Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Sig ma rehan

Most probably part of a sock farm, adding "vote thief" to articles of living persons, clearly not here to contribute constructively. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Please review their contribution history Sig ma rehan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Nearly all of their edits have been non-constructive, such as adding death information for living persons, as seen in these examples: [1] and [2]. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about the "[m]ost probably part of a sock farm" part, but I agree that it is most likely that they are not here to build an encyclopedia considering that almost all of their edits have been reverted. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 20:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Possible block evasion by 83.6.206.183

I think Special:Contributions/83.6.206.183 matches pattern of editing of blocked Special:Contributions/Meellk. They are primarily edit warring regarding which system of government Poland is. IP user appears very shortly after named account has been blocked and continue same discussion that was started by named account. -- Svito3 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The behavior continues since they have received a notice. Please take a look. -- Svito3 (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Game$howFan

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

---

The editor has made multiple edits to American game show winnings records that have broken the formatting of the all-time winnings table, not to mention introduced numerous inconsistencies. I'll admit I may have been a bit aggressive in going straight to a level 3 warning on their talk page, but a further attempt to reach out, in which I have multiple times tried to explain my reasoning for undoing their edits, has resulted in statements from them such as "it doesn't matter," "tuff nubs," "they can't be lied too," and "EAT MY SHORTS!!!!!" all while practically daring me to block and/or report them. While the user has not (yet) restored their version of the article, I'm afraid their complete inability to have a conversation without launching into childish behavior leaves me no choice but to bring this dispute here, as I do not believe my attempt to reach out has been met with good faith. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Considering that @Game$howFan's account was created an hour before their first edit, and IP addresses making edits to the article date all the way back to August 25th (which is when @Bcschneider53 first got involved here), and also that Game$howFan even uses the same edit summary that this IP address does, I think there's solid enough ground to say that our friend here is very likely a WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE to be constructive.

A quick list of all IPs potentially belonging to Game$howFan:

• 2600:6C44:63F0:7690:32E5:A118:3929:7D3
• 2603:8000:AC00:2C14:FDCD:C9D7:A8EC:6215
• 2600:6C44:63F0:7690:898F:E17D:6100:9D08

Sirocco745 (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The first and third IP I believe are near certainties. I have serious doubts about the 2603 one, however, since one of their edits is the one that split Barinholtz's recent Millionaire winnings total, something Game$howFan has been insisting we not do despite the table doing the same thing for every other contestant whose winnings came as part of a team. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Noting that they’ve now been to the Teahouse about this. [3] which is probably a smart move, actually. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 12:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Valid point, I just thought it fit in with the pattern of disruptive IP edits at the time. Good pick-up on that. Sirocco745 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bcschneider53: From your comment on the user's talk page, can this now be closed as resolved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Sure. Unless the user does another complete 180, I don't see this getting out of hand again. Thanks, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2603:8081:83F0:9B10:0:0:0:0/64

2603:8081:83F0:9B10:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and /64 has previously been blocked on July 8th for 31h and September 3rd for a week, behaviour continued after block expired. /64 has been adding unsourced content related to the film adaptation of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for months. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Yup, clearly the same user. I'm AFK, but maybe someone else can issue a block with a nudge from a second user. :) IznoPublic (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Emiya1980 redux

For the background, please see the recently archived discussion where Emiya1980 was formally warned by Cullen328 about their disruptive behavior around filing infobox-related RfCs, and informally warned by other editors and admins about their combative and uncivil interactions in those discussions, and their refusal to listen to multiple editors and admins all telling them the same thing about their behavior. As Daniel stated, a formal warning is pretty much a 'final chance' in terms of this editing issue, so while no blocks etc. have been placed, if it happens again the editor will very likely be blocked if it is brought back to this noticeboard with a link to this discussion.

Editors were optimistic that this edit suggested Emiya1980 was slowly taking on the advice from the ANI discussion. Instead, after it became clear their position at Talk:World War II had no significant traction, they simply waited a week and initiated a "discussion" that is yet another RfC in everything but name only, claiming that this was perfectly fine, since it's not a formal RfC. They went on to falsely claim the previous consensus discussion had no consensus (because it wasn't formally closed), that editors who don't support their position are shrilly objecting, and that the issue wasn't settled. This is a classic, ongoing refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK situation from an editor who has been open about wanting to institute this change for a complete non-content reason: There is no good reason to list Stalin, a mass-murdering dictator with a death toll that rivals that of Adolf Hitler, at the top of the Allied Powers.

Infoboxes are already under WP:CTOPS, and persistent disruption around them (whether it's about images, or ordering of information, or disputes about categories, or whatever) seems to be more the locus of the problem here than the RfC aspect itself; additionally, it's clear that Emiya1980 is perfectly willing to engage in the RfC behavior without formally opening one. As was noted in the previous ANI discussion, Emiya1980 seems perfectly able to contribute positively elsewhere on WP, so a block seems punitive rather than preventative.

I therefore propose a broadly-construed 6-month topic ban from infoboxes and infobox-related editing for Emiya1980, with the encouragement they spend their time productively on other things at enwiki. Grandpallama (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer Grandpallama (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – as someone at least moderately involved and also has strong opinions about infoboxes, I do wish that Emiya would've more quickly internalized the central point here: these things ultimately matter comparatively little, and it is more important for people to get along and be able to hash things out when it's agreed that there is a major problem. Sometimes one editor just empirically cares about specific things a lot more than everybody else does (guilty!)—and that care is not even wrong to have, at all—but it's important to respond accordingly to the expressed apathy and exhaustion of others (which likewise is their right) when the things you care about changing have highly visible ramifications or are adjacent to the existing work of others. Otherwise, disruption will ensue. Remsense ‥ 论 18:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

As I have already stated, the current discussion in which I am involved is not an Rfc. Grandpallama's attempts to characterize it as one do not make it so.

While I initially began the discussion with the intention of replacing Joseph Stalin with FDR at the top of a list with Allied leaders, I have since changed my position to ordering the leaders in a neutral order (alphabetical or chronological). At least three other editors have come out in support of adopting a more neutral ordering for the Allied leaders and two of the three have specifically expressed concern about arranging the list in a manner suggesting that Stalin was the most important leader of the Big Three. Therefore, this is not a concern unique to myself. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Likewise, just because you haven't labeled it as one doesn't mean it isn't an expression of the same issues people have tried to communicate to you. The conversation died down, which is very natural and should often be allowed to happen when there is no consensus unless some new argument is made. Remsense ‥ 论 18:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Emiya1980 also continues to ping multiple projects[4] (3rd for this RFC) after stating they'd stop. This editor doesn't get it, won't get it, time to end the disruption. Nemov (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• As the administrator who gave the formal warning, I Support the infobox editing restriction. The wikilawyering above is concerning. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

So pointing out that certain people are exploiting vagueness in the rules to silence me makes me guilty of Wikilawyering? Why don't you just come out and say that you're opting to ban me just because a select group of editors are annoyed by my editing? Emiya1980 (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Emiya1980, this is a collaborative project and that comment of yours is not collaborative and indicates that you are not getting the message. Please be aware that further sanctions are possible. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Doing that to the total exclusion of engaging with what I was trying to communicate to you as if the distinction invalidated it is Wikilawyering, yes. Remsense ‥ 论 19:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Casting aspersions is a way to fast track from a TBAN proposal to a sitewide block. Strongly recommend you strike that comment. Grandpallama (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as how I am unlikely to walk away from this thread without at least some limitations on my editing privileges, I want to offer a compromise. As opposed to a broad ban on any and all edits to Wikipedia's infoboxes, I ask for one final chance with regards to my probation subject to a few nonnegotiable conditions. Until the admins on this page feel differently, I will commit to abstain from pinging any editors, opening any Rfcs, participating in any discussions regarding the infobox of any page, and engaging in any further editing to World War II's infobox.

Should I break this promise or do anything else that other editors view as disruptive to Wikipedia in the near future, I will accept whatever penalty that is handed down. In light of the positive contributions I have made to this project, I ask that the editors here please take this compromise into consideration before reaching a verdict. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Not good enough for me. Cullen328 (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like to point out that your prior warning to me was limited to Rfcs. It seems unfair that you are expanding it now to include my participation in discussions regarding the infobox. I also recall that I asked you for specifics regarding what was expected for me going forward and you refused to elaborate. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact that this offer came only after it was clear sanctions are likely to be imposed (rather than as a good-faith response to earlier concerns), the game-playing around the RfC-that-isn't-a-RfC, and the wikilawyering response to Cullen also makes me feel formal sanctions remain necessary over any informal, voluntary arrangement. Grandpallama (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

My beliefs have not changed. It is true I still think at least some of the arguments made against me here are unfair. However, when I say I will commit to not doing something, I mean it. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I should also point out that the WP:Canvassing Page specifically allows editors like myself to notify "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" or "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". Both of the pings I engaged in on World War II's talk page fall under these exceptions. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Soft Oppose. The project they pinged has automated article alerts for RfCs and posting to its talk page is accordingly quite unnecessary. I'm the only one replying there at the moment. It's certainly no place I would go for WP:Canvassing purposes. Biohistorian15 (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I should mention: this is in reply to @Nemov. Biohistorian15 (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Biohistorian15 This issue goes back several weeks and the editor was advised to stop pinging multiple projects. Pinging bio is perfectly reasonable and they agreed to stop spamming others, but they went right back to pinging multiple projects anyway. Just another example of that Emiya1980 says they'll change, then they go right back to problematic behavior. Nemov (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov: If I recall, I said I would narrow down which projects I would ping. Not abandon the practice entirely. Conservativism is listed as a Wiki-project with an interest in Edward Heath. Therefore, it seemed permissible to post a notice there. For the record, this is the first time it has been brought to my attention that Wiki-projects are automatically notified of Rfcs pertaining to pages they have an interest in. If I would have known that, I wouldn't have wasted the time posting a notice on said projects. However, the fact is I did not. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support 6-month topic ban (and oppose accepting of the 11th-hour offer), and I would also support seeing it logged as an AE action (Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Infoboxes). Daniel (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support It's very disappointing that Emiya1980 has continued this unhelpful behaviour after being explicitly warned to stop doing it by an admin in the recent ANI thread and several other editors also provided them with strong advice in that thread to knock this off. Their behaviour in the World War II article is particularly concerning given that they have never edited the article or its talk page beyond seeking to dispute the infobox recently (article edits, talk page edits). Despite this lack of previous interest in the article, as part of re-starting this dispute yesterday they made a range of serious attacks on editors who have been engaged with it [5]. The hectoring of most people who've commented in this thread and this other ANI thread also indicates that this editor is primarily here to argue with people. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support especially in light of the wikilawyering and bargaining here. With the note that if the same disruption happens elsewhere, it will be a full ban (which could well already be merited here). Star Mississippi 00:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support Emiya1980's wikilawyering on Talk:World War II shows that a bright-line prohibition has to be set to avoid further disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support sometimes a forced break from editing in a particular area is needed, which appears to be the case here. This will be a chance to show the community that you can edit in other areas of the project without creating disruption. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Emiya1980 continues to edit infoboxes [6][7][8][9] despite not just being aware of this discussion, but recognizing the community is almost certainly about to restrict their editing in this area. It's true that no restriction has yet been enacted, but it's looking increasingly like an avalanche at this point, and Emiya1980's continued activity in this editing area is suboptimal. Grandpallama (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Emiya1980 suggests continuing to edit infoboxes but not discussing their edits, which is unnacceptable in a collaborative project. It's good that they recognise that we find their talk-page behaviour problematic, but it seems they don't themselves recognise that it is or appreciate that it stems from their continued (attempts at) tweaking infoboxes for infinitesimal gains – if any. NebY (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Roman Spinner circumventing MOS

