific evidence to support your allegation in the form of diffs, etc. TiggerJay (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

SPI is thataway, yes. Also you tagged the IP as a suspected sock, when {{Sockpuppet}} specifically says The template should not be used in this manner (and I'm pretty sure we don't tag IP socking "account pages" at all anymore). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

As a reminder, before using a template there is a handy Usage section, in this case {{Sockpuppet}} says In general, this template should only be applied by Administrators or Clerks as part of the Sockpuppet investigations process.. But in specific regard to this allegation, do make sure you open an API with specific information. While you can report IP addresses, and this sockmaster has been found to block evade using IP addresses[19], they are in a completely different network in a different country, so initially it would seem unlikely, without very specific diffs to show the abuse. TiggerJay (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

In case it is not clear from all of these other messages, User:s-Aura, do not tag an account as being a suspected sockpuppet unless it is confirmed by a checkuser, an admin who works at SPI or an SPI clerk. Your suspicions are not enough to label an account as a sockpuppet. If you believe an editor is a sockpuppet, file a report at SPI, not ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that thankyou!

I’ll remember to follow the right steps next time. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 07:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Navin Ramgoolam

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

---

For the past few months, Navin Ramgoolam has been ravaged by a recurring edit war between Nikhilrealm (talk · contribs) and BerwickKent (talk · contribs). I understand that both had been warned on their TPs multiple times but have still continued. I'd leave it to others who needs to be sanctioned. Anyways, I have tried multiple times to have the page locked but apparently evaluations on RFP do not believe it is that serious. Borgenland (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Both editors seem to have dropped the stick since they received the stern warning from @LaffyTaffer. RFP really isn't necessary since it seems to be an edit war between two specific users who can be individually dealt with without unduly limiting editing by others not involved. It's not that the edit war isn't serious, but rather not serious enough to perform a full protection from all edits just because of a few bad users. TiggerJay (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I hope they do. This has been flaring up repeatedly since October and clogging up the edit history. Borgenland (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I only issued those warnings this morning, and this edit war has been happening slowly. I'm not sure whether they're actually dropping the stick, but here's hoping they have. There will certainly be a report here or WP:ANEW if the reverts kick back up. Taffer 😊 (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Kremoni-ze

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

---

• Kremoni-ze (talk · contribs · logs)

Editor appears to be using grammar-checking software to reword one or two sentences in major articles, but they either aren't fluent enough in English or aren't reading carefully enough to realise when this renders a sentence factually inaccurate. Some of these edits are also being applied to direct, historical quotations.

Both of these issues were raised on their talk page but they've continued making the same mistakes since (eg. [20], [21]). Possible WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue. Belbury (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Behold!

−

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been found to infiltrate the water cycle from farms. 73% of all antibiotics used globally are used in animal raising. As a result, wastewater treatment facilities can transfer antibiotic-resistant bacteria to humans.

+

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been found to infiltrate the water cycle from farms. Seventy three percent (73%) of all antibiotics used globally are used in animal raising. As a result, wastewater treatment facilities can transfer antibiotic-resistant bacteria to humans.

Remsense ‥ 论 12:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Beach00 and personal attacks

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

---

Beach00 (talk · contribs) has made a series of personal attacks in a contentious topic area, see for example this and this. They received a final warning for personal attacks and decided to respond with Russian Bot. Mellk (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

48 hours is lenient, especially recently after a 1 week block. But I guess the WP:ROPE can lead to an indef for their WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Request for user page protection

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

---

Hello. The user Olve Utne has passed away, the global account is locked, see m:Special:CentralAuth/Olve Utne. Can an administrator protect User:Olve Utne and User talk:Olve Utne from editing? Thanks in advance! Best regards, no-wiki sysop 1000mm (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The user page has been fully protected. Thanks for letting us know. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My condolences. Isabelle Belato has protected his userpage. On enwiki, we usually don't protect the talk page as users might wish to leave condolences or see messages regarding articles the editor has contributed to. Spicy (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware of the established practice in regards of user talk pages here at enwiki. That’s of course OK. 1000mm (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow. I'm Facebook friends with his wife. I didn't know he was a Wikipedian.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Help Needed for Move Discussion

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

---

I request that Admins address this Move discussion that has been going around in circles for more than a month with no clear resolution. There is a consensus that the current article title is wrong but myriad inconclusive ideas on a solution. This is a second request for Admin help and little was accomplished the first time except false accusations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by Thebrooklynphenom

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

---

Thebrooklynphenom responded today to a series of warnings about incivility, disruptive editing and COI with: You know exactly what your kind is doing and you’re going to see very soon the end result of your racist antics. Leading up to this personal attack, the editor has:

• Introduced serious formatting errors into an article and broke an AfD link, raising WP:CIR questions.
• Added a non-MOS-compliant lead sentence using the following edit summary: resist White colonial Eurocentric disrespect for African American clerics. This is a pattern of racism and a byproduct of white-washed persons misportraying the subject.
• Refused to answer questions (diff, diff) about an apparent conflict of interest.
• Despite claiming to be an editor of many pages, refused to answer a question about alternative accounts since this account had up to that point only edited three pages.
• Inserted unsourced promotional peacock language into a BLP, along with adding self-published sources that do not comply with WP:BLPSELFPUB.
• Tiptoed up to the edge of a legal threat.

I think the personal attack at the top is beyond the pale, but all told, it seems like this editor is WP:NOTHERE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user for one week. Probably should be indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. What do you think about semi-protecting Darel Chase (bishop) for a week as well to prevent logged out edit warring? Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  We don't protect articles preemptively.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP editor on Christian fundamentalism

2600:1700:500:D0D0:1870:6A86:412B:C026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is ignoring warnings and repeatedly making edits that essentially promote Christian fundamentalism and intelligent design, e.g. denying that it is "pseudoscientific". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

This editor has just been editing for about an hour. How about we give them some time to respond to their talk page messages before laying down sanctions? It would also have been preferable if you had tried talking with this editor and not just plopped down multiple template messages. Try communicating, like to another person, before starting a case at ANI. Templates are wordy and impersonal. As for ignoring user talk page messages, they stopped editing after only 20 minutes and many of these messages were posted after they had stopped editing. For all we know, they may not even be aware that they have a user talk page. I'd try not to be so trigger-happy. Let's see if they return to edit. Many IPs don't. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that I could have been more personal. The reason I reported this editor was that I already made three reverts to the article before they edited it again and nobody else was paying attention to the article at the time I reported. But then they stopped editing immediately after I reported them. Was there a better way to deal with this other than an ANI report? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing my report, I see that a different noticeboard such as FRINGEN might have been a better place, since they handle a lot of similar issues that don't rise to chronic behavioral problems and don't necessarily require admin assistance. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on Syria-related articles (mostly regarding flag changes)