User has been participating in numerous move discussions by intentionally forwarding opinions counter to both the overall Wikipedia MOS (MOS:DIACRITICS) and MOS:KO. They have openly admitted to doing this as a tactic to shift common practice in order to get the overall MOS shifted to be anti-diacritics [10]. Threads where they've engaged in this behavior: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Here's the issue: if you want to change either the main MOS or the MOS:KO, you should propose changes to them directly. Trying to circumvent the MOSes by making numerous posts is ineffective and blatantly underhanded. Even when this has been explained to the user over and over again, they've doubled down on doing it.

Changing the MOS is not impossible; in fact we literally pushed a complete rewrite of MOS:KO a few days ago, where surprise surprise diacritics are asked for. I've even gotten practices that weren't common approved for the new MOS just because I had good arguments ready and took the proper channels for getting things approved. You don't need to underhandedly undermine common practice in order to get things approved; just have strong arguments and make a clean proposal once.

I'm not sure what disciplinary action is appropriate. I don't know if they've been behaving poorly elsewhere. Maybe a topic ban on opposing the use of diacritics? seefooddiet (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I think in the past they have been topic banned, but I do not remember for what. Also their behavior in RUSUKR discussions are substandard- they always take pro-Ukrainian position does not matter what, typically not providing any other arguments or "per topic starter" or "per excellent arguments of the topic starter" even if arguments are extremely poor), thus making an illusion of mass support. In the discussions where two-three votes typically determine the outcome this is disruptive. Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

If that's true maybe a timed broader ban from discussions is appropriate. seefooddiet (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

They were topic banned from editing DAB pages (ANI discussion, subsequent breach). Northern Moonlight 05:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Noting that only one of the diffs linked postdates the MOS:KO rewrite, and disagreeing with MOS aspects is totally fine, the boilerplate oppose Since English language does not contain accents or diacritics, transliterations into English from languages that do not use the Latin alphabet likewise should not contain any marks that are not part of English is wrong. English has two native diacritics. Also feels like some kinda cultural superiority / device only supports eight-bit ASCII thing. Folly Mox (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

English has three native diacritics - acute, grave (blessèd, etc.) and diaeresis (e.g. Boötes). Acute accents are common in Irish proper names, and it is both wrong and insulting to omit them. I think it was writer Colm Tóibín who said he couldn't really see the point, until it struck him that his countrymen had spent centuries fighting to keep them. Narky Blert (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Narky Blert, my apologies for the omission of the acute accent. No insult was intended; merely a display of my own ignorance. Folly Mox (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't quite right. Even before the rewrite, the MOS asked for the use of McCune–Reischauer, which fundamentally has diacritics. We just made the use of diacritics more explicit because of cases like these. seefooddiet (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Reply. In the nearly 19 years of my editing Wikipedia, I have been a regular voter at WP:RM. As is the case with all RM participants, sometimes I vote "Support" and sometimes I vote "Oppose". Sometimes I am part of the majority vote and sometimes I am part of the minority vote. Nothing unusual. It is unusual, however, that a nominator who is dissatisfied with a user's vote takes that user to ANI.

Since one of the above commenters mentions my "Support" votes in favor of moving main title headers of Ukrainian place names from their Russian forms to their Ukrainian forms, it should be noted that, although I did not submit any of those nominations, they were all successful in having the headers moved to the places' Ukrainian names.

As for the matter at hand, the user who initiated this ANI submission, also submitted yesterday's nomination Lady Hyegyeong → Lady Hyegyŏng at Talk:Lady Hyegyeong#Requested move 4 October 2024 and apparently believes that the sole possible vote at this RM is "Support" per "community consensus in MOS:KO" and anyone who votes "Oppose" is being disruptive.

Thus the nominator appears to posit that the "community consensus in MOS:KO" is a decree that for all intents and purposes makes this RM superfluous and the move can be simply initiated without any need for a discussion. In that case, why bother submitting the RM?. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no issue with voting against moves if there was better reasoning or if you immediately followed up by proposing modifications to the MOS. I have not once reported someone for merely disagreeing with me; I am reporting you for conduct. Your 19 years of experience has little bearing on this discussion; if anything we should expect better from you given your time on the platform.

I am dissatisfied with your side attempts to undermine the MOS through persistent pushing of this opinion (WP:REHASH), instead of doing the obviously better practice of proposing modifying the MOS. You yourself conceded that doing so would be better practice. Instead, we have to deal with your attempts to make numerous little cuts on common practice in order to get your way.

An analogue would be attempting to change the practice of how a guideline like MOS:DASH works by editing pages in violation of the guideline, and hoping that most of the edits will stick in order to make people eventually change the MOS. That would be unambiguously considered disruptive editing.

The fact that you're questioning why I made that move discussion indicates you don't understand the MOS:KO and literally did not take the time to read it. From the MOS: Use diacritics per WP:DIACRITICS, unless you can demonstrate that no diacritics is more popular for that term per WP:COMMONNAME.. The discussion was initiated to prove WP:COMMONNAME because it's not clearcut, and because the article is relatively popular among Korea-related topics. If it was clear cut and unpopular, then yes, I'd just make the move. I already have for a similar page: Princess Ch'ŏngyŏn. seefooddiet (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Although English language has no accents or diacritics, it uses some words borrowed from languages that do use such marks, with "naïvety" or "naïveté" along with "fiancé" or "café" among the examples that have become part of English language. All such words are also acceptable if rendered in English without accents or diacritics.

English Wikipedia has numerous main title headers of articles concerning topics from languages that do use accents or diacritics, such as Czech, French, Polish, Spanish or Turkish. The main difference in reference to the subject at hand is that such languages use the Latin alphabet and therefore those English Wikipedia headers appear in the same manner as in that language's Wikipedia.

However, languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean or Thai do not use the Latin alphabet and therefore transliterating text from such languages into English via insertion of accents or diacritics into the English-language text appears to be counterintuitive since such marks are not part of English language readership's orthographic experience.

Even insertion of accents or diacritics into text transliterated from non-Latin alphabet into Latin-alphabet languages that use accents or diacritics, such as French or Polish, is unlikely to produce the desired result unless the accents or diacritics used in such transliteration are the same marks that are in use and understood within the alphabet of the target country.

As for this nomination having been submitted to determine the WP:COMMONNAME, the sole choice presented was diacritics or no diacritics. Per the explanation above, my vote is "Oppose the use of diacritics". Other Wikipedians may hold directly opposite views and will obviously vote accordingly.

Finally, it should be noted that I do not submit nominations to change Ukrainian names, Korean names or any other matters that involve linguistics or nationalism and take no issue with unilateral changes such as the above-mentioned Princess Ch'ŏngyŏn.

However, when such nominations are submitted by other users or other users take issue with such moves, I react and express my views at RM. As a Wikipedian, I can do no less. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Great, now why don't you make that post at the MOS-level and not at these local levels? "I react and express my views at RM" is not always innocent or helpful behavior; repeating these points falls under WP:REHASH and tendentious behavior. Furthermore, your attempting to whitewash your admitted attempts to circumvent the MOS are frustrating.

As another metaphor: imagine all of this behavior was on a single talk page. They made a proposal, it was rejected, and they continue making the proposal over and over in other threads. They'd eventually get blocked. This is very similar behavior, but because it's spread out it doesn't obviously violate the rules. It sure does smell like tendentious participation though.

I don't think either of us have much more new to add. You've made it clear that you're just going to continually push your agenda, disrupt discussions and stonewall, and ignore community consensuses. To be clear, I don't even like diacritics but I'm just advocating for them because that's what the community decided to do and because it fits Wikipedia guidelines. I have no agenda, unlike you. Can others weigh in? seefooddiet (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Also to reiterate; this user effectively conceded that they didn't understand MOS:KO and didn't take the time to read it. This is all about pushing an agenda through side tactics. How is this helpful behavior to anyone but the user? seefooddiet (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Both Diaeresis (diacritic) and Grave accent are native English diacritics, although both are uncommon.

For Chinese specifically, there have been attempts to capture the lexical tonality using only letters: Chinese postal romanization and Gwoyeu Romatzyh. Neither of these was ever especially popular (although artefacts of postal romanization linger to the present day, e.g. Shaanxi), and the two most successful romanisation schema both use diacritics to indicate tone.

There's nothing objectionable to using diacritics in transliteration, unless you're using a typewriter or other twentieth century device that doesn't support Unicode. Using marks are not part of English language readership's orthographic experience is sometimes necessary for disambiguation of lexical differences in pronunciation that are not captured by alphabetic transliteration alone, and transliteration is always a lossy conversion.