IP User 174.93.39.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps on changing the flag of Syria to the revolution flag which has not been considered official yet according to Talk:Syria. Here are some examples: Japan-Syria relations, Syria-Ukraine relations (he mentioned option B and I don't know what he meant), and Iraq-Syria relations. He has done this repeatedly as proven by one of his older edit of the Ukraine article which was reverted. Also he was previously blocked for a week on the 15th for disruptive editing, but I checked his post-block contributions and he also did a few more disruptive edits as seen here (those with tag:reverted). Underdwarf58 (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

96.83.255.53

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

---

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

... was previously blocked twice for personal attacks and incivility. A longer block is probably warranted. C F A 05:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Blocked 3 months. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Socking

MAB is creating socks faster than I can block them.......see my recent contributions. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there any way to track them with this type of contribution pattern? Checking new user accounts? Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I've been watching the user creation log. Their latest spat seems to be over. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I know that WMF was sent info on them so they could take action and I thought some filters were set up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Should I send these account names somewhere? 331dot (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I got it, will help now.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we are done for the time being. Ymblanter (talk) 09:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Wendy2024 making legal threats

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

---

User:Wendy2024, a sock of User:Naderjamie6 has started to make legal threats. I believe that our policy requires us to escalate things when legal threats are made. See this diff We will not give up on our right if we have to go to court and sue every single one of you for this crime, and yes, it is a crime and unjust. Bunch of of you taking over Wiki which is suppose to be for everyone, patrolling it like a gestapos, blocking and banning people. See also this diff now bunch of gestapo are taking over banning/blocking people right and left, and deleting articles based on their prejudice. If there is any Karma in this world, any justice, those who responsible for banning us will face justice.

Long story short, this user is threatening to take Wikipedia to court over their sock block. For context, the initial block was for socking to vote stack at AfDs, however, they are insistent that they are just a bunch of mates at a library editing together. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I rejected the unblock request and pointed them out to WP:LEGAL. Concerning their unblock, they insist that during a wiki-meetup two users were using the same laptop. Whereas this could happen, if it was an organized meetup, there should be a Wiki user group, or chapter, or whatever, who organized it, and there should be some way to see whether these two users are one or two physical persons. Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Those wishing to consider unblocking these users should note that User:BonitueBera has just been blocked and is confirmed to this sock farm. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

And User:Hendrea44 as well... There's so many of them. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

They continued to insist that they go to the court (I think they claim this is an Iraqi court - good luck with this), so I removed their talk page access, but an uninvolved admin still needs to look at their last unblock request. Ymblanter (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done. GiantSnowman 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we are done here.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from User:DarwIn

User:DarwIn, a known transphobic editor from pt.wiki, is harassing me here after his actions led me to leave that wiki permanently. He has also harassed me on Wikimedia Commons. I don't know what to do anymore. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace. This is severely impacting my mental health. Skyshiftertalk 13:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You don't seem to have notified the other editor. This is mandatory and this section may be closed if you fail to do so. Use {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~ on that user's talk page. Additionally, you don't seem to have provided specific diffs demonstrating harassment. Please do so. --Yamla (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

On pt.wiki, DarwIn proposed the deletion of articles I created about transgender topics (Thamirys Nunes and Minha Criança Trans), using transphobic arguments, including misgendering and questioning the validity of transgender children. After translating these articles to en.wiki, he is targeting the DYK nomination, again focusing on his personal transphobic beliefs - as it shows, he doesn't even know how DYK works. He insisted multiple times trying to include his transphobic comment on that page and has just edited it again. On Commons, for extra context, DarwIn unilaterally deleted images related to these articles, despite being clearly involved in the dispute.

Again, I just want to collaborate with trans topics in peace. Skyshiftertalk 13:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

We can't help you with pt.wiki.x.io or with commons, only with en.wiki.x.io. Please provide specific diffs for en.wiki.x.io. --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. However, context is important. This is harassment that began on pt.wiki, has spread to Commons, and is now here. The history has been provided, but, sure, I can provide the diffs instead. He has unilaterally edited the DYK page and put a "disagree", despite this being not how DYK works. This is because he really doesn't know, as he only sporadically edits here and only came back to harass me. His comment is explicitly transphobic and doesn't focus on the article itself at all. After his comment was reverted by me, he insisted saying that I shouldn't call it transphobia, despite it being transphobia. After being reverted again, he reincluded the comment. I asked him to stop harassing me, but he has edited the page again.

I just don't want to be targeted by that editor here. I've left pt.wiki in great part for that reason. I just want to edit about transgender topics in peace here. Skyshiftertalk 13:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like yet another cross-wiki troll by this user. Already blocked at the Portuguese Wikipédia and Wikimedia Commons, the account is now promoting their POV here, including spreading lies, hideous slurs and baseless accusations against me like "known transphobic", after two of their creations were taken to community evaluation at the Portuguese Wikipedia for lacking notability. The user is also a known sockpuppeter, with an open case for sockpuppetry at the Portuguese Wikipédia. In any case, I'm not interested in pursuing this case in yet another project apart from the strictly needed, so do as you please. Darwin ^Ahoy! 13:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I have been blocked on the Portuguese Wikipedia for contesting that transphobia was called "valid criticism" on ANI and on Commons for literally nothing. Skyshiftertalk 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Questioning a women that declared her 4 year old son as trangender after he refused to play with cars and Marvel puppets and preferred what his mother calls "girl stuff" doesn't fit in any reasonable definition of transphobia, a word which you are well known for abusing whenever anyone criticizes you at the Portuguese Wikipedia and elsewhere. In any case, I don't think this is the place for this discussion, so this will be my last direct answer to you you'll see in this board. Darwin ^Ahoy! 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

And here's explicit transphobia. It's her daughter, no matter how much you hate the idea of trans children existing. The story you've told is also completely distorted. Skyshiftertalk 13:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I simply don't want this editor targeting me with transphobic stuff here after he target me on pt.wiki (and left it permanently in great part for that reason) and Commons. I am considering taking medication because of these events. Skyshiftertalk 13:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment I would suggest Darwin review MOS:GENDERID. If the child uses she/her pronouns we should not be referring to her with he/him pronouns. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Simonm223 I would suggest you to recall we ate talking about a 4 year child whose social gender was chosen by their mother after the child refused to play with what she calls "boy toys", such as toy cars and Marvel puppets. If that's not enough that this kind of gender prejudice was already abhorrent and condemned even in the generation of my babyboomer parents, one of the first things we teached as LGBT activists in the 1990s was that our parents don't own us nor our sexuality or our gender. So please let's refrain from doing that kind of suggestions when what is in question is the gender identity of a 4 year old attributed by their mother. Ok? Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    @DarwIn, the bottom line is that you don't get to question that. As a complete stranger to that child you have no right to do so, plus this is not the place to even enter into that discussion. How does complete strangers on the internet talking about a child's gender do them any good? This isn't the place anyway so please just follow guidelines, which have been put in place for a good reason. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    I questioned the mother, not the child. I've no idea why we are discussing this here, anyway. Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    We're here because this "questioning" appears to be bleeding into transphobic harassment. I would support an indef based on edits like this [22] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    The story told above is completely distorted to fit the transphobic's narrative. Simon223, if you want to get the full story, read Thamirys Nunes' page or read its sources (with the help of a translator if needed). Skyshiftertalk 15:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    I would like to suggest we follow MOS regardless of people's personal opinion of early childhood gender expression. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Rephrase that as mothers opinions on their 4 year old baby gender expression. Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Darwin - I suggest you drop whatever agenda you have, treat other editors with respect, and comply with our MOS (including MOS:GENDERID) - otherwise you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 15:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Sure, if in this Wikipedia the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Wikipedia community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so. Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Just so everyone knows, the facts are being quite distorted here. It wasn't really an imposition — her daughter, did not want to play with "boy toys", even when being forced by her mom. That's why the mom said she plays with "girl toys" and everything else. The references on said articles weren't thoroughly read, apparently by everybody here.

    Adding to this too: DarwIn, in some edits to the article in the Portuguese Wikipedia, added "quotes" on the word trans and some other parts of the articly, as if was his duty to judge if the girl is trans or not. Anyways, I think what happened in ptwiki stays there.

    And I want to make clear that I'm only stating the things that happened so everyone knows. I do not support blocking him. Eduardo G.^msg-contrib 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Four year olds are generally not considered babies. You really need to drop this - and probably to avoid editing in the WP:GENSEX area.Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    I would suggest a topic ban is imposed. GiantSnowman 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    I would support a topic ban from WP:GENSEX. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Given that much of what they've been saying is about living people I think we would need to expand this to at least cover all other BLPs until such a time as they have demonstrated that they actually understand that the BLP policy applies to non-article spaces on wiki as well as articles. Overall this seems more like NOTHERE than something which a topic ban can remedy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Topic ban from GENSEX and BLP, broadly construed, is fine for me. GiantSnowman 16:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    I do understand this Wikipedia rules on BLP. Isn't that not enough for you? Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Given your comments here and at DYK, you clearly do not. GiantSnowman 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    You seem to have missed the part when I very clearly stated there that I retired myself from that DYN debate. Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    @GiantSnowman nice try, but I don't edit on that topic, anyway. Let's calm down and enjoy the Christmas season. Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    This is the opposite of the attitude you need to adopt if you want to remain an editor in good standing. Remeber if you didn't edit on that topic we wouldn't be having this discussion, we're here because of edits you made in that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Then get your facts right, as I never edited any biography on that topic here, at least that I can recall. Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    You fundementally misunderstand the scope of WP:BLP and the concept of topic area as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Look, I'm at a family gathering and I really have nor time nor patience for this kind of endless debates, specially on culture wars topics. I've already retired from DYN yesterday but you seem to insist on pursuing this kind of Salem witch hunting here, but really, I'll not be anymore part of that. Roger and over, happy new year. Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    I think you may be getting different editors confused, I was not a participant at DYN. I did not pursue you to here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    it was a collective you. Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    The collective you did not pursue you here either. Only the OP appears to cross over. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Would recommend that Darwin walk away from the general topic. This would avoid any need for topic bans. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

They cannot be trusted. Above they said "I'm retiring myself from this topic" and yet has continued to post. GiantSnowman 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I've continued to post where? Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I've already walked away from it yesterday, why you're insisting on that lie? Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You are continuing to post here, ergo you have not "walked away" from it, have you? GiantSnowman 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@DarwIn The issue here is not whether you are right or wrong. The issue here is that you are violating a community guideline. That's it. Either you stop or you will end up getting blocked. I have my own disagreements with that guideline, and as a consequence I simply stay far away from those articles or discussions. You should too. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

How can I get out of this endless cycle, if each time you ask me to stop and I say I already stopped yesterday, you came back chastising me for having answered again? That's not fair. Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Simply post a note at the bottom of the discussion stating that given your respectful disagreement with parts of MOS:GENDERID that you will voluntarily avoid any articles or discussions where that is, or may become, an issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Which discussion are you talking about? Now I'm confused. Can't you be more clear? Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@DarwIn This one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem I've already done it, but you keep writing below it, so it's not in the bottom anymore. Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@DarwIn Easiest way to defuse this is to post a bolded and outdented statement at the very bottom of the this discussion stating you understand MOSGENDERID and will avoid pages or discussions where it may become an issue, and that you will avoid as far as possible, interacting with Skyshifter. If there are other issues here, I have no comment on those. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, here it goes again: "if in this Wikipedia the community accepts the opinions of a mother of a 4 year old on their child gender based on her very biased self declared social constructs about toy cars being for boys and makeup being for girls, that's perfectly fine, even if those are not my own opinions. To each Wikipedia community their rules and their stuff. People seem to have become very agitated over something on which I've not the least interest on debating here, specially on this space, so I'm retiring myself from this topic. Good debate everyone, have an happy new year, you can find me at my talk page if you need so" Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