I have my own qualms with certain bits of the MOS, as I expect most editors do. But I'm not going to show up to every RM with the same off-topic philosophical boilerplate instead of either accepting consensus or working to change the MOS at the guidance level. The arguments I'm reading here also smack of linguistic nativism, about which I've deleted a further few sentences I deemed too unkind to publish. Folly Mox (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Roman Spinner might be disappointed to learn that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in fact cannot override an explicitly stated guideline in a MOS. I agree that blindly copypasting the Since English language does not contain accents or diacritics argument over and over again counts for tendentious editing. Northern Moonlight 04:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Northern Moonlight, Folly Mox, Ymblanter, do you feel a topic ban is appropriate, maybe for 1 year? As linked above, the user was topic banned before for a separate issue and they violated the ban; if we just gave the user a light warning I'm not sure they'd actually listen to it over time. They've still expressed no remorse for this behavior, and I'm not sure they understand why it's bad behavior despite having it explained to them by me and several others. And even if they do now, it shouldn't have taken a user with 19 years experience on the site multiple people telling them to stop to listen. seefooddiet (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

(responding to ping) I'm afraid I lack the competence to opine on specific sanctions for this filing. Folly Mox (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Northern Moonlight 03:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I would support a topic from RM (for the record, the previous one was lifted, so they did not violate anything now), but I would make it indefinite duration and appealable after 6 month. Since they clearly disagree with everybody else here, I would expect them sit to sit out the finite duration topi ban and then continue the same behavior. Ymblanter (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I was worried that a year may be too short; their previous ban they violated after a long period of time. seefooddiet (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Whoa. We do not sanction or topic ban users for being "wrong". If we did, then we wouldn't need to have !votes at all, we would just have wise sages pick the "right" answer and not bother asking for opinions. I see evidence that seefooddiet and Roman Spinner do not agree, but that is cause for them to make arguments and !vote. Everyone is expected to be willing to subject their arguments to community consensus; if someone argues against them, that doesn't mean that they need to be banned. It means you need to marshal more consensus. This is 1000x times as true when there has been a very recent change to a MOS. Thought experiment: suppose Roman Spinner had made a huge edit to the Korea MOS a month ago that made exactly the opposite calls as seefooddiet and started filing RMs to support it. In such a case, seefooddiet would be completely justified in crying foul, opposing the moves, and moving to get the MOS change reverted. That's just how it works. If Roman Spinner has behaved badly, let's see some diffs, but right now it seems that he just disagrees. All of the diffs in the opening example are !votes, not sneaky page moves against consensus or sneaky editing. That's fine. If RS's arguments are too off-the-wall, they'll be ignored by page move closers. If anything, RS should be commended for being up-front about the nature of their opposition being wide-ranging (and thus potentially a less powerful vote to a closer paying attention).
• As a side note, seefooddiet proposed that RS would be in the clear if he "immediately followed up by proposing modifications to the MOS". No. This is a volunteer site. Nobody is obligated to do anything, no questions asked, full stop. But more generally, the MOS should follow community standard practice, not the other way around. If hypothetically the MOS is out-of-step, the way that is shown is via RMs that don't close the way that's expected. (Again, imagine that Roman Spinner somehow had his standard at the Korean MOS - you would be entirely justified in voting against it.) SnowFire (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  • This is not a recent change to the MOS. I already covered this above. Since the first version of the MOS:KO in 2004, it has always asked for McCune–Reischauer, which uses diacritics. We just highlighted to be even more explicit to clear up confusion. We used diacritics even before this new MOS, which is why Roman Spinner was overruled every single time they tried this argument even before this new MOS was approved. The rest of your argument that's built on this assumption doesn't work. The issue is not disagreement; I'm perfectly fine with disagreement. It's the tendentious attempts to subvert the MOS and community consensus. Asking someone to take the proper channels to make a change has nothing to do with this being a volunteer site. I never required them to do anything, but that action I suggested is clearly the better action
  • This is a volunteer site but certain actions are still encouraged and discouraged. The MOS was literally designed to reflect community standard practice. The use of diacritics has been the standard for the last 20 years; Roman Spinner is just attempting to subvert the standard.

  Respectfully, I don't think you understand this situation very well. seefooddiet (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  • • Please re-read my comment. I said absolutely nothing about McCune–Reischauer or diacritics, and am not here to argue about them. This is ANI, not the MOS talk page. I'm talking about this purely as a user conduct issue. Editors are entitled to have opinions that vary with the MOS (I suspect there are 0 editors whose opinions 100% match every single MOS recommendation in all situations). Closers may treat these opinions as having less weight, or discard them entirely in certain situations if they believe the MOS represents a wider consensus, but you're acting like everyone must be mind-controlled to agree with whatever the current standard is. Which is impossible and contradictory given that you just made some changes. Which you should be commended for, by the way! But the very fact you thought changes were required suggests that you had opinions that differed with the previous MOS. Ergo having opinions that differ from what is currently on some MOS page is not problematic nor worthy of sanction.
    • The policies and guidelines of 2004 are not those of 2014, or 2024. The way policies and guidelines change is discussion, debate, and consensus, which by definition has to include opinions that don't match the current guidelines. Your argument comes down to "Roman Spinner doesn't agree with the current guidelines," but this is normal and healthy. If you're confident you're right and that RS is an irrelevant gadfly, then trust that the page mover closer will agree with you and give the vote little weight, don't ask for a person with a different opinion to be sanctioned. SnowFire (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

      I think I read your comment fine. I don't think you're remembering your own comment very well. This is 1000x times as true when there has been a very recent change to a MOS. Thought experiment: suppose Roman Spinner had made a huge edit to the Korea MOS a month ago that made exactly the opposite calls as seefooddiet and started filing RMs to support it. In such a case, seefooddiet would be completely justified in crying foul, opposing the moves, and moving to get the MOS change reverted.

      but you're acting like everyone must be mind-controlled to agree with whatever the current standard is. No I'm not, and you're stretching into strawman arguments. Mind-control, what are you even on about? I don't even fully agree with what the current standard is; I prefer the use of RR myself. But when someone is copy+pasting the same poor argument over and over in various threads, that approaches tendentious behavior. Especially on topics where there already has been established practice for over 20 years.

      Imagine if someone decided to spell a word differently because they disagreed with how others were doing it (in fact this is literally what is happening). Then they started pushing to have that word's spelling changed everywhere, despite established practice in dictionaries and agreed upon by the community. Eventually that user would be blocked. This is not so different.

      The policies and guidelines of 2004 on this topic have not changed, so they're still the policies and guidelines of today. What are you even talking about?

      Again, I think you have strong opinions on a topic that you don't know much about. Why even have such strong opinions when you're getting the facts wrong over and over? seefooddiet (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Also this discussion has went on for a long time without admin input. Can an admin comment on this? seefooddiet (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

User:CKirby09

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

---

CKirby09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Something strange is going on here. This editor has a long history of creating draft articles about apparently fictitious "RACA" sports tournaments (e.g. Draft:Ultimate RACA Championship, Draft:RACA Cornish Tennis, etc), with thousands of edits to these articles and essentially no edits in any other namespace (including no responses to an inquiry earlier this year on their talk page).

I realize that Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity, but this seems like an extraordinary case which has gone on for entirely too long. Omphalographer (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed these RACA articles in Draft space for a while and I see I even told the editor that I would delete them all as hoax articles but the editor never responded and I guess I thought it was some sports league I was unfamiliar with so I didn't follow through with it. Is anyone here familiar with it or is it completely fictitious? I can't even tell what sport it is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Apparently it's MMA, but I can't find any sources for the existence of a supposed MMA championship with that name. R0paire-wiki (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a single source in any of the drafts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Nope, not a single source on any. Found more drafts that, also without sources, for a supposed Grand Prix and World Series' bearing the same name. Pretty certain they're all fictitious. R0paire-wiki (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

They are all fictitious. Note, incidentally, that the user claimed to be 16 years old on their userpage - which I have deleted, as it gave far too much information away, including their full name, DOB and (non-fictitious) school and sports club. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit: I've deleted the lot. The last one I removed had the author's school team beating a professional club in a rugby union tournament, which would have been a story. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Good call. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Black Kite. I probably should have taken care of these months ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

bro can't lie i have no friends and just wanted to create some fantisy world to escape my sadness. its all fake but it was all that i had. im sorry if i upset anyone but is there anyway i can retrieve it and use my sandbox CKirby09 (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

This is sad, but I have blocked CKirby09 as not here to build an encyclopedia. I hope that this person can find a path to feeling better about themself. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

good block. that said, this is clearly a struggling kid, and in the interest of kindness and compassion, i'm going to request that an admin grant their request and temporarily restore the pages as sandboxes (i'd suggest just emailing, but they have email turned off). i've pointed them towards Miraheze, and they've indicated that they would've just used that site if they knew about it before. i don't really see a harm to the encyclopedia in allowing CKirby to transfer their creations to another site, and it's patently obvious that this is a deeply upsetting situation to them. we could really stand to use a gentler, more human touch here. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHERAPY 173.22.12.194 (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

that is exactly the impersonal & uncompassionate approach i am taking issue with here, and is really irrelevant to what i've said - i am suggesting that we help them stop using wikipedia in such a manner. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

There is an offer to help them on their talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

As the blocking administrator, I am grateful for Sawyer777's suggestion. I think that it is clear that there are several administrators, myself included, who are willing to email the wikicode if CKirby09 adds an email address to their account. Cullen328 (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

This does not strike me as malicious and if CKirby09 were to promise to confine themselves to constructive editing (i.e. real world), I'd be inclined to support an unblock request. There are plenty of sport related pages that could benefit from someone with their skills in charting and tables. That aside, I strongly support giving them the code. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I, too, would support an unblock in that circumstance. Cullen328 (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you both :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 09:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Based on the editor's promise to refrain from any disruptive editing, I have unblocked CKirby09 and emailed them a lot of wikicode. Cullen328 (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

a happy ending on ANI... rare and beautiful sight ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Reporting Maureen Wunsch

Maureen Wunsch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user judging by his user contributions is reverting and harassing other users thinking that their edits are vandalism, I was simply sorting Studio D and Studio D Recording to link albums/songs to the correct page (the latter) can someone please block him?