That is not an appropriate statement, it has your bias/agenda throughout it. Very concerning. GiantSnowman 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Heres the main point I can see RE "Cross-wiki harassment." If DarwIn claims they do not regularly edit this topic space and had not previously participated in DYK discussions how did they come to find themselves there just in time to oppose the contribution of an editor they had extensive negative interactions with on another wiki? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  that's old stuff, I already posted a note there retiring from that space yesterday. I'm really puzzled on what all this fuss is about. Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't about the transphobia, this is about the harassment (they are seperate by apparently related claims). So how did you find yourself commenting on that DYK? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I expressed my disagreement with that note, justifying with my opinion, and there's not even any misgendering issue there, AFAIK. Not sure if expressing that opinion here is forbidden or not, but in any case I've posted a note retiring from it already yesterday, so I've no idea what more do you want. Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  And how did you become aware that there was something to disagree with? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  precisely because we are currently in the process of evaluating the notability of that bio and association she created at the Portuguese Wikipedia, so it's just natural that related issues on other wikis get monitored too, that's part of the process. You don't agree with that evaluation, and that's perfectly OK. To each Wikipedia their own stuff 🤷 Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Please link the diff from portuguese wiki where the DYK for this wiki came up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  it's the wikipedia articles created yesterday that we are evaluating, not any kind of DYK note. Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  How is this a related issue then? It sure looks like you followed this particular user around Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back no, I followed the articles, as they were also created here yesterday. Is that so hard to understand? Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Because of edits like this [23]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  answering an accusation of being a dictator after flushing away the copyviios she uploaded. What's the problem? Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, that diff is the undo. Thats you edit warring apparent harassment onto someone's talk page on another wiki with a kissing face as the edit summary... In that context this does look like cross wiki harassment. Do you have a better explanation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Just answered the troll there with another, as I was on the middle of something else. Yes, I know, not the nicest thing to do, but whatever. And why are we discussing Commons here now, anyway? Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  We're discussing cross wiki harassment, that makes edits on any wiki relevant to the discussion. You appear to have been harassing them on commons and then followed them here to continue the harassment because a temporary block there (which you appear to have had a hand in) prevented them from being active there. You absolutely can not do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I answered a troll, if there was any harassment was from that account towards me, not the opposite. Please don't invert the situation. Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Your edits on enwiki had nothing to do with trolling or other behavioral issues from that account, if your edits on enwiki were to address valid concerns informed by your experience on other wikis we would not be having this discussion. It was also you restoring your comment which they removed from their talk page, thats you trolling them and it makes their dictator claim look not like trolling but rather accurate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I confess I've no idea why we are still having this discussion, as they were just that. But for the 50th time, these interactions have stopped long ago, and for a similar amount of time I've devotedly accepted and committed to all your rules. Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  In my opinion we're still having this discussion because you are stonewalling, perhaps its a language barrier but you don't come off as trustworthy or engaging in good faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe it may help too, if Darwin will promise to avoid interacting on main space with Skyshifter. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Not that I ever interacted with her there AFAIK, anyway. Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think Darwin should avoid interacting with Skyshifter on all spaces on en.wiki.x.io. It's clear Darwin has made Skyshifter feel uncomfortable, and I don't appreciate it. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway I absolutely agree with that, I'm not doing any sort of interaction with that account anymore. I'm still answering here because you keep mentioning me. Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Since you "absolutely agree", then I will take your comment here as acknowledging a voluntary one-way interaction ban, broadly construed, as in effect. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway yes, that's correct. Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think a one-way interaction ban between the editors would be for the best here. While I think there is some merit to a Gender and Sexuality tban, as some of Darwin's recent edits appear to be about righting great wrongs in the topic area, I believe the interaction ban would solve most of the issues raised here. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  which "edits"? The 1 or 2 comments in the DYK section? Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  All your edits related to the subject, both here and on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Isabelle Belato You're evaluating my edits on the Portuguese Wikipedia to punish me in the English Wikipedia? Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  When there is cross-wiki harassment, then yes, your activity on other wikis is relevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger Can you explain how my general edit history in wiki.pt is relevant in any way to an accusation of cross-wiki harassment? Darwin ^Ahoy! 23:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Community Sanctions

I offered DarwIn an off ramp above and their response was to reiterate their views on a highly controversial subject and their responses to concerns about their interactions with Skyshifter have been entirely unsatisfactory. This looks a like a pretty clear case of IDHT revolving around their strong disagreement with one of our guidelines. Frankly, I came very close to just blocking them after their response to my suggestion. This discussion has already dragged on long enough. For purposes of clarity, nobody is required to agree with all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And yes, gender is a highly controversial subject. I have my own disagreements with parts of MOS:GENDERID. But as the old saying goes, themz the rules until they aint. Editors are free to disagree with community P&G, but are not free to ignore or flout them. It's time to settle this.

Proposed DarwIn is topic banned from all pages and discussions relating to WP:GENSEX broadly construed and is subject to a one way IBan with user Skyshifter, also broadly construed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I note that Darwin has agreed above to the IBan. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - He's already agreed to avoid that general topic area in future & Skyshifter. PS - If a t-ban is imposed? limit it to six-months. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and IBAN, both broadly construed - sorry GoodDay but I do not trust this user's words, and so we need a proper sanction. GiantSnowman 18:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Just read through the above and good grief. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• I said above I would support this proposal if it was brought forward, and I do. Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Why it should be a one-way iban? Skyshifter started this topic with the characterization of their opponent as "a known transphobic editor". A normal editor would be blocked just for writing this. I am not sure a iban is needed, but if it is needed it must be mutual. Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

That's actually a fair point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be more compelling if DarwIn weren't so committed to misgendering a child out of some apparent WP:RGW impulse. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223 You have been misjudging me - It was quite the opposite, actually, if it's worth anything. Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The child, according to the reliable sources I have seen, uses she/her pronouns. Your changing your comments from he/him to they/them does not bring even that one comment in line with our MOS. I am not interested in whether you, in your heart of hearts, are a transphobe. I am concerned that your editing in the WP:GENSEX area is disruptive in a way that will likely make trans editors less comfortable working in the en.wiki project. As a result I think you should avoid editing in that topic area. Furthermore I think you should leave Skyshifter alone as you have not provided a satisfactory explanation for your participation in the DYK thread. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223 OK, I didn't knew the child used those pronouns when she was 4 years old, I commit to use them here if I would ever talk about that issue again (which I definitely will not, anyway). Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