--198.54.211.2 (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked; feel free to restore any edits that were inappropriately reverted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Another Hamish Ross sock. Borgenland (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Diddy's Diabolical again

They were blocked yesterday I believe and now they are again trolling editors and attacking them with reverts with Diddy's Diabolical. (see this). Mehedi Abedin 11:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The need of the vandal-troll to stalk my edits, and those of others, continues unabated. With nothing better to do on a Sunday, they have returned this time as Diddy's Diabolical (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Could someone please block and revdel their insulting summaries (and probably block TP access, if previous practice is anything to go by. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. This account was created less than an hour ago, so if they did something yesterday, it must have been under a different username. — Diannaa (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa Yes different but similar username (Diabolical Diddy, just keeping this here for documentation). Mehedi Abedin 12:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Many thanks Diannaa. Would it be possible for the edit summaries to be revdeled too please? Yesterday's fun and games was under the name Diabolical Diddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see #Vandal-troll back again), but this is the fifth, possibly six ninth time I an others has been targeted by the individual. They're on their way to their own LTA page at this rate. - SchroCat (talk)

I am already working on that. It would be cool if people would stop pinging me so I can finish lol. — Diannaa (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Without somebody actually tracking the accounts/IPs publicly, it makes it difficult for us to build a LTA page/profile. I have created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Diabolical Diddy as a starting point. GiantSnowman 12:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

This is likely related to Fistagon Diddy gon. Frost 12:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

That would make it FSF, no? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Yup, most likely. Frost 12:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I've added another eight socks that have targeted me over the last five months. I suspect there will be more. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

If 'FiveSidedFistagon' is the original account, and if 'Fistagon Diddy gon' is a sock, then 'Bethsheba Ashe' is also a sock (as currently 'Fistagon Diddy gon' is tagged as a sock of 'Bethsheba Ashe'. I will re-tag everything accordingly. GiantSnowman 12:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

All socks should now be re-tagged in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of FiveSidedFistagon (or 'suspected' subcat)... GiantSnowman 12:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Diannaa (deliberately not pinging you!) and GiantSnowman too - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I have finished the revision deletion of Diddy's Diabolical. Some of the insults are British slang and not in use in this county (Canada) so anyone who is assessing edit summaries may have to look up some of the terms to decide whether or not to rev-del. Terminology such as "nonce" and "sharing CP" look harmless but are actually quite offensive. — Diannaa (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) In British English, calling someone a "nonce" is about as bad as it gets. Be prepared to carry your teeth home in your hat. Narky Blert (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

sorry to butt in, but, Um, I don't think there is anywhere in the anglosphere where the term "sharing Club Penguin"... is NOT automatically recognized as bad. That term has w/q meant CSAM material since the Disney game fell out. I don't think it's hard to understand what that quote means in our current day and age. not an Admin, just bored and looking around –BarntToust^(Talk) 17:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I have also rev-deleted the edit summaries for Fistagon Diddy gon but that's all I can take care of for the moment as I have RL things to do. — Diannaa (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Funny to think I had my rollback rights removed for calling this joker a vandal. And now look... - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  It’s really about time this user had their rollback permissions restored, with an apology for the tremendously poor judgment that accompanied the removal. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hey, second that. If what is said is true, and no other meaningful circumstances for the removal of permissions are recalled ie, unless someone brings forward explicit proof that the removal wasn't just for calling this vandal a vandal - It's pertinent that those who made the folly of the decision to remove SchroCat's permissions for their use of WP:SPADE should really be formally admonished for such poor judgement. Look at this stuff above. Restore their rights to rollback. not an admin, just bored and looking around. –BarntToust^(Talk) 17:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  Here's the original ANI that led to the removal of rollback, and pinging @NinjaRobotPirate: as the admin concerned. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  No evidence that that was this vandal was presented in that thread. I may be that it was - we just can't tell without evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  It was during that thread that two IPs (from, if memory serves, South Korea and proxies) started reverting and leaving insulting summaries, then (also at the same time as that thread was open), the first of the accounts WatchOutForDiddy started up. The 'coincidence' is too much for there not to be a connection. - SchroCat (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  Here is a link to the archived copy (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1155#User_keeps_assuming_I'm_a_vandal_and_refuses_to_communicate_to_clarify), though the permalink is the one NinjaRobotPirate linked in the removal of the right (and therefore shows the context at the time it was removed). I'll note that I am the 2804:F14... IPs that participated in that other ANI. – 2804:F1...32:A716 (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  SchroCat claims that it was a South Korea IP who was vandalising, if all is to be understood well. Need an admin or checker to check out the IP who began the listing, and corroborate that locale with Diddy-account, then. If so, vindication! if not, well, that's for the admins to decide. not an Admin, just bored and hanging around. –BarntToust^(Talk) 22:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oh wait, according to the log, it looks like one of the Diddy accounts was responsible for the exact same vandalism as the IP supposedly based in Seongnam had done. It looks like SchroCat is in the right here. huh. not an Admin, just bored and hanging around. –BarntToust^(Talk) 22:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/1222257939 is my explanation why the right was removed. Unexplained edits are not vandalism. That this person has persistently come back to engage in trollish harassment does not make the original claim retroactively correct. For example, if I, as a CheckUser, pick a user randomly and run a check on them to see if there's anyone else on their IP address, it doesn't retroactively justify my action if I find a bunch of a vandalism-only accounts confirmed to that user. I didn't have any justification for running the check in the first place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • But what the IP was doing was vandalism, and even if you want to define vandalism in an overly narrow way, it was still disruption - which can be within the remit of rollback use. The fact you didn’t bother discussing the matter with me at all or asking for clarification seemed rather odd, as does the fact that even if it wasn’t vandalism, there was no warning about it, just removal on a first offence, which is even more odd. You can blithely dismiss the fact they’re a massive sock who has been harassing and insulting me over the last five months, but it only reinforces my point about them more than anything else. All of this ignores the fact, of course, that the use of rollback is not confined solely to reverting vandalism, but as you didn’t discuss the matter with me, maybe you didn’t realise that. Looking at WP:RBREVOKE, removal of the right is for editors who are “persistently failing to provide needed explanations for their reverts” (emphasis in the original). Maybe you could explain why this was removed without discussion after you one event, for action on a disruptive IP engaged in vandalism? - SchroCat (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    Rather than discuss this matter at ANI, couldn't you just make a request at PERM for rollback back? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    Hi Liz, I wasn’t requesting it here (although is someone wants to revert the bad removal, it would be welcome). I’m just making the point that a bad decision made out of process looks even worse in the light of the fact that the disruption all comes from back to a sock. Ironically I didn’t really need or use rollback that much previously, but the lack of it over the last five months has made reverting the ongoing vandalism and incivility more difficult. - SchroCat (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    I don't see how rollback could be re-granted where per your own comment you don't know what vandalism is on the English wikipedia and so cannot be trusted to use rollback correctly. As NinjaRobotPirate has said, calling something vandalism requires there is sufficient evidence at the time rather than the editor expects there to be evidence in the future. I don't know if the original removal was correct, but it seems to me after this long any regranting of the permission requires that editors understand what vandalism is which unfortunately after these 5 months is still not there. Frankly, I'd be more worried about whether you might end up sitebanned if you personally attack editors in the future by incorrectly calling them vandals when the evidence doesn't emerge that you expect to, than trying to get rollback back. Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) A. "you don't know what vandalism" is so wrong it's lamentable; B. The use of rollback is not solely confined to vandalism. There seems to be confusion in some people's minds that it is. Good work in trying to defend a sock who leaves messages accusing people of being paedophiles, but I think you've missed the mark by a country mile here. I knew there was a reason I avoid this cesspit as much as possible - and it's more to do with the pointless peanut gallery than any other factor.- SchroCat (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) I'd add that assuming other editors feel you can be trusted enough to identify this sock we could I guess grant rollback under the very limited provision that you only use it to revert this sock and no one else no matter how sure you are these other editors are also "vandals". But again, I'd personally worry more about your ability to continue to edit point blank if you continue down the path of misusing the term vandalism than on rollback. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    Given your attempts to shift goalposts while defending a clear vandal, with some form of threats against me, I really don't care about your suggestions. Given he is a vandal and has engaged in clear vandalism (as can be backed up by any number of users involved and the admins that have blocked him), your threats are unwarranted and ridiculous. - SchroCat (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    How am I shifting the goalpost? My second comment exactly concurs with that I said the first time which is that you cannot be trusted to use rollback generally since you do not understand what vandalism is, a serious problem for an experienced editor one eventually likely to lead to a site ban. However recognising you asked for the toll for a specific purpose, it might be possible for us to grant that toll for solely for this purpose and nothing else. In both my comments, I did mention that it's far more important that you desist from calling stuff vandalism when it isn't since that will eventually lead to a site ban regardless of anything else. Nil Einne (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    Firstly I will repeat that it is a lie to say that I do not know what vandalism is. Secondly, I have not asked for anything, so your suggestion is rather pointless. Thirdly, I think it's clear to everyone except you that this person has been engaged in vandalism on and off for five months while calling several user paedophiles. I'm bemused you seem to be unable to grasp that. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) As for my comment on vandalism I stand by it completely. You're making the common newbie error of missing the key point of vandalism. Vandalism must be a deliberate attempt to harm wikipedia. For this reason, a lot of the time it is not possible to know if something is vandalism going only by one edit. With some typical childish vandalism e.g. an editor replacing text with "penis, penis, penis, penis, penis" or an editor who says something in their edit or edit summary indicating this is their intention (e.g. fuck Wikipedia); then yes perhaps it's fair to go by only one edit. But this only applies to a small percentage of edits.

    A lot of the time, it's simply not possible. For example, an editor removing sourced content might be trying to fix something but just not know how to do it. And in fact, in some cases removing sourced content is perfectly justified for any number of reasons e.g. WP:Undue. As an editor at WP:BLPN, it's actually quite common that we are removing sourced content. There was just a prominent example with clear consensus to remove sourced content Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder#RfC: Name of victim. Yes editors do need to offer an explanation, be willing to engage in discussion, not get into edit wars etc. But since removing sourced content isn't even always against our policies and guidelines, it's even further from being always vandalism.

    An important additional point here, while you might not quite make the same mistake plenty of newbies do in thinking anything I feel harms wikipedia is vandalism, thinking that anything the community feels harms wikipedia is vandalism is still wrong. Even if there is bot just consensus but unanimity that something harms wikipedia, this would still not make an edit vandalism.

    I'd note that for all the focus on vandalism, IMO the worst editors and edits on Wikipedia are not even vandals or vandalism. Instead our worse problems generally come from POV pushers and others who genuinely believe they are improving Wikipedia i.e. genuinely believe they are helping to "create a free encyclopedia presenting the sum of all human knowledge", when they clear aren't.

    Personally, I don't think persistent block evading PoV pushers should be called vandals. I've seen enough to believe that most of these editors still genuinely believe they are improving Wikipedia. However since it's been repeatedly explained to them and they are unable to, or refuse to accept the how wrong they are I can see how some might claim they are now "deliberately intend[ing] to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". So it's not something I care enough to argue or would suggest a block over, but it always seems unhelpful to me. As I said, this seems to be based on the mistaken assumption that vandals and vandalism cause the worst sort of harm when they aren't and don't.

    This isn't just an abstract thing either it matters since it affects how we approach stuff. The wrong approach can easily be counter productive. If an editor is in good faith trying to improve Wikipedia but for some reason is causing problems, then communicating with them why what they're doing is harmful and ways they might be able to achieve at least some of what they're trying to achieve might work. Even if they can't achieve any of what they're trying to achieve, at the very least they're more likely to be receptive to stopping and maybe even moving on to doing other things which might help Wikipedia if they're approached in a decent manner.