If they weren't before they are now... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, to be clear, I oppose a one-way IB. I do not find this argument convincing. Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support this seems like a reasonable set of restrictions, I hope they can stick to it Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back I never edited in that topic here, as far as I can remember, not is it a primary interest I have, so it certainly will not be difficult to hold, even if it comes out to me as incredibly unbased and unfair. Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Your edits to DYK were within that topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back And those were the only ones, and I voluntarily stopped them yesterday immediately after being reverted. How does that configure the kind of systematic behaviour that would justify a topic ban? I really apologize, but in this moment the way I see this is a kind of Salem witch hunt, with people accusing me of all kind of slurs and abominations, even when they are in directly opposition to my stance here. You seem to be punishing me for my opinions and the way I (supposedly) think about a very particular issue (if 4 years old have self determination or not), which comes out to me as really unfair and unworthy of a project like this. Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  How is that in direct opposition to your stance there? Your edit summary says "forgot that English has the neutral pronoun, which is useful in these cases. fixed." which suggests that it is in line with that stance Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back I'm sorry, I seem to have missed your point. What is wrong with correcting the gender to a neutral pronoun in such a situation? Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  This edit [24] might help you get the point. At this point your conduct on this page is becoming a serious behavioral issue... you can't lie, sealion, obfuscate, and misdirect endlessly without consequences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back I can fix those too as I did yesterday, if you think it's important 🤷🏽‍♂️ Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  You are not supposed to edit comments after they have been responded to in that way. But by fix do you mean change to "she" or do you mean change to "they"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back Change to "she", following this wikipedia rules, certainly. So if I can't fix them, what do you propose instead to mend it? Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Given the sheer quantity of lies and obfuscations from you (the truth is apparently a last resort) the only fix I can see is a formal one, a topic ban and an interaction ban. Up above you so easily went from "I never edited in the topic area" to "those were the only ones" that I don't even think you understand that you were caught in a blatant lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back There was not any "lie", please stop assuming bad faith. I thought you were referring to the main space only, which I believe is a fairly assumption to do, if the used word is "editing". Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  At best you're saying that you lack the competence on enwiki to adhere to any voluntary restrictions. This will be my last comment unless pinged by an editor other than you, my apologies that this has been an unpleasant process for you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Darwin has a long history of editing in WP:GENSEX albeit generally less controversially. an example. Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Simonm223 That's documented with the sources and all, and the proposition there was that the tupinambá was gay, not a woman. It's not even gender related. So you desperatly want something to justify a TB, bring it on. I'm fed up with what seems to be a circular and nonsense discussion on this board, where whatever I say is a lie and with bad intentions. I don't even edit here in the gender topic, but if it makes you happy, bring it on. Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  DarwIn WP:GENSEX covers gender and sexuality. You have been saying you aren't interested in the topic area. It appears to be one of your main areas of interest on en.wiki. Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Simonm223 Thanks for clarifying that. Fact is that I don't edit much here. I've occasionally added or fixed some LGBT related stuff in the past when it crossed my main interest, History, but it certainly is not a primary interest, despite being LGBT myself. Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Bushranger. charlotte ^👸🎄 20:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. As GoodDay noted, the problem appears to already be addressed. If the problem persists then go for a sanction. Look we let people argue their point here and it does seem like most of the support is because editors feel Darwin isn't contrite enough, not that they expect the issue to continue. Note that I'm not weighing in on any interaction bans. Springee (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Springee. This entire issue could have been dropped days ago when DarwIn acknowledged he would walk away, and instead seems to have been needlessly escalated again and again and again. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Pppery: days ago? I think you might have misread the time stamps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support the TBAN; personally I'd have indeffed several outdents sooner, but here we are. No opinion on the IBAN. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support Given what's happened, I think an enforceable topic ban is better than Darwin stepping away. IMO the BLP issues is far more concerning than gensex one so I'd support a BLP topic ban as well, but it seems likely a gensex one would be enough to stop Darwin feeling the continued need to express their opinions on a living person. Since Darwin is going to step away anyway and barely edits en, it should be a moot point and if it's not that's why it's enforceable. As for the iban, while I don't think Skyshifter should have described Darwin in that way when opening this thread, I think we can accept it as a one time mistake under the stress of apparently being followed and given questionable way Darwin ended up in a dispute here with someone they'd had problems with elsewhere I think a one-way iban is justified. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne What " continued need to express their opinions on a living person"? My single-1-single comment in the DYK? Darwin ^Ahoy! 23:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @DarwIn: Demonstrating the problem. You claim you only did it once elsewhere but anyone reading this thread can see you did it here so many times #c-DarwIn-20241229133200-Skyshifter-20241229132800, #c-DarwIn-20241229152900-Simonm223-20241229150600, #c-DarwIn-20241229154200-Blue-Sonnet-20241229154000, #c-DarwIn-20241229154100-Simonm223-20241229153800, #c-DarwIn-20241229160700-GiantSnowman-20241229154400, #c-DarwIn-20241229172200-Ad_Orientem-20241229171800. I think it represents maybe 1/3 of your comments here (whether counting comments or text). There is absolutely no reason for you to go around expressing your opinions on two different living persons to say you're going to walk away. And if you need to express your opinion on living persons to defend your actions, you clearly have no defence. Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  So let's get this straight. You are proposing a topic ban on me because of the personal opinions on (the eventual lack of) selfdetermination of 4 year old children that I expressed here in this board, despite that my editions related to it were limited to a 1-single-1 comment on that issue on the DYK page? This is really looking like thought police. I tell you, my personal positions are my personal positions, and I'll not change them to please you, even if if costs me a Topic Ban for barely mentioned them on this project a single time before this topic was opened here. Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Holding an opinion ≠ expressing an opinion. Only one of these is causing an issue. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  I expressed it only 1-one-1 time here almost 1 day before being recalled here to explain it, and after voluntarily saying in the same page that I would not express it again there. Now I'm being punished for explaining it here too, after being requested to do that? This is insufferable. Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  User:DarwIn, I think at this point, further comments from you will not be helping your case. If this is insufferable (and being summoned to ANI generally is), it might help to step back from this discussion and only respond if editors ask you specific questions. When discussions get this long, often the small benefit from continuing to comment does not outweigh the cost of continued misunderstanding among editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

  @Liz: Thank you for the wise advice, I'll be doing that. Darwin ^Ahoy! 03:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Darwin's replies and conduct here indicates that he simply doesn't get it.

MiasmaEternal☎ 02:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per GoodDay and Springee. Ciridae (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN per Bushranger. Darwin has already agreed to the 1-way IBAN — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Given the history at pt.wiki, I think this is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. There should be no interaction between the parties, which Darwin has agreed to.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Admitting sockpuppetry

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

---

An account created last month admitted to being a sockpuppet account by User:Sewnbegun, after I dorectly asked them through their talkpage.[25] You can check more about Sewnbegun here.[26] Based from my interaction with the sockpuppeteer, this would be their 8th Wikipedia account.Hotwiki (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry. --Yamla (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Hounding and ownership behavior by Indepthstory

A little background: A bit over a week ago, I noticed an edit to Odd Squad by Indepthstory that added some things I thought seemed to go against the MOS without adequately explaining why (diff) (in particular, WP:OVERLINK and WP:SEMICOLON). Because of this, I did a partial revert (diff), trying to keep what I could while removing the overlinking and unwieldy semicolon constructions (I did this by opening the last revision before those edits and trying to add back what I thought could be kept).

The next day, the same user added it back without clear explanation so I reverted it, assuming the user either didn't see or didn't understand why I made the revert, and explained on their talk page and suggested using clearer edit summaries could help others understand why they make edits (I avoided using a template like {{Uw-mos1}} or {{Uw-wrongsummary}} because I thought I could be more specific and gentle/friendly than the templates are). There was one more back and forth of them adding this kind of thing and me reverting them before I realized they'd removed my note on their talk page (well within their right) and left a note on my talk page in reply, a section which has since ballooned in size. At that point I tried to avoid reverting them again, treating it like a content dispute (at this point I've tried to move that aspect to the article's talk page)... but their comments on my talk page have raised concerns in me over their conduct such that I feel the real issue is there and I feel like I've exhausted my options in trying to address their conduct without administrator help, so I've decided to bring it here.

In the discussion on my talk page, I've tried to get them to explain why they feel these aspects of the MOS should not be followed. In response, they've instead:

• suggested I'm misinterpreting the MOS (and/or that the MOS might not be important)
• brought up specific edits of mine mostly unrelated to Odd Squad as far back as a year ago (maybe more since I don't remember some of the things they're referring to), making assumptions about why I made the edits based on the limited context of their edit summaries (diff, diff, diff)
• suggested I "could" make edits but only in the way they want me to and/or that I need to leave the article alone and tell them what I think needs to be changed
• said that they think Wikipedia is not about "getting more eyes on things" (my phrasing for bringing the content bit to the article talk page) and more about recruiting people who share your opinion
• made reference to the areas I edit in most and asked why I'm even on Wikipedia (presumably because they think I don't edit in enough areas?) and then implored me to answer the question when I asked why it was related

(They also seemed to start editing pages I have on my watchlist out of nowhere (without looking over the pages in my watchlist, Babymetal (where one part of their edit was changed) and Cameron Boyce (where their edits were wholly reverted) come to mind), but that could be pure coincidence. Their edit summaries also haven't gotten any more descriptive of what they're actually doing in the edits they make, for the most part.)