    However if they're just called a vandal when they're trying to help and improve Wikipedia, if you're "lucky" perhaps they will just give up on Wikipedia completely. I say "lucky" with quotation marks since I question whether scaring of someone who might have been a good editor is really a good thing. But it's "lucky" since it's better than the alternative which could easily happen: An editor, annoyed by being reverted and called an vandal and therefore no proper explanation of why they aren't helping when they think they are and how they might be able to help; gives up and actually starts to engage in vandalism. Why help a project which treats you so atrociously? Some long term editors have threatened to do this when they feel they've been mistreated so we shouldn't be surprised if new editors who only barely care about wikipedia also do it.

    By comparison, with an actual vandal then yes it probably does help just to convince them, look you stupidity isn't going to be allowed, you're just going to be reverted and achieve nothing. (Although with trolls unfortunately it can get complicated as that disruption might be enough. Heck the attention might be more important to them than their edits being allowed to stand.) Although plenty of good editors probably did vandalise very early on, and there's still likely to be ways to approach vandals which will help more than others.

    Still the point is that there's a big difference between an editor who is deliberately trying to harm wikipedia and an editor who genuinely believes they aren't; since the former mostly needs to be stopped whereas the latter we should always try to educate first.

    To give a semi real world example, recently there were problems at Eliana Rubashkyn. The edits are enough that an admin felt rev-deletion was justified. I don't know what the sourcing was for these edits, but I can see this would apply even if it was sourced. If any editor had come across these edits, they might have tried to fix it in various ways. The best thing was just to remove the problematic edits. However I can easily see a passerby just blanking the entire article or at least blanking more than they need to because they're trying to fix the problem. This editor should never be called a vandal. Any editor who sees what they did should really have noticed the problem and only done a partial revert i.e. ensured the stuff that needed to stay removed was removed.

    Unfortunately experience at WP:BLPN suggests this isn't the case. Way too many RC patrollers often don't notice such things and reintroduced BLP violations. This in itself is a problem but it's compounded if they just call and treat the other editor as a vandal. (Per my earlier comment, I wouldn't call the IP who added the rev-deleted content a vandal either. They're a much worse kind of editor who genuinely believes they're improving Wikipedia by harming a living person as part of some culture war issue. Although I might still try to educate these editors, frankly I generally give them less hope than an actual vandal and they definitely need to put put to a hard stop even more so than a vandal.)

    I'm not saying editor judgment can't be used. To get back to the "I was sure that the editor was a vandal and I was proven right" angle, I'm it's fine for an editor to just give a templated warning or whatever if they're fairly sure someone is a vandal but there isn't yet sufficient evidence; when this editor might try a targeted approach when they don't think this. However such assumptions should generally stay internal rather than these editors going around calling their fellow editors vandals because they're sure they are based on their experience when there isn't really enough evidence at the current time. If you're proven right then great, however for good reason we still require there to be evidence at the time rather than you generally being right. This does mean great care should be taken when using {{Uw-vandalism4im}} or similar templates although personally the thing that worries me most is not such templates but when an editor persistently calls some other editor a vandal including in their own words despite there not being enough evidence.

    I'd acknowledge that a lot of the time, the evidence for vandalism can still be fairly weak i.e. all we really have is that an editor persistently did something that harms Wikipedia even when they've been told this and have offered no other explanation for what they're trying to achieve or why it benefits Wikipedia. Similar to the the case where editors have offered some explanation which suggests they genuinely thinking they're improving Wikipedia when they aren't, I don't think it matters much. And in fact, in these cases when the editor should really know by now that what they're doing harms wikipedia and they've offered no other explanation, it seems fine to me to just call it vandalism given our inability to read minds and hence why IMO we generally just accept this without issue. (Although other editors might have WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU concerns.)

    Nil Einne (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    tl;dr. The bit I bothered to read is patronising dross that shows you don't actually understand what this vandal has been up to and you clearly haven't bothered reading what I've been writing, or just maybe you might have recognised the Wikipedia:Vandalism#Edit_summary_vandalism that I have referred to on several occasions. I went back over a few of the sock's edits and pulled out a few of the obvious ones and I'd love you to somehow try and justify these as not being deliberate

    • [11]
    • [12]
    • [13]
    • [14]
    • [15]
    • [16]
    • [17]
    • [18]
    • [19]
    • [20]

    There's also further vandalism at the following, which you can't see because of the revdel (which should be a big clue—even to anyone who is willingly trying to ignore the obvious—to the deliberately malicious nature of the edits)

    • [21]
    • [22]
    • [23]

    These are just the obvious examples of vandalism, but there are dozens of malicious edits over the last five months from a variety of sock accounts. Some of these are just stupid ([24], [25] [26], [27], etc), but at least 99 per cent of them are malicious reverts of constructive edits from numerous targeted individuals, accompanied by obscene edit summaries (the Wikipedia:Vandalism#Edit_summary_vandalism I have referred to numerous times). If you don't think these are vandalism, maybe you can take your rather silly comments to the admins who have blocked the socks and tagged the accounts as being Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account - their definition seems to coincide with mine - and having ten socks – TEN – harassing users, leaving obscene edit summaries and vandalising content over the last five months really does nail down the point of both "deliberate" and "malicious". So, yes, I understand what bloody vandalism is, so drop the lies about me and the patronising lecture. - SchroCat (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    I'll make this one final comment before I stop responding and I'll say this at the beginning so any editors are aware before they waste any time on my comment. (With the exception if any editor feeling I need to either justify or strike something I've said because it's crossed some sort of line.)

    Just to emphasise, the only thing that matters to my point is any edits clearly linked to the editor on "20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)". I've chosen it as as convenient starting time since it was the time of when you said "You’re a vandal and you need to stop" but really it should be even before this time since you were accusing the editor of vandalism before then. Any edits they editor performed after this time are irrelevant to the point I was making which is that we need evidence on or before that time when the accusation was made to justify your accusation back then which as I understand, you continue to support.

    If I'm mistaken on this, I apologise, but I didn't see anywhere where you acknowledged you were wrong to make the accusation at the time even if you were later proven right on the substance.

    If you're later proven right, great but it does not justify calling the editor a vandal or accusing them of vandalism at an earlier time. As I mentioned, the simple solution if you're sure an editor is a vandal and you'll later be proven right is to treat them as any other problematic editor who may or may not be a vandal. Given them appropriate warnings and report them where necessary. Yes this does mean if they reply to your warnings etc, you will need to engage in good faith discussion or alternatively stop reverting them. And yes because you don't have sufficient evidence they are a vandal you will have to obey WP:3RR unless some other exemption applies.

    Putting those complications aside, I'd also emphasise there is absolutely no reason why anyone needs to publicly call an editor a vandal anyway. That's the key thing all editors need to avoid when they lack sufficient evidence. It definitely doesn't help the complaint, when I see an editor throw around "vandalism" for an editor even if said editor is clearly disruptive but isn't clearly a vandal my first response is to figuratively roll my eyes. More substantially, I give much less trust to the judgment of the reporting editor since they've given me a reason not to trust them. From what I've seen, I'm not the only one who feels this way.

    Editors are always free to think privately what they cannot say publicly. I'm fairly sure most of us have such thoughts all the time be it to do with vandals or socks or COI editors or whatever else. Again often we're proven right, sometimes we're clearly wrong, other times we never get enough evidence. Even when we were right, it doesn't mean it was a mistake to hold of on making accusations that when they could not be supported by the available evidence. In fact, we made the right decision and likely made things a lot easier. We didn't risk distracting from issues we raised by making accusations which weren't supported and which might have become the focus of discussion. And at the very least we didn't make editors trust us less by making inappropriate accusations.

    Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

    Another wall of text? It’s rude to make people wade through long turgid posts; why not just shove it into Chat GPT and ask it to summarise it in 200 words?

    I see you are still fighting a fight from five or six months ago, rather than looking at the reality of today, which is why your statements about my understanding of vandalism are lies. We are dealing with the realities of a long-term sock and vandal who thinks it appropriate to harass several users, leave obscene edit summaries and vandalise articles as they go. But you’ve just ignored all that and want to try and re-litigate something from several months ago. How on earth is that useful or constructive? And when given undeniable proof of the vandalism (vandalism that has been confirmed and dealt with by retention different admins in the intervening time, you obfuscate through excessive text, rather than acknowledge that you may have got it wrong. Typical behaviour from the peanut gallery/noticeboard warrior in driving a thread off at a pointless tangent for zero reason. Well done, good work! I’ll repeat what I’ve said before: I know what vandalism is, even if you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that, but that reflect more about you than it does about me. - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Please stop bickering at ANI. Move it to someone's user page, please. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

(HAT modified by SchroCat)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The (current) iteration of the vandal/troll has been blocked and the suggestions about how to request to regain rollback have been given - so I'll just say this as friendly advice: Saying things like "[...] a bad decision made out of process [...]" about NinjaRobotPirate's decision, without providing any evidence that that is the case, can and will be read by others as WP:ASPERSIONS if you keep doing it. – 2804:F1...32:A716 (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Oh tish. I've given reasons - see my 01:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC) comment where I quoted from Wikipedia:Rollback: (removal of the right is for editors who are "persistently failing to provide needed explanations for their reverts" (emphasis in the original); you can add to that the process is that "admins should normally notify or warn the editor sufficiently first": given there has been no "persistent" failure and given the lack of notification or warning from the admin, there are absolutely no aspersions in calling it a "bad decision made out of process" - it would be hard pushed to describe it any other way. Regardless of all that, calling an admin decision "bad" is not casting any aspersions: it's an opinion on a decision—and not an insulting or uncivil one—based on the facts at hand. - SchroCat (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC) That's not a requirement for removing the rollback right, that's an example of a situation where an admin may block an editor, or remove their rollback right, or remove some other right - that is, an user who does not explain their reverts, either done with rollback or not. There was another example afterwards, where someone might lose their rollback right if they edit war (not even from using rollback to edit war, but just doing it in general) as a precaution. The first paragraph of that section says another, different, reason too, as does the warning banner at the very top of that page. NinjaRobotPirate told you back then in the diff they linked above why they removed yours, which was mainly because you said (if that is really what you meant) that you didn't care how we defined vandalism, that you saw those edits back then as vandalism and were going to keep using rollback to revert them, again and again. If you don't believe that's justified then ask around, that clearly fits the 'admin removes rollback right to prevent its misuse' intent. (edit: calling it out of process, without evidence, is what I meant as something that, if done repeatedly, would likely be seen as aspersions - that's like saying an admin is abusing their powers) – 2804:F1...32:A716 (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC) You have a rather twisted way of interpreting what I have said, which is a little disingenuous: I have never said he was abusing his powers, nor did I even hint at such a thing. I do think he made a mistake, however, and didn't follow the process, or even have the common courtesy to start a discussion, let alone showed I had "persistently" failed to provide an explanation. I'll also remind you that rollback is not solely for the reversion of vandalism, which seems to be a common error round here. You can continue pushing this point as much as you want (it's not going to alter my position), but please don't put a meaning into it that is a long way from the truth. - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Well, my apologies if you didn't mean that. Admins are supposed to act to enforce policies and guidelines, acting outside of process (doing things outside of the community's expectations of what an admin should do) is at the very least WP:TOOLMISUSE - it would have been a serious accusation. Also just to be clear, I am aware of WP:ROLLBACKUSE, I just don't see how that's relevant to the removal. – 2804:F1...32:A716 (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC) I don't see where anyone has ever claimed that rollback is solely for reversion of vandalism. For all your comments about people misinterpreting you, you seem to be misinterpreting what others have said. Rollback isn't solely for reversion of vandalism, however because it doesn't leave an edit summary, the assumption is any use without an explanation given somewhere else is vandalism. Therefore it should never be used for reverting another editor when they were not engaged in not vandalism unless some other explanation was offered somewhere else. More importantly, an editor who clearly does not understand what vandalism is should never be granted rollback. Their inability to understand what vandalism is means they revert something under the mistaken assumption it's vandalism and therefore they can just use rollback without offering an explanation elsewhere; when they can't. Since this applies to you, you cannot be granted rollback unless we can come up with some option where we can trust you to use it, without violating our policies and guidelines which would likely require use to restrict how you use it, and trust that you will abide by our restriction. Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC) As I've said it's untrue to say I do not know what vandalism is, so please stop repeating that particular lie. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC) I agree. If there was misclarification, NOBODY should have jumped the gun and just removed Cat's permissions outright. Maybe a semi-strict "be more wary from here on out, Cat, alrighty?" could have sufficed? Look, plenty of escalation on either side here. But Wikipedia:COOL is something that needs a lookover all around, for sure. not an Admin, just bored and hanging around. –BarntToust(Talk) 13:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Like, if this situation with Cat just calling "VANDAL" happened two or three separate cases, yeah, there should be consequences, and it's not good practice to assume either way that these edits were vandalism, or conversely, just misguided edits. It's good to not assume, but rather to attempt to speak with the vandalising IP, so either clarification could have happened, or so the IP could have been naturally allowed to play out Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you, (which is what would have doubtless happened in this alternate history). Both Cat and the Admins made totally reasonable assumptions about the nature of the edits, but assumptions are bad when answers are a talk page away from being gotten. Not an Admin, just hanging around due to boredom –BarntToust(Talk) 13:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC) This amounts to a personal attack and should be struck. That you feel it’s appropriate to insult another user’s intelligence is staggering. 66.220.213.193 (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC) who is the editor doing the attacking? Cat or Nil? Not an Admin, just hanging around due to boredom –BarntToust(Talk) 13:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Nil 66.220.213.193 (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC) I second this IP. Nil, I advise you to strike your paragraph, beginning with I don't see where anyone has ever claimed that rollback... and ending with ...and trust that you will abide by our restriction. That's a bit too heavy to be saying around here. not an admin, just bored and hanging around –BarntToust(Talk) 14:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC) How do you figure? I'm not seeing any comment on a user's intelligence (which WOULD be a personal attack). Perhaps I missed it? All I see is an assertion that Cat doesn't understand what vandalism is, and then a conclusion that they should not use a particular tool to combat vandalism if it may be misapplied and why. That said, if Nil would be willing to strike the comment anyway, PA or no, that could help ratchet down tensions a bit, which would only be a good thing. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Everyone knows what vandalism is, but the problem here isn't Cat not knowing what vandalism is, it's assumptions that they make which are the problem; given that all sides have been making assumptions, it's fair to call BS here. Saying an editor isn't smart enough to know what vandalism is, when the actual problem is them being, well, a bit too quick to judge, is no bueno. not an Admin, just hanging around –BarntToust(Talk) 15:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Where did it say Cat isn't smart enough? Understanding is not the same as intelligence. And no, not everyone knows what WP:VANDALISM is; it's caused problems before. Whether or not Cat does is a matter of interpretation. I agree that calling BS is acceptable, but that doesn't mean that Nil's reasonable (if possibly incorrect) interpretation of policy, and voicing Cat's stated disagreement with that interpretation, is a personal attack. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Which is an outright lie - it could be construed as a personal attack given its untruthfulness has been pointed out several times. - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Amen to that. not an Admin, just hanging around. –BarntToust(Talk) 15:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Perhaps someone with less than 800 edits should actually focus on improving the encyclopedia instead of endlessly focusing their attention on the drama boards? Your persistent presence here, in addition to the comment to which I’m replying, suggests that you don’t fully understand the nuances involved in matters of dispute resolution. 66.220.213.193 (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Speaking of personal attacks, this comes close to an ad hominem. I'll let others respond to your message if they feel it's warranted. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Less than 800? Alright, that's quite a provocative comment there, set-of-numbers, let's look at what I've done here. I've created a few articles: Pedro Pascal on screen and stage, Double Life (Pharrell Williams song), and Wanderstop, the ones I know off the toppa my head. I've been a significant contributor to Piece by Piece (2024 film), Pedro Pascal, Good Fortune (film) and others, and I've done GA reviews for The Last of Us season 1 and I Can Do It with a Broken Heart. Don't sass me about helping Wikipedia. –BarntToust(Talk) 16:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC) I think he was saying I shouldn't be commenting here, not you.EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Nil Einne and SchroCat dispute

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

---

At an earlier ANI listing, the users @SchroCat (Cat) and @Nil Einne (Nil) have become involved in a pretty heated civility dispute. The long short of it, being as objective as possible, was that discussion began when some editors were discussing an IP's edits at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Diddy's_Diabolical_again as being involved in a larger tangent vandalism. I and a few other editors were speaking about SchroCat's rollback rights being removed following Cat accusing said IP's edits of being vandalism, these edits which Cat believes are socking of the "Diddy" character. I cannot paraphrase this confusing discussion, but it ended with Nil telling Cat that they didn't know what they are doing with Rollback in regards to a definition of "vandalism", and what constitutes it, and Cat responding in characterizing this as lies and personal attacks.

It began about right here, and it's gotten quite salty. Someone else may be able to explain the situation better. I wanna personally bow out of this now, since it's only been confusing to me. But action needs taken. Thank you. –BarntToust^(Talk) 17:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

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

BLP disruption

AdeiEnnada908 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AdeiEnnada908's very first notice on their Talk page is about unsourced edits to the BLP Shraddha Srinath two years ago, yet just about a week ago similar edits were made ([28]). The Talk page appears to be filled with warnings about such unsourced additions but no communication seems to come forth from the user, no edit summaries are apparent either. A clear example of this egregiousness, is this recent edit for example. I think a block has become necessary now, considering the ample warnings and time spent at enwiki basic policies should have been met with. Gotitbro (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked x 72 hrs. If this resumes, an indefinite block is likely the next step. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Joseph Safina

Is Joseph Safina (racing driver) the same person whose article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Safina? If so, will the article be speedily deleted, or does the reason for deletion no longer apply? Batrachoseps (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is the same person. I will need more time to see whether the speedy criterion applies. Ymblanter (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

My conclusion is that there are additional references in the new article with might (or might not) help it to survive AfD. I believe it is sufficiently different from the previous version and is not eligible for speedy deletion. Any administrator is welcome to disagree with me though. Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Regardless, the qualifier is unnecessary per WP:PRECISE and the base title is not WP:SALTed. My hackles stir though not rise. Narky Blert (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I can easily move it but after this checking the deleted edits will be way more complicated than it is now. Let us wait a bit. Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I dislike actions which might muddy an open discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Sohvyan and History Of Yoruba

After several months of ethnically-charged POV edits and attacks on other users, I reported Researcherofgreatness on this noticeboard on 19 May. After the discussion, the user was blocked indefinitely citing POV edits (example), WP:NPA (example), WP:NOTHERE (example), WP:EDITWAR (example), and WP:FAKEADMIN (example) in addition to the account's refusal to engage with the evidence presented. An unblock request was rejected on 20 May for being "clearly disingenuous." Unfortunately, the Wiisstlo (talk · contribs) account was created on 21 May and immediately started right where Researcherofgreatness had stopped, continuing to edit war on the Agbada page (examples: 1, 2), repeating the same unsourced editing on the Yoruba people from the Researcherofgreatness' WP:NOTHERE charge, and continuing the personal belligerence from the WP:NPA violations along with editing pages on Yoruba clothing, food, and culture. It was finally blocked as a clear sockpuppet on 30 September after I initiated an investigation. Now, the History Of Yoruba (talk · contribs) and Sohvyan (talk · contribs) — created on 2 October — have taken up the mantle with near-identical edits on several pages (examples: 1, 2) and continuing with the ethnically-biased POV edits (examples: 1, 2). Like I said in May, the operator of these accounts clearly has a genuine interest on Yoruba culture and history which would be helpful for Wikipedia; however, their conduct is worrying and they are clearly incapable of being objective. Thank you, Watercheetah99 (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

My submission is based on the provided evidences in the wiki, this user just started accusing me of having multiple accounts out of nowhere while insisting on a submission contrary to documented evidences, they appear to have a bias on Yoruba history and seek to impose it regardless of any provided evidence. Today is the first time I am editing this post, and it was because of the inaccurate information. Sohvyan (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this adds to discussion, but I believe that your comment makes it six Nigerian ethnicities I have been accused of being biased against (including one of my own) for removing obvious POV violations. — Watercheetah99 (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Need PROMPT TPA block

I'm asking for a prompt TPA block for 88.92.173.16 (talk · contribs). The IP is currently blocked, so reports to WP:AIV keep getting removed by the bot. The personal attacks (including pings) are ongoing. Not to mention trying to impersonate an administrator. Thanks for attention paid to this matter. _signed, Willondon (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done and Talk page blanked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 38.41.40.118

38.41.40.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked x 48 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

User threatening something illegal

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

---

[29] Definitely fits the ‘needs swift action’ clause, no?

Not OSable (I think) and doesn’t meet WP:EMERGENCY criteria, so bringing it to ANI. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 06:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it can probably be left as we aren't the police and we don't need to police every comment made. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 07:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, this doesn't require any further action. Daniel (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Known sock of blocked IP active

IP range 2605:B100:B00:0:0:0:0:0/41, a known alternate address of currently blocked user 47.54.219.33, had its block expire. The blocked user is editing again and has started edit warring at Logan Mailloux and at least one other page. I would like the blocks on all of the IPs listed at the linked LTA page reinstated/extended to match the recent one year block on the original IP. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• 2605:B100:B00:0:0:0:0:0/41 Blocked x 6 months.
• 216.208.243.0/24 Current block extended to 6 months.
• 142.163.206.14 Stale. IP has not edited in 3 weeks.
• 142.163.116.80 Stale. IP has not edited in 3 weeks.
• 156.34.8.38 Stale. IP has not edited in more than 2 weeks.