I've tried temporarily disengaging in an attempt to cool things down (avoiding editing Odd Squad and also backing off from the discussion and waiting a few days before noting I'd be making what felt like an uncontroversial edit), and I've tried explaining why their interactions with me (the hounding, the ownership behavior, the one thing they said that makes it sound like they want to canvass) concern me and/or are inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia (diff, diff). They have continued this behavior to some extent (scrutinizing unrelated edits of mine, ownership behavior in regards to their edits), and it feels like they're unlikely to stop unless this comes out to letting them do what they want while other people don't raise concerns or ask questions or touch anything they've added or changed. I don't know what else to do but raise the concern here. (Also, I tried to be brief, but apparently I suck at it (or else this issue can't be described any more succinctly?). Apologies? XP) - Purplewowies (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

3R / Edit Warring Sharnadd

• Sharnadd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sjö (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (involved editor, but not accused edit warring)

BRIGHT LINE edit warring from Sharnadd with the most recent example being over at Cucumber sandwich with these three consecutive reverts: [27] [28] [29] is the most recent examples. Despite attempts at consensus forming, they continue to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. They did bring it to the article talk page [30] but then User:Sjö reverted the article, to which, again Sharnadd reverted for the third time. There is an extensive edit reverting going on between these two users. While Sjo is probably right from a policy standpoint for why Sharnadd's edits should be reverted, they are also wrong for edit-waring and continuing to revert articles, instead of escalating them here. I became aware of some of this after a prior ANI almost a month ago: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174 § Sharnadd and disruptive editing/CIR. Sharnadd was previsouly blocked in June for Edit Warring, and have received multiple notices about edit warring behavior on their talk page since then, including 7 various warnings in the last two months from 7 different experienced editors. Sharnadd editing behavior appears to be that of someone who feels they OWN articles which have English/British origins and can contribute because WP:IKNOWITSTRUE. Their history of adding or changing information without reliable sources goes all the way back to one of their first talk page notices about missing RS, and they have failed to get the point ever since. Since they were previously blocked for 48 hours I suggest a slightly longer block to help them get the point about edit warring. TiggerJay (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see Sjö edit warring. I do see Sharnadd edit-warring and refusing to listen. Also their comment on Talk:Cucumber sandwich seems to imply the opposite of what they're edit-warring about! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, yes to be clear I would say Sharnadd is the ONLY ONE who is edit-warring, and Sjö is "simply" involved in this situation but not exhibiting edit warring behavior. The actual behavior (to me) seems to be that they are rather fixated on adding/removing information to all sorts of things British. Often claiming this were first British and not American such as Fried Chicken [31] and Ham sandwich where made multiple attempts to change the lead to British sandwich of ham between sliced bread [32], then after revert, The ham sandwich is a common type of sandwich [33] and [34], which is effectively another RRR (again a place where Sjö, reverted all three). Also where Sharnadd insist that Carrot Soup is English [35] and [36]. On their own talk page they claim that they are not violating 3R because I can revert edits that you incorrectly removed and also on Sjo's talk asserting that evidence need to flow the other direction. [37] 01:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC) TiggerJay (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I was not refusing to listen. When I changed the Pullman loaf to the more generic term of a loaf of bread which is what is used in the UK for a cucumber sandwhich and also appears to be what is used in the USA and you changed it back saying it was independently verified I did ask you for sources which you did not give. I reverted back with sources showing that a loaf of bread is used in the UK. Sjo reverted back stating that he wasn't going to bother reading the sources. I removed the information as the Pullman loaf still did not have sources to show that type of loaf is used in a cucumber sandwhich. Sharnadd (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It does seem that tiggerjay was involved led in WP:IKNOWITTRUE behaviour on this occasion as you wanted information to remain on the page which had no citations as you said it was independently viable but yet you didn't bother to verify it. Sharnadd (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

As you have just stated on sjo discussion page that sjo was correct as it is the policy to revert sourced information without actually reading the sources. Would it not be better to have the discussion on one page rather than you commenting here and also commenting over there Sharnadd (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Ras I asked on sjo page just now where is it the policy to revert sourced information without reading the sources back to unsourced information. I had already started a discussion. Sjo should have joined it rather that just revert with the remark that he wasn't bothering to read the sources Sharnadd (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This is simply about your edit warring behavior, and not the venue to continue the discussion about your arguments over why Pullman is or is not an appropriate inclusion to the article. Even if your reasons were valid, it does not fall under the exceptions when it comes to the bright line of edit warring. However, your responses here continue to demonstrate your lack of competence in this matter. However, I would not be opposed to an uninvolved editor or admin reraising the CIR concerns. TiggerJay (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

So why do feel I am involved in edit warring as I reverted information on cucumber sandwhich once then added citations but you feel sjo is not when he has reverted information on other subjects three times Sharnadd (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes I did read the policies, yes you did revert a good faith edit as you stated WP:IKNOWITSTRUE without actually adding anything to the original unsourced information. Sharnadd (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Why do you feel people adding sources to information when it has been reverted without the reverter actually looking at the information is edit warring but someone who reverts something several times on a different page is simply being involved in the situation Sharnadd (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Once you make a bold edit, and it is reverted, you discuss, you do not simply revert back. And you do not have any exception from edit-warring policies because you are "revert[ing] edits that [someone else] incorrectly removed". Sjö made one revert on Cucumber sandwich over the last 24 hours. You made three. Your edits are controversial and you are the only person pushing them. Drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I have opened a discussion on it already . I was talking about a different page that tiggerjay brought up where sjo did several reverts I understand now that adding sources to show where changes come from is seen as reverting an edit. I will leave it the 24 hr period before I add citations showing evidence in the future Sharnadd (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@The Bushranger from both this reply above, and this talk page one, I believe they still do not get the point, and fully intend to keep introducing the same information believing that they only need to add citations showing evidence. TiggerJay (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I stated that if an edit with sources is reverted due to you personally believing the original is correct, as that is the way it is referred to in your country like you stated. If it is reverted because they don't want to check the sources like sjo stated, I would start a discussion page or like the page that was linked make a new edit. This would be after having a discussion and asking for the reason for your beliefs and some evidence.

It is covered under bold again. I did not state the edit would be helpful same our that the sources would be. I am happy to apply more sources or rewording of edits.

I did ask you how to go forward if the person who reverts will not engage in the discussion.