-Ad Orientem (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Logan Mailloux protected x 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Persistent MoS violation and refusal to explain

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

This editor has brought MoS problems to an awful lot of film/television-related articles and never explained their edits (see this, this, and this). They continued disrupting Wikipedia even though they had been warned about these multiple times (see this, this, this, this, this, this, and this). Thedarkknightli (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Quaerens-veritatem and @Nicholas0, could you please take a look at this? Thanks in advance! Thedarkknightli (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree. This editor has been asked to provide summaries on the editor's talk page (twice by me), and has been told about the MoS, but has made multiple edits ignoring it despite warnings by other editors, all warnings without any result. This is especially problematic as the editor's edits are often reverted or are otherwise problematic. Although the editor has been editing for only a year, the editor has over 3,000 edits and should have attended to his talk page warnings and stopped disruptive edits by now. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

This editor has never replied to any messages on their Talk page, so I have to assume that they have never read them. They probably don't even realize that anyone is sending them messages. I'm not sure how to contact them in another way to get their attention. Nicholas0 (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

With my talk page warnings I also pinged the editor. I don't think we can assume he's not reading them versus the editor is just ignoring them. Also, the editor hasn't learned from repeated direct and indirect reverts. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Noting prior to archival that User:Croystron has resumed editing, without response here or even to the polite message on their usertalk requesting their acknowledgement of this thread. Folly Mox (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Also, they made an awful lot of completely inadequate edit summaries after resuming editing. This is a WP:NOTHERE editor imo. Thedarkknightli (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Placed another request to respond on Croystron's talk page and, also, pinged Croystron: this edit Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and baselessly accusing and reporting me for COI

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

---

Borgenland has been disruptively deleting my well-sourced edits on Edcel Greco Lagman without valid justifications. Previously, he has also erroneously and baselessly reported me for COI. He has been closely monitoring the biography page of Edcel Greco Lagman giving the clear impression that he has an ulterior motive in making disruptive edits on the page. Please do something about it. Gabnaparato (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I categorically deny the accusations. Their edit history gave me basis for citing a COI on them. Furthermore, I reported them twice in ANI for whitewashing serious cases of public interest concerning the article before, which had led to the page being protected. It is furthermore malicious on the part of the reporting user that they resort to filing this report rather than address such issues in talk. Borgenland (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore I would like to cite the offending user for WP:CIR use of Geni, a generally unreliable source, excessive WP:UNDUE insertions and tons of uncited material on the same page. Will submit diffs in 12 hours. Borgenland (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Your report is based on a hunch. Edit history alone is not conclusive to support your allegation of COI. For closely monitoring the page, is it not that I can say the same thing to you? You might have a COI with the political adversaries of Edcel Greco Lagman particularly with him being known as a political aspirant for re-election in the Province of Albay. Major edit history of Borgerland in Edcel Greco Lagman only started with the "Controversy" section which talks about Lagman being involved in illegal activity is also basis for reporting him as COI.

Further, I categorically deny citing an unreliable source. Why don't you make an in-depth research on sources about Lagman instead of disruptively removing the well-sourced edits of others? Gabnaparato (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't have a fleet of PIs—COIs are often detected based on a hunch, and we're not bound to an exceptional standard of evidence when the edit history is clearly a cause for concern. The fact that you're having this outsized reaction to concerns other editors have raised in good faith isn't exactly exculpatory evidence for your case here. Remsense ‥ 论 03:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

But at least a well-founded hunch. If you are reporting someone for COI, at least do a research first. Gabnaparato (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

What research? The edit history of Edcel Greco Lagman clearly shows you making contributions without adequate concern for our content policies. That's often the case without any COI, but your conduct has otherwise made the conclusion that this is ignorance rather than bad-faith promotion distinctly less plausible. Remsense ‥ 论 04:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, thanks to your content policies which Borgenland has weaponized to advance his malicious and false cause. Gabnaparato (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The least you can do while cashing checks for your work here (see below) is not to trash others who aren't so lucky, but instead volunteer their time because they actually care about improving an encyclopedia. Remsense ‥ 论 04:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

That offending user suddenly rants about me being possibly connected to subject’s opponents tells so much about their outsized resort to WP:ASPERSIONS. Borgenland (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You reported me for the same thing, and now you're a crying about malice? Nothing prevents anyone with valid cause to report a matter to the administrator's noticeboard. Gabnaparato (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, just like with an actual legal system, it's often pretty obvious which side (if any) is operating in bad faith in a given dispute, no matter what magic phrases they use or norms of procedure they gestur to. Remsense ‥ 论 03:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"I reported them twice in ANI for whitewashing serious cases of public interest concerning the article before, which had led to the page being protected."

This is false. What is a serious case of public interest in the biography of Edcel Greco Lagman?? Nothing. You are fabricating allegations to cover your own issues of COI. Gabnaparato (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you erased a well-sourced and WP:DUE statement that a complaint was filed in the Ombudsman of the Philippines against them for being a hoax based on your own POV, and then pretend that I’m the one fabricating things, further demonstrates that this complaint of yours is unfounded and proves that you are WP:NOTHERE to edit a BLP. Borgenland (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I can understand why you were suspected of COI. Until recently, all your edits are about this subject. Furthermore, the photo on the page is described on Wikimedia as Official portrait of Hon. Edcel Greco Lagman. and the author is Gabriel Naparato. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

So we can no longer add official portraits on the page? What of it? You can remove the photo then. For all I care. Gabnaparato (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You can even delete the biography page. For all I care. What I am after is justice for falsely accusing me of COI and disruptive edits! Gabnaparato (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ll also note that Bmjc98 states, on their user page, This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Gabriel Naparato on behalf of Edcel Greco Lagman for their contributions to Wikipedia. sounds like you do have a COI. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I wish I had known that when I hauled them to ANI months ago. Borgenland (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

That’s what I do. I drink, and I know things. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Gabnaparato removed the COI disclosure from Bmjc98's user page with a false edit summary. I undid the edit. A type of cabinet (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Further evidence of malicious activity on their part. Added it as evidence below. Borgenland (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It's like asking for more scrutiny. A type of cabinet (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Not even, since they were already done (if I have a head on my shoulders) the moment Rsjaffe pointed this out. Trying to hide a smoking gun (from who?) and claiming a privacy violation after repeatedly boasting about a lack of external evidence is very funny. Remsense ‥ 论 07:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For more background, I found the two reports Borgenland filed here months ago ([1] and [2]), the latter ending with extended-confirmed protection on the article from May to July 2024. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

As promised earlier, these were the diffs the offending user was flagged for:

In March 2024, said user reverted the following fixes I made, which involved a legal complaint filed against the subject (not someone crying wolf on Facebook), the insertion of fraudulent and generic names of article authors, and inappropriate MOS:NUM issues:

• [30]
• [31] this second revert was misleadingly summarized as having no proper source despite WP:RAPPLER.

After these incidents, I warned them about possible COI, my mistake at the time being to improvise that warning instead of using the standard template. filed the first ANI, which went nowhere aside from a hint that they might have a COI if not an SPI. In May 2024, said user reverted the same items without bothering to explain why:

• [32]
• [33]

This led to my second ANI, which led to the page being temporarily protected, the said user resumed tendentious editing in September, posting items which I reverted due to tons of unsourced material, material seemingly copied out either as WP:NOTNEWS or plain-ass hagiography, information that strays far beyond the topic and thus WP:UNDUE and originate from generally unreliable sources per WP:RSP, not to mention their excessive reliance on which may possibly constitute WP:BLUDGEON. See:

• [34]
• [35]
• [36]

Note that their substandard editing was reverted not just by me, but a more competent user. See:

• [37]
• [38]

That I wished I could have further dug to find more evidence of COI I have expressed earlier, but to further underscore how WP:NOTHERE this character is, all but two of their edits on mainspace have been on Edcel Greco Lagman, and the only time they edited on something other than that is Albay Provincial Board, which although the edits do not seem suspicious by itself, happens to be an office in which the subject was at one point an ex presidio presiding officer by virtue of one of his former positions as vice governor.

The fact that a lot of bios on Philippine politicians are woefully lacking on content is one of the many challenges we in WP:PHILIPPINES strive to correct, but that does not excuse editors such as the one blaming me for their own incompetence and resorting to maliciously filing an ANI report instead of correcting their WP:IDNHT and lying about making financial transactions on the subject in question to bloat it with unencyclopedic drivel. As such I move that this report be shelved at the very least and the reporting editor be sanctioned for such WP:NOTHERE and uncivil behavior, not to mention their recent laughable attempt to lie about the issues I raised for a very long time:

• [39]

Borgenland (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Be my guest wikiwikipi (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hiding a diff proving that you are a liar in the hope that it gets erased and now clumsily hiding behind a new username. How pathetic. Borgenland (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

What's taking you so long to have me permanently blocked? I am waiting. wikiwikipi (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Admins are volunteers and aren't on the clock, unlike yourself. Remsense ‥ 论 08:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It is fun though seeing undeserving editors frying themselves in a pot of boiling oil. Borgenland (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

While waiting, I am also wondering what ulterior motives can they also attribute to the inclusion of 281 other pages on my watchlist. Borgenland (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked. Bishonen | tålk 09:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC).

  Finally, an end to this WP:BOOMERANG. Borgenland (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Threatened lawsuit, expenses covered by us

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

---

Ajmer Singh Randhawa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See this. Reminds me of a Signpost article... '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

User was blocked by 331dot. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 10:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I knew the legal systen in India had some quirks (such as being extremely slow, even by the standards of legal systems) but awarding costs to the plaintiff before a case is even filed is a first for me. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Edits made by potential sock to Manisha Ganguly

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

---

Dear all

Please can I bring to your attention the edits made by on the article Manisha Ganguly by User:Happyaroundyoubabes. Although I haven't found the patience to go through every edit individually the user has:

1. Deleted a huge amount of content from the article, the edits I have been through are to put it mildly, problematic. eg this one which has the edit summary Not really encyclopedic, eh?.
2. Put several templates at the top of the article and nominated the article for deletion as non notable (the article still has 50 refs even after the user deleted several refs).
3. Claimed on the talk page that the article was written by Manisha herself, without providing any evidence.
4. The date this was done on appears not to be an accident, Manisha writes a lot on Gaza, this is the anniversary of the start of the Israel Hamas war.
5. The account is new across all wikis and hasn't edited any other articles but seems to be aware of many of Wikipedias rules and proceedures including templates and AfD, suggesting strongly to me this it is a sock account.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Update: The user reverted additional information I added to this incident report here, the original comment was 'And just to add this tweet was done about half an hour after the AfD was started. I don't know any more context than this, I thought it would be useful to search Twitter since the user page is just a link to a Twitter profile.' John Cummings (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I can understand their removal of what look like WP:OR (the edit that you cited above). Is there any other edit that you think is particularly problematic? M.Bitton (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Regrettably there are so many problems it’s difficult to list: tagging a neutrally written entry as an advert and “academic boosterism”, claiming material had to be removed because the subject isn’t a reliable source on such topics as where she lives, suggesting sources should be considered unreliable if not written in English, violating the extended-confirmed restriction on Arab-Israeli conflict content. Innisfree987 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

A neutrally written article? I edited it from this to this! Happyaroundyoubabes (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that will be useful context for other editors to see. Innisfree987 (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The WP:ARBECR violation is indeed a major problem. M.Bitton (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you please share which specific edits you find concerning? It would be helpful to understand your perspective on those first. I must admit I was surprised by the accusations, especially since many of the claims in the article stemmed from original research and highlight a potential conflict of interest. I can certainly retract the "eh" from my previous description, but it would be beneficial if you could elaborate on your disagreements and review my edits, as I aimed to provide accurate and fair descriptions. Thank you. Happyaroundyoubabes (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Happyaroundyoubabes: Is this your first/only account? M.Bitton (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I had to review the AfD nomination guidelines to familiarise myself with the terminology used for the nomination. I also recommend that you read this, as it confirms my suspicions about some connections. This may involve other users who are currently monitoring the situation on Twitter.

Happyaroundyoubabes (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It takes longer than 24 hours to become as proficient as you seem to be, and besides, the removal of the bothersome comment (assuming it was intentional) is beyond the pale. M.Bitton (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, do you think there is enough information here to request one? I've never raised anything on ANI before, let alone a sockpuppet request. Or is there another approach that might be more suitable? John Cummings (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's impossible to request a CU without knowing who the suspected sockpuppeteer is providing some evidence that connects two accounts. M.Bitton (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation M.Bitton, as Black Kite described below, the new user User:Schwebebahn appears to be another account only interested in the one article, would this be the kind of thing that could be made into a request? John Cummings (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I missed that one. There is definitely enough there to start a SPI. M.Bitton (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you are aware of the conflict on Twitter indicates that you are familiar with the entire situation, even though it is a niche topic. Requesting assistance from other users without identifying specific issues with my edits suggests that you are making accusations before thoroughly reviewing the article's actual problems. Could I kindly ask you to address those issues first before we proceed? Happyaroundyoubabes (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hmm, claiming that a reference is unreliable "because it's written in a foreign language" [40], or sending an obviously notable article to AfD after removing Awards because "it isn't a catalogue" [41]? Doesn't sound too competent to me, and the rest of this thread looks like someone who has a grudge against the subject, which there will be lot of given her work. If they are a sock, they're one of someone who doesn't understand our policies very well. Black Kite (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Also, there's now another brand new account with a fixation on Ganguly, User:Schwebebahn. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion: There are a lot of people taking part in this conversation and they are talking about different parts of the points I've raised at the same time, can I suggest we make subheadings or something to organise the discussion so its easier to follow for other users? Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to respect the community's wishes and acknowledge that, as a new user, I don’t fully understand how AfDs work. I appreciate the feedback and will ask a moderator, if possible, to block my account, as I no longer wish to contribute. I apologise for any inconvenience caused. Happyaroundyoubabes (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Update: The user has been banned from Wikipedia along with the other newer account for being sockpuppets, I've made a request for a wider investigation here, especially since the user was editing on an article under WP:ARBECR. Thank you to all who responded to my request for help and explained the process :) John Cummings (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Attitude that has been going on so far around the Nigerian editors.

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

---

Greetings to everyone here, although I would like to make a statement about what has been going on around the Nigerian editors. How they treat unexperienced fellow and how an also Nigerian editor Reading Beans has seen me to be an arrogant person, partnering also with a foreign editor named Timtrent to defeat other peoples Good faith. Firstly I'm a Nigerian, not too good in English but that doesn't make me brilliant in other aspect in education. The attitude of not being a listener claimed by Reading Beans to me I believed might have being picked from a fight I had with my family relative here on Wikipedia few months ago for being a sock of which I didn't buy the idea because I know what I passed through (punishment) for sock few years ago. This all happened when I nominated the article Willie XO few months ago then I was called by my father that a report was sent to him by my family relative that am now being an obstacle to my family relative job. I never knew that a user named Afrowriter who is my family relative was the creator of that article not until the report by my father.Then I went further to check the contribution of that article and found out that there was a Similar name called AfrowriterX who made an unblock request here [42]. Not only that but also find out that both the Afrowriter [43] and the AfrowriterX [44] was welcomed at same month, same year and close dates. A Nigerian dude who is my family relative now faking to be a Cameroon because his Nigerian account was once block for sock. I choose to let everything die down all because am a man of peace and from the advice I have gotten from an editor about forgiveness. Now its Reading Beans who have seen me as a "No listener" and doubting the integrity of the WP:NAIJARS which can be found here [45]] instead of focusing on the WP:GNG declining the article Draft:Ulugbekhon Maksumov with a bad faith stating that the reliable source from WP:NAIJARS are not reliable but went ahead in accepting someone article [46] who I know too well is a sock and possibly doing paid jobs on wikipedia, same WP:NAIJARS he or she never trust their integrity went ahead to accept the article. Claiming that someone needs to have enough source from their birth country than other country. All photos shown on my user page I took them for the impact of Africa. Reading Beans has never done any but thats by way. I gamble on sports where I have become successful on that so I don't see Wikipedia as a platform to freelance. So it mess with my metal health when google people are to be suppress.--Gabriel-> Hello. 14:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

See the notice at the top of this page - When starting a discussion about an editor, or editors, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This is an incoherent screed attacking other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, but @Bbb23 is right, this is an incoherent piece. Here's tip for you, next time summarise the above what you want out of this. Don't bring in new content while doing it.

That being said:

1. Someone has warned you already, I will do the notification for you. But the next time you open a discussion here without informing the other party, don't be surprised if the thread is closed unceremoniously.
2. Thanks for the back story about your family, we don't need to know.
3. Other than you feeling aggrieved by the other party, which I don't think there's a need to address at this venue, I don't see the need to bring the review you have received up here yet. The proper channel to ask for second opinions from other reviewers would be at WP:AFCHELP.
4. If you suspect of someone being a sock, file the relevant report with evidence at WP:SPI rather than slinging mud here and hope someone will do the legwork here.

– robertsky (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Egregious incivility from Thecleanerand

There has been some chronic, egregious incivility from Thecleanerand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The most recent example:

Inept editors like you treat all criticism, regardless of how scathing it is, as personal insults. You take pride thinking you're making this website better, when you're the reason why NO ONE should trust ANYTHING written on it beyond the cited sources (or lack thereof, because "good faith") at the bottom of the page. If not for Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy, neo-Nazis would be the only people calling out the hypocrisy of this website and its mediocre editors. It'd be more "productive" if you'd just "walk away" and said nothing; rather than complain like the overly-sensitive waste of space that you are.

Earlier, they were mocking Liz for experiencing mental health issues. Nor is this a new problem; this was their response for a warning from two years ago.

I'd ask an uninvolved admin please indef them until they learn how to express criticism without personal attacks. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to ask a fellow admin to talk me out of blocking them specifically for that comment to Liz alone. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This is just actually disgusting, revolting behaviour. That tirade about the CFD discussion is unbelievable. The response to the warning in 2022 is actually disturbing. Asked to be less combative they replied Kiss my fucking ass. This is not "the encyclopedia", it's a circle jerk of self-righteous, gatekeeping, page-hoarding pricks This is an editor that simply cannot work constructively with others and they shouldn't be here. Support indef block immediately. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 week for gross incivility. Further abuse down the road will end in an indef if I'm the one who gets there first. When we talk about competency is required to edit here, part of the competency includes the ability to interact civilly with other editors. Conceding that we all have moments when we we are not at our best, or may react sharply to certain types of behavior; this is still a collaborative project. If you are unable to communicate with people you disagree with w/o recourse to this kind of language and gross personal attacks, then you need to find another hobby. This is not a one off incident. It's a pattern of behavior. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I also note that back in 2022 I cautioned them about their behavior and just now see that they replied to me 19 days later, telling me to "piss off." I'm afraid a block is long overdue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Precisely. I second the possible need for an indef if there continues to be a pattern of incivility by this editor.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that block. If this happens again after this block, I'll indef myself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore, why in the world would you block yourself??? EEng 17:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it's not the worst idea...RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I am frankly amazed that this insulting bully is not already indeffed. Cullen328 (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment, not involved) This sort of stuff is beyond the pale, Support indef. Narky Blert (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I generally do not like starting with indefinite blocks except for obvious cases of VOA or NOTHERE. And FWIW Thecleanerand has demonstrated an ability to make positive contributions to the project. That said, I do agree that given their track record there will be little to no tolerance going forward. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I feel the need to clarify this but the "stress" post I put on my User talk page was not about mental health issues, I was taking care of my mother who was on hospice care until she passed away at the end of June and that was where my attention was at, not on responding to requests for help or closing discussions. I didn't even see this message. But I can see that this editor is easily frustrated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

My condolences, Liz. Cullen328 (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. We're interring her ashes this week. Something probably every family has to go through. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Waffle-stomp that nugget down the drain and be done with it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Just out of interest I briefly looked at their talk page edit history for the past few months (back until April 2024, the user has 5000+ edits in total going back years) and found some other comments that they have made that are also similar:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maple_Leaf_Pro_Wrestling&diff=prev&oldid=1244744080
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam&diff=prev&oldid=1241978265
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Animax_(Asian_TV_channel)&diff=prev&oldid=1232240749
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NWA_Hard_Times_(2024)&diff=prev&oldid=1212564283

I wont repeat what they have written here for convenience because it is so unpleasant. They are also breaking the Universal Code of Conduct.

John Cummings (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

... Their response to being blocked. Indef, please. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

What HouseBlaster said. Schazjmd (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Indeffed Well that was quick. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

And may they never darken the door again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 104.148.209.237

104.148.209.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings & continued after final warning. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)