As an example with cucumber sandwich which is seen generally as a British dish. When I wanted to change this to a loaf of bread as this is what is used in Britain but also covers what is used in other countries. As you have stated you reverted as you believed that it was independently verifiable that the American Pullman loaf was used in making the sandwich after you reverted I changed the edit adding sources.

I now understand that I should have asked you to give more sources and to consider if a more generic term can be used before changing it with sources to show my evidence. As you explained you preferred Pullman as that is what you believed to be true from your experience of the sandwich in your country. You kindly provided two links to an American recipe and a link to a french type of bread. After I changed it to add more sources sjo changed it back as he didn't want to read my sources. I had already started a discussion page but if this is not responded to by the reverter what is the best next course of action. Sharnadd (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sharnadd:, this is your final warning. Drop the stick. If you leave it 24 hrs next time before editing with sources, you will be blocked. You must discuss and establish a consensus for the changes you want to make, and if you cannot establish that consensus, you must not make the changes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

i have explained above that is not what I meant. As stated on the link you helpfully provided I had started a discussion page. If this is not replied what is the best course forward. The link you provided seems to.suggest making another edit was permissible. If a reasonable length of time is given and that edit is not the same and adds more sources to show evidence is it acceptable to still edit on that page. What is the best way forward If a person is just reverting to earlier information that does not actually apply to the article, or because they do not like someone editing a page regardless of if the edits are correct but will not discuss this or try and reach a compromise. If there another discussion board to bring it up on or do you just leave the page altogether and hope that someone in the future corrects it Sharnadd (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

If literally everybody else holds position A on content, and you hold position B, it's a sign that you might, possibly, be the one not making correct edits, and you drop the stick and move on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

True, thanks for your help I was just wondering in this case where one person makes a revert as they personally believe something that was originally posted and unsourced to be true and state it's verified without evidence and you show evidence to show that a more generic term is used in many countries including the country of origin rather than a type from the country of the reverter. Once the generic evidence is show and this is then reverted by a different person who makes reverts as they can't be bothered to check sources and won't have a discussion on this is there anywhere to take the discussion. Is there a way to stop people just reverting everything they don't like if they won't join a discussion. Sharnadd (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Stop assuming bad faith and drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Dropping it I'm not assuming bad faith just when it is shown I with there was some from of dispute resolution to stop people from stonewalling articles Sharnadd (talk) 07:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to encourage pursuing a dispute when you say you are dropping the stick but there is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard as a place to resolve differences if you can't come to an agreement on the article talk page. It requires the cooperation from other editors though. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Great thanks just for future reference Sharnadd (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Lavipao, POV pushing and personal attacks yet again

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

---

• POV pushing edit
• edit summary: How much is Erdogan paying you to gatekeep these wikipedia pages?

This user got blocked one week for edit warring (not even his previous personal attacks), still the first thing he do is doing the same thing. Beshogur (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174#Lavipao_edit_warring_+_POV_pushing (previous) Beshogur (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Prima facie, I'd suggest a block of two weeks for the personal attack(the previous block was for 1 week). At second glance, after 89 edits, is this editor here to build an encyclopedia? --Kansas Bear 23:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Beshogur has tens of thousands of edits, all of which are explicitly removing any edits that go against the official state propaganda policies of the Turkish dictatorship. He’s quite literally the exact type of person who should be banned from the site, yet your anger is around the person pointing out the blatant censorship, not the one doing the censoring? Lavipao (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• So, their POV pushing is changing "operation" to "invasion" in this one article? Of course, the personal attack is not acceptable but some of their editing looks okay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  I didn’t attack anyone personally. I simply asked this guy what salary he was getting paid by the government to maintain the correct propaganda language on pages regarding the turkish invasions on English Wikipedia.

  It seems like a full time job since he responds to edits within 15 minutes and has been reverting all edits to any pages regarding these invasions for at least 5 straight years.

  Personally I’m just wondering what a propaganda agent gets paid. I know turkeys economy is pretty weak so I can’t imagine it’s that much , but maybe I’m wrong and it’s very financially rewarding. Hence my simple question Lavipao (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked Lavipao for two weeks for personal attacks. If another administrator wants to increase that block to indefinite, that's fine with me. The user was warned about making personal attacks by The Bushranger, which the user belligerently denied, and then Lavipao comes here and blatantly - and even more clearly - repeats the personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Sphinx2512 making Legal Threats

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

---

See [38]. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Armegon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:FORUMSHOP El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 06:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

---

User:Armegon has been committing multiple cases that define the term "WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT". He committed his first case with Goro Maki where he nominated it for deletion, accusing me of treating Wikipedia as if it's a Wikia fan page, and I had asked him to close the AFD (so I could draftify it in my sandbox to avoid issues like that happening again, as if I was harassed), but he chose not to, and I decided to get consensus from him to close it myself, and he granted consensus for me to close that AFD.

Then he goes onto repeated editwarring because of a single non-free image from GvK that was being placed on the Legendary Godzilla article and the article of the Godzilla franchise, this constant edit-warring is him defining the image-behalf of WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT.

• Special:Diff/1266073828: The previous post illustrates the differences and responses to two Hollywood iterations of Godzilla. This is a poor attempt to keep the GVK image - this was because Legendary's G-Man was under the section of Tristar Pictures and not Legendary Pictures
• Special:Diff/1266094010: Per MOS:IMAGEREL: “Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative; each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose”. This is just there for the sake of decoration - this was because Legendary's G-Man in 2021 was at risk of deletion and I was thinking so much harder and freaking out at the same time of where to put this image.

I only wanted the GvK image to replace the Empire 2014 image because in my opinion, that image has been in the article's infobox for 10 years, which is probably too long, and so I decided that it needs to be replaced as was the case with thousands of other articles you find all across Wikipedia, I even attempted to move the 2014 image out of the infobox and into the design section under overview, but this was reverted.

After all this constant edit-warring that happened, I asked him regarding where should I put it and he claims this to me about the image saying "You shouldn't add images just because they look good", what he was saying was that because I uploaded the image, he theoretically thinks in his mind and accusing me of choosing this image because the aesthetics.

In reality, I only uploaded the image to Wikipedia because I needed to find a more recent and newer image that could replace the 2014 image in the infobox.

This is just actively malicious, and THE Wikipedia definition of the term "WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT". GojiraFan1954 (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@GojiraFan1954: You have failed to notify Armegon (talk · contribs) of this discussion, even though the red notice at the top of the page clearly requires you to do so. This is a hard requirement to opening a report here. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

They also failed to notify myself and another editor who helped him at the WP:TEAHOUSE, who have discussed about the topic in which he is discussing. I ended up notifying Armegon when I saw the lack of notification to me and another editor. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 04:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)in my opinion, that image has been in the article's infobox for 10 years, which is probably too long A good infobox image can be permament. There is no "schedule" for rotating out infobox images, or any images, or anything else. I honestly get the scent of assuming bad faith from this report overall. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Its a bad thing? really? take a look at other wikipedia articles and each of their respective revision history and you will see that their infoboxes has their images interchanged, that's what makes articles work, and now it's a bad thing? really? GojiraFan1954 (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Nobody said it was a bad thing. It's not a necessary thing just because it's been there awhile. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

First, there is no essay or policy page called WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT so I have no idea what you mean when you refer to this nonexistent page. Could you be specific what you mean?

Second, I can't believe that your closure of the AFD on an article you created wasn't challenged weeks ago when you did it. That was improper as you are definitely involved here.

Finally, after reading this, it's not clear to me what your complaint is about this editor. It is not against any rules to nominate an article for an AFD discussion, it happens around 50-80 times every day. I don't understand what your dispute is about an image used in an article but that discussion should occur on the article talk page, not ANI. If there is a problem with edit-warring (which takes two editors to happen), you should report it at WP:ANEW. If you simply don't care for this editor because you have disagreements, well, you probably have to find a way to be okay with that as we all have other editors we don't get along with on this project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This report here, is a reason why an essay of WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT should be created, so that issues like this, don't, happen, again. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question that both me and Liz have asked you. What does this nonexistent essay mean? Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 04:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@GojiraFan1954 Do you want an essay to be written because you think that you're being personally targeted? If so, can you explain why you think that? An essay won't help, I've already explained in Teahouse that other essays exist that go over the same point so that won't make any difference. We need to understand why you're focusing on this in particular and what you want to happen. I can also see that the diffs are for edits from different IP addresses. Are you saying they targeted you personally despite each edit being from a different IP address? How did they target you personally in that case? Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was targeted personally, because I just want to be friendly to this community, and not a joke. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, for the essay of WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT, I will write the essay myself. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

If you write an essay as a reaction to a believed wrong, there's good odds it'll be deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This began as the OP asking on AN then Teahouse about what category the redlinked term would go in - upon questioning we realised that the crux is because the OP feels aggrieved that their edits are being reverted: ”I have accepted their apology. But I'm just upset right now that most of the images I uploaded are being vetoed because they think that their past versions are better." [[39]] Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, just so I totally understand things, there is no essay with this abbreviation that has ever been written and the OP has no plans to write it themselves. So, it's just a meaningless reference and the OP feels targeted? It would have been helpful if this had simply been stated rather than referring to nonexistent pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That confused me also, I thought they wanted to create the page then it exploded onto ANI when we asked for clarification. I just noticed that their diffs are from IP edits at different addresses, so I don't know how they can say they were personally targeted? There are a few instances where their edits are spread out across IP's/this account so it's hard to track, but it does look like the same person in hindsight. Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT, also created by the OP, earlier today. Daniel (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I want to add that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goro Maki, I did apologize to @GojiraFan1954: for insinuating a fan-boy driven editorial mindset and articulated that I could've phrased it better, even offered my help to them. Because they're new I've cited essays and guidelines when reverting some of their edits, it wasn't done out of "I DON'T LIKE IT" etc. In regards to this GVK image, I've made it clear to them that a replacement was unwarranted since a Fair Use Rationale (FUR) image of the same character already existed (it's not even my upload) and was just fine as is [1].

I made it clear to an IP (that I now suspect may have been GojiraFan1954) what MOS:IMAGEREL states regarding image purposes and relevancy; they kept adding the GVK image with no encyclopedic relevancy to warrant its inclusion. I also informed GojiraFan1954 of MOS:IMAGEREL on my own talk page, [2] but it seems they ignored my advice since we're now here. Regardless, I repeated this again to another IP [2] (which was probably GojiraFan1954 too). There seems to be a pattern of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to citing guidelines to GojiraFan1954. As the sequence of events shows (check the revision histories), I informed GojiraFan1954 many times, in good faith, on edit summaries and my talk page why their edits were not constructive, cited guidelines to help them understand, but they ignored them; I even offered advice how the GVK image can be informative to warrant its inclusion -- but again, also ignored.

It almost seems as if GojiraFan1954 is WP:NOTHERE since they keep ignoring essays, conduct, and guidelines when they're cited to them. Armegon (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I also should point out that @GojiraFan1954: seems to be taking things way too personal just because I undid some non-constructive edits and nominated an article of theirs for deletion. GojiraFan1954 must understand that other editors will also revert/undo their edits if they feel they're not constructive. GojiraFan1954 must understand they're not infallible, they will make mistakes that other editors will fix or revert. And GojiraFan1954 must understand they're not exempt from following Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines -- which seems like they're trying to avoid by writing a new essay/policy? I'm not sure what the endgame is there. Armegon (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I know I'm not exempt from following Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, I'm not stupid, your only saying that so you could make me appear or look more duller than you think. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This is really more than enough from you about this nonsense. This is the third thread you've opened today about this, nobody seems to agree with... whatever point it is you are tryhing to make. I'm closing this. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 06:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of WP:NPA violation, unfounded vandalism allegation

The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Wikipedia (although the articles affected are subject to WP:MEDRS), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that user:Uwappa rejects some basic principles of the project: WP:BRD means that a bold edit may be reverted to the status quo ante and goes on to say don't restore your bold edit, don't make a different edit to this part of the page, don't engage in back-and-forth reverting, and don't start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement. Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the sqa with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the sqa, counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned material, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says BRD is optional, but complying with Wikipedia:Editing policy § Talking and editing and Wikipedia:Edit war is mandatory but Uwappa has done neither.

I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN.

Diffs: (all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 [probably])

• 11:10 (UTC), 25 December 2024: Uwappa replaces {{Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
• 13:39, 25 December 2024: JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page."
• 13:55, 25 December 2024: JMF opens Template talk:Body roundness index#Proposed version 4 is a step too far, reverted for further discussion at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
• 14:08, 25 December 2024: Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page. [note that 14:08 25/12 UTC is 00:08 26/12 AEST ]
• 14:27, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
• 14:39, 25 December 2024 JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached"
• 14:45, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary.
• 14:45, 25 December 2024: at User talk:Uwappa#Bold, revert, discuss, JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention.
• 17:38, 25 December 2024: Zefr contributes to BRD debate.
• 17:53, 25 December 2024: At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
• 19:50, 25 December 2024 At Waist-to-height ratio, JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page."
  • (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.)
• 20:23, 25 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".

• 16:19, 26 December 2024 user:Zefr reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish sqa

• 09:57, 27 December 2024 Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
• 09:59, 27 December 2024 Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also User_talk:Uwappa#Edit_warring for escalation in progress.".
• 11:05, 27 December 2024 JMF reverts to sqa again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.
• 11:26, 27 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
• 13:04, 27 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa alleges WP:NPA violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.

---

• 10:51, 29 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
• 14:17, 29 December 2024 Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.

As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)